Talk:Cocaine/Archive 5

Cocaine and liability/degree of “dependence”
I don’t know what’s with some of you guys but you really need to stop pretending (yes pretending) that cocaine somehow or other has a high dependence potential.. Yes, it does have decent dependence potential and causes withdrawal syndrome, even coffee causes withdrawal syndrome. But cocaine‘s chemical dependency potential is CLEARY and absolutely the paradigmatic example of a substance having a medium potential when it comes to dependence (not addiction). I even tried to meet this lunacy halfway by putting “medium - high” but to just say “high” is a pure display of pharmacological illiteracy. And yes, it does actually have a high potential for addiction itself but dependence is a chemical phenomenon and is distinct from addiction which itself admittedly probably does have a biological component and some neural wiring aspects (even video games or pornography can do this) but addiction (all types) are characterized as a behavioral pattern, not a physiological/neurochemical ‘hook’ which is what a dependence is. And a lot of you people seem to not know that and it seems like multiple “contributors“ even try to post “sources“ that also don’t seem to recognize the difference between addiction and dependence. There is no such thing as “psychological dependence”. That’s a complete myth, along with the antiquated notion of “physical addictions”. It’s not a thing, nor is it debatable even slightly. If a “source“ claims that cocaine has a “high potential for dependence”.. Then guess what? It is by definition not a reputable source at that point because that is a complete lie and is a pharmacological impossibility.

Now, I’m not one of those simpletons who claims that stimulants “can’t cause a physical hook/dependence“ or elicit withdrawal symptoms or that it’s “only downers that do that bro” or something; which is an equally erroneous misconception too.. But to call it “high“ for cocaine, as if it’s like some GABA-positive allosteric modulator or μ-opioid agonist or glucocorticoid is nuts. It’s literally just a standard dopaminergic stimulant.. Maybe some of you should learn how drugs work before you go making such oddly specific claims so confidently and shamelessly as if you know what you’re talking about.. And one person even tried to follow up with the logic “well meth is a stimulant and you wouldn’t say the dependence liability for that is high?” And my answer is a resounding NO! …of course not. It’s just another amphetamine (stimulant).. So either learn how drugs work or get off this page and edit some other topic or thing that you have at least marginal degrees of knowledge about because this is getting old and I’m not gonna even pretend that it’s debatable. Dexedream (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Dependence is of two classes: physical and psychological. Physical dependence, generally meaning if the substance is ceased abruptly, it might cause life-threatening withdrawal syndrome or unpleasant physical symptoms (benzos and alcohol being the most common examples). Psychological dependence, generally meaning if the substance is ceased abruptly, it will not cause life-threatening withdrawal syndrome but acute unpleasant physical symptoms (fatigue, etc.) but high psychological effects in addition to motivation to use the substance despite known adverse effects (ignoring the neurotoxicity and other factors here for the sake of simplicity). Currently, the material on substance dependence for cocaine is sourced from a peer-reviewed academic textbook so it doesn't matter what you think or believe, if you have a WP:MEDRS that states "cocaine exhibits only moderate dependence", then cite it. If you don't have it, then do not post anything until you have something. Read WP:NOTFORUM. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 05:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023
Hi, I would like to write about how cocaine has been shown to cause autophagy of dopaminergic neurons at incredibly low dosages (around 100 pico Molar). Cocaine also has an exclusive receptor, BASP1, which may be related to this autophagy. Also, the activity of cocaine may be related to how it causes the neuron to actually absorb DAT through autophagy, but not actually bind to DAT to prevent dopamine reuptake, which BASP1 may regulate.

Sources:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-020-00978-y https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2200545119

Thanks! 71.126.140.102 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is early-stage lab research in vitro and in mice, far too preliminary and unconfirmed to be in the encyclopedia. WP:SCIRS reviews on such studies are sometimes cited in Wikipedia to show pharmacological properties. Best to wait for a review on receptors to put their possible effects into perspective. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Goprelto, Numbino?
These are both mentioned in ; from the FDA labels, they both have the same indication, routes of administration, doseage, etc. The two sentences in the Medical section don't make it clear if there is a difference between the preparations or if there is any difference. Are they significantly different such that they should both be mentioned? If so, the difference should be noted. Kimen8 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023
In the right hand table, under "Chemical and physical data", Solubility in water should be changed from "≈1.8" to "1.8 g/L (22 °C)". If necessary, source could be "Yalkowsky, S.H., He, Yan, Jain, P. Handbook of Aqueous Solubility Data Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2010, p. 1139" Adufh (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

✅ PianoDan (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)