EDITORIAL The Inequity and Cost Of Cocaine Sentences

ONE OF the more glaring disparities in federal drug law
involves the penalties for possession of crack and powdered
cocaine.

Anyone convicted of possessing five grams of crack is
presumed to be a dealer, and is subject to a mandatory
minimum of five years in prison. A person would have to be
in possession of 500 grams of powdered cocaine for the
mandatory sentence to kick in.

The original argument for these different sentences was that
crack and powdered cocaine though chemically similar
have very different effects. The law was passed in the early
1980s, as urban neighborhoods faced the corrosive social and
economic effects of highly addictive crack and the violence
associated with its lucrative street trade.

The crack epidemic has subsided in recent years, but U.S.
taxpayers and the principle of equal justice are still
paying the price for this overzealous sentencing policy.

A strong drug policy should be aimed at the distributors.
But the crack penalties make no meaningful distinction
between the bigtime dealers and the peddler at the street
corner.

Is this the best way to fill prison cells at a cost of more
than $20,000 a year each? An estimated 20 percent of all
federal prisoners now are lowlevel drug dealers, many of
whom have no history of violence.

The cracksentencing law also contains a clear taint of
racial discrimination. About 96 percent of people convicted
for crack possession are black or Latino. Powdercocaine
dealers are more likely to be white. President Clinton has
taken a step in the right direction by endorsing the
revisions in cocaine laws recommended by Attorney General
Janet Reno and drug czar Barry McCaffrey.

Under the administration plan, the five year mandatory
prison terms would apply to possession of 25 grams of crack
or 250 grams of powdered cocaine. This is not a perfect
solution the sentencing disparity would remain
significant and hard to justify but it makes much more
sense than the current sentencing law.

Now comes the hard part: getting this plan through Congress,
where lawmakers worry that any ``retreat'' in the war on
drugs could be exploited in the next election.

But there is no defense for a policy that squanders
resources and fosters racial discrimination. Congress should
adopt the White House proposal for this overdue revision of
drug laws.