Captain's Quarters -

I'm fine for equalizing the penalties, so long as we do so by increasing the penalties for powder cocaine.

I'm just underwhelmed.

This whole drug thing is a FRAUD. WHere people with badges are "beyond the Constitution," rights made law by Congress; where they can rip off properties.

And, of course, the habit of OVER-CHARGING in order to get poor people to plead.

While DRUNKS do more harm that people high on drugs.

Personally, I'd prefer sanity to return.

But the Feds have badges. And, budgets. And, they're out of control.

Housing people in prison? A business.

A stupid way to go? Yup. Too bad there's no more places like Australia was to England; where they could just ship out their "undesirables" so they could be "forgotten."

If you need any lessons, those old criminals put together a mighty strong country.

Maybe, it's the "nanny state" syndrome really gone amok, when a cop can arrest someone and pass the paperwork off to "drugs."

IT DIDN'T WORK OUT!

But then neither did our changes to the Department of Education.

Cap'n,

I may well be in the minority here, but I would do away with all jail terms for drug possesion for personal use. I'm not talking about dealers here, but just folks getting causght with some small quantity for personal use.

To my mind, it makes no sense to jail someone for a non-violent offense like possesion. All that does is increase jail populations, at an increased cost to the taxpayer, AND it deprives the state of tax revenue by taking the person jailed OFF of the tax rolls.

For simple possesion for personal use, just increase the fines and put the individual on house arrest. Make certain he goes to work everyday, and garnish his ir her wages sufficiently to recoup the fine(s) imposed, plus the cost of the monitoring service.

Violent offenders, dealers, etc, heck yeah.. lock 'em up. But don't force me to pay more taxes to support incarcerating these folks who ought to be put back to work paying their fair share of taxes and supporting themselves and their families.

Make it a summons, like a traffic ticket and lets get on with things.

Respects,

Respects,

"No one seriously believes that crack sentencing was made tougher because its users are disproportionately black, but the sentencing disparity means more blacks get longer prison time for drug violations."

It's probably true that no one intended this effect. But it's also probably true that crack is seen as exacerbating crime, violence and other societal ills because it is primarily used in poorer Black communities, where those problems already exist. Powder cocaine isn't viewed that way because it's seen as an upper class, primarily white person's glamour drug.

So while the impact on one particular racial group may not have been intended, it seems likely that the impact the drug has on the communities where it's most used somehow figured into the thinking, whether consciously or not.

I was the Medical Director of a New York City Drug Treatment Center for many years and still work with a fair number of past and present drug abusers. I do not write this in order to comment about the wisdom of jail time for drug users or possessors but I would like to point out a few thing specifically about drug addiction, abuse, and Crack Cocaine that might help clarify the issues.
Cocaine that is sniffed as a powder is effectively a different drug than Crack Cocaine that is smoked. The reasons for this is that the route of administration and the rapidity of effects, along with the extreme spike in Cocaine blood levels (and presumably brain concentration) when smoked make Crack particularly addictive. Most Crack addicts I have seen have told me the effect was so intense that they were effectively hooked with the first "hit." I have seen many people who had used Cociane powder at one time and only a relatively small proportion developed a serious problem (compared to Heroin, for example) but in all my years in the field I only saw a handful of people who experimented with Crack and only used a few times. Further the relapse rates for Crack addiction are in excess of 95% (even higher than with Heroin, which is typically in the 90% range for those who have been IV addicts.) There are very, very few Elderly Crack addicts because Crack addiction so quickly destroys one's life.
In summary, Crack is a much more addictive and dangerous substance than Cocaine powder and a good case can be made for treating it as a different substance.

The only thing not proven to me, Bennett, is the one where Blacks are supposedly into using heavy drugs,more so than other groups.

It's on par with saying the Irish "drink more."

Nope. That's now how this stuff spreads out; when just about every group has "users."

And, since the very rich, when they want to fight their addictions, can find "fancy hospitals," my guess is that the very rich are usually not in the dragnet, bringing in the local kids, who hang out on the streets.

AW-Tim says he's in the minority.

Here, again, I think the majority of Americans realize the drug wars are a hoax. But there are times when people who get close to the taxpayer pot; get close to congress who despenses funds; it's almost unstoppable.

That's why I compare the disaster that's our drug laws, with the disaster that became of our Department of Education. Never have kids been served so poorly; at such a great expense.

AW-Tim is onto something when he notices that the quantity of the arrests are hitting those who go to jail. Which funds a whole other industry. And, it's like anything with unions. You can no longer just stop.

The drug profits also pay off a lot of the politicians.

While the "powder cocaine" starts getting sold to high school kids! But they can't get a drink, in most states, until their 21?

Are our laws designed to pull our legs?

As a retired DEA agent, I would like to offer my personal perspective. The reason that crack cocaine carries harsher penalties is that, in crack form ,it is a much more insidious drug. When the dealer reduces cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) to crack, he is engaging in a further purification process. What is left (crack or rock) cocaine is a highly concentrated version of the original powder cocaine. It is purer and thus, achieves a more intense and faster "rush". It also produces a faster "crash". It thus leaves the user with an increased desire to repeat the rush. Thus, addiction is a much faster process.

Also keep in mind, that crack, with the hydrochloride removed, cannot be snorted or injected. It must be smoked-thus, the drug goes through the lungs directly to the brain causing the faster high.

As to some of the other comments on this site, personally, I have no desire to see users thrown in jail either. As a federal agency, DEA has neither the time nor resources to concentrate on users. I can't speak for every local jurisdiction in this country, but how many pure users are really in jail, unless their use violated terms of probation or parole for some other offense? As for dealers, there are no apologies. They are criminals and belong in jail.

And as for Jeralyn Merrit, I have seen her on many occasions on the talk show circuit. Let's be honest. She doesn't want anyone to be in jail. It's just part of her liberal philosophy.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

'I'm fine for equalizing the penalties, so long as we do so by increasing the penalties for powder cocaine.'

There's the rub. The people who decry the disparity in sentencing invariably want the crack penalties reduced to the cocaine level -- not the cocaine penalties made more harsh. IMHO the usual suspects -- trial lawyers and race pimps -- are behind the call to remedy the laws.

And IIRC, the harsh sentences for crack use were initially called for by the black politicians themselves due to the destructive effect of crack and the related gang activity in minority neighborhoods.

(Former) Agent Fouse, thank you for remembering my tv appearances.

Question: What do you call a defendant who is an addict and buys two grams of crack to sell one to another user and personally ingests the other?

The law calls him or her a dealer since the crime is distribution, which means "to deliver", "with or without remuneration." The D.E.A. calls him a trafficker since under federal law, possession only applies to a drug possessed exclusively for personal use.

I'm not aware of any South American cartels that import crack into the U.S. Most kilogram dealers in the U.S. get it as powder and sell it as powder. In all the years I've been defending persons charged in federal court with cocaine offenses, I've only had one case where the highest up dealers converted kilos to crack before selling it. The conversion to crack happens far down the chain, with street level dealers cooking it into crack in their kitchens.

Which raises another question: If a dealer obtains the coke as powder and sells it as powder, should the Government be able to charge and convict him of a crack offense using the conspiracy law because the person he sold it to decided to cook it into crack without telling him that was his intent? That's what happening and yes, I think that's unfair.

I also disagree, as do the experts, that powder is different than crack. Pharmacologically, they are identical. Joe Biden , my least favorite Democrat running for President, says:

There is no scientific justification for any disparity. Crack and powder are simply two forms of the same drug, and each form produces identical effects.

In 1997, two dozen federal judges, all of whom are former U.S. Attorneys, supported and recommended the reduction of crack cocaine penalites.

In 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission urged that the penalty levels for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine be equal. It backed up its proposed amendments with years of study and hearings, and a very well-documented report of over 200 pages of sound research and findings. But Congress, at the urging of then- President Clinton, rejected the amendments and ordered the Commission to study the issue further.

Congress may not have intended the draconian penalties for crack to result in predominately harsher sentences for African-Americans, but that has been the result.

It's time to reduce the penalties for crack substantially to where they are equal for powder cocaine. As to those who say the powder penalties should be increased, I say, two wrongs don't make a right.

I wonder what Jeralyn would have to say about the ongoing ice epidemic in the liberal state of Hawaii. Their Supreme Court "Justices" have in the past refused to endorse tougher standards of evidence to catch ice smugglers and dealers-even though those same laws have been used in most other states in the US for years-all solely because they are more interested in the perp than they are in the victim.

Jeez.

Mr Ed, you normally seem fairly experienced pr knowledgeable regarding the topics you post about, but you're not on target here. To be precise, you said :

"One gets an average of 50% longer jail term than the other even though the two forms have essentially the same affect on its users."

The two drugs have significantly different effects on their users, chemically speaking and as a social matter. Freebase cocaine is typically used in doses around half to a fifth of the weight of crack cocaine. Crack cocaine tends to include water and a weak base, the latter of which increases toxicity.

Crack cocaine users are vastly more likely to remain addicted to the drug even with clinical aid. They are also much more likely to commit crimes, and crack-related crimes including their dealers are vastly more common and often more violent than freebase cocaine-related crimes. The (extremely) low entry cost and ease of production of crack cocaine makes it very accessible to users that other highly addictive drugs are not viable for.

Low-income users are more likely to get and remain addicted to cocaine of all types.

They are significantly different drugs in results, if not in chemical makeup.

I wonder what Jeralyn would have to say about the ongoing ice epidemic in the liberal state of Hawaii. Their Supreme Court "Justices" have in the past refused to endorse tougher standards of evidence to catch ice smugglers and dealers-even though those same laws have been used in most other states in the US for years-all solely because they are more interested in the perp than they are in the victim.

Twenty years ago people were saying: smoking crack is to snorting cocaine, as chugging vodka is to sipping wine.

In other words, when you're hitting yourself in the head, the size of the hammer matters a lot.

The reason crack became differentiated in the law in the first place is because it is far more intensely addictive and users tended to escalate to violent crime to feed their habits rather quickly.

That these differing sentences were passed in an atmosphere of fear is noteworthy, but it cannot be denied the fear had its roots in reality.

It would better serve justice if the harsher sentences for crack were applied only for manufacture or distribution for profit. Users and "accommodation" dealers ought not face stiffer penalties.

Anybody know why Hugh Hewitt has a bad attendance record? Can he ever show up for at least 4 days in a week.

Where's Frank Pastore..? He said he could show up 5 days

When folks talk about drugs acerbating crime, can anyone tell me how drugs were involved in:

The Savings & Loan Crimes

Watergate

Enron

COINTELPRO

The massacre of 90 or so innocent people at Waco by federal secret police?

The point is, the big ticket crimes are committed by people who are neither poor nor drug users. But how many of them end up in jail?

The point is, the big ticket crimes are committed by people who are neither poor nor drug users. But how many of them end up in jail?

Bingo.

Any way you slice it, the drug war is a racist, classist fraud.

I knew many on Wall Street who did blow while raking in the day trading bucks during my time there.

It's the kids on the street with no future that take the fall.

Legalization or, minimally,a radical reform needs to be made in how we deal with the drug issue.

Okey dokey, Shrink Wrapped.

I spent six years of my life, back when I was a secretary; at Kings County Hospital, in Brooklyn, NY. Working in the Dept. of Psychiatry. (Where on a busy night, you could sometimes see someone going outside and looking up at the night sky; just to see if it was a full moon.) Madness also has a business cycle.

NEXT, just by being old enough, I have enough experience(s) to know the government is NOT here to help. And, once something gets tampered with by politicians, "HELP IS NOT GONNA BE ON THE WAY."

So, you take this addictive substance, and you see what happens when you "add" Prohibition. Because? Well, prohibition actually was one of the wounds to the WHIG party. They died. Alcohol didn't go away.

I had thought that when women were given the rights to vote, that Prohibition "followed." Not exactly true.

Prohibition was a hot topic back in 1840. And, it didn't help when the Irish began coming ashore, either. A few million Irish Catholics sent the WHIGS scurrying into "NATIVISM." Another one of those things that are "popular within the group," that really, really, really, turns off the majority.

We do have as Exhibit "A" the fact that the WHIGS disappeared. Which is what happens when political hands touch the levers of power; but the audience leaves.

Now, I was at Woodstock. I wasn't there because I loved the music. I've got a tin ear. Music doesn't make a dent. But I was in love with this guy; and, he loved the music. We left early, on a Wednesday, to beat the crowd. He had a Pontiac GTO, if memories aren't failing me. And, we got to park on Max Yazgur's farm, before the crowds came. Actually, the rains came. And, we were only one of a few cars that made it onto that sloppy lot. Lots of mud.

Yes, lots of music, too. And, what fascinated me the most; where I remember it even to this day, was the ease with which drugs were "furnished." And, if you think everyone who got sick went to the infirmary, you'd be wrong. There were people in the crowd who seemed to know what to do. Experts and changing the consequences to uppers and downers. I remember this as if it was yesterday. Drug usage. And, a "helpfulness" from strangers. Nobody died. Everybody, though, got to be covered in mud.

I guess you can make professionals just about anywhere. Since people grab the paperwork to get credentialed. But it's BULLSHIT.

Most drug users don't kill themselves.

And, most of the crap we're told manages to ignore the larger harms. Where there's an "underground" that exists. And, people getting imprisoned because it jack's up somebody's points as a prosecutor or a cop.

I'm not saying there aren't bad neighborhoods out there! Sure there are. And, they have guns! They also have this strange economy where it's similar to the bathtub gin that got sold during Prohibition.

There should be a rule out there, that if people want it, enough, there's going to be a market.

And, we have no success turning government into a nanny state; to protect the few who indulge to the point of not being able to get up from their own vomit and shit. And, we have a drug culture that's created by politicians. So it takes good tax money and it wastes it, wholesale.

Again, if I didn't see it with my own eyes; that people without medical degrees were aiding kids who over-indulged, I have said "that's impossible." Nope.

I don't have a way to solve this problem. I'm just telling you what I've noticed. And, it's a shame, anyway, when a person has a mental problem that they can be sent to jail for it. There ain't no cures in jail.

Of course, Prohibition had been around for generations, before we actually tried it. And, then the failure was so large, it was "fixed."

I think drug usage (on the illegal stuff), not the stuff lots of users get by prescription; is much lower than alcohol consumption.

And, it's only because this nation is rich enough, that we have been spending like drunken sailors,on a non-working "drug war." Shame on us.

Talkleft said:

"I also disagree, as do the experts, that powder is different than crack. Pharmacologically, they are identical. Joe Biden , my least favorite Democrat running for President, says:

There is no scientific justification for
any disparity. Crack and powder are simply
two forms of the same drug, and each form
produces identical effects.

This is not correct. While they may have the same active ingredient, and therefore reach the same molecular target in the body, the pharmacokinetic properties are vastly different. As was stated above, this produces higher highs at faster rates, resulting in increased risk of addiction. Also, it allows smaller amounts of the drug to be used to reach that high, which is the primary reason it has become such a prevalent drug among poorer populations. As with most drugs, the delivery system matters, and it is well within the rights of government to regulate them differently; after all, many states have different regulations concerning the sale of beer, wine, and hard liquor, which are just different forms of the same drug.

Putting aside my problems with drugs being illegal, anyone who says cocaine and crack are the same drug has done neither. People who have, and not been caught, understand why there are different legal penalties.

Crack is a very special drug that even supporters, such as myself, of legalizing drugs understand has to stay illegal. It is literally a one hit addiction substance and the dealers know it. Few people, and I mean very few, can pick up that pipe and walk away. Heroin is tame by comparison. In fact you have to work at getting addicted to heroin and cocaine by comparison.

ShrinkWrapped and agent Fouse know exactly what they are talking about. Equalizing the criminal penalties of cocaine and crack is simply a legal attempt to remedy a societal problem besetting the black community--too many black men in jail. In the end the "Reverends" will get their way and the two will be equal. Hopefully, however, the "dealers" would get 20 to life for distribution. Crack cocaine is as close to the devils drug as you can get--that's why the dealers love it.

Some very excellent and informative comments above; thanks especially to ShrinkWrapped, gary fouse for bringing their expert opinions.

If we're going to penalize drug use, it seems to me that it's illogical and even harmful to society to set different penalties. The law is supposed to be equal; why penalize some criminals more than others for what is essentially the same crime? If the law says "Thou shalt not do drugs", then does it really matter whether the drug in question is marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crack, or anything else?

I would like to say at this point that I don't think that drug use should be a crime any more than drinking or smoking or overeating or casual sex. All are harmful to the individual, but "freedom" also means freedom to be self-destructive or stupid. I think that criminal activity (such as murder and theft) resulting from drug use would also diminish; if drugs are legal and there's a market, they would be sold more cheaply and dealers wouldn't kill each other to protect their turf any more than gas station owners shoot it out to protect theirs.

I understand the argument that crack is much more addictive -- but for that matter, freebasing powder cocaine is as well. It's essentially the same thing, except that making crack is somewhat safer than freebase. For that matter, making crack is safer than meth, too, which also uses highly flammable ingredients.

So when people are arrested for powder cocaine distribution, why is it assumed that (a) they won't have it turned into crack, and (b) their users won't be freebasing?

I'm with DocJim -- give violators on hard drugs the same sentencing conditions, regardless of whether we're talking heroin, cocaine/crack, meth, etc. I'd leave marijuana where it's at.

Punishing people for consensual, victimless "crimes" like drug use is a bad thing.

Legalize it all and tax the hell out of it. If people commit other REAL crimes (with victims, like robbery, etc.) to support their drug habits, then punish those REAL crimes, and use the drugs as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Government's role should be education ("Drugs are bad for you! Don't use them!") not persecution and incarceration.

Doing things that deliberately harm other people are criminal acts. Doing things that deliberately harm yourself? That's just stupidity, and shouldn't be grounds for the taxpayers having to give you three hots and a cot for several years.

Captain, I love the new format for the site. Way to go!
I especially like the fact that I can actually read the entire Day by Day cartoon as on the previous site the last frame was partially covered. Good work, and thank you.

Great comments, every one.

I'm mindful of the harm caused by drugs, but it seems to me that the criminalization of them has produced worse problems. We need to take the profit out of it, somehow, and treat the addicts.

Like Carol said, I'm not looking for the government to help. How many gambling addicts do you think they've created with their lotteries? There is a large vested interest in keeping this system going. The drug addicts mostly don't vote.

If we are going to talk about moral effect, let's remember that getting someone so addicted that he will steal or kill for money to buy your product is to make him your slave. To offer a product that occasionally has this effect on people with particular weakness (as with alcohol) is very different from offering a product that does this to almost everyone.

This is the moral dimension of heroin and cocaine. And if the crack form of it is the more powerful form, then it seems reasonable to have greater sanctions against it.

But if the moral issue is slavery, then perhaps the punishment should be based on the number of people who are addicted, and on the number of crimes those people have committed. Isn't the dealer in business to profit from those crimes, as well as from beggaring the users?

No one seriously believes that crack sentencing was made tougher because its users are disproportionately black...

Fooey. The nasty little secret behind the whole "War on Drugs" is that the entire campaign is, and was from the first, a very definition of racist policy -- and a prime example of "the slippery slope" as applied to regulation.

The original drug laws, which were against opium and were later expanded to cover the artificial derivative heroin, were specifically targeted against the Chinese, in the same way that (as has been noted, above) the push for alcohol Prohibition was a reaction to the hard-drinking (in public perception) Irish. With the principle fully established, it then became easy to move on to marijuana because poor blacks who couldn't afford highly-taxed alcohol established "dives" where they smoked rope and listened to jazz music -- I'm old enough to remember my neighbors and relatives discussing it in just those terms.

Cocaine and its derivatives is no different. Even the most principled supporters of the drug laws see them primarily as a way to act against the uppity poor, although most of them rationalize it as a benefit. Nowadays, though, most support for the "War" comes from two groups: shortsighted nannyists who see the horrific effects, want to see them ended, and believe the second set of proponents, the comfortably entrenched satraps and administrators of the system, who can and will promise to "solve the problem" if only they are given more money, more authority, more and bigger guns, and more time.

Regards,
Ric

Shipmates,

Let me toss out a number for consideration. 55 That's how much it costs the taxpayers in my area for every day one person is incarcerated in the county jail. $55.00/inamate/day. With a population of 500 inmates, that's $27.500.00 PER DAY the taxpayers have to come up with to keep folks incarcerated.

Now, for those who don't know, the County jails are for folks (at least where I live) who are sentenced to 1 year or less incarceration. Anything more goes to the state prison.

The point is this: The majority of folks in that county jail are there for possesion, drunk driving & such. Only about 1/3 are there for crimes involving violence, or the threat of violence.

By removing jail from the equation for non-violent crimes it saves the taxpayers a HUGE chunk of change, and it puts those offenders back on the tax rolls, working and paying taxes.

Fine them, charge them the costs of their probation monitoring, courses, whatever. But if the person hasn't threatened anyone else, why make the rest of us pay to house him?

It's a double expense, you see? We not only have to pay to incarcerate that person, but alo pick up the tab for the taxes he or she isn't paying as well.

I am politically quite well over to the right. However, I am sick to death of the "war on drugs". Legalize it the same as we do for alcohol, and let the state(s) tax and regulate it. That way, we'd be reducing the jail population, the tax burdens on the populace, and increasing tax revenue through keeping users employed, as well as taxes from the sale of the products.

I am a capitalist. It's time this nation started looking at drugs the same way we do with alcohol and tobbaco.

Respects,

docjim,

Your libertarian position on legalization does not take into account the real and permanent effects of liberalism on our society.

We as a society are now, for better or worse, responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of those whose lives are destroyed by drugs. Given that reality, it's obvious why society as a whole would want to criminalize all aspects of drug use, including the sale of even small quantities.

To be honest, with a recidivism rate of over 90%, cocaine addiction can validly be thought of as permanent.

Given that the average cocaine addict is in constant need of a fix, and when that fix is working, the addict is incapable of working, cocaine addiction breeds unemployed people. Let me put it bluntly -- would you like the operator of the tractor-trailer to your left to be on cocaine? Do you think the owner of that tractor-trailer would take on the liability of allowing a cocaine addict to operate his equipment?

We have a real problem with the two drugs that are legal -- alcohol and nicotine. The cost to our society (and to some of us personally) in lost lives and income due to the use of even these "minor" drugs is staggering.

I've been down in the red light district of Vancouver where your vision of the world is reality. I've also personally experienced the problems of an addicted family member. It's a pretty sad place to be.

docjim,

Your libertarian position on legalization does not take into account the real and permanent effects of liberalism on our society.

We as a society are now, for better or worse, responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of those whose lives are destroyed by drugs. Given that reality, it's obvious why society as a whole would want to criminalize all aspects of drug use, including the sale of even small quantities.

To be honest, with a recidivism rate of over 90%, cocaine addiction can validly be thought of as permanent.

Given that the average cocaine addict is in constant need of a fix, and when that fix is working, the addict is incapable of working, cocaine addiction breeds unemployed people. Let me put it bluntly -- would you like the operator of the tractor-trailer to your left to be on cocaine? Do you think the owner of that tractor-trailer would take on the liability of allowing a cocaine addict to operate his equipment?

We have a real problem with the two drugs that are legal -- alcohol and nicotine. The cost to our society (and to some of us personally) in lost lives and income due to the use of even these "minor" drugs is staggering.

I've been down in the red light district of Vancouver where your vision of the world is reality. I've also personally experienced the problems of an addicted family member. It's a pretty sad place to be.

unclesmrgol,

That's a lie, and you're a liar.

I do not even apologize for hurting your feelings with the characterization, because (a) you don't, and (b) I am sick unto death of having to respond to that insulting strawman.

The next time you key in a screed on that subject, look it over and ask yourself: Does this essay proceed from the assumption that "advocating legalization of drugs" is precisely equal to "advocating use of drugs"? If the answer, as here, is "yes", every word of it is a lie, including "a", "an", and "the".

Regards,
Ric

unclesmrgol,

That's a lie, and you're a liar.

I do not even apologize for hurting your feelings with the characterization, because (a) you don't, and (b) I am sick unto death of having to respond to that insulting strawman.

The next time you key in a screed on that subject, look it over and ask yourself: Does this essay proceed from the assumption that "advocating legalization of drugs" is precisely equal to "advocating use of drugs"? If the answer, as here, is "yes", every word of it is a lie, including "a", "an", and "the".

Regards,
Ric

Sorry. It appears that using preview results in a double post. You might want to check that.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6

Running on Win98 SE.

Regards,
Ric

I am pretty firmly with ShrinkWrapped. I have used both drugs. I have used many other drugs. I have never been addicted or had a problem with any of them, ever. Snorted coke is a social routine that enhances, to a tiny extent, the users' perception of their wit. It also feels physically pleasant for a short time. Smoked, crack or base, is a different beast. The first great glorious hit is a thing beyond beauty. Take it deep that one time because, no matter what, you will never see it again. But, I never had a problem stopping because I knew that I was just a marionette when I did it. I never did Heroin but I have felt the joy of Morphine (kidney stone). Something else that I can't imagine having a problem with. Or Meth. Or downs. But here's the the deal. Drug use does not cause drug gangs, drug prohibition does. Drug prohibition does not stem drug addiction. That's just personal and prohibition has done zero to achieve that end. Drug prohibition has achieved one thing and that is the creation of a bunch of vicious wannabe Capones. That and a tremendous drain on the treasury. Making a drug illegal has stopped damn near zero people from becoming addicts. And it doesn't get them help, either. Mostly, it just gets them killed.

unclesmrgol,

I realize that many people are very passionate on this subject, especially if they've witnessed first-hand the damage that drug addiction can cause. I admit to feeling a little callous when I say that drugs should be legalized.

For me, it's a question of liberty. In general, I believe that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they don't hurt somebody else. If my neighbor wants to puff on a doobie or snort a line of coke or fire up a crack pipe, it's his business, not mine. Naturally, I wouldn't want him to drive an eighteen wheeler in traffic next to me; for that matter, I wouldn't even want him on a bicycle as he might lurch in front of me and scratch the paint on my car. By the same token, I wouldn't want him liquored up, either, but we don't outlaw alcohol; we simply hand out significant penalties to people who misuse alcohol. Why not do the same with other drugs?

Do we really want / need society playing the nanny for us all? Drugs are bad, so the government tells you that you can't use them. Alcohol is bad, so the government tells you that you can't use that, either. Cigarettes. Chewing tobacco. Trans-fats. Sugar. Meat. Etc, etc. Where does it end?

In response to Talkleft:

As to your first point- an addict who sells a gram of crack is a dealer, albeit on a low level. Similarly, an addict who robs a liquor store to support his or her habit is a robber. It's all about making personal choices and being responsible for those choices.

You certainly are correct that South American cartels do not produce crack-that, indeed, happens further down the chain. That, however, does not lesson the moral culpability of the crack dealer.

As to your question about charging powder cocaine traffickers with crack offenses under Conspiracy law, that's a rather imaginative use of the Conspiracy statutes-I can see how it would be interpreted, but at first glance, it seems a stretch. I don't have any personal experience with that since I have been retired for 12 years.

You also state, "I also disagree, as do the experts, that powder is different from crack."
First, who are the "experts"? As you well know, there are "experts" on each side of most every issue. As for Joe Biden, who I suppose would be my "most favorite Democratic candidate" (That's not a compliment.),if he is saying that the effects of crack and powder cocaine are identical, then he is wrong because crack produces a faster, more intense high, that, for most people, leads to a much quicker addiction. That, to me, represents a different effect. But, as you probably know, Biden often doesn't think before he speaks.

As for the two dozen federal judges you quote in support of your argument, I am sure there are two dozen federal judges who think that all prisoners in US jails should be immediately released. In other words, I am not swayed. Nor do I agree with the US Sentencing Commission you quote. I simply believe that crack is a more insidious substance than powder cocaine for the reasons I have previously outlined.

Finally, let me deal with the point about disparities in connection with African-Americans. It is true that crack is predominantly produced and consumed in the African-American communities. In my career, I learned that drug users and drug traffickers come in all ethnic groups, including whites. Don't you think that there are many in those communities who want the police to get rid of those who are plaguing their neighborhoods with crack and other drugs? Legislating ways to keep black drug dealers (or those of any other group)out of jail is not serving anyone.

As I stated, I have no interest in drug users being put in jail simply for their drug use- I would rather concentrate on those who manufacture, import and distribute. The reason we have laws against trafficking in drugs is that it is wrong to engage in a business that brings so much damage to individuals and our society. Our justice system is tasked with sorting out high-level defendants from lower-level defendants. Generally, I think it does a pretty good job.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

In response to Talkleft:

As to your first point- an addict who sells a gram of crack is a dealer, albeit on a low level. Similarly, an addict who robs a liquor store to support his or her habit is a robber. It's all about making personal choices and being responsible for those choices.

You certainly are correct that South American cartels do not produce crack-that, indeed, happens further down the chain. That, however, does not lesson the moral culpability of the crack dealer.

As to your question about charging powder cocaine traffickers with crack offenses under Conspiracy law, that's a rather imaginative use of the Conspiracy statutes-I can see how it would be interpreted, but at first glance, it seems a stretch. I don't have any personal experience with that since I have been retired for 12 years.

You also state, "I also disagree, as do the experts, that powder is different from crack."
First, who are the "experts"? As you well know, there are "experts" on each side of most every issue. As for Joe Biden, who I suppose would be my "most favorite Democratic candidate" (That's not a compliment.),if he is saying that the effects of crack and powder cocaine are identical, then he is wrong because crack produces a faster, more intense high, that, for most people, leads to a much quicker addiction. That, to me, represents a different effect. But, as you probably know, Biden often doesn't think before he speaks.

As for the two dozen federal judges you quote in support of your argument, I am sure there are two dozen federal judges who think that all prisoners in US jails should be immediately released. In other words, I am not swayed. Nor do I agree with the US Sentencing Commission you quote. I simply believe that crack is a more insidious substance than powder cocaine for the reasons I have previously outlined.

Finally, let me deal with the point about disparities in connection with African-Americans. It is true that crack is predominantly produced and consumed in the African-American communities. In my career, I learned that drug users and drug traffickers come in all ethnic groups, including whites. Don't you think that there are many in those communities who want the police to get rid of those who are plaguing their neighborhoods with crack and other drugs? Legislating ways to keep black drug dealers (or those of any other group)out of jail is not serving anyone.

As I stated, I have no interest in drug users being put in jail simply for their drug use- I would rather concentrate on those who manufacture, import and distribute. The reason we have laws against trafficking in drugs is that it is wrong to engage in a business that brings so much damage to individuals and our society. Our justice system is tasked with sorting out high-level defendants from lower-level defendants. Generally, I think it does a pretty good job.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

Legalize drugs. Check IDs.