191–200 of 213 posts
>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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is "equality before the law" doesn't exist in the USA (unfortunately)
The request is evidence. So far all I get are claims. However I know from experience that many claims are false so I want to know if this one is real or just another one made for a point without any real trust behind it. I'm not claiming the US is perfect, but you are making a strong statement that is either completely false, or is true but only with pages of fine print (and it may turn out that if I read all those d…
You’re unsure our government and institutions are corrupt?
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.
I mean, why are you making claims that neither you nor anybody else can back up? You could have said anything in reply to my comment, or even nothing at all, but you chose to say something that you have no idea about. That's somehow my fault?
Your claim that no one has ever wanted to import coca leaves requires a laughably impossible amount of evidence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Coca-Cola and the Stepan Company have worked very hard to keep this fascinating fact under wraps. It's obviously not a good look for them.
i thought they need the separated drug part of the extract anyway because that's the source we use to produce lidocaine in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, why are you making claims that neither you nor anybody else can back up? You could have said anything in reply to my comment, or even nothing at all, but you chose to say something that you have no idea about. That's somehow my fault?
I can very easily back up the claim that the USA does not have equality under the law. Your claim that no one has ever wanted to import coca leaves requires a laughably impossible amount of evidence
No, no. I made no claim, I just asked a question.
>Could a new business be started that had a legitimate use for coca and could get a similar exception extended to it?
Instead of saying something you know for a fact, such as "I don't know", you made a specific claim:
>there's been presumably hundreds of applicants (at least) who have tried the same and been rejected
You've admitted you can't possibly know this. Don't try to shift the burden of proof onto me. I don't need to provide evidence for something I didn't claim. Maybe some businesses have tried to obtain that exception, maybe none has. I don't know, and you don't know either.
Just admit you said something dumb and move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ab…
Someone saying that doing crack is doing cocaine is simply correct in a colloquial context. If the DEA says they are incorrect, they are simply bullshitting due to political incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://nibblestew.blogspot.com/2020/04/your-statement-is-10...
Perfect response. I'm chuckling, so thank you. What's also humorous to me is this entire discussion is centered around vernacular usage of a word versus the scientific definition. Cocaine is cocaine, but "cocaine" means different things to some people and not to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ab…
I mean, taking your definitions from the DEA for cocaine is just wrong. Even if you believe it to be meaningful, it is US-centric to a fault, and government definitions of things are not meant to generalize. Crack is "crack cocaine". It is a Form of cocaine. The separation of "cocaine" and "crack" was a policy and marketing choice, in order to make it possible that a black person would get 20 years for dealing the sa…
Cocaine makes me feel like a new man. And he wants some too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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"
When it comes to coffee, people are generally aware that caffeine is the active ingredient. If you ask someone, “have you had any caffeine today?”, they’re not going to say “no” if they’ve had six cups of coffee. They’re going to say, “yes, I’ve had six cups of coffee”. They’re not going to try and pick a tedious argument that they didn’t really have caffeine because they drank coffee instead of snorting crushed up caffeine pills.