The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ( Public Law 111-220) was an Act of Congress that was signed into federal law by U.S. President Barack Obama on August 3, 2010 that reduces the disparity between the amount of and powder needed to trigger certain penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. Similar bills were introduced in several before its passage in 2010, and courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage. The implemented the initial disparity, reflecting Congress's view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder. In the decades since, extensive research by the and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the sentencing disparity is unwarranted.

Jan 26, 2009 - When the use of crack cocaine became a nationwide epidemic in the 1980s and '90s, there were widespread fears that prenatal exposure to the drug would produce a generation of severely damaged. Toshiba Emanager Windows 7 here. Another daughter, born after Ms. Recovered from drug and alcohol abuse, is thriving now at 3. May 16, 2013 Contact information： www.dxcncrouter.com www.jndexian.com.cn emma@jndexian.com.cn. スキャンした魚の画像を元にして、簡単に立体的な魚のメダルを作成します。 http://www.type3.jp.

Further controversy surrounding the 100:1 ratio was a result of its description by some as being biased and contributing to a for crack cocaine offenses. Legislation to reduce the disparity has been introduced since the mid-1990s, culminating in the signing of the Fair Sentencing Act. The Act has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and non-profit organizations have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and complete elimination of the disparity (i.e., enacting a 1:1 sentencing ratio). Further information: The use of increased rapidly in the 1980s, accompanied by an increase in violence in urban areas. In response, the included a provision that created the disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same penalties for the possession of an amount of crack cocaine as for 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.

The law also contained minimum sentences and other disparities between the two forms of the drug. Sentencing disparity and effects [ ] In the three decades prior to the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possessing crack cocaine faced much more severe penalties than those in possession of powder cocaine.

While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a person holding powder cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he or she held five hundred grams. Similarly, those carrying ten grams of crack cocaine faced a ten-year mandatory sentence, while possession of one thousand grams of powder cocaine was required for the same sentence to be imposed. At that time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the high ratio: crack cocaine was more addictive than powder cocaine; crack cocaine was associated with violent crime; youth were more likely to be drawn to crack cocaine; crack cocaine was inexpensive, and therefore more likely to be consumed in large quantities; and use of crack cocaine by pregnant mothers was dangerous for their unborn children. A study released in 1997 examined the addictive nature of both crack and powder cocaine and concluded that one was no more addictive than the other. The study explored other reasons why crack is viewed as more addictive and theorized, 'a more accurate interpretation of existing evidence is that already abuse-prone cocaine users are most likely to move toward a more efficient mode of ingestion as they escalate their use. The commented, 'There was never any scientific basis for the disparity, just panic as the crack epidemic swept the nation's cities.' Powder The sentencing disparity between these two drug offenses is perceived by a number of commentators as racially biased.