DRUG SENTENCE DISPUTE MISSES BIGGER POINT

It is, perhaps, a signal that our national lawmakers do not really
expect to win the war against illicit drugs when the biggest dispute
in Washington concerning dope is how to end the wide difference
between mandatory prison sentences for possession of crack and powder
cocaine.

Here's the disparity that lawmakers are fussing about:

The law requires a five-year prison term for anyone convicted of
possessing 5 grams or more of crack.

But a person has to be found guilty of holding at least 500 grams of
powder cocaine to fall under the same mandatory five-year prison term.

Critics of the current law contend that the wide difference results in
minorities and the poor going to jail for jail while allowing the more
upscale users of the costlier powder cocaine to go free.

Defenders of the current law respond that there is, indeed, a
difference between crack and powder. They claim that crack is more
addictive and is associated more with violent crime, and thus warrants
the stiffer penalty.

It would seem that the arguments could be boiled down to a simple
choice: Should the penalties for powder cocaine be raised to match
those of crack, or should the penalties for crack be lessened to match
those of powder?

It hasn't happened for a single reason: Cheaper crack is used more by
poor people, while more expensive powder is used mainly by richer people.

There is an irony here that cannot be overlooked. Instead of debating
ways to stop both rich and poor from killing themselves with cocaine,
our lawmakers are instead vigorously arguing whether some cocaine
users are not being treated as fairly as other cocaine users.

Still another irony emerged recently when the Senate tucked into a
bankruptcy bill a measure that would lower the threshold at which
powder cocaine offenders would go behind bars.

Supporters said it would end the sentencing disparity. Opponents said
it would further crowd prisons and introduce more racism. The
assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based
advocacy group, said, "Two-thirds of powder cocaine offenders who
would now go to prison under this amendment are Hispanic whites."

The solution, the Sentencing Project spokesman said, is "locking up
fewer crack offenders, not locking up more powder offenders."

Supporters of the Senate cocaine measure say drugs are illegal,
regardless, and getting tougher is the answer, not getting more lenient.

A law school professor and former member of the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, wants the difference maintained. "Treating crack and
powder cocaine the same, that would be a distortion," he said. "The
same weight of powder and crack represents more doses of crack than it
does powder."

And so the argument continues -- but no longer about the best way to
rid the country of this dread stuff.

Instead, we accept using it as inevitable, and joust over whether
prison sentences for users are being fairly handed down.

This is not our country's finest moment.