cannabisnews.com: Senate Adopts Measure To Reduce Cocaine Disparity Senate Adopts Measure To Reduce Cocaine Disparity Posted by FoM on November 10, 1999 at 13:31:30 PT Breaking News Source: San Jose Mercury The Senate voted today to stiffen the penalty for the sale of powder cocaine, bringing the penalty closer to that prescribed for selling crack cocaine. The measure also would increase penalties for sales of all illegal drugs to minors and for selling them near schools and other places where young people congregate.``We must act to prevent our youth from ever starting down the path of drug abuse,'' said the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who wrote the provision.The vote was 50-49 for the measure, which would reduce the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine by tightening the penalty against dealers of the powder. It responds to complaints that a 1996 law making the penalties for selling crack cocaine more stringent than for the sale of powder cocaine has unfairly resulted in harsher sentences for blacks than whites. The presumption is that more blacks use crack cocaine and that more whites use powder.The provision was attached to a major bill pending in the Senate to overhaul bankruptcy laws.Wednesday, November 10, 1999 ©1999 Mercury Center Related Article:Vote Tomorrow on Cocaine Amendment to Bankruptcy - 11/08/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3607.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 10, 1999 at 15:38:59 PT This Is Wrong! Jail Won't Fix a Drug Problem! I am upset about this ruling. I don't know much at all, if anything, about cocaine but I have met people who have had trouble using it but jail wouldn't have solved their problems. It will destroy there whole lives and the family that loves them. Tonight on Nightline!Wednesday, Nov. 10, 1999, 2:25 p.m. ET Inmates who serve their time at Valley State Prison leave through the same door through which they first entered. With handcuffs off, $200 in their pockets and the words “Good luck and don’t come back,” ringing in their ears, each prisoner swears she will begin anew. But that exit door can turn into a “revolving door.” Seventy percent of the women leaving Valley State will return again. Throughout our six-part series, “CRIME & PUNISHMENT - Women in Prison,” Nightline has shown you how inmates cope with life behind bars. In tonight’s final broadcast, we will show you how difficult it is coping with their freedom. Breaking the cycle of crime, drug addiction and unemployment is a difficult task. Valley State’s drug treatment program helps break that cycle. The program offers some hope: recidivism rates for those 256 inmates lucky enough to get in the program has dropped to 20%. But in most prisons, doing time is about punishment, not rehabilitation. As you will learn tonight, that policy comes at an enormous cost to Americans.http://abcnews.go.com/onair/Nightline/nl991110.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Alexandre Oeming on November 10, 1999 at 14:40:33 PT: Genius!!! >``We must act to prevent our youth from ever starting down the path of drug abuse,'' said the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, whowrote the provision.And what did we learn from Vietnam? Something along the lines of, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it?" We've been increasing penalties for the longest time and we've gotten nowhere. Why must we do more of the same and get the same results? Ohhhhh ... the votes! I remember! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on November 10, 1999 at 14:32:36 PT tightening the penalty > ``We must act to prevent our youth from ever starting down the path of drug abuse,'' said the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who wrote the provision.More tripe from Hatch. This bill is about locking adults in PRISON, not about Hatch's propagandistic "our youth". And, oh, by the way ... this article too, "just happens" (by an amazing coincidence) to not mention prison. That would make too many people wonder. Best not to mention incarceration. Just talk about "the children", instead. > The vote was 50-49 for the measure, which would reduce the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine by tightening the penalty against dealers of the powder. I.e. by ratcheting UP the punishments, never attempting to restore freedoms that all Americans once shared. (Restoring to adult Americans the freedoms recently stolen by government is anathema to prohibitionists of Hatch's sorry ilk.)Note also how the issue of PRISION is skirted: euphemized as merely "tightening the penalty." Ask the folks at http://www.november.org and http://hr95.org and http://www.spr.org what "tightening the penalty" really means: more people in prison of non-violent, consensual acts that were never a crime before the 1900s. Made up crimes. Made up to gain control over more people. Made up to be profitable for governments. > The provision was attached to a major bill pending in the Senate to overhaul bankruptcy laws.I.e. by dishonestly slipping in this repression as rider to a completely unrelated bill. Doesn't make much difference anyway: your Senator never reads what he votes on in any event. Just name it something wholesome like "The Safe Children Bill" or some other such rit, and Senator Hairdo will vote for it every time. Because he cares. ''Corruptisima republica plurimae leges.'' [The more corrupt a republic, the more laws.] -- Tacitus, Annals III 27 [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Scott on November 10, 1999 at 13:54:29 PT: Whites use more crack >The presumption is that more blacks use crack cocaine and >that more whites use powder.That's a very false presumption. Whites use more of both. An estimated 1.4 million Americans smoked crack cocaine in 1997, an estimated 910 thousand of those Americans were white, while 340 thousand of those Americans of black, and 85 thousand were hispanic. Source: Department of Health and Human Services, "National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates", 1997, Washington, DC: US Government Printing office (1998), pp 35-37. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: