News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On 17th Century "Cocaine" by sinkasapa on Thursday October 10, 2024 @03:01AM (#41796307)
It definitely seems misleading to talk about coca leaf use as cocaine use, given the common expectation for what that means. People reading the newspaper probably don't know all these details, and it isn't spelled out. I can't imagine some guy in a club not feeling like he was robbed after paying for a powdery drug and then receiving a handful of leaves. I can't imagine an Andean woman sitting down for morning tea being pleased to have a bunch of powder dumped in her cup.
Re:On 17th Century "Cocaine" by Mtinie on Thursday October 10, 2024 @07:50AM (#41797903)
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Cocaine

Does the molecule C17H21NO4 exist in both the raw, dried leaves of the coca plant, and a powdered, refined extract from the same plant?

Re:On 17th Century "Cocaine" by xnorswap on Thursday October 10, 2024 @08:45AM (#41798257)
Re:On 17th Century "Cocaine" by Mtinie on Thursday October 10, 2024 @09:51AM (#41798819)
Perfect response. I'm chuckling, so thank you.

What's also humorous to me is this entire discussion is centered around vernacular usage of a word versus the scientific definition. Cocaine is cocaine, but "cocaine" means different things to some people and not to others.

Re:On 17th Century "Cocaine" by DonHopkins on Thursday October 10, 2024 @09:33PM (#41805276)
Bullshit is bullshit, but "bullshit" means different things to some people and not to others.
Re:On 17th Century "Cocaine" by Mtinie on Monday October 14, 2024 @06:15PM (#41842653)
Which part is bullshit? The discussion, generally or the pedantic point that the active compound is the same in the various presentations people are arguing about?