From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

More conciseness! We may yet catch up with the quality of Conservapedia! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:03, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Can someone explain to me why the methamphetamine page rambles on about how horrible meth is, yet the page for the second most addictive drug in existence has only song lyrics glorifying it? Either someone was lazy with their research, or the conservatives aren't the only ones who are biased...Rational guy (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

because all the cool kids do coke, while only losers use meth. I expecting its something to do with coke being more a rich mans drug and users can maybe avoid some the less desirable social effects, while meth (stateside anyhow, in the UK its more a wealthy gay mans drug) is cheap poor mans drug locking its users into dreadful poverty and addiction. Its all moot as methadrone so much more fucking fun. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
on top of the fact (in my opinion) that meth has a more powerful and more noticeable mind altering euphoric effect that will fuck you up much quicker after prolonged use than coke will, and the come down sucks all kinds of arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Add section "Coca" (or new page?)[edit]

Back in '08 I took a trip to Peru, and one breakfast ordered tea. Instead of a cheap teabag in warm water that I expected from ordering tea in the US, I got a mug with whole leaves. It was pretty good tea. I made a note of what it was, and when I returned to the US I tried to look up how to buy it. The first results that came up were "Is Coca Tea illegal in the US" which, to my surprise, the answer was a resounding "YES"

Thus began my research into all things coca, which kind of startled me and, to be honest, probably began my disillusionment with the US Government. Due to being Schedule-II (not just the raw form, but the leaf itself) in the UN, there's not been all that much research on the matter. The most comprehensive was a report around 1950 that studied it's use in the Andes, though there was also an aborted one in the 1990s....

I'm rambling. My basic question is: Would an article on Coca, or an additional section or two to this article, be within the scope of RW's mission? The basic gist of it, as far as I'd be able to write, is historical uses (bordering on woo for the Inca), studied physiological effects (again, sparse, but remarkably similar to caffeine in the form of coffee beans in severity and symptoms, except non-addictive), modern history (snake-oil salesmen through illegality, 20th-Century studies touching on phrenology-style racism, touching on US interventions in Latin America), which, depending on how conspiratorial the article should be, could also include the 1990 WHO report which, in a nutshell, appears was shut down by the US NIH (or closely-related organization) because the report didn't show reasons to have coca be Schedule-II. I'd have to find the sources for that whole story again, but the report itself is (or at least was) available on Wikileaks (unsure how reliable we consider them).

So, to bullet-point recap, it would be related to

  • Woo, specifically appeal to tradition and nature
  • Actual medicine
  • Addiction
  • US and international drug regulations
  • Ratialcism
  • US strong-arming in Latin America

Thoughts? Opinions? Am I an idiot? Thanks! Onychoprion (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RW drinking game[edit]

This is the appropriate beverage in discussions on this article - and possibly deserves a mention in the article. Anna Livia (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)