PERSPECTIVES ON DRUG POLICY : Attacking Crack Where It Lives : Prosecution guidelines are based on protecting communities most ravaged, not targeting any racial group.

Critics of the federal government’s war on illegal narcotics trafficking have seized on a new angle: reckless allegations of racism. Focusing on Congress’ stiff penalties for selling crack cocaine and on statistics indicating that most federal crack defendants are African American, these critics conclude that African Americans are being prosecuted in federal court solely because of their race. Conversely, they contend that white crack dealers are all sent to state court, where penalties are lower.

What nonsense. The U.S. attorney’s office prosecutes only those whose crimes are serious enough to meet the office’s high thresholds for drug quantity and aggravating factors--thresholds designed to ensure that scarce federal resources are spent where they will have the greatest impact.

In the Central District of California, the most populous in the nation, guidelines for prosecuting crack trafficking are among the highest in the nation. Federal law enforcement focuses on criminals trafficking in large quantities of crack, criminals involved in crack-related violence, criminals using firearms to conduct their drug dealing and criminals with prior felony convictions. These guidelines guard against selective application of federal laws to the low-level user or possessor of crack.

Instead, the federal focus is on protecting communities most ravaged by the violence associated with crack trafficking. If the murder rate in Beverly Hills were as high as South-Central’s and there was evidence that crack trafficking contributed to that violence, the government would concentrate its resources there.

Crack has not ravaged the white neighborhoods of Los Angeles and other cities. But it has devastated the African American neighborhoods. Just ask the residents of those communities. Compton police chief and lifelong resident Hourie Taylor said recently in court papers that street gangs in that city started trafficking in “huge volumes” of crack in the mid-1980s, that drug trafficking “was one of the major factors causing the high level of violence we experienced in our community” and that federal law enforcement assistance has been “extremely helpful to the Compton Police Department and to our community as a whole.”

That’s why the federal government focuses its limited resources on communities whose residents have suffered the most from the destructive impact of crack. Those residents are largely African American, as are the criminals who terrorize them. That’s why most crack traffickers in federal court are African Americans. True, a small percentage of whites are prosecuted in state court for using, possessing or selling small amounts of crack. But there is no evidence of statistically significant numbers of whites dealing crack in quantities sufficient to meet federal guidelines. During nearly four years as a state court judge, I saw hundreds of crack cases, few white defendants and none dealing in quantities of drugs customarily seen in federal court.

Consider alternative strategies. If federal prosecution thresholds were lowered, some whites could be prosecuted federally, though hundreds more African Americans would be as well. Recognizing this inevitability, even the severest critics of federal drug policy do not champion that alternative.

Or, the federal government could abandon crack enforcement altogether, thus treating crime victims in African American communities as less deserving of federal protection than others.

Or, prosecution thresholds for crack could be set at different levels depending on race, to achieve a “race-balanced” pool of defendants. Or, a quota could be imposed on the number of defendants of any race to be prosecuted.

The best option is for the federal government to protect those communities most victimized. The penalties are harsh and they fall hardest on those prosecuted, just as the ravages of rampant drug dealing and its attendant violence fall hardest on the innocent residents of those communities. But Congress set those penalties. The avenue to any change is through Congress.

Prosecutors are not legislators, and may not decline prosecution because a sentencing scheme stirs controversy. Should discretion be exercised? Of course. This office exercises its discretion by accepting only those cases that meet objective guidelines--cases likely to have the greatest positive impact on the most affected communities and to rid those communities of the law-breaking few who destroy the safety and quality of life for the law-abiding many.

Just ask Police Chief Taylor.