3 ms·

> I think this is akin to arguing that saying coffee has caffeine in it is misleading I don't agree. I don't know anybody snorting caffeine lines and it doesn'

• somenameforme 29d ago
  The point is you're arguing that it was diluted rather than concentrated cocaine. Sure, but it was indeed cocaine all the same. Cocaine tolerance is also, oddly enough, based on quantity rather than consistency. And so people taking small doses over time likely had negligible tolerance contrasted against a cokehead of today going for a bump as a warmup. Its exact potency are going to be impossible to assess because the only people that knew how much cocaine was in each serving, early on, took it to the grave with themselves. But the thing we can say is that (1) it was very non-zero and (2) consumption of said non-zero amount of cocaine was relatively widespread. Again I think it works very well as an analog to modern times. It's fairly certain that companies have run internal studies on addictiveness since 'engagement' is already little more than a euphemism for such, kept at arm's reach. Those studies will never see the light of day, and have almost certainly been long since wiped, so we'll never know exactly how much they knew. Other than they obviously knew and know that they're intentionally creating and providing a product that is extremely addictive, and exploiting that for economic benefit.