Talk:Cold water extraction

message: I know this may sound a tad petty, but some of the terminology used in the description of the possible side-effects of intravenous codeine use don't seem befitting of an encyclopedic document.
Cheers,
--Der Leiter 06:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper use of slang

message: [YES]AFAIK, 'cold water extraction' isn't recognized by chemists, but is more of a "kitchen chemistry" way to purify codiene tablets employed by drug users. I don't know that this is deserving of an article. If I'm wrong, it definatelt needs expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.160.28.71 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [NO]That doesn't make much difference, it is still commonly used and known so no reason why it shouldn't have an article. Mushintalk 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [YES]Still, should instructions on how to extract an opioid from common cough medicines be described in a public encyclopaedia? It's not exactly common knowledge and also not really important for the article as a whole, but it might give an impression of Wikipedia as drug abuse-friendly. --TheOtherStephan 03:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [NO]Since when does an encyclopedia need to be politically correct? There are a lot of articles describing processes and this is no different. It's also perfectly legal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.200.106 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

text: [NO]Cold water extraction is recognized by Chemists, as it has been presented in procedures to me in my college level organic chemistry class
[NO]If this isn't the the place to detail what hot cold water extraction (or any other drug/weapon/ANYTHING) process, then I don't know what would be the appropriate place. Wikipedia is about education, what you do with it is up to you, not Wikipedia. If we were to go running around deleting things on Wikipedia because they are "drug abuse-friendly", how is that any different from censorship? An open forum encyclopedia is not about censorship. Educate yourself, you owe it to yourself to not allow yourself to be ignorant of things out there.
[NO]Cold water extraction is a standard technique in quantitative chemistry.  The differential solubilities of different substances at different temperatures is commonly used by chemists to separate those substances.  Furthermore, it is part of the educational curriculum.  The Royal Society of Chemistry for example provides an educational document (intended for high school students) at http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/LearnNet/rsc/paracetamol.pdf which describes in great detail, procedures to isolate paracetamol from other substances.  I quote from page 4: "When the hot solution is cooled down, it reaches the temperature at which paracetamol reaches its limit of solubility and therefore starts to crystallise out."  If it's good enough for the RSC, it's good enough for wikipedia, I say.  As for the issue of censorship generally, the illegality of the matter described is totally irrelevant.  Lots of illegal activities are described in wikipedia and it helps law-abiding persons such as you and me to be aware of that activity.  As for whether it could be harmful to describe the procedures, well I am NOT opposed to censorship in principle.  Censorship is sometimes the most ethical course of action even though it can weaken democracy.  But let's get our priorities right.  You could at a pinch argue that removing bomb-making instructions from wikipedia might be worthwhile even though it's elsewhere on the net anyway, but stopping Australians from purifying a drug that is available in pure form in pharmacies in other 1st world countries is not exactly law-enforcement's highest priority and that's why the police don't bother to prosecute for possession of this drug, despite it being illegal.  I recommend that there be no censorship on Wikipedia for any matters concerning drugs, legal or illegal. Tmrussell 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on! There are articles on porn stars who still get it in the behind while i'm writing this, and you are arguing about whether this should be granted an article? --78.86.159.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we Censor this Article ? 

message: Thanks for the info, works great with nurofen plus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.151.101 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm still not exactly clear on all the workings on Wikipedia, I will leave this comment however it seems irrelevant.  Nickstuckert 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worked well 

message: "...used to extract hydrocodone (which is insoluble in water)..."
hydrocodone is an opiate salt... and so...
"These extractions are possible because opiate salts dissolve in water far more readily than acetaminophen and ibuprofen."
I was wondering the solubility of ibuprofen, it's not in that article.--x1987x(talk) 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Can Wiki tell me how to roll a joint, next?
Watch the film "Kids." There is an in-detail set of instructions and a jamming soundtrack to boot!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.122.38 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the data for hydrocodone was about the base.  The salt hydrocodone bitartrate is also soluble, like codeine and oxycodone.  I think I've fixed it.  And I'm told I was wrong about the procedure not being illegal, but I don't think we generally use disclaimers on Wikipedia anyway. --Galaxiaad 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome 

message: The instructional information regarding the CWE was deleted by a previous user (OAC)who claimed that it was in "non-encyclopaedic structure and acts as a guide to recreational opiate use-. should not be on 'pedia, or needs major clean-up, or needs to be generalized, not outlined in a tutorial."
While I agree that the writing style of that section did seem to require a revamping to a more appropriate tone, I would question why someone would suggest that tutorial style instructions are not appropriate for Wikipedia and site the "The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_85_Ways_to_Tie_a_Tie) as a clear example of instructional information being provided on Wikipedia. If there are specific Wikipedia guidelines that would justify such information's removal either due to their instructional nature, or which would sanction the removal of that information for any other reasons, I would challenge someone to present it.  
JeffieFreedom (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of tutorial style guidline for CWE