Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
On 17th century "cocaine"
11–20 of 213 posts
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#12>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.
It gives the wrong idea to say these 17th century people were doing cocaïne.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#13Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#14Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
It's better than caffeine, because it comes with a mild euphoria. Nothing crazy, just enough to have energy and not feel like hiking at altitude is work.
When I hike with coffee I just feel determined to finish. With Coca it just felt natural to keep walking.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#15Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
I think it's pretty common for visitors to Macha Picchu to receive a cup of coca tea upon arrival, for altitude sickness. The people I talked to said it was like a cup of coffee.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#16>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.
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.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you would expect, this is covered in the actual paper [0]: > Therefore, the 3rd molecule detected in the brain tissues of our subjects, hygrine (an alkaloid present in the leaves of Erythroxylum spp. only), was essential to determine that the molecules detected in these human remains derived from the chewing of coca leaves or from leaves brewed as a tea, consistent with the historical period. If I'm reading this r…
Author here, I had the same question and looked into it. The author of that comment seems to be onto something because hygrine is indeed found in nightshades as well as in coca. Interesting.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#18Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
I used them while hiking in Peru. It's better than caffeine, because it comes with a mild euphoria. Nothing crazy, just enough to have energy and not feel like hiking at altitude is work. When I hike with coffee I just feel determined to finish. With Coca it just felt natural to keep walking.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#19Anyone here ever actually try coca leaves? Going to guess its effects are somewhere between coffee and cocaine
I used to drink coca tea a lot when I lived in Argentina where you get it in the supermarket. It's around on par of nicotine as an appetite suppressant for me, as a stimulant I feel caffeine and mate are better for the "stay awake" but coca tea is better for "zoning in", with less of anxiety driving but it's a more single tasked high where interruptions are harder to deal with than with caffeine. Like if I have a lot…
That comports well with my contemporary and anecdotal understanding of cocaine's most popular effects.
Re: On 17th century "cocaine"
#20Earlier 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.
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 incorrect--fully technically--to confuse their use.