Congress justified this 100-to-1 sentencing disparity by stressing the serious social harms with which crack use was associated. Although crack and powder cocaine are the same chemical substance, crack sells more cheaply on the street and can be smoked, which induces a briefer, more intense intoxicating effect. It came into widespread use only in the mid-1980s and was associated with violent street crime. In the summer and fall of 1986, press reports sparked growing popular and congressional concern about a crack "epidemic." http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-drug-abuse-act-1986
The judges aren't being racist in their sentencing they are following the law. The law was passed on emotion not reason. It was a tragic mistake trying to curb behavior through more stringent sentencing. Sadly so few of our lawmakers understand economics, even the simplest of economic principles such as supply and demand and price motivation seem to be beyond them.
Because of the price of crack, it is easily distributed to the poor. The drug harms the poor and minorities farm more than whites.
Should we be allowed to use drugs? I think we own our bodies. However Crack seems to harm the poor disproportionately. Instead of this harsh law, is there a better way to stop it? I don't know. Rehab isn't going to work. Crack is unbelievable addictive and affordable. Sure there aer lots of coke-heads but the price helps curb behavior.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
35 lines a day! (The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986)
Date: 16/3/10 14:49 (UTC)The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
Congress justified this 100-to-1 sentencing disparity by stressing the serious social harms with which crack use was associated. Although crack and powder cocaine are the same chemical substance, crack sells more cheaply on the street and can be smoked, which induces a briefer, more intense intoxicating effect. It came into widespread use only in the mid-1980s and was associated with violent street crime. In the summer and fall of 1986, press reports sparked growing popular and congressional concern about a crack "epidemic."
http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-drug-abuse-act-1986
The judges aren't being racist in their sentencing they are following the law. The law was passed on emotion not reason. It was a tragic mistake trying to curb behavior through more stringent sentencing. Sadly so few of our lawmakers understand economics, even the simplest of economic principles such as supply and demand and price motivation seem to be beyond them.
Because of the price of crack, it is easily distributed to the poor. The drug harms the poor and minorities farm more than whites.
Should we be allowed to use drugs? I think we own our bodies. However Crack seems to harm the poor disproportionately. Instead of this harsh law, is there a better way to stop it? I don't know. Rehab isn't going to work. Crack is unbelievable addictive and affordable. Sure there aer lots of coke-heads but the price helps curb behavior.