sorry dude wrote:
I thought it had to do with the rate of violent crime associated with crack as opposed to powder cocaine users. Don't remember where I heard this.
Also, white people get the same sentence for crack use as minorities.
Well, you're partially right. It did have to do with violent crime...but not the ACTUAL RATE of violent crime among crack users, but the PERCIEVED RATE of violent crime of crack users. The image of scary cracked out black guys in the inner city is what drove the sentencing guidelines.
The idea that crack use leads to violence has been debunked by a series of studies, most notably this one:
"Crack in America", by Reinerman, C. and Levine H., University of California Press (September 1997)
The perception of crack is that it is an inner city drug, predominately among African Americans. Nevertheless, whites account for 66% of the crack users. Granted, white make up a greater % of the population than African Americans, but the PERCEPTION is that crack is a "black" drug is quite false. (Source: National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health)
In terms of sentencing - yes, it's true that white people get the same sentence for crack possesion as black people. But oddly, despite the statistics above that show that whites make up the majority of the users of crack, nearly 95% of the sentences handed out for crack have gone to African Americans or Hispanics. That should tell you something right there.
Furthermore, the mandatory 5 year sentence for crack possesion comes from holding only 5 grams of crack - equal to 5 sugar packets of crack. To get the same sentence for cocaine possesion, you have to be holding 500 grams - or more than a pound of cocaine.
The mandatory sentencing law is an absurd one, driven by fear mongering - and while not overt racism - a belief that the "scary drug user - probably black - is going to rob/kill/rape you."