Hillary Clinton's new anti-crime plan is a typical example of schizophrenic drug war policy-making. First, she gets it right on the crack/powder sentencing disparity:
Those things are all frustratingly true, and perfectly typical. What I find truly amazing is that Clinton literally proposes the creation of a sentencing disparity for meth, while in the same breath calling for parity in our cocaine laws. The pink meth hysteria of 2007 is every bit as absurd, if not more so, than was the great crack panic of 1986. I thought we'd all come to terms with the concept that disparate punishments for different forms of the same drug is bad policy, and yet here we are repeating the mistakes of the past just as quickly as we correct them.
At the federal level, Hillary will reform mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, starting by eliminating the mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine and eliminating the disparity between crack and powder cocaine.Then she dives headfirst into full-blown meth hysteria, buying into the absurd candy-flavored meth mythology, and proposing a federal methamphetamine sentencing disparity:
Make it a federal crime to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance â including meth â that is colored, packaged, or otherwise altered in a way designed to appeal to kids and young people. Last year, the DEA reported that drug dealers are coloring meth crystals and giving them names like "Strawberry Quick." The crystals resemble "pop rocks" and other forms of candy. One goal of dealers is to try to lure in young customers "by making meth seem less dangerous." Hillary will sternly punish any dealer or trafficker of meth that colors, packages, or otherwise alters the drug to appeal to young people.Nevermind that the candy-meth story has been proven to a be a wild exaggeration. Nevermind that it is a textbook case of DEA fear-mongering, volleyed along from gullible reporters to political demagogues, eventually producing the intended effect of people like Clinton offering more money and power to the DEA. And nevermind that this is probably what she meant last week when she said the DEA has "more important work" to do than interfere with state medical marijuana laws.
Those things are all frustratingly true, and perfectly typical. What I find truly amazing is that Clinton literally proposes the creation of a sentencing disparity for meth, while in the same breath calling for parity in our cocaine laws. The pink meth hysteria of 2007 is every bit as absurd, if not more so, than was the great crack panic of 1986. I thought we'd all come to terms with the concept that disparate punishments for different forms of the same drug is bad policy, and yet here we are repeating the mistakes of the past just as quickly as we correct them.
(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Add new comment