Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 02/01/2007 7:45:55 AM PST by traviskicks
Drunk driving is a serious national problem. So here's a proposal: Wine drinkers would not be arrested for DUI unless they have a blood-alcohol level of .10. But anyone drinking hard liquor would be considered intoxicated at .02.
I know it sounds nutty, since drunk is drunk, regardless of what you use to get there. But it's no crazier than the federal law on crack cocaine. Two decades after the great crack scare provoked a draconian response, we still treat it as an unparalleled scourge.
Americans who have come of age in the interim might be surprised to know that the smokable version of cocaine once was the moral equivalent of al Qaeda. In 1986, Newsweek called it "the most glamorous, seductive, destructive, dangerous drug on the supersaturated national black market," and quoted one expert voicing what soon became conventional wisdom: "Crack is the most addictive drug known to man right now," producing "almost instantaneous addiction
One alleged consequence was a proliferation of "crack babies" -- children exposed to this form of cocaine in the womb who suffered such severe brain damage that, even as adults, they would have trouble dressing or feeding themselves. Another was an explosion of violence by users. First Lady Nancy Reagan warned of a drug epidemic so vast and devastating that "no one is safe from it."
With the public thus spurred into alarm, Congress responded with stern action. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act treated crack offenses with exceptional ferocity. To get five years in prison, a criminal had to be caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine, weighing 1.1 pounds, about as much as a typical package of ground beef -- or 5 grams of crack, weighing as much as a nickel. To get 10 years, you'd need 5,000 grams of powder (11 pounds) or 50 grams (less than two ounces) of crack.
This is what is known as the 100:1 crack/powder disparity, and it implies what was generally believed in 1986: Crack is 100 times more harmful than ordinary cocaine. But we have since learned that crack is not much different.
The most addictive substance known to man? After crack appeared, the number of people using it or any other form of cocaine didn't skyrocket -- it fell. The harm to infants, we discovered, was not only greatly exaggerated but indistinguishable from the effects of powder cocaine. The violence turned out to be mostly the result of turf wars among drug dealers, not the drug itself.
On the basic issue -- is crack worse? -- a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that "the physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine are similar regardless" of how it's ingested.
That was in 1996. But a decade later, the law still treats crack users and dealers far more harshly than those caught with Cocaine Classic. A report by the American Civil Liberties Union found that in 2003, the average federal sentence for crack offenses was more than 10 years -- three and a half years more than the typical punishment for powder crimes.
But the impact has not fallen evenly across the landscape, like a gentle snow. Instead, it has been felt most among African-Americans, who are more prone to use crack than, say, Miss USA or the young George W. Bush. Well-to-do whites tend to prefer snorting cocaine to smoking it.
The ACLU notes that while blacks make up 15 percent of the nation's drug users, they constitute 74 percent of those sentenced to prison on drug charges. Before the 1986 law, "the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 49 percent higher."
The United States Sentencing Commission, the federal agency charged with reviewing sentencing policy, has repeatedly urged Congress to reduce the disparity. But so far nothing has happened.
In the past, Democrats have displayed no particular courage on the issue. But thanks to the change of control on Capitol Hill, the House Judiciary Committee is planning to hold hearings on the subject. Even some conservative Republicans are on board for reform, including Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.
But change may not come, since there have always been plenty of diehard drug warriors who will defend the status quo. What are they smoking?
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
The fWO(s)D is a farce.
Damn this crack habit!
This is as bad as the, "eveyone will have AIDS by 1990"; Oprah told me so!
It's simple. Poor people do crack. Rich people do coke. It's easy to send a nobody poor kid away for 20 over a baggie of crack, but it's not so good to send your rich Hollywood donors away for 20 over their coke baggies.
And it's no crazier than the fact that we even have a FEDERAL law on crack cocaine.
The supreme irony is that the liberal do-gooders were the ones who screamed for the harsher penalties for crack because it was going to be the scourge of the black community. Now these same liberal dingbats are screaming about the disparate impact of the policy they demanded in the first place!
Don't forget that we would not have crack if the WOD hadn't driven up coke prices due to the fed's enforcement of the tax free, black market monopoly the cartels enjoy. We were lucky ice didn't make it over from Hawaii
Agreed. The solution to the drug problem is not that hard. Make it legal and at the same time extend help to those that truly want to get off of drugs, most will not. Once they have cheap and easy access to the drugs many will remove themselves from the gene pool by overdose. A very small minority will seek help and become clean. Over half the crime in this country is drug related. This would end with legalization. It is societies duty to protect the innocents. The present laws put the innocents at risk of drug related crime. I do not give one good damn if a junkie overdoses. I do care if he sticks a gun in my face and robs me or my family or harms us. It should be noted that alcohol consumption went down after prohibition ended.
***Before the 1986 law, "the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 49 percent higher." ****
Proves they havent gotten any smarter.
Drugs destroy families. Drugs destroy lives, Drugs aid terrorists. Drug users are losers.
People who want to legalise addiction are nuts.
Just leave the crap alone.
OK start the flames losers.
Similar to heroin users burglerize homes at a far higher rate than marijuana users.
"Instead, it has been felt most among African-Americans, who are more prone to use crack."
Ah. Never fails.
Why are African-Americans "more prone"? They're not any more prone than anyone else. They're more likely to use crack because it's cheaper. (plus the high is more intense and reached more quickly.)
In that sense, it's more addictive and dangerous. The penaly should be harsher.
Hey Steve, how about being a little more truthful with your statistics? How about something like:
"Since blacks make up 74 percent of the nation's drug dealers, they constitute 74 percent of those sentenced to prison on drug charges."
You go to a white neighborhood when you want drugs, Steve?
Oh, I think the bGQ(i)D&F is worse.
I, too, urge Congress to reduce the disparity -- increase the penalties for powdered cocaine to match that of crack.
Now wouldn't you think this "nobody poor kid" knows better than anyone else just how true this is? And yet ....
Oh, like you'd accept a STATE law with open arms.
Up? I thought "drug prices were down, demonstrating the failure of the WOD" or some such nonsense. Which is it?
You guys need to pick a "fact" and stick with it.
With essentially every issue and even some non-issues all blamed on whites because we are white, it surprizes me a bit that sombody hasn't snapped. It's a testament, really.
If the national media and college intellectuals blamed the worlds ills on blacks, they would be marching in the streets by the millions and boycotting everything in sight. We just go, "Nuh-uh!" and watch it get worse.
Let's see...national media falsely baming you for all the world's problems....intellectuals writing papers about the flawed nature of a your group's religion and culture.....other groups are allowed to openly ridicule your group......disallowed to form organizations within your group.....
Sounds all too familiar to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.