Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On 17th century "cocaine"

resobscura.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 213 posts

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#61

Post by kragen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
Mtinie wrote: post #16

Earlier 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 drug, is cocaine, the chemical. They're literally exactly the same thing. They're not homonyms.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kragen wrote: post #61
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 drug, is cocaine, the chemical. They're literally exactly the same thing. They're not homonyms.

> Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical

Nope. Cocaine, the drug, is a cocaine salt. Commonly cocaine hydrochloride, but Wikipedia seems convinced it's also neutralised into sulfates and nitrates. Crack contains cocaine, the chemical, but is not cocaine, the drug.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#63

Post by kragen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62
kragen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical. They're literally exactly the same thing. They're not homonyms.

> Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical Nope. Cocaine, the drug, is a cocaine salt. Commonly cocaine hydrochloride, but Wikipedia seems convinced it's also neutralised into sulfates and nitrates. Crack contains cocaine, the chemical, but is not cocaine, the drug.

You're saying that freebase cocaine isn't "cocaine, the drug", but chlorides and sulfates are? It may be relevant to this discussion that salts dissociate in solution, but maybe it won't convince you because it sounds like you're steering painfully close to "the sun goes around the earth because people say 'the sun rises', and therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about sunrise on Mars."

That is, it sounds like you're trying to bend over backwards to invent a coherent meaning to impose on the utterances of people who are just confused and ignorant, with the result that your own utterances are losing meaning. The reason people say things like "crack isn't cocaine, the drug" and "coca leaves don't contain cocaine" isn't that their utterances refer to some coherent entity called "cocaine, the drug", which consists of some arbitrary collection of cocaine salts but excludes the hydroxide. They're just wrong, because being wrong is a thing that people do a lot, especially when they're talking about things they don't know about, like chemistry.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#64

Post by sinkasapa »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
Mtinie wrote: post #16

Earlier 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…

I suppose the better term would be synecdoche, since the similarity in pronunciation isn't coincidental, like "The sun rose in the morning." and "Look at the pretty rose petals." but is a form of motivated polysemy.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#65

Post by sinkasapa »

Mtinie wrote: post #16
Clamchop wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They were using cocaine. It was a less concentrated form, sure, but it’s still using the same substance for a psychoactive effect.

It definitely seems misleading to talk about coca leaf use as cocaine use, given the common expectation for what that means. People reading the newspaper probably don't know all these details, and it isn't spelled out. I can't imagine some guy in a club not feeling like he was robbed after paying for a powdery drug and then receiving a handful of leaves. I can't imagine an Andean woman sitting down for morning tea being pleased to have a bunch of powder dumped in her cup.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#66

Post by yourusername »

kyleee wrote: post #48
md224 wrote: post #42

I wish the US would legalize coca leaves. Our nation's drug laws are so goddamn stupid. Two different Popes drank Vin Mariani! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani

I am disappointed this product is not still available

Isn't cocaethylene profoundly unhealthy? Even if both components were legal i don't think any country would allow them to be sold combined in one beverage.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#67

Post by tessierashpool9 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #44
Beijinger wrote: post #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

Cocaine in Egyptian mummies??

egyptian mummies in the 17th century? o.0

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#68

Post by herbst »

md224 wrote: post #42

I wish the US would legalize coca leaves. Our nation's drug laws are so goddamn stupid. Two different Popes drank Vin Mariani! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani

There is also this one from Italy:

https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Buton

(Which is a actually buyable product that appearantly is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, coke leaf import company in europe. It's a lovely liqueur)

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#69

Post by solumunus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62
kragen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical. They're literally exactly the same thing. They're not homonyms.

> Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical Nope. Cocaine, the drug, is a cocaine salt. Commonly cocaine hydrochloride, but Wikipedia seems convinced it's also neutralised into sulfates and nitrates. Crack contains cocaine, the chemical, but is not cocaine, the drug.

I’m genuinely flabbergasted by these posts.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#70

Post by Synaesthesia »

yourusername wrote: post #66
kyleee wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am disappointed this product is not still available

Isn't cocaethylene profoundly unhealthy? Even if both components were legal i don't think any country would allow them to be sold combined in one beverage.

Coca tea on the other hand, is not psychoactive, it's extremely mild and relaxing, similar to mint tea.
Post reply on HN