Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I Want Some Crack!
In class on Tuesday, we reviewed previous journals and somehow the topic of comparing the amount it takes to be imprisoned with cocaine versus crack. The argument was made that one can be jailed for having 50 mg of crack but it takes 500 mg of cocaine; (I may be getting the language wrong but you can see the basic idea here) the underlying issue being that crack is primarily abused by African Americans and cocaine by predominately white people and thus an injustice exists. Perhaps we should look at the pathophysiology of this law: first, how much blow does it take to make rocks? And can one get physically higher with less crack than powder? What we really need is the precise pharmacokinetics of crack versus cocaine! Seriously though, the more I thought about this the more ridiculous it seemed; are we actually arguing that it’s not fair to the black addicts that the white addicts get away with more smack!? Or the law is tougher on black addicts than white?! You should be ashamed if this is truly how you think, stop diverting responsibility and focus on action, not reaction. Did the crackhead get more time than the cokehead? Maybe, and was it less fair? Probably, but at the end of the day was the one guy still busted for smoking crack? If you want justice to exist, then advocate for people to be law-abiding; this is not a problem with “the man”, this is a you problem! Really want this to go away? THEN STOP SMOKING CRACK!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Actually as the professor said crack and cocaine have the same chemical properties therefore they are the same. Each one would get you just as high, if used in the same amount. It truly is a discrimination in the law. Although I admit it is true to say that African American addicts could just stop smoking crack. Though this also would be saying that if a caucasian commits a crime he is not to be penalized as heavy as an African American. This is not justice no matter which way you look at it. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime in order to have true justice, this is by no means the case. For an example: If a law said that you would be charged three times greater if you stole a Sean Jean outfit than if you were to steal a Tuxedo from Saks Fifth Avenue or Men's Wearhouse this would clearly be a discrimination. I think you should be able to get the moral of the story.
I don't believe that the two drugs are the same. What would be the point, if they get you the same high? Crack is much stronger and much more addictive than Cocaine. I may be wrong, but this is my point of view from my interactions with narcotics. I have never done either, but from the people I know that have, Crack is much stronger than Cocaine. I dont believe that it is a racial issue with the penalties, I think it was that way because the drugs are different. Just because they both contain cocaine, that doesnt explain the fact that other things are mixed in to highten its power.Either way, the drugs are illegal and should not be done.
Well professor already did research on it therefore I don't have to. They are chemically identical therefore one couldn't get you more "higher" than the other. If take a banana and smash it then eat it, it is still a banana. The physical properties have changed but the chemical properties are identical. You may "think" otherwise but that isn't science.
Well I'm sorry, from what I thought cocaine was mixed into a pot of water and baking soda and cooked then cooled with ice cubes. Im not sure, but other things can be added changing its chemical properties like the baking soda. Research is good, but experience is better.
This argument may have some basis but it is not a strong argument. First, I will tell you that I am a law enforcement officer and have actual experience dealing with addicts and the laws that govern the use of illegal drugs. I will also include some of my “field research” here and break down the demographics of the addicts I have arrested. First, crack cocaine is more dangerous than powder cocaine in that it is inhaled as opposed to snorted. The effect of inhalation is immediate. This allows the user to have a more intense high, faster and by using less actual cocaine than someone snorting powder. So, it can be considered a more dangerous drug. The second error I noticed in reading the comments was in regard to jail time. Possession of cocaine in any form and any amount is a felony, which equals at least an initial arrest however the sentencing penalties may be different. I will also tell you that our legal system and jails are so overworked that you really have to be a repeat offender or serious dealer to get prison time. As far as the demographics are concerned, I have made countless arrests for possession of crack cocaine and they have been about 50/50 white/black. I am sure if I worked in an area that was more black than white, my stats would be different. I have only made one arrest of an elderly black man for possession of powder cocaine. Wasn’t it powder cocaine that was claimed to be the drug of choice for whites and the law was devised so they could receive reduced sentencing? Crack is a widespread problem. Crack itself sees no color. It is a societal poison that affects mostly lower income neighborhoods, however, I am constantly surprised by the kinds of people I catch holding crack. Maybe when the laws were first written, and crack was a new phenomenon, it was primarily a black problem. It isn’t anymore. Just like AIDS used to be a homosexual and intravenous drug user’s problem. It isn’t anymore. It is more widespread now. Based on my experiences, I don’t see how this is an argument at all.
>Perhaps we should look at the pathophysiology of this law
Which researchers did before doing their research.
>how much blow does it take to make rocks?
Not relevant.
>And can one get physically higher with less crack than powder?
Not if ingested by the same method.
>are we actually arguing that it’s not fair to the black addicts that the white addicts get away with more smack!?
It is a big leap to go from using a drug to being a drug addict. The overwhelming majority of drug users never become addicts, even cocaine users. "Smack" is heroin, not cocaine.
>Or the law is tougher on black addicts than white?!
No, users, not addicts. And if two different people commit the same crime and get different penalties, then our entire system is a farce. Equality before the law is not only part of the Constitution, it is a basic democratic principle. If the law is applied to different people differently based on race (or wealth or gender or whatever), then there is no incentive to obey the law and the whole thing falls apart.
>You should be ashamed if this is truly how you think, stop diverting responsibility and focus on action, not reaction.
It has nothing to do with this. No one is diverting attention or suggesting that anyone not get punished for breaking the law, just that the law be the same for people of different races.
>If you want justice to exist, then advocate for people to be law-abiding;
One can advocate both for people to be law-abiding and that laws be applied fairly based on race. The two are not mutually exclusive nor is it difficult to do both at the same time.
>Really want this to go away? THEN STOP SMOKING CRACK!
This is the desire for simple answers fallacy. The real world isn't this simplistic. Just wishing crack away won't make it going away. It's clear, though, that when laws are applied unfairly, it increases the incentive for people to break the law because they have no respect for it.
>Actually as the professor said crack and cocaine have the same chemical properties therefore they are the same.
Avoid using the argument from authority. Don't say the professor said it, back it up with evidence.
>I don't believe that the two drugs are the same.
If you don't have scientific evidence to back this up, then it is a terrible argument.
>What would be the point, if they get you the same high?
What would be the point of having two different types of alcohol?
>Crack is much stronger and much more addictive than Cocaine.
Not according to any scientific evidence.
>I may be wrong, but this is my point of view from my interactions with narcotics.
This is anecdotal evidence and can't possibly prove anything. You have to look at all of the evidence, not just some you are aware of personally.
>I dont believe that it is a racial issue with the penalties, I think it was that way because the drugs are different.
But if they are the same -- and the scientific evidence makes this clear -- then the explanation has to be something else. And since the penalties have a hugely disproportionate affect on black people, that's a problem.
>Just because they both contain cocaine, that doesnt explain the fact that other things are mixed in to highten its power.
The other things mixed in have no effect on the power. The primary added ingredient is baking powder. I don't know if you've snorted it lately, but it has no druglike effects.
>Either way, the drugs are illegal and should not be done.
True, but totally irrelevant to the debate over disparities in penalties.
>Well professor already did research on it therefore I don't have to.
Bad argument on two measures. One, I didn't personally do the research, other scientists did. Two, you still have to do the research for yourself.
>Research is good, but experience is better.
This is a horrible argument. Experience is research. The problem is that no one person has ever experienced everything nor can a person who is just experiencing something know the details behind the reality of the issue.
To find out what is true in false. You take experience, but not just from one person, from multiple sources and tie that in with tests and experiments to come to a conclusion based on all the evidence.
And, from your earlier comments, you said specifically that you hadn't done the drug yourself, so you don't even have any experience, you just heard about it from others. That's research. Bad research, at that, since it is anecdotal evidence.
>This argument may have some basis but it is not a strong argument.
And yet many legal scholars and at least one federal court disagree. That's why the case is before the Supreme Court now.
>First, I will tell you that I am a law enforcement officer and have actual experience dealing with addicts and the laws that govern the use of illegal drugs.
In addition to being anecdotal evidence, this isn't relevant evidence anyway. When have you done chemical tests on the various forms of cocaine?
>down the demographics of the addicts I have arrested.
Anecdotal evidence again. Who is to say that your personal experiences are representative of the wider society?
>First, crack cocaine is more dangerous than powder cocaine in that it is inhaled as opposed to snorted.
But this doesn't mean it is more dangerous. The drug itself is neutral, it is the method that is more dangerous. You can relatively easily take powder cocaine and make it inhaleable. At that point, the effects become identical. The drug is the same in both forms. It is the method if ingestion that makes it different. If you were to take a beer and inject it directly into your veins, it would be much more dangerous, yet the beer itself would not be a different drug.
>Wasn’t it powder cocaine that was claimed to be the drug of choice for whites and the law was devised so they could receive reduced sentencing?
I don't think anybody claimed this. Powder cocaine is much more likely to be used by whites. That doesn't mean nobody who isn't white ever uses it. Also, no one said the law was designed for this purpose. All that was said was that the law has this effect.
>Crack is a widespread problem.
Not really, it is actually pretty far down the list of illegal drugs used.
>it was primarily a black problem. It isn’t anymore.
Again, no one said it was a "black" problem, just that blacks were more likely to use it.
>Based on my experiences, I don’t see how this is an argument at all.
The key reason is that your experiences are unique. Unless you arrested every drug user there was, then you can't claim to know the statistics from other places or for the country as a whole. Personal experience is never valid evidence of an overall situation. It is anecdotal evidence and not proof.
Post a Comment