U.S. SUPREME COURT TRIES TO CRACK COCAINE CASE

Syndicated Columnist Reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court's Handling Of
a Case Involving the Sentencing Disparity Between Crack and Powder
Cocaine.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is earning its reputation as the high
court.

The robed ones have deliberated over cocaine at least half a dozen
times in recent years, taking up the drug in some form in each of the
past four years. On Monday, the justices took another hit - and this
one was particularly mind-blowing.

For one thing, the law they were interpreting - the sentencing
disparity between crack and powder cocaine - was changed by Congress
last year, making the argument largely inconsequential.

For another, the argument hinged on chemical properties of cocaine
derivatives - a technical discussion for which law school did not
quite prepare the justices.

"Could you grind it up so that it's not rock-like anymore, so it's
like a powder, and smoke it after it's in that form?" inquired Justice
Samuel Alito.

"Can you get cocaine into a rock form without using a base?" Justice
Sonia Sotomayor wanted to know.

Justice Anthony Kennedy had a question about the age and sun exposure
of the coca leaf. Justice Elena Kagan invoked Richard Pryor's
freebasing accident. Alito, who showed off by reciting the chemical
formula for cocaine sought information on how many Americans smoke
coca paste.

Justice Stephen Breyer had even less refined cocaine knowledge.
"People sniff it often, I guess, if it's a salt, and that's bad," he
said. "And then there's a kind that's worse. That's freebase or crack."

From the looks of them, the lawyers - Andrew Pincus, son of
Washington Post writer Walter Pincus, and Justice Department lawyer
Nicole Saharsky - had as little firsthand experience with the
substance as their questioners. But they shared what they could about
rock and snow.

Breyer told Saharsky it was "very interesting" that she described coca
paste as "being a yellow substance that came directly from grinding up
leaves, something like that."

"The paste doesn't have to be yellow, just like crack doesn't have to
be white or off-white," Saharsky explained. "There was evidence that a
few years ago there were folks in Ohio that were coloring crack green
for St. Patrick's Day." The justices smiled at this clever marketing
technique. Saharsky further explained that the drug has been described
as "a brown, soft, mushy, wet substance" and a "wet, gooey,
cream-colored substance."

"What you end up with," Alito inquired, "is a gummy, yellowish solid
called coca paste - that's correct?"

"It can also be dried and smoked," Saharsky added. "It has been dried
in South America, so it's not always wet."

Symptoms of a cocaine high include talkativeness, hyperactivity and a
feeling of superiority, often followed by lethargy during the crash.
By coincidence, these were the same traits on display in the chamber.
Talkativeness? Sotomayor. Hyperactivity? Breyer. Lethargy? Clarence
Thomas. Feeling of superiority? Antonin Scalia.

"You're urging upon us a definition that neither is the definition of
crack nor is the chemical definition of cocaine base," Scalia snorted.
"It's neither fish nor fowl."

Pincus provided a culinary response, saying the "question that we're
debating is whether the use of baking soda is essential."

"It's essential to crack," Scalia informed counsel. But even the
all-knowing Scalia became muddled as he inhaled deeply of the drug
discussion.

"Let's assume that the government's right," he told Pincus. "Or that
you're right. And that it's - no, let's assume the government's right,
and it's - no, you say it's base. And let's assume you're right."

Saharsky lectured her slow pupils. "Optical isomers are
nonsuperimposable mirror images, like right- and left-handed versions
of the same molecule," she informed them, and "geometric isomers ...
are based on spatial arrangements where a certain part of the molecule
is pushed out or pushed up axially or equatorially."

"They're all very exotic," Justice Ruth Ginsburg observed.

So the justices tried to simplify. "Cocaine base means the same exact
same thing as cocaine, because cocaine is a base," Kagan thought
aloud. "It's like referring to an apple by saying 'apple fruit' or
referring to a poodle by saying 'poodle dog.' "

Breyer later declared that "I'm not going to repeat the same stupid
joke - poodles and fruits." Kagan didn't join in the laughter.

As an alternative metaphor, Breyer said that the drug law reads to him
like a riddle: "Who's your father's son who's not your brother?"

Clearly the high court needs to take a powder.