Not the subject of the article, but in the vein (so to speak) of 19th century industrial refinement processes, gin and other cheap spirits were also a really big deal, and a really big problem at the time. The temperance movement didn’t come out of nowhere. I think it’s an interesting parallel between fermented beverages and coca tea on the one hand, and cocaine and hard liquor on the other.
On 17th century "cocaine"
21–30 of 213 posts
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#22"Analyzing mummified brain tissue from two men who died at the hospital in the seventeenth century, they found evidence of coca use—the earliest ever detected outside of South America. "
There is at least one person who disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henut_Taui
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#23Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
I'm sure it's dose / brew strength dependent, but the coca tea I had definitely had a noticable effect, but felt milder than a regular (caffiene) black tea to me. Much milder than a coffee. Mind you I'm quite caffeine sensitive, so if you YMMV.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#24Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
Had a lot of them chewed or in tea in Bolivia and it's pretty close to a caffeine buzz, it's very, very mild.
Caffeine affects people differently… it has very intense effects on me- I would never call it “very very mild”
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used them while hiking in Peru. It's better than caffeine, because it comes with a mild euphoria. Nothing crazy, just enough to have energy and not feel like hiking at altitude is work. When I hike with coffee I just feel determined to finish. With Coca it just felt natural to keep walking.
I likewise had it in tea several times hiking in Peru. I personally didn’t notice any effect whatsoever, might as well have been mint tea.
Perhaps it's the fact that I was chewing them? I don't know! I'd assume tea was more potent. But I definitely had a decent reserve and was imbibing all day.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#26Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
Had a hippy friend that discovered coca leaves while hiking in Peru. She packed a bunch to bring back with her to show us her great new discovery for natural energy.
Apparently they already knew about these new things called 'coca leaves' at the border because they took them away from her.
This is a true story. Friggin hippies man.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had a lot of them chewed or in tea in Bolivia and it's pretty close to a caffeine buzz, it's very, very mild.
Caffeine affects people differently… it has very intense effects on me- I would never call it “very very mild”
For the vast majority of people caffeine is very mild compared to cocaine. Coca leaves are in the ballpark of caffeine, however you would rate that subjectively. And personally I think I would have found it hard to tell which was which in a blind test.
As a side note coca tea (or chewed leaves) are often recommended for managing altitude, and chewing leaves did seem to help with headaches I was having at > 12k feet, but again it was fairly subtle, and I am not convinced it's not just placebo/a nice distraction.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#28>As you can see, the Times was not the only news outlet to be confused about the distinction between cocaine and coca Unfortunately, the author of this article is the one who is confused. Cocaine is the name of the alkaloid present in the coca leaf, much like the coffee bean contains caffeine. If they were using coca leaf, they were using cocaine.
TFA literally already says what you said. They're making a reasonable distinction between chewing coca leaves for mild stimulant effect and huffing a fat rail of the pure stuff. It gives the wrong idea to say these 17th century people were doing cocaïne.
You must misunderstand what I said if you think the article says the same thing. As someone already mentioned to you, the article says “cocaine was being used in the 17th century by literally no one” when using cocaine is literally exactly what they were doing. It’s just the same as someone saying “no one was using caffeine in the 17th century…they were just drinking coffee.” You honestly don’t understand why that is blatantly wrong?
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were using cocaine. It was a less concentrated form, sure, but it’s still using the same substance for a psychoactive effect.
> were using cocaine. It was a less concentrated form, sure I was going to say this is pedantically correct, but on closer inspection, it's not even that. Cocaine, the chemical, is present in both coca leaves and cocaine, the drug. When people say cocaine--particularly in this context--they're referring to cocaine the drug, not cocaine the chemical. Cocaine the drug and cocaine the chemical are homonyms, and it's inc…
Cocaine, the chemical, is the active drug ingredient in coca leaves the same way caffeine, the chemical, is the active ingredient in coffee and ethanol, the chemical, is the active ingredient in beer. Powder and crack cocaine deliver much higher doses of cocaine than raw coca leaves, much like liquor is more potent than beer, but the chemical is the drug here. It’s not like it’s chemically transformed from one substance into another like with fermentation; it’s concentrated, like with distillation.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had a lot of them chewed or in tea in Bolivia and it's pretty close to a caffeine buzz, it's very, very mild.
Caffeine affects people differently… it has very intense effects on me- I would never call it “very very mild”
If I’ve gone a long time without caffeine a single coffee could keep me awake up for two consecutive all nighters. As a regular drinker I still cannot handle more than one cup of coffee per day. It turns out that I have a number of genes that increase the intensity and the duration of effect. I think genes explain most of the differences in experiences with caffeine.