[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel I should reiterate I'm not defending the disparity in sentencing, I'm trying to explain where it originated.

What makes crack more dangerous than powder is it's more difficult to use responsibly. You crash harder on it, which makes a binge more appealing, and it's cheaper, which more readily enables binging.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

In terms of social impact, very likely.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then why did they reform sentencing just a few years ago?

???

[subego]

IMO, the danger to any given individual is about on par. For all of society, it's a different calculation. More people can afford crack, therefore it's going to have a bigger impact.

[subego]

To clarify, the problem with both drugs is when people who do it are the types of people who have a propensity to overdo it (raises hand). If you're one of these types, a plate of powder or a plate of rock are the same ticket.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

To clarify, the problem with both drugs is when people who do it are the types of people who have a propensity to overdo it (raises hand). If you're one of these types, a plate of powder or a plate of rock are the same ticket.

This is doing nothing to illuminate me. Whatever points you're talking to haven't been clear since yesterday.

Hint: We have a quote system for a reason

[subego]

Never mind then. **** me for participating.

[The Final Dakar]

**** you for not giving your responses context. You know we have trouble understanding each other.

[subego]

And **** you for thinking taking a shot at me will magically fix that problem. WTF?

Repeating now:

Why did they reduce the sentencing: because they both operate on the same key ingredient.
Is it more dangerous in rock form: yes
Why: because it's cheap, and easy to binge on.

I'm going to need more than three question marks if you desire further elaboration.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

And **** you for thinking taking a shot at me will magically fix that problem. WTF?

I'm not going to coddle you just because you're going to play the melodramatic card.

Originally Posted by subego 

Repeating now:

Why did they reduce the sentencing: because they both operate on the same key ingredient.
Is it more dangerous in rock form: yes
Why: because it's cheap, and easy to binge on.

I'm going to need more than three question marks if you desire further elaboration.

That's way clearer like that, but the intial paradox I've been referring to hasn't be solved: The fact that your proposed reasoning for reduced sentencing now (they're the same thing) was equally true 30 years ago, and the reason for harsher sentencing 30 years ago (one's more dangerous / cheaper) is still true now. Something else must have changed. I posited that it was the acknowledged racism. That has changed in 30 years.

Also: ????, as requested.

[subego]

I apologize for flying off the handle.

My lack of quoting is for when I'm responding to the quote above. I was trying to respond to your question of why was the sentence reduced.

For a single individual, the difference between coke and crack is negligible. The danger is based on the individual's propensity to binge. If they have that propensity, it doesn't matter which one it is.

To society as a whole, the calculation is different. Since crack is cheap, it gets put in front of more people. If more people do it, more are going to be in the subset of people who binge.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not going to coddle you just because you're going to play the melodramatic card.

There's an excluded middle between coddling and taking shots at someone who's making good faith attempts to answer your questions.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I apologize for flying off the handle.

I don't care. (As in I don't take offense, not stuff your apology)

Originally Posted by subego 

For a single individual, the difference between coke and crack is negligible. The danger is based on the individual's propensity to binge. If they have that propensity, it doesn't matter which one it is.

To society as a whole, the calculation is different. Since crack is cheap, it gets put in front of more people. If more people do it, more are going to be in the subset of people who binge.

Ok, I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, but I did read this before and I don't connect what it has to do with changes in law.

Originally Posted by subego 

There's an excluded middle between coddling and taking shots at someone who's making good faith attempts to answer your questions.

You're talking to a guy who when his ex was on the rag, returned the bitchiness right back at her.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Only rich people can abuse and OD on powder cocaine, it's very pricey, pretty much anyone can abuse and OD on crack.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'm not sure how racism could figure in. From what I've heard, weed is compatible with all races, and all three genders.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

See: Gun Laws, California; Sentencing, Drug Law;

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But the number of people arrested for its distribution and possession are vastly skewed, IMO mainly because of socioeconomic factors and as an emergent property; race.

Originally Posted by reader50 

I hadn't considered the skewed enforcement statistics, because I thought those applied to all petty crime enforcement.

I had NO IDEA. So that's the reason people listen to jazz. subego is an entertainer, perhaps he can tell us if this is true. Do white women seek sex with entertainers when you play satanic music after smoking pot?

Since we're a long way from home, just a reminder how we got here. So yeah, weed.

[reader50]

Yeah, ok, my bad. I'll take the rap for the derail. But it was fun for awhile.

[The Final Dakar]

It wasn't a bad derail, but I looked up on the page and then at the title and I'm like, "Oh yeah, the lawsuit."

This'll probably go quiet for quite a while until things proceed.

[subego]

While we're waiting, let's talk about crack.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's way clearer like that, but the intial paradox I've been referring to hasn't be solved: The fact that your proposed reasoning for reduced sentencing now (they're the same thing) was equally true 30 years ago, and the reason for harsher sentencing 30 years ago (one's more dangerous / cheaper) is still true now. Something else must have changed. I posited that it was the acknowledged racism. That has changed in 30 years.

I actually think racism played less of a role in the thought process behind the original sentences than it would appear. The incomplete data set was the pivotal cause.

Imagine you're an ER doctor and all of the sudden you get 10 people ODing on this new drug (crack) for every one OD from the old drug (powder). How do you interpret the data? The obvious answer is crack is an order of magnitude worse than powder, and policy will be drafted accordingly.

A decade later you learn an order of magnitude more people were using... that was the cause of the inflated numbers, not anything about the drug itself (barring low cost).

Well, it's too late now.

Similarly, that making crack from powder is a trivial operation was intentionally kept under wraps. It wasn't until a decade after the policy was enacted this became common knowledge. They were the same thing 30 years ago, but very few people knew that.

These are the real changes between then and now. We have knowledge and hindsight.


This was my point about the danger of crack to an individual vs. society. What's changed is now we know this. At the time, when bodies started to pile up in the ER, we didn't know, and were likely too freaked out to care. What turns out to be a societal danger rooted in the low cost of crack, was interpreted as an individual danger. It was thought anyone who tried it had just bought a one-way ticket to ****sville.

[The Final Dakar]

Uh, this seems relevant
Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say - The Washington Post


Meth safer than tobacco? I feel like there are some variables this may not consider.

Still, if this holds up, I'll have to reconsider my stance re: harder drugs.

[reader50]

Looks like data on how to OD in a single setting. You're right, they didn't take long-term risks into account. But I think we only know long-term risks on alcohol and tobacco. Since the others have long been illegal, admitting to using them over a period of years is volunteering for years of prison time. Hence, very little data.

[The Final Dakar]

If faces of meth is any indication, meth has some pretty awful long-term effects, too.

[subego]

They're describing "more safety" as a larger regular to toxic dose ratio.

It's not easy to OD on tobacco, but easier than you'd think. There's enough nicotine in a cigar to kill you, only the dose doesn't come fast enough.

My understanding is if you soak a cigar in water long enough, and then drink the water, that will kill you.

The idea was also touched upon in Thank You For Smoking.


Edit: scooped!

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Meth probably won't kill you, you'll just wish you were dead. It damages the dopamine receptors in your brain, causing you to no longer feel pleasure or satisfaction unless you're on it (and it takes more each time). Abuse it long enough and you'll permanently burn them out.