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

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#141

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kragen wrote: post #63
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> saying that freebase cocaine isn't "cocaine, the drug", but chlorides and sulfates are

Yes. So does the DEA. We had separate charges for “cocaine” and “crack” for decades, with the former referring to the powdered salt and the latter to the base. The fact that the active compound is identical is irrelevant.

> 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

We’re talking about language. Not chemistry per se.

Someone saying someone doing crack is doing cocaine is simply incorrect in a colloquial context. Sort of like how tomatoes are culinarily a vegetable even if botanically they are fruits.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#142

Post by cynicalpeace »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #136
cynicalpeace wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you presuming the answer to the question you are genuinely asking?

I didn't ask any question.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#143

Post by cynicalpeace »

lisper wrote: post #128
cynicalpeace wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm presuming it because it's very likely, we don't need a double blind randomized controlled study to declare certain things are true.

Like that the idea "equality before the law" doesn't exist in this country, unfortunately.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#144

Post by BobaFloutist »

philwelch wrote: post #29
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 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…

When people drink coffee, they don't say "I'm taking caffeine."

When people eat poppyseed bagels they don't say they're doing codeine or morphine.

It's generally understood that "smoking weed" is likely to be a different experience than "taking THC"

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#145

Post by Suppafly »

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."

>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."

Interesting, I had always heard that they had to "de-cocainize" the extract outside the US and import the resulting product.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#146

Post by Suppafly »

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.

This specific case seems like it's more about the law grandfathering in an existing product vs whatever conspiracy theory you have in mind.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#147

Post by cynicalpeace »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #6

>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.

So when you drink Coca-Cola, you're drinking cocaine?

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#148

Post by mossTechnician »

dfxm12 wrote: post #135
mossTechnician wrote: post #131

> As David Courtwright writes in his book Forces of Habit, “factories did for drugs what canning did to vegetables. They democratized them. It became easier, cheaper, and faster for the masses to saturate their brains with chemicals.” This is a really interesting use of the word "democratize." I've seen it used in many other contexts (usually in a business sense), and some have been more ominous than others.

According to oxford languages, the #2 definition of democratize is "make (something) accessible to everyone" [0]. Can you elaborate on why using the dictionary definition of a word is really interesting? 0 - just google define: democratize

I've seen the word used in different contexts, usually as a marketing buzzword, a shortcut to elicit a positive feeling. (This article does not take that route, which is why I found it interesting.)

If you look at the Google search recommendations after typing in the word "democratize," for example, you get people trying to understand what it means to "democratize finance" (initially, the solution was almost exclusively paired with words like "unbanked", "cryptocurrency," and a rush to bring these products to Africa - rarely a particular place for a particular reason, just Africa in general).

Other phrases like "democratize data" are used in a corporate sense. Apparently "democratize AI" is a huge one too, which is appropriate because Sam Altman of OpenAI fame is one of the people who wanted to "democratize finance" by expanding his Worldcoin project into Kenya. More recently, I've seen the phrase "democratize art" thrown around by people who support generative AI as a form of art.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#149

Post by malfist »

cannonpr wrote: post #125
malfist wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have two drugs that are comparable, except one has a high risk of addiction, why would you consider the one with addiction potential except in very specialized situations?

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#150

Post by cynicalpeace »

Suppafly wrote: post #146
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. This specific case seems like it's more about the law grandfathering in an existing product vs whatever conspiracy theory you have in mind.

Why it happened is chronicled by Ricardo Cortés in a lengthy series. https://rmcortes.medium.com/the-cocainemaker-reefer-madness-...

Why wasn't it grandfathered for traditional users of the leaves?

It's amazing the moment you point out that massive institutions care more about each other than the little guy, you get called a conspiracy theorist.

Post reply on HN