" 

 ==Badly written article== 
 I want to start out that I do not use crack, am not interested in crack, and I think crack is generally bad news.  But this article has problems.  I suspect similar problems on other pages that deal with drugs.  In my opinion, the role of an encyclopedia is not to trumpet, word for word, law enforcement propaganda.    

 The first section of this article begins with the claim that ""According to Cpl. Kent Dahl,with Red Deer RCMP Federal Drugs, Canada; white substances mimicking the appearance of cocaine is added to increase bulk.""  Let's see: this sentence uses a semicolon unnecessarily, it cites an unknown personality from an unremarkable town to personally vouch for the information offered, the reader is offered an *alternate* appearance and characteristic before the general case, the tone and positioning of the information gives an anti-drug propaganda aura to the article, not one of neutral information.   

 Then we see in the chemistry section the claim that ""Because of the dangers for manufacturers of using ether to produce pure freebase cocaine, producers began to omit the step of removing the freebase precipitate from the ammonia mixture. Typically, filtration processes are also omitted. The end result is that the cut, in addition to the ammonium salt (NH4Cl), remains in the freebase cocaine after the mixture has evaporated. The ""rock"" that is thus formed also contains a small amount of water.""  This claim is absurd since, ""as everybody knows,"" crack cocaine is made by cooking powder cocaine with baking soda.  Where exactly is the ammonia process?  This is like claiming LSD has strychnine in it.  Pure law enforcement propaganda.  And, again, the supposed exception or alternate case is presented before the general case.   

 In the physiological effects section we find the claim that ""In rare instances, sudden death can occur on the first use of cocaine or unexpectedly thereafter.[6] Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest.""  The citation given is to the DEA website.  Searching on Google I found the following two sentences: ""In rare instances, sudden death can occur on the first use of cocaine or unexpectedly thereafter. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest.""  Word for word.  Actually the entire paragraph is lifted word for word from the DEA website.  Again, law enforcement information standing in for credible NPOV information.  Now, the DEA page cites ""National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Report - Cocaine Abuse and Addiction, www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/cocaine/cocaine.html.""  Here we find the following claim: ""In rare instances, sudden death can occur on the first use of cocaine or unexpectedly thereafter. Cocaine related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest."" (p. 4)  This information is offered with no reference to outside research.  It is an echo chamber. 

 The NIDA document also included the claim that ""Other than medical uses, there is no safe way to use cocaine. Any route of administration can lead to absorption of toxic amounts of cocaine, possible acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, and seizures—all of which can result in sudden death."" (p. 2)  This is a normative claim masquerading as an empirical one.  There are no ""medical uses"" that use routes of administration substantially different than what casual users can apply, i.e. intravenous drip.  The purpose is to delegitimizing non-professional administrators, not give useful information to citizens.  The NIDA document is little more than a litany of horror stories published for the purpose of scaring people away from using cocaine.   

 The section on legality gives no information for Africa, Australia, Asia, South America. 

 Why is there nothing that substantiates the _use_ or culture of crack?  Instead of information on the various crack scenes (street use, party use, etc), we get bland law enforcement definitions about ""effects"", going from good to bad: ""causing euphoria,[6] supreme confidence,[7] loss of appetite,[6] insomnia,[6] alertness,[6] increased energy,[6] a craving for more cocaine,[7] and potential paranoia (ending after use).[6][8]""  I always find these lists amusing because, like sex education for 12 year olds (""The effects of orgasm: euphoria, confidence, drowsiness, potential vaginal tearing, lower back pain, sexually transmitted diseases."") nobody is ever told why people really want to do these things.  Everybody wonders, ""Why would somebody want to use something that caused (paranoia || vaginal tearing)?""   

 Later in the article we find, ""The intense desire to recapture the initial high is what is so addictive for many users.""  You mean people aren't returning to the pip