Talk:Cocaine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cocaine vapourisation

diff

The US department of justice appears to get this wrong too http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm When heated, cocaine base, which has a melting point of 89 to 92 degrees Celsius, will sublimate or, put differently, will convert from a solid state to a vapor without becoming a liquid. This allows it to be inhaled.

This doesn't appear to be true eg http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/pharm/pim139e.htm#SectionTitle:3.3 Physical properties gives it a separate mp and bp.

I can't test this myself. Please correct the article. I'm fairly certain that a bp of 89-92 is wrong - it's too low even for the free base.

I don't see how both can be right.Imgaril (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

problems with the first paragraph

saying "cocaine is addictive." is misleading, suggesting the compound always causes addiction - whereas the vast majority of people who try cocaine do not become addicted. i think this should be rephrased "cocaine use has often been associated with addiction."

I think the term "addictive" is meant to imply that it has the biochemical capacity to cause substance use disorder, as the article said, due to its effects on the mesolimbic dopaminergic system. It has been "associated with addiction" causally, not as a matter of correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verisimilarity (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The line "Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems" is contradicted by the second source, which says even in the abstract "no user escapes the occurrence of negative effects altogether". The first source is an opinion piece on a report whose link is broken, and should not be taken as a reliable source. I request that this line be removed from the article.

69.143.104.110 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

hm. Often, there are contradictory claims from reliable sources - like this. We need to give fair weight to them. "The Guardian" is hardly a disreputable source. This needs more discussion; please, discuss it right here - if the consensus is to change it, please ask again.  Chzz  ►  01:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer here is not obvious. The Guardian is not a good source for a medical-related issue, but a primary study from 1994 is not a good source either. The UNICRI report cited in ref 10, however, is a good source, and it states that "few experts describe cocaine as invariably harmful to health", which accords pretty well with the sentence in our article. My preference would be to remove the Guardian and the Amsterdam study as references here, and stick with the UNICRI report. This is of course a controversial question, and there may be other MEDRS-compatible sources that make different statements. Looie496 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Small Correction

In the discussion of synthesis, the word "distereomer" is used. The correct terminology is "diastereomer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.248.184 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallucinations and Delusions

This article makes the unsubstantiated claim that hallucinations and delusions in cocaine are mostly attributed to sleep deprivation. This quite simply is not true, any agent that increases dopaminergic activity through either reuptake inhibition, increased release, or direct agonism may cause psychotic effects by acting at D2 receptors as well as some action at D1 and D3. This can be seen by reading articles on amphetamine psychosis, the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, etc. I'm a bit of a university trained expert in this area, but since I'm not going to scan my old notes or credentials just go with the articles I have posted. Fireemblem555 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request

La Colombiana redirects here, and we have a disambiguation page for Colombiana (disambiguation), so there should be a hatnote for it. "La" is a definite article, like "The" so it means the same as "The Colombiana"

Please add:

{{redirect|La Colombiana|other uses|Colombiana (disambiguation)}}

"La Colombiana" redirects here. For other uses, see Colombiana (disambiguation).

70.24.244.248 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on a Google search, "La Colombiana" has many meanings, and "cocaine" does not appear to be among the most popular. Accordingly I've changed the target of the La Colombiana redirect to Colombiana, a disambiguation page. Please comment if you think that's not the best solution. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

This is incorrect (and "diastereoisomer" is spelt incorrectly):

Formation of inactive enantiomers (cocaine has 4 chiral centres – 1R,2R,3S,5S – hence a total potential of 16 possible enantiomers and disteroisomers) plus synthetic by-products limits the yield and purity.

It should be replaced with this:

Formation of inactive diastereoisomers (cocaine has 4 chiral centres – 1R,2R,3S,5S – hence a total potential of 16 possible diasteroisomers) plus synthetic by-products limits the yield and purity.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diastereomer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer

86.31.73.22 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: We can't use Wikipedia article as references. I've corrected the spelling, though. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012

Under the "Insufflation" subheading, the last sentence is:

In the United States, as far back as 1992 many of the people sentenced by federal authorities for charges related to powder cocaine were Hispanic American; more Hispanics than non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black people received sentences for crimes related to powder cocaine.[48]

This strikes me as race-baiting, and while potentially relevant to the article, has no place on wikipedia in its current state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.79.148 (talk • contribs)

Not done: The content appears to be sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. If there is a problem with the sources, other sources which aren't properly reflected, or a better wording, please let us know. Thanks for the suggestion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

edit request for prohibition section

I noticed that prohibition section has no citations or sources. I did some research on the issue and compiled the information below. I am requesting that the prohibition section (labeled X) be replaced with the below (labeled Y).

---

(X) By the turn of the 20th century, the addictive properties of cocaine had become clear, and perceived problems with cocaine use began to capture public attention in the United States. The dangers of cocaine use became part of a moral panic that was tied to the dominant racial and social anxieties of the day. In 1903, the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were "bohemians, gamblers, high- and low-class prostitutes, night porters, bell boys, burglars, racketeers, pimps, and casual laborers." In 1914, Dr. Christopher Koch of Pennsylvania's State Pharmacy Board made the racial innuendo explicit, testifying that, “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain." Mass media manufactured an epidemic of cocaine use among African Americans in the Southern United States to play upon racial prejudices of the era, though there is little evidence that such an epidemic actually took place. In the same year, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act outlawed the sale and distribution of cocaine in the United States. This law incorrectly referred to cocaine as a narcotic, and the misclassification passed into popular culture. As stated above, cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic. Although technically illegal for purposes of distribution and use, the distribution, sale and use of cocaine was still legal for registered companies and individuals. Because of the misclassification of cocaine as a narcotic, the debate is still open on whether the government actually enforced these laws strictly. Cocaine was not considered a controlled substance in the United States until 1970, when it was listed in the Controlled Substances Act. Until that point, the use of cocaine was open and rarely prosecuted in the US due to the moral and physical debates commonly discussed.

---

(Y) The gears of prohibition began churning long before the Harrison Act was passed by Congress in 1914 – a law requiring cocaine and narcotics to be dispensed only with a doctor's order. Before this moment, various factors and groups acted on primarily a state level influencing a move towards prohibition and away from a lassie fair attitude.

By 1903 cocaine consumption had grown to about five times that of 1890. Non-medical users accounted for almost the entire increase as cocaine-users extended outside the middle-aged, white, professional class. Cocaine became associated with laborers, youths, blacks and the urban underworld.

The popularization of cocaine first began with laborers who used cocaine as a stimulant to increase productivity. Cocaine was often supplied by employers. Cocaine was often supplied to African American workers, who many employers believed were better physical workers; cocaine was thought to provide added strength and constitution and according to the Medical News, made blacks “impervious to the extremes of heat and cold.” However, users of cocaine quickly acquired a reputation as dangerous and in 1897, the first state bill of control for cocaine sales came from a mining county in Colorado.

The popularization of cocaine use was not confined to African Americans or simple laborers. In Northern cities, cocaine use increased amongst poorer people – in fact, cocaine was often cheaper than alcohol. In the Northeast in particular, cocaine became popular amongst workers in factories, textile mills and on rail roads. In some instances, cocaine use supplemented or replaced caffeine as the drug-of-choice to keep workers awake and working overtime.

This period of increasing cocaine use followed with increasing fears that young children were being preyed upon and forced into cocaine addiction. Indeed, it was even thought that cocaine was used to seduce young girls away from their homes and cause them to be addicted and dependent upon the substance and therefore fall prey to an inescapable cycle of prostitution. Fears of the corruption of the youth by cocaine were popular and wide-spread but there is little evidence to support their veracity.

Mainstream media reported cocaine epidemics as early as 1894 in Dallas, Texas. Reports of the cocaine epidemic would foreshadow a familiar theme in later so-called epidemics, namely that cocaine presented a social threat more dangerous than simple health effects and had insidious results when used by blacks and members of the lower class. Similar anxiety-ridden reports appeared throughout cities in the South leading some to declare that “the cocaine habit has assumed the proportions of an epidemic among the colored people.” In 1900, state legislatures in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee considered anti-cocaine bills for the first time.

Hyperbolic reports of the effect of cocaine on African Americans went hand-in-hand with this hysteria. In 1901, the Atlanta Constitution reported that “Use of the drug [cocaine] among negroes is growing to an alarming extent.” The New York Times reported that under the influence of cocaine, “sexual desires are increased and perverted … peaceful negroes become quarrelsome, and timid negroes develop a degree of 'Dutch courage' that is sometimes almost incredible.” A medical doctor even wrote “cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the negroes.” To complete the characterization, a judge in Mississippi declared that supplying a “negro” with cocaine was more dangerous than injecting a dog with rabies.

These attitudes not only influenced drug law and policy but also led to increased violence against African Americans. In 1906, a major race riot led by whites erupted; it was sparked by reports of crimes committed by black ‘cocaine fiends.’ Indeed, white-led, race riots spawning from reports of blacks under the influence of cocaine were not uncommon. Police in the South widely adopted the use of a heavier caliber handguns so as to better stop a cocaine-crazed black person – believed to be empowered with super-human strength. Another dangerous myth perpetuated amongst police was that cocaine imbued African Americans with tremendous accuracy with firearms and therefore police were better advised to shoot first in questionable circumstances.

Ultimately public opinion rested against the cocaine user. Criminality was commonly believed to be a natural result of cocaine use. Much of the influence for these kind of perceptions came from the widespread publicity given to notorious cases. While the historical reality of cocaine’s effect on violence and crime is difficult to disentangle from inflamed perceptions, it does appear that public opinion was swayed by the image of the violent, cocaine-crazed fiend and pushed over the edge by a few violent episodes. It was an image of the cocaine-user that carried acute racial overtones.

Before any substantive federal regulation of cocaine, state and local municipalities evoked their own means to regulate cocaine. Because of the initial lack of targeted legislation, on both federal and state level, the most typical strategy by law enforcement was the application of nuisance laws pertaining to vagrancy and disturbing the peace. Subsequent legislative actions aimed at controlling the distribution of cocaine rather than its manufacture. Reformers took this approach in part because of legal precedents which made it easier to control distributors, such as thin the case of pharmacies; state and local boards of hearth or boards of pharmacy often took the place of regulatory bodies for controlling the distribution of cocaine.

Some states took the position of outright banning of all forms of cocaine sale; Georgia was the first to do this in 1902. A New Orleans ordinance banned cocaine sales as well but left an ill-defined exception for therapeutic uses. A more common requirement was to restrict the sale of cocaine or impose labeling requirements. A 1907 California law limiting sale of cocaine to only those with a physician’s prescription resulted in the arrest of over 50 store owners and clerks in the first year. A 1913 New York state law limited druggists’ cocaine stocks to under 5 ounces. Labeling requirements initially operated on a state level with some states even going so far as to require that cocaine and cocaine-containing products be labeled as poison.

Eventually the federal government stepped in and instituted a national labeling requirement for cocaine and cocaine-containing products through the Food and Drug Act of 1906. The next impactful federal regulation was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. While this act is often seen as the start of prohibition, the act itself was not actually a prohibition on cocaine, but instead setup a regulatory and licensing regime. The Harrison Act did not recognize addiction as a treatable condition and therefore the therapeutic use of cocaine, heroin or morphine to such individuals was outlawed – leading the Journal of American Medicine to remark, “[the addict] is denied the medical care he urgently needs, open, above-board sources from which he formerly obtained his drug supply are closed to him, and he is driven to the underworld where he can get his drug, but of course, surreptitiously and in violation of the law.” The Harrison Act left manufacturers of cocaine untouched so long as they met certain purity and labeling standards. Despite that cocaine was typically illegal to sell and legal outlets were more rare, the quantities of legal cocaine produced declined very little. Legal cocaine quantities did not decrease until the Jones-Miller Act of 1922 put serious restrictions on cocaine manufactures.

Not done: That is a very large request and it would be better if you made the change yourself. Simply make another five edits somewhere and you will become auto-confirmed and able to edit this page yourself. Regards, Celestra (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits Needed, Erroneous Information, Failure to Distinguish Differences

I was reading this section and was very surprised to see that Wikipedia editors have used text book and news information that is erroneous. This article fails to distinguish a clear difference between the alkaloid cocaine and the illicit drug cocaine hydro-chloride.

It is clear from recent reading that many writers over the past years have misidentified their subject matter using the word cocaine when in essence they meant to say cocaine hydro-chloride, which is the white powder that lots of Americans and Europeans like to snort.

It is also clear that free-base cocaine or alkaloidal cocaine is an anesthetic and analgesic, but it is not an amphetamine and has no stimulating effects, until it converted into cocaine hydro-chloride it becomes a powerful stimulant.

I would have made some edits but I see that the article is locked.

Shamansfriend (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

---

It is my understanding that Coca-cola used Cocaine and that an apothecary had invented Coke.

The apothecary only offered to sell it privately on a very small scale while someone else chose to offer it on the market on a large Scale. I believe That popularizing the apothecary and his work can add considerabl towards understanding tha history of cocaine use. I may work at this myself but i haave many other tasks on the go. Adios! - RCNesland ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory info?

Intro states "It is a stimulant, an appetite suppressant, and a topical anesthetic." Then, regarding cocaine abuse: "the experience of insatiable hunger (others...) are often described as very unpleasant." This reads contradictory, even if it isn't completely so. I think this merits clarification. 90.163.33.145 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbers Missing

In general, this article is missing solid numbers, and the citations for them are unclear. More complete numbers are needed for production, dollar-value at wholesale and retail, and consumption broken down by country and region. NittyG (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Size of Lines, Bumps and Rails

According to the article: "one line is generally considered to be a single dose and is typically 35 mg (a "bump") to 100 mg (a "rail")". But what I've read says that typical lines are 6-8 per gram, while larger lines are 4/gram, and there are perhaps 15 "bumps" in a gram. Check here: [1], [2]. We do need "reliable resources", but some of the reliable resources don't make sense, like this one, that says that a typical line is 2.5 cm [3]. I'd verify it with forums and such to see if it matches. I'd back it up with consensus from people with actual experience. All of this must take into account purity, which is often 50% from what I've read. NittyG (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How much needed to get high?

Nothing says how much one takes to get high. With the above references I see 1/3 to 1/2 a gram... but I have no idea if that's way off. All of this must take into account purity, which is often 50% from what I've read.NittyG (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Common party drug

I would say that a citation is warranted for calling cocaine a "party drug" that is commonly used among college students. I absolutely agree that it is used among college students, but to claim that its usage is "common" is unsupported and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.190.115 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are reading it wrong. The commonly refers to "a common use of cocaine is" not to "it is common for students to" PuercoPop (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Very simple factual edit

Third paragraph currently:

"It is illegal to possess, grow, or distribute cocaine for non-medicinal and non-government-sanctioned purposes in almost every country."

Should be changed to:

Cocaine is not grown. The plant coca, from which it is derived, is grown.

--Fancyboots (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Done - thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

This section on the mechanism of action of cocaine is unclear:

"The pharmacodynamics of cocaine involve the complex relationships of neurotransmitters (inhibiting monoamine uptake in rats with ratios of about: serotonin:dopamine = 2:3, serotonin:norepinephrine = 2:5[54])"

The section in parentheses doesn't specify what values the ratio is a ratio of. Generally, when people talk about the ratio of cocaine's effects on DA, 5-HT, and NE (or the ratio of its inhibition of the transporters, DAT, SERT, and NET, respectively), they are talking about a potency ratio or a ratio of inhibitory constants (Ki). This section in parentheses doesn't specific which, if either of these it is describing and is less clear that one might hope for the enormous amount of data on the subject and the specificity of language that has been developed and accepted to describe such parameters.

The paper that is referenced here uses synaptosomes prepared from fresh rat brain expressing DAT, SERT, or NET and exposes them to the respective monoamine in addition to cocaine across doses to determine the IC50 of cocaine in these conditions. The Cheng-Prusoff formula is then used to determine the Ki of cocaine for the transporter in that test and that is the value that was reported as the potency and is the basis for the statement "ratios of about: serotonin:dopamine = 2:3, serotonin:norepinephrine = 2:5" in the body of this cocaine wikipedia article. For your reference, the actual values of Ki are: SERT = 304 nM, DAT = 478 nM, and NET = 779. This comes out to be about a 2:3:5 ratio. But the phrase in parentheses should probably say something similar to "(inhibiting monoamine transporters in rats with a potency ratio of about SERT:DAT = 2:3, SERT:NET = 2:5[54])" or "(inhibiting monoamine transporters in rats with a potency ratio of about SERT:DAT:NET = 2:3:5[54])". I believe the rationale of this wording is to not confuse a reading with little understanding of pharmacology, but the Ki value does not denote the actual amount of inhibition of uptake of monoamines in a human brain or even a rat brain, just the amount of inhibition of the transporter, since the relative and absolute concentrations of the monoamines in the brain will be different than those used in this study. What I mean is that these values don't denote how much of an increase in the monoamine there will be, which I think most would believe to be the case based on this wording.

Another important reason for this change is a confounding factor that further invalidates this wording. Monoamines all act as substrates and inhibitors for the other monoamine transporters and increase their release, so it's not really reasonable to talk about inhibition of a specific monoamine's uptake, but rather the inhibition of the receptor (especially relevant is the relative promiscuity of DA, which inhibits NET and increases release of NET about as potently as it does its own transporter and more potently than NE does its own transporter.

Dragoon04 (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The diagram that describes the difference between Cocaine and Amphetamine mechanism of action specifies that Amphetamines main mechanism of action is to also increase DAT. This should be to increase Dopamine, as the previous sentence clearly states that Amphetamine phopshorylation of receptor results in internalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.65.219 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Routes of administration

Right below the section Routes of administration (of cocaine) Coca leaf is mentioned coupled with highly misleading comments about how ingesting is the same as insufflation :

Contrary to popular belief, both ingestion and insufflation result in approximately the same proportion of the drug being absorbed: 30 to 60%. Compared to ingestion, the faster absorption of insufflated cocaine results in quicker attainment of maximum drug effects. Snorting cocaine produces maximum physiological effects within 40 minutes and maximum psychotropic effects within 20 minutes, however, a more realistic activation period is closer to 5 to 10 minutes, which is similar to ingestion of cocaine. Physiological and psychotropic effects from nasally insufflated cocaine are sustained for approximately 40–60 minutes after the peak effects are attained.

The person that wrote this clearly has no knowledge of the subject at hand, furthermore, the linked articles make no mention of the obviously uninformed subject:

Abstract

Cocaine was given by intravenous administration to human subjects and the concentrations in plasma were measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Many pharmacokinetic parameters were found to have a strong dose dependence over the range 1–3 mg/kg. The terminal plasma half-life in minutes is given by the equation View the MathML source. The total plasma clearance in liters/kg per h is 2.51 − 0.67 dose (r = − 0.973). From analysis of previously published data the absorption half-life View the MathML source is approximately 8 min for gastrointestinal and for nasal inhalation absorption. The bioavailability for nasal inhalation is approximately 60%. While routes of administration for modern recreational use could lead to unexpected drug ****accumulation in the blood it is not likely to occur from chewing coca leaves.*****

Abstract

Cocaine was given by intravenous administration to human subjects and the concentrations in plasma were measured by gas chromatography--mass spectrometry. Many pharmacokinetic parameters were found to have a strong dose dependence over the range 1 - 3 mg/kg. The terminal plasma half-life in minutes is given by the equation t1/2(beta) = 13.5 + 24.5 dose (r = 0.946). The total plasma clearance in liters/kg per h is 2.51--0.67 dose (r = -0.973). From analysis of previously published data the absorption half-life t1/2(ab) is approximately 8 min for gastrointestinal and for nasal inhalation absorption. The bioavailability for nasal inhalation is approximately 60%. While routes of administration for modern recreational use could lead to unexpected drug ***accumulation in the blood it is not likely to occur from chewing coca leaves.****

1. The article gives the impression that you can snort coca leaves 2. The article is supported in a wrong assumption from the linked articles 3. The person writing it clearly has no first hand experience with the coca leaf+lime combination, it is something used in a ritual manner in certain Native American communities in South America and the amount ingested is way higher than what is required to have a "pass" of cocaine.

To round this, any mention of COCA LEAF in routes of administration OF COCAINE should be removed immediately, how can anybody expect Wikipedia to retain credibility in the community when it's used as a propaganda machine?

Alternatively, let's put GRAPES in the routes of administration section of WINE.

Thanks.

Ingestion of coca tea or chewed leaf juice is administration of cocaine, and the original method; it's how someone knew there was an interesting molecule to look for in the first place. The absorption rate will differ from other routes, and that will make for a different drug effect - it's not going to be the same experience (or risk) as smoking freebase and that can probably be clearer in the article. I think it would be difficult to feel very high with tea (though it's a pleasant drink), but busloads of tourists do enjoy a nice coca candy buzz in the Andes every day, and it does help with unfamiliar oxygen deprivation. - toh (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Penetrability

As a lover of linguistic puzzles I have to thank the author of this clause:

"or the binding of other exogenous subsumed chemicals in administration concurrently with any constituent cocaine molecule conformation in vivo to be enumerated within the user as a conditionate dependant on tertiary measures to form as a novel metabolite too vast in potential instances to account for beyond the tertiary measure of their otherwise notability"

- toh (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence. It didn't cite a source, so there is really no possibility of figuring out what the hell it was trying to say -- if anything. Thanks for pointing this out. Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

See Also

I'm unconvinced by some of the suggestions under the See Also heading. Take a Whiff On Me being the prime example. What is the criteria for inclusion? If the benchmark is so low, why not include Charly (song), Lit Up, My Michelle, That Smell... --81.23.54.142 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it along with a few others, the list was getting too long. "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" per MOS:SEEALSO. It is still pretty long, but better now, I think. Do you think more links need to be removed? jonkerz ♠talk 20:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we could probably also lose Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography and Route 36 (bar) as I dont think they are central enough to the topic to require mention here. If there was (is?) a page on Cocaine in popular culture they would belong there (in my opinion). What do you think? --81.23.54.142 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Popularization section missing something

The section depicts how cocaine was considered an ordinary advertised commercial drug back then, and lists various accounts regarding it, but fails to even give an estimate how many people actually used it. It's strange how after reading it I still do not know whether 99% of westerners used it back then, or whether 1% used it. I literally do not know--these numbers are not exaggerations. At least give the reader a clue, even if the exact number is unknown. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cocoaine ad

I think somebody should remove the Burnett's Cocoaine ad. It's not "Cocaine for the hair", but CocOaine - a hair product based on coconut oil and alcohol. I'm hesitant to do this myself, as I'd rather not mess with pages that are not in my own language. Wielewaal (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit under general "Medical Effects" category

The phrasing at the opening space at the bottom of this category says "Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems."

This is not only an opinion, but the facts attempting to back it up that are listed do not match this phrasing. One time use, falling below "occasional use" could be up to fatal, and could cause social problems being situation dependent. As this line is nothing more than opinion, I request it be removed as non factual or relevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.128.146 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would politely request a delay in removal pending an attempt to find appropriate citation and/or rephrasing to meet objectivity requirements. Jaydubya93 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor But Important Proposed edit for "Discovery" and "Popularization" section

The term "natives," which is used in the Discovery and Popularization sections, is considered offensive by many people. Could we please replace it with "Indigenous people?" Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.68.61 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed all references to "natives" with "indigenous" or "indigenous peoples". This strikes me as a very easy way to help ensure the article is seen as appropriate by a larger group of readers without sacrificing any meaning or content. Thanks for the suggestion. Jaydubya93 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Reference to Prostitutes In Caption

There is an image of two women apparently purchasing cocaine from a man circa Berlin 1920. The caption erroneously stated that the women in the photograph were prostitutes without any reputable citation or attribution. Given the highly defamatory nature of the statement and the high standards Wikipedia maintains for those types of statements, I changed "prostitutes" to the more accurate "women". Please be advised before replying or changing back that the photo comes from the German archives and original captions provided from those archives are to be understood as inaccurate and not a valid source for citation. This is what Wikipedia explicitly states about those captions (which you can view directly by clicking to enlarge the image): "For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme." Jaydubya93 (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick Edit Request

The portion that reads: "Unlike most molecules, cocaine has pockets[clarification needed] with both high hydrophilic and lipophilic efficiency..." could be written much more clearly and specifically as: "Unlike most drug molecules, cocaine has areas molecular structure of its structure with both high hydrophilic and lipophilic efficiency..."

The first change more accurately expresses the idea (many molecules in existence exhibit both hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions, most notably the thousands of known proteins; electric charge unipolarity is only frequent in drug molecules specifically), and the second just states the original author's intention with more clear wording (rather than what is basically scientifically slang, though I've only ever heard "pockets" used in the context of proteins, as they have more of a formed 3D shape with actual concave "pockets" rather than cocaine which is obviously pretty small and just not even big enough to enclose anything in a pocket-like manner).

Anyway, I know this isn't a big change, but the locked-in awkwardness/incorrectness of this really bugs me. Thanks for your time, whoever actually has the rights to fix this.

Please correct graph caption

"Data from The Lancet suggests cocaine is ranked both the 2nd most addictive and the 2nd most harmful of 20 popular recreational drugs.[7]" - The word 'data' in context is highly suggestive (i.e. in that it is directly based on factual results) and falsifies the true nature of it. If you look it up, the 'data' is actually the result of a poll of personal opinions from people of unnamed professions (psychologists, social workers, the garbage men cleaning up the meth-labs ... who knows that really?) that somehow relate to drugs. I suggest the word 'Data' in the sentence is replaced with 'Questionnaire results' or 'Expert opinions' to not heavily misrepresent it. 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0NPAQ (talk • contribs) Never mind, can edit now. C0NPAQ (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Heading text

72.24.241.186 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Be sure to use a "change X to Y" format. LittleMountain5 02:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional Information on recent Cocaine use in the United States

I would like to add an additional statement to the following area of this article. The article states that Cocaine, "...is also popular amongst college students, as a party drug." This statement is to vague and could use a recent study that could provide additional information and make this sentence more credible.

I am proposing the following sentences: "A study throughout the entire United States has reported that around 48 percent of people who graduated high school in 1979 have used Cocaine recreationally during some point in their lifetime, compared to approximately 20 percent of students who graduated between the years of 1980 and 1995."

http://connect.mcgraw-hill.com/connect/hmEBook.do?setTab=sectionTabs Johnson et al., 2012. Hoeksema, Susan Nolen. "Sign In." McGraw-Hill Connect. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

This gives the reader a better idea of how prevalent Cocaine was used by students either entering or already in college. It also provides additional information of the recent drop of Cocaine use.

Please let me know what you think! --Djbuchalter (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014

Please delete the following sentence. "Even occasional use of cocaine could cause trouble to the body and mind. [13][14]" It is propagandistic and essentially dishonest.

Reference 13 essentially argues the exact opposite. It cites a major 1995 WHO study showing little or no negative health consequences of occasional use. It's central point is that the WHO study "gets up the nose" of U.S. drug control authorities.

Reference 14 really has nothing to say on the subject. It is a study of potential dependence among an otherwise non-deviant, cocaine using community in Amsterdam. It concludes that even with ten years of continuous use, members of this community keep to a low use level and will voluntarily reduce their usage if it seems to be growing, suggesting no "trouble to ... mind" at all. It mentions that fears of negative health consequences are one of the reasons the members of this community voluntarily self-regulate cocaine usage, but gives no instances of any cases. The only concrete reference appears to be about needle-transmitted diseases among injection users.

Nwander (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Agree. not to mention the statement is very vague and anything it is trying to say about the adverse affects of cocaine is better described elsewhere with better sources. The sources that are cited do not seem to support this statement. Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Other anesthetics aren't DAT blockers?

From article: "It also functions on the binding sites to the dopamine and serotonin sodium dependent transport area as targets as separate mechanisms from its reuptake of those transporters; unique to its local anesthetic value which makes it in a class of functionality different from both its own derived phenyltropanes analogues which have that removed."

Is the above correct? What's the reference? I think I have a study that says otherwise.

"These results show that the cocaine-like actions of certain local anesthetics such as dimethocaine and procaine result from their direct actions of dopamine uptake inhibitors." [4]

Ledpup (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage

Dutch courage is mentioned in the article (around the prohibition part) but there is no link to what it is, while it might be evident for most it should be nice to link to it.... 88.164.17.243 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Alleged copyright violation

This page has been put up for speedy deletion as an alleged copyright violation. However, I recommend that any administrator planning to delete this page as such should check the history of the page to ensure that the alleged sources didn't copy from this article. We don't want to delete an article as plagiarizing another source if, in fact, the other source was plagiarizing Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

this is almost certainly a back-copy from WP. The key for this is the illustration, which have clearly been taken from Commons. If anyone doubts this, open a Copyright investigation. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I thought the whole business of slapping a fat speedy deletion tag on a major article rather unseemly. Certainly any copyright concerns could have been dealt with a little more tactfully and without making Wikipedia look like it's run by the Keystone Cops. – JBarta (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of cocaine stereoisomers

This article incorrectly states that due to the 4 chiral centers, cocaine has potentially 16 stereoisomers. As noted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cocaine_analogues, there are actually just 8 stereoisomers. This is due to the restricted bonding between atoms in this ring structure that would not occur for a simple straight-chain linear molecule having 4 chiral centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.111.47.43 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Levamisole

The hight prevalence & dangers are not addressed at all. I know both EZ-test & Dancesafe offer tests, but since they don't list ingredients, it's not possible to confirm their accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is widely known that levamisole is used as a cut due to its similar colour, texture and water solubility. I think if a bit of research was done then a realible source could be found and it could be included as it is very much related to the subject. That being said I don't have the time to look for it myself. The idea does have potential. Chillum 03:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Anhedonia

Addiction and dependence glossary
addiction – a biopsychosocial disorder characterized by persistent use of drugs (including alcohol) despite substantial harm and adverse consequences addictive drug – psychoactive substances that with repeated use are associated with significantly higher rates of substance use disorders, due in large part to the drug's effect on brain reward systems dependence – an adaptive state associated with a withdrawal syndrome upon cessation of repeated exposure to a stimulus (e.g., drug intake) drug sensitization or reverse tolerance – the escalating effect of a drug resulting from repeated administration at a given dose drug withdrawal – symptoms that occur upon cessation of repeated drug use physical dependence – dependence that involves persistent physical–somatic withdrawal symptoms (e.g., fatigue and delirium tremens) psychological dependence – dependence socially seen as being extremely mild compared to physical dependence (e.g., with enough willpower it could be overcome) reinforcing stimuli – stimuli that increase the probability of repeating behaviors paired with them rewarding stimuli – stimuli that the brain interprets as intrinsically positive and desirable or as something to approach sensitization – an amplified response to a stimulus resulting from repeated exposure to it substance use disorder – a condition in which the use of substances leads to clinically and functionally significant impairment or distress tolerance – the diminishing effect of a drug resulting from repeated administration at a given dose

Hello. I have heard from several anecdotal sources and one doctor that excessive cocaine use can cause Anhedonia(loss of ability to feel pelasure). I know anecdotes are a poor source of information and I also know that doctors often repeat things they have heard without checking.

I see no mention of it in the article. If it is true then I think the article should mention it. While I think it may not be true I also think that the my quick google search is not the best way to research a medical issue.

I know that the nitty gritty of these things are often on sites that require payment or evidence that you are a researcher/doctor/student. If there is anyone here with access to that sort of information or could just point to a public source that would be great.

Naturally I don't think the article should say anything about it unless a reliable source is found. Chillum 03:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Anhedonia is a very common symptom during the withdrawal state associated with psychological dependence. It's sort of just implied by stating that it causes that form of dependence, but it may be worth stating it outright. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Chronic usage of cocaine sexual side effects

The article failed to mention that chronic use of cocaine eventually leads to sexual problems: erectile disfunction, delayed orgasm or full blown anorgasmia. 2001:558:6033:15:AD18:FC24:9103:F60A (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Health risk

Can we mention the health risks as shown here or is this source not considered reputable?--88.104.136.143 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Not sure what this means "A sentence literally starts with cocaine dependence and you ignore that one?" [5]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

[6] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 by why did you revert all these other changes [7]?

ΔFosB is not a main article for this section while cocaine dependence would be. We had this discussion previously.

Agree Epigenetics of cocaine addiction is also not a main.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

True, and yet 2 were already linked, which is a problem you noted previously. Why only delete 1? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cocaine dependence is an appropriate main template for that section. Agree the other is not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cocaine dependence has absolutely nothing to do with cocaine addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The section heading is "Addiction, dependence, and withdrawal". I never said the two were the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

...Hmm. I take it "Epigenetics of Cocaine addiction" isn't a main topic for Addiction? Interesting, given that the article is like an order of magnitude 2x larger than the cocaine dependence article to boot. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

[8] It use also increases the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, lung problems in those who smoke it, blood infections, and sudden cardiac death.[8] Should be changed to [8] Its use also increases the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, lung problems in those who smoke it, blood infections, and sudden cardiac death.[8]

This is just simple grammar. It should be changed to its. Parcotics (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Unlock please

Why is this page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.249.173.188 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the logs there was a significant amount of repeated vandalism in 2006, 2007, and 2008 culminating in a decision to lock this page indefinitely. Past experience has shown recreational drugs to be a significant target of vandalism, edit warring, and otherwise unconstructive editing. Sizeofint (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can suggest changes here or create an account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Profitability to farmers

The claim that it's a necessary crop for farmers to grow for economic reasons is incorrect. Please put in the following:

If we calculate that there is a production of 1400 kg of leaves per hectare (4 harvests of 350 kg per year), at 3.3$ per kilo (at 1.30$ per kilo it's even just 1820$), we find that average income for farmers from coca is only 4620$ per hectare. By comparison, alternative crops, like bananas give an income of 8250$ to 12375$ per hectare, hence being significantly higher. However, coca is able to grow on steep and poor soils, whereas banana and some other crops have much higher soil requirements. Some specific crops however (such as Quinoa) might be able to grow even on poor, steep soils all though revenue might be lower than that of true cash crops such as banana trees. Redneck rick (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Gathering together various data sources to conclude that "we find" something about them is inappropriate original research. If you want to directly compare coca farming to banana or quinoa, you should find a secondary source that has already explicitly compared them, rather than making your own calculations and assumptions from potentially mismatched sources.

The line about how "The cultivation of coca has become an attractive, and in some cases even necessary, economic decision" is unsourced, and has been flagged as such since last month. If it's a false statement, then we should simply remove it rather than trying to rebut it in the article body. --McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your objection. However, I'm pretty sure my calculations are correct. I guess some additional sources on direct comparisons done by others would still be needed though. I wouldn't delete that line mentioned entirely btw. I'd just remove the "and in some cases even necessary, economic decision" part of it. Redneck rick (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, have gone ahead and cut it. You're welcome to do so yourself for any other dubious and unsourced statements you spot, the only reason I reverted your earlier edit wholesale was because it was adding WP:OR. --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anybody translate/transliterate cyrillic?

This image, redone in English would be a help to my pet projects here. Nagelfar (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cocaine, tropacocaine, cinnamoilcocaine, benzoylecgonine, methylecgonine, norecgonine, methylecgonidine, hygrine, cuscohygrine, alpha-truxylline, beta-truxylline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.126.184 (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

a joke, .. a lazy tree type, .. it just uses happy stuff from chocolate, .. cocoa, .. as its leaf poison, ..216.210.69.108 (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

5-HT3 "reuptake" inhibition in pharmacodynamics section

This appears to be a misreading of the linked paper, which states that cocaine is a weak 5-HT3 competitive antagonist, a property shared by several other sodium channel blockers such as lamotrigine, menthol, and lidocaine. This is unsurprising given that the 5-HT3 receptor is a ligand-gated ion channel that conducts sodium ions. Inhibiting the reuptake of a receptor/channel doesn't make sense. GrimeMuted (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

'Solubility in water' on the main page is incorrect (1800–2500 mg/mL), data page shows 1.7 g/L. Other sources (found at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/cocaine#section=Melting-Point) show 1800mg/L (at 22°C), 1 g/600 mL or 1666mg/L (at 80°C) and again 1800mg (at 22°C). Edit: I should have been more clear. It's about the mg/mL, this should be mg/L. Fubuga (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Replaced the range with "~1.8". The "(at 20°C)" can't be changed, hence the approximation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC); edited at 09:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Medical use - CNS Agent, Corneal Sloughing.

In many countries in which it is in medical use, the approved uses for cocaine often include something to the effect of "CNS agent", stimulant, and so forth, as it has distinctive qualities such as short duration of effect, mechanism of effect, interaction with other drugs, etc. One example of such use, which is generally uncommon, is in the original recipe for Brompton cocktail, wherein it has an effect with a number of dimensions.

Cocaine is one of two local anaesthetics most commonly approved for ophthalmic use; one of the reasons it may not be used in a particular case has to do with the possibility of causing corneal sloughing. 69.95.62.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Under Insufflation - Error concerning Sinus

2nd sentence: "The drug coats and is absorbed through the mucous membranes lining the sinuses."

The paranasal sinuses are cavities surrounded by membrane covered bone and each have one very small access hole ("sinus ostium") which is usually covered by mucus There is almost no fast change of the "air" within the sinuses except during unusual barometric pressure change (when changing altitude while flying or diving.) This is demonstrated by their gas analysis showing a similarity to venous dissolved gases rather than to "air." These dead end cavities with only a single small hole accessing the nasal passages would not inspire any significant amount of cocaine during insufflation.

"sinuses" should be changed to "nasal passages."

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranasal_sinuses Ecstatist (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed this. It would be good to get more references for this section as well. Sizeofint (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

Apparently, from what I've read, this article is plagued by a number of unsupported sentences. This may the the work of a zealous editor, or the work of someone who just doesn't provide proof. Anyways, I'm putting the citation needed template up, and hopefully fixing this issue will catapult cocaine back onto the list of good medical articles. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the page is protected. It would be nice if anyone with those privileges could put that template up.

2602:306:3994:8120:D4EA:EA65:CB1B:AC23 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Added to uses section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cocaine. 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/20100228194626/https://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-468286.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-468286.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=45
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323134442/http://www.havocscope.com/black-market/drug-trafficking/cocaine/ to http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?nnodeid=25482
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323134442/http://www.havocscope.com/black-market/drug-trafficking/cocaine/ to http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/cocainecrack/l/blsldiccocaine.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041107170238/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/chemdisp.xsql?chemical=COCAINE to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/chemdisp.xsql?chemical=COCAINE

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) 18:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken reference

The section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Medicalization ends with a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Local_anesthetic which doesn't exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptxmac (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed it. Thanks for the notice. Sizeofint (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Cocaine linked to sperm defects?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/15/science/cocaine-using-fathers-linked-to-birth-defects.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.68.74 (talk • contribs)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2164/jandrol.110.011874/full A more recent study, that also links cocaine to sperm defects. Casual Lobster (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. That wiley article appears to be a review so we may be able to add something on this. Sizeofint (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

IUPAC Naming

Places like Chemspider use the IUPAC (1R,2R,3S,5S)-2-Methoxycarbonyltropan-3-yl benzoate which can be imported into Marvin & ChemOffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

Just to let you know Cocaine in NOT a stimulant, it is a local anesthetic. its not your fault, lots of people make this mistake. ps i didn't want to create an account just to let you know this. 172.78.203.56 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is both. Sizeofint (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup definitely a stimulant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Text book stimulant... Dr.khatmando (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Das ist falsch denn dein Schwanz ist klein 101.166.156.176 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Rough translation:This is wrong because your dick is small--Auric talk 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Still Not done: Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 03:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

The line "Since 1961 the international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs has required countries to make recreational use of cocaine a crime.[19]" should be modified. Even though it cites a Lancet article that makes the same claim, this position is not supported by the text of the Single Convention or by the International Narcotics Control Board.

In the article [8] - it is noted that, "Article 36 [of the Single Convention] does not directly require criminalization of all the above; it states only in the cases of (unspecified) serious offences that they "shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty."

Instead, the text could read: "Many countries have invoked the international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to mandate their efforts to make recreational use of cocaine a crime. While this is not an accurate interpretation of the text of the convention, it is an accurate representation of many interpretations of the convention". Seakayem (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The text in the other article doesn't cite a source, rather it directly links to Article 36 and appears to be WP:SYNTH. Since Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth, if the existing text matches the citation, it should stay (unless you find a WP:RS article that supports the other statement). – Train2104 (t • c) 20:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cocaine. 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/20160304055344/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/31/13045253-us-peru-overtakes-colombia-as-top-cocaine-producer?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/31/13045253-us-peru-overtakes-colombia-as-top-cocaine-producer?lite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cocaine is a Schedule II (US) Narcotic

Article lists the chemical substance as a Schedule I Substance, while the United Status Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has labeled the chemical makeup of Cocaine, and it's drug properties, a Schedule II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendenio (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This ref says Schedule I [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

But this says schedule II[10] and is better ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous mechanism given for septal perforation

Howdy, this is my first time editing, I'm too shy to make any edits directly yet, could use some help.

Under section Adverse Effects, subsection Chronic, septal perforation is said to be "Due to the absorption of the cocaine from cocaine hydrochloride, the remaining hydrochloride forms a dilute hydrochloric acid." This is not only incorrect but bad chemistry.

It's difficult to find a primary source for the accepted cause--drug-induced local vasoconstriction--but Meyler's Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs, JK Aronson, ed. 2009 (Elsevier) p. 498 has a respectable blurb, and is searchable via google books.

Original statement included citation 43, which points to Pagliaros’ Comprehensive Guide to Drugs and Substances of Abuse, which doesn't seem to be accessible online, but would hopefully understand that the "HCl" in cocaine-HCl doesn't just get left behind.

Any help/handholding would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donenach (talk • contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Cocaine Dependence Article

The Cocaine dependence article contains a section on non-deviant cocaine use which I think should be mentioned in this article. I think that some of the info pertaining to this ref should be moved over, but it is a primary source. Does anyone have any thoughts?Petergstrom (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cocaine. 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/20121015131014/http://oyyum.net/Wilderness/pdf/wilderness-medical.pdf to http://oyyum.net/Wilderness/pdf/wilderness-medical.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Burnett's Cocoaine for hair was made from cocoa, not coca. It is not cocaine. This ad does not belong here. 2601:47:4001:CFA6:F9B4:F94B:4CF9:472A (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested lede edit

The bolded bit of the second sentence in the lede is awkward: "It is commonly snorted, inhaled as smoke, or as a solution injected into a vein." This could be fixed by placing it within parentheses or dashes, or by replacing it with the words "dissolved and". 142.160.130.98 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Another commonly used name for cocaine is diff

Cocaine is quickly becoming known as diff all over Europe. The nick name started in the UK and is now being heard all over Europe and parts of the USA Creamfieldsbrainbox (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Too much information without references

I have deleted text that was without references in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvers (talk • contribs) 11:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawal and dependence

The section with the sub-title "Dependence and withdrawal" does not cite any references. Vorbee (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

Cocaine was found by thomas jefferson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.105.194 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019

"a single dose and is typically 35 mg (a "bump") to 100 mg (a "rail")" this isnt correct, a bump IS 35 mg but a rail is a type of lineup that can CARRY 100mg. 80 to 100 is called an 8 ball, NOT a rail. KiddPiri23 (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Note: That sentence is currently tagged as dubious. Do you have a reliable source so we may correct it? NiciVampireHeart 23:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: nil response to request for sourcing in 72 hours. Please re-open by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no" and providing reliable sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 21:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A few quick points: 1. How are the doses described being measured? In my experience, lines are almost exclusively dosed by eye. 2.The difference between an 80 mg line and a 60 mg line is quite small. The amount that cocaine can be 'chopped' up varies, but usually depends on which adulterants have been added to the 'raw' product by producers or sellers. A Finer-grained, better chopped up line will look bigger than a line with bigger chunks. It is virtually impossible to correctly guess the weight of a line by appearance only. 3. The size of a 'typical' line varies enormously between users. Some will snort half a gram in 5 lines. Heavier users may only get 2 or 3 lines out of the same amount. 4. An 8-ball (or 'baller') in the UK usually refers to 3.5 grams of coke (because it's an eighth of an ounce). I've never heard the term used in relation to a single dose or a large line. 5. As far as I'm aware, there is no word used specifically to describe a larger line of coke, or a bigger dose. Hope that is in some way useful! Codeye (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In "Other names" section: Provide link to "freebase form"

Should we put a link to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_base to "crack (in freebase form)"? There are no other references to "freebase"/"free base" in the article, and so it's not clear what freebase means. If that page (Free base) is talking about the same term, then I think we should add a link to it. Jordanlees2 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

copyvio

This paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09750-0 (full paper with paywall https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s12109-020-09750-0?sharing_token=-Kdjc4Vwp59b3KZ6uHgDave4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4zL2q_VjfJmW6twqPCXJPXlqW5_aE7qZ7HWX3KWOmI1rC75-j9MEV2tAZ8OTJF9lboVHukkDv5VdfLmO0zcnoLBg8bHnV0lkHKl54JJc8mrfhI3-WubEpLDKrsjp-W8dg%3D) mentioned plagiarism in this article
copy paste from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/ecgonine

It was confirmed with this tool: https://copyvios.toolforge.org
LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Nose Candy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nose Candy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Nose Candy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Booger sugar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Booger sugar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Booger sugar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nose candy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nose candy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Nose candy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation needs removed

Citation No. 3 needs removed. it purports with reference to "tachycardia" yet the actual reference link does not contain the term "tachycardia" whatsoever, and therefore, to that extent is a dishonest reference link which needs removal, and the "citation needed" tag inserted in it's place. It simply does not make sense to claim that a source supports the idea that "cocaine causes tachycardia" while relying on a link that doesn't even contain the term "tachycardia". 108.235.248.227 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The claim in the article is that "The most common adverse reactions in people treated with Numbrino are hypertension, tachycardia, and sinus tachycardia" not "cocaine causes tachycardia". Whilst you could add amongst to the start of the claim; "citation 3" does support the statement as written - and did at the time of complaint. Little pob (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Reefer madness

Please remove the unsourced non-sense about often sprinkling cocaine on cannabis. This is nothing but Reefer Madness. The article should be NPOV rather than propaganda. 188.207.108.41 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. sbelknap (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Correction of wrong date

In the picture depicting a cocaine trader in Berlin, the caption refers wrongly to 1924, yet the picture says May 1929. I have seen this picture in several citations regarding Berlin in the 1920s. All the time it is cited at 1929. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.228.111 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Little pob (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No proof of claim

> Cocaine's use increases ... blood infections and AIDS. This is absurd. Any connection to AIDS is likely related to medium of delivery such as needles or sharing of infected paraphernalia, not drug itself. Cocaine is an extremely caustic substance that could not host viruses. Should be removed.

Useful reading?

These are three links, saved from Cocaine (data page) (to be deleted). If they are useful, please add them for further reading I guess.

• Nuclear magnetic resonance and molecular orbital study of some cocaine analogues, includes superposition and overlay of cocaine, cocaine derivatives, and their minimum energy values.
• Conformational changes in dopamine transporter intracellular regions upon cocaine binding and dopamine translocation, thorough-going elucidation of exact mechanism and mode of action specific to cocaine at the dopamine transporter.
• Genome Wide Analysis of Chromatin Regulation by Cocaine Reveals a Novel Role for Sirtuins

-DePiep (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Cocaine on 5-ht3

Cocaine seems to be a 5-ht3 agonist, not an antagonist. 2601:240:8301:15D0:BC02:1673:9010:9A29 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cocaïne adulterants source

On cocaïne adulterants, BBC News gives a list on seizures from October to December 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8040690.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.169.45.68 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Cocaine

Cocaine 103.20.180.33 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

nose

dont eat 216.170.72.99 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cocaine legality in province of British Columbia in Canada

As of 2023 Jan 1, personal use and possession of cocaine up to 2.5 grams has been decriminalized in the province of British Columbia only.

This new law includes other drugs such as heroin, MDMA, and methamphetamine, which can all add up for the total of 2.5 grams, for personal use. For the manufacturing and distribution and or sales or cocaine or other hard drugs, a government license is required. CasinoZ (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Silly price estimate

The section named Trafficking and distribution has an estimated price for cocaine, which may have been true for one person in one place, but the cost of cocaine varies widely, and saying it's 250-350 for an eighth is silly Very Average Editor (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Releaser or Blocker?

In „Pharmacology“ it isnt specified if cocaine is a monoamine releaser or a reuptake inhibitor. Does anyone know the answer? 2003:C0:74E:D500:78FB:A477:AB75:D720 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s definitely specified, at least in the literature in general but I’ll doublecheck the pharmacology section. Because it’s pretty well known for being a triple reuptake inhibitor. I mean I don’t know if all the mechanisms are very thoroughly studied and completely understood yet, because cocaine has seemed to me to be at least somewhat ‘pharmacologically promiscuous’ compared to many stimulants; but it is most definitely considered to pretty much just be a blocker of the dopamine transporter(s), the norepinephrine transporter and the serotonin transporter. From what I understand it’s pretty agreed-upon that it’s not a releasing agent (for these three chemicals) but instead just a reuptake inhibitor for these particular neurotransmitters. Stimulants like amphetamine and methamphetamine though are technically both “releasers” and “blockers”, even though many people actually seem to assume that they’re just releasers. And I think methylphenidate (Ritalin) is another good example of a (mainly dopaminergic) stimulant which is just a reuptake inhibitor/transport-blocker like cocaine. But yeah, I don’t think it’s ever been published or established anywhere that cocaine is a releasing-agent in any sense. Maybe with acetylcholine? Because from what I may remember I think it does increase levels of acetylcholine but I’m not sure if it does this through a releasing mechanism. But I’m fairly certain there’s no evidence whatsoever to date that it does any actual ‘releasing’ of dopamine, serotonin or norepinephrine. However, I think it actually might release non-neurotransmitter (hormones) like testosterone believe it or not. Apparently both caffeine and cocaine ‘tend’ to lead to an increase in testosterone whereas amphetamine does the opposite. Dexedream (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)