14 ms·

Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda

241 points by Libertatea 14y ago

leoedin 14y ago
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...
- digitalengineer 14y ago
  It actually refers to English soldiers fighting in the Dutch republic and drinking Dutch Gin before the battle. Time-frame: 17th century.
  - smackay 14y ago
    There were also a large contingent of Scottish mercenaries serving in the Low Countries, see http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-5599.html http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-5599.html http://www.irss.uoguelph.ca/article/view/635/1056 http://www.irss.uoguelph.ca/article/view/635/1056 It's not clear from the sources whether they also needed a stiff drink before going into battle ;)
- kahawe 14y ago
  Just because certain expressions might still be used today and might not be on the fore-front of racism awareness does not make them any less racist. But you are right, the article had it wrong: > Originally the phrase 'Dutch courage' referred to the courage that results from indulgence in Dutch gin (jenever), but 'Dutch courage' can also refer to the gin itself. [...] Because of the effects of Dutch gin English soldiers fighting in the Dutch Republic in the 17th century apparently called the drink "Dutch Courage". So it never actually referred to the people.
  - leoedin 14y ago
    This presents an interesting point of consideration. If a saying has its roots in racism, is it still racist if its applied centures later to a completely different context? I'd argue that even if "Dutch courage" was originally in some way racist against the dutch, the racist intent has been stripped away by time. Dutch courage isn't a racist saying at this point, it's just a universally recognised expression for substance-induced courage. A bit of googling reveals that there's quite a lot of expression with racist roots that we use all the time in different contexts.[1] [1]: It is a cracked article, but it makes some valid points: http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-every-day.html http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-...
    - jules 14y ago
      Regardless of the origins, if an expression is applied to a different context, it might still cause subconscious associations to form in the human brain. If you hear "Dutch courage" often enough, you might subconsciously start to link the Dutch to cowardice. For a more modern example take the word "gay". It originally meant "happy". Then it meant "homosexual". As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". If somebody uses the word in a context like "that movie is gay", that reinforces the connection between the concept "bad" and the concept "homosexual". Therefore what's important is not the origins of a word, but its current associations and effects: "my car was vandalized" is OK but "that movie is gay" is not.
      - shardling 14y ago
        >As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". It is possible that this is kind like how the word bad itself was derived! (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad) >a mystery word with no apparent relatives in other languages. Possibly from Old English derogatory term bæddel and its diminutive bædling "effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast"
        14y ago
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > "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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars
  - neumann_alfred 14y ago
    Nah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage
  - leoedin 14y ago
    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.
- hencq 14y ago
  That was the joke.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tokenadult 14y ago
  There was a war between England and the Netherlands centuries ago that resulted in terms like "Dutch treat," "Dutch uncle," "Dutch courage," and so on. A personal website based in the Netherlands http://homepages.cwi.nl/~sjoerd/dutch.html http://homepages.cwi.nl/~sjoerd/dutch.html helpfully collects many of those terms, but it seems that the author of the website hasn't read the same book about word and phrase origins I read many years ago (I'm sorry I don't remember which specific book it was, as I read many books on that topic) that explains that those terms entered the English language, along with many others that are now obsolete, during the war. I have a lot of Dutch friends (Dutch nationals in the United States on work-related visas) because of my children's involvement in soccer. The long-ago war between England and the Netherlands is now, er, water over the dam, and indeed one of my Dutch friends has an English wife. So the origin of these expressions is largely forgotten, but, yes, the phrases originated in a wartime contempt for Dutch people among the English.
  - dirktheman 14y ago
    It's funny how there are a lot of expressions with the word 'dutch' in it with a negative connotation. I'm Dutch, and I can't think of any expression with the word 'Engels' in it, both with positive or negative connotation.
    - nikatwork 14y ago
      In Australia, we have the "dutch oven", which is a childish gag involving flatulence. I have no idea how this is connected to the Dutch. Then again, in the 80s here everyone made racist Irish jokes, but now they all pretend to be part Irish as it's trendy. (Disclaimer: I actually am part Irish). People are weird.
      - dmayle 14y ago
        Sure, but that one stems from a cast iron pot called the Dutch oven (called so because the Dutch excelled at making them). They're cast iron puts that you put something into, and often seal under a layer of hot ash for cooking. The childish gag involves sealing someone under to 'cook', just like you would with a Dutch oven.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
damian2000 14y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  > 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 14y ago
    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."
  - MacsHeadroom 14y ago
    Ah, yes. Nose medicine.
- akandiah 14y ago
  > for use in medicine The compound is cocaine hydrochloride.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Because of this legal medicinal use, cocaine is actually a Schedule II drug in the US. Marijuana is Schedule I. Weed is actually more illegal than cocaine.
betterunix 14y ago
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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jinushaun 14y ago
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.
- CapitalistCartr 14y ago
  But cocaine is extracted from coca leaves. Even a trivial amount in soda would be a problem in the USA. Wikipedia: " . . . the alkaloid content of coca leaves is low: between .25% and .77%, and production of cocaine from coca requires complex chemical processes.[2] This means that chewing the leaves or drinking coca tea does not produce the high people experience with cocaine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca
- deelowe 14y ago
  What do you mean? Coca is most certainly the plant that contains cocaine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca The process for producing pure cocaine(the powdery stuff) is really just an elaborate extraction process. I think it's fair to say that coca-cola originally contained cocaine prior to the invention of the process to remove the alkaloid.
- betterunix 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    A cup of coca tea contains about 1/5th of a line of cocaine, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_tea EDIT: This drink sounds kind of interesting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Colla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Colla
bjhoops1 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
  - Avshalom 14y ago
    heroin is in fact a genericized trademark.
    - jrogers65 14y ago
      Did not know this. Apparently Bayer lost the trademark after WW1.
  - bjhoops1 14y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War (Ever see the portrayal of Marijuana's illegalization at the beginning of Pineapple Express?)
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      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.
  - kristofferR 14y ago
Camillo 14y ago
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?
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary just because at the time concern was focused on blacks?" Cocaine isn't any worse than caffeine, which is to say that it's not bad at all. It's actually better in many ways, e.g. it's much less harmful to unborn children. As far as I know there aren't any health or social harms from cocaine, at least at the dosage and ingestion method we're talking about here.
  - zevyoura 14y ago
    Do you have sources for this? My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative. This page (which I believe is meant to be sympathetic to legalization) seems to imply cocaine is 'worse' on every metric: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      "Do you have sources for this?" The two best sources would be - The Consumer Union's Guide To Licit and Illicit Substances: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen... (Written by the same non-profit that writes consumer reports) - The WHO report on cocaine: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didnt-want-you-to-see.html http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didn... "My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative." It's not, the addictive potential is almost identical to that of caffeine. The page you're linking to is wrong, they're comparing people snorting (or smoking) cocaine with people drinking caffeine. They're also not comparing the harms caused by the drugs, but rather the harms caused to users. This might sound pedantic, but it's actually really important because the most hardcore drug addicts are drawn to the drugs that have the reputations of being the most hardcore. Which means that cocaine users on average have more health problems that caffeine users, but that doesn't mean that cocaine is any more dangerous.
ebbv 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
  - bitwize 14y ago
    You'd think that whole Scientology thing would have convinced them...
  - davidroberts 14y ago
    The Atlantic has definitely jumped the shark. It used to be one of my favorite magazines.
rsanheim 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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-oral-cocaine http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/394593-Bioavailability-of...
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      > 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 http://examine.com/supplements/Caffeine/#summary14-3
tjic 14y ago
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_of_the_term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Origin_o...). 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 14y ago
  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.
  - loeg 14y ago
    Obligatory plug of Bootleggers and Baptists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
  - saraid216 14y ago
    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-Losurdo/dp/1844676935 http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Counter-History-Domenico-Lo...
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      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.
Geekette 14y ago
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.
NoPiece 14y ago
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 14y ago
  > 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 14y ago
    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.
nicholassmith 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
shawndumas 14y ago
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-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secr...
- philwelch 14y ago
  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.
davidroberts 14y ago
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 14y ago
  So how exactly do you define "race"?
  - davidroberts 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        Yes, but that is not what people mean when they say 'race' today.
tobyjsullivan 14y ago
"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.

241 points by Libertatea 14y ago

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...

digitalengineer 14y ago
It actually refers to English soldiers fighting in the Dutch republic and drinking Dutch Gin before the battle. Time-frame: 17th century.
- smackay 14y ago
  There were also a large contingent of Scottish mercenaries serving in the Low Countries, see http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-5599.html http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-5599.html http://www.irss.uoguelph.ca/article/view/635/1056 http://www.irss.uoguelph.ca/article/view/635/1056 It's not clear from the sources whether they also needed a stiff drink before going into battle ;)
kahawe 14y ago
Just because certain expressions might still be used today and might not be on the fore-front of racism awareness does not make them any less racist. But you are right, the article had it wrong: > Originally the phrase 'Dutch courage' referred to the courage that results from indulgence in Dutch gin (jenever), but 'Dutch courage' can also refer to the gin itself. [...] Because of the effects of Dutch gin English soldiers fighting in the Dutch Republic in the 17th century apparently called the drink "Dutch Courage". So it never actually referred to the people.
- leoedin 14y ago
  This presents an interesting point of consideration. If a saying has its roots in racism, is it still racist if its applied centures later to a completely different context? I'd argue that even if "Dutch courage" was originally in some way racist against the dutch, the racist intent has been stripped away by time. Dutch courage isn't a racist saying at this point, it's just a universally recognised expression for substance-induced courage. A bit of googling reveals that there's quite a lot of expression with racist roots that we use all the time in different contexts.[1] [1]: It is a cracked article, but it makes some valid points: http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-every-day.html http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-...
  - jules 14y ago
    Regardless of the origins, if an expression is applied to a different context, it might still cause subconscious associations to form in the human brain. If you hear "Dutch courage" often enough, you might subconsciously start to link the Dutch to cowardice. For a more modern example take the word "gay". It originally meant "happy". Then it meant "homosexual". As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". If somebody uses the word in a context like "that movie is gay", that reinforces the connection between the concept "bad" and the concept "homosexual". Therefore what's important is not the origins of a word, but its current associations and effects: "my car was vandalized" is OK but "that movie is gay" is not.
    - shardling 14y ago
      >As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". It is possible that this is kind like how the word bad itself was derived! (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad) >a mystery word with no apparent relatives in other languages. Possibly from Old English derogatory term bæddel and its diminutive bædling "effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast"
      - 14y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> "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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  Nah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage
- leoedin 14y ago
  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.
hencq 14y ago
That was the joke.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tokenadult 14y ago
There was a war between England and the Netherlands centuries ago that resulted in terms like "Dutch treat," "Dutch uncle," "Dutch courage," and so on. A personal website based in the Netherlands http://homepages.cwi.nl/~sjoerd/dutch.html http://homepages.cwi.nl/~sjoerd/dutch.html helpfully collects many of those terms, but it seems that the author of the website hasn't read the same book about word and phrase origins I read many years ago (I'm sorry I don't remember which specific book it was, as I read many books on that topic) that explains that those terms entered the English language, along with many others that are now obsolete, during the war. I have a lot of Dutch friends (Dutch nationals in the United States on work-related visas) because of my children's involvement in soccer. The long-ago war between England and the Netherlands is now, er, water over the dam, and indeed one of my Dutch friends has an English wife. So the origin of these expressions is largely forgotten, but, yes, the phrases originated in a wartime contempt for Dutch people among the English.
- dirktheman 14y ago
  It's funny how there are a lot of expressions with the word 'dutch' in it with a negative connotation. I'm Dutch, and I can't think of any expression with the word 'Engels' in it, both with positive or negative connotation.
  - nikatwork 14y ago
    In Australia, we have the "dutch oven", which is a childish gag involving flatulence. I have no idea how this is connected to the Dutch. Then again, in the 80s here everyone made racist Irish jokes, but now they all pretend to be part Irish as it's trendy. (Disclaimer: I actually am part Irish). People are weird.
    - dmayle 14y ago
      Sure, but that one stems from a cast iron pot called the Dutch oven (called so because the Dutch excelled at making them). They're cast iron puts that you put something into, and often seal under a layer of hot ash for cooking. The childish gag involves sealing someone under to 'cook', just like you would with a Dutch oven.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

damian2000 14y ago

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company

jpdoctor 14y ago
> 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 14y ago
  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."
- MacsHeadroom 14y ago
  Ah, yes. Nose medicine.
akandiah 14y ago
> for use in medicine The compound is cocaine hydrochloride.
philwelch 14y ago
Because of this legal medicinal use, cocaine is actually a Schedule II drug in the US. Marijuana is Schedule I. Weed is actually more illegal than cocaine.

betterunix 14y ago

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.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jinushaun 14y ago

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.

CapitalistCartr 14y ago
But cocaine is extracted from coca leaves. Even a trivial amount in soda would be a problem in the USA. Wikipedia: " . . . the alkaloid content of coca leaves is low: between .25% and .77%, and production of cocaine from coca requires complex chemical processes.[2] This means that chewing the leaves or drinking coca tea does not produce the high people experience with cocaine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca
deelowe 14y ago
What do you mean? Coca is most certainly the plant that contains cocaine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca The process for producing pure cocaine(the powdery stuff) is really just an elaborate extraction process. I think it's fair to say that coca-cola originally contained cocaine prior to the invention of the process to remove the alkaloid.
betterunix 14y ago
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 14y ago
  A cup of coca tea contains about 1/5th of a line of cocaine, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_tea EDIT: This drink sounds kind of interesting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Colla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Colla

bjhoops1 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.
- Avshalom 14y ago
  heroin is in fact a genericized trademark.
  - jrogers65 14y ago
    Did not know this. Apparently Bayer lost the trademark after WW1.
- bjhoops1 14y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War (Ever see the portrayal of Marijuana's illegalization at the beginning of Pineapple Express?)
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    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.
- kristofferR 14y ago

Camillo 14y ago

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?

Alex3917 14y ago
"Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary just because at the time concern was focused on blacks?" Cocaine isn't any worse than caffeine, which is to say that it's not bad at all. It's actually better in many ways, e.g. it's much less harmful to unborn children. As far as I know there aren't any health or social harms from cocaine, at least at the dosage and ingestion method we're talking about here.
- zevyoura 14y ago
  Do you have sources for this? My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative. This page (which I believe is meant to be sympathetic to legalization) seems to imply cocaine is 'worse' on every metric: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "Do you have sources for this?" The two best sources would be - The Consumer Union's Guide To Licit and Illicit Substances: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen... (Written by the same non-profit that writes consumer reports) - The WHO report on cocaine: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didnt-want-you-to-see.html http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didn... "My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative." It's not, the addictive potential is almost identical to that of caffeine. The page you're linking to is wrong, they're comparing people snorting (or smoking) cocaine with people drinking caffeine. They're also not comparing the harms caused by the drugs, but rather the harms caused to users. This might sound pedantic, but it's actually really important because the most hardcore drug addicts are drawn to the drugs that have the reputations of being the most hardcore. Which means that cocaine users on average have more health problems that caffeine users, but that doesn't mean that cocaine is any more dangerous.

ebbv 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.
- bitwize 14y ago
  You'd think that whole Scientology thing would have convinced them...
- davidroberts 14y ago
  The Atlantic has definitely jumped the shark. It used to be one of my favorite magazines.

rsanheim 14y ago

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 14y ago
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-oral-cocaine http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/394593-Bioavailability-of...
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    > 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 http://examine.com/supplements/Caffeine/#summary14-3

tjic 14y ago

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_of_the_term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Origin_o...). 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 14y ago
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.
- loeg 14y ago
  Obligatory plug of Bootleggers and Baptists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
- saraid216 14y ago
  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-Losurdo/dp/1844676935 http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Counter-History-Domenico-Lo...
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    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.

Geekette 14y ago

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.

NoPiece 14y ago

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 14y ago
> 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 14y ago
  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.

nicholassmith 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago

shawndumas 14y ago

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

philwelch 14y ago
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.

davidroberts 14y ago

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 14y ago
So how exactly do you define "race"?
- davidroberts 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      Yes, but that is not what people mean when they say 'race' today.

tobyjsullivan 14y ago

"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.