Should We Change Penalties for Crack Cocaine Crimes? And Other Drug Disparity Questions Answered

ANSWER: There is a common misconception that crack is more addictive than powder cocaine. In reality, neither is more addictive than the other. They are, as the United States Sentencing Commission points out, “both powerful stimulants, and both forms of cocaine cause identical effects.”

That said, there is evidence certain methods of cocaine administration can increase frequency of use and heighten related addiction risks. This is likely because of a person’s desire to repeat more immediate, shorter, and more intense “highs.” Methods like smoking—which is more easily and commonly done with crack cocaine—and injection—which is rare but more often associated with powder cocaine—can produce these experiences.

However, the method of cocaine use is just one risk factor among others in accounting for cocaine addiction: existing mental health challenges and marijuana, alcohol, and/or opioid dependencies are also key variables. Additionally, individuals who use crack cocaine more often live in marginalized communities with limited access to prevention and treatment for addiction compared to others grappling with substance abuse. Ultimately, precisely quantifying the difference in the method of use or many addiction risk factors to determine the appropriate punishment for crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine is next to impossible.

ANSWER: Passing the EQUAL Act would not compromise community safety. Individuals resentenced under more proportional penalties for crack cocaine had nearly identical recidivism rates than those with longer sentences. More consistent penalties for crack cocaine in federal law since 2010 have not led to an increase in this drug’s use. More than 40 states combat substance abuse without treating crack cocaine and powder cocaine differently in their sentencing structures. In fact, we hope that savings in reducing overincarceration accrued from sentencing reforms like the EQUAL Act can be invested into community policing, solving violent crime, and other strategies that bring safety and prosperity to vulnerable communities.

ANSWER: We believe both powder and crack cocaine offenses demand accountability, including through incarceration where appropriate. We also believe punishments should be proportional, consistent with biblical values.

Given that crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, the same proportional punishments should apply to equivalent amounts of crack and powder cocaine. This change would still hold people accountable, but without the damage of unjustly long crack-related sentences, which undermine trust in the justice system and contribute to the breakdown of families and communities.

Inconsistent federal penalties for crack and powder cocaine are an ineffective tools for curbing drug crime. Harsher federal sentences for crack cocaine from 1986 have not reduced crack cocaine use or increased the price of crack cocaine. In fact, these penalties have mostly affected less significant actors in drug distribution chains—people who are often struggling themselves with addiction and who can often be easily substituted by criminal networks. The disparity has contributed to overincarceration and racial disparities in the justice system—all while failing to keep community safe.

ANSWER: Crack cocaine use is not a predictor of violence. Differences between violent conduct among users of crack cocaine and powder cocaine, in fact, “were almost uniformly statistically nonsignificant” when key socioeconomic and health factors were considered.

The violence associated with crack cocaine in the 1980s when the federal disparity was enacted was not caused by the drug itself. Rather, this decade saw the abrupt expansion of drug markets in impoverished, predominantly Black communities and corresponding violent conflict between sellers.

In the 1990s, there was a dramatic reduction in urban violence as drug purchases were conducted privately away from volatile street markets, economic growth provided opportunity for at-risk youth, and law enforcement targeted illegal gun possession.

The recent homicide spike in American cities during COVID-19 requires bold policy remedies; however contemporary urban violence is less connected to violent conflict and instability within drug and crack cocaine markets.

Violent crime, whether independently or in connection to drug distribution, is a serious problem that demands accountability. We should pursue focused actions against violent conduct and not rely on indirect and disproportionate penalties that increase overincarceration and racial disparities in our justice system.

ANSWER: We believe the current sentencing scheme for crack cocaine is disproportional for all Americans. At the same time, the current disparity in how federal law punishes crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine crimes has a particularly serious impact on Black Americans.

Why is this? Crack cocaine is more widely used in marginalized communities of color, which also experienced more punitive responses to crime and addiction. Because of this, Black Americans more sharply experience the costs of the sentencing disparity. In the years after Congress enacted the federal crack cocaine disparity, the average federal drug sentence for Black defendants was 49% higher than the average for white Americans. In 2019, 81% of defendants convicted of federal crack cocaine distribution were Black. These lengthy federal prison terms and their consequences—weakening family structure, limiting economic opportunity, and discouraging rehabilitation—are uniquely concentrated among Black Americans.

James J. Ackerman, president and CEO of Prison Fellowship, has stated,

The Bible tells us in Proverbs 11:1, God has no tolerance for dishonest scales, whether it’s in the marketplace or the justice system. We have seen the impact that injustice has had on communities. We believe as Christians that we are to act to correct injustices. The bipartisan introduction of the EQUAL Act in the House reflects the diverse and urgent momentum to finally end this glaring example of racial injustice.

Often, the dynamics of racial impact in the criminal justice system are complex and difficult to solve. Here we can take a concrete step to diminish injustice, and we need to do so.