Source: https://www.cliftonlawgroup.com/blog/the-continued-disparity-between-crack-and-powder-cocaine-in-federal-sentencing-.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:49:53+00:00

Document:
The Continued Disparity Between Crack and Powder Cocaine in Federal Sentencing.
In simple terms, crack cocaine and powder cocaine are the same substance yet in different forms. However, it is far worse to be prosecuted for crack cocaine than powder cocaine. There is an 18:1 disparity bewtween the weight of the crack or poweder cocaine when calculating a federal base offense level. For example if a defendant pleads guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine), involving a total of weight of 20.6 grams. The base offense level for 20.6 grams of crack cocaine is twenty (20). The base offense level for 20.6 grams of powder cocaine is twelve (12). There is an extreme eight (8) level disparity in this case between crack cocaine and powder cocaine which could result in possibly several more years in prison if caught with crack cocaine. You can see this by looking at the Federal Sentencing Table here.
...To continue the history, the Sentencing Commission, even before Kimbrough and Spears were handed down, recognized its earlier mistake and recommended in 1995 that Congress remove the disparity altogether, establishing instead a 1:1 ratio between crack cocaine, in comparison to powder cocaine. This, the Sentencing Commission concluded, should be done even assuming, arguendo, that crack cocaine, in comparison to powder cocaine, might produce a more rapid “high,” might be conducive to more addictive behavior, and might even be associated with more violence, because, in the Commission’s view, such effects, if any, materially varied in individual cases and hence could be better dealt with by the application of specific enhancements to individual defendants rather than by imposing an across-the-board disparity between crack and powder weights.
Thereafter, the Commission made further attempts to rectify its original error, without success. Further still, the Department of Justice, in 2009, itself advocated the adoption of a one-to-one ratio, again without success.
Finally, however, in 2010, in what can only be regarded as a political compromise having no empirical rationale, Congress reduced the crack-to-powder cocaine disparity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1, where it currently stands. See Fair Sentencing Act, 124 Stat. 2372.
You can view this case in it's entirety at United States v. Gardner.
The Gardner court presided over the resentencing of a defendant convicted of offense’s involving 3.6 kilograms of crack cocaine. The court ultimately found no rational support for the 18:1 ratio, and consequently applied a 1:1 ratio and treated the quantity of crack cocaine attributed to the instant defendant’s offenses of conviction as if it were the equivalent quantity of powder cocaine under the Guidelines.
I would argue that a court should follow the reasoning of numerous courts across the country and find the 18:1 ratio disparity is unjustified and there is no reason crack cocaine should be scored higher than powder cocaine. The defendant’s criminal history and propensity for recidivism should not play a role in the Court’s determination of his base offense guideline calculation. There is no good reason why a defendant should face several more years in jail for a different form of the same substance. As quoted above, the Sentencing Commission and numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have concluded there is no rational basis for such a disparity when dealing with the same substance. The chief directive of § 3553(a) is that the court “shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes identified by Congress in § 3553(a)(2). Under § 3553(a)(2)(A), a sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offense. If the Sentencing Commission and numerous courts agree that there is no good basis for different sentences between crack and powder cocaine, then the crack penalties overstate the seriousness of crack offenses. Therefore, a court should not follow the overstated guidelines in regards to the 18:1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine.
 Numerous other courts have reached a similar conclusion. See e.g., United States v. Williams, 788 F.Supp.2d 847 (N.D.Iowa 2011); United States v. Whigham, 754 F.Supp.2d 239 (D.Mass. 2010); United States v. Wiliams, 2010 WL 1325229 (S.D.Ill. Mar. 30, 2010); United States v. Lewis, 623 F.Supp.2d 42(D.D.C. 2009); United States v. Gully, 619 F.Supp.2d 633 (N.D. Iowa 2009); Henderson v. United States, 660 F.Supp.2d 751 (E.D. La. 2009); United States v. Medina, No. 08CR256-L, 2009 WL 2948325 (S.D.C.A. Sep. 11, 2009); United States v. Owens, Crim. No. 08-48 Erie, 2009 WL 2485842 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2009).

References: v. 
 § 3553
 § 3553
 § 3553
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.