Talk:Crack cocaine/Archive 2

= Topics from 2008 =

Adulterants in crack cocaine, laundry detergent? really?
it's listed as a possible cut in crack, i find it hard to believe anyone would cut their crack cocaine with laundry detergent, what dealer wants to kill/lose all his/her customers? —69.125.138.8 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends on the dealer. Small-time street dealers aren't necessarily interested in long-term profits. I bet more than a few are using a bit too much of their own product, too... 206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

-the best way to make crack is to use ammonia instead of baking soda that's actual freebase anything with baking soda is crack, there is a difference and you see it when you smoke it GO HOME AND TRY IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.34.74 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Health risks
The health issues section is very poor. It says crack can cause 'crack lung', but doesn't mention what this actually is. It says it can cause cardiovasucalar problems, but not which ones. However a whole paragraph is given over to 'crack lip', which is surely a minor problem in the big scheme of things. Also it does not mention whether crack use can cause death, and how it would do so. LouiseCooke 79.68.33.191 19:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious racism correction
"Some claim that this disparity amounts to institutional racism, as crack cocaine is more common in inner-city black communities, and powder cocaine in white suburban communities"

As I seem to constantly have to point out to people, white people are poor too. Saying an inner-city area is predominantly black is ridiculous. An inner city area is predominantly poor, for your information.

Therefor the racism is against poor people, not against Black people. If it were against black people, the sentences would be regulated by race, not by substance.

I think that just like everyone else, you are playing the racism card to avoid a far, far more sinister form of discrimination. A discrimination that poor white people are taking alongside poor black people. With the difference that, unlike blacks, poor whites get no public sympathy whatsoever and have been completely ABANDONED. Now that ... is racism. —80.65.242.154 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it's obvious that poor people are of every race. However, the disparity between crack and cocaine has caused a well documented disparity between black sentencing and white sentencing. It's not controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.120.160 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In my eyes this is not a very good argument when the initial complaint is about the words black innercity community's, do you see it you very 'uncontroversial' one? The statistics would be the sad same old statistics, blacks get sentenced more, and whites use more coke.24.132.170.97 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

cultural disapproval
shouldn't the cultural stigma around crack users vs. cocaine users in certain cultures be noted? Such as "crackheads" being seen as trashy? Of course not in those words but there is quite a stigma around crack users in north america. Mocking of crack heads is quite popular in American and Mexican comedy. —Junkupshowup (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the needed citation?
"Crack cocaine is illegal in most parts of the world."

You need a source to prove that? It is listed as a class A drug in the United Kingdom.

Some facts shouldnt need someone writing about it to make it reliable Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

–All facts should have sources, no matter how obvious they may seem to you personally. Junkupshowup (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me at all that crack is illegal in most parts of the world. It's obvious that it should be, lol.


 * (did research in the middle of writing this)

In trying to find a valid citation, I've come up with a few hopefully decent sources and learned far more about crack and cocaine than I ever wanted to know. I didn't find any sources that backed up the quote as is. However, I found something that might be close enough. I made a change here that I think says as much as we can say without saying something unfounded. Let me know what you think. WDavis1911 (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is not obvious that crack is illegal worldwide. Since coca is an American plant, it is much more readily available in the Americas. Whether the crack cocaine is enough of an issue in other countries to be specificaly prohibited definitely needs citation. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no discussion of addiction?
It seems a very serious omission that there is no discussion of addiction in the prose on this entire page. Cazort (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone write iwiki
Крэк --Mercury13 kiev (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More potent?
I'm not so sure about this line: "coupled with the fact that "crack" is considered more potent than cocaine hydrochloride"

I don't think freebase cocaine is actually more potent so much as cocaine, when inhaled, more readily enters the brain and produces psychological effects. I don't believe it actually has any more potecy overall, though. And if I'm wrong, then that line definitely needs a source. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that suggest that crack-cocaine is more addictive than powder cocaine are overstated. As the article says, crack-cocaine is powder cocaine mixed with baking soda or lye. The added ingredients do not make the drug more addictive.~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenneberry (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Added topic year headers
17-Aug-2008: I have added the headers "Topics from 2008" (etc.) as on other talk pages, to help keep the topics sorted by date, and I had to carefully move several topics into date order (what a mess it had been). -Wikid77 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Inserting source footnotes
17-Aug-2008: I have been adding source footnotes to provide more citations. Due to the broad, encyclopedic scope of the article, many sources will be needed: few papers contain extensive information about crack cocaine. I added the text about crack numbing the tongue or mouth only where placed. Again, Wikipedia has only a relative handful of people revising the mainstream articles, so the WP servers are slowed by people hacking many articles for one-word changes or deleting non-notable text. I will keep adding source footnotes. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 20-Aug-2008: I have added many source footnotes to the article, and as I suspected, each news article covers only a few facts: a particular source document will typically only back 5-10 statements in the article. Perhaps more than 50 sources will be needed to provide source references for the whole article. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Iranian "Crack" should be mentioned
In Iran there is a well known drug known as "Crack" which is composed of heroin and some yet-to-be identified poison. The primary symptoms of this poison is the infection of the users body by large numbers of maggots who gradually eats one up from the inside. Apparently the flesh dies and then flies lay their eggs in it, these eventually hatch to hundreds of maggots which burrow inside the body. It may sound like a bad horror movie but it is very real and there are thousands of people in Teheran who walk around half-alive with maggots in their flesh. There was once a TV program shown in the US which featured this problem with videos recorded by cellphones sent in from Iran. I can't remember the name but maybe someone can. It is spreading like a plague all over the country and I suspect it's being deliberately propagated by the Mullah regime. I have not been able to find much on the Net about this drug and it seems to be an exclusively Iranian problem, though there is this youtube video which shows an addict(note the white maggots). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lw5UekabhI Please, if any of you know anyone in Iran(I heard this from a friend myself), help with documenting this problem. It's killing thousands and nobody seems to know what it is. The only way to stop it is to document this drug and what it contains. It has been going on for several years now, personally I believe that the Mullahs are behind it, using it to poison the secular youth. 87.59.78.93 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * if its heroin it belongs to a different article18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Heroin, its a Methamphetamine derivative at times mixed with other drugs such as Crack and Heroin. Methamphetamine derivatives, if synthesized wrong, will have detrimental effects on skin, lips and exterior cells, causing them to peel off, become immaturely old and turn them into a nice habitat for fly eggs and other insect offsprings. The drug itself does not create worms, instead it creates the right environment for worms to grow, and considering the way of life most of the "Shishe" addicts live, by sewage pipes and on dirty grounds, in a hot country such as Iran where flies and other insects flourish, its easy to for the flies to use the dead/ineffective skin of the addicts for housing eggs. There is a certain chemical used in the production of Methamphetamine, which often isn't cleared in the final product, resulting in these skin conditions. The trouble is home chemists who create Methamphetamine without the care and safety precautions that a pharmaceutical synthesis would consider, leaving many chemicals in the final product. Also the mode of using Methamphetamine has a huge effect on these side effects, smoking results in more skin problems than oral ingestion. Methamphetamine and Crack are both drugs that are instantly addictive, and in terms of craving, surpass heroin by ten fold. Heroin is no longer the mean evil drug, it is Crack and Methamphetamine. Heroin has also had bad publicity, it is no more addictive than hospital morphine or "Teryak"/Opium or your over the counter Codeine. They all are physically addictive and share similar withdrawal symptoms, heroin scarcity is the blame for the bad lifestyles of the addicts as studies have shown, when opiates are available, one can lead a normal life, like many pain patients who receive Oxycontin, Morphine and other Class A opioids for pain management. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should expand the Methamphetamine article with this information if it can be attributed to a realiable source. OlEnglish (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Article
The article states that 'It is a freebase form of cocaine that can be made using baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) or sodium hydroxide,[1] in a process to convert cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) into methylbenzoylecgonine (freebase cocaine)" (from the Intro.) The references on this state are related to substance abuse.

Although this is not detailed, this information may facilitate the production of crack. The production of crack is illegal in many countries. Are we facilitating criminal behaviour? What about any legal consequences against Wikipedia that may result?

To me, what matters is the intent of this information. Why is it included?

I'm looking forward to discussion about this.

Writerz (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend if you choose for the life of other people or the death. Cops make different choices then usual people sometimes. If this information is usefull, it tells people how to clean usually dirty dope, the discussion you are on is about turning science not into a tool for life. Since cocaine is noteworthy in it's medical aspects i think we should just stick to good old horace in an encylopedia, it is not a police propaganda department completely yet, also thx to good old horace, i suppose. I really don't look forward to that discussion thanks. Any more questions? 24.132.170.97 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Addiction
Section on addiction relies on a webpage at "healthwizard", which is a blog. It is not authoritative in the slightest, is itself unreferenced, and some of what has been put into the article here contradicts what is generally known about crack addiction. The tag will stay there until more sources can be incorporated and the healthwizard reference removed. 128.146.172.87 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. It was so completely filled with bias and original research that it would be best off completely rewritten. This may be controversial, but I really didn't see any hope for that section as it stood whatsoever. 70.41.37.124 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the topic of the healthwizard site, the article is still full of references from it. In my opinion, most of them seem to be correct, but as above, it's not a reputable source in any way.  Should the remaining references be removed immediately, or left to be replaced with more reputable sources over time?  --rakkar (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a History section
how it was made who made it 63.76.234.250 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

agree, it is interesting to know that the person who first produced pure cocaine was the inventor of coca cola and invented base because he wanted to have purer coke(less polluted) for his own use.24.132.170.97 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)