NPR ran a story Friday on the 20th anniversary of the crack cocaine sentencing rules — rules under which the weight thresholds for crimes involving crack cocaine are set 100 times lower than the thresholds for crimes involving powder cocaine (so that dealing 5 grams of crack will be treated comparably to dealing 500 grams of powder). There surely are important criticisms of these rules; I'll implicitly touch on one below.
But, boy, the NPR story seemed weak, in pretty obvious ways. I'm not a drug policy expert, which is why I almost never blog about the subject, but the story's weaknesses are so clear that it seems to me one needn't be an expert to spot them. A few examples:
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has recommended reducing the differential between crack and powder cocaine since 1995.
It's found that 83 percent of the people in prison under the law for crack cocaine are African-Americans, even though many users of crack cocaine are white.
Let's begin with the comparison — 83% of the people in prison for crack cocaine are black, though many users are white. How many? "Many" could mean 5% of a large number, or 20% of a large number, or 60%. I've certainly heard that the actual percentage is enough to make for a substantial disparity between the demographics of imprisoned crack criminals and the demographics of users. But the story doesn't even assert that, much less that demonstrate that with numbers.
Second, it's far from clear that there's anything sinister in treating drug dealers more harshly than drug users; the premise of most controlled substances laws has been precisely that. (Even critics of drug laws rarely argue that the solution is to impose the same long sentences on users as on dealers.) If the Mafia were running drugs to predominantly black neighborhoods, you'd hope that the great majority of drug prisoners were of Italian extraction even if the great majority of users were black. Even if drug users were punished to some extent, they'd probably be sentenced to shorter terms, which would lead to the disproportion between the demographics of prisoners and of users. Likewise if crack cocaine distribution is mostly a black business and crack cocaine buyers are mostly white.
Now if you think racial disproportions matter, you might compare crack dealers to dealers in other drugs, and see whether black drug dealers were getting much higher sentences than white drug dealers (controlling for the harmfulness of the drugs). I can't tell you what those numbers would show. But those aren't the numbers that the NPR story gave, or, more precisely, hinted at (given its 83% vs. "many" comparison).
Here's the next sentence:
And it's found that most of those imprisoned are street dealers or drug couriers, not kingpins.
Most of those imprisoned aren't kingpins? So what? Under any sensible definition of kingpins, kingpins would be only a tiny fraction of the distribution pyramid. Even if the war on drugs is perfectly proper, and even if it is conducted in the most efficient and racially evenhanded way, and even if law enforcement tries much harder to get kingpins than it does to get the lower-level, medium-level, and the sub-kingpin-high-level participants, of course kingpins would constitute only a small minority of those imprisoned. (If you have a hard time imagining such a scenario, because you so reject the war on drugs, imagine an attempt to fight only those who are distributing highly addictive drugs to minors, or an attempt to fight extortion rackets.)
The only way you can get a situation where "most of those imprisoned are kingpins, not street dealers or drug couriers" is if you virtually eliminate any prosecution of street dealers or drug couriers. That's hardly a sensible strategy of fighting the war on drugs (as opposed to of abandoning it). Again, maybe there's a serious criticism hiding behind the vague assertions, for instance that the rules are highly ineffective against kingpins (or that no matter how many kingpins you lock up, some others will rise to take their place). But if that's what you're trying to say, say it. Don't give a vague assertion that, even if completely correct, would tell us nothing about whether the law is working well.
Then the story goes on:
[M]ore voices are calling for change. Senator Jeff Sessions, the conservative Republican from Alabama, is one of them. He's introduced a bill that would reduce the differential between crack and powder cocaine from a hundred to one; to 20:1.
Senator JEFF SESSIONS (Republican, Alabama): And now we have had nearly 20 years of experience and I think, legitimately, based on my experience as a federal prosecutor, that the crack sentencing guidelines are too heavy. And there's — it's not necessary to have as long of sentences for some of these offenses as we now have. And it's appropriate if Congress is going to move in to this area, that it review what it's done and — and make adjustments as time goes by.
OK, so 100:1 is supposedly bad — but how are we to decide whether the 20:1 would be any better? Why not 5:1? Why not 1000:1? Are we just supposed to figure out the ratio at which the racial demographics of prisoners and users match (the main criticism of the 100:1 disparity that the story had pointed to so far)? Or are we just supposed to figure out the ratio at which the majority of prisoners will be kingpins, in which case why would a ratio help at all?
Now as I've mentioned above, there are some sensible factors one can consider, if both crack and powder cocaine are to be outlawed, and we're looking for the right weight equivalence ratio. Most important of them, it seems to me, would be how dangerous crack is per gram compared to cocaine.
The theory for calibrating punishment to weight more generally, even within the same drug, is that 1000 grams of cocaine are thought to be more dangerous than 10 grams, because they represent more doses. (Again, if you think that neither is dangerous enough to justify the war on drugs, think of what policy you'd use for deciding how to punish people who were trying to sell cocaine to children.) One reasonable theory for calibrating punishment to drug type would be if some drugs were thought to be more dangerous per dose than others. If one gram of crack yielded approximately as much harm as 100 grams of cocaine, whether because of difference in dose size or dose harm (recognizing of course that any such matters are only estimates), then the 100:1 disparity may well be sensible. If our best guess of the harm ratio is that 1 gram of crack yielded as much harm as 1 gram of cocaine, then, unless there are some other factors that the harm analysis doesn't take into account, there shouldn't be a disparity at all. If the harm-per-gram ratio is 20:1, then we might want to consider a 20:1 weight ratio.
But even if I'm wrong in this analysis, at least it's an example of how one can think of the matter in a way geared to actually reach a sensible policy result, rather than just reporting on a proposed number with no explanation for it, or quoting people who would replace one number with another, with no explanation for the reasoning that might support either. Some such sensible analysis, whether the one I offer or a better one, would be more helpful to listeners than "lots of people say 100:1 is too much, and it leads to racial disparities of a magnitude that we'll only hint at, so let's try 20:1."
UPDATE: In the last paragraph, I originally wrote "picking numbers out of thin air" instead of "reporting on a proposed number with no explanation for it" and "who would replace one thin-air number with another" instead of "who would replace one number with another, with no explanation for the reasoning that might support either"; this post by Doug Berman reminded me that my formulation wasn't quite right -- I meant to fault NPR's reporting for giving numbers with no explanation, but my "thin air" reference erroneously suggested that the numbers had no explanation at all. I can't speak to that latter question; for all I know, for instance, Sen. Sessions' 20:1 proposal is eminently sensible and well-supported -- my point is simply that NPR gave us nothing to explain the numbers, which for all we were told appeared out of thin air. My apologies for the error, and my thanks to Prof. Berman for prompting me to correct this.
As for the kingpin:minion ratio, of course the number of kingpins is small, but enforcement efforts can be directed at the top echelon. Our "war on drugs", unlike our war on the mob, seems disproportionately directed at the lower ranks. Arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning so many users consumes a great deal of money that might be better directed at upper and middle "pins". (One could also make the argument that addiction treatment for a lot of these people would cost us all a lot less than locking them up.)
In that case, the 83% figure is all that really matters. We know then that 1. The punishment for crack appears to be wildly disproportionate (100 to 1 sounds crazy), and 2. Black people make up 83% of the subsequent incarceration. The "many whites use it" point may just be an add on, to show an additional potential injustice, that perhaps we shouldn't even assume that crack offenses are being caught and prosecuted proportionately.
I don't see a transcript, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, but this would suggest that it was more of a failure to provide detailed information than a completely illogical comparison of numbers.
By the way, I would bet that white crack users are just as violent, on average, as black crack users. So where is the racism?
One of the stats that gets tossed out is "2/3 of crack users are white," from an old study by the US Sentencing Commission, but leaves out the rest of the actual phrase "2/3 of crack users were white or Hispanic."
Finding the original source for that 2/3 is really interesting, too. One of the USSC reports claims that the number comes from a vaguely-referenced report cited by Jesse Jackson... from about 14 years ago (around the time that the increased sentences were just coming into effect).
Some of the later (1998 on) reports show that arrests of whites for crack use has dropped quite a bit.
You're possibly being hyper-logical. The point here isn't that it should be a majority of kingpins, but that if the justification for the high sentences is that these guys are big important dealers, it's relevant to note that most aren't. They might simply have said "And it's not like these guys are Kingpins either; most are run of the mill street dealers.
On the other hand, one way to get less street dealers and more kingpins would be to raise the threshold for the harshest punishments, since presumably kingpins will be dealing in a lot more crack than street dealers. The problem then, NPR might say to you, is that by having such low thresholds for crack, street dealers and kingpins get treated the same, which they shouldn't be.
I think NPR does assume we're mathmatically dumb, but the inferences it requires you to draw are actually pretty complex.
More blacks than whites are (certainly on a proportionate if not an absolute basis) imprisoned for pimping and murder. Should we then, figuratively, gerrymander the law so that fewer blacks are convicted?
I am reminded that the producers of the "Cops" television program were criticized for the depiction of dark-skinned
persons being arrested, and they eventually were forced to travel to North Dakota to find a few non-minority law-breakers.
- Josh
Well, I think your analysis has to go further than that. Basically, I think the question you have to ask is 1. Why do we punish drug sale/use? 2. What is the basis for punishing different drug offenses in different ways? 3. Now do the actual punishments bear these factors out?
Ties to violence may be one factor, but I don't think it's the only factor.
To the extent those answers are nebulous, though, I think you also have to say "hmm, now somehow we've decided to punish crack use way the heck more than cocaine use, while it just so happens that crack offenders are predominantly black. How exactly did that happen?" At that point, I think you have to consider both whether it might actually be racist, and also whether it just looks racist. And the answers may be very complex. Maybe crack offenses are more tied to violent crimes for the simple reason that it is more of a black drug, and blacks tend to be more in poverty, etc. I think that would be a concern. (Why? Then any offense committed by blacks could suddenly be punished much harder simply because it is going to have a correlation with crime, even if that has nothing to do with the offense itself but simply with the population).
the ratio should be "N/A" since the penalty for possessing both crack and cocaine should be 0 years and with 0 as the denominator there would be no ratio
Dealers are prosecuted because they annoy the neighbors. Right now, they are between the 1200 and 1400 blocks of Valentine, less than 100 yards from my house. Everyone knows that they are there day in and day out, and about once a year the cops can be observed making an arrest.
I don't have numbers, but meth is the current BIG SCARY DRUG out there and there's quite a lot of stuff being done against it. Did we start requiring photo ID and limiting purchases of cough medicine for crack? I think not.
Back OT RE: Crack vs. Coke, there's also the pseudo-class angle. Cocaine's a relatively 'upscale' drug, in that many users are likely to have a decent income. People that can afford good lawyers, rehab, etc. and make a good case that they're not going to reoffend (or at least not be a burden on society) are far more likely to be given lenient punishment. They also know enough not to do the urban blight stuff (public sales, crackhouses, etc.) that brings complaints, crackdowns, and arrests.
I suspect the lower thresholds for crack simply reflect the observed dynamics of the crack trade, which is probably different from the cocaine trade.
That's not to say that such things are a good idea; today's practical fix is tomorrow's giant loophole, or worse yet, tomorrow's tool of political control. And I would put nearly all drug laws into the "practical fix" category. The real problem is that prohibition itself creates more criminals and more crime than can ever be stopped by the police or the courts.
Why not raise the penalties for possession? Because it would hit middle class and ruin the lives of young white youth. But no one cares about the street corner hustler or the Latino distributor. This is what is racist about the current drug enforcement regime and not necessarily the disparity between different forms of cocaine.
Again, if we are serious about this, reduce the demand for drugs by coming down hard on the users. If we are not serious, then give up, legalize drugs, stop wreaking havoc on countries in Latin America and elsewhere, and funding terrorists with the profits of the currently illegal drug trade.
I realize that, in context, this remark is a criticism of the piece at hand and not an independent question. But it brought to mind United States v. Smith, 359 F. Supp. 2d 771, 777-82 (E.D. Wis. 2005), in which a district court took a practical approach to that question. It arrived at a 20:1 ratio. The DOJ dismissed its appeal, if I remember correctly, but the 7th Circuit has since made it clear that Booker doesn't let district courts set their own ratios. I think the Smith court did a good job parsing the issue, though.
The idea in some people's minds is that there are these malicious evil drug dealers working to ruin our neighborhoods by importing lots of drugs so they become rich. They then support the drug law thinking these malicious people need to have the book thrown at them.
Making people who are evaluating the law realize that the vast majority of the people the law is used against are low level street dealers who sell drugs to support their habit and are more victims than masterminds changes their idea of what the base penalty for drug dealing should be.
Many people are very unfamiliar with the drug trade and need to be reminded that the portrayals they often see in movies aren't accurate. At the very least it suggests that we should adjust the base sentence down and use sentence enhancements to go after kingpins (really we should legalize it but that's another question).
--
As for crack/cocaine harm it's the same damn molecule. Get some baking soda and a stove and you can cook up crack pretty easily from cocaine.
I think the main reason for the large sentences for crack cocaine was the crack epidemic in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Crack cocaine certainly contributed heavily to crime rates that in some cities seemed out of control and were a significant deterrant of quality of life for those citizens who did not use crack.
Attacking the crime wave and the crack behind the crime wave was very important to Republican gains in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The pre-Reaganite and Reaganite left was very weak on crime in general but crack in specific. Though this may seem harsh, there is a feeling that they could not see the utility in tough sentencing policies that may disparately incarcerate the poor and minorities.
Powder cocaine was not associated with the mass crime, crack was (properly) associated with
But the crack epidemic has broken, so it would seem like a good time to lower these sentences. I wonder if the NPR report mentioned the crack epidemic at all.
Ross Douhalt has blogged a lot about this and deserves a read.
PS I think that the modern center left is very good on these issues.
Means and/or route of administration may be an important factor. When cocaine is snorted, as it is with the powder form, the high is felt pretty quickly; when cocaine is vaporized and inhaled, as it is with crack, the high comes still quicker, and the addictive potential may be greater as a result.
If 83% of those incarcerated for dealing crack are black, what % of those incarcerated for dealing powder cocaine are black? What inference should be drawn if the answer were 82-84%, that is just about identical for crack and powder cocaine? What if the answer were 16-18%, that is flipped around? How relevant (or irrelevant) would the answer be to this discussion about sentencing for one vs the other?
Does anyone know if he's been voting, or has he been disenfranchised?
Seriously, I'm just happily surprised to hear that Senator Sessions isn't trying to reconcile the disparity by upping the sentences for powdered cocaine possession.
True, but beyond that, mid-level dealers can and often do bargain their sentences way, way down by turning in their employees. It's the ones at the lowest level that wind up serving a decade or more - they don't have anyone left to rat out.
I'm not an advocate for the war on drugs, but don't you think that those who are would say that if we reduce sentences, the crime epidemic will return?
There used to be an epidemic of unwanted calls from telemarketers. Then Congress passed and the President signed a law that imposed harsh penalties on telemarketers calling people who had self-indentified as "do not calls." The epidemic has largely passed, so maybe it's time to ease the penalties, no?
Why can't the low-level dealers rat out the mid-level dealers? Have the mid-level dealers all already turned state's evidence?
It seems like we should have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree drunk driving, or something similar. I realize there may be lower penalties for driving while impaired below a BAC level of .08%.
The posters above referencing meth are right. It's all meth these days. It's almost all coming from mexico due to the superlabs down there (small meth labs are fairly well a thing of the past.) AND the penalties for meth pretty well track those for crack. 5 grams = 5yr mandatory minimum; 50 g = 10yrs. Thus I don't buy the racism argument at this point in time even if it may have been previously worth arguing about.
Nobody who "possesses" crack or powder cocaine (or meth) is subject to the harsh mandatories or the high guideline levels. To be subject to those you have to be convicted of possession with intent to distribute or distribution, i.e. you have to be a drug dealer. People who "possess" are rarely prosecuted federally and even when they are these high sentences aren't art of the picture.
One reason we have high mandatory minimums or guideline levels is so the lower level "mopes" will cooperate against the higher levels in exchange for a reduced sentence. NOBODY is stuck with these high sentences unless they aren't willing to cooperate up. Indeed, even w/o cooperation the mandatories don't apply to those without a criminal history due to the safety valve provision which no one ever seems to talk about when these "harsh sentencing" discussions come up.
Or aren't able to, or aren't offered the chance to. And isn't the standard cooperation benefit something like 3 levels? That's nice, but it's not going to bring a crack sentence down to powder levels. I agree that the safety valve provision is too often overlooked, though.
Uh... one of the ways that "intent" is determined (besides the neon "open for business" sign around one's neck) is the amount in one's possession. If you are found to have more than a certain amount, you ARE a drug dealer, whether or not you actually deal or intend to deal.
disclaimer 2: i spent 2 years buying drugs as an undercover cop
when the penalties for crack cocaine were made exceptionally strict, we had an EXTREMELY violent (mostly crack cocaine related) drug war going on. what is not generally mentioned in these articles that explicitly or implicitly claim racism in these drug laws, is that it was largely black community members who were targeted and suffered the violence of the crack cocaine wars' violence and neighborhood breakdown. it was not rich white kids.
many black community members were at the forefront of getting drug dealers off the street and wanted harsher laws for crack cocaine dealing
that's the reality
it is true, that since blacks disproportionately are more likely to use crack than whites (different ethnic groups have their drugs of choice.).
and it is true that harsher crack laws disproportionately affect blacks. that is true.
i just wanted to clarify that a large part of the impetus to make these laws harsher for crack was in direct response to the MUCH MORE violent nature of crack dealer wars than many other drugs. of course, this is true of many nascent markets and wanes after time.
the crack market wars mostly died off, and there is far far less violence now. the market adapts. the penalties are (imo) absurdly harsh, but im biased in general, since i think the penalties for using all illegal drugs are too harsh.
needles are easy to get and shooting it up makes the high come even faster. Shooting it up is easiest with powder.
Besides, the fact that the two forms are easily interconvertible puts a limit on the ratio of harm. Since it will be nearly impossible to stamp out all the conversion even on a model where ingesting crack is a 100 times more harmful than cocaine it will not be the case that selling crack is a 100 times worse than selling cocaine as some of that cocaine will be converted.
that is absolutely false, at least in my area of the pacific NW. so called "beavis and butthead" labs are EVERYWHERE. also, many of the older p2p style cooks have started reintroducing their methodology of cooking, as well as the tons of labs that do the newfangled red-p/nazi method.
meth is SO easy to make, and the labs so easy to set up (the trunk of a car in 15 minutes), small labs will never go away imo.
βIn summarizing the perceived distinctions between powder cocaine and crack cocaine, certain caveats are important. Specifically, the Commission acknowledges the limited research concerning those factors most frequently cited as distinguishing powder cocaine from crack cocaine. For example, it generally is believed that smoking crack cocaine tends to create more dependency on the drug that is, is more psychologically "addicting" than snorting powder cocaine, but the research does not quantify how much more "addictive" smoking crack is than snorting powder. Obviously, such a figure could assist the informed determination of an appropriate ratio. Similarly, while there is some research confirming in part and rebutting in part the perception that distribution and use of crack cocaine has resulted in increased criminal activity, the data are not definitive concerning the impact of crack cocaine use and sales on crime. The empirical evidence also is inadequate to permit firm conclusions about whether crack has resulted in the birth of more babies exposed to drugs or in greater neglect of children by mothers addicted to the drug.
The absence of firm answers does not mean that the perceptions are necessarily wrong. However, gaps in the data make it difficult to draw precise conclusions about the merits of existing congressional distinctions in cocaine sentencing policy. Further, to the extent that Congress has created a sentencing system that so disparately and substantially punishes crack cocaine over other forms of the same drug, the absence of comprehensive data substantiating this legislative policy is troublesome.β Special Report to the Congress,Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy, United States Sentencing Commission February, 1995
Isn't crack cocaine smoked, while powder can be either snorted or fired, but most is snorted? And when fired, is it often in combination with heroin (John Belushi's fatal "speed ball"). So perhaps it could be argued that some powdered cocaine is used in a more dangerous way than crack, but most is used in a less dangerous way. (Note, I am not suggesting that use of cocaine should ever be thought of as "safe.")
no. speedballs are totally old skool. nobody speedballs anymore.
I agree meth is easy to make and the small labs will likely never go away, but that's why I said "almost all". People don't need to make meth anymore its ridiculously available, cheap and pure from Mexico.
BOBNSF-Like I said, nobody that merely possesses is subject to the harsh penalties. Intent is often proven with quantity but what's your point, the prosecution still needs to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that there was the intent to distribute, i.e. that the person was a drug dealer. All these possession arguments are a canard that people who don't like the drug laws use to falsely sell their point of view. The people being prosecuted are drug dealers, whether large scale or small scale and usually federally the amount is plenty.
As for not being able to cooperate or not being offered the chance, its pretty much SOP for them to be offered the chance to cooperate on the street. Where that doesn't happen their defense attorney can offer the cooperation. The "not able to part" is also usually bunk coming from a defendant who is trying to limit coming clean about how much and who they know, but hey that's their choice, just not the guidelines fault.
and no, i am not speaking from magazine articles. as i said i nthe other post, I worked drug unit for several years, and have made scores of purchases of illegal drugs while working undercover, and have been to dozens of labs myself.
i am not talking from magazine articles, or what the general public thinks. i am speaking from dozens of interviews with meth cooks, and from my personal experience buying drugs from meth dealers.
(However, the extensive media coverage of the federal crack/cocaine distinction often led people to call for my state to elimate the crack/cocaine distinction, not realizing that this state never made the distinction...)
Penalties for meth are the same as for cocaine here, too. FWIW, about 2/3 of the meth here comes from mexico, due in part to pseudoephedrine ID requirements recently passed. There are still a large number of meth labs discovered, but they tend to be fairly small and don't account for a lot of production.
Meth labs do produce a lot of toxic byproducts and are very difficult to clean up, occasionally rendering certain houses or apartments uninhabitable for long periods. So even if the level of meth consumption stays the same, having a greater proportion of the production occur in Mexico is beneficial.
meth is more concentrated than cocaine, so on a weight basis, the penalties should be harsher for meth, in that 1/10 of a gram of crystal is roughly equivalent to 1 gram of powder cocaine (hydrochloride).
1/10 gram of crystal will also give a much longer lasting high than 1 gram of powder will, espceially to a reasonably experienced cocaine user.
crystal is also(generally) pure. it's hard to adulterate, since that affects the crystalline structure, and is easily detectable. cocaine, otoh, is cut with everything and anything. interestingly, generally speaking, the cut is counted as part of the product for purposes of sentencing/charging.
so, having 1% pure cocaine (ridiculous example), iow 99% milk sugar and 1% cocaine - total weight 1 kilo, will get the same penalty as 100% pure cocaine.
even though, in the latter case you have 1000 grams of cocaine, and in the former case you have 10 grams (and 990 grams of cut)
Where I am in the rural midwest, most users are cookers or are associated with cookers. Users buy product with parts (usually batteries or pseudo) more often than with cash. But the small labs are weak on distribution networks so are not financially profitable (with a few notable exceptions).
- Tyrone
I agree with logicnazi, its the same damn thing. i refuse to waste my time rationalizing a small or large difference in penalties when ultimately, the drug war makes so little sense
Yet, there it is, NPR plainly suggesting such a thing. More irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric by people that should know better. Personally, I'm sick and tired of every frickin' group in this country tearing at the seams of race, class and culture everytime they want to score points. It is just wrong... on so many levels.
fearmonger, the primary reason why crack was given stiffer penalties was because there was FAR FAR more violence associated with its trade (and to a lesser extent - its use) than with powder cocaine. that is a criminological fact. now again, a lot of that had to do with it being a new product, with new turf being fought over, etc. etc. etc. but regardless , some locations saw (during the height of the crack epidemic) a 100-1000% increase in violent crime and homicide. and it was associated primarily with the crack trade - not the ecstacy trade, not the powder cocaine trade, etc.
that is a reality. again, i don't agree with the drug war IN GENERAL, but it is clear that it is not the same thing.
i know several DEA agents. ALL of them (believe it) are against mj enforcement. they think its a complete waste of time. you will not find this attitude about crack.
furthermore, i repeat - the primary victims of crack related homicides, drivebys etc. etc. WERE blacks. the vast majority of crime committed by dealers in these neighborhoods resulted in innocent blacks being killed or injured. it was, among other things, black citizens who were behind stiffening the penalties for crack dealers.
sure crack laws disproportionately affect blacks.
let me give you a counterexample. i've been in over 2 dozen meth labs. i've bought it dozens of times undercover. i have never SEEN a black person IN a meth lab, dealing meth, etc. crack was, to some extent disproportionately associated with blacks, but METH is almost completely disassociated with blacks. it is almost entirely a white drug, so to speak. nobody is claiming that the harsh penalties for meth production and dealing are some sort of racist tirade against whites. that would be equally as stupid as the claim that crack penalties were meant to harm blacks.
Whit, I'm curious. What is the opinion of most of the undercover narcotics agents that you know regarding the war on drugs? Do most share your attitude? What about narcotics agents in general?
personally, i think the war on drugs in general is bogus, but i tend to be more libertarian oriented.
although, as a i concede, the beginning of the crack trade was ExCEPTIONALLY violent and primarily victimized black citizens, witht he street violence, a very high %age of whom were completely innocent, but just unlucky enough to live in those neighborhoods. now, of course, the crack trade is not the violent mess it once was, and there is certainly cause to reconsider the penalty structure
my point is that only looking at the incarcerated as a metric for determination of harm to blacks does not take into account the VAST majority of blacks who are far more likely to be innocent victims of the very thugs who are now imprisoned, and thus it COULD be argued this is a net benefit for blacks
first, what do you mean you don't support the war on drugs IN GENERAL? does this mean you do support crack prosecutions?
Second, you completely missed my point. I'm sure its possible to rationalize why crack penalties should be higher than cocaine. However, I think the whole thing is bullshit and refuse to engage in such a mental exercise.
The reason there is so much violence associated with crack is largely BECAUSE it is illegal (indeed, some would argue that crack might not even EXIST if cocaine were not an illegal substance, although it is not necessary to believe this to understand that much of the violence associated with the illegal crack trade stems from its illegality).
So your answer to the problem of violence caused by its illegality is to make it make it <i></i>more<i></i> illegal? Great.
no, i don't. but GIVEN the fact that we choose (wrongly imo) to criminalize drug use, I think there is some merit to the stiffer crack penalties, vs. laxer for other drugs.
it's similar to the fact that i don't support marijuana prosecutions. however, GIVEN the fact that we criminalize mj, i think it makes sense to offer stiffer penalties to dealers than to users.
iow, given a system of drug criminalization, i think rational distinctions can be made as to what deserves harsher and less harsh penalties.
see, we have this thing called "rule of law". it means i don't agree with a LOT OF LAWS, however I can accept that within the sentencing structures for laws i don't agree with, i can still make and accept distinctions between (for example) mj use, and mj dealing. and crack dealing, and powder cocaine dealing.
i also don't agree with violating people's 2nd amendment rights (imo) merely cause they have a restraining order. but GIVEN that system, i think it fair to punish more seriously for somebody in VUFA violation possessing a loaded vs. unloaded firearm, as many VUFA (in violation of restraining order) prosecutions do.
your argument seems to be that since you don't support the war on drugs (similar to me), that no reasonable discussion can be had as to gradations of penalties for violation of same.
regardless of whether WODrugs is good policy (imo, it isn't), there is clearly no civil right to use drugs under the constitution. so, GIVEN the wod's we do have a legal duty to follow it - see: rule of law.
"Second, you completely missed my point. I'm sure its possible to rationalize why crack penalties should be higher than cocaine. However, I think the whole thing is bullshit and refuse to engage in such a mental exercise. "
see: above. also, the word "rationalize" is a code word. it basically means the argument is unreasonable, an attempt to explain away something that is wrong in the first place.. i, of course, disagree.
"The reason there is so much violence associated with crack is largely BECAUSE it is illegal (indeed, some would argue that crack might not even EXIST if cocaine were not an illegal substance, although it is not necessary to believe this to understand that much of the violence associated with the illegal crack trade stems from its illegality). "
i totally agree. i also find this irrelevant.
"So your answer to the problem of violence caused by its illegality is to make it make it more llegal? Great."
false. read again what i wrote. i didn't say i supported or didn't supportthe stiffer penalties for crack cocaine. i said that there were rational reasons FOR THEM TO EXIST, and that part of the reasons was the REQUESTS from numerous black citizens TO increase the penalties from the dealers that they saw/see as a blight upon their neighborhoods.
see, this may surprise you, but one can understand a rational argument for X, and criticize an irrational argument for X, without necessarily agreeing with X.
as somebody who is pro-choice, i disagree with numerous so called "justifications" for abortion rights put forth by my side. i can still criticize illogical arguments, even if they come to the same conclusion - that abortion should be legal.
that's called REASON
I applaud you, whit, for your reason as well as your courage to speak out. This is even though I might disagree with some points in your reasoning on sentencing. Those are not the issue. Reasoning is the issue.
It's none of my business, but if you don't already know them, you might find the organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition to be somewhat kindred spirits on the general WO(s)D subject.
i think there are a lot of stealth LEO's against prohibition (at least when it comes to marijuana). most just value their jobs too much to speak out about it.
the reality is, i know a lot of cops who just give "street warnings" for personal possession of mj, and make the guy dispose of it in front of them.
heck, my former police chief once told me straight out "i don't care WHAT they are smoking in their own home, as long as they are not bothering the neighbors, or raping and pillaging"
he had a way with words.