22 years ago on June 19, 1986, College Basketball star Len Bias had it all. He was a pretty good basketball player. Scratch that. He was a pretty great basketball player. I mean he was going to be like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing. He was supposed to be the next big player. He was drafted by the Boston Celtics, who had just won the NBA Championship and he would undoubtedly continue to lead the team to further greatness. Then he died of a crack overdose.
When a tragedy like this happens – especially to one so young talented and full of life as Len Bias – it triggers a lot of solemn, negative emotions in a lot of people. This is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately, in this case, the negativity of it all did not end there. In this case people used those negative emotions to deal further harm. It was following this incident that Congress took swift action to pass a 1:100 sentencing ratio of Crack to regular powder Cocaine. This meant that while possession of 5 grams of Crack triggers a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, the same sentence is triggered when one possesses 500 grams of Cocaine in the powder form.
Given that a big-time celebrity had just died of the drug, a crackdown on Crack may have seen like Conventional Wisdom at the time, but it is definitely far from Common Sense. Crack and Cocaine are the SAME drug! They are grown from the SAME plant, trafficked in the SAME shipment and delivered to the SAME buyers at the SAME time. The difference between the two is the form that it takes and the manner in which it is typically ingested. Crack is typically smoked. Cocaine is typically snorted. The drug is of varying levels of danger to the one who ingests, but this depends mainly on factors such as purity and whether it has been cut/laced. The form that it is in is not the issue. It’s actually all Cocaine and only the final part of the process is what converts it into the Crack form.
Let’s go aside and do a case study for a moment, shall we? Let’s say that there is a local dealer in a big American city – for example, New York. Let’s say he has 499 grams of Cocaine and is on his way to sell it to local street customers, gangs and regular buyers. Some of his buyers are minors – not an uncommon occurrence for this kind of situation – he is not eligible for a mandatory sentence at the moment. But if he sells 5 grams of Cocaine to a customer and that customer decides to convert the substance into the Crack form, than that customer is now eligible for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, regardless of the situation. Also, 50 grams of Crack triggers a ten-year sentence, as does 5,000 grams of Cocaine. In other words, one could have nearly ten times as much Cocaine as one would need to get a ten-year sentence with Crack and still not have any mandatory sentence. This disparity is definite stupidity! And for the past 22 years, America has lived with this law passed on impulse in the aftermath of Len Bias’s death.
Aside from this specific law, I would say that I’m not really a fan of mandatory minimum sentences in general. I mean, I understand that sometimes you need to cut through bureaucracy – God knows how much red tape I’ve had to squeeze myself through in my lifetime – but when it comes to courts of justice, the number one priority should be, well, justice. Duh! Every case is unique and a fair trial is necessary to come to a fair solution. With mandatory minimum sentencing due process is thrown in the trash can and no lawyer or judge is able to intervene.
There are a couple of bills pending that may correct this awkward and unfair situation of ours with the crack powder cocaine disparity. Some options completely undue the disparity begun in 1986, setting the ratio at 1 to 1. Others compromise at 1 to 20 (25 grams of crack vs. 500 grams of powder cocaine.) There is a bill that would remove the ratio – but by lowering the threshold for powder cocaine to 5 grams! That would be bad – our prisons would be clogged beyond end with small-time dealers and people just looking to get high. There is a previous resolution which was introduced by Joe Biden – creator of the Drug Czar position and Vice President-Elect of the United States – which is S. 1711, the Drug Sentencing Reform and Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007. The title expresses the desire to target large dealers (with over 500 grams) rather than waste resources on small-time crooks. If a drug warrior like Biden is behind the idea of eliminating the disparity and restoring the pre-1986 situation, then I am optimistic about the situation.
It will have to be past the dawn of the next congressional session before any movement is taken on this issue now. I am hoping to see the disparity eliminated. Pathological impulses on events like the overdose of Len Bias should not be considered the basis for rational lawmaking. In fact, he may not have overdosed at all if there were no War on Drugs. Since the drug trade was driven underground, hard drugs like heroine and crack have become more “purified” and, thus, dangerous. Often one assumes that if one overdoses than one must be an addict. The thing is, drugs come in varying degrees of hardness, even if it is the same drug. One hit of crack can kill someone while ten hits of crack might not if it is less pure. The sharp rise in purity began in the 1970s. Len Bias may even have been trying the drug for the first time and accidentally picked up a fatal shipment. If the War on Drugs were ended and Personal Responsibility in the matter allowed, purity levels would be regulated and there would be a much safer atmosphere.
