Friday, March 12, 2010

Daily Top 5 >>> 3/12/10

  • "Source Magazine" They're putting together a huge 420 article for their April issue. Newsstands on March 23rd. Cheech and Chong, and Wiz and Spitta? I'll be copping. Props TSS.
  • "Instrumentals" You can never have too many in your library. Unless they're from Polow Da Don. Then, one is too many. Anyways, 2DBz answered my prayers by coming through with some beats from Diamond District's In Tha Ruff. It was one of the five best albums to drop last year, and the shame is that a bunch of people don't even know it exists. Click the picture for the DL, and then go buy the album. It's that good.
  • "Brooklyn Decker" I've been told that I don't have many white people on this blog. This should more than make up for that. *Side Note: Body paint is one of man's greatest artistic achievements.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey, this is Logan's friend.

Here's how I view the disparity between sentencing laws on Crack versus Cocaine;

I think an enormous gulf makes sense for a few reason, for several reasons;

1: The potency
2: The demographic

First, the potency of Crack means that it should be in a different classification; second, it's cheapness to produce and sell means you have to be aware of an explosion, like the crack epidemics of the '80s. Those epidemics wreck communities and lives in a way that a party-drug simply cannot.

Second, is the demographic. It's not about race so much as it is about economics; poor white men in Detroit aren't doing cocaine, for example. Because crack is so cheap, if avaliable, it would be *much* easier for people to become exposed to it and to be avaliable, for wanna-be dealers to bring it to schools and kids to make a quick buck.

Crack is very addictive and very destructive, and can (and has) exploded in poor urban areas, causing entire paradigm shifts of communities.

Cocaine is for rich douches.

And the sentence disparity is also due to the fact that rich cocaine users simply have better lawyers and likely havn't committed crimes to aquire it, thus no priors.

Just my thoughts.

Dallas Wright said...

Good points. I just can't justify penalizing people differently for the same drug.

Crack is cocaine. All that's happened is a reaction with baking soda at high temperatures. Not having done crack cocaine or powder cocaine, I can't speak to the effects with any true legitimacy, but I can say that crack has never been proven to be more addictive. It is a shorter high and so users end up chasing that intense high much more vigorously b/c it only lasts for 10 minutes. Coke lasts a little longer, but the euphoria is just as intense.

While it has the potential to destroy communities and that needs to be taken into account, such uneven sentencing isn't logical. It's like taking gun crimes and sentencing those targeted against poor people 20 times as harshly. It just isn't fair. The same people that these laws are "protecting" are in the same demographics as those being excessively punished. Crack dealers don't come from the burbs or rich neighborhoods, they come from the communities they serve.

My opinion on drug laws is that prison time should only be given to those with a proven intent to sell. Most crack arrests and sentences are given for simple possession. It should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal one. You have people who are addicting to something, and instead of being given medical help they're being locked in cages.

Julian said...

andy roddick you lucky son of a bitch