Part I: Federal Statutes & Minnesota State Statutes
Federal Statutes vary based on the drug/schedule, and the quantity of each specific drug/schedule. In addition the penalties for the trafficking of controlled substances will vary dependant on the quantity of the drug/schedule. For example, Cocaine (a schedule II controlled substance) in the quantity of 500-4999 gms mixture will according to the Drug Enforcement Administration will result in the following penalties:
“First Offense: “Not less than 5 yrs, and not more than 40 yrs. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 or more than life. Fine of not more than $2 million if an individual, $5 million if not more than life/ Fine of not more than $2 million if an individual, $5 million if not an individual.”
“Second Offense: Not less than 10 yrs, and not more than life. If death or serious injury, life imprisonment. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if not individual “
Source: U.S Drug Enforcement Administration: Federal Drug Trafficking Penalties (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/penalties.htm [1], accessed 11/05/2007.)
However when the quantity increases, the penalties additionally increase. For example, Cocaine (a schedule II controlled substance) in the amount of 5 kgs or more mixture carries the following penalties as according to the Drug Enforcement Administration:

“First Offense: Not less than 10 yrs, and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 or more than life. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if not an individual. “
“Second Offense: Not less than 20 yrs, and not more than life. If death or serious injury, life imprisonment. Fine of not more than $8 million if an individual, $20 million if not an individual.”
“2 or More Prior Offenses: Life imprisonment “
Source: U.S Drug Enforcement Administration: Federal Drug Trafficking Penalties (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/penalties.htm [2], accessed 11/05/2007.)

Compared and contrasted with the Minnesota Statutes, from my research I see that the only things that distinguish on weather it is a State or Federal law violation is the actual act of trafficking it’s self. For example, let’s say that I have 10 kilograms of meth. I am a drug trafficker (dealer) and I am busted. I would face the same level of penalties on a state level that I would face on a federal level due to mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines. The thing that classifies whether my criminal act is a federal offense of not is based on if I had crossed state lines. For example, if I had trafficked into the state of Wisconsin then it becomes a federal offense.
However, (although still a bit confusing to sort through all this information I have found on penalties.) it appears that federal laws deal with larger quantities of a controlled substance. (So what I need to research further is if the amount of a controlled substance distinguished on it becoming a federal offense even when the act is centralized within a states range of jurisdiction. The in that case can an individual be charged both federally and by the state for the same acts?)
When discussing the rate for Drug Violations in the last two years, surprisingly they have been on the decline both federally and on a state level. According to the DEA in 2003 and 2004 we were at our lowest for Arrest, and then in 2004 we began to see an increase. By 2006 however we began to see another decline in Drug Violation arrests. See the following chart:
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration: State Statistics http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/minnesota.html(accessed 11/05/2007)

The most recent Federal Statistics that I was able to locate on drug violation arrests was from 1999. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “between 1984 and 1999, the number of defendants charged with a drug offense in Federal courts increased from 11,854 to 29,306. As the following chart that includes drug related arrest up until 2004 one will see that there has been a steady incline in Federal Arrests.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#convictions [3] (accessed 11/07/2007)

Part II: Mandatory Minimums and Sentencing guidelines
Does the legislation we have in place both on federal and state levels work to combat an every increasing epidemic? It appears not. Congress intended mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines to target “king pins” and manager in drug distribution networks. In fact based on a pervious research paper about mandatory minimums I have written in the past resulted in the conclusion that The U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime. In addition, he U.S. Sentencing Commission had reported in 2006 that only 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. Where does this leave us? Well More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal and state prison population is due to drug violation arrests.
Drug arrests continue to rise…so is our stategy working? Obviously not and here is why, mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines contain flaws. In addition opponents to these laws protest that these laws are unduly harsh across the board. Others such as proponents, suggests that they are a form of a comprehensive crime control strategy.
When one reflects back on the Criminal Justice system it is clear that many changes have occurred throughout the centuries. It appears that the Enlightenment conception of imprisonment as a general or “all purpose” form of punishment continues to hold sway among the United States Public. This all purpose approach has been advocated by theorists such as David Fogel, Ernest van den Haag, James Q. Wilson, and Ronald Clarke. Collectively they all favored the following:
o Doing away with indeterminate sentencing and its replacement with various forms of determinate sentencing, including sentencing guidelines, mandatory sentences, habitual offender statutes, etc.
The correction system is the last step and an essential component within the criminal justice process. The correctional system is made up of subsystems called institutional corrections and non-institutional systems of which have a large variety of correctional options. In addition the correctional system enforces societies control over its members by holding them accountable for crimes committed and serving as the offenders “punishment”.
The organization of the criminal system could also be referred to as the components of the criminal justice system. A. The police. B. The Courts and, C. Corrections. The federal government and legislation dictates what laws are based on what society deems to be appropriate and non-appropriate actions and behaviors. Based on laws and legislation the court system then decides whether or not a crime has been committed.
Proponents of Mandatory Minimums and Sentencing Guidelines argue that punishment is a means of reforming a criminal, incapacitating criminals from repeating their acts of crime, and deterring others. In addition, punishment serves to deter others from committing crimes, and to prevent the criminal from repeating crimes.
Is it possible that the justifications for mandatory sentencing and minimums guidelines are due to the very fact that in an offender frequently only serves a portion of their full sentence? Justification on the increase of punishment is due to the existence of crime and the need to address the problem. We have increasing punishment due to increasing crime. Hence the need to prevent crime is the justification to increase punishment.
Proponents have expresses the need for comprehensive crime control, and the need to eliminating sentencing disparities many Judges encounter when sentencing offenders. This brought forth the creation of important Crime Control Act’s. First was the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984. The CCA overhauled the federal sentencing system. Second was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1990. The VCCLEA provided funding for law enforcement and crime enforcement measures. For example increasing the number of crimes punishable by the death penalty, and establishing a “three strikes” provision for repeat violent offenders.

Many individuals would not oppose a bill such as the one listed above; however there are other types of crimes where they would argue that mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines have gone way off track. Opponents argue that the poor are swept into the criminal justice system by lack of proper representation for in many cases first time offenses. Many argue that it is a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment under the cruel and unusual punishment clause.
One of the more widely spread controversial issues taking place in America is the war on drugs. There are various offenses that carry a mandatory minimum. For such offenses, the mandatory minimum precludes judges from sentencing at a lower guideline range minimum or from granting a downward departure that might otherwise be available, unless one of two statutory provisions applies.
First, a judge may impose a sentence below the applicable mandatory minimum if the government (the federal prosecutor) files a motion with the court for such sentencing relief because of the defendant's "substantial assistance" in the investigation or prosecution of another person. The discretion to make such a motion rests solely with the prosecutor.
Second, in the absence of a substantial assistance motion, the "safety valve" provision affords relief from any otherwise applicable mandatory minimum sentence for drug offenders who have minimal criminal history; were not violent, armed, or high-level participants; and provided the government with truthful information regarding the offense. In these cases, the court is directed by statute to impose a sentence pursuant to the sentencing guidelines without regard to a mandatory minimum.
According to Caulkins (1997) Prosecutors, not judges, have the discretion to decide whether to reduce a charge, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, whether to reward or deny a defendant's "substantial assistance" or cooperation in the prosecution of someone else, and ultimately, to determine what the final sentence will be.
When we reflect back to the proponent’s argument that these mandatory sentencing guidelines and minimums are a comprehensive crime control strategy we can clearly see that they have had little effect within the war on drugs. In fact according to Susan Turner (2000) “three strikes and truth-in-sentencing laws have had little significant impact on crime and arrest rates. According to the Uniform Crime Reports, states with neither a three strikes nor a truth-in-sentencing law had the lowest rates of index crimes, whereas index crime rates were highest in states with both types of get-tough laws."
Proponents could argue that based on research conducted by numerous sources the drug epidemic in this country is out of control and that action must be taken. For example the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report of 2005 revealed that, “Some 200 million people, or 5% of the world's population age 15-64, have used drugs at least once in the last 12 months.”

Do get tough laws work and are they effective when dealing with the WAR on drugs? Another issue that arises within this debate would be does jail time really help. Proponents would argue yes it does help. Sending individuals away under harsh sentences serves as first a deterrent to others and second incarceration is not just aimed at punishment but as well as reformation. Opponents argue that sending an addict to prison in not the right thing to do. Addicts need to have their addiction addressed in an appropriate setting, and a prison is not what they consider to be an appropriate setting for recovery.
According to Schmalleger and Smykla (2007) the American Correctional Association promotes the development of sentencing policies that should be based on the principle of proportionality and to not be based on race (impartial to race). Opponents could argue this very promotion adamantly. How can sentencing be proportional to a crime when there are mandatory sentencing guidelines and minimums in place by legislature? Again the judge has no other option but to hand down a sentence in accordance to the law which could in effect undermine the very judge we as Americans entrust with overseeing one of our most important Constitutional rights; the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
According to a PBS Frontline investigation (n.d.) 95% of all people that are convicted of felonies give up their right to trial to take a plea barging. This is where opponents claim that the poor are swept “under the rug” by the criminal justice system. This happens due to poor and inadequate state provided defense counsel.
Opponents argue that mandatory sentencing guidelines are harsh across the board. Proponents argue that offenders deserve to have serious criminal sanction; they are guilty when they come into the justice system. Either way this is a controversial issue in need of serious federal and legislative overhauling. As Griest (1991) concludes, “the struggle for justice can in return become a struggle for power.