Harambulus, what's your interest in this -- just out of curiosity? I happen to really like this topic, and you have a lot of interesting thoughts and comments on it, so I'm enjoying the discussion. Sorry if this seems a hijack to everyone else?
True on the progpoganda thing however anyone who has been on the 'streets' they all will tell you that crack addicts the MAJORITY of people... So there sample size is large and they don't have a political agenda but are just going by their own experience and still say most people they know get addicted. How does one explain that one? ....The same for crack would be said by someone experienced with lots of people who've used it about it's addictiveness and predictability to cause the individual to lose control just from the experience from the data sample they've seen.
.
Thanks for another nice lead on empirical research. I think this phenomenon illustrates the importance of carefully considering the nature of the sample -- as you say -- and what inferences are warranted for general populations.
I understand what you're saying, and I think it definitely illustrates an important phenomenon that has some validity on its own merits.
But I think the data you excerpt ^above/below\/ (from Murphy and Zimmer's article) is consistent with what I meant to point out in my previous (possibly not very clearly). (By the way, that whole volume where the Murphy and Zimmer article was published is incredibly good: Crack in America by Reinarman and Levine).
For example, in 1991, among students who reported having ever tried crack, only one in thirty-five reported daily or near daily use—rates virtually identical to those for powder cocaine. In fact, among high school seniors, the continuation rates for alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, and LSD were all higher than for either powder cocaine or crack (Johnston et al., 1991). ... when the vast majority of young people who try crack do not go on to use it regularly, and when only a small fraction of even these go on to daily use, it is clear that the claim that crack is "instantaneously addicting" is false.
These data indicate not only that relatively few cocaine users become "dependent"—whatever their route of administration—but that smoking cocaine by itself does not increase markedly the likelihood of dependence. This latter finding is important because it means that the claim that cocaine is much more addictive when smoked (Gold, 1984; Inciardi, 1987; Jekeletal., 1986; Jerietal., 1978; Siegel, 1982,1984; Washtonetal., 1986) must be reexamined.
What they're saying is very methodologically important. I would stress that: methodology, sample-selection -- that is
how you know what you know. It is
the most important part of science, the method.
My point is that, yes, if you go out on ghetto streets, or if you go into treatment centers, you are encountering almost exclusively the hard-core minority of users. Just as the reported figures from Morgan and Zimmer suggest, the hard-core minority are only 3% of the total population of people who have ever smoked crack.
The point is this: if 1000 people smoke crack once a year, but 30 (i.e. about 3% ) people smoke crack every day (roughly what the evidence shows), then
91% of the people you meet on the street are going to be daily users (30*365)/(30*365 + 1000*1). That doesn't mean 91% of users are addicts. It simply means addicts use hundreds of times more often. (This ignores the intermediate levels of use for the sake of simplicity, but the principle remains the same if you add more categories.)
It is simply a mathematical feature of population dynamics. You're hardly ever going to encounter a first time user, or a one-time user, because that happens, well, once. Whereas the 100th - 10,000th time smoking crack happens 9,900 times. Does that makes sense? If not, say so. I won't press the point if no one cares.
Even though the actual number of high-use crack smokers is smaller, they are vastly over-represented in a "snapshot" sample of people smoking crack now out on the streets. (This dynamic is further compounded by the fact that the one-time users or once-a-year users are using in different, less visible contexts, like private apartments with friends, not public streets; and they don't end up in treatment centers or NA/AA where they are also vastly over-represented and hyper-visible.)
This is the great difficulty for researchers trying to build samples of "controlled" or low-level users. They are basically invisible because they don't use often, aren't desperate, aren't using in public, and don't end up in institutions like jails, hospitals, and rehabs -- mainstays of social and bio-medical research.
Hope that makes sense.
Not denying the extraordinarily powerful addictive pull of crack (and many other drugs), nor the devastation it wreaks on its "victims." I've been there myself, after all. But I also knew dozens of one-time or several-time users, before I got myself into the social world of hard-core addicts and criminals...
Don't think what you're saying is wrong Harambalus, but I do think that what I'm saying plays a large role in the perception of crack use (especially among treatment professionals).
Your thoughts? Am I making myself clear? I think I understand your thoughts, but if I'm missing it, please do clarify. Not claiming to have the monopoly of crack-wisdom by any means.
