Talk:Crack cocaine/Archive 1

= Topics from 2007 =

Global Context
The parts of this article discussing the affects of the drug on society are completely US centered. Someone please correct this, and add an explanation reagrding the impact of crack on other countries. Volland 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This might have something to do with the US being the country it was created and actually used in high amounts in. By the way, you should go check out the United States page. It's very US centered. BmorePunk 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Why have a section about crack in France if it isn't smoked there? Regionalsimp 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Crack in Australia generally means speed smoked through a crack pipe. So yeah, this is pretty US-centric. Of course the real name for speed smoked through a crack pipe is Ice, this is the name the 'authorities' have jumped on, while the average user will call it crack or just speed. --Senor Freebie (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

CIA involvement
Is there a reason that CIA involvement with crack distribution isn't mentioned? Here's a source - http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/crack.htm 71.60.38.109 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's 1 very vague source from a biased political website, so there is no reason for it to be implemented in the wiki. -Feldmaus

Yes, but it's a very common pop-culture reference. The example that immediately comes to mind is a joke from an American Dad episode: "Everyone knows the CIA invented crack cocaine and introduced it into the inner city, but what we never get credit for is malt liquor." That's actually why I came to this page, to see the underlying history behind that joke. - Mokele —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.204.66 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that's why I'm here. I've heard that crack was made by the CIA countless times and I wanted to see if there was anything about it here. I don't mean about it being true, I mean about the rumor itself. Maybe it's origins.74.194.27.245 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

SMOKE CRACK. JUST ONCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.155.22 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with American Dad, a number of these claims can be heard in numerous rap songs. For example Mos Def, Immortal Technique, and other political/activist rappers mention it in their lyrics. 70.119.14.177 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What about addiction?
While Cocaine isn't physically addictive, Crack is. Can't remember why offhand though since IIRC it's the same stuff in just really high concentration. Klosterdev 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not physically addictive? I have at least three pharmacology texts that list the withdrawal symptoms of cocaine. Crack is more addictive then cocaine, in that crack users have a greater recidivism rate. However, the demographics are different and crack users tend to have less resources to help the quit. The unsigned comment above was made by Dkriegls 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Umm that's crap, cocaine is physcially addictive just like crack! perhaps one may become addicted quicker on crack than on cocaine, but a junky is a junky and drug is a drug.

Well, that is not crap. A "junky" as you call them are a very diverse group of people and are not at all the same. As for a drug being a drug, the US government has several classifications for drugs because even they know that drugs are not all the same. As for strength of addiction, this has nothing to do with how fast a person becomes addicted (because there are way to many factors involved), but rather, the percentage of people who relapse after standardized drug treatments. The suggestion being, that their desire to relapse is stronger if more people relapse. An example being that Marijuana has a relatively low recidivism rate after clinical treatment whereas crystal meth has something like an 90% or higher relapse rate after treatment (even higher then crack). My numbers are not exact, but my point was relevance not precision. If you need me to look up the exact recidivism rates for whatever reason, just ask. Also, see my previous post regarding regarding the difference in populations that use drugs and how that may effect recidivism rates. Dkriegls 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They should lock the page, i keep seeing, **** is on crack or **** smokes crack. its getting annoying.

I don't think it's the actual drug that's the addiction. From what I read, and can start putting sources up if anyone unlocks it or wants to maintain this, the actual "addictive" qualities is from the rush of endorphins and dopamine. I guess what I need to put down formally is that there isn't the withdrawal from the crack cocaine itself that's creates the addictive aura around the drug, but withdrawal from the side-effects of the drug. Think of squeezing a sponge dry. After the drug is used for a while... well, you get the idea. Allot can be cross-referenced if someone took the time to do it. Shadowspawn 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I think it should be locked as well. Most crack addicts won't even come to this page to edit it, just seems like normal vandalism. Shadowspawn 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Heatsketch 05:16, 13 July 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:74.123.81.159 (talk • contribs)
 * Shadowspawn is pretty on base there, it is not physical, ala heroin or nicotine. It is a psychological addiction, the intensity of which changes from person to person depending on their state of mind and largely on individual circumstances, such as where they are, how much crack they have, how much they have done, whether they have any coping mechanisms for the come down ,such as using other intoxicants like marijuana, alcohol or barbiturates, eating food or sexual activity (though this can be hard to accomplish). Trust me on this issue, I have a large amount of...lets call it "experiance".. on this subject.


 * User was signing others names to this talk. See this diff. Struck sig, placed unsigned. --SXT40 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heatsketch 06:21, August 5, 2007
 * Yeah, hey there, this is heatsketch, I wrote that and signed it, I don't know why you crossed it out, maybe i forgot to sign in or something...

"dank shit" / SPAM
I removed an edit giving "dank shit" as a slang for crack. Apparently, this term applies to any strong drug. -Everyguy 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out The bum out of The Projects is referred to as a "damn stupid crack head". --Seth slackware 00:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be locked. Just removed chunk of text about sweaty arse cracks.

Coca paste
more than half of this article is about coca paste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:70.23.222.149 (talk • contribs)

What the hell happened to this article?
Let's see, it's ridiculously short and has a TYPO at the top. There needs to be a LOT more to this. Like, wasn't it briefly legal due to having a different chemical structure from pure cocaine? I'd like to hear the details of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah this article is way too short. We need a description of what it can do to a user's personality. We need statistics on crack related deaths and arrests.  Discussion of Marion Barry.  There should be discussion of CIA involvement, if only to disspell rumors. Crack in pop culture....

This article is way too flimsy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowyCaballero (talk • contribs) 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Alright. You guys get on that. We'll wait.74.194.27.245 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to bulk it out a bit. I've worked with a lot of crack cocaine users, and have done some study on the matter, but have no sources to quote. I am a bad wikipedian. So that's my background, Ive written a lot on the psychological and physiological effects of the drug. rakkar 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research is not allowed. You need to have published sources. WhisperToMe 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite convinced not all in the section addiction is very accurate, and i think the clinical and psychological effects are sometimes exagerated. For example it's known to relax the lungs, wich is rather therapeutical sometimes,(cramp) but of wich there is no mention. (i never heard of non mechanical negative effects on the lungs in the short term tho, if it exists i would say it is the same old extrasensitivity case) The talk about paranoia etc. should go. That is completely depending the social and psychological context. The nr of ppl that would use that much at once is probably zero in a society with some education about drugs. There would always be social factors, so it's either outdated or pov.(both) In a certain way crackcocaine is known to be the most addictive drug, because of the incredible urge to use more, it's supposed to have some effects against heroin abstinention even because of it, (it can be a relief to think, well (psychically) coke is worse, especially when people are acutely abstaining heroin) one good thing, you don't have to supply them with coke for that. If you are out for fame, just proof any of the above thesis and you don't only have a status but you did something medically correct with your life;). Perhaps also the strange myth around audden death should be more carefylly reworded, after all it's not only adolescents but also cops that might rely on this information. This leaves room for rather criminally polluted products to be blamed on the pure one, the actual situation with cocaine is the deadly critical dose is far more different between people then for most other drugs or medicins, so every new user must be (and usually is) warned to take some care, symptoms as nausea etc. form the strong indication for extra sensitivity, if you can warn them why don't you? It could still be a myth in that the extra sensitivity is much smaller then eg. for beestings. There are a few people on the world that would die when they ate a banana, yet we don't tell our children it's a thing that happens with bananas. I assume cocaine was actually perhaps the first substance for wich the effect was researched. It is also part of the story that the tolerance for cocaine *always* solves the problem, so it is quite an interesting inhibitor effect. (it's not an allergeen).24.132.170.97 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Protect Page Request
This article gets WAY more vandalism than constructive edits, and I am a bit tired of monitoring it for edits like the recent 'crack is poop" or whatever that guy was saying. Should we put a mild article protection on this page?  rakkar (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hector Berlioz and La Poignée Fumant don't seem to belong here
there is a relatively old edit that claims crack was invented by a group called "La Poignée Fumant" with a link to Hector Berlioz. I can find nothing anywhere but this article on anything called "La Poignée Fumant" or anything that connects Hector Berlioz to crack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.96.12.204 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Chemistry"
There is a difference between describing the chemical makeup of a product, to the process of making it. I really think this part should be removed or atleast edited. Wikipedia shouldn't be a resource for people who want to make their own crack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.156.108 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not meant to tell people HOW to make crack, but rather how it is made. It makes no difference whether or not it is on wikipedia, demographics suggest that crack addicts generally do not have internet access, so probably aren't on wikipedia looking up how to cook crack. SvWrestler (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)