For the past 15 years, no one - NO ONE - has suggested that federal powder cocaine mandatory minimums are too light. Now that legislation has been introduced to make crack sentences equal to powder sentences, some are suggesting the powder thresholds should be lowered. What?!?!
Keep in mind that when the drug safety valve was expanded in the First Step Act just 3 years ago, no one expressed any concern that this would allow more powder defendants to get shorter sentences. (We did hear that about fentanyl.) Most people who support reform acknowledge...
that weight alone isn't a good proxy for culpability or role. So why now do we only hear about the need to toughen powder sentences when an effort is made to adjust crack penalties to equalize them? Seems so disingenuous. Could it be because cocaine is a growing problem?
Not if you look at the most recent U.S. Sentencing Commission data. Of the 16k federal drug trafficking cases in 2020, only 7.3% were for crack and 16.6 were for powder. Contrast that to meth, which accounted for 46.1 percent of convictions. Nearly half for meth!
And guess which drug right now carries the toughest penalties? Of course: meth. Meth's mandatory minimum threshold is still 5 grams. 5 years for 5 grams! So, the toughest penalty is being applied to the drug that is getting more popular.
Anyone who thinks our federal drug sentencing scheme is working is not paying attention. And those who recognize that we need to improve this system should not support "reforms" that increase the number of people subject to federal mandatory minimums. #EndTheDisparity
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
