Saturday, July 11, 2015

Drug Policy Alliance - Covington & Burling 2015 Panel Proposal Invite Letter

Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10001
                                                                                    June 30, 2015

Dear Drug Policy Alliance:

Enclosed is a suggested panel proposal for our conference this November 18-21, 2015 at the Crystal Gateway Marriott at 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 “Covington & Burling And Drug Policy Reform”.

 Covington & Burling has a long and fascinating involvement in policy regarding drugs and other consumables.  The firms’ founder James Harry Covington was present as a congressman in deliberations regarding amendments to the 1906 Pure Foods and Drugs Act that lead to the crafting of the 1914 Harrison ‘Narcotics’ Act.  He subsequently became a judge who upheld the Harrison Act’s regulatory delegation of power to the U.S Department of Treasury regarding the supposed limits of ‘professional medical practice’ – a set of actions betraying medical freedom of choice.   He co-founded this firm in 1919, with its first client being the Grocery Manufacturers Association; since, Covington & Burling has been perhaps the single largest legal representative of pharmaceutical and tobacco interests.  As such, Covington & Burling’s involvement with the drug policy movement naturally raises eyebrows. 

Proposed invited speakers include the Covington & Burling pro bono program’s Marialuisa S. Gallozzi, in 1988 “assigned primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation”, a partner in the insurance coverage and food and drug practices. ... [who]… provides food and drug advice to manufacturers of medical devices, over-the-counter drugs, and dietary supplement, and author of a landmark paper on ‘“The (U.S.) Food Industry’s View About the Development of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Industrials” (GMO tobacco plants for growing patentable molecule pharmaceuticals) presented at the 2004 USDA conference panel “Perils and Pitfalls of GMOs”;  and  Joshua Greenburg , formerly with Covington & Burling and now with Womble Carlyle, also of Washington, D.C., who worked on Gonzales v Raich while he was working at Covington & Burling.

A panel as this would be invaluable opportunity for an exchange hopefully leading to an improvement with new and different initiatives to end the drug war.

I suggest holding this panel about the Covington & Burling involvement in drug policy/reform, along with my other longstanding panel proposals for such upon Coca; Tinctures of Opium, Wines Of Coca, Natural Plant Based Drugs Perverted by Prohibition; and the History of the Drug War.

I also suggest a panel to be held on the Therapeutic Benefits of Cannabis Oil and Ibogaine.

Such panels would go far to provide a fuller understanding of the general context of the drug war, specifically how it creates its very problems that its supporters use as its justification.  Such would go beyond the lamentable trend to simply focus upon such problems as somehow intrinsic with the drugs themselves (without regard to forms and the dynamics of pharmacokinetics), for the sake of more and more of the same narrow medicalization and bureaucratization being presented as somehow the only ‘solutions’ worthy of discussion.   

As if we can always hold panels on methadone, and crack, but neither Ibogaine, Opium, nor Coca.

                                                                                    Douglas A. Willinger
                                                                                    Freedom of Medicine and Diet

Cc: Marialuisa S. Gallozzi Esq. Covington & Burling
      Joshua Greenburg, Esq. Womble Carlyle

Monday, June 22, 2015

Covington & Burling and Drug Policy Reform & Creation

Drug Policy Alliance Panel Proposal 
for the International Drug Policy Reform Conference;
November 18-21, 2015:

Crystal Gateway Marriott
1700 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202

Covington & Burling and Drug Policy

James Harry Covington

The Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling has long been involved with the drug policy movement.  As mentioned by Dr. Arnold S. Trebach, co founder of the Drug Policy Foundation in his 1986 book The Great American Drug War at page 327:
"... Mr Hutchins made urgent calls for assistance around the country, including one to Kevin Zeese of NORML in Washington.  Mr. Zeese contacted one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, Covington & Burling of Washington, D.C.  Lawyers David B. Isbell and Michael G. Michaelson, who is also a medical doctor, entered the case pro bono on behalf of Joe Hutchins, arguing in their first memorandum of law filed in November 1985 the the defense of medical necessity should be heard.  A judge issued another stay of the case and the case is now on appeal."
Commonwealth v Hutchins was an early medical marijuanna case:

Joseph Hutchins, was a forty-eight year old Navy veteran who suffered from scleroderma and Raynaud’s phenomenon.131 In addition to causing other physical ailments, these diseases had an especially severe effect on Hutchins’ gastrointestinal tract.132 Hutchins found that smoking marijuana alleviated many of his symptoms including: nausea; loss of appetite; difficulty in eating, drinking or swallowing; loss of mobility of the esophagus; spasticity; hypertension; and anxiety.133 Unable to secure a legal supply of marijuana, Hutchins was eventually arrested for cultivating and possessing two pounds of marijuana with the intent to distribute.134 The court determined that a threshold question in such cases is whether the harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law significantly outweighs the harm that reasonably could result from the court’s acceptance of necessity as an excuse.135 Only when the circumstances favor excusing the defendant, will the court then inquire into the elements of the defense.136 The court held that the harm to the defendant did not [*PG719]outweigh the potential harm to the public as a result of the negative impact on drug enforcement efforts, and thus, there was no error in denying the right to present the medical necessity defense.137

Covington & Burling has been directly involved with drug policy reform organizations through their pro bono program since at least 1988. It was then when the firm selected an attorney that they hired in 1987, and who is subsequently listed as insurance, food additive and pharmaceutical industry specialist, to advise the Drug Policy Alliance’s predecessor organization, the Drug Policy Foundation, and at Covington since.
While the Drug Policy Foundation has outstanding counsel in Kevin Zeese, the leading Washington law firm Covington and Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to corporate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington and Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”
In 2005 the firm’s web site (Health page) would note their long standing involvement with drug policy reform organizations.
Commonwealth v. Hutchins. We represent Mr. Hutchins and the interests of similarly situated patients for whom the medical use of marijuana is necessary, in a variety of state and national initiatives aimed at decriminalizing such use. We work closely with the Drug Policy Foundation, the Marijuana Policy Project and sympathetic members of Congress and selected state legislatures. American Civil Liberties Union - Drug Policy Litigation Project. We were asked to assist the ACLU in preparing a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency in support of an application by a professor at the University of Massachusetts for registration to manufacture or distribute controlled substances for the purposes of a scientific study on medical marijuana. Specifically, they requested that we opine on the consistency of the application with the United States' treaty requirements pursuant to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. We have continued to provide advice on related aspects of this matter.
And as noted at the web site Raw Story in a post dated September 2011:
"The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) has received free legal representation in a lawsuit against the DEA over a license to grow marijuana for federally regulated research.
The D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling LLP, one of the foremost law firms representing the pharmaceutical industry, has offered pro-bono legal representation to the research group to appeal the DEA’s August 15 final order in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. MAPS estimated the law firm saved them $175,000 in legal costs.

The DEA rejected University of Massachusetts professor Lyle Craker request to obtain a license to grow marijuana to study its potential medical uses, claiming that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can be the only one to supply marijuana for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated research."

Covington & Burling was involved with the landmark Raich v Gonzalez case via at least one of its attorneys, Joshua Greenburg

This work follows a long history of involvement with food and drug policy, going back to its founding in 1919 when it took its first client the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and went on to become arguably the largest and most important legal representative of the food, pharmaceuticals and tobacco-cigarette industry. As the firm describes itself:
The founders of Covington & Burling foresaw the pervasive effects of the forthcoming era of federal legislation, regulation, and taxation. In 1919, they sought to create a firm in the nation's capital that could advise and represent corporations located anywhere in the nation or the world on a wide range of legal issues. Today our Washington office has over 300 lawyers representing clients according to the highest standards and fulfilling the firm's strong commitment to public service. Our lawyers are supported by nearly 100 paralegals and by information management specialists in the library, and in the litigation and practice support, and technology departments.
The firm was founded by James Harry Covington, a law professor at Georgetown University Law, had served as a federal judge who upheld the Harrison ‘narcotics’ Act of 1914, after serving as a US Congressman who was present at the Congressional deliberations regarding amending the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act that led to the creation of the 1914 Harrison Act. That case would uphold the Harrison Act’s delegation of regulatory authority to the U.S. Treasury Department to define what constituted ‘professional medical practice’- effectively giving that entity the authority to practice medicine without a license.

The firm is described as "...not just another law office..."
From “The Super-Lawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firm” 
by Joseph C. Goulden; chapter 1: “Covington & Burling: Pinnacle of Power” pp 21-22

“… Covington and Burling is not just another law office. It is, in fact, Washington’s oldest, largest and probably best national law firm. At one time or another, it has performed legal services for most blue-chip corporations in America. Unlike many forms, Covington and Burling doesn’t list representative clients in Martindale and Hubbell, the quasi-official legal directory. But, estimates one partner, “We’ve done things for, I’d say, twenty percent of the companies on Fortune’s list of the five hundred top corporations.” GM, AT&T, DuPont, CBS, American Airlines- you get the idea. Because of he diversity of talent afforded by the sheer size, Covington and Burling is perhaps the only law firm in Washington that can assign a specialist to handle any problem a client has before the Federal government, from defending a criminal antitrust case to obtaining an arms export license or convincing the Food and Drug Administration of the safety of a patent medicine or fancy new combination drug. Covington and Burling lawyers possess that special confidence that comes from expertise and power, and think in commensurately grand terms.”
Covington & Burling is not simply a leader in representing food and pharmaceutical interests, but also the Tobacco-cigarette industry.

Covington & Burling also served as "corporate affairs consultants" to the Philip Morris group of companies, according to a 1993 internal budget review document which indicated the firm was paid $280,000 to "serve as general counsel fo the Consumer Products Company Tort Coalition, agree the legal objectives with member company litigators, draft legislation and amendments, prepare lobby papers and testimony for legislative committees and administer the coalition's budget". [6]

Covington & Burling was involved in organizing Philip Morris' Whitecoat Project, designed to help obscure the health effects of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

During the $280 billion U.S. federal lawsuit against Big Tobacco, Covington & Burling partner John Rupp, a former lawyer with the industry-funded Tobacco Institute, testified that "the industry sought out scientists and paid them to make an 'objective appraisal' of whether secondhand smoke was harmful to non-smokers, a move they hoped would dispel the 'extreme views' of some anti-smoking activists." He said "the scientists, who came from prestigious institutions such as Georgetown University and the University of Massachusetts, did not consider themselves to be working 'on behalf' of cigarette makers even though they were being paid by the industry." Rupp said, "We were paying them to share their views in forums where they would be usefully presented," according to Reuters. [7]

Partners in Covington & Burling include, but are not limited to, Keith Teel, Allan Topol and John Rupp, who have knowledge of lobbying tactics employed in Texas by the tobacco industry. The "push poll" conducted January 20-25, 1996, regarding Attorney General Dan Morales, was commissioned by Covington & Burling, and funded by Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Teel was a member of the tobacco industry delegation who met with Attorney General Dan Morales in February, 1996 in an attempt to prevent the filing of the state's lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recoup Medicaid costs for treating sick smokers. Teel has knowledge of the tobacco industry's tactics employed in Texas, including the use of "push polls" to intimidate or control public officials' actions.

Allan Topol of C&B attended a meeting of the Research Directors of Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris, and Liggett & Myers at Liggett & Myers Operations Center in Durham, NC on May 24, 1968. The objective of the meeting was to determine the variation and the amounts of Federal Trace Commission (FTC)-determined tar exposure which various groups of the population encounter when smoking various cigarettes. He attended the December 7, 1967, meeting at the Research Triangle Institute regarding individual's smoke exposure. He has knowledge of smokers' "compensation" techniques and the inaccuracies of the FTC method for measuring tar/nicotine exposure to smokers. Mr. Topol has knowledge regarding nicotine addiction, nicotine manipulation and disease/cancer causation. Covington & Burling were Counsel to the Tobacco Institute and Lorillard Counsel for Tobacco Sales. (PMI's Introduction to Privileged Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996)

Covington & Burling & Big Tobacco - 1964

Covington & Burling & Big Tobacco - 1987
Naturally thus, the participation of Covington & Burling in the drug policy reform-legalization movement is potentially quite eyebrow raising- and deserves spotlighting via a panel as here proposed.

- Attorneys with the pro bono program with groups as the Drug Policy Foundation-Drug Policy Alliance.

- Attorneys who have worked upon various cases such as Raich v, Gonzales.

These would include:

- Marialuisa Gallozzi, the C&B attorney in 1988 “assigned primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation”; a partner in the insurance coverage and food and drug practices. ... [who]… provides food and drug advice to manufacturers of medical devices, over-the-counter drugs, and dietary supplement;, author of a landmark paper on ‘“The (U.S.) Food Industry’s View About the Development of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Industrials” (GMO tobacco plants for growing patentable molecule pharmaceuticals) presented at the 2004 USDA conference panel “Perils and Pitfalls of GMOs”; She is described as as a “rising star ... an intellectually strong negotiator and adviser with excellent judgment.” [who is] “really making a name for herself”; who worked on shepherding the regulatory process for various food additives, including that by 3M during the early 1990s; cited as a Charles F.C. Ruff Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year (2004).   In 2014 she was cited by Business Insurance magazine as a "Woman to Watch".  The firm hired her in 1987, where she works to this very day.

- Joshua Greenburg , formerly with Covington & Burling and now with Womble Carlyle, also of Washington, D.C. . According to Angela Raich’s web site, Greenburg “ practices focuses on products-liability and appellate litigation. Before joining Covington and Burling, Josh clerked for Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 2001 to 2002”.

According to the web site of Womble Carlyle, Greenburg:
Achieved favorable outcome in case involving Commerce Clause challenge to application of Controlled Substances Act to patient’s medical use of home-grown marijuana on physician’s recommendation, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005), and Due Process Clause and medical necessity challenges on remand, Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007). - See more at:
A panel as this would be invaluable not only for spotlighting the Covington & Burling role in drug policy, but as well present an opportunity for an exchange hopefully leading to an improvement with new and different initiatives to end the drug war as a logical way to address the the karma of the firm's co-founder's involvement in assisting in bringing about prohibition during the early 1900s.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Family Research Council Disregards The Book of Genesis

FRC ignores the Book of Genesis ' use the herbs of the earth as meat' via reactionary interpretations of versus against excess that would define any amount of use as such, even disregarding dosage.  Though supposedly 'evangelical' - 'protestant' , 'Christian',  FRC adopts the stance of the satanic Mystery Babylon as pushed by the Roman Catholic Church

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

Christian Faith and Marijuana Use

By Rob Schwarzwalder Senior Vice-President

According to the White House National Office of Drug Control Policy, "Since 1996, 20 states and Washington, D.C. have passed laws allowing smoked marijuana to be used for a variety of medical conditions."[1] This trend reflects what seems to be a growing national tolerance for the use of marijuana for both recreational and medical purposes.[2]

In our time, the recreational use of illicit drugs has become increasingly widespread. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) notes that "Illicit drug use in America has been increasing. In 2012, an estimated 23.9 million Americans aged 12 or older-or 9.2 percent of the population-had used an illicit drug or abused a psychotherapeutic medication (such as a pain reliever, stimulant, or tranquilizer) in the past month. This is up from 8.3 percent in 2002." The NIDA goes on to note that "The increase mostly reflects a recent rise in the use of marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug... In 2012, there were 18.9 million current (past-month) users-about 7.3 percent of people aged 12 or older-up from 14.4 million (5.8 percent) in 2007."[3]

Some argue that moderate use of a drug like marijuana, which often is seen as non-addictive and a much milder drug than heroin, is no different than having a glass of wine at dinner. However, medical experts have found that marijuana has far more harmful and complex psychoactive effects than a glass of wine.
[source? Apparently FRC is unaware of the 180 degree change in opinion by one of the U.S. government's leading researchers on Cannabis:]
In this document, the focus will be on the guidance scripture offers concerning substance abuse.

The Bible's Guidance on the Use of Intoxicants
The Bible is clear that drunkenness is wrong (Proverbs 23:21, Isaiah 28:1-8). It makes one vulnerable not only to excessive actions but conduct inconsistent with Godly living. Consequently, using an alcoholic beverage and, by extension, a drug to alter one's mind and emotional state is not only unwise in itself, it is also, more importantly, unacceptable to God. Given the inherently intoxicant nature of hallucinogens, virtually any use of such drugs as marijuana can be viewed as counter to scripture.

None of us can sustain the sound minds and healthy bodies God desires us to have when we place ourselves under the controlling influence of something other than his Spirit. In fact, Paul the Apostle warns believers in Ephesians 5:18 not to be drunk with wine, then contrasts drunkenness with the "filling" of the Spirit. He thus infers concern that just as the Holy Spirit would fill every area of our beings, wine can do the same thing, thereby usurping the role of God in one's life. The principle: Don't let anything but the Spirit of God control your thinking and acting.

The implication for marijuana, which is mind-altering, harmful to the brain, and potentially addictive,[4] is clear. Additionally, there is really no such thing as "safe" substance abuse. As the Catholic Church's Council for Health Care Workers notes in a recent publication, "so-called soft drugs... [foment] the same type of dependence mentality and the loss of personal dignity that hard drugs produce."[5]

Responsibility to Care for the Body

From the dietary laws of the Old Testament to Paul's injunction to Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake (1 Timothy 5:23), God's Word instructs believers to be wise stewards of the physical bodies. He has given humans bodies for his own glory and their own good. Jesus modeled this concern when he called his disciples to "come aside to a deserted place and rest a while, for ... [because] they did not even have time to eat" due to the constant demands of the crowds (Mark 6:31-32).

Consuming a substance that is intrinsically harmful and that diminishes the capacity of the mind and spirit to respond obediently to God clearly violates the scriptural call to faithful stewardship of the body. As Paul asks the Corinthians, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). This rhetorical question invites its own answer: If our bodies are his, they do not belong to us and should be stewarded in such a way as to be ready instruments in Christ's hands.

"Present your bodies a living sacrifice," Paul told the church in Rome, "holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service of worship" (Romans 12:1). Presentation of our bodies, our very lives, to God is impossible when a drug like marijuana clouds judgment and destroys the capacity for human-divine fellowship.
[DW note- IOW lie to yourself and pretend that Cannabis is intrinsically unhealthy to consume in any amount while alcohol may be acceptable].

Character and Substance Abuse

Throughout scripture, self-control is presented as one of the chief characteristics of the godly person (e.g. Titus 2:11-14; Galatians 5:22-23). A person under the control of anything other than the Spirit of God, be it alcohol, marijuana, or any drug that removes our ability to think coherently and respond honorably to the Lord, is an idol and a dangerous replacement of the work of the Spirit and the Word in our lives.

The Christian has been "predestined to be conformed to the image (God's) Son," Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29). Such conformity is impeded when the believer submits his mind and will to something other than his professed Lord. As Jesus said, no one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Either Christians serve themselves and gratify "the desires of the flesh" (Galatians 5:16) or consciously, constantly, and committedly serve Christ. There is no middle ground, and substance abuse, including the use of marijuana as a vehicle for recreation, offers a stark contrast to submission to the King of kings.

Submission to the Governing Authorities

God's Word also calls Christians to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). Whatever laws are changed or modified at the state level, "It is important to recognize that these state marijuana laws do not change the fact that using marijuana continues to be an offense under federal law. Nor do these state laws change the criteria or process for [Food and Drug Administration] approval of safe and effective medications."[6]

If, then, Christians are to follow the dictates of the law insofar as they are consistent with God's Word, they should avoid practices that violate statutes established by the authorities set over us by God. This includes obedience to drug laws.

Drug Use and the Occult

In the New Testament, the Greek word pharmakeia (from which we get our word "pharmacy," or drug store) is used for "the employment of drugs, for any purpose; sorcery, magic, enchantment."[7] In Revelation 9:21 for example, the relationship between the use of drugs ("magic potions") and accessing the demonic world is very clear (cf. Grant Osborn, Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002, p. 387).

Drug abuse was seen in the ancient world as aiding the user to enter the presence of the demonic. Having lost control of his mind, the person on drugs could more easily be influenced by evil spirits. While to the modern eye this may appear curious, the relationship between substance abuse and demonism is evident in the New Testament and in many areas of the developing world today.


NIDA provides a useful summary of the potential uses of drugs derived from marijuana:
(The) scientific study of the active chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to the development of two FDA-approved medications already, and is leading to the development of new pharmaceuticals that harness the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids while minimizing or eliminating the harmful side effects (including the 'high') produced by eating or smoking marijuana leaves ... Research funded by the NIH is actively investigating the possible therapeutic uses of THC, CBD, and other cannabinoids to treat autoimmune diseases, cancer, inflammation, pain, seizures, substance use disorders, and other psychiatric disorders.[8] 
[DW note- "pharmakeia" is bad, yet pharmaceuticals are OK whereas a natural herb is unacceptable- that's some "logic"]

Given the potential benefits, some Christian leaders argue that the limited use of therapeutic cannabinoids for medical purposes is justified. However, no prominent Christian leader or denomination believes that the broad decriminalization of marijuana or its common usage reflects the Christian virtue and maturity God calls his people to model.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the moral dimensions of substance abuse well:
The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.
[Blur all drugs together that were illegalized, blur the issue of dosage, and forget the relative toxicities of the different substances, particularly that the intrinsically more toxic ones are the most popularly used legal drugs of alcohol and Tobacco - the latter specifically bred to encourage over consumption, and both the sole two classes of consumables exempted in the U.S. from retail ingredient labeling requirements.]
Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.[9]

Rob Schwarzwalder serves as Senior Vice President for the Family Research Council. He oversees the Communications, Policy, and Church Ministries teams. He previously served as chief-of-staff to two Members of Congress and as a presidential appointee in the administration of George W. Bush.
Rob Schwarzwalder not only disregards the Biblical passages favoring the use of herbs, he ignores that of not lying and stealing, as prohibition not only is based upon lies, particularly disregarding dilution-concentration factors, but also steals property and lives.  Family Research Council is merely a Mystery Babylon-Roman Catholic front group.
Also see:

Friday, June 19, 2015

The Prescription for Drug Abuse: Promoting CONCENTRATED Drugs - 1914 - 1970

Prohibition of drugs and any mixtures containing such ....

Public Acts of the Sixty-Third Congress of the United States

Woodrow Wilson, President; Thomas R. Marshall, Vice-President; James P. Clarke, President of the Senate pro tempore; Claude A. Swanson, Acting President of the Senate pro tempore, December 21 to 23, 29 to 31, 1914, and January 2, 1915; Nathan P. Bryan, Acting President of the Senate pro tempore, January 22, 1915; Champ Clark, Speaker of the House of Representatives

Chap 1. - An Act To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that on and after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, every person who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, distributes, or gives away opium or coca leaves or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, or preparation thereof, shall register with the collector of internal revenue of the district, his name or style, place of business, and place or places where such business is to be carried on: Provided, that the office, or if none, then the residence of any person shall be considered for purposes of this Act to be his place of business. At the time of such registry and on or before the first of July annually thereafter, every person who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, distributes, or gives away any of the aforesaid drugs shall pay to the said collector a special tax at the rate of $1 per annum: Provided, that no employee of any person who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, distributes, or gives away any of the aforesaid drugs, acting within the scope of his employment, shall be required to register or to pay the special tax provided by this section: Provided further, That officers of the United States Government who are lawfully engaged in making purchases of the above-named drugs for the various departments of the Army and Navy, the Public Health Service, and for Government hospitals and prisons, and officers of State governments or any municipality therein, who are lawfully engaged in making purchases of the above-named drugs for State, county, or municipal hospitals or prisons, and officials of any Territory or insular possession, or the District of Columbia or of the United States who are lawfully engaged in making purchases of the above-named drugs for hospitals or prisons therein shall not be required to register and pay the special tax as herein required.

It shall be unlawful for any person required to register under the terms of this Act to produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, any of the aforesaid drugs without having registered and paid the special tax provided for in this section.
After the Harrison Act was effectively declared unconstitutional in 1969 for resting upon the power to tax, the political sell outs came up with the 'Controlled Substances Act' based upon the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Peppered throughout this piece of legislation is the term:

"... any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following..."

The failure to account for actual potency  of a preparation is a major issue.  For instance with Coca leaves and cocaine both within schedule II, with for instance no addressing the actual amount of cocaine per say fluid ounce of a preparation, nor the route of administration.

The effect of this prohibition upon certain drugs and any preparations containing such was a shift to these drugs availability in their more concentrated forms.

See the following link, and those within:

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Illegal Drugs As Legal Drugs; Legal Drugs As Illegal Drugs - Natural CNS Stimulants

Cocaine, Caffeine and Nicotine are all alkaloids that serves as CNS stimulants, that are found naturally occurring in small amounts in plants ... the whole issue of dilution-concentration goes about completely ignored by drug war supporters and reformers!

Cocaine used as Caffeine

Caffeine used as Cocaine

Pure caffeine powder can be purchased by anyone to boost the caffeine content of food or beverages.
However, this product is not recommended. 

Just 1 teaspoon of caffeine powder has about 4706mg of caffeine, which is enough to cause serious harm and severe overdose symptoms. This product is the most dangerous caffeine related product
The FDA recently posted a warning, urging consumers not to purchase this powdered caffeine.
The only people who should consider this product are those that have a digital scale and can precisely measure out a safe dose of caffeine.

Using common measuring devices like measuring spoons etc. will likely result in too large of a dose. 
Some caffeine powders also use an "anti-caking agent" but this doesn't change the caffeine content enough to justify being more generous with this type.

We feel that unless you are a food or beverage manufacturer,  buying bulk caffeine powder isn't a wise decision unless you buy the necessary equipment needed to measure it accurately.
Those in possession of caffeine powder should keep the product in its original packaging and out of the reach of children.

At least two deaths have been officially reported from overdosing on caffeine powder when accidentally ingested 2 spoonfuls.

Nicotine used as Cocaine

Nicotine Sulfate
Nicotine is extracted from tobacco or related Nicotiana species and is one of the oldest botanical insecticides in use today. It's also one of the most toxic to warm-blooded animals and it's readily absorbed through the skin. (Wear gloves when applying it, follow label directions and keep pets away from application areas.) It breaks down quickly, however, so it is legally acceptable to use on organically grown crops.

Nicotine sulfate is sold as a 40 percent nicotine sulfate concentrate under trade names that include Black Leaf 40 or Tender Leaf Plant Insect spray. Nicotine kills insects by interfering with the transmitter substance between nerves and muscles. It's commonly used to control aphids, thrips, spider mites and other sucking insecticides on most vegetables, some fruits, flowering plants and ornamental shrubs and trees. Roses are sensitive to nicotine. Choose alternate pest control measures when treating insects on roses
Nicotine sulfate has a DANGER warning.

Cocaine used as Nicotine

Friday, April 10, 2015

Hoffman LaRoche Supports Pharma Protectionism At The Expense of Human Rights

the manufactures of anti depressants and sleeping pills want a "drug free" society to have people arrested and incarcerated for having cannabis

How Big Pharma Lobbyists Are Bringing Mandated Drug Tests To A State Near You

Posted on

In the Nation, Isabel Macdonald has an excellent long read on the history of U.S. drug testing, beginning with a government program to test returning Vietnam War veterans and the drug-testing provisions in President Ronald Reagan’s Drug Free Workplace Act as part of the misdirected War on Drugs. Even then, the medical community dismissed the Act’s provisions requiring all federal grantees to test employees as “chemical McCarthyism,” as well as unscientific and discriminatory, since it was more likely to capture days-old marijuana use than frequent consumption of cocaine or alcohol. But the movement nonetheless grew from an anti-drug campaign into an industry with its own trade association, after several moneyed interests like Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of Valium and sleeping pills, got into the business:
The company established one of the first major drug-testing labs in America and won an early urine-testing contract with the Pentagon, leading to $300 million in annual sales by 1987. The following year, Hoffmann-La Roche stepped up its sales efforts with the launch of a major PR and lobbying campaign to “mobilize corporate America to confront the illicit drug problem in their workplaces.” The drug manufacturer called its new campaign “Corporate Initiatives for a Drug-Free Workplace.”
Before long, with the help of a New Jersey–based lawyer named David Evans, Hoffmann-La Roche was organizing workshops around the country to convince employers to set up drug-testing programs. In an interview with The Nation, Evans likened his role to that of “a doctor coming in to talk about how to set up a medical device.” During that first campaign, 1,000 employers signed up.[…]
The drug-testing industry took aim at lawmakers as much as employers. Hoffmann-La Roche, for instance, worked “with federal and state government officials,” according to a press release issued by the PR company hired to market the campaign. Lerner told the press that the drug company also envisioned a “grassroots strategy” to prevent states from passing laws to decriminalize marijuana.
By 2006, 84 percent of American employers were reporting that they drug-tested their workers. Today, drug testing is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. DATIA [Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association] represents more than 1,200 companies and employs a DC-based lobbying firm, Washington Policy Associates. Hoffmann-La Roche’s former consultant, David Evans, now runs his own lobbying firm and has ghostwritten several state laws to expand drug testing. Most significant, in the 1990s Evans crafted the Workplace Drug Testing Act for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), of which Hoffmann-La Roche was a paying member. Laying out protocols for workplace drug testing, the bill—which has been enacted into law in several states—upheld the rights of employers to fire employees who do not comply with their companies’ drug-free workplace program.
Over the past decade, lobbyists like Evans have focused on what a DATIA newsletter recently dubbed “the next frontier”—schoolchildren. In 2002, a representative from the influential drug-testing management firm Besinger, DuPont & Associates heralded schools as “potentially a much bigger market than the workplace.”
Because this drug testing tends to capture marijuana more than other drugs, proponents of the movement have increasingly demonized marijuana use most of all. Robert Dupont, who served as drug policy director under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, had advocated decriminalizing marijuana and its use a “minor problem” before he became a “drug-testing management” consultant. Then in 1978, he declared marijuana “in many ways” the “worst drug of all the illegal drugs,” later explaining in a PBS special that, “I realized that these public policies were symbolic—all that really mattered was you were for [the decriminalization of marijuana] or you were against it…. I think about it as a litmus test.”

Now, with fewer and fewer employers implementing drug tests because they have shown “no demonstrable return on investment,” the industry has turned to another lucrative market: those receiving public assistance and unemployment benefits. Several recently passed state laws that require public benefits applicants to take drug tests have been struck down by courts, but that hasn’t stopped other states from moving forward with random drug-testing provisions. In South Carolina in 2012, with unemployment still above 9 percent, state legislators pushed three different bills to drug-test the unemployed. And several other states have done the same in the wake of a federal provision that authorizes the tests. Of course, these laws propose testing for drugs consumed illegally without a prescription. So if those consuming marijuana for stress or trouble sleeping happen to turn instead to prescription use of another federally legal drug, such as Valium or sleeping pills, Hoffman-La Roche just happens to have profited twice over from the process.

April 1, 2015 Confessions of Herbert Kleber

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Confessions of Herbert Kleber

Herbert Kleber under the influence of Opioid pills?

I have to get this off my chest.

I have been a total shill for the status quo.

I twist science in order to make it fit just as those would do in the old USSR to conform to that state's failed economic policies.

Consider this.  I make a living bashing Cannabis, in order to support massive human rights violations required for keeping it illegal.

Yet when have I ever called for such prohibitionist polices towards alcohol?

I am as bad as all of these police unions.  They know how any times they are called to deal with alcohol related violence, and how rarely if ever anything related to Marijuana, asides perhaps from that which has been adulterated with something like PCP.  yet all they care about is their police overtime, busting, excuse me, kidnapping and stealing hapless drug dealers, excuse me, non officially approved pharmacist merchants, and being able to get away with shooting the family pet to death.

And I also make a living serving as a consultant for large pharmaceutical corporations, specifically regarding opioid pain medications- pills.  In particular, Purdue Pharma, which makes OxyContin, Reckitt Benckiser, which makes Nurofen), and Alkermes, which makes Zohydro. Sure we can coat the pills and add binders etc to control the rate of absorption, which is key to thwarting abuse.  But let's face it, a pill is intrinsically abusable because it so easy to take more then the recommended number of pills.

Back in the old days, rate of absorption was controlled by, amongst other things, dilution.  In other word by not presenting an opioid or cocaine as a pill but by a bulky dilute tonic- aka beverage.

But the medical establishment does not like that.

Bulky tonic beverages cost more to ship.

Cost more to stock in terms of shelve space.

Why use laudanum when we can distill that into morphine, heroin or something even more potent, and then attempt to mitigate that by using tiny amounts within pills with all sorts of binders and fillers to control the absorption?

But yes of course it's so easy to simply abuse such 'compact' medications by taking way more than the recommended amount.

That's why I have lacked the chutzpah to recommend moving away from Opioids as pills and to some bulky beverage format.

Likewise muchly with cocaine.  We love to bash cocaine, never-mind that it is no more dangerous when used exactly as caffeine and nicotine- that is in DILUTE form.   It's the concentration of cocaine dosage that radically multiplies its reinforcement-attractiveness; and it's the concentrated forms of dosing that bypass its anesthetic inhibitor effect that it has in dilute oral doses- IOW its numbing effect serves to slow the rate of drinking which is partially why oral preparations as Vin Mariani had a good reputation even amongst those wary of regular alcoholic beverages.  Perhaps we should not only move cocaine use back to this oral - dilute model, but even apply that to Opioids via bulky oral solutions, perhaps even with small amounts of Coca-cocaine or even Novocaine to give a feeling of drinking fullness and serve to discourage excessive drinking.

The bashing of cocaine started in the 1880s following the 1884 introduction of the drug in its most concentrated forms.  Because it is also an anesthetic, cocaine was experimented with by anesthesiologists as a nerve bloc- that is INJECTED directly into a nerve, thusly producing extreme levels of intoxication far greater than even injecting it subcutaneously, let along simply sniffed or taken infinitely more diluted in a coca product.   Within that field of medicine, certain anesthesiologists developed a strong bias against cocaine resulting from such attempts at cocaine injections as a nerve block.

This was partially due to them being unfamiliar with cocaine in normal dilute form as a delightful alternative to caffeine and nicotine, and hence introduced to cocaine as a drug to be injected.  A bad idea.  For cocaine or any stimulant.  When was the last time that you heard of someone injecting caffeine or nicotine?  Or amphetamine?  Remember JFK?  He had that beautiful wife, yet had to have all those other women.

And partially because some had become too detached from reality largely by their own experimentation with anesthetic drugs- those designed to numb one from reality, resulting in anesthesiologist with an exceptionally poor understanding of the human condition tending to view everything within a simplistic disease model while poo pooing spirituality as mere fable, and expressions of such to be belittled.

Or both sloppy and too prideful.  Look at Sigmund Freud.  He starts out by suggesting "coca" or "cocaine" - he used the terms loosely and interchangeably  though he was suggesting oral dilute cocaine, namely 50 mg of the hydrochloride in a 8 ounce glass of water.

Then he figures, if dilute cocaine works good, than injected cocaine must be great.  So following Bentley's lead with oral Coca extract for treating Opium addiction, he advises his friend Fleischl to inject cocaine to break his addiction to injected morphine.

Then he gets all embarrassed and never writes about coca or cocaine again.

It's unclear if he ever used commercially available coca products such as Vin Mariani, or was strictly using the hydrochloride, though he ultimately quits using cocaine.  Yet he foolishly consumed cigars of Tobacco, refusing to quit those, and gets this horrific mouth cancer.

All of this ties into the larger phenomenon, namely the confusing of the dangers of a natural drug made into an ultra concentrated chemical by modern science, and the coming rejection of herbs and herbal based preparations in favor of the products of modern science of all new molecules synthesized from petro chemical black tars ultimately as FDA approved synthetic chemical.  You then got people who would have this disdain for Opium, Coca leaves etc as horrible, yet fall hook line and sinker for all sorts of 20th century chemical creations.

We see the first part of this with the confusion of dilute and ultra concentrated forms of natural drugs.  Various historians love to bash the use of "cocaine" to treat Opiate addicts, though what they overlook is that was with dilute cocaine via Coca, and not concentrated cocaine via sniffing or way worse injecting.  We even have those who claimed that the physicians who pioneered this use of combating addiction, Bentley used concentrated cocaine for treating opium addiction during the late 1870s, a few years BEFORE its introduction- go figure.  However the value of Coca to get people through withdrawal from other substances, with withdrawal from Coca itself non existent is quite real.  Try going without Coffee.  One will likely have severe headaches by late afternoon.  Then try drinking Coca tea, and no withdrawal.  And then after a few days, try drinking only water, and no withdrawal.

In any event, cocaine bashing was soon picked up due to its market threat to nicotine- IOW the market threat of Coca to Tobacco.  What a better way to distract from the addictiveness of nicotine by harping on the so-called 'addiction' to cocaine, which is actually not physically addictive by confusing at is properly called the toxic-mania of extreme dosing as pioneered by anesthesiologist during the 1880s.  Tobacco is a long established crop in Europe and the U.S.  Coca is a tropical plant that can't stand frost.  Taking Coca safely alleviates Tobacco withdrawal as it does Coffee withdrawal.  But big Tobacco can't stand for that bit of information to get wide circulation.  Think of the millions or billions in market share that would be lost!

Meanwhile, cocaine provided an excellent scapegoating for 'modern' medicine.  Sure cocaine is a dangerous drug for being quite likely to abuse in concentrated form.  But are not many modern medicines in fact concentrated drugs?  If people knew the whole story of cocaine they might look at modern medicine more suspiciously.  they might insist upon whole herbs and bulky preparations made form such.

So we got this tobacco-medical alliance.

Anyone researching the history of organized medicine in this country can see for themselves the great harms created by the infamous AMA-APhA-USDA political alliance, with officials in those private organizations likewise holding high level positions in that government entity.  To it: Harvey Washington Wiley, who headed the USDA Bureau of Chemistry starting in 1883, and was also a member of the AMA-APhA who founded their "Council on Pharmacy" in 1905 to establish what was supposedly legitimate medicine, and what was supposedly not.

It was and is all about ripping off the general public.

Just go back to the very beginnings of the AMA.

The American Medical Association was founded in 1847.  It's purpose?  To serve the interests of its members- over everyone else.

It worked to undermine competitive pricing in medicine and even had it made illegal to advertise medical rates despite there being a 1st Amendment.

It worked to restrict the supply of physicians making a permanent shortage in order to inflate rates.

It worked to rid the profession of relatively inexpensive herbal based medicines, by going after proprietary medicines which were falsely labeled "patent medicines when in fact that was which they ere working to protect PATENT medicines which are that because they are patentable.

We created a whole propaganda empire against the natural herbs- smearing them with code words and phrases as 'snake oil', nostrums, and of course 'quackery'.

And we did it via the emerging 20th century 'Progressive' political movement- of granting more government centralization in the name of serving the public interest.

Some of what was accomplished legitimately did that.

But much of what was done didn't, and in fact caused tremendous harms

Yet guess what - we are the quacks.  Yes that's right, the AMA!

The anti proprietary medicine/fraudulent anti patent medicine campaign against herbs lead to intrinsically more dangerous drugs, as anyone can see with all of the side effects of actual patent drugs/modern pharmaceuticals..

The lying through their teeth campaign about the supposed dangers of soft drinks combination cocaine or caffeine, while slyly saying nothing about nicotine likewise would be a cover for making the world safe for smokable Tobacco products!

They got all bent out of shape over Coca's market threat to Tobacco.  Both the AMA and of course the USDA were especially concerned over the use of Coca as a Tobacco habit cure.  Calling it a 'habit forming menace'.

Yet the same officials were OK with Tobacco laced with arsenic?

And they have that attitude right at the time that Tobacco cigarette sales began their big upturn in popularity right after the enactment of the 1906 U.S. 'Pure' Foods and Drug Act.

Was that any wonder?

The 1906 Act was a scam.

It established the idea of bureaucrats deciding what supposedly constituted legitimate medicine and diet.

Drug and particularly food products could be banned from interstate commerce if containing dangerous or deleterious ingredients.

Sounded OK.  Yet was not because it lacked any requirement for any scientific basis.  Something was simply dangerous or deleterious because the Bureau of Chemistry of the USDA merely said so.  That Bureau of course being headed by Harvey Wiley

Wiley clearly abused the 1906 Act with prosecutions for "adulteration" against products sold as foods for containing supposedly dangerous or deleterious ingredients that the Act hardly banned, as it required such ingredients as Opium and cocaine to be labeled.   Of course a manufacturer of a beverage sold as food could have labeled the cocaine content, but that hardly would guarantee that Wiley's USDA would not bring about a prosecution for "adulteration.  The labeling requirement was somewhat reasonable- should not the public know the presence and proportion of ingredients, particularly those that are classifiable as drugs?  But it was inconsistent.  If Opium and cocaine had to be labeled than so should caffeine and of course nicotine.  Requiring only the labeling of the former but not the latter would present the idea that the former were of concern but not he latter, and hence that the former were more dangerous then the latter.  So many manufacturers opened themselves up to mislabeling prosecutions for failing to label the opium or cocaine content, while others got scared and eliminated such from their formulations- all serving to fuel the false idea that such drugs were somehow unacceptably dangerous as dilute ingredients.

But Wiley primarily or entirely had reserved such "adulteration" prosecutions against products sold as foods rather than as drugs.  Thus for the latter, the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association addressed such drug products via 'model legislation for the various States to make such available by a physician's prescription only, and as well requiring such prescriptions to be non-refillable- thus over riding medical independence.

Marking their particular "concern" over Coca's market threat to Tobacco were a pair of AMA and USDA articles in 1910  that cited Coca's use as a Tobacco Habit Cure.

The former, published that January 1, 1910 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 'Pharmacology' review (at pp 63-64 of Volume LIV, Number 1), was “Coca Bola and Oxy-Tonic: Two Nostrums Exposed by the Chemists of the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station” by E.F. Ladd, a chemist at the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, attempted to discredit such a use.

The latter, published April 20, 1910 in the USDA's Farmer's Journal, was, "Habit-Forming Agents: Their Indiscriminate Sale and Use A Menace to the Public Welfare" by L.F. Kebler:

Both included baseless statements against cocaine in any amount.  The latter even argued against de-cocainated coca or the mere use of the word coca as if somehow triggering drug addicts to resume their former distributive habits.

Though both articles, particularly the AMA article targeted coca as a Tobacco habit Cure, they contained no acknowledgment of what the AMA's L.F. Kebler, the author of that AMA article had acknowledged before a US Congressional Committee, that Tobacco often contained dangerous levels of arsenic.

Now that's an ironic name "Kebler" when my name is "Kleber".

So the AMA and its hack L.F. Kebler was OK with arsenic laced Tobacco being protected from Coca leaf.  How nice.  Arsenic laced Tobacco not even mentioned as a 'habit forming menace' despite the enormous loss of life and monetary costs of Tobacco induced illnesses.

How can anyone have blind faith in such a medical 'professions'.

Coca as a Tobacco Cure was a major but hardly the only labeled claim that incensed Wiley's market control clique.

So to further increase his drug market control clique's power, Wiley then further abused the 1906 Act with 'mislabeling' prosecutions for products that made therapeutic claims, never-mind the long established histories of such product's ingredients for such therapeutic uses.  Wiley was establishing the idea of a government bureaucracy monopolization upon what supposedly constituted acceptable medical practices, and doing so with the full collusion of the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association.  He would lose on this misuse of the 1906 Act in a 1911 U.S. Supreme Court case, as he was simply inventing 'law'.

The U.S. Congress would subsequently pass the Shirley Amendment banning fraudulent claims that were made intentionally.   However, the cause of medical monopolization required something more, namely the centralization of the bureaucratization in declaring what constituted legitimate medicine on the Federal- National level.   This lead to a further path of amending the 1906 Act, bringing about that disaster that was enacted in 1914- the Harrison 'Narcotics' Tax Act.

Ostensibly, that was merely a taxing provision for the distribution of certain substances, to wit Opium, Coca leaves and their derivatives, with anyone so involved this requiring a license to do so legally.   Though promoted as a 'narcotics' act, it notably did not even necessarily apply to all Opioids, as it exempted products containing low levels of Opium, morphine or heroin, though notably not for anything containing any amount of cocaine alkaloid, which is a stimulant and anesthetic and not a narcotic.  So anyone seeking any use of any cocaine containing product or a product containing above a certain amount of recognized Opioids would then have to visit a doctor for a prescription.

There was some questioning of this Act as it was being debated in the U.S. Congress, being recognized as a way to require physician visits and prescriptions for what was previously over the counter, and even as weirdly hypocritical for excluding Tobacco, with one Senator then noting its severe toll on health and even its link to cancer- which many pretend was not recognized until later.

But it was a slyly worded Act, designed to bring about this centralization of bureaucratization in declaring what constituted legitimate medicine.  It did this with a pair of provisions, restricting anything containing cocaine and anything containing about a certain amount of Opioids to "professional practice only", while leaving the determination of what that definition to the U.S. Department of Treasury.
 "Nothing contained in this section shall apply . . . to the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this Act in the course of his professional practice only." 6

" That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall make all needful rules and regulations for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect."
Notably the 1914 Act continued to allow over the counter preparations containing low amount of opiates, but not those containing any amount of cocaine.
That the provisions of this Act shall not be construed to apply to the sale, distribution, or giving away, dispensing, or possession of preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium, or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of grain of heroin, or more than one grain of codeine, or any salt or derivative of them in one fluid ounce, or, if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ounce, or to liniments, ointments, and other preparations which contain cocaine or any of its salts or alpha or beta eucaine or any of their salts or any synthetic substitute for them: Provided, that such remedies and preparations are sold, distributed, given away, dispensed, or possessed as medicines and not for the purpose of evading the intentions and provisions of this Act. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to decocainized coca leaves or preparations made therefrom, or to other preparations of coca leaves which do not contain cocaine.
That of course was owing to the fear of Coca-dilute cocaine as competition to Tobacco.

And with the power granted to the U.S. Department of Treasury, this drug market clique had its tool to thereby effectively criminalize physicians from prescribing such products by establishing regulations requiring such prescriptions to be non-refillable.

One such regulation was T.D. 2309 disallowing refillable prescriptions.

It would be challenged in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia case United States ex rel George B. Ashley, relator, vs. William H. Osborn and W. G. McAdoo, respondents

That regulation and thus the regulatory power of the Treasury Department would be upheld in that case by the U.S. District Chief Justice, who had served as a U.S. Congressman from 1908 until resigning in 1914 to take that judicial position, and who later became a law professor at Jesuit Georgetown University, and in 1919 co-founded what became perhaps the largest law firm for pharmaceutical, food and Tobacco industries: James Harry Covington.

His firm Covington and Burling would have as its first client the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and for decades was the nexus of the Tobacco-cigarette industry's legal strategies.

The firm would be so involved with food and drug regulatory matters to even be involved in the drug liberalization-legalization movement, with its pro bono division in 1988 taking on the charity of adopting the Drug Policy Foundation as an advisee client, then appointing an attorney known as an insurance, food and pharmaceutical industry specialist the "primary responsibility for advising the Foundation".  And of course, so far the DPF now DPA fails to answer any questions about this relationship, or say bring that attorney to one of their conferences as a panelist to discuss this Covington & Burling pro bono program.

Subsequently the firm has also participated in various law suits on behalf of various victims of the drug war, perhaps most notably Angela Raich, in the landmark case Raich v Gonzales.  That was the case  which upheld the 20th century drug market control scheme over medical freedom under the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.  That would be in spite of the herbal medicine being grown and consumed upon Raich's private property.  It would rely upon the 1943 Wickard v Filmore case that upheld regulations upon wheat production and consumption upon like localized circumstances, with the Covington legal representation arguably sabotaging the case by at the onset conceding such a regulatory power and without making a strong human rights argument, thus resulting in a decision failing to adopt any balancing of individual freedoms with government interests.

Of course the propaganda campaign to demonify "Marihuana"  to enact and maintain its prohibition was and is without merit.  It is an infinitely safer substance than alcohol, let along Tobacco.  And it was primarily made illegal because in small doses allows people a clearer perspective upon things.  It is as if the Black Pope (Jesuit Superior General) at the time, Wlodimir Ledochowski took a few hits and became terrorized about the general public seeing through his political manipulations on behalf of the Continuing Roman Empire geo politics, particularly the Continuing Counter Reformation wars in Europe.  So he figured it was better to scare people away from Marijuana, and keep them numbed out on alcohol and pharmaceuticals as tranquillizers and anti depressants, even though Opioids would actually be safer.

The 1937 U.S. prohibition of Marijuana would be based upon the taxing power, as were the 1914 effective prohibitions upon Opioids and Coca-cocaine.  That would be the claimed legal basis for these prohibitions, until the 1969 case Leary v United States, which declared such a scheme unconstitutional, for violate the 5th Amendment's prohibition upon self incrimination.  Perhaps such an argument had not been made before Judge Covington, or in any of the subsequent cases that upheld the 1914 Harrison Act.

Subsequently the Commerce Clause would be adopted as the 'legality' for the continuing 20th century established drug market control scheme, under its re-codification under the 1970 U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

Of course this was all bullsh*t, as it was already recognized that the U.S. Congress lacked such a power.  And it was noted most blatantly with the means to which recreational alcoholic beverages were banned- via by a Constitutional Amendment, plus a subsequent one for its repeal. Such a set of amendments would appear to acknowledge a reality that the federal government actually lacks the power to so prohibit substances, making their mere creation and possession wholly on private property into criminal acts punishable by fines and imprisonment.

But what could be expected with a scheme upheld by a Judge who had served as one of the Congressmen who had played a role in concocting such a scheme?

Subsequently, James Harry Covington's decision would be effectively upheld in other cases.

With regulations as TD 2309, refillable and even non refillable prescriptions could be made into criminal acts, with the U.S. Treasury Department regulatory power so unencumbered it could disallow prescriptions for addiction maintenance as such was subsequently declared to not be a disease, and doctors could be arrested for writing prescriptions thus no longer recognized as valid.  Under such a pharmaceutic inquisition, doctors quickly learned not to supply opiates to addicts. In the case United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), the Supreme Court ruled the Harrison Act as constitutional, and in Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 99 (1919) that prescriptions could not be issued for narcotics solely for maintenance.

Of course all of this would be lionized in the major newspapers and magazines as essential for supporting public health.

Never-mind the gross disregard for human rights and that regarding the severe double-standard regarding Tobacco products, particularly cigarettes.  Never-mind the behavior of such AMA self styled "quack-busters" as Morris Fishbein, who advised that industry on how to better advertise their coffin nails in medical publications as The Journal of the American Medical Association.  And that of other publications as The New England Journal of Medicine, which to this day, resorts to historical revisionism lying about the relative effects of 'illicit' drugs.

Opioids had to be banned for being 'habit forming' and supposedly for being debilitating - this at the time of the explosion in the use of cigarettes!  Jheez!

Yet this Quack AMA-USDA pharma-Tobacco market protection scheme would not make the now banned drugs entirely dissappear.

Rather it would shift opioid use from bulkier products to ultra concentrated forms, and while doing so, split users into 'licit' RX and illicit black market camps.  For the former, coming up with more and more powerful new chemical versions of Opioids in order to preserve such for the PATENT MEDICINE aka pharmaceutical markets, and thereby enhancing profits.   For the latter, removing any protections of product consistency and from unwarranted adulteration, while radically driving up market prices to popularize infinitely more efficient and dangerous modes of administration, namely injection.

It would do much similarly with cocaine though less towards outright injection as cocaine by such a route is immensely distracting and brief, and simply with the creation of the illicit market as a licit market for RX controlled dose cocaine would threaten the market for the amphetamine family.

And on the broader picture would shift drug use not only away from Coca and Opium to concentrated cocaine and heroin, but as well to Tobacco-cigarettes, as obvious from a production graph appearing on page 230 of Breecher's Licit and Illicit Drugs, and an outright health disaster.

By any measure the prohibited drugs are as safe or safer than the protected drugs in like contexts.

That is as infusions or other plant perpetuation.

Even caffeine can be deadly when abused as a powder.  So we get the phenomenon of someone unintentionally killing themselves by eating say a few tea spoons of caffeine powder totally oblivious to the danger because caffeine is a legal drug.

Likewise we have the countless overdose deaths by alcoholic beverages, particularly in college fraternities all owing to the popular underestimating of the dangerous of alcohol because it is legal.

The whole idea of illegal drugs really is a mass deception and distraction from the actual relative safeties of different drugs and different forms of drugs.

That is likewise why caffeine powder is sold over the internet WITHOUT poisoning labeling.

And it is why the government recently approved concentrated POWDER alcohol.

Yet meanwhile, outside of perhaps only Bolivia beverages with any amount of cocaine are strictly illegal, with even a country as intelligent in so many ways as Germany getting bent out of shape over some batches of energy drinks with a minute amount of cocaine.

If the drug statutes had any sense they would be based upon actual pharmacokinetics, rather than a criminal Vatican directed market scheme.  Harvey Wiley after all said almost nothing about Coca and cocaine during his first 20 years as head of the USDA Bureau of Chemistry.  It was only by about mid 1904 that he adopted the political campaign at demonifying cocaine without regard to dosage or concentration factors, which was mere months after the 2nd and final time the Vatican summoned Coca wine entrepreneur Angelo Francois Mariani to award him a gold papal medal as a benefactor of humanity for making coca available to the world- the same award seen in the movie Godfather III.  Obviously there was some falling out between Mariani and the Vatican, and the drug war was their response.

And it is not simply a matter of promoting more dangerous recreation drugs over safer one and perverting safer ones into infinity more dangerous forms as with opium and coca, thus driving the need for overpriced 'drug treatment'.

Its a perversion of medicine itself starting by stigmatizing God given herbs as so called quackery, while protecting and promoting synthetic PATENT MEDICINES for bloated pharmaceutical corporation profiteering.

Of course such PATENT MEDICINES have to go through the FDA process as they have no history of use, and are generally far far more toxic.  That's why they have so many side effects.

The side effects can be quite scary and may outnumber and be well more significant that the effect desired by taking the substance.

But that is an important part of the medical-pharmaceutical racket, as such leads to so much added work.

Just think about all of the extra work in surgery for correcting problems brought about by prescription pharma toxicity, such as colon operations to remove precancerous lesions caused by such drugs.   

Or extra work in psychiatry and even face lifts from those dependent upon FDA approved anti-depressants with their side effects of anesthetizing themselves from empathy and vastly prematurely aging faces such as by relaxing their lower facial muscles- practices that become even worse with the off label use of surgical grade pharmaceuticals used as recreational relaxants.

Just take a look at the half century of medical journals following the 1906 and 1914 substance control acts to see how the emerging 20th century medical quackery was all about maximizing profits including by creating new problems..  Full of advertisements for Tobacco cigarettes featuring models dressed as white coated physicians!

That caused a huge spike in cancer.  And the medical-quackery industry loves racking in the money "treating" but not necessarily curing cancer.  It's really a huge money maker.  And they really hate all of these medicinal Marijuana stories, especially those of people indeed children being successfully treated with Cannabis Oil, that FDA approved PATENT MEDICINES fail at doing.

THAT seriously undermines the medical-pharmaceutical money making process, not only with that but potentially with a re popularization of proprietary herbal based medicinal preparations in general.

Such explains the actions of U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford in this regard.

Look at what they did.

The Schaeffer Commission recommended legalizing Marijuana.  Yet Nixon, a perverse 'puritan' that admired Russia with its vast protectionism of hard alcohol (Vodka) and Tobacco cigarettes,  ignored that.

Ford, that complete tool, attempted to have it proven that Marijuana must cause lung cancer because it is smoked as are cigarettes.  Yet when the clinical studies showed otherwise- not that it simply did not cause cancer but in fact cured it, Ford has the results suppressed.

Think of all the costs in monetary figure and human misery.

Think of all of those pitches for cancer research- about all of it going to big pharma to figure out expensive new patent medicine schemes to bilk the public out of billion for remedies that really don't work.

The last thing they want is a cure for cancer, especially one that is not even a PATENT MEDICINE, but rather a plant that anyone can grow and which can be easily synthesized into a life saving oil taken orally or topically.  They hate that as they can make only a relatively small mount of money on that.

It is all about bilking the public.  Just look at the history of the AMA- dedicated since its 1847 founding to maximize its interest's profits.  It was the AMA that worked against competitive pricing.  Against advertising rates, as if customers should not know what something is going to cost before becoming committed.  And for reducing the number of doctors to drive up rates, all serving to make health care way more expensive.

And it was the AMA and its clique that received the support of the so called 'Progressive' political movement, as if that was a decision made by intelligent people discussing and debating the issues out in the open rather than being manipulated like puppets on a string by the elites?!

So why do you think that we have this great crisis in health care costs?

Just look at the massive over-charging of patients in my own backyard: that very hospital associated with my Columbia University, Columbia Presbyterian, which is that massive complex overlooking the south side of the George Washington Bridge.

Guess what they charge per day for their intensive care unit?   The actual cost is about $6,200 daily.  But we charge, get this, $112,000.00 daily!  Think about that!  A brand new 691 hp Tesla PER DAY, upon a 2000% profit!

People complain about doctor's fees, but those may be by far the most reasonable.  One can spend $35,000 on surgeon fees for an open chest procedure.  Yet Columbia Presbyterian gets $25,000 just for the use of the operating room!

Hospitalization that should cost no more than $100,000.00 total ends up costing nearly $1,000,000,000.00.  ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Hopefully for the patient's sake, he or she does not get a second heart attack from receiving the bill.

Many don't because much of the public is hoodwinked.  As they see it, it's almost entirely paid by Medicare or Medicaid, so who cares?

Never-mind that they can go after you house and other property once you die.

It is as if political figures as Hillary Clinton sold their souls to some sort of brotherhood that protects them and advances their careers with some sort of Black magic to intellectually anesthetize much of the general public.

It is under such a situation that we now have this whole push for health care insurance, whether as Hillarycare, Obamacare or even Romneycare: both the Ds and the Rs are bought and paid for,.

Why after all that such deliberations crafting such held secretly?  Why did not Hillary Clinton INSIST that her meetings with the pharmaceutical and insurance industry representatives be TELEVISED.  God, we could use an excellent pharmaceutical and insurance attorney from somewhere to blow the lid on this charade.

We could sure use a proper use of such intellectual muscle for changing this situation.

We must free all the prisoners of the drug war, and award each monetary compensation for the unjust deprivation of their liberty.

We could sure use a shake up of the U.S. Supreme Court.

FIRE that Papist Pig 'Justice' Scalia.  And if the NSA can offer up some incriminating communications of his, perhaps taking orders from the Vatican or its interest, have him prosecuted.  And if not, deport his ass back to Vatican City to which he owes his loyalty.

And sooner than later, encourage that false Jew as Ruth Bader Ginsberg to retire.  She makes no sense for strongly supporting the drug war with her belief that the total sum of medical liberty is abortion.  Give her a one way ticket to Vatican City, as it's the Roman Catholic Church that gave us this utterly immoral drug war.

Ending the drug war, providing restitution to the victims is essential!

And so is having the U.S. Justice Department throw the book at the American Medical Association.  Never has there been such a harmful organization of quacks imposing their perverted will upon and getting over upon the general public.  That organization is a major economic vampire.

Just imagine a scheme to get people to buy overpriced coal tar rather than natural food- just is the essence of our scare campaign against things as Cannabis in favor of all sorts of synthetic PATENTABLE chemicals from Ritalin to whatever we can come up with that has far greater toxicity, side effects and costs!

Until then there can be no cost effective way of addressing our health care crisis, and fixing our economy.