
Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda - Libertatea
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/
======
tjic
Racism is behind many bans. I think that the goal is not so much to harm the
minority group as it is a form a status signalling: showing that "we"
disapprove of what "they" do.

Cocaine was banned in the US because of its use by blacks.

Marijuana was banned because of its use by hispanics.

The first gun bans were in the post Civil War south, where armed black
citizens stood up to the KKK riders (the phrase "Saturday Night Special" is a
contraction of "Niggertown Saturday Night Special"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Origin_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Origin_of_the_term)).

Tangentially, I strongly recommend the book _Albion's Seed_, which traces
American culture to four different subcultures prominent in England in the
1500s - quite enlightening.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Relatedly, the KKK supported women's right to vote, but they did so mostly
because the women were more likely to vote for prohibition, and prohibition
gave them a chance to put the Catholic-Irish immigrants on the wrong side of
the law.

~~~
saraid216
Yup. Very few progressive measures are passed for reasons that we'd recognize
as progressive today. I'm going to highlight a book that I haven't read:

[http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Counter-History-Domenico-
Lo...](http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Counter-History-Domenico-
Losurdo/dp/1844676935)

~~~
Symmetry
I'd say that the Progressive movement of the early 20th century and the
Progressive movement of the early 21st really aren't any more similar than
you'd expect any two randomly selected political groups to be.

~~~
saraid216
I didn't capitalize "progressive" very intentionally. And further, I am not
talking about merely the 20th century, but also the 19th, the 18th, and the
17th.

------
damian2000
Stepan Company actually sells the cocaine to a pharmaceutical company, for use
in medicine.

"The plant is the only commercial entity in the USA authorized by the Drug
Enforcement Administration to import coca leaves, which come primarily from
Peru. Approximately 100 metric tons of dried coca leaf are imported each year.
The cocaine-free leaves are sold to The Coca Cola Company, while the cocaine
is sold to Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical firm, for medicinal purposes." --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company>

~~~
jpdoctor
> _for use in medicine._

Ear-nose-throat guys still use it for contact anesthetic. I had a light shoved
up my nose and then back into the throat while they examined the result of a
punch to the throat. (Martial arts FTW.) I sat there amazed that I didn't
really give a damn with a giant flextube ramming into my face.

~~~
colkassad
I got some fryer grease splashed in my face many years ago. The pain in my
left eye was intense. The doctor at the emergency room gave me a couple drops
from an eye-dropper which immediately removed the pain, and I have to say, put
me in a fairly chatty mood. I asked him what it was and he said "Liquid
cocaine, my friend."

------
leoedin
Interesting article, but the comment about "dutch courage":

"Yes, even the Dutch were not spared from the racism."

isn't really correct. Dutch courage has been an expression for alcohol-induced
courage for centuries. Even in the early 20th century it wasn't making a
comment on the Dutch, just using a common expression. Is that expression still
common in the US? It certainly is in the UK.

Rather nitpicky though...

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> "racism" ... isn't really correct. Dutch courage has been an expression for
> alcohol-induced courage for centuries.

Right, it is centuries-old racism.

Only 3 centuries though. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars>

~~~
leoedin
But in the context, it wasn't actually racist. It is not racist to suggest
that cocaine usage makes an individual more courageous, and given that the
accepted (and still accepted) saying for inebriation-related courage is Dutch
courage, it wasn't racist to say that cocaine gave shy individuals dutch
courage. Perhaps the expression has its origins in racism, but centuries later
and without that original context, I'd argue that its no longer a racist
expression.

It was of course racist for Dr Ed to suggest that somehow the issue was only
with black people, but that's unrelated to the use of the expression dutch
courage.

------
Camillo
Of course racism was prevalent at the time, but does that discredit all
arguments against putting cocaine in soda? Can we say that the social ill-
effects are completely imaginary just because at the time concern was focused
on blacks? The article seems to be suggesting this, but stops short of saying
"let's start drinking cocaine again". Is the journalist ultimately unconvinced
by his own arguments?

~~~
betterunix
"all arguments against putting cocaine in soda"

What other arguments have been given? Alcohol is the only major drug to have
been re-legalized after being banned in America.

"Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary"

What social ill-effects can you cite in the case of cocaine-infused soda?

"The article seems to be suggesting this, but stops short of saying "let's
start drinking cocaine again". Is the journalist ultimately unconvinced by his
own arguments?"

It is politically incorrect to argue against the war on drugs, regardless of
the damage it has caused to society (much greater than any damage the drugs
themselves cause). We are trained from an early age to assume that drugs are
_bad_ , and to assume without question that drugs should be _illegal_
(naturally, "medicine" is in a different category). It makes no difference
whether or not the war on drugs has been productive, effective at solving any
constructive goal, or in any way beneficial when everyone is fed DARE-style
propaganda from age 5.

The reality is that in today's world, we should be more afraid of the DEA than
of the drugs they "regulate," since their form of "regulation" involves
assault rifles, grenades, and tanks (yes, really, surplus military vehicles
including tanks and helicopters are routinely transferred to law enforcement
agencies). The DEA, like the FBI, has amassed so much signals intelligence
power that they are considered to be part of the US intelligence community.
The DEA can and does recycle the proceeds from seized property into its own
budget -- a practice that was authorized in the 1980s. The DEA can _declare_
drugs to be illegal, without congressional action, for a year -- and prosecute
people for possessing or distributing those drugs. The DEA can override
congressional recommendations on drug regulation, as they infamously did with
MDMA (ecstasy).

Meanwhile, with only two major exceptions, we are getting no tax revenue from
recreational drug sales, there is no regulation on the purity or safety of
recreational drugs, doctors have no idea what drugs their patients actually
ingested, there is no age limit that drug merchants respect (high schoolers
can buy cocaine just as easily as working adults), and criminals have access
to a massive, steady, and enormous market. There is no time that would be "too
soon" to end the war on drugs, develop useful regulations on recreational
drugs, and restore our democracy.

~~~
IgorPartola
> What social ill-effects can you cite in the case of cocaine-infused soda?

What social ill effects can you cite for not distributing bath salts with
every hot meal lunch to grade schoolers? I don't believe that specific
combination has been done recently (or ever) so we have no evidence it's bad.
Let's do it! </sarcasm>

Constructively speaking, perhaps we should do the research first, and put
cocaine in soda after.

~~~
betterunix
Well, the closest thing to a data point that we have are the people in South
America who regularly drink coca tea. To the best of my knowledge, they have
no social problems that are worse than societies where people regularly drink
coffee.

The entire point of the article was that we _did_ put cocaine in soda at one
time, and that did not stop because of the social problems that ensued. Just
like the people of Andes have not stopped drinking their coca tea because of
some hypothetical social problems it causes. A coca-infused soft drink need
not have enough cocaine to cause any sort of "high," any more than a caffeine-
infused software drink has enough caffeine to cause a high or a therapeutic
amphetamine dose has enough amphetamine to cause a high.

Don't let US government propaganda sway you when it comes to drugs. Cocaine is
not the cause of social problems, not in the United States and not in
countries where it is widely used. Cocaine _prohibition_ causes more social
problems than the drug itself (not that the DEA or ONDCP people would ever
admit it).

~~~
phusion
Here, here!

~~~
derrida
It's _hear, hear_ from rowdy parliamentary question times & debates. "Hear,
hear" as in "listen to what they are saying, you lot" :-)

~~~
earthboundkid
And the phrase commonly to thought to be "hear ye, hear ye, hear ye" is
actually "Oyez, oyez, oyez": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyez>

------
shawndumas
Racism is behind gun bans too -- "take careful note of the racist California
legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless. Black
people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to
get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have
historically been perpetuated against black people. The time has come for
black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late."

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-
secr...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-
history-of-guns/308608/)

~~~
philwelch
American gun politics underwent a weird switcheroo at some point between the
1970's and 1990's. You'd think that as a constitutionally guaranteed civil
right, owning guns would be a civil liberties issue championed by the left,
but for some reason it isn't today. Yet as you point out, it used to be the
far-left Black Panthers who championed the right to keep and bear arms the
most, and for exactly the same radical reasons that libertarian gun nuts today
talk about.

I love the link you posted. This is my favorite part--no doubt it required
immense courage then, but it would be absolutely insane today to do what Huey
Newton did:

\---

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton,
Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer
asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you
anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he
had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think _you_ are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told
the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with _your_ gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the
bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he
yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest,
so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud
voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try
to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a
black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the
back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage
the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any
crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale
could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest
motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s
at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a
regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits
inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed
Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a
black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal
advice.

------
tobyjsullivan
"In 2003, Stepan imported 175,000 kilograms of coca for Coca-Cola. That's
enough to make more than $200 million worth of cocaine."

Coca-cola allegedly sells 350 million Cokes a day in North America. They've
managed to make more off coca than they would if they sold straight cocaine
(um, a lot more). Now that's just good business.

------
bjhoops1
Wow, I'd heard before that the "Coca" in Coca-Cola used to be cocaine, but I
dismissed it as an urban legend, not even worthy of a google search. This is
so worth being wrong.

~~~
jrogers65
You'll have an aneurysm when you read about how heroin used to be sold in
pharmacies. The drug war is a very recent phenomenon with a lot of dirty
politics driving it.

~~~
bjhoops1
That's crazy! Maybe the most ridiculous drug-related story of all has to be
the Opium Wars the British fought in China so they could continue to sell
opium to the Chinese masses. True story.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War>

(Ever see the portrayal of Marijuana's illegalization at the beginning of
Pineapple Express?)

~~~
chimeracoder
Not as crazy as the drama currently unfolding in Afghanistan with the opium
trade (spoiler: the US has an incentive to condone growth of opiates, since it
reduces local economic dependence on terrorist forces like the Taliban).

It's almost fun to watch a government battling two bogeymen against each
other, like a child playing with toy action figures.

------
nicholassmith
I never realised racism was behind it, I thought it was just regulated out.
Although, based off the time frame it doesn't come as too much of a surprise.

I've actually heard some interesting arguments about bringing cocaine back in
sodas as a legal way to do it, but whilst the physiological addiction of
cocaine is low, the mental addiction is high. You see enough coders twitching
for a Red Bull fix, so who knows what we'd be like with the good stuff.

~~~
betterunix
Racism has permeated the war on drugs since its inception: cocaine turned
black men into monsters, heroin was made illegal to punish Germans and
Filipinos (I still scratch my head about that one), marijuana was said to fuel
black Jazz and drive white women into the beds of black men, etc. Even today
there is racism evident in the drug war: black men are arrested on drug
offenses at a rate of 1-in-4 in some communities (yes, a quarter of the men in
some American black communities are incarcerated or have been incarcerated).

"You see enough coders twitching for a Red Bull fix, so who knows what we'd be
like with the good stuff."

Twitching is hardly the issue; I would be more concerned about psychosis,
which can happen with any stimulant. There are stories of coders who use too
much caffeine and wind up in a psych ward. Low, therapeutic doses of
stimulants can potentially help people get through difficult mental tasks;
continued uses of high doses is risky to physical and mental health. Cocaine
is not some kind of exceptional drug in that regard -- you see that pattern
with amphetamines, caffeine, cathinones, etc.

~~~
nicholassmith
True enough, the problem is too much of a good thing is always risky, although
the long term over use of caffeine seems to have as many health risks as
cocaine. The biggest downside is cocaines current production cycle involves
people who work for little money to avoid being killed in the fields.

As long as cocaine is sensibly used I don't see the big problem with it, it's
just encouraging people to use it sensibly.

~~~
redthrowaway
>cocaines current production cycle involves people who work for little money
to avoid being killed in the fields.

Legalization of coca agriculture in Bolivia has significantly reduced this.
Part of Evo Morales' nationalist/socialist platform is the renormalization of
coca production and consumption. So individual coca farmers now grow their
product in the open, without fear of persecution from the police. This means
they don't rely on the cartels bribing police for their protection.

Life in Bolivia isn't exactly peachy for most of its people, but it's
certainly better for its coca farmers than it used to be.

------
betterunix
Jews were also the targets of racism around cocaine; I believe it was the NY
Times that said every "jew peddler in the South" sold it.

------
rsanheim
Does anyone know what the actual physiological effects of cocaine delivered in
a syrupy soda are? I have to guess it was very small amounts to begin with,
and maybe not all that bioavailable orally to begin with.

Whenever there are these stories about cocaine in original Coca Cola, I'm
curious about how much the trace cocaine actually did in the original version
of the soda.

~~~
chimeracoder
Cocaine can indeed be ingested with some notable effects - in parts of South
America, they drink coca tea with effects similar to caffeinated tea. In fact,
there's evidence to suggest that cocaine is safer as as stimulant than
caffeine is - the main difference as we perceive it is the means of ingestion
(we're used to thinking of caffeine as something you drink - very few people
snort caffeine pills, which is _very_ dangerous).

Also, chewing on cocaine leaves is used as a symptomatic treatment for
altitude sickness in South America.

As for the actual bioavailability, take a look at this Bluelight thread:
[http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/394593-Bioavailability-
of...](http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/394593-Bioavailability-of-oral-
cocaine)

~~~
guard-of-terra
Which is kind of fun because I never noticed any effects from drinking
caffeine beverages. So I just drink them for taste. Would that mean I'll not
notice cocaine either?

~~~
chimeracoder
> Would that mean I'll not notice cocaine either?

Not necessarily, because the two drugs are metabolized through completely
different channels and, other than the fact that both are stimulants, have
very different effects (ie, the mechanisms by which they take their effect is
very different).

You may just have an abnormally high tolerance to caffeine, but there's no
reason to suspect that that would carry over to cocaine, as cocaine targets
both the D1 and D2 receptors, and caffeine provides cross-tolerance only to
drugs which target one XOR (exclusive or) the other[0].

[0] <http://examine.com/supplements/Caffeine/#summary14-3>

------
NoPiece
The article seems to have some factual inconsistencies. He cites the NY Times
saying anti-cocaine legislation had started to appear in 1903, "By 1903,
[then-manager of Coca-Cola Asa Griggs] Candler had bowed to white fears (and a
wave of anti-narcotics legislation), removing the cocaine and adding more
sugar and caffeine."

Then in the next sentence he says cocaine wasn't illegal until 1914, "Hale's
account of the role of racism and social injustice in Coca-Cola's removal of
coca is corroborated by the attitudes that the shaped subsequent U.S. cocaine
regulation movement. Cocaine wasn't even illegal until 1914 -- 11 years after
Coca-Cola's change"

Maybe the federal legislation was 1914, but as the NY TImes states, local and
state legislation predates that. For example, California banned non-
prescription sales of cocaine 1907. It is a bit slimy on the author's part to
conflate the racism of the anti-cocaine movement with Coke's removal of
cocaine without some substantiation.

~~~
saraid216
> It is a bit slimy on the author's part to conflate the racism of the anti-
> cocaine movement with Coke's removal of cocaine without some substantiation.

Not really. It's a plausible claim and roughly the best that can be done
without actual documents or a time traveling mind reader.

~~~
NoPiece
The gap between plausible claim, and substantiated claim used to be the realm
journalism. Especially if you are going to start tagging people as racist, you
should be able back it up. Plausible claims are ok for rumors about the next
iPhone, but not cool for attacking reputations.

------
Geekette
_They refer to the coca leaf extract simply as "Merchandise No. 5."_

Awesome; did a quick check to see whether there was any connection to the
perfume Chanel N°5, alas there was none.

------
davidroberts
Would it be considered anal to note that the Dutch aren't a race, therefore
"Dutch courage" can't be a racist term? Nationalist maybe, but not racist.

~~~
maaku
So how exactly do you define "race"?

~~~
davidroberts
From Merriam-Webster Race: "a category of humankind that shares certain
distinctive physical traits." Nationality: "a people having a common origin,
tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a
nation-state." Dutch: "of or relating to the Netherlands or its inhabitants."

~~~
maaku
That may be the dictionary definition, but my point was that 'race' is mostly
a social construct. Go back a couple of centuries and it was normal for
(Europeans) to talk about the 'Irish' race, the 'Spanish' race, the 'German'
race and even the 'Dutch' race.

~~~
davidroberts
Yes, but that is not what people mean when they say 'race' today.

------
jinushaun
Can't speak for the original Coca-Cola, but coca is not cocaine. Drank a whole
bunch of coca tea in Peru to cope with the altitude sickness.

~~~
betterunix
Hate to break it to you, but the tea you drank in Peru was infused with
cocaine. Not terribly much cocaine -- a coca leaf doesn't have a high
concentration of the drug -- but cocaine nonetheless. Cocaine has been used in
South America for centuries; it was not until the 19th century that anyone
realized you could concentrate and extract the drug, and use a hypodermic
needle to get a rapid and extreme effect (this is how Freud used cocaine, as
well as the character Sherlock Holmes).

~~~
njs12345
A cup of coca tea contains about 1/5th of a line of cocaine, apparently:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_tea>

EDIT: This drink sounds kind of interesting..
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Colla>

~~~
notahacker
But since drinking tea is considerably less efficient at getting the cocaine
into your system, you'd really struggle to replicate a cocaine high from
drinking Mate de Coca. It's more like drinking weak tea.

Good answer here: [http://www.quora.com/Tea/Is-coca-tea-
addictive/answer/David-...](http://www.quora.com/Tea/Is-coca-tea-
addictive/answer/David-Gorczyca)

------
ebbv
Yes Coca-Cola used to have cocaine in it. Everybody learns that in middle
school. Why is this on HN? Honestly. This would be a bad repost on reddit.
Disappointed to see it so highly upvoted here.

~~~
Evbn
It is an article in the Atlantic, which uses Reddit reposts as it's primary
source of research and was banned from Reddit for spamming. HN upvoters
haven't noticed that Atlantic jumped the shark and has been coasting on its
brand name for a couple of years now.

~~~
davidroberts
The Atlantic has definitely jumped the shark. It used to be one of my favorite
magazines.

