Ohio lawmakers and Cincinnati Community Action Now are taking a critical look at a controversial Ohio drug law some say is responsible for sending a disproportionate amount of African-Americans to prison.

        According to Ohio law, those caught with small quantities of crack cocaine are subject to lengthy prison terms, while those caught with large amounts of powder cocaine are more likely to receive probation.

        With help from a bipartisan contingent of state legislators, the mayor's race relations panel is looking for a way to equalize the guidelines.

        Discussions at Cincinnati CAN — a commission formed by Mayor Charlie Luken after the April 2001 racial unrest — have focused on blending the extremes. Small amount of crack, less severe sentence. Large amount of powder, mandatory prison time.

        “We'll equalize it both ways,” said state Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Green Township), one of the lawmakers working with Cincinnati CAN.

        Though far from final, the proposal is likely to ruffle feathers, particularly among those in law enforcement who believe such a plan is soft on crime.

        But for Cincinnati CAN members, who also are analyzing expungement possibilities for first-time offenders convicted of curfew violations during the unrest, that notion couldn't be farther from the truth.

        They say they hope to find ways to restore faith in the criminal justice system, particularly among those who have a mistrust of it.

        Under federal statutes, offenders convicted of having 5 grams — almost two-tenths of an ounce — of crack go to prison for five years. That's the same amount of time as those caught with 500 grams — about a pound — of powder cocaine.

        In Ohio, someone caught with 5 grams of crack could face between one and five years in prison. Five grams of powder is a probational offense with a penalty of six to 18 months in prison.
       

Crack penalties hit blacks
        These laws were established in the mid-1980s when minority activists urged Congress and their state General Assemblies to approve tougher penalties on crack to keep it from ravaging their neighborhoods.

        A derivative of powder cocaine, crack was the cheapest and most addictive narcotic on the streets.

        But as these new guidelines took effect, it became clear that African-Americans were bearing the brunt of the penalties.

        According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 84.2 percent of those convicted of crack possession were African-American. And, on average, they were behind bars five to eight times longer than those caught with powder, regardless of amount.

        The disparity has some of the same people who initially asked for the tougher penalties coming back to lawmakers crying foul.

        They argue that the law segments drug crime by race, because whites and Latinos deal mostly with powder, while African-Americans deal more with its cheaper, concentrated version.

        Lawmakers found themselves caught between two equally undesirable alternatives and were reluctant to change anything immediately.

        Over the years, a number of suggestions have surfaced at the federal level, from eliminating the disparities to changing the ratios required to trigger a mandatory prison term.

        In December, U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested raising the trigger amount for mandatory prison time on crack to 20 grams, or seven-tenths of an ounce, and lowering powder possession to 400 grams, or just under a pound.

        Advocacy groups such as the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project, a nonprofit organization that promotes alternative sentencing programs instead of prisons, contends the proposal doesn't go far enough.

        And if it became effective, it would do little to curb cocaine abuse — or decrease the number of minorities behind bars.

        The only sure way to stop the disproportionate effects, according to the Sentencing Project, would be to install a general mandatory sentence.

        Nevertheless, the Sessions-Hatch plan hasn't made it out of committee.

        Neither has an Ohio bill sponsored by Rep. Sylvester Patton (D-Youngstown) that seeks to end the disparities by increasing the penalties for powder to the level of crack.

        Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen made a point to travel to Columbus to speak in favor of this proposal when it came up last session.

        “I will vigorously oppose anything that lowers the penalty for crack cocaine or powder cocaine,” Mr. Allen said. “It is absolutely the wrong way to go at this time. Crack cocaine is, if not the biggest problem that law enforcement officers face today, it is one of the biggest problems.”

        Mr. Allen added that the Hamilton County Court system handles many more crack-related cases than powder cocaine cases, a statistic backed up by an April report on Cincinnati by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

        The report said that between January and November 2001, Cincinnati law enforcement seized 1,588 grams of powder and 3,963 grams of crack.

        “Crack is killing our inner-city communities, and it absolutely sends the wrong message to lighten up on it,” Mr. Allen added. “I know (Cincinnati CAN members) are well-intentioned. It's just wrong-headed to do this.”

        But retired federal Judge Nathaniel Jones disagrees.

        “It's not about being soft on crime,” he said.

        As a federal appeals judge, he wrote several dissenting opinions on the application of the law, arguing that it was unconstitutional because of the way it was disproportionately applied to African-Americans.

        “This is about having a law that's administered fairly. There is no pharmacologic justification that crack cocaine is any more addictive than powder,” Judge Jones said.

        If injected, experts say, powder cocaine produces a fast, intense high similar to crack.

        “Powder still remains a very widely used drug,” Judge Jones said. “These laws have not reduced drug abuse or the scourge of drugs in our communities.

        “The public has been calling for strict enforcement of the drug laws. (But) it's not the job of the courts to respond to what the majority calls for. The courts must see that laws are applied in line with the Constitution.”

Museum pioneer hopes for learning, healing
Quilt stitches together ideas of 'freedom'
Rise in homeowner costs outpaced income
Showdown this week on 'The Pill'
BRONSON: Deters detour
You Asked For It
Cocaine law scrutinized again
Moeller grads draw money offers
Portune protests secrecy policy
Fairfield schools eye levy for fall
Flag captures Clermont
Garden Party welcomes 'Gatsbys'
Luken proposes race talks
St. Margaret is looking to grow
Budget crisis worries few in Ind.
Families flock to park
More patients being admitted to hospitals
Tarbell pays $10.5K; owed back taxes
Tristate A.M. Report
Ky. still behind on education
Unions want nonmembers to pay fees
Kentucky A.M. Report