Talk:Crack cocaine

"Crack stem" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Crack stem has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Crack stem until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

History

Is it possible to get a history of crack? Like when it was invented, when it spread. Your Glutes (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about adding that myself. And recently I got a new RS on the subject. May add soon.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was looking at another topic that mentioned crack being sold, and it happened before I thought it was available in the US, and this page taught me more about making it then the history.

Even the page about the CIA involvement didn’t have anything. Your Glutes (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this.....I think I will add something....but I am trying to decide how to word it. The RS I referred to above makes it into quite a convoluted story that is difficult to condense. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Excessive synonyms

Doesn't seem like it's in the scope or proper style of the article to list fifty synonyms for crack, or the names and synonyms of multi-drug combinations with no explanation of their effects. That seems like more of a Wiktionary thing to me at least. RookWeaver (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed regarding description of production

The process of production post reaction is erroneous. Please give citation for the description of the separation of oil from water, esp. regarding the taking up process of spinning, drying and shaping 24.196.200.82 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Smoke or vapour?

This article is currently written as though smoking is the same as inhaling a vapour. Both I and our article on smoking beg to differ: smoking is the "practice in which a substance is combusted and the resulting smoke is typically inhaled [...]". I know that in common language we talk about 'smoking' crack (so the word certainly has a place in this article) but is it not the case that really we mean that the crack cocaine is vaporised and the vapour inhaled? If so, I think we need to be clearer about the fact that this isn't really 'smoking' in the sense described in the article we have smoking.

For example, in this passage:

Crack vaporizes near temperature 90 °C (194 °F), much lower than the cocaine hydrochloride melting point of 190 °C (374 °F). Whereas cocaine hydrochloride cannot be smoked (burns with no effect), crack cocaine when smoked allows for quick absorption into the blood stream, and reaches the brain in eight seconds.

• 'Crack vaporizes near temperature 90 °C' suggests that the intended goal is indeed to vaporise the crack cocaine. (But it does not say that outright, and should if it is true.)
• '[...] cocaine hydrochloride cannot be smoked (burns with no effect)'. No, cocaine hydrochloride can be smoked, in that you could theoretically burn it and inhale the resulting smoke, although to no effect. The point here (I think) is that it cannot be vaporised in the way that crack can. In fact, we might say that it is crack cocaine that cannot strictly be smoked, because if you tried to burn it you would end up vaporising it first.
• '[...] crack cocaine when smoked' as established, unless I am much mistaken, this is again misleading in this more scientific part of the article.

I am not suggesting that we replace every instance of the words 'smoke', 'smoking', 'smoked', etc. with the vapour-related equivalent, but perhaps we should have one place in the article (probably in the 'Physical and chemical properties' section) where we make clear that actually 'smoking' crack is really vaporising it and inhaling the vapour, because that's chemically a big difference from burning it.

Relevant is this page which has "Technically, crack is not smoked: the user heats the side of the bowl, causing the cocaine base to vaporize [...]". I have had a brief look for more suitable references for this point, but right now I don't feel confident enough to make the change myself. If nobody else does it I'll probably give it a go at some point in the future.

AlexGallon (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say: I think another place to make the distinction might be in the intro, although I've just had a think about exactly how to do it and I'm not sure. The first sentence in

Crack cocaine [...] is a free base form of the stimulant cocaine that can be smoked. Crack offers a short, intense high to smokers.

is simply wrong, especially because a user who clicks on the smoking link learns that smoking is burning something and inhaling the smoke, neither of which occur here. I don't know the correct way to put this, because it would be silly not to reference the term 'smoking' here because that's what it's called in everyday language, but it is nonetheless incorrect. I considered maybe

Crack cocaine [...] is a free base form of the stimulant cocaine that can be vaporized and the vapor inhaled to give the user a short, intense high.

which is technically correct but does not mention the fact that the process described is almost universally known in English as 'smoking' crack.

AlexGallon (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)