One of the most grievous inequities of our legal system is the drug sentencing laws. And one of the most blatant examples of bias is the sentencing guidelines for crack versus powder cocaine. Chemically speaking, there is very little difference between crack and powder. One is not more dangerous nor more addictive. Yet federal sentencing regulations for possession of crack, used predominantly by blacks, are significantly harsher than for coke, used predominantly by whites.

Last month the U.S. Sentencing Commission finally recognized the unfairness, and recommended that the lengths of sentences be adjusted appropriately. Kudos to them.

A very closely related issue is the 100-to-1 crack vs powder disparity. Current federal penalties for selling 5 grams of crack warrant the same prison sentence as dealing 500 grams of powder.

When a Virginia man pleaded guilty to distributing more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, the Federal sentencing guidelines called for 19 to 22.5 years behind bars. But the judge only sentenced the defendant to 15, citing the injustice of the law. Prosecutors appealed. A higher court ruled that the Federal sentencing guidelines were mandatory.

Today, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only, siding with the first judge and giving federal judges discretion to set crack cocaine sentences below those of the federal guidelines. It essentially allows judges to use their wisdom and compassion again, to make sure that sentences are just given the circumstances of each case.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. *rolls eyes* Kudos to the other 7 judges. This ruling brings us one step closer to true legal racial equality. And it is another step in restoring my faith in the Supreme Court.