Talk:Crack epidemic (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pre/Post images

Can some one help find and place pre/post crack neighborhood decay images from east and west coast? I'd like to see Oakland, Chicago, and Brooklyn pre/post. I think it would nice to show the effect that the crack bomb had at destroying these communities, pictures speak volumes.

[edit] End of Crack

IMHO this article would benefit from pointing out the significant factors leading to the end of the 'Age of Crack' at or about 1990.

--Philopedia 10:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor sourcing

Reference [5] appears to be somebody's college term paper, with an anonymous author. Without saying whether or not it is correct, even though the author went to Berkeley, it is not sufficiently authoritative to be used as a source. It should be replaced with the original references cited in that term paper. David s graff 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Other countries?

What about talking about the crack epidemic in other countries i.e canada. Where I'm from NZ its use is minimal to non-existent (unfortunately we can't say the same about meth), but surely there are more places than the u.s where the crack epidemic has been proven?

I'd have to agree with the anonymous contributor above. I'm currently writing a story on it for an online publication, and this entry does need a broader international perspective. Calibanu 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[User Calibanu] 10.22, 26 September 2007 NZST

[edit] Associations

Certain electronic devices have been constantly associated with the underground crack market. Most notably, pagers. These small electronic communication devices have been used for crack dealers to inconspicuously communicate trade practices amongst one another. As the pager has faded out of current use via obsolescence, the T-Mobile Sidekick and Nextel Walkie-Talkie ('Chirpers') have become the instruments of choice in coordinating drug sales.

ilusiv 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Contra

Added section on US government's involvement in the cocaine epidemic. Just thought this was a huge omission. Njfuller —Preceding comment was added at 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Deleted section. Most of what it contained is speculative and almost entirely alleged. If you want to reinsert, change the language so that it's clear that the information you're trying to state as fact, is indeed alleged.- TLAGT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.22.70 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, everything there is well sourced to such sources as Associated Press. If you want to change the wording of something, go for it, but further wholesale deletions appear little more than vandalism (and I see from your user talk page that this is not the only page where you are making such edits). Please stop it. csloat (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah well-sourced original research. It doesn't mention crack or the crack epidemic. Actually, for that matter it doesn't look very well-sourced either. Does anyone have the text of the AP articles so we can see if they support the broad claims made? The titles only indicate guilt-by-association. 71.128.203.12 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Between the Reagan Administration admitting a connection and the Kerry Committee report, it's a government verified fact. In terms of Iran-Contra's involvement in the "crack epidemic", the timeframe alone warrants its inclusion (i.e., first report of Contra trafficking in 1984 and the "crack epidemic" from 1984 to 1990). I'm not sure what else more you would like. Njfuller (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to actual National Security Archive documents on the George Washington University website: [1] Njfuller (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no OR - that section doesn't mention crack at all. But it does help explain the influx of cheap cocaine to the U.S. right around the time of the crack explosion. We do need to add stuff from the Gary Webb revelations in the 90s to make the link more clear, but we're not going to get to that point if we are hung up on whether to mention iran-contra at all. And yes I have read the AP articles and they do support the claims made here (in fact they are directly quoted); you should have no trouble finding them yourself in any decent library. I really don't understand your objection to this material; it is a widely established fact and it was admitted by Reagan Administration officials as well as by the CIA in its own internal investigation (click the link to the main article on that section and you will see much more detailed evidence and narrative). csloat (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The section is well documented and Reagan admitted to a Contra-cocaine connection. There shouldn't be any controversy there. On that note, I think we should include Gary Webb. There's been criticism about the claims in Dark Alliance, but it was one of the biggest news stories in 1996 and definitely worth mentioning in this article. It'd be good to highlight the series reception by millions of Americans, especially Black Americans, after its release. I know a little on the subject, but you seem to be more well equipped to handle it. Njfuller (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You have strong sources making weak allegations, and crazy fringe sources making big allegations, including a massive media cover-up. One quote describes an "operation" (who's operating?) in the passive tense, and the Kerry report accuses unnamed "individuals". Is this not innuendo implying actual CIA agents are trafficking drugs ?
Availability of cocaine during the 1980s was aided by the CIA’s involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair.: Which source says this? Maybe the CIA's involvement with the Contras had the opposite effect? Or maybe it was all completely insignificant. Excuse me, but what the hell do you know?
Five American Contra supporters who confirmed charges of CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking: Why "confirmed" and not "alleged"? We trust anonymous sources now? Did they even go that far, given that the source's title "Reports Link Nicaraguan Rebels to Cocaine Trafficking" blames the rebels, not the CIA.
I agree you should discuss the popularity of the conspiracy theory--that the CIA created crack to keep the black man down. That would actually be relevant as opposed this article which YES is original research. It does not mention the article's topic or even allude to it. Period. The right way to go would be to use this stuff to argue that there may be some factual basis to some of the allegations. As it stands you look like you're trying to convict Clay Shaw. And by the way I am not the other anonymous user above. 71.128.203.12 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the article topic relates to a crack cocaine epidemic and the Iran-Contra section talks about government involvement in the availability of cocaine within the 1984-1990 timeframe. Crazy fringe sources making big allegations? Hardly. Look at the Kerry Committee report yourself, here's a link: [2]. In it, a government hearing accounted for $806,000 paid by the State Department to "four companies owned and operated by narcotics traffickers" as well as finding that:
"The Contra drug links included...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."
Again, this is hardly a "fringe group" and NOT a "conspiracy theory". Also, no one mentioned a massive media coverup, the issue was just ignored by the media. Here's a quote from the Columbia Journalism Review on the Kerry Committee findings (in an article which was actually critical of Gary Webb's claims):
"The Washington Post ran a short article on page A20 that focused as much on the infighting within the committee as on its findings; the New York Times ran a short piece on A8; the Los Angeles Times ran a 589-word story on A11."[3]
Trust me, I'm no conspiracy theorist. And the idea that the "CIA created crack to keep the black man down" was never mentioned. Last time I checked, white people do crack too. Njfuller (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I trust you, but the popularity of the conspiracy theory that arose from this story is more interesting than the story itself. 71.128.203.12 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the story itself is more interesting... Sometimes fact is better than fiction. Hitz’s internal investigation not only confirmed many of Webb's allegations, but went on to prove that Webb actually understated the CIA’s involvement (not direct involvement but at least tacit approval). In any case, I think your introduction is good. Njfuller (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)



crack did not first appear in los angeles in was in miami then new york., —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlemstreets (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)