In America, crack dealing is punished 100 times more heavily than cocaine dealing

[lulz]

Is there any possible logic to this that doesn't involve a racial bias?

Crackbrained Crack Crackdown

There's no rational basis for the federal government's cocaine sentencing policy
Jacob Sullum | May 23, 2007





Two decades ago, in the midst of a drug-induced panic, Congress created draconian sentences for crack cocaine offenses. Since then the panic has ebbed, but the penalties are still with us, despite what a recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report describes as "almost universal criticism from representatives of the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups."


In 1986 Congress established a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-time trafficking offenses involving at least five grams of crack, equivalent to as few as 10 doses. That's the same as the penalty for 500 grams or more of cocaine powder, which amounts to thousands of doses. Likewise, Congress made the penalty for 50 or more grams of crack the same as the penalty for 5,000 grams of cocaine powder: a 10-year mandatory minimum.


Two years later, Congress expanded the five-year mandatory minimum to cover mere possession, even for personal use. By contrast, simple possession of virtually any other drug, including cocaine powder, heroin, and methamphetamine, is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of one year.


The extraordinarily harsh treatment of crack offenders reflected the belief that smokable cocaine was much worse than snortable cocaine—100 times as bad, to judge by the cutoff quantities Congress chose. According to conventional wisdom, crack was especially dangerous because it caused violence, immediate addiction, and crippling birth defects. All of these premises turned out to be wrong.


As the sentencing commission notes, "almost all crack cocaine related violence is of the 'systemic' type, that is, violence that occurs within the drug distribution process," as opposed to violence committed under the influence of crack. The crack trade was especially violent in the 1980s because it was a new, unsettled market that attracted young, impulsive men with guns, not because of the drug's pharmacological effects, which are the same as cocaine powder's.


The federal government's own data belie the notion that crack is "almost instantaneously addictive," as a pharmacologist quoted by Newsweek declared in 1986. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told the sentencing commission "about five percent of recent-onset cocaine abusers become addicted to cocaine within 24 months of starting use." According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, less than one in 10 Americans who had tried crack were using it even as often as once a month.


Nor is it clear that crack is more addictive than cocaine powder. While the relatively short, intense effect of smoked cocaine might make users more prone to binges, that does not necessarily mean they are more likely to be daily users. Although crack is supposedly irresistible, the sentencing commission notes that "current [i.e., past-month] crack cocaine use has never been reported above 0.3 percent"; by that measure, cocaine powder is more than twice as popular.


Finally, initial concerns that "crack babies" would suffer severe, permanent harm because of their mothers' prenatal drug use have proven unfounded. Although "in utero exposure to cocaine is associated with a greater risk for premature birth," the sentencing commission reports, "there does not appear to be a neurological difference between cocaine exposed babies and study controls." More relevant to assessing the disparate legal treatment of smoked vs. snorted cocaine, there's no evidence that the two forms of the drug have different effects on fetuses.


The lack of justification for the legal distinction between crack and cocaine powder is especially troubling when you consider the racially skewed impact of the sentencing gap. Crack offenders in the federal system are overwhelmingly black, while cocaine powder offenders are mostly white or Hispanic.


That does not mean supporters of the crack crackdown (many of whom were black) had racist motives. But the perception that blacks have been targeted for especially harsh treatment cannot be ignored by anyone who cares about equality before the law, especially since there is no rational basis for this de facto discrimination.

http://reason.com/news/show/120341.html

[darawk]

Well, yes. Crack is generally much more addictive than cocaine oweing to its preferred route of administration. Obviously if you inject cocaine hcl, it's more addictive than crack, but the vast majority of users snort it. Also, crack is much more potent by weight. To get a high from crack you need *far* less cocaine than when snorting the salt.

The idea that there is some sort of racial bias in the sentencing is really unfounded, the 100x increase has legitimate basis, that basis is just relatively stupid being that anyone who isn't retarded can simply convert cocaine hcl into freebase on an as-needed basis.

[There Already Free]

Part of those laws were due to a crime figure in N.Y. at the time that was selling crack when it first hit the scene and he started killing cops. The supreme court wen't off the deep end it was a different time and racism was alive and well.

Also a guy in L.A. who was responsible for most of there epodemic, funny thing is the guy that he was getting the cola from was working with the CIA in "Operation Watch Tower" I think it was, Funny Wasn't George H.W. president then. After they busted the L.A. crack king the guy he was actually getting the supply from the guy with the real connect was given 3 years in prison or something a green card and a job at the DEA. Tell me that doesn't look bad.

The cops even planted the evidence on the L.A. guy I believe, they atleast admittedly drove around with evidence to plant in the hope the see him on the street somewhere, can't remember.


On the flip side they will just say it is 100x worse and that is why the laws are the way they are Both are true.

[lulz]

Here's the problem though, this disproportionately punishes black people in a pretty shocking way.

Crack users and dealers are overwhelmingly black:

Defendants convicted of crack possession in 1994 were 84.5% black, 10.3% white, and 5.2% Hispanic. Trafficking offenders were 4.1% white, 88.3% black, and 7.1% Hispanic.

Whereas white cocaine dealers and users outnumber black people in each category:

Defendants convicted of simple possession of cocaine powder were 58% white, 26.7% black, and 15% Hispanic. The powder trafficking offenders were 32% white, 27.4% black, and 39.3% Hispanic.

Both quotes taken from here http://www.sentencingproject.org/Adm...cingpolicy.pdf

Now the reason why this merits closer attention is because the punishment ratio of 100:1 is astonishing.

If it's just about addiction potential, then why don't we see the same patterns for drugs that are predominantly white?

For instance why isn't there a punishment ratio of 100:1 between amphetamine and methamphetamine, where something like 80% of the users are white instead of black? Or a 100:1 ratio for opium and heroin, where around half of the users are white?

It just looks very dodgy to me.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by lulz

For instance why isn't there a punishment ratio of 100:1 between amphetamine and methamphetamine, where something like 80% of the users are white instead of black? Or a 100:1 ratio for opium and heroin, where around half of the users are white?

It's not just about addiction potential. It's also about potency. You need very significantly less crack than powder cocaine to get high - that's why crack is so cheap, and that's why crack is used by so many black people.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by darawk

It's not just about addiction potential. It's also about potency. You need very significantly less crack than powder cocaine to get high - that's why crack is so cheap, and that's why crack is used by so many black people.

But that doesn't hold for all other drugs. You need a fraction as much xanax to get high as you need of valium, yet they are both treated the same by law. You need a fraction as much fentanyl to get high as you need of morphine. Etc etc.

I'm not trying to argue a certain side of the argument, but why don't we see the same punishment ratio for any other drugs?

[Rio Fantastic]

Originally Posted by lulz

But that doesn't hold for all other drugs. You need a fraction as much xanax to get high as you need of valium, yet they are both treated the same by law. You need a fraction as much fentanyl to get high as you need of morphine. Etc etc.

I'm not trying to argue a certain side of the argument, but why don't we see the same punishment ratio for any other drugs?

I agree. Wether they meant it to be like that or not, it seems as if the laws are made to protect the drug cartels. I find it ridiculous that people who import and export hundreds of pounds of cocaine are punished less then a small-time crack dealer. I mean, I understand that crack is far more addictive, but can anyone really say it is a HUNDRED times worse?

[darawk]

Originally Posted by lulz

But that doesn't hold for all other drugs. You need a fraction as much xanax to get high as you need of valium, yet they are both treated the same by law. You need a fraction as much fentanyl to get high as you need of morphine. Etc etc.

TBH, that's probably just because they're lazy and stupid. By weight - alprazolam SHOULD be treated more harshly than valium, same with fentanyl vs. heroin. Particularly the case with fentanyl, where fentanyl really is 100x as potent as heroin by weight.

[Rio Fantastic]

Originally Posted by darawk

TBH, that's probably just because they're lazy and stupid. By weight - alprazolam SHOULD be treated more harshly than valium, same with fentanyl vs. heroin. Particularly the case with fentanyl, where fentanyl really is 100x as potent as heroin by weight.

Fentanly is eighty times more potent then morphine. Heroin is twice as potent as morphine. If SWIM's maths is right, that means that Fentanyl is about forty times as potent as heroin, right? Yet they're all in the same category.

[JDreaming]

Yeah there's been a lot of talk about this subject... it probably less punishes black people directly than it punishes the poor while profiting the wealthy. Whether you're black or white, if you're poor and live in a bad neighborhood, you'd buy crack rather than cocaine. And while there's a lack of logic in every possible section of the United States drug code, if you've ever spent time around a crackhead before, it becomes understandable that the government wants to stop the crack trade by any means possible.

[Odinssohn]

Lol Crack is prolly 100 times worse than cocaine. In my opinion it is right to punish crack dealers more than cocaine dealers.

[Nagognog2]

Upon what do you formulate this opinion^^^?

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Upon what do you formulate this opinion^^^?

It's much more addictive than snorted cocaine because it causes the concentration of the drug to rise in the blood stream more quickly is the primary reason.

[JDreaming]

Yeah, but it's hard to say even then that coke use is OK and crack use is evil... most of the people who use coke will try crack out some, anybody can transform it back and forth easily. And though the route of ingestion concentrates the dosage strength into a short duration, it's still the exact same chemical that's intoxicating you.

[Nagognog2]

Simple: Crack is used by black people who are poor and can't afford good attorneys. Cocaine is used by rich, white punks. So crack should be more illegal to help the KKK that runs Amerika lock up the darkies where they belong!

Yay Amerika! And keep funding the CIA that goes that extra mile to saturate the inner-cities with crack!

(and if you think I'm serious - I'm only half-serious)

Reputation Comments on this post:

you are a twat

[ssnake110]

Actually, I agree and I´m dead serious.

The U.S. would be torn apart if there were such severe minimum sentencing for cocaine users, because, as has been said, cocaine is an expensive party drug used by a large number of people in upper-class society.

If the sons of Congressmen got five years minimum for possessing 5 grams of cocaine, there´d be an uproar. But when it´s with crack, it´s ¨better.¨

That said, crack is an absolute plague. In a seedier part of my hometown in the U.S. there are people who sit outside of gas stations and constantly ask for money. (just a dollar or so, normally) They´re clearly coming down, and are routinely out there. (which begs the question of how they continue to get their supplies when they have nothing else) It´s not a pretty picture.

Still, regardless of this, the idea of punishing anybody so extensively for doing damage to their own bodies is idiocy.

[lulz]

Holy shit! Apparently the Supreme Court is going to address this exact issue.

[top]Court to hear crack vs. powder case; issues five unanimous rulings.

Posted by Lyle Denniston at 10:03 AM


UPDATED to 11:50 a.m.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up at its next Term the long-standing dispute over the wide disparity in punishment for crack cocaine crimes than for offenses involving cocaine powder a 100 to 1 ratio. The issue is the authority of federal judges to consider the impact of that disparity in a given case under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Court agreed to hear that issue in Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330).

It also agreed to take a case -- also to be decided next Term -- on the same Sentencing Guidelines issue that the Court had been considering in Claiborne v. U.S. (06-5618) before Mario Claiborne died and the case was ordered vacated as moot. The new case is Gall v. U.S. 06-7949. The issue is whether it is unreasonable, absent special circumstances, for a federal judge to choose a sentence below the Guidelines range.

Although the U.S. Solicitor General had urged the Court to find a Claiborne-issue case and consider deciding it this Term, the Court bypassed the suggested case (Beal v. U.S., 06-8498) and chose the Gall appeal instead. That case, like Claiborne and Beal, is from the Eighth Circuit. Since there was no notation of expedition, the conclusion is apparent that the case, along with em>Kimbrough, will go over to the new Term starting Oct. 1.

In orders issued at the start of Monday's session, the Court also agreed to rule at its next Term on whether federal courts in trying a case of workplace discrimination must allow testimony by other workers who are not parties to the case but claim they, too, were victims of job bias. The case involving a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is Sprint/United Management v. Mendelson, 06-1221.

Another order invited the U.S. Solicitor General to provide the government's views on whether states have any authority to bar cell phone companies from listing taxes and fees as separate items on customers' monthly bills (Sprint Nextel v. NASUCA, 06-1184.

The Court refused to expedite consideration of a new patent appeal by Pfizer Inc., a case in which Justice John Paul Stevens refused last week to provide temporary relief. The case, Pfizer v. Apotex, 06-1582, involves a dispute over patent claims for a medicine for treating high blood pressure. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in that order; he routinely recuses himself from Pfizer cases.

In a second patent case closely watched by specialists in the field, Zoltek Corp. v. U.S. (06-1155), the Court declined to rule on whether the federal government may be sued for a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment if it or one of its contractors uses a patented product or method without permission. Also denied review in that case was whether the federal courts may hear a damages lawsuit against the federal government if it or a contractor uses a patented item or product, if some part of the use occurred outside the U.S.

The Court's five decisions on the merits on Monday were all decided unanimously -- one from the March sitting, and four from the April session. The Court has 18 cases awaiting decision this Term.

In the first ruling of the day on the merits, the Court decided unanimously that a lawsuit against a private company cannot be shifted to federal court from state court merely because the company was acting under federal agency regulations. The ruling came in Watson v. Philip Morris (05-1284), with Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the Court.

As the Court continued issuing decisions, it decided unanimously that home healh care workers who are employed by outside agencies, not directly by families, are not entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay under federal law. A Labor Department regulation that exempts those workers is binding, the Court ruled in Long Island Care at Home v. Coke (06-593). That ruling, too, was written by Justice Breyer.

In a third unaimous ruling, in U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (05-562, the Court decided that the federal Superfund law allows a company that has not been sued over a hazardous waste dump or has not reached a settlement may sue another party -- including federal agencies -- to recover some of the cleanup costs that it has spent. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court.

Continuing the pattern of unanimity, the Court ruled in Beck v. PACE International Union (05-1448) that a company that sponsors its own pension plan for workers has no duty to consider merging it with another plan as a method of ending the plan while carrying on the benefits. In this case, the bankruptcy trustee opted to buy an annuity rather than consider merging with an ongoing plan. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the opinion.
The final decision of the day -- also decided unanimously, but with four partial dissenters -- came in Fry v. Pliler (06-5427), holding that a federal habeas court in judging whether a constitutional error at the trial was harmless must decide whether the error satisfies the strict standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993). Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined in partial dissents.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...ules_on_5.html

[ssnake110]

It´s times like these I wish Bush hadn´t had gotten his hands on that Sandra Day O´Conner re-appointment.

Now lets all join hands and pray that John Paul Stevens doesn´t drop dead before we have a Democrat in the White House... or hell... almost any Republican BUT Bush.

[lulz]

The times, they are a changin'

Dec 10, 11:07 AM EST


Court: Judges can reduce crack sentences


By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday said judges may impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine crimes, enhancing judicial discretion to reduce the disparity between sentences for crack and cocaine powder.

By a 7-2 vote, the court said that a 15-year sentence given to Derrick Kimbrough, a black veteran of the 1991 war with Iraq, was acceptable, even though federal sentencing guidelines called for Kimbrough to receive 19 to 22 years.

In a separate sentencing case that did not involve crack cocaine, the court also ruled in favor of judicial discretion to impose more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend.

The challenges to criminal sentences center on a judge's discretion to impose a shorter sentence than is called for in guidelines established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, at Congress' direction. The guidelines were adopted in the mid-1980s to help produce uniform punishments for similar crimes.

The cases are the result of a decision three years ago in which the justices ruled that judges need not strictly follow the sentencing guidelines. Instead, appellate courts would review sentences for reasonableness, although the court has since struggled to define what it meant by that term.

Kimbrough's case did not present the justices with the ultimate question of the fairness of the disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences.

Congress wrote the harsher treatment for crack into a law that sets a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine or 100 times as much cocaine powder. The law also sets maximum terms.

Seventy percent of crack defendants are given the mandatory prison terms.

Kimbrough is among the remaining 30 percent who, under the guidelines, get even more time in prison because they are convicted of trafficking in more than the amount of crack that triggers the minimum sentences.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said, "A reviewing court could not rationally conclude that it was an abuse of discretion" to cut four years off the guidelines-recommended sentence for Kimbrough.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Sentencing Commission recently changed the guidelines to reduce the disparity in prison time for the two crimes. New guidelines took effect Nov. 1 after Congress took no action to overturn the change.

The commission is scheduled to vote Tuesday afternoon on the retroactive application of the crack cocaine guideline amendment that went into effect on Nov. 1. The commission has estimated 19,500 inmates could apply for sentence reductions under the proposal.

In the other case, the court, also by a 7-2 vote, upheld a sentence of probation for Brian Gall for his role in a conspiracy to sell 10,000 pills of ecstasy. U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of Des Moines, Iowa, determined that Gall had voluntarily quit selling drugs several years before he was implicated, stopped drinking, graduated from college and built a successful business. The guidelines said Gall should have been sent to prison for 30 to 37 months.

The sentence was reasonable, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. Alito and Thomas again dissented.

Under the decisions in both cases, Alito said, "Sentencing disparities will gradually increase."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens formed the majority in both cases.

The cases are Kimbrough v. U.S., 06-6330, and Gall v. U.S., 06-7949.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Simple: Crack is used by black people who are poor and can't afford good attorneys. Cocaine is used by rich, white punks. So crack should be more illegal to help the KKK that runs Amerika lock up the darkies where they belong!

Then how do you explain Marion Barry?

[old hippie 56]

He spent all his money on crack and whores!

[Euphoric]

Crack-vs.-powder disparity is questioned

Dec.24/07

BOSTON - During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powdered cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before.

Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack.

A push to shrink the disparity in punishments got a boost last month when reduced federal sentencing guidelines went into effect for crack offenses. Then, earlier this month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal cases, voted to make the reductions retroactive, allowing some 19,500 inmates, mostly black, to seek reductions in their crack sentences.

Many think the changes are long overdue.

Crack, because it is smoked and gets into the bloodstream faster than snorted cocaine, produces a more intense high and is generally considered more addictive than powdered cocaine.

But experts say that difference does not warrant the 100-to-1 disparity that was written into a 1986 law that set a mandatory minimum prison term of five years for trafficking in 5 grams of crack, or less than the amount in two packets of sugar. It would take 100 times as much cocaine to get the same sentence.

"There's no scientific justification to support the current laws," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Many defense lawyers and civil rights advocates say the lopsided perception of crack versus cocaine is rooted in racism. Four out of every five crack defendants are black, while most powdered-cocaine defendants are white.

While powdered cocaine became the drug of choice for middle- and upper-income Americans in the 1970s, crack emerged in the early 1980s as a much cheaper version of the same drug.

In the mid-1980s, powdered cocaine was typically sold by the half-gram or gram for $50 to $100, while crack was sold as small rocks that cost as little as $5 to $10. Crack became popular in poor, largely minority urban areas, and it developed an image as a drug used mostly by violent, inner-city youths.

"You had politicians manipulating fear, and instead of being seen as a more direct mode of ingestion of a very old drug, it became a demonic new substance," said Craig Reinarman, a sociology and legal-studies professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz who edited the 1997 book "Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice" about the rise of crack in the 1980s.

When crack first became popular, there was an increase in murders and other crimes associated with the drug. But the bloodshed was not necessarily the result of something inherent in crack.

Instead, most of that violence was typical for what happens when any illegal drug is introduced and drug dealers with guns compete for new markets, said Dr. Alfred Blumstein, a professor of urban systems and operations research at Carnegie-Mellon University.

Although there was already a great deal of concern about crack by 1986, the death of basketball star Len Bias in June of that year is seen as the pivotal event that spurred Congress to enact the much tougher sentences for crack offenses.

Bias was a star at the University of Maryland and had just been drafted by the Boston Celtics when he died. Initial news reports incorrectly said Bias died after using crack. It wasn't until months later that one of Bias' teammates testified that he had actually snorted cocaine the night be died.

By that time, the harsh penalties for crack crimes had already been passed by Congress, with a push from House Speaker Tip O'Neill of Massachusetts, whose Celtic-fan constituents were up in arms about Bias' death.

"Len Bias' death symbolized just how terrible this drug was," said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice research and advocacy group based in Washington. "Here you had this promising young man on the verge of a very great basketball career and his life is taken away by the evils of crack cocaine."

The crack scare was also fueled by medical professionals who worried that pregnant women who used the drug would give birth to a generation of babies with severe neurological damage. But the "crack babies" theory has been largely debunked.

Dr. Harolyn Belcher, an associate professor of pediatrics at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, said there is no evidence that crack is biologically more harmful than powdered cocaine to the fetus or developing child.

"If I had a well-to-do family whose wife was at home snorting coke versus someone who is a mother who is out on the street using crack, the babies would look very similar," Belcher said.

Belcher said children who were exposed to crack or powdered cocaine in the uterus may be at slightly higher risks for language delays and attention deficits, but she said recent studies have shown that alcohol is far more devastating to the fetus.

John Steer, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, said the commission first said in 1995 that the disparate punishments for crack and powdered cocaine defendants were not justified.

"The bottom-line conclusion is that for punishment purposes, they should be treated much more similarly than they are now. That's based upon the fact that in the real world, they are not as different overall as was initially thought," Steer said.

The reductions in the recommended sentences for crack offenses went into effect Nov. 1, but the guidelines do not affect the minimum mandatory sentences, which only Congress can change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071224/...ack_vs_cocaine

[TheBlackPope]

Steriotypically, crack is something that everyone gets hooked on their first try and ruins their life.

Steriotypically, cocaine isnt that bad, relativley.

The government goes off on steriotypes.