Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#11

Post by jrflowers » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 12:54 AM UTC

argiopetech wrote: post #4

While framed as a "black and mixed-race working class vs white middle class" conflict, the remainder of the article suggests that burgeoning recreational use of the pure drug informed removal of that drug from a drink where it was included in sub-therapeutic doses (9mg/drink vs 50-75mg in a recreational "dose" [0]). It's unclear to me, as written, how race was causal and why it's included as in the article. There are…

>The insistence on its insertion into other areas, lacking supporting evidence, is, imho, overtly harmful to discourse.

There is a lack of supporting evidence that race has historically been a deciding factor in US drug policy in the same way that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the historical existence of the Romans.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/

https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/Penn%20Stater%2...

https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminal...

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#12

Post by seoulmetro » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 12:55 AM UTC

gamepsys wrote: post #10

Fauntleroy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tit-for-tat, it's also an American trend to write history as if racism didn't exist at all.

People who write histories often frame the past in order to impact how people think about the present.

Except people are rewriting history for fun in America's case.

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#13

Post by swatcoder » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:01 AM UTC

argiopetech wrote: post #4

While framed as a "black and mixed-race working class vs white middle class" conflict, the remainder of the article suggests that burgeoning recreational use of the pure drug informed removal of that drug from a drink where it was included in sub-therapeutic doses (9mg/drink vs 50-75mg in a recreational "dose" [0]). It's unclear to me, as written, how race was causal and why it's included as in the article. There are…

People write about history through the lens of their specialty and personal interests, which is what the author of the underlying article was doing when they published in their academic journal, Southern Culture. The author has a lot of insight and foreknowledge into their field of expertise and can situate this story within that context better than others can, and more deeply (probably) than they could do in some other context.

It's pretty normal, and helps develop a lot of different perspectives on history so that the bigger picture can be understood in a lot of different ways.

It's fair to call it out, but it's not going anywhere and it's not really a problem in the writing. Taking this history and reconciling it with other accounts is a reader literacy thing.

You should take a similar eye to pretty much all history you run across.

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#14

Post by jrflowers » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:09 AM UTC

Fauntleroy wrote: post #8

seoulmetro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an American trend to write history as if everything was invented just to spite one race or one group of people.

Tit-for-tat, it's also an American trend to write history as if racism didn't exist at all.

There’s a recent and ongoing concerted effort to push that narrative in the US that can be observed directly in book bans and school board fights about curriculums. Florida is an interesting contemporary example of a new history being mandated and previously mundane and uncontested accounts being declared ahistorical. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/floridas-new-africa...

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#15

Post by argiopetech » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:12 AM UTC

iambateman wrote: post #9

argiopetech wrote: post #4

While framed as a "black and mixed-race working class vs white middle class" conflict, the remainder of the article suggests that burgeoning recreational use of the pure drug informed removal of that drug from a drink where it was included in sub-therapeutic doses (9mg/drink vs 50-75mg in a recreational "dose" [0]). It's unclear to me, as written, how race was causal and why it's included as in the article. There are…

I’m not an expert on the origins of Coke, but I do find it very plausible that white people in 1890’s Atlanta heard that “black people are doing it” and that was enough. Plus the article mentions specific writing from the time which supports their view (quote from AJC). It’s hard to overstate the level of anger white people had toward black people in post-reconstruction Georgia and how fundamental it was to their act…

I don't have the time to do the research justice at this moment; however, let me lay out a rough argument.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that poverty and drug abuse are strongly correlated. Poverty does not cause drug abuse, but people in poverty are more likely to abuse drugs, and people who abuse drugs are more likely to be in poverty due to their drug abuse. The article seems to agree with this point, as it points to working class people as the focal point of abuse of cocaine. In 1900, the white population was approximately 60 million and the black population was approximately 9 million. Casual research suggests that 50% of children were in poverty, which I will extend to suggest that 50% to families were in poverty. Let us; however, assume that only 30% of whites and 100% of blacks were in poverty. In this case, black working-class people were still a minority of working-class people, at a ratio of 2:1.

Under this assumption, is it reasonable to assume that cocaine abuse in non-white communities was the sole catalyst for this change?

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#16

Post by argiopetech » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:20 AM UTC

jrflowers wrote: post #11

argiopetech wrote: post #4

While framed as a "black and mixed-race working class vs white middle class" conflict, the remainder of the article suggests that burgeoning recreational use of the pure drug informed removal of that drug from a drink where it was included in sub-therapeutic doses (9mg/drink vs 50-75mg in a recreational "dose" [0]). It's unclear to me, as written, how race was causal and why it's included as in the article. There are…

>The insistence on its insertion into other areas, lacking supporting evidence, is, imho, overtly harmful to discourse. There is a lack of supporting evidence that race has historically been a deciding factor in US drug policy in the same way that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the historical existence of the Romans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.case.org/system/files/m…

I counter with this article [0], which I believe to be more historically relevant due to its closeness in time to the discussion in question. Race is not mentioned as a factor here, and cocaine is described as "the American habit".

Having noted my inability to thoroughly research this topic at this time in reply to a sibling post, I'll point to that post for my back of the envelope calculation regarding the number of working class whites versus blacks and suggest that, as poverty and drug abuse seem, to me, linked, that it is just as plausible that widespread abuse of the drug was the catalyst for change in this case.

[0] https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1914-02-1...

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#17

Post by dieselgate » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:20 AM UTC

Wow fascinating article and worth the read. Didn’t know the Cola part comes from the caffeine containing kola leaf. Also funny to see a different Michael Cohen than the one currently in news… Furthermore the title made me think of the song “Who put the bomp” [1]. I think of Coca-Cola and soda fountains as more a post ww2 thing but very interesting to learn it’s much older, into the 19th century. Also so fascinating to hear about cocaine curing someone from a morphine addiction.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GyhknOznJIc

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#18

Post by janalsncm » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:29 AM UTC

jrflowers wrote: post #11

argiopetech wrote: post #4

While framed as a "black and mixed-race working class vs white middle class" conflict, the remainder of the article suggests that burgeoning recreational use of the pure drug informed removal of that drug from a drink where it was included in sub-therapeutic doses (9mg/drink vs 50-75mg in a recreational "dose" [0]). It's unclear to me, as written, how race was causal and why it's included as in the article. There are…

>The insistence on its insertion into other areas, lacking supporting evidence, is, imho, overtly harmful to discourse. There is a lack of supporting evidence that race has historically been a deciding factor in US drug policy in the same way that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the historical existence of the Romans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.case.org/system/files/m…

Racism was involved in some drug prohibition laws, certainly. But to steel man the comment you’re replying to, the article mainly points to circumstantial links rather than identifying a smoking gun. A quote about why cocaine was removed, for example, might have made it stronger. Or maybe ruling out other possibilities, like a spike in the import cost of coca leaves.

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#19

Post by thisisauserid » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:32 AM UTC

I dunno 'bout that:

"Was Cocaine once an ingredient in Coca-cola?

No, there’s never been any cocaine added in Coca‑Cola and there never will be."

https://www.coca-cola.com/mv/en/about-us/faq/was-cocaine-onc...

Is someone suggesting they would obfuscate their sacred history?

Re: Who Took the Cocaine Out of Coca-Cola?

#20

Post by jrflowers » Fri, Aug 02, 2024, 1:33 AM UTC

argiopetech wrote: post #16

jrflowers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The insistence on its insertion into other areas, lacking supporting evidence, is, imho, overtly harmful to discourse. There is a lack of supporting evidence that race has historically been a deciding factor in US drug policy in the same way that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the historical existence of the Romans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.case.org/system/files/m…

I counter with this article [0], which I believe to be more historically relevant due to its closeness in time to the discussion in question. Race is not mentioned as a factor here, and cocaine is described as "the American habit". Having noted my inability to thoroughly research this topic at this time in reply to a sibling post, I'll point to that post for my back of the envelope calculation regarding the number of…

I am not clear on how an article that does not overtly tie race to drug use or policy is in any way supportive of the notion that the historical record does not contain supportive evidence of a link between race and drug policy in the United States. This article also does not mention escalators but I would not submit it to further a claim that there is no historical evidence of them existing.