BAD SCIENCE AND BAD POLICY

The federal law that mandates harsher prison terms for people
arrested with crack cocaine than for those caught with cocaine powder
is scientifically and morally indefensible. Bills to end the
disparity are pending in both the House and Senate. Democrats who
worry about being pegged as "soft on crime" will have to find their
backbones and push the legislation through.

Congress passed the law during the crack hysteria of the 1980s when
it was widely and wrongly believed that crack - cocaine cooked in
baking soda - was more addictive and led to more drug violence than
the chemically identical powdered form. These myths were soon
disproved. But by then, Congress had locked the courts into a policy
under which minority drug addicts arrested with small amounts of
crack were being sent to prison for far longer terms than white drug
users caught with a satchel full of powder.

The United States Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for
the federal courts, found several years ago that more than 80 percent
of those imprisoned for crack offenses were black.

The tough sentencing guidelines also drive drug policy in the wrong
direction - imprisoning addicts for years when they could be more
cheaply and effectively treated in community-based programs. An
analysis by Senator Richard Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois, estimates
that ending the sentencing disparity could save the country more than
a half-a-billion dollars in prison costs over the next 15 years.

In the House, a bill that ends the disparity has been voted out of
committee but has yet to go to the floor. The Senate bill is having
trouble attracting support, including from Democrats. It is time to
finally put aside crack myths and hysteria. This isn't a question of
being soft on crime. It is an issue of fairness and sound public policy.