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

171–180 of 213 posts

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#171

Post by piombisallow »

malfist wrote: post #149
cannonpr wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Used as a local anesthetic there's no addiction risk. You don't get high from it, and it's not prescribed at home so you can't make a habit out of it. The only risk is medical people who have access to it stealing some.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#172

Post by dustyventure »

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.

So the question is if at a minimum, one of thousands of cola makers (or tens of thousands of hobbyists) wanted to make a cola closer to coke and was willing to spend any reasonable amount of money/time relative to their intended volume.

Knowing the answer to this would be like knowing if anyone ever wanted to make a watch with a Rolex like movement.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#173

Post by Andrex »

lumost wrote: post #170
standardUser wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know your age, but as I've gotten older a consistent observation is that vices grow tend to grow with time and we tend towards becoming the older versions of the people we hang around. The social heavy drinking of our 20s becomes the solo heavy drinking of our 30s and the alcoholism of our 40s. It's rare to see 70-80 year olds with a casual cocaine habit, and of the people I've known who have been interested…

Maybe a dumb question, but would a 70-80 year old be able to use cocaine without dying? If you're not using it often enough for it to be a problem, you also probably don't have much of a tolerance. I would think anyways.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#174

Post by Andrex »

greenavocado wrote: post #107
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?

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-06177.pdf DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-1335] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Stepan Company

Was it approved, denied, or still awaiting a decision?

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#175

Post by cynicalpeace »

bluGill wrote: post #168
cynicalpeace wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To show that equality before the law doesn't exist in our country? Also, you're asking for evidence no one can produce. How convenient. I was being hyperbolic to point out that the "evidenced-based" culture has gone too far, to the point where you need obviously unobtainable evidence to prove something that is obviously true.

Yet this is something where it should be possible to produce evidence. Paperwork like is needed is generally available if you ask the right place. Any company trying that was rejected is has a bunch of people who did that paperwork and they could talk about it - indeed if the company was serious they have incentive to talk about it. Now it is possible that the paperwork required means hundreds of companies never even…

The claim is "equality before the law" doesn't exist in the USA (unfortunately)

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#176

Post by cynicalpeace »

dustyventure wrote: post #172
lisper wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So the question is if at a minimum, one of thousands of cola makers (or tens of thousands of hobbyists) wanted to make a cola closer to coke and was willing to spend any reasonable amount of money/time relative to their intended volume. Knowing the answer to this would be like knowing if anyone ever wanted to make a watch with a Rolex like movement.

"evidenced-based" culture at its worst. I like being evidenced-based but you can certainly have too much of a good thing.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#177

Post by cynicalpeace »

mrguyorama wrote: post #167
cynicalpeace wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At one point in history, yes, this was literally true, in the exact same way that if you are drinking black tea, you are drinking caffeine.

Coca leaves are still used in the production of Coca Cola, see sibling thread

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#178

Post by jowdones »

zexbha wrote: post #156
jowdones wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She had it easy. A local guy got 3 years in prison with no parole for bringing like 70 coca leaves. The level of retardness of some countries is unbelievable. https://cluj24.ro/pictor-clujean-condamnat-la-inchisoare-pen...

This is a surprise to me. That airport doesn't look at me twice when I travel through it. I've been >30 times and I'm foreign. Never once questioned anything I brought in. To be fair I'm not trafficking anything

>> To be fair I'm not trafficking anything

Why don't you try it next time, let us know how it went :)

Now seriously I think they must have had some dogs or devices to sniff up the drug, otherwise I can't explain how they isolated him from the crowd.

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#179

Post by standardUser »

lumost wrote: post #170
standardUser wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know your age, but as I've gotten older a consistent observation is that vices grow tend to grow with time and we tend towards becoming the older versions of the people we hang around. The social heavy drinking of our 20s becomes the solo heavy drinking of our 30s and the alcoholism of our 40s. It's rare to see 70-80 year olds with a casual cocaine habit, and of the people I've known who have been interested…

I'm mid-40's.

I've seen the use of "party drugs" lessen or cease as people I know get older. It gets harder to fit those drugs into your life when you have increased responsibilities and fewer opportunities. Opioids are not party drugs for the most part. Alcohol is obviously a party drug, but like opioids it can become an acute addiction and a maintenance issue (even more so than opioids due to the uniquely dangerous withdrawal symptoms). A drug like cocaine is, to me, similar to molly/ecstasy. It's not fun to do maintenance amounts or to do a lot solo. So use seems to wax/wane with lifestyle. A pattern I have seen a lot is people who used/abused cocaine and alcohol frequently when partying, eventually stopped with the cocaine, and continued on as alcoholics into their 30s/40s/50s.

One interesting things about cocaine addiction is it has one of the strongest genetic/hereditary links of any addiction...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01256-1

Re: On 17th century "cocaine"

#180

Post by floydnoel »

whatshisface wrote: post #97
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.

As it turns out, lidocaine causes a lot of nerve damage. It even has long-lasting cognitive effects, in some patients.

oh heck, i had no idea! i just bought a huge tube of it for an elbow injury. time to pitch it i suppose. thanks for the info. it's sad what the nanny-state babies inflict on society for lack of understanding second-order effects.
Post reply on HN