Talk:Black tar heroin

Heroin and burnt pennies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.210.64 (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Okay I am rewriting the entire t portion of the article now. I'm removing the first reference ( ) It has no relevance to the description, or the colloquialisms of Black Tar "Heroin". Also fixing the names, I've never heard it called half the things on this list, and I've done it on the west coast and all over texas. I'll also post references of more specific amounts of 6-MAM, and other opiate potency in "tar" heroin. Preposteruss (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is 'black tar heroin', then, if it is not heroin? Peoplesunionpro 23:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Heroin indeed di-acetyl-morphine, it smells like vinagar, actic acid. it comes from mexico, and is usally cut with coffee and sugar, it is a gummy black or dark brown substance.

I feel I should mention that it's quite unlikely that this heroin is less processed than other kinds; it's probably just cut more heavily. Why? Because treating unprocessed opium with acetic anhydride will result in highly toxic acetyl-codeine and -thebaine compounds. Either they are present and aren't as bad as I've been told (unlikely), or in reality this is simply cut heavily. PianoSpleen 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's totally raw opium they're treating with AA, it's just that they don't refine the morphine as much as they could. It's a lot of work to get totally pure morphine from opium. Who's telling you about incredibly toxic acetylated codeine and thebaine derivatives? Acetylcodeine shows up regularly in illicit heroin samples and there's more of it in Mexican black tar than in other types. It's less toxic than codeine itself, as far as I know, and only present in trace amounts. What acetylated thebaine derviatives are you talking about? Thebacon? What gives tar the characteristic gummy-to-hard consistency is the residual latex from the opium that other source region chemists remove, to varying extents. Compare a slab of raw opium to prepared opium to Mexican tar to a piece of Afghan brown to southeast Asian No. 3 to South American to SE Asian No. 4 and you'll see less and less residual opium constituents sticking around, and a whiter and whiter color, closer to pure heroin. Mexican tar simply has less of the residual opium latex removed than other types before it's reacted with acetic anhydride, and that's that. If anything, it's more difficult to cut tar than powder heroin (which isn't to say it's not done, instant coffee is a popular cut), and given the lower purity of tar to begin with, there's less space for cut. What kind of diluent are Mexican drug trafficking groups adding to turn powder heroin into goop that none of the other producers have? There's tar out there that'll knock your socks off, and powder that's mostly lactose and quinine (if you're lucky) with just enough heroin left over after being cut a dozen times that it's not found in homeopathic concentrations. Porkchopmcmoose 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: After a little poking around I found this tidbit on an article on heroin impurities from 1986:

"That heroin containing these additional by-products and alkaloids may have an enhanced or different pharmacological profile than that attributable to diacetylmorphine and 6-MAM is suggested when comparing "street" heroin potency and deaths in different regions of the United States.45 In cities along the East Coast, where, primarily, a white and relatively pure form of heroin is sold, there is observed a statistically significant correlation between the number of heroin-related fatalities and the purity of the heroin available.

However, in a comparable study in San Antonio, Texas, where a dark brown Mexican heroin prepared by direct acetylation of opium is prevalent, a non-significant correlation (r = +0.13) was found between potency of street heroin and frequency of heroin overdose." [1]

So it would appear that there is, or was, at some point, Mexican heroin being made by the direct acetylation of opium, with no purification involved. The rest of the article gets in to more detail about the various decomposition products of opium alkaloids under the reaction conditions required to turn morphine into heroin. Porkchopmcmoose 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Several errors should be fixed. First, there doesn't need to be a qualifying "one of the," black tar is the predominant form of heroin on the west coast by far. Second, it's referred to as negra by the dealers, not negro. Third, as an educated man who used long ago, I was kind of curious just what they make it out of... unfortunately that section is full of crippled grammar and uncertain and potentially contradictory info. Oh well. Finally the picture at top is nothing like what actual for-sale tar looks like. I don't know how to fix the composition section, but I do know tar is normally cut with either coffee grounds or sugar (melted and recrystallized, like hard candy). It's notoriously unsanitary, causing abscesses constantly in people who muscle their shots, and making skin-popping out of the question. There have been widespread rumors that cow blood is used to give the final product a less brittle, more pliable texture. And that the makers cynically throw in nasty stuff like feces, dirt, flies, etc, and even once deliberately included blood infected with hepatitis-C, just for the hell of it.

At some point it may have been made by simply acytlating the opium gum, but it hasn't been like that for a long while. What the other guy was talking about about the monoacytle-codeine being toxic is due to the histamine rls when IVed. Sure, it may be found in there a little bit, but it is far from desirable. And we see blacktar heroin that is 87% purity listed on the dea website. It looks like blacktar because it was not properly refluxed in a sealed containter, they used no activated charcoal to clean it near the end, and they just evaporated off the liquid after the reflux. That my friends, is how black tar is made. Someone put that in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.209.55 (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if it were "refluxed" this would ruin the selective acetylation of the 6-position readily gained by use of acetic acid with a catalyst and their very process' benefits over using acetic anhydride (that it is selectively acetylated at the 6-position over the 3 & 6 together which is not immediately active like the 6 alone is, which crosses the BBB just as fast as 3,6 but is exceptional in how it is immediately active), maybe this is part of the quality control of their product rather than the lack of it, when one studies how to selectively acetylate just the 6 position and how that position does not block the activity of the morphine molecule structure, it seems a chemist who knew their stuff about the biological action of the morphine on the CNS may have been behind this decision. Nagelfar (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be ANY "Factual Accuracy" to this section or really to this article at all. All I can see is a handful of know-it-alls arguing over perceived facts that none appear to be true. Has this page become some sort of running joke or troll bait? I'd say the chances are pretty darn high up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.40.2 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Cheap/Expensive

Bit of a fight going on about whether it's cheap or expensive. Please resolve this here. ta The Land

it's cheap to get high if you aren't addicted to it (about $10-$20), but profoundly expensive to maintain a habit...

also, it is cheap compared to "china white" heroin, which is considered a kind of caviar variant of it.

so... it is both inexpensive and expensive. gruelin1 12 14 05 7:45 am.

It's inexpensive compared to other drugs, but still a very expensive habit. So, both. PianoSpleen 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

tar where i live runs about 30-35 dollars a "ball" a "ball" is typically very small maybe 1/8 inch around and packaged in a piece of plactic the shoved inside a balloon. to get high the first time expect to pay 30-35 plus 3.00 for a bag (10) of "points" unless u pay 1-5.00 dealer charge for 1 new needle. To maintain a habbit at this cost is hard ...very hard. Figure a ball a day habbit (unlikely after any length of time) would run you around 215.00 a week. If you did 1 ball a day for an average of a week, to get "high" youd need 2 balls a day before long.Its not unusual to hear people doing 5-6 balls a day. Thats over a 1000.00 a week. So is it cheap? To do it once sure to maintain it NO!

Well since this isn't a harm reduction site with rules against speaking of street prices et al. If you measure, I think the running price in actual quantity is 15-20 USD a balloon on the west coast, and a balloon is supposed to be 300 milligrams or just under a third of a gram. Price varies, the further south usually the cheaper and higher quality, friends in San Francisco speak of $15 for a half gram (500 mg), and up toward Portland, OR the balloons get skimpier like 180mg padded (the small lighter/cauterized sealed rubber balloon have a small cut out square of a plastic grocery store bag about the size of a quarter dollar, usually a black grocery store plastic bag, when black tar heroin is re-ballooned, they use up to four or five of these plastic squares to 'pad' it, rather than 'cutting' the drug with an adulterant.) which are about the same, 15-20 USD. 67.5.147.10 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used since the last millenium, but I knew the price as recently as 2004... still pretty low. In early 1990's, in most urban or semi-urban areas, price was around a standard $80 a gram from a mid-level dealer, $350 for a "quarter-piece." A piece was a metric ounce, or 25 grams, so a qp was 6.25 grams. Within a few years, as the 1990's progressed and the number of users exploded (I count this phenomenon as starting with the deaths of Kurt Cobain and Jerry Garcia and the end of Dead tours), tar had dropped to a standard $50 a gram. Most users don't bother getting the $50 since a hard-core user rarely can get high anyway and only needs a quarter or half gram a day to stay well. Within another year or two the process of short buyers and fronts reduced the standard bag to $20, but the dealers cut the size of the bag to compensate. Above comment is about right, it usually is .33 to .4 grams in a bag. It's also true the purity increases and price decreases the closer you are to Mexico. In Oregon, at least, dealers avoid using balloons as they make it easier to be stuck with a delivery charge. Smarter dealers would keep a qp in hand and if in trouble, throw it into the grass and deny ever having seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy and Cost

(I accidentally put this under the "Cheap/Expensive header. Oops!) Black tar's not significantly more or less expensive than any other type of heroin out there. There's cheap tar and expensive tar, just as there's cheap powder and expensive powder. It can be extremely potent or extremely impotent. It's got a bad reputation (the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article ("`Black Tar' Grimly Covers S.F. Streets") in 1999 that drew an analogy between powder heroin and tar heroin and powder cocaine and crack. This is little more than the hysteria that accompanies the media's discovery of some big new drug danger. "China white" used to refer to either high-quality southeast Asian heroin or later to a batch of an extremely potent synthetic opioid. The term is now obsolete. The difference between black tar and powder heroin has to do with the process used to make the heroin. Powder heroin is produced in South America, and Southwest and Southeast Asia; black tar is produced in Mexico. Porkchopmcmoose 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I am going to completely rewrite the article. It's a PoV mess, full of unsubstantiated statements, and just generally not up to the standards of Wikipedia.

Porkchopmcmoose 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.4.110 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 

Prevalence

How can black tar be "the prevalent form" and "white" the most common? Doesn't jive.--SVTCobra 23:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because, if you read more closely, black tar is more common in some places, and powder (of southeast or southwest asian, or south american origin) in others. It all depends on the trade routes + where someplace happens to be along them. Chicago, IL, for example, gets heroin from all 4 source regions in significant quantities, whereas LA gets almost entirely black tar and B'more or Philly get almost entirely Colombian powder.Porkchopmcmoose 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ground into power..?

From article: "It can also be ground into powder (see below)"

It seems this information has since been removed. Either explain or remove this reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.134.185 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

This information appears to have been removed in an edit by Rachamim| on 12 August 2007.

The edit summary given is: "I have clarified a few points, as well as correcting two factually incorrect assertions: :Tar synth rxn and Brown heroin's rxn".

I have no idea if this is correct, becuase I know absolutely nothing about the synthesis of heroin. In any case, I've removed the "see below" part because it doesn't make sense in the current version of the article. I've left in the part about it being able to be ground into powder, because the aforementioned edit doesn't preclude this possibility. I don't want to remove something that might be true. --BennyD 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Though balloons of solid tar are more prevalent, I have come upon stuff that is in small baggies, is powdery at first and with a tiny bit of heat (like, very mild, you could basically breathe into the bag and then press it together), seems to turn gooey and just like black tar, it is black tar. But how come it is powdery at first, if black tar is supposedly just heroin with less of the goo from the opium removed? Anybody know about this? 68.2.173.214 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. When it is first synthinsized "extracted from morphine in Mexico, It is in powder form. If you get your tar from pisa's "cartel or other mexican related drug trafficers" it is powder. The powder absorbs moisture very easy because of the molecular breakdown used to make it injectible "vinager primarily". Once moisture or heat is introduced, it breaks down and becomes gooey and bendable or breakable. The more goey the product, the more its been stepped on "cut" in my experience. They may use sugar, baby formula, dr pepper etc.. to cut it. It will be sugary in flavor after this. The powder tar will usually taste and smell stronger of vinager. If you taste or smell sugar, its been cut... Probably more than once. I prefer to get it in a powder form then i huff it down "breathe moisture into it" myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.197.81 (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Necrotizing Fasciitis

On the Necrotizing Fasciitis page of Wikipedia the treated mortality is stated at 20%, and the untreated mortality at nearly 100%, neither of which accord with the figure given in this article. Wilhelm Ritter 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Having seen black tar heroin from San Francisco to Washington state, I must say I have never seen any that looks like that image: the grey black slab. Can anyone else comment on this? I've seen balloons of heroin that come out looking more like pictures I've seen of raw opium but can be IV'd (which I've read cannot be done with opium proper due to codeine and such other alkaloids: though I know sometimes black tar is sold to people afraid of the name "heroin" as 'opium' and are told they can shoot it). It is very dark black but sticky with an orange tinge, sometimes not so sticky and rock hard but breaks into slightly orangish shards if smashed into smaller pieces. It also comes in a brown powder, that when exposed to moisture (i.e. blown on) balls up into the black tar-like substance before it can be prepared for IV. (I assume this is different then than brown powder heroin elsewhere as it quickly balls into this tar substance if molested in about any way). 67.5.157.219 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless that's uncut "fresh from the factory" tar, it looks nothing like I ever saw either. I saw plenty of black in the 1990's and saw all kinds, ranging from the brownish hard-candy texture to the stickier tar-looking texture to grainy and brittle... but never anything like that. It's either uncut or it's fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.64.145 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that it is actually this "homebake" stuff they supposedly get in Australia, and they used that picture for it because "homebake" and blacktar are supposedly similar? A bit of a mixup maybe? Who knows. All I know is, real black tar is kind of... "shiny" compared to that, and has a very slight dark-reddish tint to it. That looks like someone took already-burnt heroin "crust" and stuck it onto an actual blob of it. Just looks waaaay to dry. 68.2.173.214 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree that the pic does not reflect what I have seen of "black tar" or "brown tar"/"brown" varieties. Black tar is in a category all its own. I am not sure if its consistency and appearance are the result of cutting agents, or if they are simply very old samples of Brown tar that have been exposed to excessive moisture. Black tar is (overall) solid, but the exterior is always a very very thick viscous liquid that is very sticky and leaves a large amount of residue on surfaces or packaging. Brown tar, on the other hand, is brown-dark brown powder (initially) that is usually sold as chunks or in balloons as powder. upon almost immediate exposure to air, brown tar slowly oxidizes to a black color, and also becomes stickier and less powdery. "fresh" samples of brown tar can easily be fractured into powder. Older samples that have been exposed to the air for long periods cannot be fractured into powder and maintain a sticky solid consistency.

without question, almost all of the heroin that is (assumed) from mexico (the stuff sold in California) is sold as the free base, rather than the HCl or sulfate (as is the case with "white powder" forms of heroin as well as cocaine). There are several immediate qualitative pieces of evidence that supports this fact: 1) all forms of mexican heroin can be smoked 2) all forms of mexican heroin REQUIRE heating or addition of acid to dissolve in water (this is not the case with HCl salts of heroin/morphine, which dissolve immediately in room temperature water) 3) intravenous users of mexican heroin (inexperienced users) often note particulate and precipitate in the syringes or spoons 4) the immediate, noticeable, and consistent "blackening" of brown powder reflects the atmospheric oxygen oxidation of heroin (amine n-oxide, hydroxylamine, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.79.96 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're a bit mixed up. Both Mexican tar heroin & South American white powder heroin are HCl, not base. Cocaine is also HCl. European powder heroin is base. Black tar heroin readily dissolves without heating in water & esp. without the need of an acid, the adulterants simply make it slower than other varieties. 216.227.117.35 (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, I've seen a lot of tar and none of it looks like that. Someone needs to get another picture, I'll try to take one next time I'm around my friends who still use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preposteruss (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed list of "Colloquialisms"

I removed the entire list of "nicknames" for this drug. Not one was cited. The list kept growing and growing, and it was obviously completely full of jokes and vandalism, people having a little fun at the wiki's expense. The list itself is also not encyclopedic. Just a vandalism magnet. 96.2.148.54 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

dope

From Invisible Man “optic white” paint, I read of black drops of "dope" being put into the paint and I'm really curious about what that is referring to. Is it dope, what I know dope to be~ heroin? Maybe someone could.. you know, put their findings about 'dope' in paintz on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.11.195 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would there be heroin in paint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.146.68 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black tar heroin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404003343/http://www.dea.gov:80/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0206/mg0206.html to http://www.dea.gov/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0206/mg0206.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm reverting the monster anonymous edit from 10 October 2017‎.

On 10-oct-2017 an anonymous user added 18k of text. There may be a lot of quality info in there, it's all completely un-sourced, lapses into the first person, changes language, throws random paragraphs in pre blocks, and does not follow either the flow of the article or general Wikipedia recommendations on how to write stuff. Plus there's grammatical errors.

As such, I'm reverting it.

Reve (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of particular information

I'm quite puzzled to read about the cost and alternative ways of administration. In my opinion WP is not the place to teach how to consume drugs. And i'm missing pictures about the health-consequences. --Shi Annan (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Teaching anyone how to consume drugs would be totally out of the scope of this article. However, Wikipedia is not censored. The information is included because of its encyclopedic relevance. Articles like heroin, methamphetamine etc. contain similar information, and rightly so, since it is relevant and reliably sourced. --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:D549:386D:9E0E:327 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)