Check this shit out, penalties are lowered to level the playing field for african americans.





Crack

The original law, imo, came about due to an over reaction by lawmakers during the 80's, to try and stem a problem which they had no idea on how to handle. Coke is coke...that's all there is to it...although I'll cede the fact that crack is obviously a more potent form of the drug. The difference being, as far as race is concerned..is that crack was defo considered primarily an inner city drug, and most of the users were poor black folks that had to commit crimes in order to continue feeding the habit. While the wealthier white man could just use some, or most of his paycheck to snort his lines, w/o committing the robberies/crimes in order to do so.

Why not raise the bar for powder to that of crack? why does leveling always take place when dealing with the blacks to the lower threshold?

This lowered penalty will release how many thousands of convicted drug offenders?

Crack(er) or Powder

[attachment=10954]

I like them both...

it isn't ONLY for African Americans.

Did you read the article from the justice dept LC?

(06-03-2011, 12:20 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

Crack(er) or Powder

I like them both...

(06-03-2011, 12:21 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Did you read the article from the justice dept LC?

yes, and i disagree that crack-related violence has lessened. i don't read stats, sorry, they bore me. but i know from the street, as you do, that most of the violence we have seen can be attributed to crack. as well as other shit like oxy.
it usually isn't the guy who can afford $100. a gram powder that's robbing and killing.

Just raise the penalties for possessing baking soda.

(06-03-2011, 12:15 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Why not raise the bar for powder to that of crack? why does leveling always take place when dealing with the blacks to the lower threshold?

Because I believe that the drug sentencing laws are too harsh for the common user. The article cited a dealer example..but if you look at the laws in most states, you'll note that the same type of disparity is there for simple possession charges.

Isn't crack more addictive? I know people who use coke once or twice a year and that's all. I don't know anybody who uses crack once or twice a year...

The high is more intense, while using a lesser amount of the drug. As far as more addictive? I don't think so. If one is prone to addiction...it really doesnt matter what the drug is, or it's concentration.

Cold medicine does not need pseudoephedrine to be effective the use of pseudoephedrine should be reserved for severe congestion that significantly impacts sleep and quality of life, and it may not be appropriate for use in early pregnancy. This is what Meth needs and if reduced to at least only 1-2% it would still be usable but would certainly decrease Sudafed and its makers stocks. The correlation in stocks to the potency of street crack could probably be graphed and compared. I will blame the pharmaceutical companies, lobby consortium and greed for letting meth get this way.

(06-03-2011, 12:29 PM)thekid65 Wrote: Because I believe that the drug sentencing laws are too harsh for the common user. The article cited a dealer example..but if you look at the laws in most states, you'll note that the same type of disparity is there for simple possession charges.

You also think the constitution is a living document that should be changed. But that's another topic.

The really simple fact about crack is that it is being used on the street in such a way that it self perpetuates, they give it away to younger kids so that the addiction continues and so does the money.

while I agree that it is the drug of choice for the inner city, and that largely it is african americas who use it daily and that may be seen as a targeted group, the first shots are fired by the dealers and the targets of those dealers are young inner city kids, this point alone should make dealing a death sentence.

But in all it's wisdom our justice dept thinks that lowering the penalty is the answer, many of these small users turn to dealing to support their own habit again a self perpetuating problem.

The course taken is in response to a continuing theme set up by the administration and that is that all the laws in this country are racist in origin and have to be changed.

The information is out there kid, just go and look and see what is being done.

The over crowding in the prisons in cali are another example, take a look at who stands to benefit from the release of inmates.

The plan is evident and the steps are clear if you can un cloud your thinking long enough to see it.

from my interviews with many crackheads, it is a much faster and harder more recalcitrant addiction than mere powder that is snorted.

Are there really enough prisoners and their families to change any voting statistics? I have to agree that when employing a person if they are a felon they would be tossed to the bottom. They would have to be supported. But the cost would be less than keeping them in prison. Society will be the ultimate loser here.


I better go fishing, this crap is annoying. If I catch a meth user I will not eat them.

The felons don't have to have a voting block, it's all designed to draw lines based on race at the polls.

(06-03-2011, 01:04 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: from my interviews with many crackheads, it is a much faster and harder addiction than mere powder that is snorted.

And from my actual experience of using both drugs (coke was never my drug of choice, though), I can only say that the main difference was the intensity/quickness of the crack high was 10 fold compared to snorting coke. However, when I tried injecting coke, the high was the same.

Like I said, it's all about the propensity of one becoming addicted. And if you're susceptible to that, and relatively poor.. as I was in my hardcore days..you want the cheapest, most powerful high you can get.

Crack fills the bill.

Hmm. I don't know if I would have posted that...

Crack is definitely more intense than coke. We took an eight ball of coke to Universal studios once and had a great time. We wouldn't have been able to do that with crack, not unless we wanted to stay locked up in the hotel the whole time.