The War On Drugs

This is long overdue. The discrepancy between sentences for possession of similar amounts of crack and powdered cocaine is a disgrace and a relic of crime-filled paranoia from the 1980s. From the article:

Under current law, it takes 100 times as much powdered cocaine as crack to trigger the same mandatory minimum sentence.

No matter how tough on drugs you are, that is indefensible. Some advocate increasing the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of powdered cocaine to be in line with that applied to possession of crack, but I prefer the approach taken in the new legislation offered by Senator Durbin. The mandatory sentence for possession of crack should be decreased.

The "War On Drugs" is a giant money pit that does little good for society and I'm pleased some legislators are starting to realize this. We need to reevaluate the way we approach drug use and addiction in this country. Crimes like armed robbery and homicide should of course be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of whether or not drugs are a factor. However, putting people in jail for "possession" simply wastes resources, especially for possession of marijuana. Moreover, it puts people with no violent past in the same cells as those incarcerated for violent crimes. I fail to see how putting someone who got high in his dorm room in the same room for months as someone who committed a home invasion helps society.

Sadly, facing up to these problems in our criminal justice system just doesn't appear to be something our government is capable of, no matter what party is in power. Any effort to change policy opens up politicians to charges of being "soft on crime." The best hope is that as some states liberalize their drug laws, the trend may catch on and one day the federal government will act as well.

Until then, we'll have to comfort ourselves knowing that one ludicrous, revolting part of the "War On Drugs" might be at an end. It's a start.