Most Long Overdue Crime News Ever?

CONGRESS PASSES BILL TO REDUCE DISPARITY IN CRACK, POWDER COCAINE SENTENCING DISPARITY

From WaPo:

Congress on Wednesday changed a 25-year-old law that has subjected tens of thousands of African Americans to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the powder form of the drug.

The House, by voice vote, approved a bill reducing the disparities between mandatory crack and powder cocaine sentences, sending the measure to President Obama for his signature. During his presidential campaign, Obama said that the wide gap in sentencing "cannot be justified and should be eliminated." The Senate passed the bill in March.

The measure changes a 1986 law, enacted at a time when crack cocaine use was rampant and considered a particularly violent drug. Under the law, a person convicted of crack cocaine possession got the same mandatory prison term as someone with 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The new legislation reduces that ratio to about 18 to 1.

The bill also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack, the first time since the Nixon administration that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence. It does not apply retroactively.

This is exceedingly welcome news, even if it does mean I have to revise my cocaine unit for my drug policy class this fall!

I know that many folks are displeased that the ratio wasn't equalized at 1:1, but given the highly-charged political nature of the federal cocaine sentences, I think we should be happy that the disparity was cut by a factor of five. It's progress, no doubt.

I'm surprised not to find a lot of commentary on the legislation from around the blogosphere (save for this post from Outside the Beltway, a political science blog). I did find a related article about the War on Drugs and America's new racial caste system at The Crime Report that is worth a read.

I will update with more commentary as it becomes available.

MAJOR Development in Federal Cocaine Sentencing Policy

For a couple of years now I have been lecturing in my drug policy class about the 100:1 ratio in federal cocaine sentence laws. Each time I teach the class, we discuss the likelihood (heretofore rather remote, I think) of the ratio being reduced.

But slow changes have been occuring.

First came news in December 2007 that the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to retroactively apply an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines reducing sentences for crack cocaine offenses.

Then this past Thursday, the Senate passed a bill to reduce the federal cocaine sentencing ratio from 100:1 to 18:1. This is astonishing news:

In unusually quick action, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine just a week after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it. For 24 years, the law has punished crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1. Julie Stewart of Families Against Mandatory Minimums says it was the the first time since the Nixon administration that the Senate voted to repeal a mandatory minimum sentence.

Here's more analysis from NPR:

After more than a decade of debates, hearings and lobbying, the Senate has passed a bill to change the punishment for possession of crack cocaine.

The bill had strong support from both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. While the current law punishes crack users 100 times more heavily than powder cocaine users, the new Senate bill brings the 100-to-1 ratio down to 18-to-1...

Now the House must decide what to do. A House committee has already approved a bill that treats crack and powder identically. The full House could adopt the Senate's 18-to-1 sentencing ratio or push for the House bill with a 1-to-1 ratio.

It is difficult for me to contain my excitement over this news. I am anxiously awaiting the House's response.

Stay tuned...

P.S. Yesterday I e-mailed the students in my current drug policy class with an update about the Senate bill. This morning I received a response from one student describing "what a rush" it was for her to be learning about these issues in class and then be poised to witness actual legislative change of the type we've been discussing all semester. I have to say, it made my day to know that even one student is paying attention to -- let alone excited about! -- crime policy. What more can a crim prof ask for?!

Big News About Federal Medical Marijuana Policy

Although 14 states have passed laws legalizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, marijuana is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I narcotic, and thus remains illegal at the federal level. However, today the Obama administration announced that federal officials will not target medical marijuana users who comply with their states' laws:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes...

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law...

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

This is a smart, long overdue move, and hopefully is the first tiny, baby step on the path toward reclassifying (or declassifiying) marijuana, which has no business being a Schedule I drug.

P.S. I would like acknowledgment for resisting the urge to begin this post with the following taunt: "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"