Erwin Chemerinsky on Crack

UC Irvine Law Dean Opines on a Topic He Knows Nothing About





Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the UC Irvine Law School. He is considered (by some) to be one of the foremost constitutional law experts in the land. Possibly, but an expert on drugs he is clearly not as evidenced by this op-ed he wrote that is running in Wednesday's Orange County Register. Here he argues that California should reduce the penalties for those convicted of selling crack cocaine as has been done at the federal level (a topic for a separate discussion). His thesis is that crack is essentially no more harmful than cocaine hydrochloride (powder form) and that blacks and Latinos are disproportionately affected by sentencing disparities.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cocaine-615001-crack-powder.html

As a retired DEA agent, I take exception to Dean Chemerinsky's argument that there is no appreciable difference between crack and powder cocaine. The reason for the difference in sentencing has been that crack is, indeed, a more insidious form of the drug. The process by which crack is produced, while simple, is a further refining of the cocaine itself removing any impurities or "cut". When smoked, it produces a faster and more intense rush, which lasts a shorter amount of time and more rapidly produces addiction.

As to sentencing disparities, Chemerinsky could have framed his sentencing arguments better had he argued that crack producers and dealers are at the lower end of the trafficking pyramid as opposed to producers and traffickers of cocaine hydrochloride in mass quantities when it comes to the financial profits. That is true. It would make more sense to attack sentencing guidelines on that basis rather than the racial breakdown. It is in the inner city neighborhoods where crack has been traditionally produced, as contrasted with powder cocaine, produced in Latin America. Those who produce crack and sell it on the streets have been predominantly African-American and more recently Hispanic. It also follows that the chief victims of crack have been African-American/Hispanics.  I would wager that there are a lot of folks in the black and Hispanic communities who applaud seeing crack producers and dealers put away for long periods given the damage done to their families and communities. In drug enforcement, in spite of all the conspiracy theories, we don't care about the ethnicity of the violator. In my DEA career I arrested just as many whites as any other ethnic group. In the end, Chemerinsky is reduced to advocating for shorter sentences as a way to turn more offenders back onto the streets to reduce our prison population and save money-without regard to the costs of putting these people back on the streets. As it is, California is releasing tens of thousands of violent criminals including pedophiles back into our communities as we speak. We hardly need any more.

At any rate, with all due respect, Mr. Chemerinsky doesn't know what he is talking about when he argues that there is no appreciable difference between crack and powder cocaine.  If he wants to get a true picture of what crack has wrought in the inner city, he should climb down out of his ivory tower and go see a crack house for himself. It would be an education for him.