Talk:Crack epidemic in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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

Locations

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)

it wasnt in miami it was in new york.Yayo was the first mass distributor of crack in the usa and he sold it in the bronx.it appeared in ny in the late 70s while miami hade cocaine in the early 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlemstreets (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.49.2 (talk)

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)

End of the epidemic - OK what does that mean I see no statistics or anything similar. I think most people wouldn't say the areas struck by the epidemic in most mid sized to large cities are much better. #'s showing the decline of the epidemic are sorely needed. Another thing there was big changes in the Socio-Economic make up of cities leading to a greater concentrations of poverties in cities only in the 90s was there major gentrification in large cities and minor amounts in smaller cities. I think the end of the epidemic happened for many reasons not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.1.115 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The first paragraph of the history section is word for word the same as its source. There may be more plagiarism but I'm not gonna check for it--68.230.66.230 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Should the name of the article be "Crack cocaine epidemic" instead? Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.137.78 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

The "influx of cheap cocaine to the U.S. right around the time of the crack explosion" is explained by the cartels. More specifically, cartels like the Medellin and Cali organizations. They revolutionized the drug trade by switching to mass moving the merchandise (as opposed to the old "mule" methods). In 1978, the Medellin organization set up a base of operations on Norman's Cay that created a cocaine pipeline to the whole east coast (and beyond). In Los Angeles, in 1979 (before the Nicaraguan revolution happened), federal agents busted up a Colombian ring in Granada Hills that had been flying in 200-kilo cocaine loads via Lear jets and Cessnas. So obviously the cocaine trade was not hinging on a handful of guys associated with the Contras. The DOJ investigation into Webb's accusations thoroughly debunks this notion.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisions

This article has a number of issues related to the attempts to shoehorn Gary Webb's Dark Alliance newspaper series and 1998 book into the article. Webb's series has a place in the article for sure, but the way it has been added in is problematic. The long section on the Kerry Committee Report has no place in the article. The Report does not mention crack cocaine once. Hard to say why it was inserted, perhaps because it is often cited as support for Webb's later claims. The article also originally had a section titled "CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking" which included sub-sections on the Kerry Report, Webb's Dark Alliance, and "After of Dark Alliance". This section's main problem is the claim that "Beginning with the Iran–Contra affair, some politicians and journalists began arguing that the CIA contributed to the rise of the epidemic." This is sourced to Webb's book, but it is not correct. Webb was the first to claim that Contra drug smuggling sparked the crack epidemic; this is why his writing was so controversial. I have removed this misleading prelude, bumping the Dark Alliance sections up a level.

Another problematic section was at the beginning of the article, in the discussion of the crack epidemic's origins. A sentence claiming that it began in Los Angeles in 1984 was added about ten years ago. This was supported by a link to an article by William Blum, but the Blum article does not make this claim. The Los Angeles 1984 claim is in fact Webb's version, and is flatly contradicted by the DEA history which is the main source for the rest of the origins section. There is certainly room for other claims about the origins of crack and its rapid spread, but they have to be attributed accurately. I will try to remedy this in revising the Dark Alliance section. Rgr09 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems

This article really doesn't develop the history of the drug properly in my humble opinion. The history is out there as far as formulas for cooking up crack. A good source on that is the Department of Justice's investigation on Gary Webb's allegations. Speaking of that, I'm really not sure why the Contra-Cocaine connections are so prominently featured in this article. It takes up most of it. The investigations into these allegation did not conclude that such connections were a significant factor in the drug trade. The cartels that controlled the drug trade during this time period aren't mentioned once in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: I agree. This is undue weight to the conspiracy theories that the CIA is responsible for the "epidemic" and even targeted inner city blacks. I have placed a notification in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Crack epidemic. - Location (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Location.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, no mention of Len Bias in the article? That was a major turning point in drug sentencing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The intro on the supposed CIA involvement in the crack epidemic says: "Beginning with the Iran–Contra affair, some politicians and journalists began arguing that the CIA contributed to the rise of the epidemic". The source for that statement is Gary Webb's book 'Dark Alliance'. (No page number.) I really have to question that statement. First off: about the only serious journalist I can think of that made such a claim is Gary Webb. And secondly, as far as the politicians who believed that, about the only one who bought into it was Maxine Waters (who wrote the foreword to Webb's book). And she isn't the most credible person in the world. I think clarifying just who made this argument would be helpful (and would probably make a case for cleaning up this aspect of the article).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead paragraph appears to be singularly inspired by Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness," and is subjective and inappropriately polarizing. Accusations such as "Crack cocaine was one of the tools used to exploit racial hostility," and, "[...]the majority of young black men imprisoned[...]for crimes they are innocent of," is not the language of an objective, encyclopedic introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.157.67.126 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Revised lead

The article's overly short lead was recently removed, and replaced with a summary of Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Alexander's book is a polemical work with a very strong pov. This is not appropriate content for a lead, which is supposed to summarize the article's content. The new lead does not come close to doing this. I've restored the old lead, and moved the summary of Alexander's book down into the body of the article, as a possbily notable work on the subject. This should be shown by citing reviews and coverage of the book. If it is notable, it still needs to be fit into the article somehow. Given the very loose, weak structure of the article, this will take yet more work. Rgr09 (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dark alliance section

The section on Gary Webb's 'Dark Alliance' series cited Peter Kornbluh's 1997 article to support the following claim:

Although Webb never claimed that the CIA directly aided drug dealers, it echoed the Kerry Committee conclusion that the CIA was aware of large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by Contra personnel.

Neither the Kerry report nor Kornbluh claimed that the CIA was aware of large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by Contra personnel. Rgr09 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Needs an updated "Impacts by Region" section

It really relies on one source that already makes the dubious claim that crack cocaine didn't really exist because it hadn't been mentioned in the NY Times. Ricky Ross mentions seeing crack for the first time as early as 1979.

I don't want to just nuke an entire section though.

Dranomartini (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

End of the "epidemic"

The article describes the affects and possible causes of problem, contains sections that imply that it ended, but is completely devoid of any discussion of when and how the problem went away. Shouldn't it contain information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.155.50 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)