The US war on drugs has been a failure by any standard. It has increased the number of nonviolent offenders in prison, cost billions of dollars, and destabilized a number of foreign nations. Most damningly, US drug policies have done very little to reduce the use of drugs.
Unfortunately, as with many political stances, the government has been extremely reluctant to admit failure, which makes Attorney General Eric Holder's latest actions all the more interesting.
While Holder's recent decision regarding mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses is a welcome one, it opens serious legal questions, and also dodges questions regarding the US' long-term policy regarding drug use.
Essentially, Holder has provided prosecutors with the discretion to avoid triggering the mandatory sentencing aspects of a number of laws that are based on the amount of drugs involved in the case.
For example, an individual carrying between 1 and 9 grams of LSD would be subject to a five-year mandatory prison sentence, while 10 or more grams would result in a mandatory 10-year sentence.
Rather than changing the sentencing guidelines, prosecutors will now have the freedom to avoid stating the amount of drugs involved in the case, which will allow them to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences.
One of the worst outcomes of the war on drugs has been the ever-rising levels of incarceration of nonviolent offenders, many of them from vulnerable groups. This not only does not help, but also has led to a growing disenfranchised lower class and higher levels of recidivism among offenders.
By providing greater leeway to prosecutors, some of the worst abuses of these mandatory sentencing guidelines may be avoided.
However, there are a number of drawbacks to the attorney general's decision, ranging from its pragmatic effects to its possible legal implications.
The first drawback is the simplest: What Holder can do today, another attorney general can undo tomorrow.
In fact, Holder's move shows that it is still politically impossible to seek a legislatorial modification of the underlying sentencing guidelines in a nation where the wisdom of the drug war is beyond question for most elected officials even as polls show a majority of the public turning against it.
The second caveat is that this decision represents a dramatic expansion of prosecutorial discretion.
While the intent is to allow prosecutors to be lenient on nonviolent and first-time offenders, it can also easily be used to coerce guilty pleas from individuals in return for the prosecutor refraining from triggering the mandatory sentencing guidelines.
This is especially serious given the fact that federal drug charges disproportionately target minorities and the poor, who often have limited access to skilled legal counsel.
In fact, there is a possibility that this decision may eventually be found to be an overreach of Holder's authority. After all, it is a clear attempt to make an end run around a law passed by the US Congress and signed by the president.
Finally, this decision will only impact a small number of drug offenders, due to the fact that the majority of these cases are tried in state rather than federal court.
While any decision that reduces the number of individuals incarcerated for long periods of time for nonviolent offenses is welcome, Holder's decision fails to strike at the heart of the question.
Even as he announced this new policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration has continued its actions against medical marijuana dispensaries in those states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana.
The failure of US drug policy has been evident for decades, as ever more draconian measures fail to measurably reduce the supply or availability of drugs.
Congress is the only body that can provide the leadership needed to remake US war on drugs into a sensible and humane policy.
Unfortunately, Americans are unlikely to find such legislative leadership any time soon.
The author is a freelance writer based in Corona, California. charlesgray109@gmail.com