Talk:Crack cocaine

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)

Topics from 2007

Global Context

The parts Italic textof 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)

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)

• 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.

Heatsketch 05:16, 13 July 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:74.123.81.159 (talk • contribs)

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

• 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...

Heatsketch 06:21, August 5, 2007

"dank shit" / SPAM

I removed an edit giving "dank shit" as a slang for crack. Apparently, this term applies to any strong drug.[1] -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)

• Wikipedia: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)

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

[[ru: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)

Topics from 2009

Restoring verifiable information

12-Jan-2008: According to the Wikipedia policy for WP:Verify, the text in an article must be verifiable. So, I am restoring all of the verifiable text deleted in 2008, but also adding even more footnotes to help verify the issues. The issue about nasal septa perforations is not mere speculation, but rather documented in several books. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Grammar

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'.

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.

"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)