THE WRONG WAY TO DRUGLAW REFORM

Federal drug laws that force judges to impose mandatory minimum sentences
for possession of crack and cocaine were supposed to give the government a
new weapon in the war against international drug traffickers and other
big-time dealers.

But because of glaring disparities in these harsh sentencing rules, the
laws have filled the prisons with addicts and non-violent drug offenders
and clogged the federal courts with minor drug cases.

Some members of Congress have finally acknowledged that federal crack and
cocaine laws haven't worked as intended, but their proposed fix takes the
wrong approach.

Under current federal law, judges are required to impose a five-year prison
sentence for any defendant convicted of possessing 5 grams (much less than
an ounce) of crack.

To receive the same sentence, a defendant found guilty of cocaine
possession would have to be caught with at least 500 grams (more than a
pound) of powder cocaine.

Civil-liberties groups have argued that the 100-fold difference makes the
law inherently discriminatory, because poor, minority defendants are
disproportionately convicted and sent to prison under the more stringent
crack guidelines. Federal judges also have criticized the laws, claiming
the mandatory sentencing rules strip them of any discretion to consider
mitigating circumstances when sentencing defendants for drug crimes.

The laws also have clogged the federal dockets with cases that should be
tried at the state level.

To remedy the problem, the Senate is considering legislation that has been
billed by supporters as a measure that would eliminate the disparities
built into federal drug sentencing laws, specifically those that apply to
crack and cocaine.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., and attached to
the Senate's bankruptcy bill, would lower the weight of powder cocaine that
draws a five-year mandatory minimum sentence to 50 grams and lower the
weight that draws a 10-year mandatory minimum to 500 grams.

Lowering the cocaine threshold is a backward approach. Rather than relieve
pressure at the federal level, the measure would sweep even more small-time
offenders into the nation's federal prisons, further burdening a system
that already is ill-equipped to provide the treatment and services
necessary to rehabilitate non-violent drug offenders.

A more sensible idea, one supported by Attorney General Janet Reno and
White House drug czar Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, is to reduce the disparity
by raising the weight standard for crack rather than lowering it for powder
cocaine.

Several bills, now stalled in the House, take this approach.

Congress passed the current law in 1986 to quell public outcry about the
violence associated with the crack epidemic that plagued America's inner
cities at the time. Since that time, scientists have determined that crack
is no more addictive than cocaine and that crack users are no more likely
to behave violently than those who take the powder form of the drug. In the
past few years, crack use has stabilized, and the violence associated with
crack dealing has decreased. So should the penalty for possessing a few
grams of
it.