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

121–130 of 213 posts

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#121

Post by abcd_f »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #106
tombert wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coca-Cola still uses coca leaves in the production of its drink. Is this actually true? A quick search gives me a lot of sources like "Natural News" and similarly dubious sources. What do they actually use the Coca leaves for?

It is 100% true. It seems a DEA source would convince you: https://museum.dea.gov/exhibits/online-exhibits/cannabis-coc... . "In the late 1800s cocaine was used as a primary ingredient for flavor in Coca-Cola. In the early 1900s cocaine in its crude form was removed. Today the extract of the coca leaves, a de-cocainized version, is manufactured in the United States and used in the flavoring for Coca-Cola."

> DEA source

It has a step-by-step description of cocaine extraction process further down the page.

I mean you can probably find the same on the YT, but seeing it on a DEA site is still a bit jarring.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#122

Post by cynicalpeace »

fluoridation wrote: post #112
cynicalpeace wrote: post #103

Coca-Cola still uses coca leaves in the production of its drink. The Stepan Company plant in New Jersey is the only place in the USA authorized to import coca. "Equality before the law" is unfortunately a farce in this country, if you didn't already know.

>"Equality before the law" is unfortunately a farce in this country, if you didn't already know. To be fair, it's not like they're letting them do whatever they want with the plants. They use them for a very specific purpose, and I'm sure there's very strict accounting involved, as is done with factories that produce solvents and their customers. The question is whether a new business could be started that had a legi…

The answer is obviously not, since there's only 1 and there's been presumably hundreds of applicants (at least) who have tried the same and been rejected.

It's actually a fascinating example of where government backs a private monopoly as opposed to breaking it up, which is often a case for having a strong government apparatus.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#123

Post by SoftTalker »

lazide wrote: post #92
lqet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the complete Sherlock Holmes stories a few months ago, I also noticed how casually the frequent use of cocaine by Holmes is mentioned as a small vice, a recreational drug that is also "chemically clean", so nothing to worry about. Opium, on the other hand, is associated with disease, crime, and the criminal underworld.

Is it not still the same? We won’t talk about crack, of course

Probably pretty hard to get "chemically clean" cocaine if you don't have a pharmaceutical source.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#124

Post by philwelch »

nicoburns wrote: post #74
wafflemaker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I see sense in articulating that cocaine use was different in 17th c. compared to now, I don't believe that you'd argue the same against someone saying that a person drinking beer is drinking alcohol, because beer has less alcohol than vodka.

To make this analogous, the words for "alcohol" and "vodka" would have to be the same. The OP is arguing that when people say "doing cocaine" they are generally referring to the high-strength powdered form, not the underlying chemical in general. And that if we interpret the sentence like that (which we should if that's how it's generally understood) then it is not true that people were doing cocaine in the 17th cent…

Cocaine hydrochloride (i.e. powder) isn’t even the only purified form of cocaine. There’s also crack. Would you argue that people who smoke crack aren’t doing cocaine?

Furthermore, the most purified form of drinking ethanol actually is called “grain alcohol”; Everclear is a popular brand.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#125

Post by cannonpr »

malfist wrote: post #85
cannonpr wrote: post #84

The ban on cocaine is kind of annoying even in its pure form, it’s a very useful local anaesthetic with good tolerance, low side effects that few people are allergic to. I have often wished it was included in some of the more advanced first aid kits, or used more widely for minor operations.

We have good local anesthetics that don't carry the same addiction risk. There's no reason to provide such a potent addictive drug at OTC.

I think you will find that cocaine actually compares very favourably and exceeds most current ones, except for the addiction potential, and the damage it did to the US foreign currency balance way back when they made it illegal.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#126

Post by philwelch »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
philwelch wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 substa…

> It’s not like it’s chemically transformed from one substance into another like with fermentation Banks, the financial institutions, are not transformed into banks, exposed riverbeds, when they're proximate to water. Cocaine, the drug, and cocaine, the chemical, are simply homonyms. Claiming the Inca did cocaine is a dad joke, not serious argument.

The only unserious argument here is your absurd analogy to banks. A homonym is when two words have totally unrelated meanings. Cocaine is the psychoactive drug found in coca leaves; we refer to cocaine hydrochloride (i.e. powder cocaine) as “cocaine” for the same reason we refer to Everclear as “grain alcohol”.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#127

Post by standardUser »

lqet wrote: post #86
voidmain0001 wrote: post #82

I inherited a small hardcover handbook on the use of cocaine in medicine and the household. I don’t have it in front of me at the moment so I don’t remember the print date. I’m guessing late 1800 or early 1900. Ah. DDG to rescue, here is a version of it. https://www.thebookmerchantjenkins.com/product/coca-and-coca... Certainly a different perspective on it from today.

Reading the complete Sherlock Holmes stories a few months ago, I also noticed how casually the frequent use of cocaine by Holmes is mentioned as a small vice, a recreational drug that is also "chemically clean", so nothing to worry about. Opium, on the other hand, is associated with disease, crime, and the criminal underworld.

I use cocaine semi-frequently but avoid all opioids. The people I've known with cocaine problems always have tangential problems with alcohol abuse, excessive/irresponsible partying and generally unstable lifestyles. I've rarely seem people with acute addictions. The (many more) people I've know with opioid addictions are often 'regular' people with moderate-to-severe pain or mental health issues that become severely addicted, usually starting with prescriptions. We shouldn't pretend that the use patterns or use cases of the two drugs are the same, even if the dug war tried really, really hard to make us think that way.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#128

Post by lisper »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #122
fluoridation wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Equality before the law" is unfortunately a farce in this country, if you didn't already know. To be fair, it's not like they're letting them do whatever they want with the plants. They use them for a very specific purpose, and I'm sure there's very strict accounting involved, as is done with factories that produce solvents and their customers. The question is whether a new business could be started that had a legi…

The answer is obviously not, since there's only 1 and there's been presumably hundreds of applicants (at least) who have tried the same and been rejected. It's actually a fascinating example of where government backs a private monopoly as opposed to breaking it up, which is often a case for having a strong government apparatus.

> there's been presumably hundreds of applicants

Well, that's exactly the question, isn't it. You can't presume this because the answer to the question turns on the actual fact of the matter.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#129

Post by lisper »

The difference between coca and cocaine is rather like the difference between sugar cane and refined sugar. In fact, that is quite a good analogy in more ways than one.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#130

Post by jajko »

JasserInicide wrote: post #8

Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine

I bought a bag of those very cheaply in Bolivia cca 8 years ago, locals used some sort of chalky 'activator' with it, so did I. And most if not all locals used it, ie in Potosi mines it was basically mandatory. Heck you could buy a stick of dynamite like from old westerns in random stalls across the city.

I got some anesthetic effects in my mouth in the place I kept chewing them. Wasn't checking whether it made me more alert, even coffee normally doesn't have much effect on me and I drink it for the taste.

Other than that, 0 effect. But I've never used any variant of cocaine so can't even compare.

Post reply on HN