Talk:Cocaine/Archive 2

Production

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)[reply]

I don't know everything but there are various acids including sulferic and hydrochloric, but just because they are used in production DOES NOT mean that they are in the finished product. This is a common misconception. The final steps to cocaine production are washing, evaporating, and drying, which removes most impurities. However with the increased pressure from the DEA and rising transportation costs it leaves Colombia no more than 75% pure,(dea stats look them up yourself lazy fuck.) the impurities are added on the way to the U.S. to increase weight (which means increased profits). It is cut at the border in half and in half again at the destination hub. Most cocaine is only about 10% to 20% pure with anyone claiming more being fooled by additives like benzocaine and lidocaine.

Users

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)[reply]

It amazes me that there are so many people who have contributed to this article. Could it be that wikipedia has a drug problem? This is the most informative article I have read at wikipedia, and that worries me given the degree of information about the processing and use. mokru 19:53 10 December 2006.

Scent

I've been lucky enough to try it all over the world, as strong as 93%, and it definitely has a smell much like what theses writers say, but it is most likely very covered by the ether, creatine, baby laxative or whatever it is cut bye. But that numbing smell stays the same- whether it taste like diesel, fingernail polish, paint whatever- there is something there that can only be described as a numbing smell- and if it's good, you can smell it all the way to your feet. I would go as far as to say that the memory its smell is the easiest way to become a regular user; especially for those who frequent bars, or drink alcohol regularly. If you have been doing coke lately, you will catch that smell randomly in your nose and if you know someone around holding, it makes it easy to do. I also think that Skynyrd song where he is like Ohhhh Ohhhh that smell, gotta have that smell" is talking about just this subject. Does Cocaine smell good? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.137.245.198 (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't really have a smell. When you snort it you can smell a weird smell for a second. I can't put my finger on it. My friend says it reminds him of spray paint. It definitely smells like a solvent of some kind. But as for just smelling it - no smell.--Ddhix 2002 05:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It smells like ammonia. 68.108.211.97 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i would definitly say 'most' of the time 'powdered' cocaine smells like ammonia, now crack cocaine can have quite a few different smells that you can usually only smell unless you have large amounts (7g or more). wildboyz_211 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ether is commonly used to "cut" the drug as it passes from one dealer to another so as to maximize profits. Ether is commonly used in paint thinner as well as various solvents and during the 1800's was used as an anesthetic. Spray paint commonly contains paint thinner to prevent the paint from clotting. Perhaps this is why cocaine reminds your friend of spraypaint. Somnabot 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to quash the ether as cut notion, but I will add more information (below) in the process. Because ether is very volatile, it would turn from liquid to vapor ASAP unbottled and float away (assuming that nothing ignited it along the way).

Ether is a highly flammable and volatile solvent that, in combination with acetone, is used to precipitate relatively pure cocaine hydrochloride crystals out of impure liquid coke base. Coke base is derived from a coke paste composed of macerated coca leaves that have been bathed in another solvent, usually kerosene, gasoline, or diesel fuel. (I have heard that the use of diesel fuel lends the end product a particularly pronounced flavor, which is sometimes affectionately referred to as “diesel”.)

As far as trying to classify the odor of cocaine, there are too many steps using different materials that come into play, from the initial processing with a combination of solvents, to the materials used to cut the cocaine as it makes its way from the wholesalers to the local merchants. This journey subjects the product to many adulterations as it changes hands, so what was originally fairly pure cocaine becomes a mix of various substances that have been added to extend apparent quantity and real profit. There is also to consider whether the cocaine has been converted from hydrochloride to freebase form, or “cracked” in popular language. Cracking cocaine usually involves just the addition of water and sodium bicarbonate with the application of heat, so the process may have no effect on odor, but will leave a salty taste due to the remaining sodium bicarbonate. (Before the advent of crack as the popular and destructive street drug, freebasing cocaine involved purification steps that required the use of volatile and extremely flammable solvents, and for the conversion from the hydrochloride to base, it’s likely that ammonia was most often used. Simply cracking cocaine skips the purification steps that use flammable solvents, is much faster to do, requires less skill, and is not dangerous in the sense that an explosion could occur as the result of a little carelessness. )

I will agree that some cocaine definitely smells like ammonia, or perhaps the term 'cat pee' may evoke a more complex and interesting imagined odor. It would be my guess that in such cases ammonia was used as a solvent in its production at some point, although ammonia probably is not used that commonly anymore. In other cases cocaine may smell like baby powder, and it would not be hard to imagine that scented talc was used as a cut somewhere along the way from factory to market.

So although there are many things cocaine may smell like due to its pedigree, there is no one specific smell that all cocaine shares. In general terms, I might say that cocaine has a slightly bitter, acrid odor, is primarily but slightly redolent of the solvents that were used to produce it, but beyond that, too many other factors contribute to its final odor to be more specific.

peterr 10:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it goes up it can smell like yes spray paint, or even bleach, or chlorine(16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

it smells like ether and paint thinner

I'd just like to comment it's rather humourous that you all know what it smells like, if you get what im saying (wink wink).

Heh. True Slavik262 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt all the contributors to the cocaine article and discussions learned what they know from friends. Friends can be a great source of intimate knowledge on topics completely foreign to others. I can't imagine a Wikipedia contributor using cocaine--it just seems so far-fetched. Would a contributor ever use cocaine and suddenly get the urge to write about it as an outlet for the desire to do or create something? The idea seems so unlikely. My friend, for example, simply goes and cleans his bathroom, maybe washes and waxes his car, catches up on his bills, gives his HVAC ducts a little wiping out, tests the impedance of the current from his breaker panel to the various outlets in his house, sometimes backs up then reformats his hard drive, and gives a bit of extra attention to his wife, if you know what I mean. He has never contributed to Wikipedia as far as I know, although he did once write a science fiction novella, published by a major press, in the space of two hours. He is a great source on the topic of cocaine's properties and use. It is friends like this that undoubtedly supply intimate knowledge to Wikipedia contributors, who in turn provide objectivity and appropriate distance while writing on the esoterica of its use. But enough on this argument. I have to get back to restringing the piano so I can continue work on my symphony.

peterr 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have used cocaine and I also contribute to Wikipedia. In fact, I am high on coke as I write this. I would also comment that it sounds as if peterr's friend is using meth, rather than cocaine, based on the behavior he describes. Cocaine smells really bad, especially high quality cocaine. Sort of smells like bleach or ammonia, I would say, though its smell is unique. You might be wondering why anyone would put such a nasty smelling substance up their nose. Well, aside from the obvious reasons, snorting it quickly renders the users nose incapable of smell, so you only smell it the first line you do. Smell returns as the anasthetic effect wears off. [User:Apalley] 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have used cocaine, AND CRACK (dear god, not that!) in the past, and I contribute to wikipedia. When I lived in florida, they had cocaine there you could smell thru the bag. The best way to describe it, I think, is a combination bleach/chlorine/paint thinner, pungent yet sweet aroma, which seems very strange to me. I love how it smells, and even though I have not used in many years I can still remember it! 71.251.168.59 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Surge[reply]

Contradictory sentence on useage

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)

breakup

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)[reply]

To better snort the lines

Can use a razor any form of card I.d. Credit cards etc... break down into fine powder to better get up the nose

Street Prices

Should there be a street price listing or discussion as part of the page?

It might be a good idea. But EVERYONE would have to remember that street price varies with two primary things: Geography (I live in Texas, it can be bought for $50 a gram, someone in Maine pays $100 a gram), and quantity ($50 a gram - $700 an ounce; 28 grams). There is no "Set Price" for cocaine all over the world, it's different everywhere. Purity is also a major issue. The guy in Maine is getting cocaine that is cut to about 50% purity at best, while mine is about 95% pure (tested, yes), because I am two hours from the border. Everyone take these things into consideration:) --Ddhix 2002 06:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Serbia and gram is 50 euros,witch is pretty expensive,but Marihuana is only 3 euros for 5 grams,so it makes up 212.200.135.154 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an up-to-date geographical breakout would be of most use? Don't know if maybe Bloomberg does that already...

In any case, during the '80s, a gram was always $100, and purity was the joke factor. Nowadays I think it's more like $80 a gram, quality be damned. In other words prices and portions remain pretty constant while quality is totally unpredictable. That makes sense I would think because quality is usually the most subjective factor (for no good reason perhaps), or else the one that is truly determined after pricing and quantity have been taken care of (often unfortunately). I could understand border areas being special cases though.

peterr 11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three main factors to take into cosideration location, purity, and the the person who is supplying you. I also live in Texas where average cokeprices are 25-35 for a gram, 550-700 for an ounce (28 grams), 2,000-2500 for an eighth (4 and 1/2 ounces), 4,000-5,000 for a quater (9 ounces) 8,000-10,000 for an half (18 ounces) and 16,000-18000 for an key (36 ounces or 1,000 grams). Thats just in my area. Now the price of your coke also depends on your supplier (connect) because not everyone scores(buys) the same amount of coke when the re-up(resupply). For instance the dealer only scores a key he would have the average prices of his location unless he cooks it up(convert coke to crack) and sell it. But a dealer that scores five keys at a time will most likely get the wholesale price which is locally 8,000 to 11,000 esimatied or someone who scores 50 to 100 keys might get them for 5,000 to 8,000 a key. Now somebody getting this deal doesn't have to go by the local prices as much as the person who scores 1-3 three keys everytime he re-up and will be able to undercut the average price. Real Talk

Units

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)[reply]

It means for every ounce of something there are n mg of something else present. Use water as an example for every ounce of pure water there are some quantity of chlorine measured in mg present! (for instance)

Introduction

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)[reply]

Usage

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) John S.[reply]

I would place in modern usage. Its an upfate on personal reseach and links to external sources.

Renewed Popularity in the 2000s

Cocaine has become more [[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.showbiz.gossip/browse_thread/thread/7a09c862a3dc050c/7ead27ba2407f8e4?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#7ead27ba2407f8e4 | common]] in the club scene, in the mid-2000s as an alternative for [[http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=8ce583c0-2d91-46f6-af0a-aa4c845a0528&chunkiid=31675 | hipsters]]instead of crystal meth or XTC. It’s a milder high and experienced club goers are attracted to it because they feel more in control with the high from cocaine vs. alcohol. It has recently become popular in the [[http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2006/05/21/c1a_COCAINE_MAIN_0521.html | 20-30something suburban scene]] as a safe drug like pot was in the 1970s. Cocaine has few immediate post-high side effects, if taken in moderation, compared to other stimulants, and is complimentary to the recent RedBull-Vodka effect of staying up and being stimulated as long as possible. It also creates the feeling of euphoria similar to X , but a more spiked shorter effect. It has also become a commodity were women, especially swingers, expect " it" in exchange for sexual favors, and typically blow jobs. However men often have gone on binges instead of use them as " treats" because it lowers male’s ability to have an erections. This has caused the combo of cocaine and Viagra to become popular among sexual active men and even women. Women will often suggest or even supply the Viagra before sexual activity as the numbing effects of cocaine are widely known.

The usage of Cocaine has become more common among married 30-something women in the late 2000s, as women are hit a change point in there lives with kids and family completed. The drug usually is introduced through a new friend in book clubs, neighborhood events and home marketing gatherings. This new user will have sense of entitlement that "they have worked hard, done right and its time to try new things". This sense of new found excitement, the high of cocaine, drives married women to behave this way. Husbands will almost always go along, because if their wives increased sexual desire. But in the end men are driven to abuse of the drug if they control the financials of the household, and therefore the quantity of usage. However after a mild habitual addiction has set in the wives find other means to obtain cocaine through sexual favors, as it sexually stimulates them. They can typically bypass the a money exchange for cocaine in party venues like clubs, concerts and home parties, [[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crack+whore | for sexual favors, most commonly blow jobs, in private places (i.e. bathrooms, private rooms, cars etc.)]] Cocaine usage has become more common in the [[http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003539.html | upper middle class]] since the cost is just another expense which can easily be hidden in the a +$100K salary. The damage really done when the casual club going habit becomes out of control and turns instead into a binge activity and it destroys careers and sanity of the mind to stop the usage.

Appearance of Crack Cocaine

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)[reply]

People just call it crack know

How about a mention of the Gary Webb controversy?

Jerome Potts 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positron scans?

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. —porg es_(talk) 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related drugs?

While most other drugs can be grouped together with literary hundreds of similar drugs (heroin with other opiates etc) cocaine seems to be a loner. No other drug seems to give the same high. Procaine (aka novocaine) and lidocaine (aka xylocaine) is local anastetics, with molocule structure similar to cocaine. I've been told that recreational dose is approximately equal to fatal dose, making them unusable as recreational drugs. And amphetamine and methamphetamine are way different, even thou used sporadically by many cocaine users. So that leaves the question open: Is there existing any other cocaine releated drugs worth mentioning?

(Above Post is Unsigned by Author) NEW POST; Cocaine is not a loner, it can be grouped together with plenty of tropane alkaloids. First off, you should check out a Merck Index: Lidocaine, and Novocaine are molecular worlds apart. Cocaine is a tropane alkaloid - the other two local anesthetics are not. Refer to Wikipedia's articles, and compare the pictures, at least; you know, to see the difference. You were told wrong; the recreational dose is no where near the LD₅₀ (95.1 mg/kg - I weigh 54kg, so it would take a little over 5 grams of pure cocaine for me to overdose). Cocaine is stable as a "recreational drug," beyond that (whatever your definition of 'recreational' is - good or bad) is your choice. The question is open, solved, and closed already: Tropacocaine (refer to your local Google), which is about 0.4x more potent than actual cocaine. Not to mention the other tropane-stimulants out there that resemble cocaine (one of which is 30x more potent than cocaine).--Ddhix 2002 10:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the recreational dose is no where near the LD₅₀"—they were referring to the -caines, not cocaine itself. —porg es_(talk) 21:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i find it obvious that Ddhix is asking if there are any other illicit drugs that people abuse that have similar effects during intoxication. obviously he's not saying that there is no molecule similar to this one.

Porge, that doesn't make any sense. You cannot generalize the LD₅₀ to an extremely broad spectrum of substances only based on the fact that they end with "Caine." The LD₅₀ of cocaine, is, in fact, 95.1 mg/kg (Reference: Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, Vol.17, Iss.5, pp. 1087-8 ; Title: Comparative lethality of coca and cocaine); this is very specific to cocaine toxicity alone. To clear this up even further, other substances that end with 'caine' (yet have nothing to do, molecularly, or toxicologically with cocaine) include: Procaine, Lidocaine, Chloroprocaine, Mepivacaine, Tetracaine, Prilocaine, Bupivacaine, Etidocaine, Articaine, and Ropivacaine (Refer to Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, Vol.1, No.3, pp175-82 (2001) for a complete comparison of all of these substances, and their absolute differences in toxicity).--Ddhix 2002 10:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the unnamed user who started this sub-discussion. What I meant was drugs giving a similar high to cocaine. Not "laboratory drugs", i.e. drugs not seen outside a laboratory. (I'm not interested in if some scientists make a new drug, say 5 times more potent than cocaine). I'm interested in "street drugs", "club drugs" etc. that mean something to the average joe. IS THERE EXISTING ANY SUCH ONES WITH A SIMILAR HIGH TO COCAINE? Thanks for all the feedback and discussion.

Bjarnulf, Oslo

P.S. People must stop to take the LD50 tables as an absolute truth. They only INDICATE that some substances are more deadly than others. Deadly for rats and mices that are used in these experiments. And remember that they react different to poison than humans. Sometimes they stand less, but usually they are a bit toughter. Meaning it takes a few milligram extra per kilo of bodyweight to kill them, compared to humans. However LD50 is the only method for measuring poisonous materials we have had for the last 100 years, even thou not a good one. No regime, apart from Nazi-Germany has to my knowledge done LD50 experiments on humans.

Physically addictive?

From the first paragraph: "Cocaine can be psychologically and physically addictive..." Is this medically correct? Opiates & alcohol can create a physical addiction, where withdrawal induces bona fide physical illness. But... cocaine? Rearden Metal 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is consistent with Rearden Metal's. Cocaine withdrawal is generally annoying for the user because of psychological dependence but the physical effects of withdrawal are minimal. I believe there are some, but the user does not become ill, as with heroin or alcohol (or even nicotine). I think it should be changed back, unless the user who made the change can provide a source stating otherwise.--csloat 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cocaine produces strong psychological dependence, but physical dependence is absolutely minimal. The only physical dependence that I could think of would be the blood vessels in the nose (assuming it is snorted) re-dilating, causing an 'urge' to constrict them again by use of more cocaine - this really isn't legitimate physical drug dependence, though. Also, users will often describe physical pain, but the cause is - most often - psychological pain; psychological pain can and will convince you that you have physical pain, as well. It should definitely be changed back to just psychologically addictive, and maybe something added as the 'reason' for the misconception of physical addiction.--Ddhix 2002 09:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From everything I've read, cocaine is considered to be much more psychologically addictive than assumed even 20 years ago, but to establish that a substance is physically addictive you have to demonstrate what physical withdrawal symptoms are associated with cessation. I have never heard of any regarding cocaine, although I do know that caffeine can cause physical withdrawal symptoms such as headache and anxiety. So let's be scientific here rather than just sounding plausible and glossing over this—if cocaine is physically addictive, lets do provide some documentation. Mistakes like this just perpetuate themselves, and Wikipedia should be the place where wives tales, urban myths and common misconceptions are more closely examined by the authors and exposed as false if they are. (Wow, don't I sound uptight?)

peterr 10:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A by-the-way: One who looks deep enough will find that the concept of the 'crack baby' has been found to be unsupported. Studies performed over time by serious researchers in the field, some of whom originally believed in the syndrome, show no correlation between a mothers use of crack cocaine during gestation and abnormal behavior of her infant after birth. A theory on the topic suggests that mothers who use crack, however, are more likely to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes during pregnancy, and use of these other harmful drugs may the true culpret behind the damage and illness their babies may be born with, problems previously assumed to be the result of crack use.

peterr 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the physical addiction reference...cocaine is even used as an example in the wp article Addiction Farsnickle 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it is physically addictive too. I was addicted to it for 7 years and when I went to detox, it was brutal. Not the same as opiate withdrawal, but still quite unpleasant. I thought I was getting strep throat, but the doctors informed me that part of cocaine withdrawal (and this probably applies to a lot of drugs) is that the patient can end up feeling as though they have various physical ailments. It's cause your body is going through such a change in how it's used to functioning, everything gets all out of whack.

younhad strep thoat? - maybe it was - doctors CAN be arseholes too.

Rulingatlife 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cocaine is NOT physically addictive. at all. for those that say it is, it is your mind fooling you into thinking it is. trust me, i have been addicted to heroin in the past and now THAT is a pyhiscally addictive drug. I smoked crack for 30 days straight once, and quit without any phyiscal withdrawal symptoms (I was using heroin too at the time though throughout, just to mention that..)!

Side effects?

~~November 24, 2006 Just wondering if there is information on side effects, such as dry mouth or side effects from baby laxatives or baking powder one should be aware of when the cocaine is "stepped on" by such substances? ~~deglispiriti

Crack Baby. What about omphalocoele? We see it all the time in the maternity hospital, and only in mothers who take crack. only. it's well documented. see Martinez, J M. Fortuny, A. Comas, C. Puerto, B. Borrell, A. Palacio, M. Coll, O. 1994 and Zhang, X. Schrott, L M. Sparber, S B. in 1998.

In one part of the article the constriction of blood vestles is sited as the cause of nasal degeneration, while elsewere the excess Hydrochloride of cocaine-hydrochloride is sited for the same effect. If cocain is absorbed into the blood stream through the nose as the free base (ie without the hydrochloride, then the effect would bee the same as the free base. Obviously the idea of the excess hydrochloride is spirious. I doubt if there is any excess hydrochloride left after processing and cutting - and if you had hyrochloric acid up you nose I don't think you'd forget it...

6/20/07 Ive heard a lot about how cocaine permanently damages your brain in certain ways but i dont see any mention of that in the article. i feel like there should be more mention of pemenant effects in all of the drug articles unless its an uneducated notion that drugs cause long term brain damage.

Coca-Cola

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) What about saying "several" decades? I mean, Coca-Cola wasn't completely cocaine-free until 1929. CeeWhy2 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cocaine Users

"there is a long-list of prominent intellectuals, artists, and musicians who have used the drug -- names ranging from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sigmund Freud to Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and, allegedly, George W. Bush." Excuse me, but how does Mr. Bush fit into that description? 68.234.172.196 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, he certainly doesn't fit into the category of intellectual, nor is he an artist or a musician.

TheLiberalTruth 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By citing. Iola k ana|^T 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions. I have corrected this one for you. Somnabot 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed Bush's name today. He may have used cocaine, but that certainly is not confirmed. This is not the place for partisan snipping. Courtdog 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Courtdog[reply]

How is Ulysses S. Grant any more a prominent intellectual, artist or musician than Bush? 131.111.200.200 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't crack have its own article?

Sure, crack is technically categorized at cocaine, but the cultures associated with the drug are on the opposite sides of the spectrum, not to mention that crack has its own history and notoriety to it. Channels 08:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Channels[reply]

I believe it would be encyclopedically unjust for Freebase Cocaine to have it's own article, with a chemical basis in mind. I see where you stand in your cultural argument, and fully agree. However, because of the chemical definition of "Crack Cocaine," which is still the cocaine molecule (either way you cut it), a new page dedicated to crack cocaine should avoid (in all respects) explaining anything chemical, or pharmacological about freebase cocaine. But, Crack Cocaine does have its own cultural issue, and quite a perplexing history behind it. Because of this, I believe you should make a page called "Crack Epidemic," and cover some historical values attributed to crack cocaine, and the famous 1980s crack epidemic (hell, there was even a movie made about this - New Jack City). Political, social, economic, cultural writing for crack cocaine in its own page ("Crack Epidemic") seem perfectly fine to me - just as long as it does not try to impede on what the Cocaine article has full logical rights to. Anyone else have any views on this? Or 'yays' and 'nays' to my comment, at least? (Whoops, forgot to sign in!)--Ddhix 2002 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a chemical/pharmocological standpoint Ddhix is absolutely right. We don't include articles on other freebases (or any other alternate forms, for that matter), so cocaine/crack should be no different. But their culture and history are vastly different, so I agree with the idea for a "Cultural History of Crack" page. In short, I give my vote of "yea." Now, does anyone have or know of good sources for this kind of stuff? Silvem 00:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that crack should have a dedicated article because of its social, economic and other impacts. And although discussion of the chemical properties of cocaine rightly belongs in this cocaine article, I would suggest including in the crack article a concise, easy to understand paragraph that is almost perfect at describing, at a high level, why crack, as the impure freebase, is smokeable, while hydrochloride is not; why it is profitable to sell hydrochloride that's been converted to crack; and why smoked crack may be more addictive than nasally ingested hydrochloride. Of course include appropriate links, but keep this little blurb as small and to-the-point as possible. My reasoning here is, well, does anyone suppose that the average middle-class college grad could adequately explain what makes crack “crack”? For people who need a drive-by reference on crack, they will likely choose the crack article. Where better to put this crack vs. cocaine paragraph? Yes, it’s a service to the user who would ordinarily not spend the time reading enough on the subject to truly understand chemical differences and how they could have such enormous associated behavioral and economic impacts.

Oh, and just to be a little more difficult: Yes, crack addicts and cocaine users used to be divided by huge economic, educational, cultural, you-name-it gulfs, but my impression is that these divides are rapidly receding—crack is not as taboo as it once was. And I’m not saying that’s a good thing. If true though, perhaps this is even more reason for the inclusion of the boilerplate description of crack vs. cocaine in the crack article.

peterr 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, of course crack should have it's own article! For alcohol, there's a different article for beer and hard liquor. For cannabis, there's a different artice for marijuana and hashish. For tobacco, there's different articles for cigarettes, cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco, etc. The fact that chemically, pharmacologically, and whatever-ally obviously doesn't matter in these respects, so why is cocaine any different? Smoking crack is like 99% different than snorting cocaine. The only similarity is the chemical and pharmacology aspects, which is extremely insignifact compared to all the other factors, such as: the high, economical aspects, difference between salt and freebase, social aspects, personal impacts, and various other aspects. Crack Cocaine should have its own seperate article. --PoidLover 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on the appeal of crack cocaine

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)[reply]

Crack contains the freebase of cocaine, which has been converted from the powdered hydrochloride form using a weak base, usually sodium bicarbonate. The cocaine was 'finished' when it left the processing plant of some South American nation in its almost pure hydrochloride form.

Adulterants are added to cocaine to extend its quantity as it changes hands on the voyage from processing plant to street dealer. The sodium bicarbonate left behind after converting hydrochloride to crack additionally diminishes purity--crack is not usually highly pure cocaine--but the lack of purity you speak of, the contamination, is not relevant to the crack cocaine experience.

There are two key things that make crack a "strong cocaine experience". As for the chemistry, when one smokes cocaine, they want to inhale the active chemical vapor, which has been produced by the addition of heat, rather than inactive smoke that is a result of the chemical having been burned. Powdered cocaine hydrochloride’s vaporization and burning temperatures are very close. This makes smoking it impractical because much of the cocaine burns before vaporizing, resulting in a cloud of smoke that is mostly inactive. The freebase of cocaine, on the other hand, has much greater variation between vaporization and burning temperatures, so smoking it releases much active vapor before it gets hot enough to burn. Crack, containing freebase cocaine, can provide much more active vapor when smoked than cocaine hydrochloride, despite adulterants. It is therefore the chemical form of the cocaine, not the purity, which allows crack to supply so much of the active drug, as vapor, when smoked.

The second thing that makes crack a "strong cocaine experience" is human physiology. Almost all addictive drugs have a relationship between onset of action--the time it takes for effects to be noticed--and their potential for addiction. The faster a drug's effects become pleasurable to humans, the more likely it is to be addictive. This concept, though over simply stated, can be seen with other highly-addictive drugs. Like cocaine, many drugs or drugs of the same class come in various forms. Of the various forms, some may provide near-instantaneous onset of action. Heroin is a highly addictive illicit narcotic that provides intense, instant gratification when injected. The prescription narcotic Oxycontin, on the other hand, was designed to provide a slow, constant and long-acting release of drug, making its potential for abuse low. Ironically, Oxycontin has gotten a bad rap because its slow-release action can be subverted by crushing the tablets, and like heroin can provide a fast and intense high when a large dose of the active ingredient hits the bloodstream. Nicotine provides instant onset of action and gratification when tobacco is smoked; in theory nicotine patches can help reduce addiction by releasing the drug in a slower, more constant manner. Barbiturates, once commonly used as ‘sleeping pills’, and benzodiazepines like Valium, all come in forms that provide between very-fast to slow onsets of action. It is the faster-acting forms of these drugs that are most commonly abused. The human body is predisposed to become addicted more quickly and more profoundly to drugs that provide fast and intense pleasurable effects.

As smoking tobacco provides near-instantaneous delivery of nicotine to the bloodstream, smoking crack does the same for cocaine. This speed and intensity would likely explain crack’s "strong cocaine experience". The body’s affinity for fast-acting, intense drugs likely explains smoked crack’s greater addictiveness than that of the snorted, slower-acting form of cocaine. To take this concept a step further, Peruvian Indians chew coca leaves over periods of days, but because the release of cocaine from this method of ingestion is so slow and steady, addiction is not an issue for them. Introduce a coca-leaf-chewing Peruvian to the crack pipe, however, and cocaine’s use as a mild stimulant with no side effects may turn into an all-consuming addiction that eventually destroys a life.

peterr 10:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing list of names

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)[reply]

Yeah there's an entire separate article for slang names for drugs. —porg es_(talk) 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can't find a link on the page. *looks around* -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited claims

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)[reply]

Sentance Change

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)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign in. Typhoid Orchid 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coca and Cocaine Differentation

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)[reply]

disambiguation

Should there be a link to cocaine, the highly caffeinated drink?

What are you talking about?--Ddhix 2002 10:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some dumb guy in the US set up a drink brand called cocaine.--Dab182 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Treatment

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 [1] Another article in Alcoholism - Clinical and Experimental Research [2] 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe too much info

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)[reply]

I have to agree, this raised my eyebrows a little too. I'm generally extremely liberal when it comes to drug use, but cocaine has serious abuse potential. If somebody wants to learn how to make a crackpipe, wikipedia shouldn't be the first thing that pops into their head. This article is a clear example of why some people still question wikipedia's integrity. Maybe I'll start an article about the proper way to make a nice bong, roll a joint or make a mean mushroom tea. (74.56.236.154 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think this is worth reading

This article put the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in with Kosovo, the KLA, and the rest of the world and the world economy read this article. It also talks about cocaine too and Latin America.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=351698888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 +-c--c

FA status?

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

Appearences

I put a ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Methamphetamine is always much, much cheaper than cocaine from the source. This may not always be realized by a user, where prices can be equal or cocaine can be cheaper. To purchase the ingredients to cook a pound of methamphetamine (street value $5000-$12000 depending on purity and location) it would cost under 300 dollars. Since the main ingredient (pseudoephedrine) has been put behind the counter, this has led to large amounts being stolen before it hits the shelves, further reducing costs for cooks. I wouldn't swear to it, but I believe the cost of a kilo locally in Columbia is around $6000, which is about $2720 a pound, so at the source, you're looking at a difference of about $2400 a pound. I have also personally tested samples taken from a kilo of cocaine positive for methamphetamine, although it was not of great quality, and I absolutely would not say this is common practice.

Modes of Administration

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)[reply]

Perhaps moved to the coca leaves article? I'm for a move.Mikelj 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes chewing coca leaves with a "highly alkaline" substance like lime juice, which is in actual fact, acidic. Cocaine itself is basic, hence why it forms a hydrochloride. MGallagher 20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woman smoking crack

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)[reply]

That's a terrible reason to have something in an article. I'm removing it.csloat 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

is this the offending image? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Smoking_Crack.jpg Dyukanon 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I hope that the woman did consent to her photo being on Wikipedia. She's hot and it would be a shame if she's whoring herself out to support a crack habit. Heff01 18:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

detection in hair

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)[reply]

benzoylmethyl-ecgonine

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).[reply]

Question

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)[reply]

Of course crack is more addictive: it is a concentrated form of coke. And if you know anything about it's effects, you'll know it's more of a rush and it lasts like 10 minutes.

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)[reply]

Stereotypes

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)[reply]

Minor Edit

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

Minor Edits

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)[reply]

Done. LorenzoB 05:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though you could have done that yourself, Frededias! Be bold. garik 09:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freebase/Richard Pryor reference

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)[reply]

Scarface?

"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)[reply]

Sentence in opening paragraph

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Semi-protection

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)[reply]

NPOV issues

Isn't it worrisome that this article has become a cocaine cookbook of sorts, and that it doesn't stress well enough health and many other issues related to cocaine comsumption and traffic?

I suggest we keep the 'cookbook' part as it is, and keep stating right at the top of that page that it is a commonplace recreational drug worldwide (sources for that?), even though it's mostly illegal, and also that intellectuals, artists and politicians have used it.

But stating all that without equally highlighting

- the serious health consequences of its consumption,
- the fact that it leads to addiction, 
- cocaine death statistics
- the violence generated by drug traffic

raises a serious NPOV question. So I suggest either we add an NPOV remark at this page or add more content (in the same high detail level this page already has) on cocaine health, social and crime issues and highlight them. 207.126.230.225

What exactly does the violence generated by drug traffic have to do with the substance itself? —Random8322007-01-24T14:10:12UT C(01/24 09:10EST)

Mechanism of action question

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)[reply]

Referances

Would it be possible to add Scarface to referances? I was very surprised that "Pee-wee Herman in: The thrill can kill" was there and it wasn't. Zombieninja101

Solubility in Water

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).[reply]

And how do you know that? -- Boris 09:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "physical addiction"

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. [3]

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). [4]

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. [5]

Should we decide one side is right, or just describe the controversy? --Uncle Ed 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I'll try and look for some profession medical opinions...maybe in pubmed or something...either way I suppose But three citations is excessive though

   According to MedlinePlus cocaine doesn't cause "classic physical dependence"

"(cocaine withdrawal, for example, doesn't have symptoms like vomiting and chills; it is mainly characterized by depression)."

But a search on pubmed and medline (ebsco) brings up some studies on cocaine withdrawal ... also I'm not a big fan of "describing the controversy" but the article should stick to wikipedia guidelines http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001522.htm

Farsnickle 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate article for crack

Shouldn't crack have its own article due to the fact that that form in particular has done incalculable damage to every major urban area in the United States.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man it definately needs its own article. Its a whole other bag of rats when you start talking about crack...--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Cheese (recreational drug), some newly registered user felt like the heroin variant should not have its own article when "Crack cocaine" is a redirect to this article.

So, do you guys feel crack cocaine should have its own article? WhisperToMe 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chore

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)[reply]

This issue is addressed above, but I don't think any moderators have concluded on it. Point is, crack cocaine, and cocaine, are 99% different, generally speaking, and therefore should be listed seperately in their own articles. The only similarity is the word "cocaine", and their chemical similarity, which isn't much because crack is the base form, and coke is the salt form.

Whomever made the edit regarding copper wool is in the possession of erroneous information. Copper wool is the preferred material for hollow smoking tubes across the United States. In many locations, one may see at the counter of a convenience store a container of copper scouring pads located next to glass stems with flowers inserted in them. Creative marketing... In any event, I can find no documentation supporting the "bleeding lungs" claim--nor either through the literature or anectdotal reference any support for widespread use of stainless steel (heavy gauge) wool. Fine gauge simply combusts...

PragmatistPragmatist 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of citation needed tag.

"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)--PoidLover 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acid or Alkaline?

In the coca section, it says that the coca leaves are chewed with an alkaline substance like limes. However, limes are acidic citurs fruits. Should this be changed, or not? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says lime, not lime (fruit).

It seems unlikely anyone would chew CaO, though. It is far too corrosive.

Ben 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with betel nuts, a small amount of chemical lime with the leaf and chewed/sucked. Powdered, and in small amounts, it's not really corrosive. SchmuckyTheCat

Cocaine and Serotonin

Why does this article say that cocaine inhibits the release of serotonin less then it inhibits the reuptake of dopamine? I've read the order of inhibiting for cocaine was first Serotonin, then Dopamine, then Norepinephrine, (which, by the way, is the opposite order for dexAmphetamine).

~~Lowry, South Africa~~Having no medical background whatsoever, I would just like to ask... Does cocaine boost the serotonin level when takin, and then the level drops to way below normal when the drug exits from the body? Having used the drug before, I have realized that I got very depressed once off the drug, and it still persists about 2 years afterwards. Is there a permanent effect this causes after the drug ws taken?

need overdoes section and possible harmful effects section

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).[reply]

question

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).[reply]

You can do anything if you set your mind to it

Doesnt cocaine cause permenant damage to the DAT and the dopamine receptors or cause down regulation of the before mentioned or both or something? ive always heard that there is permanent damage done by cocaine but this article doesnt adDress that. could be wrong

Huh?

The entire history section disappeared a while ago... [6] —porges_(talk) 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Primary Source: Uber Coca

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)[reply]

!!!

What happened to the bottom of page and references?/?

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cocaine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s) Press [show] to view →

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
Please convert tables from HTML syntax to Help:Table wiki-markup.
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 grams, use 5 grams, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 grams.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 700 kg.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- it has been
- correctly
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), hydrolyze (A) (British: hydrolyse), anesthesia (A) (British: anaesthesia), anaesthesia (B) (American: anesthesia), esophagus (A) (British: oesophagus), signaling (A) (British: signalling), signalling (B) (American: signaling), program (A) (British: programme), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 53 additive terms, a bit too much.
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
- Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, don't.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Newer More Applicable Comments ==

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]2
Please convert tables from HTML syntax to Help:Table wiki-markup.
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 120 milligrams, use 120 milligrams, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 120 milligrams.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]===Biosynthesis of cocaine===,===Forms of cocaine===,====Crack cocaine====,===Cocaine as a local anesthetic===,==Cocaine adulterants==
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), hydrolyze (A) (British: hydrolyse), anesthesia (A) (British: anaesthesia), anaesthesia (B) (American: anesthesia), esophagus (A) (British: oesophagus), signaling (A) (British: signalling), signalling (B) (American: signaling).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.” 59: "

Many, All , Any , Any , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , any , any , any , any , any , any , many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many,Some ,Some ,Some ,Some ,a few,a few,a variety of,several,several,several,several,several,several,several,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some " were found.

Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]6
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)