Are Addictive Drugs Legal in America?

It appears that the United States has become much more permissive of illegal drug use unlike never before. Many people are confused, and are asking, "are addictive drugs legal in America?"Across the world jails are filled to the max, economies have gone into recession, and a war on drugs with no end in sight continues to be fought. In the United States, the Obama administration has recently announced that registered cannabis dispensaries will no longer be raided by federal authorities; this is a pretty big deal considering that Marijuana is still classified as an illegal drug. Just about anywhere you go in the western United States you can see the marijuana trend exploding; more and more states are accepting or considering Marijuana as a legitimate medicine. The hope is that relaxed marijuana laws in the U.S. will have a heavy toll on the Mexican cartels. Cartels make most of their money from trafficking and selling marijuana.

The trend is happening all over the world, countries are not looking at drugs in the same way they once did. Governments are relaxing their laws regarding many different substances. The Economists reports that, "from heroin 'shooting galleries' in Vancouver to Mexico's decriminalization of personal possession of drugs, the Americas are suddenly looking more permissive. Meanwhile in Europe, where drugs policy is generally less stringent, seven countries have decriminalized drug possession, and the rest are increasingly ignoring their supposedly harsh regimes. Is the 'war on drugs' becoming a fiction?" This goes beyond just medical marijuana; many states are considering full on legalization of marijuana and are having serious discussions about it.

It appears to be a new era all over the world regarding the war on drugs. I have to wonder if we are being too hasty, many countries are trying to determine how all narcotics from cannabis to crack can be regulated. There needs to be a limit to all the legalization talk and we need to remember that drugs ruin people's lives and if they are not monitored appropriately then there will be chaos. There is certainly a problem with drug policy throughout the world, but, how we alter those policies needs to be done carefully.

Abolish the Disparity Between Penalties for Powder and Crack Cocaine

President Obama pledged in his campaign to abolish the disparity between penalties for powder and crack cocaine. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress now agree that crack sentencing rules need to be altered; and this may be the year that ball starts rolling in Congress. The idea that powder cocaine is safer than crack cocaine is a simply wrong, since 1986 the "100-to-1" drug ratio rule has been in place. This rule has been responsible for judges dealing extreme sentences for over 20 years, no second chances or opportunities for those convicted of selling or possession of crack. Unfair is the only word that can be used for the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Naturally, drug dealers should serve time for their actions, but, the 100-to-1 rule is unjust and needs to be reformed as soon as possible.

According to Time.com "the mechanism is known as the "100-to-1 drug ratio," which gives crack cocaine 100 times the weight of powder cocaine. Under the ratio, a person convicted of selling five grams of crack — about the weight of a teaspoon of salt — triggers the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine, roughly the weight of a loaf of bread. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer believes that something needs to be done about the unfairness in the Judicial system. "The criminal-justice system must be fair, and it must be perceived as being fair," Breuer says. "The 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder is perhaps the single worst symbol of unfairness in the system. There really is no longer any basis for it." Reforming punishment is something that has been long overdue and it is great that people are wising up to the fact that there should not be discrepancies in punishment between cocaine powder and crack cocaine.

There is another aspect of this story that needs to be addressed regarding the Department of Justice not taking a position on retroactivity, but, Breuer says the issue is "being looked at hard". Doing away with the "100-to-1" rule would be a great move in making a fairer justice system; however, if the retroactive sentencing is not granted it would leave a lot of people already serving lengthy sentences in the same position. Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums said "it would be cruelly ironic not to make that change available to the very people whose cases led our lawmakers to make this decision".

If old laws are smashed and new laws are formed, those new laws should trickle down to everyone regardless of when they were sentenced. The "100-to-1" rule was not fair to begin with and getting rid of it would lose its value if retroactivity is not a concern when passing new laws. If the justice system is only fair for some people then it is not fair for anyone and that is unacceptable; exceptions and exclusions should not have a place in the Judicial system with regard to people that were punished for the same crime but given different sentences. Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based reform group, asks: "If we've been doing something that's unfair for 23 years now, don't we have an obligation to address that unfairness?"