In the 1980s, crack cocaine exploded onto the urban scene, taking not just individuals, but entire families and communities hostages. Violence became commonplace as gangs and dealers fought over customers and turf, ‘crack heads’ became as much a fixture in urban communities as churches and corner stores. Today, there is a new "drug of choice" -- methamphetamine or meth.

Both law enforcement officials and mainstream media call meth America’s most dangerous drug. All of the attention has led lawmakers to come up with necessary solutions to this serious dilemma.

Now, it seems that meth users, by way of the criminal justice system, are getting the help they need to get their lives back on track while, historically, crack use has been punished with stiff criminal sentences.

Meth, made from a substance found in over the counter cold medications, is relatively cheap and, if a seller can’t be found, can be made at home with recipes available on the internet. There’s no denying that the drug’s cheap price and accessibility make it a threat.

But both drugs are highly addictive and equally dangerous. Why the disparity? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the face of meth is overwhelmingly white.

While the crack epidemic isn’t limited to just one city or one neighborhood, there is no question communities of color were hit especially hard as the drug’s popularity grew. In an attempt to curtail the problem, the government enacted stiff drug penalties. Crack cocaine is the only drug for which a first offense of possession carries a federally mandated minimum sentence -- five grams gets you a minimum of five years. Sure, some crack addicts were sent to treatment centers but, for the most part, crack use was -- and is -- treated as a crime.

Despite the fact that the majority of crack users in this country are white, the public face of crack has always been black or brown. Ninety-three percent of those sentenced to prison for crack-related offenses are black and Latino. When white crack users are arrested, statistics show they are rarely prosecuted. If they are, they are less likely to be convicted. When convicted, they receive shorter sentences in lower security prisons or are sent to rehab -- evidence that white drug users are given a chance to turn their lives around while most addicts of color are criminalized.

Much like their crack-addicted counterparts, the predominantly white users of meth appear to be getting preferential treatment as well. States like Illinois, Indiana and Montana are building special "meth units" within prisons to specifically house and treat meth addicts, and new laws will allow judges to sentence individuals convicted of meth-related crimes to drug treatment prisons.  

When policymakers first heard of the perils of meth, their original reaction was to enact stiffer drug penalties. Wisely, they seem to be moving away from that; perhaps the failed war on crack has taught them that criminalizing drug addiction only overcrowds prisons, costing taxpayers billions.

Let’s hope that, instead of increasing "meth budgets," federal agencies will use all of their resources to treat all drug addicts. Instead of setting up "meth prisons," state and federal government can fight the drug war by putting their  energy towards creating drug treatment programs that work, doing away with mandatory minimums and restoring judicial discretion so addicts can get the help they need.

---

Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.