New at Reason

May 23, 2007

Jacob Sullum explains why it's time—past time—to revist crack cocaine sentencing.

Comments

Clown George|5.23.07 @ 8:44AM|#

I've done both cocaine and crack. Cocaine can be fun. Crack never was. Cocaine can make me chatty and in a good mood about myself and about life. Crack just made me crazy and want more crack. Like Jacob said -- it leads to binges, because its effect is very short-lived.
The idea of "instant addiction" is nonsense for both, but both are addictive. To me, cocaine is the more addictive, because of what I said above. I didn't enjoy being on crack. And although I wanted more while on it, once I'd slept it off and was sober again, it wasn't anything like "I need more crack!" It was more like "Keep that shit away from me, I felt like a maniac on it!" Coke, on the other hand, is always a lot more tempting, because I've had a good time on it in the past.
And, even though this is anecdotal, the few times I smoked crack, the people I was with and from whom I got it were all either white or Hispanic. The couple black people to whom I've admitted smoking crack told me I was out of my fucking mind to even consider it.

Clown George|5.23.07 @ 8:46AM|#

And, just to clarify, I totally agree with Jacob about the disparity in the sentencing. It's ridiculous.

daksya|5.23.07 @ 9:18AM|#

Nor is it clear that crack is more addictive than cocaine powder.

Well, the same research, that Nora Volkow based the addiction figure of 5% within 24 months (it should be 12 months, to be accurate, since that's the median elapsed interval since reported first use among the survey sample), reported Odds Ratio of 3.4 for crack users relative to snorters; caveat: the study authors declare that they suppose this difference to be endogenous rather than due to crack per se, which is interesting, to say the least, given the lack of any supporting arguments either way.

|5.23.07 @ 9:28AM|#

I get the feeling the only reason they're even considering this is so they can free up some room in prison for the latest hysteria - meth uses & dealers.

|5.23.07 @ 9:54AM|#

You raise an interesting point inebriated arctic fowl. Why are they even considering this? Jacob is entirely correct that the crack minimums are completely insane for several reasons. But that never bothered the drug warriors before. They're mantra has always been, that any relaxing or reduction in the prosecution of the drug war, anything less than 'go harder, go faster, every year more committed than the last', is the tantamount to surrender and recreational drugs will flow through our streets like pollen in the springtime. Unfortunately they're as wrong about that as everything else.

Anyway, let's hope they correct this injustice, and if that proves to be a chink in the armor so much the better.

ajoy|5.31.07 @ 12:51AM|#

"The federal government's own data belie the notion that crack is "almost instantaneously addictive," as a pharmacologist quoted by Newsweek declared in 1986. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told the sentencing commission "about five percent of recent-onset cocaine abusers become addicted to cocaine within 24 months of starting use." According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, less than one in 10 Americans who had tried crack were using it even as often as once a month."

I didnot get the conclusion reached from the comparison since it is a 5% vs 10% of opposing directions comparison. (or am i just stupid)