Opinion ID: 711624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentencing for Cocaine versus Cocaine Base

Text: 3 Gould argues that there is no scientifically meaningful distinction between crack and powder cocaine. Thus, he contends that the rule of lenity should apply and he should receive the lesser penalties mandated for cocaine rather than the enhanced penalties that apply to offenses involving cocaine base. 4 As Gould's counsel admitted at oral argument, this claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Booker, 70 F.3d 488 (7th Cir.1995). In Booker, we observed that crack cocaine and powder cocaine are different substances with different chemical formulas. Booker, 70 F.3d at 490-91. Powder is cocaine hydrochloride, a salt of cocaine, while crack is a form of freebase cocaine. Id. Crack has a lower melting point, which makes it smokable, id. at 491, while powder must be ingested, snorted, or injected. Id. We stated further that the enhanced penalties for crack are supported by a rational basis: smokable cocaine is more potent and addictive than other forms of the drug, and the crack trade is associated with a greater level of violence. Id. at 494 n. 24. 1 Thus, the sentencing provisions for crack and powder cocaine are not ambiguous, so the rule of lenity does not apply.