Talk:Cocaine/Archive 2

message: Anyone know the general procedure for making this stuff?  Ammonia, gasoline, cement, quick lime, sulfuric acid, etc?  Just curious what kind of poisons are in it. 128.95.134.134 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: If recovered from long term addiction of cocaine, do former users still suffer the side effects that were discribed? ( hallucinations, paranoid delusions, tachycardia, itching, and formication.) How long for? Are there any new side effect that could come after usage has stopped? ≈tgk--58.165.169.140 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: The phrase "Use of the powder form has stayed relatively constant, experiencing a new height of use during the late 1990s and early 2000s in the U.S., and has become much more popular in the last few years in the UK." is self contradictory. Can someone clarify its meaning and scope, perhaps with some supporting references? Mnbf9rca 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory sentence on useage 

message: This is a great article, but it's starting to get a bit big and cluttered.  I think it needs to be broken up like the Soviet Union broke up - keep the main body, create new articles for the 'satellite' information.  Good analogy, eh? Antimatter 05:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  breakup 

message: mg per ounce? What kind of a unit is that?
:Near as I can tell, it's a measure of active ingredient. GreatMizuti 11:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: The first two paragraphs are redundant in the way they start, and their topics overlap. They should be merged and rearranged. icydid 14:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Many incorrect and non-referenced facts regarding general usage, absorbtion %, etc. Editing based on data in http://www.ussc.gov/crack/CHAP2.HTM . This data is also backed in other papers, but I'm hoping this is sufficient.
~ Anon
First, regarding "It is also popular amongst college students, not just to study with, but also to party with", I'd like some actual statistics comparing the rate of cocaine usage of college students to non-college students the same age or of high school students. Second, I don't think ~6% of the college population using it (assuming the same rate of use as for the general population) makes it "popular". Maybe whoever wrote it meant popular compared to other drugs. 151.203.178.253 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: I made several changes to this section, as the information there bore little consistent factual matter.  Coloration and hardness are mutually exclusive categories; there is no correlation between these two.  A pure white product may be very soft and crumbly, or it may be very hard.  The same is true for creme and darker shadings.  So, correction was made.
Also, I removed the line that stated that scrub pads containing soap are used.  Unless no other "clean" scrub pad were available, users do not choose a soap impregnated product.  If such a product is used, it must be washed of all soap content prior to burning off and use.  Steel wool is not an item that can be used, as the fine variety as it is easily combusted by open flame.  Heavier varieties of stainless steel wool are sometimes used, but again as an item of last resort as this material does not pack down properly for metered vaporization, and suffers from the same combustion problem, albeit on a lesser level.  Hence, the line was removed. Pragmatist 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of Crack Cocaine 

message: positron scans showing averages from six primate brains? looks like two....
:Read the caption again. The images are averages—they are overlayed on top of each other. —porges(talk) 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positron scans? 

message: Cocaine was never a "key ingredient in Coca-Cola." It was present, but it was never a key ingredient. it was merely a consequence of using coca leaves for flavour. --Dragon of the Pants 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When Coca-Cola first became extremely popular, it was marketed primarily in Pharmacies; where someone would drink a glass of Coca-Cola for a morning boost. Remembering the basic pharmacokinetics of cocaine, 5-10mg of cocaine (approximately the amount in the original pharmacy-sold Coca-Cola) will produce effects comparable to a very pleasant caffeine boost - does this explain the reason for the use of the words "key ingredient"? Coca-Cola was an immediate success, and the minimal cocaine content explains it perfectly.--Ddhix 2002 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, understanding the pharmacokinetics of cocaine has nothing to do with what levels were or were not ever in Coco-Cola.  So where do you get the 5-10 mg of cocaine per pharmacy serving?  In 1902 the level of cocaine in the beverage was about 6ppm, completely insignificant, and it wasn't until after then, in 1906, that the company began using non-cocainized leaves.  As much fun as it may be to say that Coca-Cola used to get people high, some proof would be excellent, especially as I've read Coca-Cola has never had enough cocaine in it to prompt psychoactive effects.  I have no problem being proven wrong, but the text as it stands says no, so lets get the reliable documentation for this assertion  before it ends up being published.--psripley 11 August 2006
In the intro it says "For many decades cocaine was a key ingredient in Coca-Cola." But then under Popularization it says "...original 1886 recipe for Coca-Cola, though the company began using decocainized leaves in 1906". So cocaine was used in Coca-Cola from 1886 to 1906. This is two decades, right? So I think the intro is misleading and could perhaps be changed from "many decades" to "two decades" or "twenty years". Dailyenglish 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coca-Cola 

message: i still don't understand how crack can give a "strong cocaine experience" (the French WP adds "of shorter duration") if it is unfinished cocaine contaminated with additives from the earlier processing stages which have been left there, to reduce the cost of the final product by neglecting the later purification steps (i guess that explains the cheaper price, with so much "cut"). And then the article says that the purification can be achieved with water, see "cookback"). TIA
Jerome Potts 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the appeal of crack cocaine 

message: I'm surprised that there isn't a list of the more common slang names for cocaine here. I would have started one but I'm guessing it's too obvious a thing to have been overlooked: has one been made and then removed? -- drrngrvy tlk @ 04:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah there's an entire separate article for slang names for drugs. —porges(talk) 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I can't find a link on the page. *looks around* -- drrngrvy tlk @ 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing list of names 

message: :It should be noted that forensic toxicologists, including Svetla Balabanova, as well as a team of German egyptologysts, have found traces of coca leaves in the aromatic herbs used in the preservation of ancient egyptian mummies, which would point to both proof of an ancient, trans-continental trade route, and knowledge of the effects of the coca plant. For the most part, the scientific community has generally ignored the proofs, and refused to look into the matter any further.
I just removed the above addition to the article, on the grounds that it is not cited, and I can't make any kind of judgement as to its accuracy.  I invite anybody who has knowledge of this to provide Reliable sources for the claims. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claims 

message: I changed "Obviously there is also a risk of serious infection associated with the use of contaminated needles." To "There is also a risk of serious infection associated with the use of contaminated needles." It is not obvious to everyone that there is risk, that's why people read encyclopedias. :) 199.67.138.42 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentance Change

message: In the section "Chewed/Eaten," it is not made clear that the coca leaf - whether by chewing it in one's mouth or through the infusion of coca leaves and consumption of it thereafter as tea - is not the same as cocaine.  Further, this section could lead readers to believe that such usage of coca leaves would be mildly similar to cocaine, or worse yet, that coca is a drug.  It should be reiterated and made clear that coca is an herb and that the traditional consumption of coca leaves in Andean countries does not result in a euphoric state.
Again, it should be made perfectly and indisputably clear in this article that the coca leaf and the drug cocaine are not the same thing.Kch480 05:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coca and Cocaine Differentation 

message: Should there be a link to cocaine, the highly caffeinated drink?
:What are you talking about?--Ddhix 2002 10:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I see now - [www.drinkcocaine.com]. No, there shouldn't be a link as of yet. Lets at least wait until it gathers some popular media attention. We can't cover EvErYtHiNg cocaine related, now can we?--Ddhix 2002 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it has enough Media attention. It's some energy drink called 'Cocaine'. It should be called 'Crap' because that's what it tastes like. It's only called Cocaine for all the 'effin Media attention. -Saint Ryan 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

message: Current section on treatment is bias. Let me start with a statement, that 12 steps groups is not a treatment. It could be a supplement to the treatment, but not treatment itself. At the present moment addiction-focused mutual-help groups divided in two main categories: faith based (included 12 steps models groups, pastoral counseling and etc.) and non-faith based groups (Save Our Selves (SOS), SMART Recovery, Life-ring Secular Recovery, Rational Recovery (RR), Pennsylvania Model of Recovery, YES Recovery, Women/Men for Sobriety, 16-Step Empowerment Model, Moderation Management, Sinclair Method, and Harm Reduction Therapy). A review of studies conducted by Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M shows found no clear evidence that 12-steps modeled groups were better than the others 
Another article in Alcoholism - Clinical and Experimental Research  shows the positive therapeutic effect of addiction-focused mutual-help groups. No differentiation has been made between 12 steps or non 12 steps groups. The outcomes of 12 steps versus non 12 steps groups were not directly compared to each other. The authors point out, that "addiction-focused mutual-help group participation is associated with better substance use disorder (SUD) treatment outcomes. However, little has been documented regarding which types of mutual-help organizations patients attend, what levels of participation may be beneficial, and which patients, in particular, are more or less likely to participate." 
I, thought wiki is to provide knowledge, not for pushing up some agenda. Unless you can provide studies that contradict my statement, please do not edit treatment section of cocaine article.
(Webdome 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: We do need a cocaine cola beverage {cocaine cola beverage} article.
Two messages above, someone refused to sign;
however, there should be such a page.
Thank You.
hopiakuta 18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We do need a [[cocaine cola beverage]] {[[cocaine]] [[cola]] [[beverage]]} article. 

message: In the section "smoking" refering to crack cocaine is it really necessary to have directions on how to make a crack pipe? --Dakota 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe too much info

message: What changes need to be made to improve this article to FA status?
PStrait 03:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status? 

message: I put a  after the mention of cocaine being cut with methamphetamine. I believe this should be documented somewhere (besides a DARE website). It seems suspect being that methamphetamine is much more expensive than cocaine, it seems rather unlikely you would cut something cheaper with something more expensive. Much like the myth of heroin in ecstacy tabs.Mikelj 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meth is cheaper than cocaine in some places... I believe it depends on one's proximity to the source for either.  Having said that, you could certainly be correct. PStrait 21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be so. I will look around for any info I can find, but its too hard to trust DARE scare pages. Keep your ears to the grindstone, as they say.Mikelj 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearences 

message: It is inaccurate to include the chewing of coca leaves and the drinking of mate de coca in a section about the administration of cocaine.  As this article does a great job of explaining, cocaine is isolated from the coca leaf through an involved chemical process using kerosene.  The cocaine that result from the process and sold on the street for use is a completely different substance with a very different effect from chewing the untreated leaves or drinking the mate.  Cocaine has a psycho active effect, coca leaf has a mild stimulating effect.  To equate cocaine use with coca leaf use is similar to suggesting that eating barley grain is a way of ingesting whiskey.  Coca is not like marijuana, where simply ingesting or smoking the unprepared leaves has a mind altering effect.  If there are no objections I suggest that leaf chewing and tea drinking be deleted from this section.Nepal Tree 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps moved to the coca leaves article? I'm for a move.Mikelj 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modes of Administration 

message: I think that the photo of the women smoking crack is inappropriate for this site. I doubt that she gave permission for her photo to appear on the intra web.
I think that either the face should be blurred or the image taken down.
Please support me on this, how is a photo of someone smoking a bong educational and informative?
:Educational and informative by showing the general ugliness of the common person who smokes crack cocaine. Everyone I ever met who chronically smoked crack cocaine were generally very ugly people (caused from crack - not from birth).--Ddhix 2002 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a terrible reason to have something in an article.  I'm removing it.csloat 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo illustrates cocaine smoking technique perfectly, and it represents a large segment of the crack smoking population. The model consented to being photographed, so please do a little research before exercising prior restraint. --Mesolimbo 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might read up on prior restraint before throwing false allegations.  I see no point in "illustrating cocaine smoking technique," and I'm not sure it's relevant how "perfect" her technique is.  The issue of her consent was not raised (not by me) in terms of her consent to be photographed but her consent to be displayed smoking crack in an encyclopedia -- if you secured a signed consent form from her that allows you to display her photo in this manner, please link to it on the photo page.  Either way, however, it does not belong on this page.  Your assertion that it "represents a large segment of the crack smoking population" is empty -- in what way does it "represent" them?  What data backs up that assertion?  I think the encyclopedia article is being used in this case to display an artist's work rather than to inform readers about the topic of the article. csloat 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: is this the offending image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Smoking_Crack.jpg Dyukanon 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's the one. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't censored, the image might be offensive, but IMO, it is imforming how this drug is commonly consumed. So I suggest to put it back. I will not object if someone can draw a n illustration to replace the photograph. Wooyi 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman smoking crack 

message: Since the jurists and the article like to say, that detection in hair proves the use, I wonder what if some bad barber applies certain chemicals (Permanent wave; at least it is said that this procedure can lead to misleading low test results), so that the metabolites (or whatever the jurists search for) are brought into the hair. Is it too difficult to get those chemicals? Or how should detection in hair prove anything? Should we give some more information here, so that somebody who is accused isnt too puzzled (like the "hair-trick" in Four Brothers (film))? --Homer Landskirty 09:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: detection in hair

message: Shouldn't it be Cocaine(benzoylmethyl-ecgonine) or Crack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.11.55.115 (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: benzoylmethyl-ecgonine

message: Is crack more addictive than powdered cocaine? There was once a section of this article somehow insinuating that crack users were less culpable due to the fact it has the same fundamental chemistry as powdered cocaine. Jeffrey King 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nonsense. 'Crack' cocaine is cocaine freebase, so it has no delivery system and must be smoked up into the lungs; the cocaine molecule then goes directly to the brain the same way as oxygenated blood that gets to your brain through breathing via the lungs and hits the brain fastest with minimal blood concentration; i.e. by way of less concentration not more. 'powder' cocaine is however a salt of cocaine, usually a muriate or hydrochloric salt of cocaine making it highly hygroscopic and therefore capable of crossing the mucus membranes and water soluble routes like being able to be shot up (IV administration), freebase cocaine needs to be broken down by an acid to do this. 65.102.8.249 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Despite statements to the contrary in this article, there is not a positive correlation between crack use and homelessness. Jeffrey King 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypes 

message: There was minor vandilism on the page. Someone made a small edit advocating the use of cocaine. Frozenlake 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: The hyphens in "well-over" and "long-list" (second paragraph of the Introduction) are not standard. I think they should be removed. Anyone?  Frededias 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though you could have done that yourself, Frededias! Be bold. garik 09:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: This line seems contradictory or atleast confusing compared to the main Richard Pryor page...
"Demonstrative of the dangers of the practice, the famous comedian Richard Pryor used to perform a well known skit in which he poked fun at himself over a 1980 incident in which he caused an explosion and set himself on fire while attempting to smoke “freebase”, presumably while still wet with ether."
From the Richard Pryor page:
"Interviewed in 2005, his wife Jennifer Lee Pryor said that Richard poured high-proof rum over his body and torched himself in a drug psychosis. In a TV interview with Barbara Walters during his recovery, Pryor said that he tried to commit suicide."
Did Mr. Pryor ever say what really happened?
--76.187.24.41 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freebase/Richard Pryor reference 

message: "In the 1970s cocaine regained popularity as a recreational drug and was glamorized in the U.S. popular media (for example, in songs like J.J. Cale's Cocaine and the movie Scarface), and by the disco music culture that emerged around discotheques like Studio 54. [3] The Medellín and Cali Cartels were founded in Colombia to meet the new demand for cocaine."
The movie Scarface came out in 1983..., unless we're speaking of the 1930's version of Scarface? -Saint Ryan 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scarface? 

message: Though most often used recreationally for this effect, it could be said that cocaine is actually 
 utilized as a non-prescription over-the-counter antidepressant.
What's this supposed to mean?  "It could be said" - well is it said?  And is cocaine sold over the counter as an antidepressant anywhere?  Or does the sentence actually refer to illegal use? garik 10:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody gave any specific external reference, I deleted that part of the sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KungFuMonkey (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in opening paragraph 

message: This article is too long and its encyclopedic value is too high (for obvious reasons) as to stay open for unregistered users. I have just reverted 7 consequitive non-sense edits. Please respect your own work. -- Boris 12:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: What does DA stand for in this section. I assume it stands for dopamine but this is not very clear. Perhaps there needs to be a DA(dopamine) somewhere like how dopamine transporter protein is introduced "dopamine transporter protein (DAT)" in the article. I am not sure on this so can someone with more chem knowledge help.Lonjers 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanism of action question

message: The information regarding solubility in water is incorrect.  The real solubility is 1800 mg / L not the 1800 mg / mL as stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.118.47 (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you know that? -- Boris 09:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility in Water 

message: I've seen multiple viewpoints in Google on this point. 
General:
*A common myth is that cocaine is not addictive because it lacks the physical withdrawal symptoms seen in alcohol or heroin addiction. 
Physical:
*Some drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, more quickly produce a physical addiction than other drugs do for many people. [www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00183.html]
*
*
Psychological:
*
*Regular use of cocaine can lead to strong psychological dependence (addiction).  
Both:
*It would be hard to design a more psychologically addictive drug than cocaine.
*For years treatment professionals told us cocaine was not physically addictive (some still do). Cocaine addicts were offered little support and frequently accused of being ‘weak willed' or of imagining withdrawal symptoms. Unlike heroin, alcohol or tranquillisers that have a dramatic withdrawal syndrome, inducing obvious physical symptoms, the physical addiction to cocaine takes place in the brain. Effectively over time with repeated use, your brain becomes addicted to cocaine. Cocaine attaches its self to the receptor sites in your brain where the pleasurable neurochemicals (dopamine especially) are stored, they then wash around in your system for a while making you feel high, before being excreted from your body and lost. The net result is that you are left with a shortage of dopamine, without enough dopamine you feel miserable and irritable and in extreme cases can experience what psychologist call adhenia where it is pretty much impossible to feel good about anything. 
Should we decide one side is right, or just describe the controversy? --Uncle Ed 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute over "physical addiction"

message: The section on smoking cocaine states that copper chore "is not used" because it causes bleeding in the lungs.  Actually, copper chore is all I have ever seen used here in Chicago.  Maybe instead say copper chore "should not be used" or "using copper chore has the additional risk that bleeding in the lungs may occur".  ChrB
In the first sentence the word inpure should be removed in dicussing crack cocaine. All texts and reference to drug analysis of a forensic nature consider cocaine by definition to be in the free base form. All other references of cocaine are identified as to what acid salt form they may be in. References sighted include but are not limited to "Clark's Analysis of Drugs and Poisons" third edition and "Instrumrntal Data for Drug Analysis"(IDDA) second edition.
This in no way implies that crack may or may not be cut with a multitude of materials; but that cocaine in this form is in its true pure form. It is not modified with the addition of an acid group.
Forensicguy 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chore 

message: "Today, Cocaine in its various forms comes in second only to cannabis as the most popular illegal recreational drug in the United States, and is number one in street value sold each year, exceeding $35 billion in 2003."
This needs a citation. A number of sources point to ecstasy or methamphetamines as the #2 illegal recreational drug in America.
131.111.200.200 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of citation needed tag. 

message: Death by heart attack and asphyxia.
Also please make overdose it's own section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.92.132 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need overdoes section and possible harmful effects section 

message: is it possible to take crack using a glass bottle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blahyblah (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: The entire history section disappeared a while ago...  —porges(talk) 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Does anybody have a link to a translated version of Uber Coca? There is a direct quote from the piece on the page, but I cannot find a citation... The freddinator 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Primary Source: Uber Coca 

message: Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment