Talk:Crack cocaine/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Style: Tell us first about Crack, then give variations, exceptions, etc

Almost every section begins with what crack isn't, or the exceptional case. For instance, in the characteristics section, we discover crack is typified by being adulterated. The article should instead tell us what the pure form is like, then explain how there can be variations, perhaps due to adulteration. The chemistry section begins with slavery description of how (maybe) freebase is made. There are more examples. The article instead should tell us how crack is made and its chemical composition, and only afterward tell us how this differs from freebase, etc. 24.37.153.192 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?

Poor articles ought to be fixed and revised. Nobody is committing the factual corrections posted on this edit page. Whoever took command of this page has abdicated his or her responsibility. 24.37.153.192 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Badly written article

I want to start out that I do not use crack, am not interested in crack, and I think crack is generally bad news. But this article has problems. I suspect similar problems on other pages that deal with drugs. In my opinion, the role of an encyclopedia is not to trumpet, word for word, law enforcement propaganda.

The first section of this article begins with the claim that "According to Cpl. Kent Dahl,with Red Deer RCMP Federal Drugs, Canada; white substances mimicking the appearance of cocaine is added to increase bulk." Let's see: this sentence uses a semicolon unnecessarily, it cites an unknown personality from an unremarkable town to personally vouch for the information offered, the reader is offered an *alternate* appearance and characteristic before the general case, the tone and positioning of the information gives an anti-drug propaganda aura to the article, not one of neutral information.

Then we see in the chemistry section the claim that "Because of the dangers for manufacturers of using ether to produce pure freebase cocaine, producers began to omit the step of removing the freebase precipitate from the ammonia mixture. Typically, filtration processes are also omitted. The end result is that the cut, in addition to the ammonium salt (NH4Cl), remains in the freebase cocaine after the mixture has evaporated. The "rock" that is thus formed also contains a small amount of water." This claim is absurd since, "as everybody knows," crack cocaine is made by cooking powder cocaine with baking soda. Where exactly is the ammonia process? This is like claiming LSD has strychnine in it. Pure law enforcement propaganda. And, again, the supposed exception or alternate case is presented before the general case.

In the physiological effects section we find the claim that "In rare instances, sudden death can occur on the first use of cocaine or unexpectedly thereafter.[6] Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest." The citation given is to the DEA website. Searching on Google I found the following two sentences: "In rare instances, sudden death can occur on the first use of cocaine or unexpectedly thereafter. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest." Word for word. Actually the entire paragraph is lifted word for word from the DEA website. Again, law enforcement information standing in for credible NPOV information. Now, the DEA page cites "National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Report - Cocaine Abuse and Addiction, www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/cocaine/cocaine.html." Here we find the following claim: "In rare instances, sudden death can occur on the first use of cocaine or unexpectedly thereafter. Cocaine related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest." (p. 4) This information is offered with no reference to outside research. It is an echo chamber.

The NIDA document also included the claim that "Other than medical uses, there is no safe way to use cocaine. Any route of administration can lead to absorption of toxic amounts of cocaine, possible acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, and seizures—all of which can result in sudden death." (p. 2) This is a normative claim masquerading as an empirical one. There are no "medical uses" that use routes of administration substantially different than what casual users can apply, i.e. intravenous drip. The purpose is to delegitimizing non-professional administrators, not give useful information to citizens. The NIDA document is little more than a litany of horror stories published for the purpose of scaring people away from using cocaine.

The section on legality gives no information for Africa, Australia, Asia, South America.

Why is there nothing that substantiates the _use_ or culture of crack? Instead of information on the various crack scenes (street use, party use, etc), we get bland law enforcement definitions about "effects", going from good to bad: "causing euphoria,[6] supreme confidence,[7] loss of appetite,[6] insomnia,[6] alertness,[6] increased energy,[6] a craving for more cocaine,[7] and potential paranoia (ending after use).[6][8]" I always find these lists amusing because, like sex education for 12 year olds ("The effects of orgasm: euphoria, confidence, drowsiness, potential vaginal tearing, lower back pain, sexually transmitted diseases.") nobody is ever told why people really want to do these things. Everybody wonders, "Why would somebody want to use something that caused (paranoia || vaginal tearing)?"

Later in the article we find, "The intense desire to recapture the initial high is what is so addictive for many users." You mean people aren't returning to the pipe for the insomnia, loss of appetite, craving for more cocaine, and potential paranoia? Gosh! In my opinion, an "experiences" section should be added to all drug articles. It comes down to describing what experiences motivate people to use and continue to use the drug. What is a high? Wikipedia redirects a drug high to intoxication, a dubious synonym outside of law enforcement and technocratic circles.

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

"Intoxication is the state of being affected by one or more psychoactive drugs. It can also refer to the effects caused by the ingestion of poison or by the overconsumption of normally harmless substances."

So crack users are seeking that original high because they are motivated to be affected by one or more psychoactive drugs? This gives the reader zero information.

This document tells us nothing about safe dose ranges, or how to verify the quality of crack cocaine, or any other information that could be of service to crack users. Instead, we are given law enforcement propaganda, a litany of bad side effects, and no usable information. For example, instead of advice on how to build a pipe that does not burn the user, we are told that -and this is given as a general case, a rule- "...crack pipes are generally very short, to minimise the time between evaporating and losing strength. This often causes cracked and blistered lips, colloquially "crack lip", from having a very hot pipe pressed against the lips." There is nothing to suggest pipes have to be this way. Crack pipes are no shorter than pipes used to smoke pot, and I do not hear claims of pot-lip, even if some people burn themselves. If lousy pipes are an epidemic among crack users, as this article suggests, then maybe Wikipedia editors have a moral obligation to release designs and modifications (the addition of a plastic filter nub, duh?) that will be of service to users, rather than law enforcement.

Crack cocaine is a challenging drug, and we can expect heated opinions on the matter. But this article should not read like a D.A.R.E. anti-drug pamphlet. Yet that is exactly what it is like.

Adding the tildes 24.37.153.192 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Searching on Google I found the following two sentences:" should read "Clicking on the reference given, I found the following two sentences:" 24.37.153.192 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
After visiting this wonderful webpage (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc05.htm) that actually has information on crack and freebase cocaine, I stand corrected about the potential for ammonia content in smoked cocaine products. But my criticism of the article remains: it is badly written. Nowhere in the wikipedia page is there any distinction made between crack and freebase cocaine. And, as this is the crack cocaine page, not the freebase cocaine page, it stands that ammonia is not part of the process. From another link: "Crack cocaine, a form of cocaine base, is derived from powder cocaine. Unlike the processing of freebase cocaine, converting powder cocaine into crack cocaine does not involve any flammable solvents." (http://www.streetdrugs.org/crack.htm) The FUD about ammonia has no place here, unless the distinction between crack and freebase is made. Again, this article requires major work, but nobody can change it because it's locked. 24.37.153.192 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

pie

Verifiable but not verifiable to Mayo Clinic

12-Jan-2008: According to the Wikipedia policy for WP:Verify, article text must be verifiable, period. It doesn't mean verifiable as "written in stone at the Mayo Clinic". It doesn't mean if you don't like a source footnote about cocaine, delete everything. Oh no, it means verifiable to the general reader who can read about the topic in mainstream sources and confirm the text. If a referenced website posts blog messages, that does not mean the related text won't be verified by some other source. Finding that a website posts blog messages doesn't mean anything about the status of the article text, per se. If a website turns out to be a rampant forum like Google Knol, even then, nothing in the article changes. Instead, a reasonable search for confirmation must fail to support the text as claimed. Only then, should the text be rejected. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Obi wan Kenobie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.179.83 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How to delete text from the article

12-Jan-2008: Some people have been deleting whole sections of researched, carefully footnoted text from the article. Section, after section, after section was axed from the article in 2008. Perhaps, they even claimed the text was incorrect. Well, in the future, this is how it will be done. Stated for the record:

  • Step 1: They will name 2 independent sources that refute the text.
  • Step 2: They will prove they have no financial benefit from those 2 sources.
  • Step 3: They will prove no other conflict-of-interest (WP:COI) here.
  • Step 4: They will seek consensus from other writers of the article.
  • Step 5: They will allow discussion, for 4 weeks, or perhaps longer.
  • Step 6: They will prove they have total consensus to remove the text.
  • Step 7: They will announce a plan to edit the article, coordinating with other ongoing user changes.
  • Step 8: They will then ask for any possible last-minute objections.
  • Step 9: They will reconsider if removing the text is really worth the effort.
  • Step 10: More steps are yet to be determined.

Only after a very thorough examination, following all 10 steps above, then, and only then, can any sourced information be removed from the article. Hopefully, those carefully listed 10 steps will prevent any more wholesale axing of article sections, in the future. This issue is stated here as a guideline for action, if text is considered for removal. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Well said. OlEnglish (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"More steps are yet to be determined"? By who? You? Wikid77 you are really full of yourself. Yes I read your wikipedia page. Do I hate people like you, as you suggest? No. Bored is more like it. If you want responsibility for the low quality of this article, have at it. It seems to be copy-pasted from the DEA website. Bravo for the references. See my criticism above, if you can spare a few minutes time from being 100% awesome. 24.37.153.192 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Change Stuff

Can you wikipedia nerds change this so it doesn't seem like it was written by a bunch of retarded people? Crack is bad, but the article on crack is worse. It seems like it was written by someone that smokes crack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.184.79.69 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Chemistry" section

It says in this section that: "Smoking freebase is preferred by many users because the cocaine is absorbed immediately into blood via the lungs, where it reaches the brain in about five seconds.." whereas the "Chemistry" section in the wiki article on "crack" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine says that: "crack cocaine when smoked allows for quick absorption into the blood stream, and reaches the brain in 8 seconds".
I'd like to know which is correct, as I'm doing some, er, field research. Also the article on "crack", in the "Appearance and characteristics" section, refers to "buffing" as a term for "cutting" drugs. Oddly, the "cutting" article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_agent does not mention this word. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.176.170 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


The timing difference referred to above is between the article on freebasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebase_(chemistry)#Freebase_cocaine and this article. Above comment is correct: there is a discrepancy, but there are worse things that happen at sea. Or on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.155.242 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also states: "Methylecgonidine is a methylated form of cocaine in much the same way that methamphetamine is a methylated form of amphetamine." This is untrue. Methylecgonidine is an elimination product of pyrolysis, not a methylated form of cocaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.127.61 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

belong in WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants?

I don't think the WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants is appropriate for this article as crack cocaine is not a hallucinogen. OlEnglish (Talk) 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PMT ?

I have heard that some women get into crack as a cure for very bad PMT. Does anyone know anything about this? Also I have heard that a long period of tranquility can follow crack use, which would seem to contradict the article. Again does anybody know about this? ( I don't suppose we have many crack cocaine users among the Wiki editors. ) I live in an area with high crack use and I am curious about why so many people, often young women, would try the drug when the risks are so well-known. Not curious enough to try crack myself tho!  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cocaine works okay (at least okayish) against depressions , feelings of inferiority, and thus with trauma's, I wouldn't immediatly advise it for anything you can read about in a lady's magazine. Try exercises or a joint. I don't think those use it for TMP either, some would have fallen for that. if you use you have to find excuses as much as you can especially to people like relatives and neighbour's, just saying: i am an addict/junk and i don't feel like stopping at all, is to shocking for most ppl. They get angry or start to preach and will judge more unreasonable still after. i think the long period of tranquility would be quite literally lying in bed, feeling rather lousy to do much more then that, with not much to do anyway probably. They are also simple , if you like them, they will like you, but still they will notice PMT occured a decent excuse to you. Even if i am a junk i am okay if i had PMT? okay, i'll had PMT.24.132.170.97 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, i don't think long term female cocaine users would suffer much from PMT indeed as also the menstruation stops/slows when people are addicted to drug s<(i am not sure about only cocaine) or drugs and medicins eg., alcohol even.24.132.170.97 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Crack cocaine

how long does it take for the body to metabolize and get rid of this drug?98.20.2.82 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry Issue

The article states that crack (cocaine base) vaporizes "around 95 degrees Celsius" or something similar. According to data at http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/pharm/pim139e.htm, the melting point of cocaine (base) is 98 deg C and the boiling point is 187-188 deg C. Although vapors will certainly be generated below boiling point, I'm gonna change this statement. Anyone has better info, please correct it/me. 24.196.111.104 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

PS The article is protected so somebody needs to make that change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.111.104 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

if you add cocaine to a blunt it is called 51. And you get extra high —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.71.46 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Imitation Crack Numbs the Entire Mouth

This article says that good crack cocaine numbs the spot it is placed on whereas imitation crack numbs the entire mouth. This sounds extremely fishy, if not completely nonsensical so I am going to add citation needed.24.65.95.239 (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an account so I won't edit it, but someone with an account should consider it.24.65.95.239 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Although the entire sentence is not in the reference that was provided I just removed the bit in the parentheses as it was clearly original research. I'll tag the remaining bit with a citation needed tag as well. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

False citations

I removed a few claims which cited reference #3, but the supporting evidence could not be located in the referenced article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

opinion?

"One complicating factor is the smoking of cigarettes, because almost all crack users also smoke cigarettes"

says who? that is nothing more than an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdubmau5 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be "tobacco" rather than "cigarettes" (which can contain tobacco, cannabis, other herbs etc). 82.152.192.220 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dosage

I know that dosage varies depending on user preference and drug quality, but what is a ballpark figure for how many doses would be in 50 grams? Tisane (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Crack

Y'all know where I can get some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.100.25 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could use some crack, verily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.239.60 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys crack me up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.45.238 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Crack is a form of cocaine, so I think it would make sense to merge it into article cocaine Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed to a merge if it's done properly, that is, retain as much content as possible that's not already duplicated. -- œ™ 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I hate to sound preachy; but, if something is a form of something else, that is not a sensible reason to merge two articles. Do you think it would make sense to merge the article on femur into the article on bone? I hope this is a misunderstanding and that your efforts to merge two articles together is intended to help the encyclopedia; but, I certainly cannot support your reason at this time. I am however willing to discuss this over at my talk page if you want a more detailed explanation, as having reviewed your edits I find you may a college student enrolled in a chemistry class? I'd be glad to help you with any understanding I can provide, but the merge is a bad idea and won't be supported by a consensus of editors knowledgeable of pharmacology or medicine. 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely merge. This article is mostly cut and paste about cocaine, not crack. Original material could easily be merged. OTHERWISE, rewrite this article with more crack-specific information, make the corrections already outlined in comments on this page (hello!), redirect the user to the cocaine page for general information, focus on differences from powdered cocaine rather than merely repeating cocaine facts, and stop plagiarizing the DEA. 24.37.153.192 (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 100% AGAINST merge This article was already split off from cocaine as it should be. Crack cocaine is a derivative of cocaine much as heroin is a derivative of morphine. Crack has been document through all scientific research as more harmful, more intense, and more addictive than cocaine. The act of burning cocaine releases methylecgonidine a chemical not present in cocaine. Rap and modern culture consistantly stress the difference between crack and cocaine. This substance has seperated itself both cuturally and scientifically from cocaine.Valoem talk 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Crack cocaine is a derivative of cocaine much as heroin is a derivative of morphine" - Sorry, wrong. Heroin = Diacetylmorphine. It is a similar but altogether different substance. Crack is still Cocaine. Pretty much all recreationally used (and many medically used) drugs have multiple routes of administration, which can have varying effects. Cocaine is hardly unique in this respect. Nor is it unique in that when burned, chemical reactions occur that release chemicals one would not encounter in oral or nasal use. That said, I will agree with your assertion that crack has been "culturally seperated" from cocaine. Not sure if that means it deserves its own article though. 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

After reviewing Cantaloupe2's October 18 edits it seems this editor has been involved with several bad faith edits regarding merges and page blanking on the article Freebasing which mean out of the three established editor two voted against merge with solid reason. I am closing this discussion for now as it is over two months old. Valoem talk 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Crack is not Freebase Cocaine

Crack and freebase are cooked up differently, but this poorly written article confuses them. The chemistry section begins with a description of what crack is not, rather than what it is, with an unclear boundary as to which is which. Does the following sentence refer to crack or freebase? "Typically, filtration processes are also omitted. The end result is that the cut, in addition to the ammonium salt (NH4Cl), remains in the freebase cocaine after the mixture has evaporated. The "rock" that is thus formed also contains a small amount of water." If this is information about freebase, put it on the freebase page. This is the crack page. Tell me what crack is first, not what it isn't. Furthermore the freebase page has been vandalized, leaving zero information about freebase cocaine, leaving readers with no means of making the distinction between crack and freebase cocaine. 24.37.153.192 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sometimes referred to as "cocaine base," though, in federal law. That may be where the confusion is coming from. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/841.htm Tisane (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Schüler ist gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.204.167 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Crack Baby" Section Edits

I updated and edited the "crack baby" section as it was poorly written and outdated.--Nickthap (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction

In the fourth paragraph in the Chemistry section it is stated that powered cocaine is legalized in Colombia. This is completely absurd and offensive to Colombians. I can’t modify it as the page is semi-protected.Thanks.

It is no longer there. Cacycle (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Sources

Citation number 24 used in this article: "Nuts! Cops use holiday treat in drug sting", Chicago Sun Times, December 24, 2004. Accessed November 21, 2007. Is outdated and no longer available. 74.83.87.252 (talk)

The source is no longer available online and the article does not suggest that this is general practice. Therefore I have removed the whole sentence. Cacycle (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.110.189.182, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

"The intense desire to recapture the initial high is what is so addictive for many users.[2] Purer forms of crack cocaine will produce the feeling of euphoria:[2] even after smoking diluted or fake crack for hours, one hit of real crack will produce euphoria."

Nobody smokes "fake" crack for hours. In order to be constantly smoking cocaine there must enough cocaine to perpetuate the addictive cycle. Suppose you have a 50mg "rock" of freebase cocaine which is 50% pure. This is a 25mg dose of freebase cocaine. If you smoke some "real" crack which is a 50mg rock at 100% purity you obviously get a 50mg dose of freebase cocaine.

But the author has shown a profound misunderstanding of how the cocaine smoking process works. I am a former cocaine smoker. When you take a "hit" you generally titrate the dose depending on the amount of smoke coming through the pipe and the "numbness" from the cocaine that you feel in your mouth and throat. So if you have impure crack you will smoke larger rocks and hold the smoke in longer. If the crack is more pure you will smoke less per hit.

All crack smokers however try to get to the "sweet spot" which they consider a real hit. Less than ideal dosage and you feel anxious and unsatisfied. Too much you start to black out. Just slightly before the blacking out stage is the best place to be in. Any more and you will have eye wiggles and possibly convulsions.

All doses do tend to be the same regardless of purity. This needs to be rewritten.

I would replace the above section with "The intense desire to recapture the initial high, coupled with extreme dysphoria and depression that comes as the drug wears off approximately 5-15 minutes after inhaling cocaine vapor, makes crack cocaine arguably the most addictive drug when smoked. Users have been known to stay awake for several days smoking crack cocaine every 5-30 minutes. The dysphoria that is experienced while coming down is so intense that almost everyone who begins will consume their crack supply until it is exhausted and often until their money to purchase more is exhausted as well." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.189.182 (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


12.110.189.182 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Ronk01 talk 01:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed by removing that sentence. Cacycle (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Stillwaterplaya, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please, remove this article

Stillwaterplaya (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - If you want this article to be deleted, you must seek consensus for deletion at Articles for Deletion. However, I should warn you that it will almost certainly not be deleted even if you open a discussion there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Photos

The picture of the girl smoking "crack" is more of a forum for some crappy photographer in San Francisco to get his name out there. We don't know if she is smoking crack, and the photo should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.67.155 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible addition of subheading

"Notable crack addicts"

This would be a list of celebrities or other people who are or were addicted to crack cocaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.235.192 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick James

Why is there no cultural section for Crack Cocaine? It has had a huge cultural impact on humanity and even comedy. Rick James called it "a hell of a drug". It seems valid in explain its impact on society...both in a lighter cultural tone and with respect to detriment to society. I'd write it, but this article is locked. 97.124.51.227 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Encouraging tone for crack moms

The entire "Effects in pregnancy and nursing" has an encouraging tone's. Specifically with "Some people previously believed that crack cocaine caused infant death as SIDS, but when investigators began looking at the incidence of SIDS in the children of women who used crack cocaine, they found it to be no higher than in children of women who smoked cigarettes."

We have to admit that a lot of people looking under the effects in pregnancy is THINKING about doing cocaine in pregnancy. Saying that "it is no higher then mothers who smoke" instead of more appropriately "as high as mothers who smoke" would be a great improvement. Instead of "It is likely that cocaine will reach the baby through breast milk.", finding a quote saying that "it has been shown to reach the baby through breast milk" will do much better.

And the last thing but the first thing that popped up is "The notion that cocaine use during pregnancy poses a threat to the fetus is now widely discredited.", this is just not true, a mother getting high off cocaine isn't a safe thing to do in the real world or, even medically speaking looking at the effects listed later in the same section! If one of you can change these we can prevent at least one parent from being addicted to cocaine which is far more than enough incentive to change the tone.

--- I guess the question really is...why do you oppose crack? This a NPOV article and there are people out there who support crack for pregnant mothers, unfortunately. It shines a light on the disgusting nature of 'absolutist' NPOV. 97.124.51.227 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Slovak85, 19 September 2011

Would like to add an alias (slang- name) for crack cocaine in the wiki-article. Please add Up, Uptown, and Shirts.

Slovak85 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources for these? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Development

This article is missing info on how/where Crack was developed. Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


Contrary to what the article says, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda, NaHCO3) is not a replacement for ether, which is a solvent. It is a replacement for ammonia, which at one time was the base used to convert cocaine from its hydrochloride salt form (nitrogen protonated) to its free base form (nitrogen deprotonated). Ammonia is highly hazardous and generally difficult to procure. Baking soda has come into wider use because it does the same reaction but can be found in any grocery store. Although it is a rather weak base, heating drives the reaction to completion, by causing the H2CO3 byproduct to dissociate into carbon dioxide and water and, further, by boiling off the water. The other byproduct, common salt (NaCl), is usually left in as the "cut." To obtain a more pure product, ammonia is used as the base and ether is used to extract the hydrophobic free base cocaine from the water soluble byproducts and impurities. The ether, which now has the cocaine dissolved in it, is then evaporated off to yield the final product. Jmottaghi (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Once mixed and heated, the bicarbonate breaks down into carbon dioxide and sodium carbonate,

should be: Once mixed and heated, the sodium bicarbonate breaks down into carbon dioxide and sodium carbonate, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyal.fre (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Forms" of Cocaine

In glancing over the article, I noticed that the first sentence of the Addiction section states, "[c]rack cocaine is the most addicting form of cocaine, and it is one of the most addicting forms of any drug."

In the first place, this is rather redundant so the subordinate clause should be removed in addition to replacing the word "addicting" with 'addictive'.

"(I)t is the most addictive form of cocaine" is itself a fallacy. It is the same drug as the salt, the freebase just omits the possibility of a common & less addictive route of administration (insufflation). Smoking isn't even the most addictive RoA, as shown in studies with monkey's, intravenous has the highest blood concentration in shortest amount of time. (and here we're speaking only of commonly available RoAs, not intrathecal or such.) 66.243.226.11 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think it would be more accurate to say that smoking crack carries a higher risk of cocaine dependence than insufflation of cocaine powder. The assertion that it is the most addictive form is fallacious in that whether cocaine is in salt or free base form has no bearing on its biological effects. The hydrochloride salt must be converted to the free base anyway to cross the blood-brain barrier. So, at least as far as the brain is concerned, the two forms are chemically identical. The intensity of the effects are simply amplified for the free base due to smoking being a more rapid route of administration. If either crack or cocaine hydrochloride are ingested (eaten) we would not expect to observe much of a difference, if any, in their effects. Jmottaghi (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the above, for the same reasons. Without a doubt, salt cocaine is the more addictive form of cocaine, since this is the only form of cocaine which may be injected (mixing crack with an acid turns it into salt cocaine). While it is true that smoked crack is more addictive than insufflated cocaine, it is also true that insufflated cocaine is more addictive than swallowed crack.

Really, the entire article seems to imply that crack cocaine is biochemically different than cocaine, which it is not. This is a typical fallacy when discussing crack cocaine, but it is one that I feel is important to clarify. A significant difference between crack and salt cocaine is the culture surrounding the drug use, particularly class and race correlate strongly. Treating them as separate drugs can be harmful misinformation, since it basically allows "rich white people" to distance themselves from others who use the same drug. This view often justifies significantly different legal consequences for crack and salt cocaine. People have interpreted this as a discriminatory legal practice in academic writings. I have no memory where to find such citations, but this would be a welcome inclusion in the article if someone else is aware of them. 173.228.85.170 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Correct, on several levels. There are chemical reasons why smoking cocaine is more addicting. The concentration does increase at a more rapid rate from smoking versus ingestion. However ingestion itself results in the Liver detoxifying part of the drug dose. (Insuflation is only effective if the Cocaine et al is mixed with Mannitol, which increases porosity of nasal membranes hence a direct path into the Brain via the olfactory nerve.) Many addicts move on to IV injection as drug levels peak higher than smoking the drug. (I'm noting the ΔC/Δt phenomenon can apply to Amphetamine or Meth as well as Cocaine.) The "pleasure" rush of the drug is not the concentration of the drug but actually the change in concentration. The user starts to feel a "down" when the concentration plateaus and will feel even worse when it decreases. This results in the user trying to avoid the "down" or "crash" by using more drug - however with a long half life (18 hours typical) in the body this results in toxic (psychotic) levels of chemical in the blood stream. Basic pharmacodynamics from Pharmacology 101.
(From the Merck Chemical Index) Coca plant contains mixed alkaloids mostly Cinnamoyl Ecgonine (the cinnamony flavor of original Coca-Cola) and lesser ammounts of Benzoyl Ecognine (Cocaine). According to Merck, Cinnamoyl Ecgonine is inactive orally or injected however studies, funded by anti-drug agencies, show that Cinnamoyl Ecgonine is active when smoked. Documentaries shown on BBC and American TV show production as harvesting Coca leaves, maceration with Lime, extraction with gasoline, and evaporation to form "Crack". Formation of Hydrochloride of this mixture and recrystalization from alcohol gives illicit "Cocaine Hydrochloride". (In the distant past the mixture was hydrolyzed and the Ecognine treated with Benzoyl Chloride, yielding a still impure but significantly more potent product.) Hence the potency of smoked Crack or free-based is higher. (Rem that hydrochloride must be mixed with Mannitol to be effective.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shjacks45 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Brazil's Emerging Market: Crack "Hampered in the U.S., Drug Traffickers Find a Replacement; Skeletal 'Zombies' Rule São Paulo's Cracolândia After Dark"; excerpt ...

A crack cocaine outbreak reminiscent of the one that devastated U.S. inner cities in the 1980s is starting to take hold in this South American nation, as drug traffickers facing more difficulty selling into the U.S. are pioneering markets elsewhere. In São Paulo, Brazil's biggest city, what to do about the hundreds of zombielike addicts who by night wander a downtown no man's land known as Cracolândia, or Crackland, has become a key issue for local elections this year. But mayors from Rio de Janeiro to outposts in the Amazon lament that dangerous cracklands are sprouting in ...

See

  • Boca do Lixo ... "... became to be known as Cracolândia ("Crack Land") in the 1990s ..."
  • Central Zone of São Paulo "... many homeless individuals and pockets of poverty, as the region of Cracolândia, which has recently been undergoing a process of revitalization by the city. "
  • Bom Retiro (district of São Paulo) "... in the Old Centro direction, drug activity is not uncommon, which gave the region a bad reputation as the "Cracolandia," or "Crackheadland.""
  • Cracolândia (em Português)

99.181.144.253 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Diethyl Ether/Sodium Bicarbonate

Hi, newish wiki user so pardon any mistakes in formatting etc. The article on [[1]] suggests that sodium bicarbonate is a useful alternative to diethyl ether in the preparation of crack cocaine (deprotonated cocaine, 5th sentence). In actuality sodium bicarbonate and diethyl ether play very different roles in a chemical reaction. Sodium bicarbonate serves to deprotonate the coca extract, forming a non-polar, volatile compound suitable for vaporous inhalation. Diethyl ether is usually employed as a solvent since it's fairly innocuous and not nucleophilic. Furthermore, the conjugate acid of diethyl ether has a pKA of -3.5 while the pKA of an ammonium ion (protonated cocaine) is 9.5. If someone attempted to use diethyl ether to deprotonate cocaine they would only convert around than 10^-10 percent of the cocaine to crack i.e. it wouldn't work (Henderson Hasselbalch equation). James Woods

woodsja (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, and I think that we should endeavor to clean up this article a bit. It would be nice to remove some of the more inflammatory (pardon the pun) material in favor of writing more consistent with WP:NPV. I think Erowid is probably a good source for some of this, as a reasonably impartial record of drug use practices. As I understand it, it's a pretty bog-standard polar/nonpolar extraction; the ether is there to pull the freebase out of the aqueous solution once that has been basified with ammonia. the fact that EtOEt it is immiscible with water helps with this, as does its volatility, making it easy to evaporate and recover the pure cocaine base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is crack really the most addictive cocaine?

In what sense, specifically, is freebase cocaine more addictive than cocaine salts? Is it more euphoric? Does its use result in stronger psychological or physical dependence? Perhaps the time before creating a dependency is more brief? I checked the citation and the source material was also vague, stating only that, "It is the most addicting form of cocaine [...]" without further elaboration on specifics. The use of non-specific, obsolete terms (the nebulous idea of 'addiction' is now divided into the separate and more precise concepts of 'psychological dependence' and 'physical dependence') throws up red flags about the quality of the source. Further, it runs against common sense for smoked cocaine (i.e. crack cocaine) to be more likely to cause dependence than intravenous cocaine salts, when the intravenous administration of most other recreational drugs results in a shorter onset to effect, a shorter duration of effect, greater bioavailability, and a stronger sense of euphoria (which are all factors that would increase the risk of compulsive use). Perhaps there a more reliable source to substantiate this claim, like a peer-reviewed journal article. 99.74.254.100 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a source for this (although I'm sure I could find one), but I will tell you why it is more addictive. It is more addictive because of its route of administration. It is absorbed faster when smoked than when snorted. If you're at all familiar with calculus, that can help you think about it and understand it real easily. A high is caused by a change in feeling (ie dx/dy). The higher (or quicker) the change, the stronger the high (so the higher the value of the derivative, the stronger the high). It isn't about the dose, it's about the change in dopamine levels. If A goes from (for example, don't take this literally) baseline to high = 5 in 1 second, and B goes from baseline to high = 20 in 2 hours, A is feeling a stronger high. Another way to think about it is this - if someone is already high, and they ingest more, it doesn't have as strong of an effect compared to starting from baseline. This is why (and I think this is mentioned in the article) repeated administration results in less and less of a high each time. Plenty of sources will tell you this. Charles35 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There are various theories about "addictiveness" that rely on pharmacokinetic parameters like you mention. None of them are particularly convincing to me. Addiction is an extremely complex phenomenon, often with really significant social inputs and not solely related to dopamine, so i would be hesitant to offer this kind of explanation in the article. I am inclined to adhere to WP:MEDRS for this too, rather than the typical guidelines for WP source material, because of its significance medically. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really making a claim about what to put in the article (although that is what you should put); I don't really care, and I don't have sources. But this is what the sources will say. I am just answering the question: In what sense, specifically, is freebase cocaine more addictive than cocaine salts? That is the answer. Sure, as your answer implied or suggested, there are obviously other factors that contribute. But overall, in all human beings, we tend to have a higher addiction potential to crack solely because it releases dopamine at a faster rate. It's the same reason that snorted cocaine is more euphoric/addictive than oral cocaine. It's the same reason injected heroin is more addictive than snorted or oral heroin (smoking is more or less the same). It's why people prefer injecting and smoking over snorting over oral administration. Any one person could be more addicted to rubbing cocaine between their toes, but that's just one person. Overall, biologically speaking, crack is more addictive for this reason. Along the same reasoning, injected cocaine (not freebase) is more or less (I don't know the exact #s) just as addictive as smoked crack. Charles35 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Price

Please someone explain in the article why it's SO cheap compared to proper cocaine. Thanks in advance. BigSteve (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

Crack first appeared primarily in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami in late 1984 and 1985

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sectioning

Psychological effects, physiological effects and addiction, although havnig much to do with it, are not in any way the 'chemistry' of the drug. I suggest promoting these subsections into sections of their own or merging these drug's characteristics into a section with another title. 89.142.151.145 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Appearance section lost meaning

'In purer forms, crack rocks appear as off-white nuggets with jagged edges,[3] with a slightly higher density than candle wax. Purer forms of crack resemble a hard brittle plastic, in crystalline form[3] (snaps when broken).

These two sentences are trying to give a correlation between the purity of crack and its physical quality etc. However, both sentences are referring to 'purer forms'. Either the first or second sentence should be referring to 'less pure forms'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.75.14 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)rob ford

Bad Link

The link "(US) Why is crack cocaine so hard to stop using?" lands at a page with advertising and no relevant information. I can't edit the page to fix this. Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchingrandom (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed link as well as cleaned up others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking for info on sentencing disparities in countries other than the US

Anyone have anything to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.65.65 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Long Term Effects

I tried googling this and found nothing; has crack and cancer ever been linked? Years ago, I knew several people who were addicted to crack. I had roommates at the time who cooked up and consumed it. I was able to avoid addiction, and over the years since, I noticed a high number of those hard-core smokers getting cancer, at what I think is an early age. A woman at 26 yr., and several others contracted cancer before they were 40. Other non-addict people I knew rarely if ever, were victims of the big C. Chasrob (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad citation

Citation number 2, pointing to A.M. Costa Rica, is a broken link. Not to mention the site looks like spammy junk. --Rsgranne (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed it in the lead but honestly this article needs a lot a help. Sizeofint (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Error in figure caption

The caption for the Scotland survey says crack was ranked fourth in adverse social effects. As is clear in the figure shown, and in the original article as cited, it was actually ranked third in this metric. The caption should be fixed. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Sizeofint (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! 71.197.166.72 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crack cocaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

photo is of poor quality

"Rocks" of crack cocaine

the picture is awful and doesn't even look like crack. i suggest this one. doesn't even look like crack. i suggest this one.

I agreed, having actually seen what it looks like, I can say the suggested picture is far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanybigwords (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words: "it is said to be the most addictive form of cocaine"

This statement in the introductory paragraph is factually dubious and clearly goes against Wikipedia's "weasel words" policy. It needs to be reworked or removed.

The issue is the statement takes a popular belief and words it like a probable fact. 'Addictive' is already a word with great controversy as to its strict definition. The "effective" edit less ambiguous but not technically true as injection is more effective than inhalation. I suggest the opening paragraph clarify when the influence of popular belief and media sensationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanybigwords (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

He said don't smoke crack because it's a ghettho drug. I guess what he was trying to say was that crack affects black people disproportionally to whites. All the models in this article are white, though. I guess this is WP trying to be PC/college professor-like because putting a black person in a crack article would be racist, while putting a white person in the same article wouldn't be.

I dunno. Crack is often associated with blacks while drugs like LSD or shrooms are associated with whites. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

Please change the section that states "Some people previously believed that crack cocaine caused SIDS, but when investigators began looking at the incidence of SIDS in the children of women who used crack cocaine, they found it to be no higher than in children of women who smoked cigarettes.[19]"

This section is misleading because smoking increases the chance of SIDs.

Please change to state "Crack cocaine use may cause SIDs (sudden infant death). Investigators found the incidence of SIDs in the children of women who used crack cocaine, they found it to be no higher than in children of women who smoked cigarettes.[19] However, maternal smoking has been shown to substantially increase the chance of SIDs." See, for example, http://www.sids-network.org/experts/smoking.htm. 2603:3005:A00:2200:F153:96F6:42F3:B953 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed it since it wasn't reliably sourced. The SIDS network link also isn't WP:MEDRS so we can't use that. This review [2] says the evidence is inconclusive. Sizeofint (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

Change Paracetomol to Paracetamol, which is the correct spelling 86.187.172.123 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This spelling error has now been corrected. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate "effective" descriptor

Please remove the word "effective" in the following sentence - "The Manual of Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment calls it the most "addictive" (effective) form of cocaine."

"Effective" is not synonymous or analogous to "addictive" in this context and the source does not use the word "effective". There is no legitimate purpose to including that word parenthetically.

Bdubble (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

Please remove the photo of the spoon and other things you need to create crack. I don't know who thought that was a good idea but you're going to have someone who's going to try to create crack and it's going to be because of that lame-ass picture. Irresponsible! MrSuperEditor123 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. AdA&D 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC) AdA&D 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A few more recent synonym's to possibly be added.

Whiskey, Whitney, Posh, Concubine, Cubba, Cherry Pie and Peng-a-Leng Shugshugz (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bones pebbles Kitty litter Shugshugz (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this article be folded into Cocaine?

A large portion of the article is essentially rewriting much more fleshed-out sections from cocaine, since they are effectively the same drug taken in different ways. The rest could largely be subsumed into a subsection of Cocaine. Meanwhile, a whole article could be written on the history and social effects of the inner-city crack epidemic (real and imagined) of the 80's, sentencing disparities, and media portrayal. All of that barely gets a line or two in this article. SilverbackNet talk 02:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It really seems strange that there isn't a history section to this article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you write one? I'm sure it would be a welcomed addition! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted reference to "inner city"

Intro paragraph had referred to "impoverished inner city neighborhoods." The inclusion of the phrase "inner city" made the statement inaccurate (some East Coast areas afflicted by the crack epidemic were outlying neighborhoods) with little redeeming value. As the article linked to (see inner city) mentions, the term was used at the time as a "euphemism for low-income residential districts." It had no place in a neutral forum in 2019. Treeemont (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add History & Origins

I think the article needs a History & Origins section. PointyPenBoy (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cocaine binges" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Typo found under Adverse Effects: "Many of thes issues" 67.80.105.94 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not Masarati

Unless it is intentionally misspelled for some reason, the word is spelled 'Maserati', not 'Masarati'. I think it a lot more likely that the name for a fashionable, sporty car would be used for a street term than a similar sounding word that is prounounced almost exactly, but not quite, the same. It is a Maz-er-ah-ti, not a Mass-ah-rah-ti. I also see "yeah-o" listed. That may be correct, but I don't see 'yay-o' anywhere, which is a common slang for cocaine of all sorts. Not sure if 'yeah-o' is supposed to stand for 'yay-o', or if it is a totally different (and seemingly awkward) term. Yeah is not typically pronounced yay, although yea-o would work. Yeah is the same as yah.


64.223.107.108 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

Remove the line "The use of another highly addictive stimulant drug, crystal meth, ballooned between 1994 and 2004." from the second paragraph.

The line is not about crack cocaine, but the position implies that the the decline in use of crack is connected to a rise in use of meth, which is not substantiated by the reference provided (it only refers to meth) and therefore seems to me to be original research. Dotbss (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: History.com (the former source cited there) is actually listed as generally unreliable per WP:RSP, so I'll agree that it wasn't a good source for that claim. It seems there are some sources that DO make this connection, of which I've added two. If anybody else disagrees or feels the claim doesn't belong (as this is in fact an article about crack, not meth) I am indifferent either way. ASUKITE 00:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 Partly done: I think with Asukite's sourcing the sentence is good now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

American inventions

Should this page be added to the category "American inventions"? Kotterdale99 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No response; added it to the category. Kotterdale99 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

'Contaminants vs adulterants'

The article states 'Adulterants used with crack and cocaine ... paracetamol, amphetamine, scopolamine and strychnine.[18]' The issue is with the last 2. Scopolamine is a dissociative hallucinogen derived from datura and strychnine is a toxic alkaloid found in Strychnos nux-vomica. It is a logical fallacy that drug dealers intentionally 'cut' their drugs with poison and therefore these should be listed as contaminants (as stated in the source) rather than adulterants as adulterant implies that their presence is intentional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.64.84 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

“Crackhead”

The term “crackhead” is a derogatory term for people that have a cocaine use disorder, is it really suitable or necessary to include it in the introductory paragraph? It doesn’t add any value to the information, and there’s already a section on its addictive properties anyway. At a push it could fit in the society and culture section but it seems very out of place currently, I assumed it was vandalism until I saw the page was locked. I can’t see any other pages on recreational drugs that include a term for people with dependency issues in the introduction either. 81.96.87.173 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@81.96.87.173 I agree completely. I have removed the term from the lead now. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Freebase and crack are not the same thing

Freebase is made with ether. Crack is made with baking soda. Freebase can also be used as verb so you can say you are "freebasing crack". But you would never refer to actual freebase as crack

Ether (diethyl ether) is a weak acid and is only a solvent used here. Ammonia is the base causing the reaction and the parallel to sodium bicarbonate. In a balanced reaction both methods produce an amalgam of cocaine ( a weak base) and adulterants. Just as a lewis reaction or a birch reaction can reduce ephedrine to methamphetamine, both methods of dehydroxylation of cocaine hydrochloride evolve cocaine,a slightly basic chemical. To wit, freebase cocaine Dubious intention (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Physical and chemical properties --> Synthesis -->

Original: However, whereas powder cocaine dissolves in water, crack must be dissolved in an acidic solution such as lemon juice (containing citric acid) or white vinegar (containing acetic acid), a process that effectively reverses the original conversion of powder cocaine to crack.[8]

Edit request: However, whereas powder cocaine dissolves in water [8], crack comes in a solid form (rock) and it is necessary to dissolve it first. The safest way to do this is with powdered citric or ascorbic acid, these are often available at local needle exchanges or health food stores. Avoid lemon juice or vinegar, as these can lead to serious infections [source: https://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf ].This is a process that effectively reverses the original conversion of powder cocaine to crack.[8]

The harm reduction link is dead. Lemon juice and vinegar, being fairly acidic, are resistant to the growth of most pathogenic bacteria or fungi.think pickled foodstuffs. I'd consider another link that isn't dead. Dubious intention (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation #7

Suggests levamisole is a dangerous contaminant of crack cocaine, but the link never mentions crack cocaine, only cocaine HCl. I have not seen an analysis of base cocaine adulterated with levamisole, I have however seen several ms/gc analysis that DID NOT detect any. Perhaps the basification of the solvent or the straight to base extraction method denatures levamisole to aminorex or some other chemical. I challenge you to find a citation that demonstrates levamisole contamination in analysis of confiscated crack cocaine Dubious intention (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations 8,9

Suggests ammonium bicarbonate or ammonium carbonate are used as a substitution for sodium bicarbonate in manufacturing crack cocaine. Neither citation says or eludes to that. Ammonia is used in the production of freebase cocaine as the base, and then the base is extracted from the solvent (diethyl ether often) by hexane, and washed. To use ammonium bicarbonate, the reaction liberated ammonia gas, which is poisonous and caustic. Using Nh3Co produces ammonium tetrahyydrate, which is also quite poisonous. In the name of harm reduction, these need to be scrutinized by an actual chemistry. Suggesting these methods could seriously injure someone and the links do not suggest in any way the text of the citation. Dubious intention (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Vaporization temperature is wrong

It doesn't vaporize at 90°C, not even close, little discussion available, nothing of good quality as quotable as source in article, but should be around 180°C or something similar. I know from practical use 190°C does it. I can't find suitable sources though. Yurirsfl (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You must be confusing Celsius and Fahrenheit. 90c is 194°f.understand, vaporization=evaporation. Boiling point is when evaporation occurs even under the surface and the liquid phase cannot increase in temperature Dubious intention (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Vaporization can either refer to boiling or evaporation, but regarding drug usage, it always refer to boiling point. Knowing the temperature when its vapor pressure is above zero is irrelevant.
And I'm not confusing Celsius with Fahrenheit, I'm not even American. Yurirsfl (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Most liquids evaporate, so vaporization temp only represents a phase change from solid to liquid https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Cocaine#section=Color-Form Dubious intention (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

My reply above also answers yours post. Yurirsfl (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

The chemical formulae in the item Physical and chemical properties must be changed to correctly adapt them to the charge distributions within the cocaine hydrochloride molecule, and such distributions can be verified in the drawing of the molecular structure and chemical bondings of this molecule, which is depicted in the drawing in the following reference: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.571113.html Eventually, the molecule Coc-H+Cl- will become Coc+-HCl−, in the three equations in this item. That is to say, the positive charge is in the cocaine molecule and not in the hydrogen atom. Flavioscosta1 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 On hold waiting for peer-review. Lemonaka (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: ChemSpider.com features user-generated content and is therefore not a reliable source. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 09:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Using the Salt Lake City Police as a medrs?

This article has several medical claims sourced to a pdf file released by the Salt Lake City Police. The source itself makes ridiculous claims like "it literally cooks its users alive", and doesn't look like medical literature. Most of the claims it is being used to back already have other more reliable sources. Should we pull this scare pdf out? Very Average Editor (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crack_cocaine/Archive_3&oldid=1182919920"