Cocaine, the chemical, is the active drug ingredient in coca leaves the same way caffeine, the chemical, is the active ingredient in coffee and ethanol, the chemical, is the active ingredient in beer. Powder and crack cocaine deliver much higher doses of cocaine than raw coca leaves, much like liquor is more potent than beer, but the chemical is the drug here. It’s not like it’s chemically transformed from one substance into another like with fermentation; it’s concentrated, like with distillation.

> It’s not like it’s chemically transformed from one substance into another like with fermentation

Banks, the financial institutions, are not transformed into banks, exposed riverbeds, when they're proximate to water. Cocaine, the drug, and cocaine, the chemical, are simply homonyms. Claiming the Inca did cocaine is a dad joke, not serious argument.

While I see sense in articulating that cocaine use was different in 17th c. compared to now, I don't believe that you'd argue the same against someone saying that a person drinking beer is drinking alcohol, because beer has less alcohol than vodka.

To make this analogous, the words for "alcohol" and "vodka" would have to be the same. The OP is arguing that when people say "doing cocaine" they are generally referring to the high-strength powdered form, not the underlying chemical in general.

And that if we interpret the sentence like that (which we should if that's how it's generally understood) then it is not true that people were doing cocaine in the 17th century.

Cocaine hydrochloride (i.e. powder) isn’t even the only purified form of cocaine. There’s also crack. Would you argue that people who smoke crack aren’t doing cocaine?

Furthermore, the most purified form of drinking ethanol actually is called “grain alcohol”; Everclear is a popular brand.

> Would you argue that people who smoke crack aren’t doing cocaine?

Yes. This is true colloquially and legally.

Random tangent: now I’m curious if there are any languages where the word for alcohol and vodka (or whatever is locally the most common spirit) is the same. Seems plausible that there would be.

The word vodka is apparently derived from the Slavic word for water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodka#Etymology

The word "whisky" is derived from the Scottish Gaelic word for "water", too. (Maybe that's what your sibling comment is referring to?)

Scottish?

The only unserious argument here is your absurd analogy to banks. A homonym is when two words have totally unrelated meanings. Cocaine is the psychoactive drug found in coca leaves; we refer to cocaine hydrochloride (i.e. powder cocaine) as “cocaine” for the same reason we refer to Everclear as “grain alcohol”.

When people drink coffee, they don't say "I'm taking caffeine."

When people eat poppyseed bagels they don't say they're doing codeine or morphine.

It's generally understood that "smoking weed" is likely to be a different experience than "taking THC"

Poppyseed bagels don’t have a psychoactive dose of opioids and cannabis contains multiple cannabinoids, so those examples are totally irrelevant.

When it comes to coffee, people are generally aware that caffeine is the active ingredient. If you ask someone, “have you had any caffeine today?”, they’re not going to say “no” if they’ve had six cups of coffee. They’re going to say, “yes, I’ve had six cups of coffee”. They’re not going to try and pick a tedious argument that they didn’t really have caffeine because they drank coffee instead of snorting crushed up caffeine pills.

I suppose the better term would be synecdoche, since the similarity in pronunciation isn't coincidental, like "The sun rose in the morning." and "Look at the pretty rose petals." but is a form of motivated polysemy.

Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical. They're literally exactly the same thing. They're not homonyms.

> Cocaine, the drug, is cocaine, the chemical

Nope. Cocaine, the drug, is a cocaine salt. Commonly cocaine hydrochloride, but Wikipedia seems convinced it's also neutralised into sulfates and nitrates. Crack contains cocaine, the chemical, but is not cocaine, the drug.

I’m genuinely flabbergasted by these posts.

You are flabbergasted that an argumentative, person with autism would spend all night arguing crackhead semantics?

I mean, taking your definitions from the DEA for cocaine is just wrong. Even if you believe it to be meaningful, it is US-centric to a fault, and government definitions of things are not meant to generalize.

Crack is "crack cocaine". It is a Form of cocaine.

The separation of "cocaine" and "crack" was a policy and marketing choice, in order to make it possible that a black person would get 20 years for dealing the same drug that would only get a white person 5 years.

The people chewing coca leaves before the 1800s were doing so in order to consume the cocaine within.

While the white people consuming the cocaine were only doing it because they liked the smell, so they only get 5 years. ;)

Cocaine makes me feel like a new man. And he wants some too!

The DEA isn't even trying to say true things instead of false things; they routinely describe cocaine as a "narcotic" and lithium as a "methamphetamine precursor", because such lies enable them to increase their jurisdiction beyond what enabling statute law or public opinion would tolerate.

Someone saying that doing crack is doing cocaine is simply correct in a colloquial context. If the DEA says they are incorrect, they are simply bullshitting due to political incentives.