Should crack cocaine be legalized for recreational use?

[warpus]

Crack Cocaine is incredibly powerful and addictive.

Cocaine is not nearly as addictive.

There are casual cocaine users - there are no casual crack dealers.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Crack is a different and more dangerous kind of cocaine. It is generally sold because it is cheaper and easier to make then salt cocaine. If cocaine was legalized, it would probably be produced(and sold) by large industries instead of individual dealers, which would actually probably make salt cocaine cheaper and more available... thus reducing the health risks.

That's circular logic. If the production of cyanide would be forbidden it would just harm the producers of it, not any other member of society. Crack and cocaine kills and I have no compassion for anybody who sells it despite that fact.

 

[LucyDuke]

Doesn't pretty much everyone who tries crack turn into a crackhead? From my understanding of the drug, the stuff's so potent and addictive that.. once you go crack, you never go back. Right?

I don't see why you'd want to legalize something so dangerous. (unless I'm wrong about my "once you go crack you never go back" theory)

You're wrong. It's not like it's uncommon to rapidly develop an addiction (and a lot of people will dabble, as in try a few times, rather than just try once, which, of course, increases the risks), but it's certainly not a guarantee.

So you think that this would cause a limit or a certain kind of control over the usage? IMO it would just worsen the whole situation and quickly the registered dealers, now free with the risk of getting arrested, would sell their stuff with a drastically increased frequency because the market would be now an open and riskless bussiness and even a kid could get relatively easy his/her first dose of what it would be it's downfall. Dunno how you perceive such a danger but the current law situation in Europe or the States is actually pretty fine (on contrary to the laws referring to MJ).

No, that's a huge part of the problem. Right now it's as easy for a thirteen-year-old to buy a few rocks as it is for a thirty-year-old. There's no pressure on the streetwalkers to be ethical. On the other hand, a thirteen-year-old has a hell of a time buying himself a beer. And beer's not illegal.

Right you are, but wouldn't that result in a rotten and disfunctional society with thousands new regular users, totally addicted to this stuff and a much higher death toll of it? It would be a serious hit to the Health Institutions of your country in any case and would lead to a sick tolerance policy where access to something that dangerous is generally accepted.

No. Bringing the market and the users into the daylight will allow effective harm-reduction, abuse-prevention, and rehabilitation programs that people aren't quite as ashamed of. DARE is counterproductive and prohibition causes contamination and violence. This isn't working. Why are we still doing it?

This isn't a matter of the majority of people thinking of what is the best for everyone. This is a matter of weighing issues of personal liberty against harm. The harm principle, the fundamental limit on liberty only goes so far - crack cocaine has the power to cripple entire communities. Classically speaking, personal liberty does not allow one to commit suicide, either. Cannabis ought to be legalized because it's not very objectively harmful, being less addictive and harmful than tobacco or alcohol - but it's an entire different story with crack cocaine.

Now this doesn't mean that users ought to be put in the slammer, but it's something that society has a moral imperative to stop people from using, because of how harmful it is to both the individual and others.

Crack cocaine only has the power that people give it. Drug addiction may distract people from their social obligations, but it's not the drug, it's the people.

I'm not opposed to discouraging crack use. It's usually a pretty bad idea. But at the end, adults make their own decisions even if society says they're bad ones. Obviously prohibition doesn't stop everyone from using crack, it just raises a host of consequential dangers, so let's go at the prevention in a way that reduces damage, rather than increasing damage.

 

[Bill3000]

Crack cocaine only has the power that people give it. Drug addiction may distract people from their social obligations, but it's not the drug, it's the people.

Are you claiming that psychological addiction does not exist?

 

[warpus]

That's circular logic. If the production of cyanide would be forbidden it would just harm the producers of it, not any other member of society. Crack and cocaine kills and I have no compassion for anybody who sells it despite that fact.

Abuse of cocaine can kill you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean different beasties as far as who is attracted to them?

They are both addictive. They are both based on exactly the same chemical compound derived from coca leaves. The only difference is the method of delivery: One is snorted and one is inhaled.

Personally, I think cocaine is an insidious drug that causes you to do really stupid things based on my own personal experiences a number of decades ago. But I didn't have any difficulty giving it up, so I really doubt how addictive it really is. I found giving up cigarettes to be much more difficult.

But what I do have a problem with is others inflicting their own version morality on myself and others, especially when there are obvious cultural differences. If you are over 18, it simply shouldn't matter what you do as long as it's not harming someone else. All victimless crime is a means of enforcing morality on others. This case is no different than any of the others.

 

[Bill3000]

You mean different beasties as far as who is attracted to them?

They are both addictive. They are both based on exactly the same chemical compound derived from coca leaves. The only difference is the method of delivery: One is snorted and one is inhaled.

Well no, they differ more than that. The form that crack cocaine is more addictive than salt cocaine and more dangerous.

But what I do have a problem with is others inflicting their own version morality on myself and others, especially when there are obvious cultural differences. If you are over 18, it simply shouldn't matter what you do as long as it's not harming someone else. All victimless crime is a means of enforcing morality on others. This case is no different than any of the others.

Bullcrap. Morality is objective. Cultural differences have nothing to do with anything, especially with matters as objective as how harmful a substance is. What only matters here is how harmful a substance must be in order to disallow it for recreational use.

 

[eastsidebagel]

But what I do have a problem with is others inflicting their own version morality on myself and others, especially when there are obvious cultural differences. If you are over 18, it simply shouldn't matter what you do as long as it's not harming someone else. All victimless crime is a means of enforcing morality on others. This case is no different than any of the others.

In using crack or cocaine, you are the victim, no one else.
EDIT: Nice illustration of your point, Bill3000.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well no, they differ more than that.

Well, no they don't.

Coc-H+Cl– + NaHCO3 → Coc + H2O + CO2 + NaCl

Unless you actually think that adding baking soda to cocaine and heating the mixture somehow makes it far more dangerous. The difference is how it enters the bloodstream.

Bullcrap. Morality is objective.

Merely because you think your own morality is 'objective' certainly doesn't make it so:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Morality is many things, but 'objective' certainly isn't one of them, particularly when it comes to victimless crimes.

 

[Bill3000]

Unless you actually think that adding baking soda to cocaine and heating the mixture somehow makes it far more dangerous. The difference is how it enters the bloodstream.

From wiki, who will inevitably be more pro-drug friendly than any government study:

Crack cocaine is the most addicting form of cocaine,[1] and it is one of the most addicting forms of any drug[1]

Crack cocaine is a substance that affects the brain chemistry of the user: causing euphoria,[4] supreme confidence,[5] loss of appetite,[4] insomnia,[4] alertness,[4] increased energy,[4] a craving for more cocaine,[5] and potential paranoia (ending after use).[6][4] Its initial effect is to release a large amount of dopamine,[2] a brain chemical inducing feelings of euphoria. In addition, smoking freebase cocaine releases methylecgonidine into one's body, something which insufflating or injecting powder cocaine does not do.[2] Methylecgonidine is a methylated form of cocaine in much the same way that methamphetamine is a methylated form of amphetamine. The high usually lasts from 5-10 minutes,[2][4] after which time dopamine levels in the brain plummet, leaving the user feeling depressed and low.[2] When crack is dissolved and injected, the absorption into the bloodstream is as rapid as by smoking,[4] with similar euphoria (assuming it's among the purer forms of crack).

When large amounts of dopamine are released by crack consumption, it becomes easier for the brain to generate motivation for other activities. The activity also releases a large amount of adrenaline into the body, which tends to increase heart rate[8] and blood pressure, leading to long-term cardiovascular problems. It is suggested by research that smoking crack or freebase cocaine has additional health issues beyond other methods of taking cocaine. Many of these issues relate specifically to the release of methylecgonidine, and the specific effect of methylecgonidine on the heart,[8] lungs,[9] and liver.[10]

Toxic ingredients - As noted previously, virtually any substance may have been added in order to expand the volume of a batch, or appear to be pure crack. Occasionally, highly toxic substances are used, with an indefinite range of corresponding short- and long-term health risks. If candle wax is bought (as a form of fake crack), it will burn in the pipe as a noxious smoke. If macadamia nuts are bought (perhaps during a police sting that escaped arrest), they will also burn in a crack pipe, producing a noxious smoke.

Merely because you think your own morality is 'objective' certainly doesn't make it so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is many things, but 'objective' certainly isn't one of them.

Nope. Anyone who looks into the theory thoroughly knows that moral relativity is fundamentally incoherent. There is a reason why there are no serious philosophers who are moral relativists, because it's such an incredibly hard position to defend. You can still have tolerance and moral pluralism as a virtue in an objective system of morality. Otherwise you are saying that it is perfectly morally acceptable for the Nazis to kill six million Jews in the holocaust.

 

[El_Machinae]

It changes chemically. That leads to physiological differences. There're lots of chemical changes which drastically change a compound.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't think that morality is the right term for what is being discussed. Morality (>Moralitas>mores "customs") is subjective, as it comes from the habits of an individual or society. Ethics (Ethica) means the same thing (just Greek instead of Latin), but it is often used as a short for of Ethica Arete, or good habits. Bad habits certainly exist too, so actions can easily be moral and quite wrong.

It doesn't make sense for a system of habits to be objective; it is having The Good be subjective that is incoherent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hmm. Googling methylecgonidine doesn't seem to provide any hits other than showing that it is typically used as a biomarker to determine if someone has been smoking crack versus inhaling cocaine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14561847

So I stand by my previous statements. Using a base to knock off a hydrogen and clorine atom from cocaine so it can be smoked shouldn't make it any more addictive. The difference is the amount that can be introduced to the bloodstream in a given period of time.

 

[LucyDuke]

Are you claiming that psychological addiction does not exist?

Of course not.

Also, I'm sick of seeing that chart without citations. Until somebody can identify the studies used to plot it, it's an ass chart and should be disregarded as such.

 

[Bill3000]

Of course not.

Also, I'm sick of seeing that chart without citations. Until somebody can identify the studies used to plot it, it's an ass chart and should be disregarded as such.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382831?dopt=Abstract

 

[LucyDuke]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382831?dopt=Abstract

Thank you. But it's subscription-only, so not especially useful to me. And I hate having to trust authorities.

 

[Bill3000]

Thank you. But it's subscription-only, so not especially useful to me. And I hate having to trust authorities.

Well, you're going to have to trust the most best-known and respected medical journal in the world, then. And you're going to need to trust an authority on substances.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's best to remember that crack and cocaine are related chemically, but they're different beasties in their effects.

Hmm. Googling methylecgonidine doesn't seem to provide any hits other than showing that it is typically used as a biomarker to determine if someone has been smoking crack versus inhaling cocaine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14561847

So I stand by my previous statements. Using a base to knock off a hydrogen and clorine atom from cocaine so it can be smoked shouldn't make it any more addictive. The difference is the amount that can be introduced to the bloodstream in a given period of time.

Well, they'll still have different effects, physically and socially, since their usage and doses are different.

However, you really could be correct.
http://www.scopus.com/scopus/record...origin=inward&txGid=yL-wif6en5ZnDsb5-Feb7_Z:2

Objective. - To review and discuss the differences and similarities between the use of crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride; and to determine how these findings might affect policies on the imprisonment and treatment of cocaine users. Data Sources. - English-language publications were identified through a computerized search (using MEDLINE) between 1976 and 1996 using the search terms 'smoked cocaine,' 'crack cocaine,' 'freebase,' and 'cocaine- base.' In addition, manual searches were conducted on references cited in original research articles, reviews, and an annotated bibliography, and on selected journals. Study Selection. - Only those articles that compared various routes of cocaine administration or types of cocaine (cocaine base or crack cocaine vs cocaine hydrochloride) were examined. Data Extraction. - Studies were reviewed to obtain information on the composition of the 2 forms of cocaine, and the prevalence, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, abuse liability, pattern of use, and consequences across the various routes of cocaine administration and forms of cocaine. Conclusion. - Cocaine hydrochloride is readily converted to base prior to use. The physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of cocaine hydrochloride or crack cocaine (cocaine base). However, evidence exists showing a greater abuse liability, greater propensity for dependence, and more severe consequences when cocaine is smoked (cocaine-base) or injected intravenously (cocaine hydrochloride) compared with intranasal use (cocaine hydrochloride). The crucial variables appear to be the immediacy, duration, and magnitude of cocaine's effect, as well as the frequency and amount of cocaine used rather than the form of the cocaine. Furthermore, cocaine hydrochloride used intranasally may be a gateway drug or behavior to using crack cocaine. Based on these findings, the federal sentencing guidelines allowing possession of 100 times more cocaine hydrochloride than crack cocaine to trigger mandatory minimum penalties is deemed excessive. Although crack cocaine has been linked with crime to a greater extent than cocaine hydrochloride, many of these crimes are associated with the addiction to cocaine. Therefore, those addicted individuals who are incarcerated for the sale or possession of cocaine are better served by treatment than prison.

 

[Shekwan]

I have a question: If cocaine was completely legalised and registered distributors sold it to the public, would there be any demand for crack cocaine? Isn't crack cocaine just the "cheap alternative"?

Kind of like the way dangerous speakeasy stills are gone since prohibition ended in the US?

 

[LucyDuke]

Well, you're going to have to trust the most best-known and respected medical journal in the world, then. And you're going to need to trust an authority on substances.

Yeah, it's not like I could be curious about their methodology or anything.