Posted on 06/01/2005 10:58:56 PM PDT by neverdem
Congress spawned a national trend toward discriminatory sentencing when it drew a false distinction between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine for law enforcement purposes during the 1980's. Crack is simply powdered cocaine cooked in baking soda. The theory at the time - that it was more addictive and generated more violence than powder - was later proved false. By then, however, Congress had made crack the only drug that mandates a sentence for a first offense and fixed high sentences for people caught with relatively small quantities.
This mistake has resulted in a racially biased sentencing policy, since crack users are mainly black and Latino, while powdered cocaine tends to be a drug of choice for affluent whites. This system was emulated by the states, and its blatant unfairness undermines respect for the judicial system in communities of color.
The United States Sentencing Commission has repeatedly urged Congress to deal with this shameful problem by reducing the sentencing for possession of crack to bring the two more in line. But Congress has rejected this idea, for fear of being seen as "soft on drugs." State legislatures have generally been paralyzed by this same fear.
Nevertheless, the argument for fairness is finally being aired in several states, including California, South Carolina and Connecticut. Both houses of the Connecticut Legislature have passed a bill that would bring crack and powdered cocaine sentences into line. Gov. Jodi Rell is equivocating on whether she will sign. She has the chance to demonstrate to the people of the state that she has the strength of character to do something that has no discernible political advantage, simply because it's the right thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They should all simply be treated equally strict.
The entire alleged war on drugs is nothing but welfare for the criminal injustice industry. Leeches in blue uniforms, blue suits, and black robes.
Great, here's PubMed. Please show me a study. Who showed that speed in which the mind altering effects of the same compound produced more addiction with crack as opposed to cocaine?
In this paper, we present new estimates for the risk of becoming cocaine dependent within 24 months after first use of the drug ... Use of crack-cocaine and taking cocaine by injection were associated with having become cocaine dependent soon after onset of use.
Your point still stands, because like you say, I doubt there's any purely physiological differences between crack and cocaine, but there might be differences due to the way it is introduced to the system... Crack is smoked and inhaled, right? Maybe that makes a difference.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I haven't read anything that the mode of administration makes a difference, other than the anecdotal reports that one inhalation of smoked crack will cause the loss of inhibition to another encounter with crack or cocaine. I believe it is an urban myth from the war on drugs.
I believe the war on drugs is hopeless. Look at alcohol prohibition. There's too much money to be made with any black market, and I'm not writing about Black folks. It's any color. Penal codes only enrich law enforcement agencies at the cost of the Bill of Rights. The bar was lowered before Sep 11, 2001. Now it looks worse with the Patriot Act and its progeny. The only clue that I hope the government will buy is more laws with sunset clauses and re-evaluation, like the past, national "Assault" Weapns Ban.
My grammer mistakes were not due to cocaine abuse, just sleep deprivation.
You're right, of course, but let me offer an analogy. The war on terror is like the war on mosquitoes: we'll never eliminate all of them, all we can do is kill them down to a tolerable level.
The war on drugs is not really to "win", but to keep the problem down to a tolerable level.
That having been said, under the principle of individual freedom I might support legalizing drugs if, BIG IF, no government money went towards rehabilitating those who get themselves hooked on the stuff. But liberals would want it both ways: let anyone who wants to get stoned but have government pay for (mostly failing) attempts at rehab., and pay and pay and pay.
Come visit and I'll introduce you to several.
In the age of the net, I was hoping for citations from the professional literature, not anecdotal appeals to emotion, the way politicians try to get elected and well intended laws are made, regardless of consequences.
Check out:
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methylecgonidine, a crack cocaine pyrolyzate. [J Pharmacol Exp Ther] 2003 Dec; Vol. 307 (3), pp. 1179-87.
Methylecgonidine and ecgonidine can be used as biomarkers to differentiate smoking from cocaine use via other routes of administration.
Apparently smoking it does affect certain chemical properties of cocaine, and produces a different physiological response.
Thank you for the citations, but I still don't see references that crack is more addictive than cocaine, or methamphetamine for that matter. Besides that, however well intentioned, minorities see it as another facet of racism.
I'm sure we could play Dueling Studies for quite some time, and where would I find a study on conditioning, habituation and addiction?
Here's the basics: For any addictive substance: The quicker and more intense the high, the more addictive the drug is. Smoked cocaine reaches the brain in seconds, 60-100 faster than snorted and produces much more intense rush - and a shorter high. Faster addiction and tolerance, and more compulsive drug-seeking behaviour result.
You do the math; or ask any drug counselor or ex-crackhead.
There are lazy and racist cops. Lord knows I've seen both. And there was a book and a movie about corruption in drug enforcement in my little county.
But it's not so much why they bust, but who they bust, how often.
As far as minorities seeing it as racism: 1) Some see breathing as racist; 2) Good people who live in crack neighborhoods (speaking from personal experience here) want the cops to bust MORE. 3) Raise the penalty on power if that's your concern.
[power = powder]
However, evidence exists showing a greater abuse liability, greater propensity for dependence, and more severe consequences when cocaine is smoked (cocaine-base) or injected intravenously (cocaine hydrochloride) compared with intranasal use (cocaine hydrochloride). The crucial variables appear to be the immediacy, duration, and magnitude of cocaine's effect, as wall as the frequency and amount of cocaine used rather than the form of the cocaine.Dorothy K. Hatsukami, PhD; Marian W. Fischman, PhD
JAMA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.