That said, I don't discount the anectdotal evidence entirely just because it is anectdotal. It is possible, and perhaps the fact for some people, that crack is more dangerous because the personal  preference for immediate intense high causes them develop stronger cravings and use more crack. It's also possible that because crack is cheaper per typical dose (because the typical dose of crack simply contains less cocaine) it is more easily abused. It might also be a factor that it less physically destructive to smoke all the time than to be constantly snorting so snorters self-regulate more.

  On the other hand, it would appear inarguable that the most dangerous way to use cocaine is to inject it and that is only done with cocaine HCL (powder). Of course way fewer people will choose to inject anything so while that is the most dangerous it is also by far the least common.

  In terms of law enforcement and punishment though, even if we were to accept as fact that the use of crack is more dangerous that would not provide a logical basis for the differential punishment. Why?

  Because all cocaine products regardless of how ingested by the ultimate user begin as cocaine powder. The smugglers and large scale distributors do not have direct involvement with crack and they are the very people a logical policy would target for the most severe punishment.

  Cocaine HCL is converted to crack  down the ladder in distribution chains and laws creating harsher punishments for crack necessarily impact the street level peddlers not the big time distributors because if one sells 100 kilos of powder to someone who then sell 20 kilos of powder to five people who each sell 5 kilos of powder to four people who each sell 1 kilo of powder to five people then those four people sell to people who finally cook it into crack there is no way the people near the top can be attributed crack in the vast majority of cases. The conversion is just to attenuated and  the proof of such a broad conspiracy and forseeabilty of the conversion  just can't be established. And, I'm being conservative by suggesting that the powder is cooked into crack even that high in the distribution change, often it is down to  fraction of ounce quantities before cooking.

  Is it either fair or smart for a guy who cooks 5 grams into crack to be facing a mandatory 5 year sentence when a guy way up the chain who sold nearly 5 kilos of powder from which that crack is derived might receive a similar or even lesser sentence if