Talk:Cold water extraction

[Legal]

*side note in reference to legality: 

"Cold water extraction is used legally and recommended for people with liver problems who can die from the extras put in painkillers such as Vicodin or Tylenol 3 if using higher doses; hence how I ended up here because I had no idea what cold water extraction was. Thank you for the explanations." [FYI, Cold water extraction should be used even if you don't have liver problems to avoid getting them in the future.] {[ Yenglin ]} January 20, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.213.190 (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is taken from a clearly unreliable source, promoting CWE for recreational use of opioids. Altering the formulation and concentration of a controlled drug may indeed be illegal.

No, cold water extraction should not be used. It is not medically approved and codeine, hydrocodone and oxycodone are available as single ingredient forms. (Hydrocodone is not available in any form in many countries.) However, home CWE is not employed for medical use but recreational use of opioid drugs at higher doses. Lab analysis using common "home CWE" techniques offer samples with less and varying fractions of paracetamol/ASA/ibuprofen removed than common internet documents state. Unless a home chemist has materials to assess the fraction of paracetamol remaining, he may actually unknowingly consume a toxic dose, or repeated subtoxic doses believing it is safe.

The underground CWE FAQs posted on the internet are not reliable sources, making unjustified, possibly dangerous claims and should not be used. I have changed the legal section.— βox73 (৳alk) 10:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Improper use of slang

I know this may sound a tad petty, but some of the terminology used in the description of the possible side-effects of intravenous codeine use don't seem befitting of an encyclopedic document.

Cheers, --Der Leiter 06:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

ibuprofen is hardly soluable at all

yes, and codeine (and most opiates) are much more soluble. That's the point of the extraction84.92.137.39 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually... codeine is a great deal less soluble than ibuprofen, as can be inferred from the placement (or lack of placement) of hydrogen bonds in these two substances.

From DrugBank:

Codeine = <0.1 g/100 mL = <0.001 mg/mL

Ibuprofen = ~0.049 mg/ml

Hydrocodone = Insoluble (no hydrogen bonds)

Hopefully you haven't been consuming large amounts of the ibuprofen fraction... that would be bad. Kitchen chemistry is not the same as Clandestine chemistry, and this article clearly relates to the latter. Chemists would call this fractional crystallization, although I suppose that a "cold water extraction" is a type of recrystallization in which temperature is variable (as opposed to pressure, etc.). Also note that paracetamol is very soluble in water, and this method of extraction is indeed frequently used by recreational drug users as a way to lessen the amount of potentially toxic paracetamol. It is also worth mentioning that the government (in the US, at least) has been VERY influential in the placement of paracetamol in opiate-containing products. They say it is to reduce drug abuse, but in fact it only seems to cause more harm due to its hepatotoxicity (n.b. paracetamol has an extremely narrow theraputic index). All of this information is definitely worth mentioning in this article, if for no other reason than to prevent more drug-related deaths. Fuzzform 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake:

0.1 g/100 mL = 0.001 g/mL = 1 mg/mL.

So codeine is more soluble than ibuprofen. --Galaxiaad 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. So I did. Fuzzform 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Fuzzform that the combination of paracetamol-codeine causes more harm than good due to hepatotoxicity. You are absolutely right in saying that paracetamol has a narrow therapeutic index. That's why people are not stupid enough to take more than 4g of it in 24 hours. This effectively constrains the amount of codeine they can ingest too. I have to admit, though, that codeine is a fairly weak opiate with rather low dependence-potential, so perhaps less restrictions should be put on its usage, and it should be made available in pure form in pharmacies.Tmrussell 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that people who are out to abuse codeine would be well informed about the potential risks (e.g. the notion of a theraputic index) involved with taking massive amounts of acetaminophen. Fuzzform 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the sick joke about it. The people trying to abuse it are scared and want to avoid over dosing themselves so they watch what they are doing as carefully as they can. It is the simple person that just wants the pain to go away and doesn't realize how careful they have to be that get overdosed or the people that don't read the directions and don't realize they are consuming just more of the same medication when they are trying to cocktail for multiple symptoms. 64.231.227.10 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we Censor this Article ?

[YES]AFAIK, 'cold water extraction' isn't recognized by chemists, but is more of a "kitchen chemistry" way to purify codiene tablets employed by drug users. I don't know that this is deserving of an article. If I'm wrong, it definatelt needs expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.160.28.71 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

[NO]That doesn't make much difference, it is still commonly used and known so no reason why it shouldn't have an article. Mushin^talk 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[YES]Still, should instructions on how to extract an opioid from common cough medicines be described in a public encyclopaedia? It's not exactly common knowledge and also not really important for the article as a whole, but it might give an impression of Wikipedia as drug abuse-friendly. --TheOtherStephan 03:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[NO]Since when does an encyclopedia need to be politically correct? There are a lot of articles describing processes and this is no different. It's also perfectly legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.200.106 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

[NO]Cold water extraction is recognized by Chemists, as it has been presented in procedures to me in my college level organic chemistry class

[NO]If this isn't the the place to detail what hot cold water extraction (or any other drug/weapon/ANYTHING) process, then I don't know what would be the appropriate place. Wikipedia is about education, what you do with it is up to you, not Wikipedia. If we were to go running around deleting things on Wikipedia because they are "drug abuse-friendly", how is that any different from censorship? An open forum encyclopedia is not about censorship. Educate yourself, you owe it to yourself to not allow yourself to be ignorant of things out there.

[NO]Cold water extraction is a standard technique in quantitative chemistry. The differential solubilities of different substances at different temperatures is commonly used by chemists to separate those substances. Furthermore, it is part of the educational curriculum. The Royal Society of Chemistry for example provides an educational document (intended for high school students) at http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/LearnNet/rsc/paracetamol.pdf which describes in great detail, procedures to isolate paracetamol from other substances. I quote from page 4: "When the hot solution is cooled down, it reaches the temperature at which paracetamol reaches its limit of solubility and therefore starts to crystallise out." If it's good enough for the RSC, it's good enough for wikipedia, I say. As for the issue of censorship generally, the illegality of the matter described is totally irrelevant. Lots of illegal activities are described in wikipedia and it helps law-abiding persons such as you and me to be aware of that activity. As for whether it could be harmful to describe the procedures, well I am NOT opposed to censorship in principle. Censorship is sometimes the most ethical course of action even though it can weaken democracy. But let's get our priorities right. You could at a pinch argue that removing bomb-making instructions from wikipedia might be worthwhile even though it's elsewhere on the net anyway, but stopping Australians from purifying a drug that is available in pure form in pharmacies in other 1st world countries is not exactly law-enforcement's highest priority and that's why the police don't bother to prosecute for possession of this drug, despite it being illegal. I recommend that there be no censorship on Wikipedia for any matters concerning drugs, legal or illegal. Tmrussell 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

[NO]I have to agree strongly that this issue is about Wikipedia being an unbiased informational resource to the public. The very suggestion that something be removed on the grounds that it makes Wikipedia look "drug abuse-friendly" is in explicit violation of content neutrality. Being a consumer that actually wants to know what western medicine is trying to do to my body, I was researching the vicodin that was prescribed for post-knee surgery pain. I actually read the edited version, and was hoping for more, as I know my body does not do well with acetominiphen, so I would prefer to use ibuprofin. I found the cached version on answers.com and was dismayed to see the info had been censored with the spurious commnent "Technical description not an encyclopedic topic". Please note the following definitions of "encyclopedic":

broad in scope or content; "encyclopedic knowledge" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. The term comes from the Greek εγκύκλιος παιδεία (enkuklios paideia), literally "in a circle of instruction", and more generally connoting "a well-rounded education". Many encyclopedias are titled Cyclopaedia and the terms are interchangeable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic

[NO] Wikipedia being internet based has the flexibility to have a lot of information you wouldn't put in a paper encyclopedia due to size constraints. Like articles on popular TV shows for example. This article isn't going to encourage anyone that wasn't already interested in the subject matter to try it. If anything keeping this article might make people safer through knowledge. BWF89 12:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[NO] I've removed the drug references that I believe are irrelevant to the article, kept the ones I think are, rewrote the process so that it is technically accurate and searched for a long time to find a credible source of information on this extraction. I have not found a credible source that directly states this method of extraction for opiates. It would be helpful if someone could find this information, because it would be a shame to have to take down this portion of the article due to government censorship of other sources. Tmrussell does has a very good link to a credible article with information on paracetamol extraction which I will try to include to make this article more complete. But I am looking for other cold water extraction uses to make this more than just part of the recreational drug users handbook. Nickstuckert 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is even any discussion about censoring Wikipedia. What next, censorship of the articles about sex or pornography? Fuzzform 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Censorship = The right of the people to speak a they wish to give information, be it information others do not like. Censor ship hides the problem and and result, and it educates others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.221.130.35 (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on! There are articles on porn stars who still get it in the behind while i'm writing this, and you are arguing about whether this should be granted an article? --78.86.159.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

worked well

Thanks for the info, works great with nurofen plus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.151.101 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Since I'm still not exactly clear on all the workings on Wikipedia, I will leave this comment however it seems irrelevant. Nickstuckert 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

works with any co-codamol (paracetamol & codeine) you can buy from the pharmacy too.. just avoid any containing caffeine

Contradiction

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

Awesome

Can Wiki tell me how to roll a joint, next?

Watch the film "Kids." There is an in-detail set of instructions and a jamming soundtrack to boot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.122.38 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, the data for hydrocodone was about the base. The salt hydrocodone bitartrate is also soluble, like codeine and oxycodone. I think I've fixed it. And I'm told I was wrong about the procedure not being illegal, but I don't think we generally use disclaimers on Wikipedia anyway. --Galaxiaad 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You really showed your intelligence. How can you even compare a scientific technique to that of rolling tobacco?--78.86.159.199 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Crumble up the weed, place it in the paper with the sticky side up and away from you. Roll the weed back and forth until a round shape forms, lick the sticky strip, and glue it together. I'm not sure if a page on rolling joints would be appropriate, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes common laboratory techniques, such as fractional crystallization, but not DIY pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.137.130 (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of tutorial style guidline for CWE

The instructional information regarding the CWE was deleted by a previous user (OAC)who claimed that it was in "non-encyclopaedic structure and acts as a guide to recreational opiate use-. should not be on 'pedia, or needs major clean-up, or needs to be generalized, not outlined in a tutorial."

While I agree that the writing style of that section did seem to require a revamping to a more appropriate tone, I would question why someone would suggest that tutorial style instructions are not appropriate for Wikipedia and site the "The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_85_Ways_to_Tie_a_Tie) as a clear example of instructional information being provided on Wikipedia. If there are specific Wikipedia guidelines that would justify such information's removal either due to their instructional nature, or which would sanction the removal of that information for any other reasons, I would challenge someone to present it.

JeffieFreedom (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Common misinformation isn't misinformation ...

The page is confusing, because the codeine and paracetamol containing tablets don't contain codeine freebase, rather codeine phosphate.

The codeine phosphate salt is far more soluble than the stated 9mg/ml at 21C - which is actually the solubility of Codeine freebase. Codeine phosphate has a solubility closer to 4000mg/ml (http://www.janssen-ortho.com/JOI/pdf_files/tylenol_E.pdf page 14).

Therefore, one could extract all 256mg of Codeine Phosphate in a standard 8/500mg Co-codamol pack of 32 in a comparatively tiny amount of liquid.

Even if the user starts the CWE process with 50ml water, (which, theoretically could hold 200g codeine phosphate), the maximum amount of paracetamol consumed will be 450mg (50ml*9mg/ml=450mg), which is less than 1 adult dose.

93.97.226.17 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole section on acetaminophen-codeine extraction is severely flawed; the whole argument is invalid because the article refers to the solubility of freebase codeine rather than codeine sulfate. Codeine sulfate, and pretty much any prescribed codeine salt (present in non-basic conditions) is more soluble by several orders of magnitude. The editors should review their general chemistry texts in order to become more familiar with the behavior of amine functionalities in aqueous solutions. Hekog (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that the opiate, codeine-sulfate, is more soluble in water than freebase codeine. This would mean that the cold water extraction would be even more effective.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why this article is even present. It's just a dumbed down version of recrystallization with all references to actual chemistry omitted. I don't think Wikipedia should support information like this which could lead to bodily harm because someone fails to understand the basic chemistry of pharmaceuticals like amine salts and their solubility. At a minimum this article should provide a reference to the recrystallization article. Kasooi (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is information on how to build bombs in wikipedia. Knowledge can always lead to harm. That doesn't mean it should be censored. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes but Med/Pharm related material must conform to higher standards. This article is giving spurious information from an unreliable source or no source. Let me repost the following:

No, cold water extraction should not be used for opioid use. It is not medically approved and codeine, hydrocodone and oxycodone are available as single ingredient forms. (Hydrocodone is not available in any form in many countries.) However, home CWE is not employed for medical use but recreational use of opioid drugs at higher doses. Lab analysis using common "home CWE" techniques offer samples with less and varying fractions of paracetamol/ASA/ibuprofen removed than common internet documents state. Unless a home chemist has materials to assess the fraction of paracetamol remaining, he may actually unknowingly consume a toxic dose, or repeated subtoxic doses believing it is safe.

CWE is not often used for opioids per se, but home CWE is sometimes used for recreational opioid use. Who's to say it is common?

The underground CWE FAQs posted on the internet are not reliable sources, making unjustified, possibly dangerous claims and should not be used. Wikipedia may provide information about building bombs, but that does not say building bombs nor use/possession of home CWE opioids are safe or legal. I changed the legal part. — βox73 (৳alk) 10:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)