Is legal slavery in the US really over?

[Ravi]

That could all be true, but it is still the same drug, and any halfwit can take some coke and make it into crack. So really, there is no reason to give crack addicts stiffer penalties than coke users...if that's what ya'll are arguing about.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't remember what the argument was about.

Oh, yeah. Somebody said crack and powder coke were the same and have the same effect...I think.

Which they really aren't.

Wasn't it you who said it, Ravi?

 

[Ravi]

I don't remember what the argument was about.

Oh, yeah. Somebody said crack and powder coke were the same and have the same effect...I think.

Which they really aren't.

Wasn't it you who said it, Ravi?

I said they were the same thing. And they are. The differences are small...don't make me post an ACLU link.

 

[AllieBaba]

The difference in the effect is pretty substantial.

A tiny difference in a chemical can be a huge, huge thing.

 

[Ravi]

The difference in the effect is pretty substantial.

A tiny difference in a chemical can be a huge, huge thing.

Rat poison, by any other name, is still rat poison.

I'll dig up the ACLU link tomorrow, if you care. It's quite possible that the different reactions have more to do with the temperament of the users than the method of delivery.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The difference in the effect is pretty substantial.

A tiny difference in a chemical can be a huge, huge thing.

The only difference between crack and powdered cocaine is the method they're absorbed into the body, chemically there is no huge difference.

 

[editec]

I always thought smoking it had a more immediate and devastating effect on the brain.

A quicker effect to be sure... about 5 seconds difference before it hits the brain, but that is quite significant to the user.

They are the same drug, however.

One can smoke powdered cocaine that has not been turned into crack cocaine, easily enough, anyway. I assume it is turned into crack because it's easier to market it in smaller quantities, rather than because of anything else.

I have never understood (except that I know our pols are idiots whenever the issue of drugs comes before them, I mean) why there was ANY difference in terms of penalties under the law.

The theory, that crack is treated differently under the law, just because Black urban folk smoke it, and more affluent people tended (at the time this issue was significant, I mean) to snort it, does make sense to me, frankly.

Nasty drug, cocaine.

Impossible not to become addicted to it, destructive to the personality, and I have seen far too many basically good and productive people destroy their relationships, lose their businesses and incomes all because they got seriously hooked on the high.

Back when it was first making the scene, FYI, the myth was that it was not addictive.

My impression of it is that it is addictive from the first snort, at LEAST until there is no more immediately available.

 

[Ravi]

Here ya go:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Likewise, there is no research to indicate that the use of crack cocaine creates more violent behavior than using powder cocaine. A comparison of powder to crack cocaine offenses indicates that in 91% of all powder cases and in 88.4% of all crack cases there is no bodily injury. Threats were present in 4.2 % of powder cases and 3.7% of crack cases. Bodily injury occurred in 1.4% of powder cases and 4.5% of crack cases and death occurred in 3.4% of both powder and crack cases.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][vi][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Furthermore, according to Dr. Glen Hanson, there is ""very little research on the role that drugs of abuse, such as stimulants like cocaine or amphetamine actually play in violence."" Dr. Hanson concludes, that, ""research has not been able to validate a casual link between drug use and violence.""[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][vii][/FONT][/FONT]

American Civil Liberties Union : Interested Persons Memo on Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Policy

 

[editec]

Here ya go:

American Civil Liberties Union : Interested Persons Memo on Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Policy

Okay...there is a significant difference in the potential bodily injury. I can see how that is significant.

Now let me ask you, if someone has purchased powdered cocaine with the intention of injecting it, doesn't that significantly change the potential for "bodily harm" too?

In fact, isn't intravenous injection even MORE likely to cause "bodily harm" than smoking it?

If it is, then the additional penalty for having crack, v powerdered cocain STILL makes no sense.

Oh, incidently...if UCLA really thinks it take MINUTES for snorted coke to effect the user, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

SECONDs, not minutes if you snort it. Maybe ten seconds from snort to liftoff.

Smoking it? The rush comes on before the subject is finished smoking the bowl.

Two second, tops to initial liftoff when coke is smoked.

Now the FULL effect might take longer, but its not the full effect, but the CHANGE from not high to getting high which is the rush of that drug.

 

[Ravi]

The bodily harm they were talking about is the bodily harm users inflict on others. And like I stated before, that could easily be the temperament of the users and not the method of delivery. Also, I don't think it is significantly different, and as deaths caused by users is exactly the same, where is the difference, really?

 

[Shogun]

That could all be true, but it is still the same drug, and any halfwit can take some coke and make it into crack. So really, there is no reason to give crack addicts stiffer penalties than coke users...if that's what ya'll are arguing about.

Listen. I posted MY evidence. You post yours.


Moonshine and wood alcohol and mikes hard lemonade ARE THE SAME DRUG too. Now, please tell me why they are not all equally legal.

 

[Shogun]

I said they were the same thing. And they are. The differences are small...don't make me post an ACLU link.

by all means.. post SOMETHING. and, if yo udont catch the oxymoron in your post there than there really is nothing anyone can do for you.

 

[Shogun]

The only difference between crack and powdered cocaine is the method they're absorbed into the body, chemically there is no huge difference.

thats your opinion, dude. There IS a difference.. you just want to downplay that so that your crackpipe thug urchin culture can feel less guilty about it's OWN behaviour.

but hey.. you probably flinch 4 feet from the screen each time I post evidence that conveys how stupid you are so...

 

[Ravi]

Several links later, and the oxymoron is still unconvinced.

 

[Shogun]

Okay...there is a significant difference in the potential bodily injury. I can see how that is significant.
Now let me ask you, if someone has purchased powdered cocaine with the intention of injecting it, doesn't that significantly change the potential for "bodily harm" too?
In fact, isn't intravenous injection even MORE likely to cause "bodily harm" than smoking it?
If it is, then the additional penalty for having crack, v powerdered cocain STILL makes no sense.
Oh, incidently...if UCLA really thinks it take MINUTES for snorted coke to effect the user, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
SECONDs, not minutes if you snort it. Maybe ten seconds from snort to liftoff.
Smoking it? The rush comes on before the subject is finished smoking the bowl.
Two second, tops to initial liftoff when coke is smoked.
Now the FULL effect might take longer, but its not the full effect, but the CHANGE from not high to getting high which is the rush of that drug.

Are you telling me you cannot fathom how different crack is after having everything it's been cut with boiled out? Especially, since it's not as if pure coke is what gets rocked up in the first place?


And, I'll ask you the same question: Can you tell me why the entire range of alocholic beverages are not legal even if the drug involved is uniformly alcohol?

Why do we still bust moonshiners with their backwoods stills? WHY is it illegal to make your own whiskey? I mean, it's just the same alcohol, right? Despite the FORM it comes in?

 

[Shogun]

Several links later, and the oxymoron is still unconvinced.

Like I said.. I posted my evidence. These things may not impress you but, hey, Im not the one who thing reducing cocaine down is the same thing as it's powder form.

 

[Ravi]

You posted evidence that showed coke and crack aren't the same thing? Methinks you need to put down the crack pipe.

 

[Shogun]

post #60


see how fun EVIDENCE is, ravikins?


now, remind me why home distilling of moonshine is still illegal even though it's ONLY the same alcohol that is in a 6 pack?

 

[Ravi]

Cool, the DEA...now that's funny. Even so, they admit it themselves:

Crack is a form of cocaine that has been chemically changed so it can be smoked, rather than snorted.

The stupidity of moonshine being illegal has nothing to do with if coke and crack are the same.

 

[Shogun]

Cool, the DEA...now that's funny. Even so, they admit it themselves:

Crack is a form of cocaine that has been chemically changed so it can be smoked, rather than snorted.

The stupidity of moonshine being illegal has nothing to do with if coke and crack are the same.

indeed, and they admit so much more.. including the specific differences between how each form effects a person.


And, truly, YOUR opinoin that grain alcohol is stupidly illegal means SO MUCH! And, yes, in fact the SAME ALCOHOL in both moonshine and a beer does illustrate the distinction between how each form of ALCOHOL is imbibed.


Poor ravikins... you have never been the brightest light in this harbor.