21–30 of 114 posts
I dunno 'bout that: "Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola? No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be." https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc... Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?
> That same year, Candler called for a change to the Coca-Cola formula, replacing cocaine with heavier doses of sugar and caffeine—and started denying that the soda had ever contained cocaine to begin with.
I dunno 'bout that: "Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola? No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be." https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc... Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?
Coca leaf was, and still is, an ingredient in coca-cola.
So both cocaine and coca-cola are made with coca leaf, but coca-cola is not and never has been made with cocaine.
I dunno 'bout that: "Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola? No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be." https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc... Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?
Cocaine was never a coca-cola ingredient. The intro to the article exaggerates for narrative effect. Coca leaf was, and still is, an ingredient in coca-cola. So both cocaine and coca-cola are made with coca leaf, but coca-cola is not and never has been made with cocaine.
I dunno 'bout that: "Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola? No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be." https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc... Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?
Cocaine was never a coca-cola ingredient. The intro to the article exaggerates for narrative effect. Coca leaf was, and still is, an ingredient in coca-cola. So both cocaine and coca-cola are made with coca leaf, but coca-cola is not and never has been made with cocaine.
Before the criminalization of cocaine, however, the extract was not decocainized
So they are right that cocaine was not intentionally added.
I dunno 'bout that: "Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola? No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be." https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc... Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?
I dunno 'bout that: "Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola? No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be." https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc... Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?
Cocaine was never a coca-cola ingredient. The intro to the article exaggerates for narrative effect. Coca leaf was, and still is, an ingredient in coca-cola. So both cocaine and coca-cola are made with coca leaf, but coca-cola is not and never has been made with cocaine.
The funny thing is that the slideshow at the bottom of the page gives anyone with even a limited knowledge of alkali extraction (like DMT acid-base) everything they need to know about extracting cocaine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The insistence on its insertion into other areas, lacking supporting evidence, is, imho, overtly harmful to discourse. There is a lack of supporting evidence that race has historically been a deciding factor in US drug policy in the same way that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the historical existence of the Romans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.case.org/system/files/m…
Racism was involved in some drug prohibition laws, certainly. But to steel man the comment you’re replying to, the article mainly points to circumstantial links rather than identifying a smoking gun. A quote about why cocaine was removed, for example, might have made it stronger. Or maybe ruling out other possibilities, like a spike in the import cost of coca leaves.
0 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26391000?mag=who-took-the-cocai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cocaine was never a coca-cola ingredient. The intro to the article exaggerates for narrative effect. Coca leaf was, and still is, an ingredient in coca-cola. So both cocaine and coca-cola are made with coca leaf, but coca-cola is not and never has been made with cocaine.
That's kind of like saying edibles don't have weed in them. While technically correct, it's dishonest.
No one claims cocaine contains coca-cola.
While framed as a "black and mixed-race working class vs white middle class" conflict, the remainder of the article suggests that burgeoning recreational use of the pure drug informed removal of that drug from a drink where it was included in sub-therapeutic doses (9mg/drink vs 50-75mg in a recreational "dose" [0]). It's unclear to me, as written, how race was causal and why it's included as in the article. There are…
>The insistence on its insertion into other areas, lacking supporting evidence, is, imho, overtly harmful to discourse. There is a lack of supporting evidence that race has historically been a deciding factor in US drug policy in the same way that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the historical existence of the Romans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.case.org/system/files/m…
That is very unreliable.
The quote was given to Dan Baum in 1994 and talking about events in 1968 - 1971. The quote was revealed in a Harper's Bazaar article in 2016. John Erhlichman died in 1999, and his family denies the quote.
So the original quote was given more than 20 years after the events, and revealed 20 years after the quote (now 40 years after the event) after the person quoted had been dead for 17 years.