Crack Vs. Powder Cocaine

[RonM.]

There is a major problem, as I see it, with your plan:
In order for the "assistance" your talking about to be effective the user has to be a willing participant. Because we are talking about ADDICTS they usually are, if not out right opposed to treatment, not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to dramatic change in lifestyle on their own. Drug users do not live in a vacuum. They are aware of the consequences of their actions well before some one says "go get help".

 

[skaught]

Would anyone agree with a program which would allow a reduced sentence for offenders who agree to a voluntary sterilization? Seeing as how the majority of children born to drug addicts will be convicted of felonies, and the moral objections to abortion, would this not be a good tool for reducing the crime rate and the growing income gap between rich and poor?

I think that as soon as a child is born to an addict, that child should be put directly into prison.

 

[Asguard]

There is a major problem, as I see it, with your plan:
In order for the "assistance" your talking about to be effective the user has to be a willing participant. Because we are talking about ADDICTS they usually are, if not out right opposed to treatment, not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to dramatic change in lifestyle on their own. Drug users do not live in a vacuum. They are aware of the consequences of their actions well before some one says "go get help".

how much training in health do you actually have?
do you have ANY idea of what your talking about?

i have posted statisics in other threads which show positive links between high quality mental health (which means FREELY AVILABLE, not costs a fortune) and lowing of drug adiction and increases in complience. Try dealing with the root causes rather than the symptioms for a change. I know this is a difficult concept for the US especially but try it some time

 

[RonM.]

Who was it that was taking advantage of this free health care? people who already decided to quit using? Was it mandated by the courts? and how many people were treated? The population of drug users in the United States is exponentially larger than in the rest of the developed world.

 

[RonM.]

Many would argue that the root cause of drug use is poverty. So if you were really trying to curtail drug use in the long run, would the money required to implement a free high quality mental health care system (which does cost a fortune) be better spent on education? This doesn't even take into account the fact that these mental health professionals are highly trained and are to few in number to attend to the entire drug using community.

 

[Asguard]

really?
you just admited that the US has one of the highest ratios in the world. Now why would that be?

Sure igore the truth that proper mental health can stop drug adiction BEFORE it starts, ignore all polices which WORK. Just lock them up because they are animals right?

 

[RonM.]

The fact is, because the problem in the United States is so pervasive, to say that the taxpayers are going to provided long term medical care for every drug addict is just not practical.

 

[swarm]

but many people also want to rape little children

Actually "many people" don't want those, but way to go to the redherring.

Also those involve harm to other people. If some one wants to do drugs its no different than wanting to free climb, or parachute, or any number of things people do for personal enjoyment which have some degree of personal risk.

Its no one's business but their's if they do and getting the government involved in personal matters is tearing the legal system apart and erroding civil liberties.

 

[swarm]

Either one of them can lead anyone to a ruined life if they get "hooked" on them.

Lot's of things can lead to a "ruined" life. Welcome to the world.

Even though they claim it isn't "addicting"

Who claims it isn't addicting? Its almost as addicting as nicotine.

You'd sell yourself and your family

People sell themselves and their families for all kinds of reasons.

crack is even more powerful

Cocaine is cocaine. It is the means of delivery which makes the difference. Smoked vs ensuffilated. I.V. powder is even worse than crack.

One time you smoke crack is all that is needed to get you "hooked". Coke takes a few more times but

You're just pulling that out of your ass.

Of course chewed cocaine and cocaine tea has been used for millenia.

 

[Neildo]

or this law simply in place because Crack is seen as a cheaper drug that is easier to buy and distribute and is more often associated with poverty and violence?

That's pretty much it. More easily accessible and kills two birds with one stone by removing "lesser" (as in poorer, even if one race may tend to be poorer than another, it's just that most poor people smoke crack, regardless of race) people off the street, plus it's addicting as hell.

The whole War on Drugs is a joke anyways. Only exists to remove civilian entrepreneurs while the government and upper-class elite continue to make money off it. Make money off the funding of the program and make money from them importing and selling it. If you're not connected with those people, expect to be a target. It's just a way to minimize competition. Bush Sr. used Clinton to import drugs to his state to fund the illegal Iran-Contra scheme and that's probably why he later became president for his good work.

The same thing happens with legal marijuana clinics here in California. If you don't have ties to organized crime, government, or aren't a snitch, expect to be raided by the DEA and have most of your plants, money, computers, and documents seized while certain other's around you remain untouched. They all gotta have their money and don't want other's infringing on their business. That's just the way it is. Regular folks act that way, criminals act that way, agencies work that way, corporations work that way, and countries work that way. Who likes to lose money? Who likes competition? Damned greed.

- N

 

[visceral_instinct]

Moderator note: Please do not post recipes for illegal drugs on sciforums, or other instructions on lawbreaking.

Don't worry, man. I refuse to touch anything harder than refined sugar or caffeine.

 

[Baron Max]

If some one wants to do drugs its no different than wanting to free climb, or parachute, or any number of things people do for personal enjoyment which have some degree of personal risk.

But there are governmental/social controls on all of those things.

Its no one's business but their's if they do and getting the government involved in personal matters is tearing the legal system apart and erroding civil liberties.

So you don't think that society should have any control of their own membership? Seems like an odd thing to say, don't you think? ...that society should just allow anything and everything that any of it's members do or want to do?

What is "society", anyway? Just big "thing" to provide things for it's members without exercising any controls over anything?

Baron Max

 

[milkweed]

In thinking about the USA's "war on drugs" and the laws carried out to crack down on the selling and distribution of illegal drugs, what do people think about sentencing when it comes to crack vs. powder?

Where do people stand on this? If Crack is derived from powder Cocaine, why does one drug equal lesser punishment? You cannot have Crack without Powder.

You cannot have hashish without marijuana yet the sentencing of marijuana vs hashish holds the same disparity. 50 grams of crack is almost 2 ounces of product, technically (28 grams = 1 oz). I believe the weights on the streets have changed so it is now, at least considered 2 full ounces of product, if not more. This is not a user possession. It is an Intent to Sell amount.

in 1992, nationally, 92.6% of defendents convicted with Crack possession were Black and only 4.7% were white. By contrast, 45.2% sentenced for powder Cocaine were White while 20.7% were Black.

And your point is what? Is powder cocaine unavailable for the black dealer to peddle?

Do people feel this is a fair law set in place by the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986? Do people feel this is a racial disparity within the US justice system? Is this law racially motivated or this law simply in place because Crack is seen as a cheaper drug that is easier to buy and distribute and is more often associated with poverty and violence?

Please discuss. Attempt to be thoughtful and not racist.

Do white crack DEALERS get lesser sentences or are they under the same mandatory minimums that black offenders face? Dont DEALERS of any color have an obligation to minimize their risk taking behavior?

And thats what we are talking about here, the dealers of this stuff.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I think cocaine should be considered a required nutrient for daily living.

 

[cosmictraveler]

swarm

Lot's of things can lead to a "ruined" life. Welcome to the world.

But this is just another one to be very careful with just as the others are.


Who claims it isn't addicting? Its almost as addicting as nicotine.

You really don't have any idea just how powerful this stuff is do you, there's many people that are "addictive personalities" that can do anything and become "hooked".


People sell themselves and their families for all kinds of reasons.

Treu, but again this is another drug that can make you do that sort of thing so all the better to stay away from it to begin with.



Cocaine is cocaine. It is the means of delivery which makes the difference. Smoked vs ensuffilated. I.V. powder is even worse than crack.

Not really, many crack addicts tell us that they were getting more intense highs from crack than powder and that's one reason they liked it better.



You're just pulling that out of your ass.

Not really, I read allot plus I know that from my own experiances that what I say is true. It is you that needs to do more research into what you think is right but in actuality is incorrect.



Of course chewed cocaine and cocaine tea has been used for millenia.

There's no such thing as "chewed cocaine" but there is coca leaves that are chewed by Peruvian peoples living high in the mountains perhaps that is what you might be refering to? Also there's no "cocaine tea" as well, why do you make this stuff up anyway?

 

[Baron Max]

I think cocaine should be considered a required nutrient for daily living.

"Brave New World"? Hmm, I think I like it ...especially the parts about the women all being quite "pneumatic", huh?

Baron Max

 

[nietzschefan]

Because the CIA doesn't make any money off Crack.

 

[jessiej920]

And your point is what? Is powder cocaine unavailable for the black dealer to peddle?

Obviously, people both black and white can peddle powder, but seeing as, statistically, more minorities live in poverty, it makes sense that they would buy and sell Crack because it is cheaper and because you cut powder with other substances such as baking soda so you can make more rock. More product, more money.

Do white crack DEALERS get lesser sentences or are they under the same mandatory minimums that black offenders face? Dont DEALERS of any color have an obligation to minimize their risk taking behavior?

Whether you are black or white, if you are caught with 50+ grams of Crack you serve a mandatory minimum of 10 years. My original question was, why, if Crack comes from powder (the SOURCE of crack being powder cocaine) is powder cocaine dealt a less severe punishment then Crack.

I was asking people to think about whether or not the laws put in place by the federal Anti-Drug abuse act were racially motivated. It is known that people (the majority being minorities) who live in poverty will buy and sell cheaper product. Why is the less pure product of powder cocaine being dealt a harsher punishment then the source?

 

[milkweed]

Obviously, people both black and white can peddle powder, but seeing as, statistically, more minorities live in poverty, it makes sense that they would buy and sell Crack because it is cheaper and because you cut powder with other substances such as baking soda so you can make more rock. More product, more money.

The reduction in purity is directly related to less cocaine getting into the USA.

They are not making more product, they are cutting less product more to meet demand.

"The first crack house had been discovered in Miami in 1982. However, this form of cocaine was not fully appreciated as a major threat because it was primarily being consumed by middle class users who were not associated with cocaine addicts. In fact, crack was initially considered a purely Miami phenomenon until it became a serious problem in New York City, where it first appeared in December 1983. In the New York City area, it was estimated that more than three-fourths of the early crack consumers were white professionals or middle-class youngsters from Long Island, suburban New Jersey, or upper-class Westchester County. However, partly because crack sold for as little as $5 a rock, it ultimately spread to less affluent neighborhoods."

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html

Whether you are black or white, if you are caught with 50+ grams of Crack you serve a mandatory minimum of 10 years. My original question was, why, if Crack comes from powder (the SOURCE of crack being powder cocaine) is powder cocaine dealt a less severe punishment then Crack.

And I posted an example Hashish vs marijuana with its different judicial standard. You seemed to have skimmed over that.

I was asking people to think about whether or not the laws put in place by the federal Anti-Drug abuse act were racially motivated. It is known that people (the majority being minorities) who live in poverty will buy and sell cheaper product. Why is the less pure product of powder cocaine being dealt a harsher punishment then the source?

And yet you agree that white or black, you get busted with 50 grams of crack your going to pay a higher price judicially than if you get busted with cocaine. Same holds true marijuana vs hashish.

From the link above:
"The crack trade had created a violent sub-world, and crack-related murders in many large cities were skyrocketing. For example, a 1988 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in New York City, crack use was tied to 32% of all homicides and 60% of drug-related homicides. On a daily basis, the evening news reported the violence of drive-by shootings and crack users trying to obtain money for their next hit. Smokeable crack appealed to a new group of users, especially women, because it did not have the stigma associated with needles or heroin, and because it was smoked, many mistakenly equated crack with marijuana."

The laws were not created to single out one population vs another.

 

[madanthonywayne]

agree that white or black, you get busted with 50 grams of crack your going to pay a higher price judicially than if you get busted with cocaine. Same holds true marijuana vs hashish.

From the link above:
"The crack trade had created a violent sub-world, and crack-related murders in many large cities were skyrocketing. For example, a 1988 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in New York City, crack use was tied to 32% of all homicides and 60% of drug-related homicides. On a daily basis, the evening news reported the violence of drive-by shootings and crack users trying to obtain money for their next hit. Smokeable crack appealed to a new group of users, especially women, because it did not have the stigma associated with needles or heroin, and because it was smoked, many mistakenly equated crack with marijuana."

The laws were not created to single out one population vs another.

So there's the answer