Local police forces, realizing that they were losing the war on crack, turned to the federal government for help. In an attempt to help police regain control of inner-city streets and protect innocent citizens from the destructive tendencies of the crack culture, Congress passed new laws aimed at removing crack dealers from society.

In 1986 Congress established mandatory minimum sentences for convicted dealers, responding to public outcry that judges sentencing cocaine and crack offenders were too lenient. Lawmakers made a distinction between powdered cocaine and crack: The mandatory minimum sentence for possession of five hundred grams of powdered cocaine was five years in prison. The same sentence was mandated for possession of just five grams of crack.

Although the stated objective of these mandatory minimum sentences was to reduce the amount of cocaine and crack available on the street, the laws generated a great deal of controversy. First, many community leaders question whether harsher sentences for crack offenses have actually reduced the volume of crack. According to the NHSDA, there are about six hundred thousand regular crack users in the United States and this number has remained stable for the past ten years. Some believe that the stabilized rate is evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing has been successful. On the other hand, those who believe that the minimum standards have not been successful argue that the number of crack users should have dropped rather than remained stable.

Second, some charged racism was a factor in leveling harsher sentences on offenders locked up for crack possession, who were predominantly black or Hispanic, than on cocaine offenders, who were more often white. According to David T. Courtwright, professor of history and health sciences at the University of North Florida, “The result was that, by 1993, federal prison sentences for blacks averaged 41 percent longer than those of whites, with the crack/powder distinction being the major reason for the difference.”

Opponents of mandatory minimum sentences argue that the laws are racist because the fact that most crack dealers and users are minorities means that the harsher mandatory minimum sentences affect minorities disproportionately. Journalist Jann Wenner, founder of Rotting Stone magazine, summarized the sense of racism in the sentencing disparity in the following observation:

I certainly think they [the laws] should be reexamined — and the disparities are unconscionable between crack and powdered cocaine…. The Republican Congress was willing to narrow, but not eliminate, them on the theory that people who use crack are more violent than people who use cocaine. Well, what they really meant was that people who use crack are more likely to be poor and, coincidentally, black or brown and, therefore, not have money. Whereas, people who use cocaine were more likely to be rich, pay for it, and therefore be peaceable.

Supporters of minimum sentences counter the racism allegation by pointing out that crack is a factor in more violent crimes than cocaine is. Moreover, supporters contend, minority residents are often the ones who summon the police to make arrests and to close down crack houses.

Although opinions differ on the value of mandatory minimum sentencing in controlling the crack epidemic, there appears to be universal agreement that something has to be done to intervene in the destruction of families caused by crack use.

Incoming search terms:

• mandatory minimums too lenient
• current mandatory minimum for ecstasy
• federal minimum for mdma
• federal minimum mandatory for ecstasy
• federal minimum mandatory sentence mdma
• mandatory minimum sentences for a vial of acid
• mandatory minimum sentences racism
• milton friedman minimum sentencing
• sentencing for possesion of powder ecstasy