Talk:Cocaine/Archive 3

Spelling

Found typo in paragraph: Another route of cocaine traffic goes trough Chile, this route is primrily . . . Please correct spelling. There are numerous spelling and typographical errors in this article, of which this is only one. This needs a stronger editorial pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.81.100 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 October 2009

have people worked on variations of the molecule that are more effective

I've thought that enantiomeric cocaine may have different effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.215.179 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I noticed that there is rampant plagiarism in the paragraph talking about the WHO study banned from publication (compare it to the text of citation #20). This problem should obviously be corrected. But I wonder how much else may have been plagiarized in this article if this one glaring example exists. 67.193.243.184 (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why It's Used=

In all this there is no article about why "recreational drugs" like cocaine are used so often. Yeah, sure, it causes a high. To the detriment of everything else, sure. But why, what is it about human nature that causes us to use drugs. Because life is hard? Because life is boring? Because life has no meaning? Because people actually want to talk to God and this is the closest way possible? Because....why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.194.119.26 (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) i agree with you

All of that is a general question of substance abuse more suited for an article such as a philosophy or theories of human addiction type article and not a specific drug's page. It would also have to be sourced, notable published books on the philosophy of such ideas and theories to human action, otherwise that would be a highly unencyclopedic addition to Wikipedia. Nagelfar (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When the addictive properties became clear

"By the turn of the twentieth century, the addictive properties of cocaine had become clear..." This statement isn't true. Numerous reports show that during the height of the disco era that users believed cocaine to not be addictive. It was not realised until later.

No. You're wrong. Here are a few lyrics to "Minnie the Moocher" (Cab Calloway 1931)

"...she messed around with a bloke named Smokey she loved him, though he was a coke-y he took her down to Chinatown and he showed her how to kick the gong around..."

Need I say more? People believe what they want to believe, and hear what they want to hear. Especially a junkie.

"cocaine lines" picture

I removed the picture of white powder on a mirror. That is/was most definitely not cocaine.WhoIsJohnGalt? 15:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple grammatical error

The first paragraph has "effects" used in place of "affects." Please change this? "Because of the way it effects the mesolimbic reward pathway, cocaine is addictive." Petty as it is this is the kind of editing I usually do while I browse. 121.220.129.203 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That edit was not at all worth placement on the discussion page. 75.15.240.230 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

freebase and crack

These categories should be combined since freebase cocaine and crack cocaine are the same thing but just with different names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.84.209 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, crack and freebase aren't exactly the same. To make freebase involves an extra purification step that generally involves an extraction using ether, but since extracting in this fashion is quite dangerous (in fact it's how Richard Pryor infamously burned himself) crack cocaine, which does not involve the use of ether in its manufacture, was created. --206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

addictive?

highly addictive on all levels - a good way of describing it is "one line is too much and 100 lines are not enough" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.68.19.62 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

But Really Cocain is pretty much amazing, find it, try it, love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yawn202 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To Mr. Amazing above. When you meet Saint Peter you can tell him that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.194.119.26 (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The current Merck manual seems to imply that cocaine causes physical dependence:

http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch198/ch198f.html?qt=cocaine&alt=sh

And there's a few studies out there on withdrawal symptoms...so I suppose it would be reasonable to say that cocaine can be physically addictive. Farsnickle 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch somebody on heroin detox and then on cocaine detox. It'll probably become pretty obvious the difference. Cocaine's "physical" withdrawal symptoms are caused by psychological dependence, leading to your mind convincing your body that it hurts. Oh, and the "One line is too much and 100 lines are not enough." is a completely biased, ignorant statement. Cocaine, like any recreational drug, can be used responsibly when done in moderation by a mature consenting adult. 71.229.124.110 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So, I suppose YOU fit that bill. A mature, consenting adult, eh? Christ you're naive.

Hmmm ... I think one can have some serious debate about that; one might even argue that "mature adults" may be able to use recreational drugs responsibly, but that using this one is a sure sign of not exactly being mature in the first place. Any I might add that the IP writing before me might also look up how to format what one writes in a discussion, providing their brains are not so much on overdrive at the moment that they think everybody will bow in astonishments to their anonymous contributions immediately anyway. -- John Smythe 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, being not anonymous didn't help you to achieve more then him. All you managed to do is to make fun from anonymous post. And I strongly agree with the fellow 71.229.124.110. Although I have never tried cocain myself, I know few "responsible" mature adults - cocain users. They use it ocassionaly, several times a year and feel no signs of addiction. My guess is that cocain is not THAT addictive, as anti-drugs propagandists say. 79.75.196.222 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And your "guess" matters how? I mean, are we supposed to change the article because +you+ "guess" that cocaine isn't "that" addictive? Eli lilly 16:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to guess. You can find relative rankings of the addictive qualities of various drugs here http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax5.htm and here http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/addictiv.htm In short, unless you are going to post the same silly statements about addiction on the alcohol page, then you should remove them here. Alcohol wins over cocaine for addictive qualities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.41.5 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So what stupid? Both will put you in the grave. You just keep lying to yourself, son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.194.119.26 (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree I think cocaine is highly addictive and have seen that proven to me many times. I have been with people that tried cocaine for the first time and very soon after displayed symptoms of being addicted. One girl after smoking crack cocaine became very violent when not able to get a drug. She did not think about the consequences only about getting the drug and ended up in locked up. So with everything I have seen (you may think otherwise) and heard crack cocaine is one of the most addicting drugs out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.197.229 (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting the results of your objective, scientifically and methodologically sound study of the effects of cocaine use upon your statistically valid test population. Have you considered publishing your results in a peer-reviewed journal? SteubenGlass (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of the subjective nature of the word "addiction" it is very difficult to resolve a problem like this. Cocaine can indeed become psychologically addictive, and most cocaine "addictions" are because of this. However, although many reports have conflicting views on the physical dependence of this drug, it is widely acknowledged that abrupt cessation of cocaine causes anxiety, fatigue, increased appetite, and depression. Many of these can probably be attributed to the disruption of normal neurotransmitter activities in the user's brain. It is up to each reader to decide if these withdrawal symptoms are sufficient to constitute a physical addiction. I personally don't think of it as a physical addiction because the body doesn't need the drug to function, although it is uncomfortable to do so. Mbenzdabest (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

With reference to the girl above, you are referring to crack cocaine, which has very different effects to powdered cocaine as they are far more immediate and powerful and thus, there is likely to be a stronger potential for addiction. Research so far suggests that certain people are more susceptible to misuse and addiction if they have lower levels of dopamine along their mesolimbic reward pathway. This basically means that they need a lot of stimulation to become excited and cocaine provides exactly that. If you couple this with low danger awareness, then again you are more susceptible to becoming addicted to the drug. Cocaine, is currently not viewed as physiologically dependent because it is not even known which area of the brain is affected by cocaine thus, we say it is psychologically addictive. It is also for this reason why CBT programmes work so well with cocaine addiction because of the psychological elements. Thursdayfliss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.94.251 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This site allows ppl from all over the world write whatever they want its not good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.14.219 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes cocaine is crap. It isn't the most addictive drug, but the high only lasts like 20 minutes. It is not worth the money people pay for it.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

History

I was looking up something today, and I found to my surprise that this article does not contain anything about the history of cocaine, not who discovered it, not how widespread it was for a while, nothing. That is a serious gap in the article. -- John Smythe 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When I used to tend this article it had a large section. However, no one seems to have 'looked after' the article for a while. —porges_(talk) 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to an old version: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porges (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The historical information appears to be wrong. This link shows the date that cocaine was isolated at 1844 -- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU35.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.41.5 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The extensive history was deleted by a vandal here and then apparently never replaced when the vandalism was deleted. Does someone want to put it back in? There's a lot of useful information there. csloat (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. CM (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the popularization of cocaine should be addressed in another article. The Cocaine article has a focus on the pharmacology.

Also, I'm sure there are many examples in the history "section" of cocaine. I propose that the choice of examples be done in a objective manner (for lapse of a better term, I'll call this "peer-reviewed" histories, examples of which may include published history textbooks, as well as published research (i.e. the type found in periodicals)

Writerz (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of imprecissions about the Coca History.

It was used in precolumbian times as an anesthethic. There are not images of Coca leaves in textiles nor in pottery for 5,000 years. Guaman Poma said that one of the Inka kings brought it to Cusco from the amazon but it was used as a "fastening" meditation instrument. Coca, in fact was popularized by the spanish that wanted to have cheap labor for the silver mines, sith the consent of the Catholic Church that collected "el diezmo de la Coca" (a Church tax of 10%) In fact Coca chewing (which is extracting cocaine) was an instrument of Colonial domination in order to not feed workers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedroflecha (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Overdose

I felt that something more should be included on the treatment of cocaine overdoses, so I've added a few sentences on how emergency treatment of cocaine overdoses usually involves using benzodiazepines to reduce tachycardia and to decrease elevated blood pressure. Physical cooling (ice, cold blankets, etc...) and acetaminophen are used for hyperthermia. From there, it gets complicated, but benzo sedation is often the first step. (http://apma-nc.com/PatientEducation/cocaine_overdose.htm)

I've also added a few details for emergency care in cases where someone is unable or unwilling to seek medical attention. Many drug users are reluctant to seek care for mild overdoses, so I feel that distinguishing between what's unwise and what's potentially fatal may be a good idea. The overdose section of the GHB article does an excellent job of this, for example. Anyway, here's my stab at doing something similar with cocaine: "In cases where an otherwise healthy patient is unable or unwilling to seek medical attention, mild cocaine overdoses resulting in a resting heart rate of less than 120 bpm may attempt an initial treatment of 20 mg orally administered diazepam or equivalent (ie: 2 mg lorazepam). Acetaminophen and physical cooling may likewise be used to reduce mild hyperthermia (>39 C). However, any previous history of high blood pressure or cardiac problems puts the patient at high risk of cardiac arrest or stroke, and in such cases, immediate medical treatment must be sought. Similarly, if body temperature continues to rise or if benzodiazepines fail to reduce tachycardia, immediate professional intervention is necessary. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/534737?rss), (http://www.springerlink.com/index/XE0PYLRD1NYWMFBH.pdf), (http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch198/ch198f.html)

I've tried to realistically present the safest options for someone who doesn't want to go the hospital, and explained when they absolutely *must* go the ER. Any suggested changes, particularly from other medical professionals, would be most welcome. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 11:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

== excellent addtion only thing your heart rate at 120 bpm is not really an overdose of any kind. you are very likey to have your rate around 120 after only a few lines {twistedhumor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.52.197 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Basuco

The article could use more information on basuco, powdered coca paste that is smoked in Bolivia and Colombia. But i don't know much about it. Is anyone else qualified and willing to write about basuco? Foobaz·o< 06:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine eyedrops?

I read that the standard of care for cocaine does not allow the use of cocaine in the eye because it causes corneal damage and causes pitting in the eye. Narkotix 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine sulfate production

Under cocaine sulfate production it says:

Cocaine sulfate is produced by macerating coca leaves along with water that has been acidulated with sulfuric acid, or an aromatic-based solvent, like kerosene or benzene

The water cannot be "acidulated" with "aromatic-based solvent like kerosene or benzene", because they are not acids and don't dissociate in water to become acids.

I don't have sufficient knowledge about the production process to improve this text, but I think it would benefit from a re-write by someone who does. Royhills 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As a chemist, I would suggest the following rewrite, using the following reference: http://www.shroomery.org/attachments/5884387-cocaine_extraction.pdf

I have never extracted cocaine, but knowing the structure of cocaine, I can say that the following extraction method would definitely be successful.

Cocaine sulfate is produced by macerating coca leaves along with water that contains a base such as sodium carbonate or ammonium hydroxide, to assure the cocaine molecule is in the neutral "base" form. This base form is soluble in organic solvents, such as kerosene, gasoline, dichloromethane, or diethyl ether, and so the cocaine is extracted from the coca leaf/water mixture using one of these solvents. The organic solvent extracts are then treated with aqueous sulfuric acid to protonate the cocaine molecules, yielding the water soluble cocaine sulfate. This aqueous mixture can then be treated with potassium permangenate, which oxidizes impurities, resulting in a more pure final product. The acidic mixture is then treated with a base such as sodium carbonate or ammonium hydroxide to "neutralize" the previously added acid, again yielding the neutral "base" form of cocaine. The cocaine is then extracted from the neutralized mixture using an organic solvent, and these organic extracts are evaporated yielding relatively pure cocaine base. If further purification is desired, the cocaine can be dissolved in an organic solvent and treated with hydrochloric acid and acetone. If this mixture is cooled, over time pure cocaine HCl will crystallize from solution. 75.36.239.180 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the Protection?

CaptinJohn 12:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

12year old vandals first search "woman" then they search "sex" and then they search "cocaine". Yamanbaiia 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Re-reviewing this article as part of the GA Project Quality Task Force Sweeps. This article was originally nominated in December of 2005, at a very early date in the history of the Good article program. I cannot find any evidence of a proper review conducted for this article in it's talk page history & archives. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the current Good Article criteria, and has been delisted. Once the article again meets the criteria, it may be nominated again at WP:GAC.

Normally, I try and fix articles up a bit if it's just a few things, but there's too many here). Specifically, the article suffers a main lack of organization and focus. There's too many topics, subheadings, and too much text in some subsections. There are numerous 'citation needed' tags throughout the article, and many sections contain absolutely no sources whatsoever. Material in the article should be cited, as appropriate, by a reliable source (sorry folks, but [www.erowid.org erowid.org] hardly qualifies,... but even that's only used twice - mostly, sources aren't even present!

The 'worldwide view' tag needs to be addressed prior to GA status. The article does primarily only focus on the US. Likewise, the 'expert' tag in the addition section should be addressed as well. Overall, it seems like a lot of the material was written more from the perspective of someone interested in the recreational and abuse aspects, rather than the scientific aspects - the 'forms of cocaine' section is particularly evidence of this; it can be largely condensed into 2-3 short paragraphs (not nearly as much detail is required regarding 'smoked' or 'chewed/eaten' "forms" as is given.

It could help to separate the social aspects of cocaine use into another article, leaving this article to focus more on the scientific and pharmacological aspects.

Anyway, that's the initial review. Obviously, there is much work to be done here, and a more thorough review is not exactly appropriate at this time. On the bright side, WikiProject Pharmacology just initiated a new Collaboration of the Week program, so this article might be a good candidate. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally concur, this article needs some major editing! 189.130.178.1 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

movies

I know they use baby powder and powedered sugar. But I used sweet n' low cuz it blew away easily without being noticed. But before I was blowing it away, I sniffed it a couple of times. Seeing how Cocaine stimulates the brain....will anything happen later on? Where did the sweet n' low go...?

I'd like an answer cuz I had a kidney transplant and also have diabetes, so I'd like to know if it did anything...or will do anything Magikmm 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i would imagine sniffing sweet n low would be quite painful. if it is only a small whent up your nose it more then lucky got stuck there.

other methods of ingesting

reading over everything i noticed one method of Insufflation that is commonly know as "hot rails" involves taking a "stem" or other similar device heating one end getting very hot and then sniffing the line. the heat burns the coke and you will actually blow out smoke. its a much calmer mellower high it like a crack body feeling much less intense but still feel like you sniffed coke. the smoke is hot and burns {TwisTed-HumoR)

The section titled "Snorted"- Why is it titled snorted? The previous method of ingestion covered this method, and the body of the section discusses injection.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.60.53 (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine and excited delerium

The two are distinctly seperate. Excited delerium was first discovered long before use of cocaine became popular. Cocaine use seems to have resulted in increased diagnosis of "excited delerium" while police confrontation seems to have exacerbated the situation.

Because it is now common to diagnosis "excited delerium" today when there is no drug factor excited delerium is fallen into the limelight and is more closely associated with other factors. Therefore it needs to be easily to find without being buried as a sub article within cocaine.

What in the heck are you blabbering about? And it's spelled "delirium". Eli lilly (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine as nature's insecticide

Maybe someone could make mention of some related theories about the natural, evolutionary, purpose of cocaine in plants. Here would be a good start, that it is a natural insecticide on coca plants; [2]

Also mentioning something like "Cocaine, more than any other drug of abuse, has direct and immediate access to the brain's pleasure center." [3] might be of use in the article.

I don't believe that to be an accurate statement. Different drugs work differently in different people. Some people get little to no pleasure from cocaine, yet do from other drugs. --Thoric (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's covered in the article as cocaine increasing dopamine levels in the brain since dopamine can be considered the "pleasure" neurotransmitter. --Nakedophelia 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider that it might that reverse tolerance plays a role in the effects not being felt the first few times of cocaine use, as well as the way dopamine wires other transporters to feel the effects of the drug. 67.5.157.82 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

All the findings with reverse tolerance in regard to cocaine might be of use. 67.5.157.248 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine's attested differing stimulant effects from other stimulants

Somewhere the research for how Cocaine's stimulant effects actually different from other stiumlants like amphetamine should be added in a concise way. For example:

"...Cocaine and amphetamine trigger reward at the Nacc; however, cocaine also has rewarding actions in the frontal cortex and the olfactory tubercle..." [4]

It is interesting to note that this euphoria inducing activity in the olfactory tubercle must be completely unrelated to the common stereotyped route of administration i.e. insufflation. As colloquially people who do cocaine by other methods: IV injection 'shooting up' or rectal suppository 'plugging' have often noted a change in their smell sensation under very particular circumstances a day or two after use; namely tap water or hard water takes on a vitriolic smell, resembling a vigorously used pencil eraser, when held close to the nose. 67.5.147.126 (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly Trace amine-associated receptor which have recently been associated with action of amphetamine, also work through olfactory receptors. Maybe cocaine has an affect on these TAARs also. 24.22.78.150 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...Amphetamine both inhibits reuptake and releases dopamine from presynaptic terminals by acting on both the plasma membrane DAT and vesicular monoamine transpowers (VATs) inside the neuron. Cocaine is a potent reuptake inhibitor at DAT, SERT and NET, althought it is not clear which of these is principally responsible for its reward and reinforcement actions. Unlike amphetamine, cocaine does not appear to act on VATs. Studies in transgenic mice indicate that both DAT and SERT can mediate cocaine's effects, but that DAT may play the more important role... [5]

...compared the effect of ..amphetamine .. and cocaine .. administration on the vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) density in rat brain. VMAT2 expression was assessed by ..high affinity binding. Cocaine administration led to significant increases in VMAT2 density in both prefrontal cortex .. and striatum .., while amphetamine did not affect VMAT2 expression. The upregulation of VMAT2 may serve as compensatory mechanism aimed to enhance the vesicular monoamine storage capacity... [6]

...cocaine’s affinity for the serotonin transporter is actually greater than for the dopamine transporter...[7]

...Although the effect of cocaine on dopamine uptake is critical for reward, animal experiments suggest that acute blockade of serotonin transporter function may also contribute to clinical symptoms such as euphoria, anxiety, and craving... [8]

67.5.156.11 (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also:

...Because they lacked the (dopamine) transporter, they should not have wanted the drug. But the animals kept giving themselves cocaine. The rewarding effect of cocaine in these mice appears to be independent of any effects on dopamine but may be linked to increased serotonin transmission, the researchers said....[9]

...These results suggest that chronic (self-administration) of cocaine, but not MDMA, leads to alterations in serotonergic function in brain areas relevant to drug abuse. The higher level of (serotonin transporter) availability in cocaine-experienced monkeys may lead to a reduced inhibitory tone of (serotonin transporters) on the (dopamine) system... [10] ...In contrast, monkeys with a history of cocaine SA showed significantly higher levels of SERT availability in the caudate nucleus and putamen compared to control subjects. These results suggest that chronic SA of cocaine, but not MDMA, leads to alterations in serotonergic function in brain areas relevant to drug abuse. The higher level of SERT availability in cocaine-experienced monkeys may lead to a reduced inhibitory tone of 5-HT on the DA system... [11]

Also if you do a google search for "cocaine has a higher affinity for the 5-HT transporter" you find the line in three different repeated articles with no google cache which says "in fact, cocaine has a higher affinity for the 5-HT transporter than the dopamine transporter" (but if you search exactly that you won't find it for some odd reason), I remember reading this exact same thing in a scientific journal online but it seems all pages saying it so bluntly are hard to find anymore. 67.5.157.82 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

intro paragraph: "illegal"

"Its possession, cultivation, and distribution are illegal for non-medicinal and non-government sanctioned purposes in virtually all parts of the world" is good, but also true for marijuana. The paragraph should mention that it's "highly illegal", i.e. a "hard drug", at least in America.

What does the term "free commercialization" mean in the next paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.24 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems rather POV to me. So what if it's also true of marijuana? You seem to be affirming the consequent in thinking the category of marijuana, even if it held such a category, would reflect on cocaine because they both share in something (a state of legality) or rather assuming that their qualities are somehow not in the same degree. Highly illegal means only that there are stricter penalties; Those have little to do with its basic legality, as represented in an encyclopedic source & context like wikipedia. It is not the place to enumerate the various punishments of various nations for the possession, sale, use etc. ad nauseam at the beginning of the article. 67.5.158.113 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't start getting into arguments about whether something is legal or "highly legal". There is no such term as "highly legal" under any legal system I'm familiar with. It either IS, or it ISN'T. 67.193.243.184 (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, cocaine is less "highly illegal" than marijuana, at least in America. Cocaine is listed under Schedule II, which means it has some accepted medical uses, at least by the government standards. Marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Therefore, under federal law, it is "more illegal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.5.124 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Its possession, cultivation, and distribution are illegal for non-medicinal and non-government sanctioned purposes in virtually all parts of the world. Although its free commercialization is illegal and has been severely penalized in virtually all countries, its use worldwide remains widespread in many social, cultural, and personal settings." This sounds like a fantasy that those, whom might have interest in sustaining said fantasy, would disseminate to control specific populations. These statements are not explored in the article and are clearly unsourced, and this paragraph is filled with weasel words. It might do readers well to see it removed, given that some mentions into regional historic legality are made through the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.189.71 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxytocin

It appears that Oxytocin [12] plays a role in certain specific effects of cocaine like paranoia & anxiety. Cocaine use lowers oxytocin levels, and has a greater recreational/euphoric effect in those with higher oxytocin levels. 67.5.157.234 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Problems

Uncropped version from DEA website http://www.dea.gov/photos/cocaine/cocaine.jpg

A cropped version of the image on this page is credited to (AFP/File) at yahoo.[13] However, it does also appear at a U.S. government site.[14] Without context at the DEA site (it is just a link to the image), it is hard to tell if the uncropped DEA version is in the public domain. Yahoo is attributing copyright to AFP/File. CM (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The image appears in the DEA media gallery at http://www.dea.gov/images_cocaine.html . The public domain permission is given at http://www.dea.gov/multimedia.html . So, IMO there is no problem. --Itub (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rehabilitation

There is no mention of rehabilitation. Can people get off this stuff and stay off it? Are there organizations that can help people? If so - how about a few links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.232.167 (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If people want to get off cocaine, they should seek their own doctor, not Wikipedia. We can write what it's about, not give advice. There could be some links, but who's to say if it's credible enough? -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article totally neglects the triggering of aggressive behavior

The article seems to only scratch more subtly the issue of aggressive behavior. I've heard that it's specially dangerous in this regard when combined with alcohol, and all that the article states is that in this case it forms a substance that is "more euphorigenic". Then, by reading then article on euphoria one would think that all that cocaine plus alcohol would do is make someone so damn happy. If I'm totally out and cocaine, or cocaine plus alcohol does not induce violent behavior, then I think that a section clarifying this misconception would be an important addition --Extremophile (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine usage is associated with violent behavior that is dependent on the route of administration. Insufflation is associated with the least level of violence,smoking with the most violence. Injection is intermediate in levels of violence. While both genders can become violent with cocaine administration, men are more susceptible. - --Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.141 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008

Misspelt word

In the 'Crack cocaine' section, 'onomatopoetic' should be 'onomatopoeic'.

• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=55510&dict=CALD

Both spellings are correct, see onomatopoetic and here--Extremophile (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine neuroprotective against the neurotoxicity of amphetamines?

I've read that DAT inhibition from cocaine is neuroprotective against the release of VAT stores (or similar) that give methamphetamine & amphetamine their neurotoxicity. Similar to some kind of SSRI neuroprotection against MDMA. Is this true? Does it have anything to do with the 'increases of VMAT2 density' in the article cited above? 67.5.157.219 (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading a paper suggesting this is true. I suspect a problem would be that cocaine's half-life is much shorter than methamphetamine. Woood (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also something to do with how it binds to the dopamine transporters that it has one facet where it is neuroprotective in general, not in regard to from another substance, I remember reading studies suggesting such in regards to frequency of Alzheimers in lifelong cocaine users was greatly reduced, the closest I can find is this but it doesn't separate it from amphetamines: [15], but that the transporters themselves were in better shape, even if however lifelong dopamine levels were lower. 67.5.156.212 (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Production Numbers Do Not Correlate

I am trying to find some accurate production statistics, including leaf and chemical usage, and this article seems to reflect the whole in that "police math" seems to prevail.

This article specifically contains many inconsistencies, including:

"The scale of the market is immense: 770 tonnes times $100 per gram retail = up to $77 billion."

"where it is sold at huge markups; usually in the US at $50-$75 for 1 gram"

I'd guess the former sentence should be removed, as it is inaccurate and superfluous.

"in 2004, according to the United Nations, 589 metric tons of cocaine were seized globally by law enforcement authorities. Colombia seized 188 tons, the United States 166 tons, Europe 79 tons, Peru 14 tons, Bolivia 9 tons, and the rest of the world 133 tons."

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Potential Pure Cocaine Production (tonnes) 770 925 830 680 645

"World annual cocaine consumption currently stands at around 600 metric tons, "

So, the production was 645 tonnes, 589 tonnes were interdicted, and consumption was 600 tonnes??

Basically, I understand that about 10% of production is interdicted, so once again, the police numbers are really suspect.

189.130.178.1 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

I have notice a lot of vandalism and reverts going on (several per day). Should the article be semi-protected? Woood (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it, again actually. I originally removed the protection a few weeks ago (I don't like long-standing protected articles) and it looks like it's a hotbed of vandalism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

color and Appearance

it says under Appearance that pure cocain is white and pearly.i know from experience that pure cocain is offwhiteto yellowish and sparkly sum 1 needs 2 change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggyb8713 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was probably impure cocaine, then.. 79.181.160.88 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is very rare to find pure cocaine if your experience comes from being a user. Pure substance comes from chemical manufacturing companies and can cost several hundred dollars for a few milligrams. What is sold on the street is almost never pure, whether the cause of impurity is the use of cutting agents or simple imperfections in the extraction process. -- John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Old data

All of the data in the usage section is from the 1990s. Meanwhile, we're a year and a half away from entering the second decade of the 2000s. Surely someone has done a recent study on cocaine usage. --Tocino 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Solubility in Water

The table on the right gives the solubility in water as 1800mg/mL. This is a very high figure, given that 1mL of water weighs roughly 1000mg. Has anyone checked the details in this table? Where is its provenance? --ML5 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I surmise that somebody attempted to turn the "m" in "mg" into a mu, but it didn't come through. --206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) ..... Nope, I stand corrected. I just checked with an outside source and it listed cocaine's solubility as 200 grams in 100 mL water, which is consistent with the number displayed here. I agree it seems like a high figure but it appears to be correct. Who knew? --206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

well it's comparable to the solubility of ammonium nitrate in mass per volume, but of course cocaine is a much larger molecule so in terms of moles per volume it's not particularly high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.15.237 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Adulterants

Cocaine is very, very rarely cut with methamphetamine. So rarely so, that I think it ought to be removed from the list of "Adulterants". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.239.168 (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Amphetamines would probably be a better word --71.7.232.192 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After seeing a sample of "crack" cocaine (the free base) it impressed me as more difficult to cut than traditional cocain HCl. Being a conspiracist, could there be competition between the HCl trade and the free base trade based on the possibility of easily cutting the product? DCL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.162.129 (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bioavailability

I might be wrong here, but im just wonder how the oral bioavailability of cocaine higher than the nasal route? It has two ester groups and is metabolized by CYP3A4, is it a mistake? Yasunat (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question - the original study (Fattinger et al. 2000, PMID 10954344) found that when the drug was taken intranasally, only part of the dose was absorbed via the nasal mucosa, comprising 31% (95% CI: 23-37%) of the total systemic exposure, while the remaining amount was absorbed in the GI tract. Thus, the bioavailability of the nasally absorbed fraction was estimated to be only 19%. An older study (Jeffcoat et al. 1989, PMID 2565204) found the overall bioavailability of intranasal administration to be 80% (note: I don't have access to either journal, so I'm just going by what's stated in the abstracts). It does seem a bit misleading to display the 19% value; perhaps we should list both? St3vo (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I managed to get ahold of the Jeffcoat et al. 1989 paper; they discuss the large discrepancy between various estimates of bioavailability as follows - "Bioavailability by the [insufflated] route averaged 80 ± 13% with a range of 68 to 103% when AUC values were corrected for differences in individual half-lives. This is considerably higher than previously reported. Barnett et al. [1981] calculated 60% based on the data of Javaid et al. [1978], whereas Wilkinson et al. [1980] imply about 25% bioavailability." (p. 158) Wilkinson et al (PMID 7357795) write in their abstract that oral and intranasal routes do not differ significantly, but they administer the drug as an aqueous solution for almost all of the doses, rather than snorting of the powder form like Jeffcoat et al. Fattinger et al do not state in the abstract the method of intranasal delivery, but it seems like this might account for the huge variability. I would be inclined to use Jeffcoat et al's figure of 80% since it seems to be the least complicated and most relevant to common practice. Thoughts? St3vo (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fattinger et al. 2000 [[16]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgitsgreg (talk • contribs) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So in the Fattinger et al. 2000 paper, the authors state that the median overall bioavailability of intranasal is 43% (95% CI: 30-47%). However, they also used an atomized cocaine/saline solution rather than the far more common practice of insufflation of the powder. The saline could conceivably contribute to the drug being swallowed and absorbed via the GI tract. Any objections to changing the bioavailability value to indicate 60-80% for insufflation (based on Javaid and Jeffcoat) and 25-43% for "nasal spray" (based on Wilkinson and Fattinger) to denote the different means of intranasal administration? St3vo (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For a thousand years

In the beginning of the body of the section there is a sentence that should probably be reworded. The first line is "for a thousand years" and should probably say "for hundreds of years" or "for over a thousand years" because the wording as is sounds a little too specific -- it makes it sound like the origin of chewing coca leaves can be dated to exactly the 11th century AD. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Side effects edit

Side effects from chronic smoking of cocaine include hemoptysis, bronchospasm, pruritus, fever, diffuse alveolar infiltrates without effusions, pulmonary and systemic eosinophilia, chest pain, lung trauma, shortness of breath, sore throat, asthma, hoarse voice, dyspnea, and an aching, flu-like syndrome. A common but untrue belief is that the smoking of cocaine chemically breaks down tooth enamel and causes tooth decay. However, cocaine does often cause involuntary tooth grinding, known as bruxism, which can deteriorate tooth enamel and lead to gingivitis.

There is no eosinophiliachest. It is eosinophilia, chest pain. Citation needed. The citation does not say that. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Date format choice

In the audit I saw many examples of US and international formats. I've gone with international this time; please buzz me if the consensus here is for US. Tony (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Manufacture and ingredients

I couldn't see any of the chemicals used to create cocaine in the article such as bleach and kerosine. Surely this is worth a mention. (I'm talking about the stage when the leaves are soaked in barrels and the "good" stuff is skimmed of the top.)

Then you are not talking about chemicals used to "create" cocaine. You are talking about chemicals used to extract cocaine. Synthetic cocaine is practically nonexistant on the black market (and everywhere, for that matter) Aside from that, I personally have no knowledge of the cocaine extraction process.--Metalhead94 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the extraction section needs work. It doesn't say what purpose the kerosene/benzene has in creating cocaine sulphate. And it doesn't describe how cocaine hydrochloride is prepared from cocaine sulphate. As for bleach, could it be as a step to remove any colour from the final cocaine HCl? --GSchjetne (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology of the word is included twice in the article - once in the top summary and again in its own section. This is redundant; I think one of the uses should be removed. 165.134.194.139 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now worse. The etymology is now detailed 3 separate times, including a dedicated section. Two of these should be removed. CFLeon (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recipe

The reference to the Larousse Gastronomique 'Cocaine Pudding' recipe should be amended. The 1938 Larousse Gastronomique has a short entry on 'Coca' which ends with 'entre dans la composition de certains gâteaux reconstituants' - '...used in the creation of certain cakes with stimulating properties'. ('Prosper Montagne, 'Larousse Gastronomique', Paris 1938, p.341) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunstgeschichte (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

More cocaine function information.

An old version of the phenyltropane article has lots of information about research into the function of cocaine which may be able to be added in a worth while way to this article. Particularly things such as: its ability to bind to the DAT, elevating the level of supracellular DA throughout the synapse, which is then free to go on and interact with a range of receptors, and other molecular targets, in a dose dependent manner. It is also possible that cocaine can bind to GPCRs directly, triggering specific biochemical cascade reactions, which are unique to cocaine. & etc. 67.5.157.73 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Covalent binding properties of the metabolites of cocaine.

[17] [18] [19] are some examples that claim metabolites, especially associated with the liver with experiments on rats (some it only showed in interaction with a barbiturate) of cocaine could cause hepatotoxicity by result of irreversible (covalent) binding to certain enzymes. Nagelfar (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine and Ethics Video - suggestion for external link

Please watch this video and decide if it merits going in as an external link

Cocaine and Ethics Video

Thanks Willsmore (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs more background on history of "non" legalization.

The existing article, and the entry on the legal issues surrounding it, needs more data on when and how it became illegal. I gather it became illegal in 1914. What was the law which did that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

High School

cocaine is commonly used in high schools across America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.63.7 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

do you know about the chemistry of betel?

Seeing that lime can be chewed with coca leaf to aid absorption put me in mind of betel, the article for which is notably low on biochem. If anyone hear knows more, it'd be great to improve that article. — eitch 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lidocaine cross-sensitization.

Effect of Lidocaine Pretreatment on Cocaine-Induced Behavior in Normal and Amygdala-Lesioned Rats claims that lidocaine injection after cocaine exposure increases hyperactivity over placebo (control) saline injection with future administration of cocaine. Also Steady cocaine use linked to seizures shows that injection of lidocaine will cause seizures in the same way as cocaine, relating to their mutual local anesthetic effect: however seizures/convulsions from cocaine have a much higher instance of being fatal, showing a contraindication between the stimulating effect of cocaine and it's innate anesthetic properties which possibly elicit the convulsions. It should be noted, that from these studies where injection is the sole route of administration, and much anecdotal evidence, seizure from cocaine use appears to be heavily associated with the (repeated, daily) intravenous route of cocaine intake and it's properties as a local anesthetic rather than as a stimulant. (Making me again refer to how simply removing the metabolically liable ester linkage from the cocaine molecule which causes the topical numbness via sodium channel blocking (like as done with the synthesized Troparil substance) creates a much safer, less cardiotoxic, and less psycho-convulsive, jittery, reaction to the drug with otherwise no difference in anecdotal subjective euphoria.). Nagelfar (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

cocaine (& its analogues) inhibiting hydrogen bond at "Tyr156 and Asp79" in a way unlike other stimulant drugs.

A discussion I brought up on a site elsewhere seems to touch on something of specific interest for differentiating the activity of cocaine as unique from other drugs of the DARI class (dopamine/monoamine reuptake inhibitor CNS stimulants): in summary: ....In contrast to cocaine/CFT, however, they (other stimulants) bound in a way that preserved the Asp79-Tyr156 hydrogen bond, and thereby formed a closed binding pocket ... These data showed that, although cocaine and its analogs probably stabilize the open outwardfacing conformation, benztropines probably stabilize the closed conformation. ... Of note, several benztropine analogs are less effective than cocaine as behavioral stimulants, despite having similar or higher affinity and selectivity for the DAT than cocaine36,45. included in these stimulants that didn't inhibit this hydrogen bond was every one listed that wasn't cocaine or an artificial drug synthesized from cocaine, including: "amphetamine", "MDMA" & the natural endogenous "dopamine" itself. The study also goes on to hint toward of the general idea that affinity to dopamine is not so important to the rewarding and reinforcing impact of the drug as it is to the structure and particular binding pockets of the DAT molecule that the chemical touches on. Nagelfar (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Malignant hyperthermia

Can Malignant hyperthermia be triggered by cocaine as a local anesthetic? 24.22.62.144 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC) cocaine is the best stuff you can ever use. it helps me keep sane. it also makes me feel great after sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.143.8 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

mesotelencephalic system.

The only article that mentions 'mesotelencephalic' is the insular cortex article. However I was reading elsewhere that heavy cocaine use, particularly crack cocaine use, effects the "mesotelencephalic system" which is what "attributes 'incentive salience' to objects" and that this is why each hit of crack increases "the 'incentive' for the next hit" and makes the addiction so strong with continued use and uncontrollable despite receiving less pleasure with each hit. 4.242.192.214 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Legality of Dextrorotary and Racemic Mixtures of Cocaine

An expert in drug law should address the legality of racemic mixtures, and of the dextrorotary form of cocaine. I was browsing the internet and I found an article suggesting that the laws of certain jurisdictions only address naturally derived cocaine, and therefore only the levorotary form. http://designer-drugs.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/cocaine.total.synthesis.html I understand the chemistry being a University chemistry student, but I am ignorant of the laws. This would definitely be a good contribution to this article.24.65.95.239 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, somebody should address whether or not a dextrorotary form would be active in the human body.24.65.95.239 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Price in the United States

50-75 $ a gram? Is that 100% pure South American (Peru Bolivia and Colombia) cocaine? Or does that mean street level adulerated cocaie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.120.99 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

100% pure cocaine evaporates when exposed to open air due to how hygroscopic it is, so after extraction it is usually immediately cut even in Colombia etc to heighten the evaporation point. Cutting it brings it's evaporation point up and requires more humidity for it to dissolve into the air as the granules are shielded when mixed with a less hygroscopic substance and the mean point is raised... Obviously the pricing of cocaine, due to it's illegality, is black market pricing, and therefore not regulated. A gram is whatever people will pay for it. However, $45-$50 is a usual price from my personal unsourced colloquial knowledge. It seems cocaine's price is kept fixed and how much it is cut changes; the weight and prices have for many years been strongly linked, but the purity fluctuates greatly by the times and the location. However the price usually lowers in greater amounts even in the black market, and this also has an established tradition and usual connection between weight and price that are widely accepted as the standard pricing: 1 gram around $50, 3.5 grams $100 to $140, etc. Again, what fluctuates wildly is the actual cocaine to adulterant(s) content. Nagelfar (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Appetite suppressant

That article seems to differ on the effects of cocaine on appetite. Generally it says cocaine suppresses appetite but in under the chronic effects section and in the schematic diagram of the effects of chronic cocaine use, it mentions "insatiable hunger". -- Bubbachuck (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Freud writed about cocaine before Koller used it.

Just to point it out, Freud writed about cocaine before Koller used it. Actually Koller just discover the medical usage of cocaine becouse he had read Freuds article. Maybe somebody can change this.My source is the biography 'The passion of the mind' from Irving Stone, it is also mentioned in other biographies. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.58.80 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The picture should be deleted. It's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. 129.74.109.28 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Anonymous129.74.109.28 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just saying it's inappropriate does not make it inappropriate. You need to substanciate your claim. YayaY (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Routes of administration

Is there any particular reason why the routes of administration are ordered the way they are? I would expect to find insufflation at the top since it's the most common one. Jafeluv (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ability to edit page

I would like to add the biosynthesis of cocaine to this page. How can I gain access to editing the page? Thank you in advance

- Fucius

The article is Semi-protected due to vandalism. You need to be autoconfirmed in order to edit it, which is easy - have an account for four days and make at least ten other edits. You can also use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Hope that helps! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Amory. Is there, however, any way to be able to edit before Friday? I need to submit this biosynthesis to wikipedia for a grade for a class. Fucius (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

correcting a 16th century comment

{{editsemiprotected}} In 1569, Nicolás Monardes described the practice of the natives of chewing a mixture of tobacco and coca leaves to induce "great contentment": “ [...when they wished to] make themselves drunk and [...] out of judgment [they chewed a mixture of tobacco and coca leaves which ...] make them go as they were out of their wittes [...]

Comment: We have the opportunity to read studies from recognized writers from past centuries, But after being growing, studding, researching in South America, it is not a surprise that still in the late century, we resigned our knowledgeable freedom of curiosity which expand our frontiers and others along with. Most of the documentation found about the suppously discovering of Americas with already many human groups with system of living set up have been supplied through conquister countries or kingdoms, in fact with out any understanding of the tradition, feeling and language of the natives.

The article i attached at the top, it is a example of it, in which Nicolas Monardes as a recognized Physician and Botanist made this poor comment generalizing a continent that he did not research integrally. Ignoring what Coca plant does for their daily rituals, ceremonies, agriculture. no surprise with out understanding o the language, those ceremonies will looks like a "gruop of drumk people out of their wittes" as Nicolas Monardes mentioned.

---

[...when they wished to] make themselves drunk and [...] out of judgment [they chewed a mixture of tobacco and coca leaves which ...] make them go as they were out of their wittes [...]--------

(Guillerzz (talk))

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. I read you request several times and I can't understand what you are requesting. Could you resubmit the request in a simple 'Please change X to Y' manner? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Freebasing?

I was surprised to not find information on freebasing, although the freebase disambig page points to this article. I assume that it is somehow smoking the freebase form of cocaine, but for all I know, but I see that there is confusion between the ideas of freebase cocaine and crack, so I think it would be useful to clarify this. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear... maybe I've been smoking crack or something? 70.250.199.164 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal history, advertising, sales slogans, manufacturers

I found this: Sears, Roebuck and Co. was slinging cocaine kits, complete with powder and syringe. In 1885, Parke-Davis promised, quite rightly, that its cocaine could "supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent.", the history of the sale and form of cocaine when legal as distributed may be of interest in an entire mention of all companies so selling it, and the nature of the 'kits', maybe a picture of such a kit, etc. Nagelfar (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

information deleted that is correct.

Cocaine can cause coronary artery spasms which lead to a myocardial infarction. This effect can happen randomly to any user. The coronary artery spasms can occur on the users first usage or any other usage after. The coronary spasms cause the ectopic ventricular foci of the heart to become hypoxic and the extreme irritability can trigger life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. The risk of myocardial infartion increases 24 times the normal risk during the first hour after use of cocaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.194.3 (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What you say can't be written as facts on Wikipedia unless supported by credible references. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right, thank you! Keep up the good work. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Read my reply below regarding unreferenced facts. -- œ^™ 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed anecdotal evidence and/or original reserch from "inhalation"

The contents clearly appeared anecdotal evidence and it remained in {{original research}} status since November 2007 without any addition of references. Unverifiable contents removed. One reference added. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, please reread WP:Verifiability, it states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. It does not say it MUST be removed (that's only for BLP's). Unreferenced content should not be deleted simply because it is unreferenced. Some of the content you deleted was relevant and useful and the rest can still possibly be referenced. Granted the tag was up since 2007 but did you first try to find references for the content you removed? -- œ^™ 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any data on doses

That's very important. Also, what is the lethal dose for humans? 93.161.106.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

of what? MisterTin (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. It's one of the very first thing to know when talking about a drug, yet there isn't any data, neither as recreational drug nor as anaesthesic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.17.123 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an MSDS from a commercial manufacturer: http://bulkpharm.mallinckrodt.com/_attachments/msds/COCAI.htm Gasp at the breadth and depth of the toxilogical information available and then use your preferred method to convert from mice to humans. Bear in mind as you do so that LD50 has nothing to do with the dose required to exhibit acute effects or the dose pattern required for chronic effects. It's just how much it took to fatally OD half of the mice in a test group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.7 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Under the Trafficking and distribution

Another route of cocaine traffic goes trough Chile, this route is primrily used for cocaine produced in Bolivia since the nearest seaports lied in northern Chile. The arid Bolivia-Chile border is easily crossed by 4x4 vehicles thst then heads to the seaports of Iquique and Antofagasta. While the prize of cocaine is higher in Chile than in Peru and Bolivia the final destination is usualy Europe, specially Spain where drug dealing networks exists among South American immigrants.

thust, should be changed deleted.

Cocaine has ten receptor binding target sites throughout the human body

 •D(1A) dopamine receptor •
 •Sodium channel protein type 10 subunit alpha •
 •Sodium channel protein type 11 subunit alpha •
 •Sodium channel protein type 5 subunit alpha •
 •Sodium- and chloride-dependent GABA transporter 1 •
 •Sodium-dependent noradrenaline transporter •
 •D(3) dopamine receptor •
 •Kappa-type opioid receptor •
 •Sodium-dependent dopamine transporter •
 •Sodium-dependent serotonin transporter •
forum thread mentioning these as the ten giving a further reference as being from here (which is extremely informative.). Also: new cocaine 2D image and another which show additional letter notation on the end branch of the tropane part and (showing *H* regions by those double *O* branches)

So it appears that sodium channel blocking does affect dopamine and serotonin transporter, but most shockingly that cocaine is an opioid having K-receptor affinity. These differences from all other analogues should be noted. 4.242.174.61 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you search using your,-the reader/viewer's, browser "search function" for the word "target" twice (or until found as the section for "target" in the table on the blue field with the series of boxes far to the left with conjunct information, as it goes to partition itself with fields other than blue, to the right) to find the difference between Cocaine and that of Methamphetamine; according to this drugbank website cocaine has ten target i.e. binding-sites for the human body & metabolism in vivo, whereas meth has only two. This is a vast difference between the pharmacological action of the two drugs one would think. Maybe noteworthy to put that in the page in that context; it is only Meth's inability to quickly metabolize and to not have many metabolites and it's strong affinity for the two targets it has, that gives it it's extreme effects. Cocaine seems to act on several dopaminergic sites and active sites that would cause euphoria. Prompting again the idea that cocaine may be a more potent, more euphoric (pure, real, cocaine) chemical, with simply a shorter duration. Nagelfar (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Adulterants: levamisole?

As there is a section in the article about different "cuts"/adulterants, wouldn't this be a good place to mention the levamisole that's apparently contaminating 30% of the illicit cocaine in North America & Europe? Especially considering the extra health risks this particular adulterant raises. See: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/689129 I can't seem to find the articles right now that state it's also in cocaine in Europe. I initially received a handout about this from a local clinic. Kailey elise (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough to have an opinion, but http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/090921vet5101.aspx looks like a better source. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

cocaine blood test

Hello, I smoke mariuana daily and take some prescription medicines ( percecet and xanax) only. However, a couple days a go I smoked a joint laced with cocaine. Since I never use this drug I was wondering how long it would be in my system.. Like I said I somked it once. Thanks for any help in this matter and reply at your earliest conveinance.

thanks,

Bryan Lee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.182.131 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion page firstly is about improvement of the article and not such questions. Please take future such topical inquiries to a related forum elsewhere than Wikipedia. However, I will retort that unless it was crack cocaine that it was "laced" with, and such would be unlikely as the form with which to lace, it would not likely get into your system having such a low evaporation point as the hydrochloride salt. Yet cocaine is highly metabolically liable and therefore would be out of your system much quicker than many other substances including cannabis/marijuana and I would say upon first use of smoked cocaine (or even insufflated/snorted/horned) 2-3 days in vivo. Nagelfar (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles with dead external links Hide-&-Seek Answers

For anyone looking to fix/remove the dead external links in the references section, the marked references are numbers 22, 50, 51, 72, 88, and 100. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine and male impotence

The article should mention that regular cocaine users are almost 100% impotent - cannot achieve or maintain erection. This is a basic but crucially important SIDE effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.44.175 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be sourced. I do know that anhedonia is the result of any pleasure/euphoria creating recreational drug; but actual damage to penile dopamine transporters occur only through traditional dopamine releasers that are unlike cocaine class drugs that are dopamine reuptake inhibitors and rather fall into the class of amphetamines such as meth which phosphorylate and kill off dopamine transporters throughout the body in addition to in the brain. 184.76.53.217 (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehhh, that's completely untrue. I'm not saying that it doesn't cause problems, but hardcore cocaine addicts can and do have children; thus they aren't "100% impotent" as you claim. Look at the statistics of children born to cocaine addict parents (mother and father). There is even the term "crack baby" to describe a baby born to a mother using crack during the pregnancy. Who do you think their fathers are? Businessmen from Wall Street, or other crack users? :)

The claim that it causes total erectile dysfunction is also untrue. It's not a "basic side effect" of the drug. Many men who use cocaine often have (and enjoy) sex on a regular basis. Though this next statement cannot be directly sourced, just think of all of the famous musicians who are/were regular cocaine users and also extreme sex addicts. Also, though it's my own "original research", I have met and known several men who were "cocaine junkies" and were both sexually active and had children. And I've yet to see any proof of your claims either in a reliable publication or in real life, no offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.30 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Logical error in article...

Note the sentence:

"Various European scientists had attempted to isolate cocaine, but none had been successful for two reasons: the knowledge of chemistry required was insufficient at the time."

The sentence says that there were two reasons, yet only gives one. I would edit myself, and change it to something like "[...] had been unsuccessful because the knowledge of [...]", but I'm not sure what that missing "second" reason was and how important it is to the original author's point. So just making everyone aware of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.30 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Binding to proteins source of rush sensation?

Cocaine binds to proteins. Could it be likely that the neuronal proteins with which cocaine binds to, do indeed keep it within the brain, and on the inside of the brain's 'blood-brain-barrier' being somewhat of an inverse effect of what opioid recreational class have in the example of the non-recreational Loperamide? Meaning the quick burst of rush subjective euphoria (separate from the heart stimulation common to it and the not-centrally-active portion of the racemic variety of the to-be-mentioned "methamp") in comparison to other dopaminergic/dopamine-indirect-agonists like dextro-methamphetamine HCl. That upon IV administration that before the very liable subjection to metabolization that cocaine has, that it's chemical-molecular conformation allows for a concentration at the sites which give activity by the kinds and types of which proteins with which it binds and the areas in the body (CNS) with which they travel and are constrained to for specific types of greatly increased immediate subjective function and perception of experience in euphoria jump and altered state. This being due to the sodium channel blocking affinity (and as such, by route of by-product to the euphoria, a local anaesthetic creating interference with action-potentionals in cell communication and neuronal firing, much as an agonist even though neither beyond being a releaser or reuptake inhibitor of dopamine and certainly not even agonizing dopamine receptors but rather routing them by action potential than directly working.) Nagelfar (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of an article should really focus on issues of improving the article, and any improvements would need to be based on published sources. I don't really understand your suggestion, but even if it is valid, I can't see that this is the right place to discuss it. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't really show what knowledge has been garnered on the effects both phenotypal subjective and concrete toxic effects that result from the manner of cocaine's human protein binding upon administration, what proteins and how affected the drug as a metabolite and the protein itself is. Nagelfar (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

potentiators.

interesting how J-113,397 the research chemical states on its molecule article page that the increase of the reward habituation of cocaine is related to its particular human receptor pathway. 184.76.53.217 (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

health effects

Re: sentence "Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use and occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems." I have three problems with this sentence: 1. It is imprecise. Individual or society-wide health effects? 2. It may not be sufficiently relevant. I am unable to quote here, but am pretty sure have read recently that occasional cocaine use is less widespread, i.e. that more people get addicted, than previously thought. The relevance of the sentence's argument about limited health effects rests on the premise that occasional cocaine use is a normal/widespread use pattern. I question that premise, and I think the article needs to substantiate it, in order for the "limited health effects" argument not to be a moot point. 3. Comparison to alcohol and tobacco health effects: comparison should be according to similar use pattern, i.e. occasional cocaine use should be compared with occasional use of tobacco or alcohol. Is occasional use of these substances, i.e. alcohol in form of wine (shown to have health benefits to heart), really more detrimental to health than occasional use of cocaine? Can this claim be substantitated? I think it should be, in order for it to be kept in the article.

Moltelisa (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed that paragraph. It was referenced to a leaked report that was never formally published, which makes it very far from a reputable source. If there is continued dispute over this, we can take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, but I don't have much doubt about what the outcome would be. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph had a sourced part and an unsourced part. I've restored sourced part. Source is the World Health Organisation (WHO), a report that may be the largest ever study of global use. The report was critical of US drug policy. It was never officially published because the US representative to the WHO threatened to withdraw US funding for all its research projects and interventions unless the organisation "dissociated itself from the study" and cancelled publication. Taking into account the politics behind the report's suppression I don't think we can conclude that the WHO is a disreputable source here. --SallyScot (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the WHO is not the source for this report -- they did not publish it. I have asked for additional input at WP:RSN#Suppressed WHO report on health effects of cocaine. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is somewhat dubious. However considering the highly politicized nature of the issue I would suggest that, if SallyScot is being truthful about why the report was "suppressed" (proof please) it be allowed. After all, anyone with some knowledge of Canadian history knows that the illegalization of cocaine and opium spectrum narcotics was not based (at least in this country) on health impacts but rather on simple racism. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WHO is the source for this report. The fact that the report was executed by the World Health Organisation makes them the source, regardless of its subsequent suppression. There's more information about that in the article by Ben Goldacre (June 2008). "Cocaine study that got up the nose of the US". Bad Science. The Guardian. - re. International study on cocaine executed by the World Health Organization.

--SallyScot (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Guardian is an RS. I say allow it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--

I've added a second reference to support the points. Also, I've split into two sentences so that point about occasional cocaine use is better separated from that of greater health problems of alcohol and tobacco. --SallyScot (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

--

I believe that the first sentence needs to be rephrased. Reading through the paragraph, the first sentence make it sound like the health effect on the individual from the use of cocaine is less than the health effect from use of alcohol and tobacco. This is not the point that the leaked WHO report made. It states that cocaine use causes less health effects in the participating countries than that of alcohol, tobacco, poverty, hunger etc. These are sociaty-wide effects, not health effects on the individual. The WHO report further states on the front page:

Conclusions of the study require careful interpretation, particularly when making comparisons between different substances of their harmful health consequences.

-Patrik Ekenberg (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical cocaine (Merck)

In Keith Richard's recent autobiography he frequently refers to "pure pharmaceutical cocaine" or "Merck" Apparently this pure form of cocaine was produced in one-ounce bottles, and I would assume it is manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Merck. I could not find any reference to this in Wikipedia, or any explanation as to what it is. Does it come from coca leaves or is it produced in a laboratory, and if so, for what purpose? Does it have the same potency as Columbian cocaine? There is a Wikipedia page on biosynthesized cocaine, but it is an orphan page which only discusses the chemical content. Sifosta (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of the difference between drug free monoamine effect, amphetamine-type drug effect, and cocaine-type drug affected situations. Nagelfar (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual Error: Cutting agent Levamisole is not inert

Levamisole is a drug and it has a relatively high incidence of potentially serious side effects. Wikipedia's own Levamisole page discusses these dangers and has links to sources: Levamisole#Illicit_use. As it doesn't fit in the other bullets in this section, there should probably be an "Other" section or something to that effect.

I would edit myself, since this is a clearcut factual error, but the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.156.0 (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

uncited section claiming cocaine is not a narcotic

can't edit the page but I noticed this. I have worked in a pharmacy and essentially narcotic as a legal definition does include cocaine. Pretty much any drug schedule II or above I believe is considered narcotic; you can look it up, by all means, but I know the legal definition is more inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.27.110 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.114.100.51, 20 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under heading "Physical Mechanisms" is the following sentence, "Sigma receptors are effected by cocaine..." This should be changed to "Sigma receptors are affected by cocaine" "Affect" is a transitive verb. "Effect" is usually a noun (though it can be a verb, that usage is reserved for a specific meaning not implied by the context here.) In this case "effected" is grammatically incorrect and contextually inappropriate. 76.114.100.51 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cocaine and heart disease not related

http://www.health24.com/news/Heart_Cardiovascular/1-958,60662.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.63.220 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Cocaine Bioavailability

- Under the section labeled 'Pharmacokinetic data', it cites the bioavailability of intranasal cocaine consumption to be between 60 and 80%. However, based on a number of articles I've come across (including this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=i2gQfwSjM8wC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=cocaine+bioavailability&source=bl&ots=RKOKeImxgb&sig=fGbDkQmqw-lhNzXTO2s8dmJbR7o&hl=en&ei=My0JTvrhKbSisQLo0oHRAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cocaine%20bioavailability&f=false), this value should be more along the lines of 30-40%. PUtbone 04:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now:Could you provide some more links. The one you provided is from an old book and could be outdated. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Yeah sure, no problem. Here's the abstract from a 2000 study done on the bioavailability of cocaine, oral vs. intranasal. They found that oral absorption was 33%, and total nasal absorption was 31%. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10954344

Sherlock Holmes

Conan Doyle called the drug "cocaine", but, according to a doctor reading the stories, the effects were more like those of an opium or an opiate such as morphine. This seems to be the result of the limits of that author's knowledge. David R. Ingham (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

moral status of phototgraph

I don't doubt the legality of placing this photograph of a woman "smoking crack" (although it isn't actually verifiable that she's smoking anything, let alone crack). I do think there's a moral issue though. Think of it this way: let's say it was a picture of someone vomiting from chemotherapy who didn't know or hadn't consented to publication of a picture of them vomiting from chemotherapy being published here. But we publish it, and it's legal to do so. That's obviously not ok. It's obvious to me anyway. Unless wikipedia is a tabloid newspaper.

I don't see the difference between that case and this one. It should be taken down unless the woman is ok with it being there and says so verifiably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.176.22 (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the image, you'll find that "permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system". 72.94.61.91 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo near top "Chronic : Medical Effects"

Hi guys. Near the top of the article in section Medical Effects, subsection Chronic, it states:

"The experience of insatiable hunger, aches, insomnia/oversleeping, lethargy, and persistent runny nose are often described as very unpleasant"

I would add the words "withdrawal characteristics." or something like that to the end of this sentence as it is misleading to those not familiar with stimulants.

68.49.119.132 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Illicit Trade/Production

The weights in the article switch between metric and imperial several times. 3750 pounds of leaves could be 1701kg and 625 pounds could be 284kg to maintain consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.206.142 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)