Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Points About the 'Progressive' Era War Of Drugs

as embodied by such pieces of U.S. legislation as the 1906 Food & Drugs Act; the 1914 Harrison 'Narcotics' Tax Act; the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act; and the 1951 Boggs Act establishing more draconian sentences

 graph from page 230 of the book Licit & Licit Drugs

The drug war is Tobacco cigarette market protection & promotion; note how sales climbed relatively little following the introduction of the mass machine produced cigarettes around 1884, until the enactment of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 drug market protection scheme legislative acts.
The 1906 Act would be designed to allow the USDA to claim without any basis that the chief market threat to Tobacco of dilute cocaine products were unacceptably dangerous as "adulterated", while exempting Tobacco from USDA regulation via that Act's limitation of such authority to substances listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, from which Tobacco had been included until being deleted in 1905.  
Such policies would eliminate the safe dilute cocaine containing products from markets, while leaving cocaine available only in ultra concentrated forms, with the USDA stating its particular fear of such being sold as 'Tobacco Habit Cures' in a 1910 USDA farmers Bulletin article "Habit Forming Agents- Their Sale and Use a Menace to the Pubic Welfare", thus making the world markets safe for cigarettes resulting in their subsequent boon with over 100 million premature deaths during the 1900s.
The war on drugs, or rather the war of drugs is a far far worse set of policies than even its detractors generally make it out to be.
- One ushering in an era of human rights violations for the sake of a so far inadequately challenged unconstitutional market control scheme fostering draconian maximum measures whereas minimalist approaches would respect basic rights of choice while doing an infinity better job at serving actual goals of promoting health and discouraging problematic modes of drug use-abuse.
- One not based upon consistent science regarding substances and the different forms- aka the dilution-concentration factors of pharmacokinetics, such as with Opiates and cocaine, and particularly the double-standard regarding the latter and market competitors as caffeine and especially nicotine.
- One ruining countless lives via the abuse of the judicial system, in complete disregard of the 8th and 9th Amendments and the fact that alcohol prohibition - which actually only prohibited manufacture, sales and transportation, while allowing possession and consumption on private property! - required an Amendment. 
- One negatively affecting many people via the market distortion effects, rippling throughout society, starting with the denial of relatively safe and effective medicinal herbs. 
- Not only with the perversion of substances as Opium and Coca into ultra-concentrated opiates and cocaine hci-sulfate.
- But also the market protection of intrinsically more dangerous substances. In particular, the over 100 million deaths resulting from the market explosion of the Tobacco cigarettes which the firm was the lead entity towards protecting, and which the USDA was clearly interested in protecting with its banning of Coca feared as a “Tobacco Habit Cure’, despite the relative safeties with Coca found to be “the easiest to control and the one least likely to produce toxicity or dependency”. [see various articles at my blog Freedom of Medicine and Diet – including that of March 10, 2008]   Note the cigarette production graph that I have reproduced in that blog showing the sharp spikes occurring following the 1906 and 1914 Acts. 
- This has additionally culminated in an arrogant pharmaceutical campaign of human rights violations against people over Cannabis. One that would deny valuable herbal preparations as Cannabis Oil for treating cancer and epilepsy far more safely, efficacy and less toxicity and expense than many pharmaceuticals. [search engine “Rick Simpson” – “Running From The Cure” – “Cannabis Oil”]. 
- And one with intellectually fraudulent campaigns for “drug free” America, and even “drug free” children, that neglect serious instances of child abuse such as highly questionable forced thorazine and perhaps even Phencyclidine (PCP- ‘Sernyl’), particularly via parent- physicians for “un-cooperative”/”un-controllable” children, associated with causing “social impairment” related issues. 
- Such has been a side effect of the “drug war” (criminal-unconstitutional-deceitful pharmacratic inquisition) in so overly emphasizing the alleged “dangers” of the illegal drugs- namely giving modern petro chemical pharmaceuticals a free pass. 
- Along with the serious escalation of health care costs via a system favoring the expensive development of generally relatively more toxic synthetic molecules over naturally occurring substances, such as Cannabis, brought about by an early 1900s media propaganda campaign against dilute medicinal preparations employing the word "nostrum" as a slur word, favoring ultra concentrated pills and powders, coordinated by a pharma-medical political alliance favoring and even directly promoting Tobacco cigarettes, with such Tobacco bred to foster greatly intensified use and addiction, as loaded with a great many additives that are unlabeled.
Indeed, with such a broader set of implications than commonly discussed, it can only be a testimony to the influence of big money that we have politicians so unwilling to address these broader issues, along with a drug policy reform movement of organizations instead promoting more of a tunnel vision simply upon Marijuana, so influenced by figures and entities tied together with the Tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, of a paced agenda designed to minimize threats to the more broad social-mercantile order.

The more socialist, big government people will pretend that though we should not maintain the draconian war on certain drugs inquisition, that the illegalized drugs are simply undesirable and thus "medicalized" via an extensive systematic drug treatment bureaucracy - try imaging nicotine addicts going through the routines of opiate addicts with methadone clinics, etc.

And even the free market Libertarians with their greater consciousness of the workings of economic markets, neglect much of this, via a likewise pretense that the illegalized drugs, though they should be tolerated rather than the subject of this ongoing war of drugs inquisition, are simply undesirable.

Such a set of neglects would be largely why the attempts starting during the latter 1970s to expand opposition to the drug prohibition inquisition beyond Marijuana were so poorly done, with images of Coca-Cola machines dispensing not the original drink with dilute cocaine via Coca leaf extract, but rather streams of white powders.

This continues today with the occasional pronouncements that we must legalize all drugs with zero mention let alone discussion of these drugs domestication via making them available in forms that are way less abuseable and safer - a particularly curious omission from a drug policy reform movement that touts the concept of "Harm Reduction".

This policy is merely designed to be relatively ineffective, slowing the end of the drug war inquisition by pandering to people's fears.  Such is now is what is being done with the scare campaign against opioid pills that present measured predictable doses as opposed to contraband "heroin" of widely varying potencies and thus unpredictable doses thus increasing the dangers of fatal overdosing- all despite the relative lack of organ damage from chronic use as compared with the regular use of Tobacco and the excessive use of alcohol.  That Coca leaf-dilute cocaine, opiates and Marijuana are so criminalized without regard to their relative safeties, while Tobacco and alcohol remain so legal and available while just so happening to be the two set of substances exempted in the U.S. from retail labeling of ingredients, only further marks the drug war as a criminal market control scheme rather than a legitimate exercise of government power to protect people's health.

Such a money market mercantilist crony capitalist political arena is what is likewise prevalent with such matters involving mass markets as the failure of U.S. politicians regarding the issue of GMO ingredient labeling, across an either/or political spectrum, sadly from U.S. Senator Al Franken to U.S. Senator Rand Paul and U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

Thus it is perfectly understandable that the political arena is sufficiently corrupt to have politicians from either the U.S. democrat of Republican parties to suppress contrary information, as that in the early 1990s U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Harvard University report Coca Reduction Strategies that ended up being favorably to making Coca products of natural potencies legal and available, and subsequent reports via the United Nations.

Alas, too many people have set a low standard for their favored politicians.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Canada's Trudeau Wiggeling Out of Promise to Legalize MJ

During his political campaign last year, Trudeau made an explicit promise to end the prohibition of MJ.

Now that he is in office, he attempts to wiggle out, saying that he is precluded by international treaties.

Never-mind that such treaties include a provision fro nations to opt out.

Is this the result of some sort of political blackmail?  Perhaps the result of him making a bad deal for his success making him beholden to the very forces behind prohibition?

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Italian Authorities Lie About Coca Tea

Continuing a century plus long criminal endeavor to protect Coffee and particularly cigarettes

- article falsely states that coca tea contains cocaine hci, when in fact it contains cocaine in its natural state

-authorities make deceptive statement of product being "dangerous", when in fact the danger is to market share for caffeine and nicotine containing products, rather than human health

- indeed authorities provide zero basis, particular;y in citing example of truck driver with an exemplary record.

- authorities engage in criminal restraint of trade, displaying Italy as if run by a Mafia

- practice of charging people with illicit cocaine use from drinking coca tea upon drug testing highlights irresponsibility of drug testing authorities in failing to devise tests that distinguish between use of coca and that of isolated cocaine, which are feasible based upon coca containing additional components that drug testing entities are too lazy to test for.

- drug testing likewise fails to distinguish between excessive amounts of cocaine nor any actual showing of impairment.  Such tests ought to be set at a threshold higher than the amount derived from drinking a few cups of Coca tea.  That they are not, is indicative of the drug war being all about protecting markets for caffeine and nicotine, and not about protecting health/guarding against actual drug abuse.

Word is that this sociopathic market control policy is being felt more broadly, as authorities in such nations as conquistador occupied Peru are now blocking Coca tea exports.   Would not it be nice that Peru could one day get a legitimate government representing its interests over that of the Spanish-Catholic inquisition.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Coca 'Community Session' Panel at Drug Policy Alliance Conference

The first Coca panel  at a DPA conference ever- though not as a plenary or workshop,
some 20 years after the last and only Coca panel - as a workshop - at the DPA predecessor organization's conference, the Drug Policy Foundation, moderated by yours truly in 1995
Coca: A Missing Frontier in Drug Policy Reform
Rosslyn 2 | 8:30am – 9:30am

Coca and coca-derived substances lie at the heart of drug policy, enforcement and use in Latin America, yet it is an often overlooked topic in drug policy reform circles. This community session will provide a background to coca, will stimulate discussion on how we can best approach and address coca cultivation and markets, and will consider how we can connect this issue to the wider drug policy reform movement. -

Despite the early hour - 8:30 AM, the panel was attended by about 25 people.

Cocaine Content of Some Early 20th Century Products

and USDA prosecutions with zero showing of any actual harms from the cocaine content

Cocaine content of beverages in milligrams per fluid ounce
Wiseola        under 1 mg

Celery Cola        under 1 mg

Koca Nola        under 1 mg

Kola Coca        5 mg

Vin Mariani        6-8 mg

Kola Cardinette    9 mg

Maltine with Coca    9 mg

Coca Cordial        30 mg

Metcalf Coca Wine    32 mg

Wiseola- under 1 mg per fluid ounce

Celery Cola - under 1 mg per fluid ounce

Simply declare cocaine unsafe, without any mention of dilution-concentration factor whatsoever.

Koca Nola

This was a syrup for flavoring soda water and similar "soft drinks" put up by a company of the same name at Atlanta, Ga. This "Delicious Dopeless Koca Nola"—as the label had it —was found to contain cocain. Cocain being deleterious to health, was declared an adulteration under the act so that the Koca Nola Company was found guilty on two points: (1) failing to declare the presence of cocain and (2) adulteration. The Government made two seizures and the company was found guilty in each case and a fine of $25 on each count was imposed, making the total $100.—[Notice of Judgment, No. 202.]
Celery Cola

Celery-Cola, marketed by the Birmingham Celery Cola Company of Birmingham, Ala., was another soft drink found to contain cocain and caffeine. The government contended that as cocain was a poisonous and deleterious ingredient, the product was adulterated and as the proportion or quantity of cocain was not declared on the label it was also misbranded.— [Notice of Judgment, No. 326.]

Such prosecutions did not involve excessive dosing.

Koca Nola and Celery Cola for instance each contained under 1 milligram of cocaine per fluid ounce.

Since cocaine was an ingredient required to be listed- how could it be declared an illegal ingredient, its presence automatically constituting "adulteration"?!   Should not the prosecutions as those against Coca Nola and Celery Cola have then been only for "misbranding"?

Whether or not a product even labeled its cocaine content apparently would not shield it from prosecution by Wiley's USDA Bureau of Chemistry- at least for such in food products as beverages, as with the prosecution of the manufacturers of a product named"Dr. Don's Kola":
Dr. Don's Kola

This product, which was sold as a flavoring extract for "soft drinks," was shipped by the Warner-Jcnkinson Company of St. Louis from Missouri to Michigan. When analyzed by the Government chemists, the product was found to be a syrupy liquid consisting essentially of cocain, caffein, phosphoric acid, sugar, flavoring and coloring agents, and water. It contained no substance derived from the cola nut or cola plant. In view of the fact that it contained cocain, a dangerous drug, the stuff was declared adulterated and, inasmuch as it contained no product of the cola nut. it was further declared misbranded. The defendant entered a plea of guilty and a fine was imposed.—[Notice of Judgment, No. 724.]
That prosecution apparently made no mention of any failure to label the cocaine content, being cited for "mislabeling" only insofar as failing to contain its labeled Kola nut.

USDA Prosecutions of Cocaine Containing Products

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Medicinal Coca

Coca leaves are the product of Erythroxylum Coca, Lam. (Bolivian or Huanuco leaves), and of E. truxillense, Rusby (Peruvian or Truxillo leaves), shrubs (N.O. Lineae) cultivated in Bolivia, Peru, and Ceylon whence the leaves are imported into Europe. Coca, U.S.P., must yield not less than 0.5 per cent. of the ether-soluble alkaloids of coca. Bolivian coca leaves are oval in outline and vary from 3.5 to 7 centimetres in length, and from 25 to 35 millimetres in breadth. They are brownish-green in colour and are generally well preserved. The veinlets are prominent on the upper surface, and the midrib, which projects at the apex, in the form of a minute horny apiculus, is seen under the lens to lie in a depression, and to bear a distinct raised ridge on the upper surface. On the under surface of the leaf two curved lines run from base to apex on each side of the midrib. The odour is faint but characteristic, and the taste is slightly bitter, followed by a sensation of numbness. Truxillo leaves are generally rather smaller than the Bolivian variety, more broken, and pale green in colour. The ridge above the midrib and the curved lines on each side of it are less distinct, and the veinlets much less prominent on the upper surface. They are occasionally mixed with flowers of a species of Inga, an intentional addition made with the object of improving the drug. Ceylon leaves which are imported into this country in considerable quantities are the leaves of E. Coca; they resemble Bolivian leaves, but are usually larger, and are said to contain rather less alkaloid. Coca leaves from Java are derived from E. Coca, var. spruceanum, Burck.; they are exported in the crushed state from Java to Germany via Amsterdam and yield about 0.7 per cent. of total alkaloid, part of which is benzoyl-pseudo-tropine or tropacocaine. Young (Java) leaves, carefully dried have been found to contain as much as 2 per cent. of alkaloid. As the cocaine is easily hydrolysed it is desirable that the leaves should be free from mildew and kept in a dry place.

Constituents.—Coca leaves contain the alkaloids cocaine (methyl-benzoyl-ecgonine), cinnamyl-cocaine (methyl-cinnamyl-ecgonine), and truxilline (isatropyl-cocaine or cocamine). The total amount yielded by the commercial leaves varies from about 0.1 to 1.0 per cent. As a rule Truxillo leaves contain rather more alkaloid than Bolivian, but only about one-half of it is cocaine, whereas from three-fourths to five-sixths of the total alkaloid in Bolivian leaves consists of cocaine. The latter are to be preferred for medicinal use. Coca leaves also contain cocatannic acid. Java coca contains tropacocaine and four yellow crystalline glucosides, in addition to the other constituents.

Action and Uses.—The properties of coca are virtually those of cocaine (see Cocaina) (not scanned), though preparations of the whole drug appear rather more stimulating and possess a mild astringency. In Peru and Bolivia, coca leaves are chewed for their effect in relieving hunger and fatigue. The leaves of commerce are not so active in this respect as the freshly dried drug used where it is found native. Coca leaves are used as a cerebral and muscle stimulant especially during convalescence. The drug relieves gastric pain, nausea and vomiting. Coca is usually administered in the form of one of the preparations. The liquid extract contains some wax from the leaves, which is precipitated when mixed with water. The miscible liquid extract is free from this objection. Extractum Cocae is dispensed in pills and pastilles. The latter are sucked for their local action and for their stimulating effect. Vinum Cocae and Elixir Cocae are more pleasant forms of administering the drug. In cases of poisoning by preparations of coca the antidotes described under Cocaina should be employed.
Dose.—2 to 8 grammes (30 to 120 grains).


Also: Cocaine nasal bougies - Cocaine urethral bougies - Cocaine Eye Drops - Menthol and Cocaine Snuff - Cocaine Spray - Atropine Eye Ointment with Cocaine - Cocaine Eye Ointment - Oleinate of Cocaine - Soluble Cocaine Tablets - Strong Soluble Cocaine Tablets
Elixir Cocae, B.P.C.—ELIXIR OF COCA. 1 (miscible liquid extract) in 6.
A palatable preparation of coca for use as a cerebral stimulant and gastric sedative. Dose.—4 to 15 mils (1 to 4 fluid drachms).

Extractum Cocae, B.P.C.—EXTRACT OF COCA.
Prepared by evaporation of the liquid extract. Dose.—1 to 6 decigrams (2 to 10 grains).

Extractum Cocae Liquidum, B.P.—LIQUID EXTRACT OF COCA.
Coca leaves, in No. 20 powder, 100; alcohol (60 per cent.), sufficient to produce 100. Macerate the drug with 200 of alcohol for forty-eight hours, then transfer the mixture to a percolator, and percolate with sufficient alcohol to exhaust the drug. Reserve the first 75 of percolate; evaporate the remainder, at a temperature below 80°, to a soft extract, dissolve this in the reserved portion, and add sufficient alcohol to make up to the required volume. Liquid extract of coca is prescribed in mixture form or diluted with glycerin and syrup. It forms a turbid mixture with water, its waxy constituents being precipitated. Miscible liquid extract of coca is without this disadvantage. The content of total alkaloid in liquid extract of coca is very variable, ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 per cent., the average being about 0.38 per cent. This uncertainty in its composition causes the preparation to be little used. Dose.—2 to 4 mils (½ to 1 fluid drachm).

Extractum Cocae Liquidum Miscibile, B.P.C.—MISCIBLE LIQUID EXTRACT OF COCA. 1 in 1.
Miscible liquid extract of coca is free from the wax of the official liquid extract and forms a clear solution with water. It is usually weaker in total alkaloid than the official liquid extract. Dose.—2 to 4 mils (½ to 1 fluid drachm).

Fluidextractum Cocae, U.S.P.—FLUIDEXTRACT OF COCA.
Coca leaves, in No. 40 powder, 100; alcohol (49 per cent.), a sufficient quantity. The finished product should contain 0.5 per cent. w/v of ether-soluble alkaloids of coca. Average dose.—2 mils (30 minims).

Tinctura Cocae, B.P.C.—TINCTURE OF COCA. 1 in 5.
Used as a cerebral stimulant and gastric sedative. Dose.—2 to 4 mils (½ to 1 fluid drachm).

Vinum Cocae, B.P.C.—COCA WINE. 1 (elixir) in 8.
This is a strongly medicated wine. In order that it may be included in the class of medicated wines for sale without a wine licence, it must contain not less than half a grain of alkaloid per fluid ounce. Acts mainly in virtue of its cocaine. Coca wine differs from tea, in that the former beverage acts mainly on the motor areas and the latter on the psychical, Dose.—8 to 15 mils (2 to 4 fluid drachms) with water.

Vinum Cocae, U.S.P.—WINE OF COCA.
Fluidextract of coca, 6.5; alcohol (95 per cent.), 7.5; sugar, 6.5; red wine, sufficient to produce 100. Average dose.—16 mils (4 fluid drachms).

Vinum Cocae et Quininae Phosphatis, B.P.C.—COCA AND QUININE PHOSPHATE WINE.
Each fluid ounce contains 1 grain of quinine sulphate, 30 minims of liquid extract of coca, 4 minims of diluted phosphoric acid, with alcohol, detannated sherry and distilled water. Dose.—15 to 60 mils (½ to 2 fluid ounces).

Friday, November 27, 2015

Vin Mariani- The Latter Years

Historical accounts of Vin Mariani focus perhaps exclusively upon the years prior to the prohibition era.

Here is a bit of the history following the 1906 U.S. Food and Drug Act that effectively blacklisted cocaine via including it on a list of ingredients that had to be labeled, though not including the other popularly used stimulants of caffeine and nicotine.

1907: Vin Mariani for the U.S. market deleted the cocaine, adding a rear side label- see below.  I don't yet have information if they continued to provide the regular version as an alternative.



PARIS, FRANCE: 41 Boulevard Haussman.   NEW YORK: 52 West 15th Street

  "THE STANDARD OF MARIANI PREPARATIONS, established by us in France nearly half a century, ago is based upon the adaptation of Coca as employed by the Andeans during hundreds of years as a force sustainer.  WE HAVE ALWAYS emphasized our use of Coca leaves chosen for AROMATIC and MEDICINAL qualities and, as we have never considered the negligible amount of alkaloid in such leaves essential to our formula, our processing completely eliminates it from our preparation”

That was actually a bad move for it implied that cocaine was something that did not belong in dilute amounts, never-mind that the real problems with cocaine came with it in concentrated forms, and that there was never any showing that cocaine in dilute form was any more "dangerous" than such other naturally occurring stimulant alkaloids as caffeine and nicotine,, both used in dilute form and both likewise poisonous in concentrated forms.

The 1906 Act neither banned cocaine as an ingredient in food or drug products.  It simply required labeling the cocaine content- itself a reasonable requirement, though actually misleading - by not likewise require the labeling of caffeine and nicotine it created a false assumption of cocaine being somehow more dangerous in likewise dilute form.

However the 1906 Act would serve as a means to bring about the deletion of dilute cocaine, via its un-fetted delegation of regulatory power to declare an ingredient unsafe to the Bureau of Chemistry of the U.S.D.A.

That started happening in 1907 with U.S.D.A. prosecutions not only against manufacturers for 'mislabeling' for failing to label the cocaine content, but others for adulteration for containing cocaine- even if properly label, with the U.S.D.A. declaring without basis that such cocaine content was dangerous.  For instance, though Wiley was well known for his "poison squad" experimentations upon food containing various substances used as preservatives, he apparently never conducted any such researching upon beverages that contained cocaine.

Such 'adulteration' prosecutions by the U.S.D.A. were done with products sold as foods.  Never-mind that the 1906 Act's inclusion of cocaine as an ingredient that had to be labeled in food and drug products implicitly meant that it remained legal.

Perhaps as a way of bolstering his authority to ban substances by declaring them unsafe Harvey Wiley initiated a famous prosecution against the Coca Cola Company for containing added caffeine- that is caffeine in pure form as a dilute ingredient- for he not only never targeted Coffee or Tea but actually praised them.

Such prosecutions would only go after products sold as foods, and hence could conceivably be sold as drugs.  However the political campaign being carried out by the U.S.D.A. Chemistry Bureau Chief Harvey Wiley - who was also prominent in the American Medical Association and its allied American Pharmaceutical Association - also targeted cocaine containing medicinal preparations via a massive lobbying effort of 'model legislation' for the individual U.S. States to ban the sale of such outside of a physicians prescription, with such prescriptions being mandated a s"non-refillable".

Political machinations in the 1908 to 1914 period would work upon amending the 1906 Act to outright ban products containing any amount of cocaine and to severely restrict those containing at least above a certain amount of opiates- efforts that culminated in 1914 with the U.S. Harrison Act.  While the particular political fear of cocaine was sold in newspapers as a fear of Negroes in the south, a 1910 U.S.D.A. Farmer Bulletin article more honestly presented the U.S.D.A.'s fear of Coca being sold and used as a "Tobacco Habit Cure".

That Act would exempt products containing below a certain amount of opiates though not of cocaine from over the counter -- that is without a physician's prescription -- from a deceptively innocuous appearing to some tax requirement, to be administered by a U.S. Department of Treasury that was not actually required to honor requests for market participation thus effectively empowering that entity to enact a virtually blanket prohibition.  This delegation of regulatory authority would be upheld by a U.S. Judge who had served in the U.S. Congress from 1909 until his resignation in 1914, and who was present in deliberations regarding amending the 1906 Food and Drug Act leading to the crafting of the 1914 Harrison Act: James Harry Covington.

As requiring non refillable prescriptions for products containing any amount of cocaine effectively made their sale and use impractical -- e.g. by requiring a separate physicians visit for each non refillable prescription -- cocaine containing preparations dissipated from OTC sales, with any such prescriptions effectively confined to a far narrower spectrum of uses, such as the use of the more concentrated  preparations in surgical anesthesia.  Any physician considering prescriptions outside of such a narrow range of uses would likewise soon be effectively cowed by the U.S. Treasury Department's abuse of its delegated regulatory authority to essentially practice medicine without a license.

Other nations would adopt such polices, though for a time some exempted dilute cocaine products as Vin Mariani.  Conceivably, Vin Mariani was produced in different versions for different market jurisdictions, though such information so far remains elusive.


1946- this shows the classic Vin Mariani bottle


According to an article by Walter Helfland, Vin Mariani was sold in some form until 1963.