S. 1789, a bill to bring equity to the sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine, was supposed to be brought up for a committee vote in December. Yesterday, it was supposed to be brought up for a vote, but was delayed again when Senators went over time on previous business. Now consideration of the sentencing equity bill is scheduled for Thursday, February 4. This time, it’s liable to be voted on, since it’s the first bill on the agenda.
I’m not now and never have been addicted to illegal drugs, so my interest in sentencing disparity isn’t personal. There are good reasons to support S. 1789 (also called the Fair Sentencing Act) if no one in your family has been hauled off to prison for 10 years for a pocket full of crystals. There’s the justice angle: the crack form of cocaine is used more often by black and brown people while the powder form of cocaine is used more often used by white people. Guess which form of cocaine leads to long sentences for small amounts? Guess which form of cocaine leads to probation or short stays in minimum-security facilities? There’s the empirical angle: crack cocaine is not, as was believed, more addictive than powder cocaine. Then there’s the civic angle: when some groups of people are physically removed from society and disenfranchised for using a drug in one form while other groups of people are not because they use the drug in a different but no-less-addictive form, the disparity fosters inter-group antagonism and shuts down the participation in civil society upon which democracy depends. Sentencing disparity issues are separate from ideology: whether you’re for a draconian drug war or against it overall, sentence-reduction for crack cocaine should appeal to fair-minded people on the left and the right, should be easy to implement, and can bring relief to an over-stuffed prison system and the Americans shoved down the crack cocaine prison hole.
In the last week, S. 1789 has gained a new cosponsor: Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He’s not a member of the Judiciary Committee, but every new supporter in the Senate brings some extra momentum to the bill. It’s concerning that only a minority of the Senate Judiciary Committee has cosponsored S. 1789. More support is needed if the bill is to pass out of committee.
I’ve listed them before, but I’ll list them again. The following members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have not cosponsored S. 1789. Click through the links provided with their names to call their offices and express your opinion regarding the bill:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
It’s not too late to help push this bill through and tip the scales of justice back in the direction of balance.
speaking of disparity in sentencing guidlines…
the minneapois daily paper, the star/tribune, reported a man facing a forty year prison sentence for cultivating up to one thousand marihuana plants. same paper reported the conviction of a woman for killing a pedestian while driving drunk. her sentence? eight months in the workhouse and probation.
think about that. eight months for killing someone and forty years for growing pot.wow!
Wow, that’s interesting. And if you think about it in the same context as being “energy independent”, this guy was protecting the homeland by reducing our need for foreign weed and not feeding the drug cartels that are such a trouble in some countries. This guy should get an award or something.
Billy, you make a really good point there, and it’s one of the reasons that I think illegal drug use is a bad ethical idea: so much of the stuff is controlled by people who are really violent and, hello, tossing people who resist them into vats of acid! It’s just not worth it to me so I can feel extra stupid and goofy every once in a while.
IF people are going to smoke pot, then like you say it’s so much better for it to be regulated and for people to know who’s responsibly, nonviolently, domestically growing the weed.
if people are going to use crack cocaine it would be much better for it to be regulated, also. need i remind you that people were defending turf with vats of acid and such way back in prohibition days, when alcohol was the illegal drug that allowed people to feel extra stupid and goofy once in a while. do you think alcohol is a bad ethical idea? where would we be without the repeal of the 18th amendment? the violence that stemmed from prohibition can not be blamed on alcohol any more than the violence of drug cartels can be blamed on marihuana. we could end this violence with the reform of the drug laws. the incarceration of non-violent criminals for victimless crimes needs to be stopped. the misuse of vast sums of american tax dollars fighting a never ending war on the proclivities of a small portion of society has to end. you say you never used illegal drugs, or at least were never addicted to illegal drugs, well and good. you think illegal drug use is a bad ethical idea. so, if these drugs were legal, would it be less of an ethical problem for you? i don’t believe you would rush out and jump on the hard drug bandwagon if they were all of a sudden legal, nor would the majority of americans. being addicted is a problem regardless of the legality involved. i know one thing for certain, the solution for addiction is not incarceration and all the laws in the world will not erase the need of some to feel extra stupid and goofy once in awhile.
jim, what i think is a bad ethical idea is to make certain drugs a crime and others socially acceptible.
Like, if acetominophen is cool, then benzene pills should be great, too?
yeah, like that. only, i doubt people would resort to those if real drug awareness programs were availible.
but, yeah,like that. only, i doubt benzene and acetominophen (what is acetominophen,anyway)would become socially acceptable if safer alternatives were availible.
but, that is exactly the logic behind the mindset of young users when the realize they have been scammed about the harmful effects of pot, leaving them to find out on their own which other drugs the government misinformed them about. if this is cool, hey!
Ramone,
I’m not saying the drug war is a good idea. Try to keep multiple ideas simultaneously aloft: 1) the drug war is bad, 2) addiction is bad, 3) inequality in punishment is bad, 4) buying merch from people who use your money to buy vats of acid for torture is bad. These are not opposing ideas.
i believe we are on the same page, i’m just a few paragraphs ahead.
i’m trying to convince you to take up the cause.
OK. I’m with you on the drug war being a sham. It was the opportunity for authoritarians to create a lot of government abuse that has since seeped over into other areas of government interference with our lives.
i’m not now and have never been addicted to illegal drugs, but, i have been a target in the war on recreational drugs, so, i do take a personal interest in sentencing disparity. our prison population is exploding, holding something like 60% of inmates for the victimless crimes associated with the drug war. sentence reduction for crack cocaine users will alleviate only a very small portion of the injustice that the drug war has imposed. however, i’m writing my senator to let her know that it would be a grand gesture towards justice if crackheads could get a fair shake in our courts. i might also mention to her the absurdity of the drug war in general.
I was wondering if this bill going to be retroactive for the inmates that are already locked up????