4 ms·

Crack is highly physically addictive. People aren't out robbing houses to get their next acid fix.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Crack is highly physically addictive. People aren't out robbing houses to get their next acid fix. Powder cocaine is literally the same drug as crack cocaine, yet the sentencing disparities since the 1980s have been completely out of sync. They've slightly converged in the last ~5 years (crack cocaine sentences have been reduced), but let's not pretend that the sentencing laws[0] have not been radically influenced by perceptions of associations of drugs with race. > People aren't out robbing houses to get their next _____ fix LSD is not physically addictive, but in general, I'll encourage you to question this line of thinking. Looking at whether people are "out robbing houses" glosses over the question of why people would commit robbery in order to purchase drugs, and the racial and socioeconomic issues that are inextricably linked to that. Put another way: who's not committing robbery in order to purchase the drugs that they use, and why aren't they? Is it because their drug (e.g. powdered cocaine) is fundamentally less addictive? Or is it because they are already in a position in society that allows them other opportunities to finance their drug use? Is it a statement about the drug itself, or simply a statement about the social structures that already exist? [0] If you want a really wonderful example of this, look at the reason that possession of <27g of marijuana was the only drug that was exempted from the Rockefeller drug laws' mandatory minimum sentencing. It was, quite literally, that kids in predominantly white and wealthy suburbs were being sentenced to prison time, and the parents wanted the judges to have discretionary power when sentencing them.
- powertower 11y ago
  > Powder cocaine is literally the same drug as crack cocaine Highly incorrect. Smoking an equivalent amount of cocaine-base (crack) vs snorting cocaine-HCL (powder) is a completely different experience due to purity, ROA, and absorption (surface area of lungs vs nasal passage is 50x), etc. Not to mention that is not an ionic bond, it is covalent. Different molecule.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Smoking an equivalent amount of cocaine-base (crack) vs snorting cocaine-HCL (powder) is a completely different experience This boils down to "the means of ingestion of a drug has a significant effect on the effects of the drug". Anybody who has ever both smoked a joint and consumed THC edibles knows firsthand that this is the case. Insufflation and ingestion are different from inhalation, so yes, the experience, onset, reinforcement mechanisms would be different. That does not change the fact that they are fundamentally the same drug. > Not to mention that is not an ionic bond, it is covalent. Different molecule. It's not the form it's transported in that's relevant; it's the form that reaches the CNS that matters[0]. In this case, the pharmacokinetics of the two drugs are the same once they hit the bloodstream. If that doesn't convince you, the consider that the effects of injecting crack cocaine[1] and powder cocaine are literally chemically identical. [0] Actually, it's the pharmacokinetic process of the drug that's relevant, since two different molecules can be metabolized identically. (And not all drugs affect the CNS, but that's a side point). [1] Less common, because smoking is logistically easier, and also results in a sharper onset since it saves half the round trip to the lungs. But it does happen.
    - powertower 11y ago
      > In this case, the pharmacokinetics of the two drugs are the same once they hit the bloodstream. Highly incorrect. The amount of the drug and concentration of the drug and the salt or ester of the drug can impact the pharmacokinetics of the drug. It was used to be thought that morphine and heroin was the same exact thing because the H was converted to morphine quickly. Except H ends up having different metabolites and ratios - not the mention the effects are not the same / even when accounted for the dose and ROA. Also, to the main point, if one produces 10x the effect of the other, the point is the same... Crack is severely more punished over cocaine because it severely impacts user behavior - much more so than cocaine. The campaign to punish crack possession was also largely due to blacks demanding it to be made as so.
      - chimeracoder 11y ago
        > The amount of the drug and concentration of the drug and the salt or ester of the drug can impact the pharmacokinetics of the drug. Can, but in the case of crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine, they demonstrably do not[0][1]. > Crack is severely more punished over cocaine because it severely impacts user behavior - much more so than cocaine It really does not. It can be (but is not always) more habit-forming to smoke a drug than to insufflate it, but this is true of all substances. And intravenous or subcutaneous use of crack cocaine and powder cocaine are literally, 100% identical. > The campaign to punish crack possession was also largely due to blacks demanding it to be made as so. No. There was support from within the black community, but to say it is "largely" due to this is overstating the case. And getting back to the original point, that doesn't actually contradict the original statement, because the reason that black communities felt the impact of violent drug crime and white communities didn't is itself a direct effect of the racial power structures involved. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926741 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926741 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8918856 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8918856

> Crack is highly physically addictive. People aren't out robbing houses to get their next acid fix. Powder cocaine is literally the same drug as crack cocaine, yet the sentencing disparities since the 1980s have been completely out of sync. They've slightly converged in the last ~5 years (crack cocaine sentences have been reduced), but let's not pretend that the sentencing laws[0] have not been radically influenced by perceptions of associations of drugs with race. > People aren't out robbing houses to get their next _____ fix LSD is not physically addictive, but in general, I'll encourage you to question this line of thinking. Looking at whether people are "out robbing houses" glosses over the question of why people would commit robbery in order to purchase drugs, and the racial and socioeconomic issues that are inextricably linked to that. Put another way: who's not committing robbery in order to purchase the drugs that they use, and why aren't they? Is it because their drug (e.g. powdered cocaine) is fundamentally less addictive? Or is it because they are already in a position in society that allows them other opportunities to finance their drug use? Is it a statement about the drug itself, or simply a statement about the social structures that already exist? [0] If you want a really wonderful example of this, look at the reason that possession of <27g of marijuana was the only drug that was exempted from the Rockefeller drug laws' mandatory minimum sentencing. It was, quite literally, that kids in predominantly white and wealthy suburbs were being sentenced to prison time, and the parents wanted the judges to have discretionary power when sentencing them.

powertower 11y ago
> Powder cocaine is literally the same drug as crack cocaine Highly incorrect. Smoking an equivalent amount of cocaine-base (crack) vs snorting cocaine-HCL (powder) is a completely different experience due to purity, ROA, and absorption (surface area of lungs vs nasal passage is 50x), etc. Not to mention that is not an ionic bond, it is covalent. Different molecule.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Smoking an equivalent amount of cocaine-base (crack) vs snorting cocaine-HCL (powder) is a completely different experience This boils down to "the means of ingestion of a drug has a significant effect on the effects of the drug". Anybody who has ever both smoked a joint and consumed THC edibles knows firsthand that this is the case. Insufflation and ingestion are different from inhalation, so yes, the experience, onset, reinforcement mechanisms would be different. That does not change the fact that they are fundamentally the same drug. > Not to mention that is not an ionic bond, it is covalent. Different molecule. It's not the form it's transported in that's relevant; it's the form that reaches the CNS that matters[0]. In this case, the pharmacokinetics of the two drugs are the same once they hit the bloodstream. If that doesn't convince you, the consider that the effects of injecting crack cocaine[1] and powder cocaine are literally chemically identical. [0] Actually, it's the pharmacokinetic process of the drug that's relevant, since two different molecules can be metabolized identically. (And not all drugs affect the CNS, but that's a side point). [1] Less common, because smoking is logistically easier, and also results in a sharper onset since it saves half the round trip to the lungs. But it does happen.
  - powertower 11y ago
    > In this case, the pharmacokinetics of the two drugs are the same once they hit the bloodstream. Highly incorrect. The amount of the drug and concentration of the drug and the salt or ester of the drug can impact the pharmacokinetics of the drug. It was used to be thought that morphine and heroin was the same exact thing because the H was converted to morphine quickly. Except H ends up having different metabolites and ratios - not the mention the effects are not the same / even when accounted for the dose and ROA. Also, to the main point, if one produces 10x the effect of the other, the point is the same... Crack is severely more punished over cocaine because it severely impacts user behavior - much more so than cocaine. The campaign to punish crack possession was also largely due to blacks demanding it to be made as so.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > The amount of the drug and concentration of the drug and the salt or ester of the drug can impact the pharmacokinetics of the drug. Can, but in the case of crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine, they demonstrably do not[0][1]. > Crack is severely more punished over cocaine because it severely impacts user behavior - much more so than cocaine It really does not. It can be (but is not always) more habit-forming to smoke a drug than to insufflate it, but this is true of all substances. And intravenous or subcutaneous use of crack cocaine and powder cocaine are literally, 100% identical. > The campaign to punish crack possession was also largely due to blacks demanding it to be made as so. No. There was support from within the black community, but to say it is "largely" due to this is overstating the case. And getting back to the original point, that doesn't actually contradict the original statement, because the reason that black communities felt the impact of violent drug crime and white communities didn't is itself a direct effect of the racial power structures involved. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926741 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926741 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8918856 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8918856