Merck Cocaine: Behind Some Of Those Fabulous Rolling Stones Songs
Zina Moukheiber
HEALTHWORKS
Guitarist and songwriter extraordinaire Keith Richards should have died a long time ago. He was a heroin addict for many years, which earned him the number one spot for ten years on New Musical Express’ list of rock stars most likely to die. He was also an aficionado of Merck cocaine—the pharmaceutical kind, a pure luxury compared to the street powder. In his autobiography Life, Richards confesses that the Rolling Stones’ 1975 tour was “fueled by Merck cocaine. It was when we initiated the building of hideaways behind the speakers on the stage so that we could have lines between songs.”
As Richards lets his supplier describe it (because the rocker’s memory is dim in that passage):
“Pharmaceutical cocaine cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America. It is pure, does not bring on depression or lethargy. A totally different type of euphoria, one of creativity, exists immediately when it is absorbed by the central nervous system. There are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms.”
Funny, another celebrity rhapsodized very much the same way about pharmaceutical cocaine; no, not Eric Clapton. He worked in another industry, and in much earlier times. In 1884, Sigmund Freud wrote Uber Coca. This is what he said:
“…exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person…You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work….In other words, you are simply normal, and it is soon hard to believe you are under the influence of any drug….Long intensive physical work is performed without any fatigue…This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleasant after-effects that follow exhilaration brought about by alcohol….Absolutely no craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug…”
The name Merck cocaine has stuck, ever since Merck of Germany became a major supplier of the stuff starting in the early 1800s, according to Steven Karch’s A Brief History of Cocaine. (Its American subsidiary split off after World War I). In the U.S., Parke-Davis—now part of Pfizer was the dominant player. Karch says that both Merck and Parke-Davis paid Freud to test cocaine, and endorse their product. He obviously came through.
When not consumed by artists, pharmaceutical cocaine is typically used as a local anesthetic, especially by ear, nose, and throat doctors.

PS: Keith Richards just turned 67 on December 18. New Musical Express was so wrong.

[blogs.forbes.com]

Interesting...I'd like to give it a try

Freddie Sessler (a dear friend of mine)

Freddie sounded to be quite a guy!

The best! (Mick did not care for him)

Mick wouldn't as Freddie was close to Keith!

Quote
proudmary
As Richards lets his supplier describe it (because the rocker’s memory is dim in that passage):
“Pharmaceutical cocaine cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America. It is pure, does not bring on depression or lethargy. A totally different type of euphoria, one of creativity, exists immediately when it is absorbed by the central nervous system. There are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms.”

This doesn't make sense.

Quote
crumbling_mice
Interesting...I'd like to give it a try

+1

Quote
MILKYWAY

Quote
proudmary
As Richards lets his supplier describe it (because the rocker’s memory is dim in that passage):
“Pharmaceutical cocaine cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America. It is pure, does not bring on depression or lethargy. A totally different type of euphoria, one of creativity, exists immediately when it is absorbed by the central nervous system. There are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms.”

This doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense about that?

Keith's book is full of nonense/denial/junkie bullshit about drugs and their effects. No Keith never mainlined heroin (remember CSBlues Keith?) no Merck C doesn't give ya nasty side effects...

Yeah sure!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-25 20:13 by dcba.

what is it that you think you see happening in CSBlues, dcba, besides some chick with her back turned
apparently doing something to Keith? it's a movie. have some popcorn :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-25 15:56 by with sssoul.

Quote
dcba
Keith's book is full of nonense/denial/junkie bullshit about drugs and their effects.

Why are you referring to Keith's book ?
The article that proudmary posted isn't from Keith's book.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
swiss

Quote
MILKYWAY

Quote
proudmary
As Richards lets his supplier describe it (because the rocker’s memory is dim in that passage):
“Pharmaceutical cocaine cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America. It is pure, does not bring on depression or lethargy. A totally different type of euphoria, one of creativity, exists immediately when it is absorbed by the central nervous system. There are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms.”

This doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense about that?

Hello swiss:

As someone with a chemistry background, it does not make sense for me to hear of this Merck cocaine that "cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America." Apparently the author is stating that this Merck cocaine is a chemically different substance, in that it gives a different euphoria and that it does not have the side effects typical of coca-leaf cocaine.

As someone familiar with chemistry, I have to ask: How is this Merck cocaine different? Is it made with something other than coca leaves? If so, what? Or is it that a "secret ingredient" has been added? If so, what?

I can believe Keith was getting super-pure coca-leaf cocaine, the type that gets shipped out of Central/South America before it is cut to death with baby laxative or what have you. But to say that he was getting some sort of "magical coke" with a different euphoria and no negative side effects doesn't pass the smell test.

"As someone with a chemistry background, it does not make sense for me to hear of this Merck cocaine that "cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America." Apparently the author is stating that this Merck cocaine is a chemically different substance, in that it gives a different euphoria and that it does not have the side effects typical of coca-leaf cocaine."

My thoughts exactly... In other words : junkie BS.

Quote
dcba
"As someone with a chemistry background, it does not make sense for me to hear of this Merck cocaine that "cannot be compared in any way to cocaine produced in Central or South America." Apparently the author is stating that this Merck cocaine is a chemically different substance, in that it gives a different euphoria and that it does not have the side effects typical of coca-leaf cocaine."

My thoughts exactly... In other words : junkie BS.

It's not the product it's the cut plus the petroleum catalyst. It is a different high. At least cleaner.

Very clear explanation swiss.

Edit: I responded to a rather long and clear explanation that swiss posted about the Merck cocaine. But that post has obviously been deleted. So my response to swiss looks a bit weird now.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-27 16:07 by Rolling Hansie.

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Very clear explanation swiss.

HA. More smoke blowing than at the Cannabis Cup. The article didn't say a damn thing about cut.

Quote
dancingmisterd

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Very clear explanation swiss.

HA. More smoke blowing than at the Cannabis Cup. The article didn't say a damn thing about cut.

I responded to a rather long and clear explanation that swiss posted about the Merck cocaine. But that post has obviously been deleted. So my response to swiss looks a bit weird now.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling