The FBI seized 100 kilos of cocaine and over $800K in cash from a drug sting in Fort Washington, MD (I have no freaking clue where that is).  When reading the story, what irks me is that they claim the coke has a street value of $13 million.  Let's do some math, shall we?  100 kilos = 100,000 grams.  The street price for a gram, if you're getting ripped off, is $80.  80 x 100,000 = $8 million.  That's $5 million less that what the police estimated, and my estimate presumes that the cocaine is sold in grams at a high price, whereas it's very likely it would be sold in bulk at a lower per-gram price.  So what gives? 

I was a juror once on a cocaine possession case.  The police, in testifying, had estimated the street value to be much higher than what I knew it should be.  It turns out that the police use the street value of the drug if it were turned into crack.  See, you can get way more money out of the same drug if you turn into crack before you sell it.  My problem with the whole thing is, in our justice system aren't we supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt?  Shouldn't we presume that, if it was seized as powdered coke, it will be sold as powdered coke?  To otherwise presume that all of that coke will be turned into crack is condemning them for a crime we have no proof that they were going to commit.  I still can't believe the judge allowed that testimony, but from what I understand, it's very common.  However, it's incredibly prejudicial to the defendant - like or not, juries will view a crime's severity differently if they think about crack being sold to black inner-city teenagers, versus coke being sold to white hipsters.  Crack obviously bears a greater stigma.  So if you're ever on a jury, be skeptical of the police or DEA testimony.  They're probably giving you a worst case scenario, which is not the standard for justice in this country.