Fight to Ease Drug Terms Unlikely to Gain Ground

As a result of the U.S. war on drugs, Nicole Richardson, a 20-year-old student from Mobile, Ala., will serve 10 years in prison for helping her boyfriend arrange a deal to sell LSD. Michael Irish, a 44-year-old carpenter from Portland, Ore., will serve 12 years because he accepted an offer to unload a boat carrying a shipment of hashish. And Keith Edwards, a 20-year-old New Yorker, will serve 10 years because he sold an informer two ounces of crack cocaine.

The three of them, along with thousands of other first-time offenders, have run afoul of the extraordinarily stiff anti-drug laws enacted by Congress since 1986.

Under these laws, it does not matter that an arrested person had no criminal record, possessed no weapon, did not engage in violence or was only a bit player in an illegal drug transaction.

Regardless of extenuating circumstances, the laws set “mandatory minimum” sentences that are triggered solely by the weight of the illegal substance involved. The mandatory punishment for possessing or selling five grams of crack cocaine, about one-fifth of an ounce, for example, is five years in federal prison. If the amount is two ounces of crack or more, the person gets 10 years. No excuses. No parole.

Lately, though, these tough sentencing laws are coming under sharp criticism. While low-level drug offenders do hard time, the argument goes, violent criminals remain on the streets.

Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), chairman of the House subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, has introduced legislation to repeal the “mandatory minimum” laws, and even Atty. Gen. Janet Reno says she is troubled by stiff, automatic punishments for first-time offenders. She notes that in her home state, Florida, prison wardens had to release some violent criminals early to make room for drug offenders.

But it is unlikely the Clinton Administration--fearing a “soft on crime” label--will support any effort to change the laws.

BACKGROUND: Support for tough drug laws has waxed and waned. In 1956, Congress cracked down on drug trafficking with the Narcotic Control Act and imposed a series of mandatory prison sentences. But in the 1960s, many began to question whether long prison terms for drug crimes were justified or effective. In 1970, Congress repealed virtually all of the mandatory penalties.

But as drug use expanded dramatically in the 1970s, states began to enact their own “mandatory minimum” sentencing laws. A key moment came in June, 1986, when basketball star Len Bias died in suburban Washington from an overdose of crack cocaine.

Within months, Congress, supported by the Ronald Reagan Administration, enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which set automatic punishments for various drug crimes. Although sponsors spoke of attacking “drug kingpins,” the penalties also applied to low-level participants in the illegal drug business.

Now, drug crimes are often punished more harshly than assaults and robberies.

OUTLOOK: While Congress is considering the Administration’s anti-crime bill, no one predicts that the automatic drug punishments will be eased.

During the summer, the House subcommittee on crime held a hearing to listen to critics of the mandatory minimum penalties, but the key Democrats, including Chairman Charles E. Schumer, began by announcing they still support the current laws.