Pages

Friday, September 13, 2019

DPA Drug Policy Alliance 2019 Proposal: Nicotine Versus Cocaine 1906+ Disaster!

Nicotine v Cocaine 1906+ Disaster
Douglas A. Willinger

“one of the recommendations from the project was to examine a key factor that shapes U.S. drug research: the pervasive belief that some drugs are inherently harmful and addictive, a position that influences research questions and populations studied, as well as the outcomes that are measured.”
This pervasive belief dates back in U.S. national legislation to the 1906 Food and Drugs Act.

It was widely lauded for its task of stopping the interstate commerce in “adulterated” and “misbranded” products sold as foods or drugs, as an “progressive” act of consumer protectionism.  

But, alas, it was seriously flawed and biased, a proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothes, cleverly written to enable anti-competitive regulatory abuse favoritism for key agricultural commodities.  

It did not prohibit any substance fought by the “drug war”.  

It introduced the idea of labeling ingredients, but only in a fashion designed to convey the idea of a set of essentially blacklisted substances, via the 1906 Act’s enumerated list - morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide. 

As this list is limited it for instance conveys the a likely impression to potential and actual consumers that such are intrinsically more worrisome than those unlisted, such as say caffeine and nicotine.  

It established a bureaucratic regulatory dictatorship to establish what was “legitimate” concerning not only foods and drugs, but also medical practice; and committed the mortal sin of granting such regulatory authority to the Bureau of Chemistry of the U.S.D.A. without any requirement of science credibility; hence it was under this sort of initial legislative direction that we the people got a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as a tool of longstanding dominant economic interests to use the power of the expanding “progressive” state to suppress their market competition.   AKA cigarette protectionism.

To wit, Opium and Coca Leaf.

Opium is the classic “narcotic”, a drug inducing sleep.  An effective pain killer and even anti-depressant.  Physically addictive, and because of its utility and relative lack of toxicity, is adaptable to higher and higher doses via the then recent – later 1800s – developed practices of refining plants into powders, creating ultra-concentrated HC. forms of alkaloids found in the plant matter in minute quantities.  Hence, drinking or eating Opium, or Opium infusion – tea – was far less addicting than an injected alkaloids, say morphine or its man-modified form heroin.

Coca leaf, which contains the alkaloid cocaine akin to Coffee containing the alkaloid caffeine and Tobacco leaf nicotine, has an ancient history of use in South America, particularly the Andean mountain areas, as in and near Peru, routinely served to tourists to help acclimate them to the high altitude conditions.  Europeans first encountered Coca leaf about the same time as Tobacco, yet Coca was hampered due to its volatility – it more easily went stale – making it a less desirable shipping commodity, thus delaying its market penetration within Europe for 300+ years, to the creation and marketing of Vin Mariani and its widespread medical use for the half century leading up to its 1914 U.S. prohibition.  Vin Mariani was a “wine of coca” made with an extract blending three varieties of Coca leaves.  It contained roughly 6 or 7 mg of cocaine alkaloid per fluid ounce.  It inspired numerous competing coca wine products, eventually including non alcoholic beverages that became known as soft drinks, such as Coca Cola with reportedly 1 1/2 milligrams per fluid ounce .  It also came with products pattered after traditional uses of Tobacco, with cigars, cheroots and cigarettes made with Coca leaves.

These sort of uses of “cocaine” were comparable to that of caffeine in Coffee, nicotine in Tobacco.

Concentrated cocaine was only first made commercially available as pharmaceutical forms about 1885 via Merck, in Germany, and Parke Davis, in the U.S., in salt (hydrochloride) and freebase (sulfate) varieties, dry or in solutions for injection.  Uses of 89% pure cocaine powder (HCI), and solutions of lesser concentration though meant for the infinitely more direct mode of administration as injections, would clearly introduce many undesirable case studies, particularly in the field of anesthesia.

There are numerous medical records concerning all of this.   

The issue became muddled with those misrepresenting acute toxicities of ultra-high doses as intrinsic to any dosage, with societies with relatively little exposure to Coca thus being susceptible to dis-information designed to spark support for the drug war.  Sadly, for its market competition being squashed by the drug war, with the USDA prosecution of beverage manufacturers for containing a supposedly dangerous, deleterious substance, the cocaine alkaloid, Tobacco cigarettes would be overwhelmingly the main daily use stimulant drug war beneficiary. 

“I have … used [Vin Mariani] to save smokers of exaggerated habits from nicotinism.  A few glasses taken in small doses … acted as a substitute for pipes and cigars because the smokers found in it the cerebral excitement which they sought in Tobacco, wholly preserving their intellectual facilities.”
The Drug Policy Alliance and allied groups need to commission a study of uses of the parent plant products Opium, Coca, in products so designed to deliver doses of opiate and/or coca alkaloids.

This DPA study should look at the health issues of relating to any displacement of existing markets in Coffee, Tea, anything else that contains caffeine, as well as those in Tobacco and anything else that contains nicotine.  Imagine particularly Coca displacing nicotine markets.

It could and should for instance ask a “what if” question regarding alternative historical possibilities, a world that did not get the drug war. 

Douglas A. Willinger
Freedom of Medicine and Diet

San Marcos, California
September 13, 2019

 ---


I am author of papers that were published in the Drug Policy Foundation Conference compendiums, The Ever-changing, Ever-confused Popular Conception of Cocaine; Cocaine Prohibition; Water or Gasoline for the flames of drug abuse; and Onwards to Coca!

I was a panelist in the 1991 and 1992 Cocaine panels, and the 1992 panel Is America Exporting its Problems.

I organized and moderated the panel COCA '95, a Necessary Policy Alternative from Abroad.

Additional panel proposals I submitted, but which were rejected include (1994) Coca: Turning Over A New Leaf Towards Reducing Health Care Costs, (1997) Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca: How Prohibition Perverts Useful Substances into white powder poisons,and (2009) Agricultural Politics of Drug Policy.


Since 2007, I have authored a blog on drug policy related matters Freedom of Medicine and Diet.  It includes details on the polices towards Opium, opiates, Coca leaf and cocaine, as well as the formulation of the legislative and regulatory matters, dating forward from the 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act that empowered the USDA Chemistry Bureau dictatorial powers, lacking any requirement of underlying consistent science.







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 ...











http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/03/drug-war-tobacco-pharma-agricultural.html

Friday, June 7, 2019

Douglas Greene's 1992 Drug Policy Foundation Paper

How to Make the Loyal Opposition Part of the Political Mainstream
appearing at pp 389-391 in
Strategies for Change New Directions in Drug Policy
The Drug Policy Foundation Press
Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin Zeese editors



Douglas Greene

At an April 1991 New York State Libertarian Party convention, drug policy scholar and Cato Institute associate James Ostrowski confirmed a suspicion of mine that had been developing for the past year.  He claimed that the drug policy reform movement has crested and that it would require a new wave of activism to rekindle interest in the topic.

From the perspective of media attention to the subject,Mr. Ostrowski would appear to be correct.  Although polls in the late 1980s consistently named drugs as the most critical problem for the country to deal with, more traditional concerns, such as foreign policy and the economy, have overtaken drugs both in the polls and on the air.  The current lack of attention paid to the subject is a far cry from the hey-day of 1988 (which marked Baltimore Mayor Schmoke's historic statement to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Ted Koppel's town meeting and Congressional hearings on legalization.

There are hints of renewal within the chaos of drug policy reform.  From books by(three in the past year) to ballots (Proposition P in San Francisco) to the burnt out areas of L.A., drugs are still recognized as a significant public policy issue.  More important, they were a fresh reminder of the failure of the status quo.

But we can no longer rely on the environmental factors that sparked the last wave of interest in drug policy reform - a high level of public salience and high visibility figures willing to discuss the issue.  A new strategy is necessary to catalyze public support for reform.

It's fine for us to discuss cocaine and heroin legalization as possibilities for a future drug policy.  But it's not going to happen, not in the near future at any rate.  It might be possible to convince a substantial minority of the wisdom of cocaine and heroin legalization, but only at immense cost and I doubt that we would be able to convince enough of the public to change the drug laws, which must be our eventual goal.

We need to focus on attitudes that are already held by a significant proportion of the the public, including:

1) The need for a shift in emphasis from law enforcement to education and treatment.

Harvard professor Mark Kleiman does a good job at delineating the confusion surrounding persuasion, help and control, as he puts it, in Against Excess.  Despite concerns over objectives and effectiveness, even libertarians will admit that there will always be ignorance about and problems with drugs.  Promoting the therapeutic potential of ibogaine would help ease many qualms about the increased availability of drugs.  It would be a great coup for the forces of reform if we were able to take credit for making available a treatment that has been suppressed by agents of the United States pharmacracy for decades.  Unfortunately, the media and the Food and Drug Administration, not usually our two greatest allies, seem to have caught on quicker than some of us reformers.

2) The need for more aggressive AIDS prevention.

San Francisco voters passed Proposition O, calling upon the state legislature to repeal laws prohibiting the sale of needles without a prescription.  The National Commission on AIDS recommended removing legal barriers to the purchase and possession of injection equipment.  Needle exchange activists around the country have been acquitted of criminal charges.

And perhaps most significantly, the success of Hartford's needle exchange program has caused new York City Mayor David Dinkins and U.S. Rep. Charles Rangal to reconsider their opposition to needle exchange.  This was quite a reversal from 1990, when I was told by a member of the Mayor's Study Group on Drug Abuse that legalization and needle exchange were taboo topics.

3) Medical Marijuana

This issue affects people with many different illnesses, and appeals to the compassionate nature of even those who oppose recreational marijuana use.  On Nov. 5, 1991, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition P, recommending that the state of California and the California Medical Association restore hemp medical preperations to the list of available medicines.  Let's work to convince the California state legislature to enact Proposition O and P into law.

In addition to these positions, which already enjoy substantial public support, there are two issues which we do need to change the public's opinion about:

1) The radically altered nature of a deregulated drug market.

In every debate I have seen on the drug issue, an unstated premise of opponents of reform is that the dominant forms of drug use would intensify.  While we cannot predict its exact nature, we need to assert the radical impact of reform on the forms of drugs that would be available under  a more liberal drug regime.  There would be no doubt that a significant market share would be ceded by refined and synthetic forms (i.e. cocaine hydrochloride and base, and heroin, and fentanyl) to plant forms (i.e. coca and opium products).  The resultant indirect form of administration, decrease in potency and improvement in quality control would lead to a dramatic improvement in the health of drug using populations.

2) Hemp for humanity instead of marijuana legalization.

One of the classic strategies of the advertising world has been to follow up a failed campaign by repositioning the product.  Advocates of marijuana reform should learn from the lessons of Madison Avenue.  Marijuana use has been on the decline for over a decade, and interest in drugs and drug policy has shifted to more potent pharmaceuticals and prescriptions for change.  At the same time, everyone has become an environmentalist, and great concern has been expressed about the future of small farms.  It's become clear that NORML's approach to the problem is not working.  the generals of our loyal opposition ought to pay attention to the guerrilla soldiers of the Hemp Tour and the enthusiastic response of those who learn about the illustrious past and bright future of this plant.

But what about the best vehicle to deliver these messages to the public and the government?  Our current approach is centered on 501(c)3 non profit educational organizations.  These have been successful in attracting media recognition and in per-suing reform through the legal system.  However, this has not bee enough to reverse the generally hostile attitude of the media, and the legal battles have been limited in scope and extremely lengthy in duration.

It is in the area of political action that these organizations have really failed to make an impact.  This is due to their tax status (although IRS regulations do allow a limited percentage of revenues to be used for lobbying), their legal and academic bases of support and perhaps most important, the enormous amount of money necessary for effective political actions.

Candidates for public office have been reluctant to deal with the issue of drug policy reform, and can be expected to do so until we build public support for our positions.  It's a cliche, but one that bears repeating: politicians are followers, not leaders (present company excepted of course).  Libertarian candidates can always be counted on for support, but many supporters of drug policy reform are reluctant to embrace the rest of the Libertarian platform.

Initiatives seem to offer more of a chance of success than candidate campaigns.  States with the initiative process could do well by trying to focus on some of the issues above.  However, recent attempts in this area have been marred by the same lack of money and professionalism that has plagued other candidates and organizations.

This leaves us with the prospect of a lobbying organization.  This is our best bet for accomplishing political change.  This type of organization could focus on defeating bad bills and nurturing the seeds of change, instead of hoping that educational activities will motivate isolated individuals to stem the tide of repression on their own.  Individual support is essential for financing and communicating with legislators, but coordination is necessary to track events and devise effective responses.

A lobby would also be better able to form alliances with other political supporters of our agenda, who have themselves learned the power of political action committees and lobbyists.  It's hard to mobilize people around public education.  We need specific goals that can be operationalized to measure their success or failure.

Although I believe a lobby would be the best organization to achieve our goals, sheer inertia and lack of funds may prevent it from happening.  there are several ways we can improve our political effectiveness through existing organizations.

Probably the most important thing we can do is stop viewing other drug policy reform organizations as competitors.  At a meeting at the national NORML officie, I heard references to NORML people or CAN people.  While certain people may belong to one or another organization, we should view organizations by their mission, not their membership.

We should actively share information between organizations, especially membership and prospect lists, with agreed upon security and privacy precautions.

We must reaffirm that our ultimate goal is to change the drug laws, and to that end provide activists at the state and local levels with the information and support they need to accomplish their goals. Almost as important is focusing on defeating bad laws and initiatives (i.e. Proposition 2 in Alaska).  Until we're consistently winning these battles, we can't hope to pass our own agenda.

We might consider pooling our resources to fund media and lobbying initiatives that would not be feasible for individual organizations.  And until we can alter the drug laws, we should publicize the right of jurors to acquit drug offenders through the use of the jury veto (also known as "jury nullification").  Fully informed juries played a key role in undermining Prohibition and setting the stage for the passage of the 21st Amendment.

Washington is a seductive environment - not only for those in power, but for the loyal opposition as well.  The Beltway mentality has a way of detaching those caught in its grasp from the grassroots of support that supply them with money and power.  If we are to succeed, those of us in the capital must judge themselves by the peace they can conclude - partially fought and negotiated in Washington, but for the rest of the country too - and given the predominance of the United States in international drug policy, the rest of the planet as well.

574 Albermarle Place, Cedarhurst, N.Y.  11516-1004


Thursday, June 6, 2019

Doug Greene: Colleague, Advocate, Friend, Dead in Subway

We met at an April 1988 N.Y. Libertarian Party gathering in White Plains, N.Y. where I recognized his name from an article he wrote for the (now defunct) R.B. Wilks newsletter Burning Issues, where he includes advocacy for legalizing Opium and Coca leaf, providing a welcome contrast to the standard group thought of thinking of "heroin" and "cocaine" concentrated white powders...

Douglas Greene: March 13, 1967 - June 4, 2019




https://www.celebstoner.com/archive/author/?auth=4

Longtime Empire State NORML member and tireless cannabis legalization advocate Doug Greene died in a subway accident on June 4. He was 52.

https://www.celebstoner.com/blogs/steve-bloom/2019/06/05/new-york-marijuana-activist-doug-greene-rip/?ref=6&ref_type=tab

By Steve Bloom

Longtime Empire State NORML member Doug Greene died in a subway accident on June 4. The Daily News reports that, according to the police, "a man was fatally struck by an A train after he fell onto the subway tracks on the Upper West Side Tuesday night," adding that he was hit by "a southbound express train at the 72 St. station near Central Park West just before 10:45 p.m."

Though the police did not identify the victim, reports of Greene's death started appearing on his Facebook page around 5 pm on June 5. A transit police representative has since confirmed that it indeed was Greene.

Greene attended the George Clinton concert at SummerStage in Central Park with fellow activist Todd Hinden on Tuesday night. After the show ended at 10 pm, they walked west and left the park, crossing Central Park West, and parted ways after a fun evening of music, Hinden on bicycle and Greene on foot. The last time Hinden saw Greene was when he descended the stairs into the 72 St. subway station at approximately 10:30 pm.

The station is on the A, B and C lines. The A express passes the station on one of the middle tracks. The B and C local trains make stops in the station. Greene, who lived in Cedarhurst in Nassau Country, likely planned to take the C train (or the A if it was running on the local track) to Penn Station where he'd board a Long Island Railroad train to Cedarhurst, a 50-minute ride.

What happened to Greene on the subway platform is unknown, though police said they "did not suspect foul play." The possibilities are several: he suffered a heart attack or stroke, he fainted, he slipped, he was pushed, he had a confrontation with someone on the platform or he committed suicide. It's also unclear if there were any eyewitnesses.

The 52-year-old advocate had a 30-year history as a tireless champion for cannabis legalization. I met him in the early '90s at NORML conferences and other marijuana events. Doug was a student of drug policy.

While he held a day job at a law firm that specialized in bankruptcy, Doug's passion was legalizing marijuana. With a bill currently in the state legislature, he worked incessantly to convince the oppositon to change sides. In January, he was featured on the cover of Crain's New York Business and quoted in the article.

Recent negativity around the prospects for the legislation, the Marijuana Taxation and Regulation Act, steeled his resolve. Doug reminded me several times recently to not to buy into the general belief that the bill didn't have enough votes. If it does pass, it should be named for him.

In addition to his legislative pursuits, Doug was a ardent vegan and a music fan. We attended several concerts together, including the Ziggy Marley/Steel Pulse show last August at Pier 17. I was also at the Clinton show, but we didn't run into each other. I last saw Doug at the NORML FORML fundraiser on May 29.

He's survived by his sister and his mother.

I will update this article when more information is made available.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Wierdness At "Natural News"


An outlet for a good amount of much needed skepticism of conventional patent medicine, yet plagued by the recent "'opioid' epidemic"hysteria campaign that pushes the very polices creating and worsening the problem.

They censored me when I attempted leaving comments questioning that stance.

Now, with an article charging a "liberal media" with promoting censorship, Natural News informs me that they are banning me from even attempting to place any comments.




Natural News claims to oppose censorship.  They have published a number of articles where they purport to be opposed to censorship, such as these:

 https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-07-16-2-censorship-by-tech-giants-is-an-assault-on-the-right-to-exist-in-an-online-dominated-society.html

 https://www.naturalnews.com/048131_censored_news_2014_alternative_media.html

Yet censorship is exactly what Natural News practices here, as I personally found, when I attempted to comment about their indefensible and irresponsible hysteria promotion of the self perpetuating "'opioid' epidemic".



Let us see this man Mike Adams either:

- denounce this censorship (and fire those at Natural News" behind it), or;

- apologize for it, along with hi s irresponsible pushing of policies which kill people with denying licit retail sources for guaranteed potency opiate products.


Natural News claims to be for medical freedom.

Yet it has debased itself by jumping on this 'how we continue the misery of the drug war after Marijuana becomes legalized" mass media "'opioid' epidemic" campaign bandwagon.

Centered around a new scare word "opioid", and a lying through their teeth that they are working to thwart a problematic situation which they actually make worse, by unjustifiably further curtailing people's access to regulated pain meds, in order so we get a huge growth in essentially unregulated, wildly unpredictable potency black market opiates adulterated with far far more potent synthetic opiates (which the previously obscure term "opioid" initially referred to).  Countless talking heads lied through their teeth tat too many prescriptions were being written (too many, yet never questioning qualitative matters as to why such prescriptions always insist upon taking such meds every single day without break).  Yet when doctors thus began placing such dirty politics even moreso over the interests of patients, with prescriptions going down, yet fatal overdoses going up, we get such illustrious mass  media organs misleading their readers with headlines reporting on such as "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"

All of this simple, destructive, one-mindedness, reeks of some sort of organized campaign to lie to the general public for the sake of promoting evil polices designed to maximize human misery.


About this irresponsible hysteria promotion, as practiced by The New York Times:

https://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-york-times-misleading-headlines.html



Monday, June 19, 2017

Epileptic Seizures, Autism, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Cannabis … And Coca Leaf Tea?

republished from:

https://panaceachronicles.com/2017/05/31/epileptic-seizures-autism-dementiaalzheimers-cannabis-and-coca-leaf-tea/


Epileptic Seizures, Autism, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Cannabis … And Coca Leaf Tea?

First, A Short Summary:
Researchers are “just discovering” that Cannabis can control Epileptic seizures (Most recent New England Journal of Medicine)

Researchers have not yet looked at Cannabis for use in Dementia/Alzheimer’s, even though seizures are common and are a leading cause of death in Dementia/Alzheimer’s.

Maybe that’s because while Congress has committed some $5.4 billion this fiscal year to cancer research, about $1.2 billion to heart disease and $3 billion to research on HIV/AIDS, research funding for Alzheimer’s is “only” $566 million. Clearly that’s just not enough for researchers (mostly Big Pharma employees) to look into Cannabis as a treatment.

On a related note, California researchers have just shown that a sleeping sickness drug developed in 1916 can reverse Autism in children; unfortunately, the test group was only 10 kids, and 5 of them were given placebos, and the researchers had to go $500,000 into debt to run the study. Evidently kids with Autism aren’t a big enough deal for Congress. Thoughtful of those researchers to care enough to go ahead though.

And to wrap all this up in a neat little package, I figure it would cost well under $100,000 to show that Coca Leaf can not only control Epileptic seizures (as already well-known and demonstrated in 1881), but probably also Dementia/Alzheimer’s seizures – not even a diagnosed disease in 1881.

So, a drug from 1916 is now “discovered” to cure Autism, after decades of high-dollar research into “new” cures. And Cannabis is discovered to cure Epilepsy, after more decades of research into “new” cures. And an 1881 proven cure for both epilepsy and likely for Dementia/Alzheimers, among many other killer diseases, is illegal. Go figure.

The Full Story

For several years researchers have been zeroing in on Cannabis as a source for potent medicines in treating & preventing epileptic and other kinds of seizures. The latest findings, published May 25, 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that @ 40% of those treated with a CBD-based medicine experienced dramatic improvement in seizure intensity and frequency.

So, let’s put this together with an interesting association between seizures and Dementia/Alzheimer’s. There is plenty of research on this association. Here’s just one example.

“Of the degenerative disorders, Alzheimer’s dementia and amyloid angiopathy are known major causes of seizures. Advanced Alzheimer’s disease has been identified as a risk factor for new-onset generalized tonic-clonic seizures in older adults. It is associated with a 10 percent prevalence of seizures, particularly late in the illness. An increased prevalence of seizures also has been documented with other types of dementia.

So I suppose that it would make sense to investigate whether Cannabis-derived medicines, or perhaps the right strain of Cannabis itself, could be useful in controlling or preventing seizures in Dementia/Alzheimer’s, especially in late-stages of the disease when seizures are a known killer.
I’m sure that researchers are already drafting multi-million dollar grants to study exactly that.
So far, so good. In spite of decades of “Killer Weed” propaganda it looks like scientific minds are finally rising above the lies and finding that, consistent with centuries of well-established knowledge, the natural medicine Cannabis can be helpful in dealing with killer seizures better and with less risk of harm than pharmaceuticals.

But wait! If centuries of medical knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of Cannabis are now appearing as “new findings” in prestigious medical journals, why not take a look at centuries of medical knowledge regarding the safety and efficacy of Coca Leaf in the same area?

Hmmmm. Could it be that a cup or two of Coca Leaf tea a day might be helpful to people with Dementia/Alzheimer’s – at least in preventing seizures, if not in other ways too. Let’s see. Who would know?

Well, there is a little book entitled “Erythroxylon Coca”, written by By W.S. Searle, MD and published in New York in 1881. (Dr. Searles book is included in its entirety in my ebook “Coca Leaf Papers” available on the sidebar of this post.)

Dr. Searles book is only one of many in which the use of Coca to treat and cure epileptic seizures is covered, but here is what Dr. Searles had to say:

“Coca Leaf & Acute Disease”

“The relations of Coca to acute disease are extremely important. As a physician, I would not be without it under any consideration. How thoroughly will every physician, understand me when I say that we are not seldom compelled to stand by and witness the death of patients who are really better of the disease which destroys them than perhaps at any previous time during their sickness. We are unable to support them, and they die from exhaustion of the vital forces.”

“But in Coca we have a powerful agent, whose disturbing influence over physiological processes is so little felt that it neither interferes with recovery from disease by natural course, nor with the action of remedies. And its sustaining power is so marvelous, that I prophesy that by its help we shall hereafter be able to cure many cases of disease which were otherwise hopeless.”

“I am informed by my colleague, Dr. John L. Moffat, of Brooklyn, that he has had very encouraging results from the use of Coca in hay fever in four instances. Of course, its action here is antipathic, or rather, it probably acts simply by its sustaining power, and by its antipathic relations to asthma. But even an efficient palliative, which can do no harm, will be welcomed by those who are annually visited by this plague.”

“It has been affirmed by some English authorities that Coca is valueless in epilepsy. For myself I can report that, in one instance of the fully-fledged disease, occurring in a middle-aged lady, but in whom the paroxysms did not recur oftener than once in six months, an apparent cure has been effected by means of Coca alone. She has now passed eighteen months without a seizure. I have also more striking reports from some of the members of this society, who report very marked results in several severe cases which would yield to no other remedy.”

“It is too early yet, however, to claim for Coca really curative powers in this terrible disease, which has so long been an “opprobrium medicorum”. Still, it is highly probable that the forms of it used by the English physicians in their trials were inert. This is rendered more than likely by the fact that one of the most expert chemists of New York City carefully searched both France and England during the summer of 1880 for good Coca, and was unable to obtain a single valuable specimen.”

“In view of the fact that all the drugs now ranked as anti-epileptic by the allopathic school of medicine are so injurious to the general health, and in view of the results attained by myself and my colleagues, imperfect as yet though they are, I earnestly urge the faithful trial of Coca in epilepsy.”

Well, about 140 years have passed and where are those “faithful trials” of Coca Leaf for Epilepsy – and incidentally for Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Congestive Heart Failure, Diabetes, Obesity, and a couple of dozen other killer diseases? Nowhere in sight.

Researchers with Ph.D’s and major institutions behind them are getting tens of millions of dollars to “study” Dementia/Alzheimer’s, but not a peep out of the research establishment about Coca Leaf Tea.

And, of course, since I’m not in the club I can’t get a grant, even though I could pretty much prove or disprove the efficacy and safety of Coca leaf for Dementia/Alzheimer’s with a few thousand bucks. But as noted, I don’t have a Ph.D. and I’m not a member of the club, so no institution gives a shit what I say.

Hell, maybe I’ll just do a GoFundMe request for a couple of tickets to Bolivia, grab a hundred kilos or so of fresh Coca Leaf, and come home and start handing out Coca Leaf Tea at a church social or two, and maybe a local nursing home. Think I would get past US Customs/DEA? Might actually be a great idea – let them bust me for trying to bring Coca Leaf in for Dementia/Alzheimer’s patients.

I wonder how many members of the US Congress, who make the laws forbidding Coca Leaf coming into the US, have someone in their family with Dementia/Alzheimer’s. (I’m resisting the obvious snide remark here because while it might be accurate it would also be cruel.)

Anyone have any suggestions?

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Both U.S. Democrat & Republican Parties Have Disregarded Truth

regarding that criminal sociopathic racketeering scheme of the so called "war on drugs"



from a comment by b4integrity at:
http://www.alternet.org/comments/drugs/left-right-challenge-failed-war-drugs#disqus_thread
President Obama refused to answer this communication to him. President* Trump and AG* Sessions have also refused to answer similar communications to them.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/...

5:07 PM, Thursday
2016Jun09

President Obama,

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) contains the following:

"The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) The Congress has long recognized the danger involved in the manufacture, distribution, and use of certain psychotropic substances for nonscientific and nonmedical purposes, and has provided strong and effective legislation to control illicit trafficking and to regulate legitimate uses of psychotropic substances in this country. Abuse of psychotropic substances has become a phenomenon common to many countries, however, and is not confined to national borders. It is, therefore, essential that the United States cooperate with other nations in establishing effective controls over international traffic in such substances."
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Tobacco & alcohol are psychotropic (mood-altering) substances, affecting mental activity, behavior, or perception.

Tobacco & alcohol are the two most deadly & dangerous of all drugs.

Tobacco drug use accounts for more drug deaths (~480,000 tobacco drug deaths/year in the U.S.A.) than the summation of the drug deaths from the use of all other drugs, including alcohol, combined!

Tobacco meets the definition of a schedule I controlled substance.

Alcohol meets the definition of a schedule II controlled substance.
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Tobacco & alcohol are unconstitutionally exempt from the CSA in violation of the Equal Protection Clause [21 U.S.C. § 802(6)].
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Are there any scientific and/or medical purposes for the use of the psychotropic substances tobacco & alcohol? If there are, what are these scientific & medical purposes for the use of tobacco & alcohol?

What are the legitimate uses of the psychotropic substances, tobacco & alcohol, in this country?

What is(are) the reason(s) that tobacco & alcohol are exempt from the CSA?

Do you acknowledge that the CSA violates the Equal Protection Clause?

Why do you enforce the CSA when it violates the Equal Protection Clause?

Why haven't you called for Congress to either:

1) Repeal the exemptions of tobacco & alcohol and classify tobacco as a schedule I controlled substance and alcohol a schedule II; or

2) Repeal the entire CSA and abolish the DEA?

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Defeating The Drug War Requires Better Understanding It

prerequisite reading:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2016/02/points-about-progressive-era-war-of.html


Contrary to what is commonly regurgitated, the drug war did not start with Richard Nixon.

Rather, it was the phrase "war on drugs", that came with the re-codification of drug prohibition that occurred under Nixon with the enactment of the 1970 U.S. Controlled Substances Act. This re-codification was necessary following the 1969 Leary case that had the Supreme Court officially find the statutory basis of US drug prohibition since the 1914 - the power to tax - unconstitutional as violating an individual's right against self incrimination. The 1970 CSA would instead base itself upon the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The U.S. drug war dates back to the prohibitions established via the 1937 “Marijuana” Tax Act and the 1914 Harrison "Narcotics" Tax Act regarding “opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations”.  Accordingly, such substances could only be legally possessed by those registered to pay a special tax, which the U.S. Treasury Department was therefore empowered to set regulations determining who could be allowed to pay the tax.   Thus though based upon the Congressional power to tax, this 1914 Act also relied upon a delegation of regulatory authority.

The stage for this would be set via the 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act, and the propaganda campaign used to bring it about.

The 1906 Act which did not specifically prohibit any substances, set up the population for the prohibitions to come, via an overly broad delegation of regulatory authority to the U.S.D.A. Bureau of Chemistry so empowered to ban products sold as foods, that contained what it claimed were dangerous-deleterious to human health ingredients, and hinted at via a grossly inconsistent retail packaging labeling requirement list of substances.

It would not be a true war against dangerous or addictive substances.

It would lump together all cocaine containing products regardless of the potency and hence actual properties, with the effect of effectively banning the relatively safe - re: dilute - products while shifting cocaine availability exclusively to the drug in its most dangerous concentrated forms.

It would give a free pass to substances that were intrinsically the most dangerous and addictive as nicotine containing Tobacco, even allowing such products with a wide range of deleterious additives, more incredibly even unlabeled, as perhaps should be expected.

The 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act would be widely lauded as establishing reasonable regulations and regulatory authority to guard over the food and drug supply in interstate commerce.

Yet its inconsistencies and its unbridled regulatory authority to the Bureau of Chemistry of the U.S.D.A. would make it a springboard of authoritarian abuse via a U.S.D.A. allied with commercial interests most notably the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association, and in collusion with "muckracker" writers as Samuel Hopkins Adams.

Its seemingly reasonable requirement for the retail product labeling of ingredients would be subverted by its limitation to certain substances that were being politically targeted, and the exclusion of others given a free pass: for instance cocaine had to be labeled but neither caffeine nor nicotine, even regardless of what was inferable from the product's label. Therefore products clearly labeled as "Coca" by name and/or ingredient list were "misbranded" for not listing the presence and proportion of cocaine alkaloid, even that occurring simply naturally in Coca leaf. Yet products were not required to list the caffeine content for instance even if their labels made no mention of Coffee, tea or some other caffeine containing plant- hence fortifying a false notion that cocaine was somehow necessarily more dangerous than caffeine or nicotine regardless of how low the amount, and thus engendering a popular overly broad fear of Coca products.

Its seemingly reasonable prohibition upon "adulteration" was likewise perverted by its empowerment of the U.S.D.A. Chemistry Bureau (Section 4) to make such a determination based upon its opinion of any such ingredient being "deleterious or detrimental to human health" (Section 7 regarding confectioneries and foods): a power given without any actual requirement of scientific backing! The U.S.D.A. Chemistry Bureau could thus exploit this to bring prosecutions against manufacturers of products containing substances it arbitrarily deemed so unacceptable, doing so even those included in the Act's labeling requirement! And it would do so, starting with products sold as "foods' for regular use, rather than as "drugs" sold for more occasional use.

When a 1911 U.S. Supreme Court decision found the 1906 Act failed to confer the degree of regulatory power sought by the U.S.D.A. - namely that "misbranding" referred to a substance's identity rather than its efficacy - it was soon amended. That would thus set the stage for bureaucrats to suppress information about medical alternatives, via empowering them to declare such medical claims as false- even arbitrarily.  This would build upon the Act's already established failure to require scientific backing regarding U.S.D.A. Bureau of Chemistry claims about ingredients, further establishing a medical - agricultural mercantilist scheme for patentable synthetic drugs and Tobacco- the U.S.D.A. after all being initially established in 1862 to promote U.S. agricultural interests.

The drug war after all has always involved markets worth billions, and the U.S.D.A., as an example of this drive for market control, was undeniably concerned about the market threat that Coca posed to Tobacco, as seen in their infamous 1910 Farmers' Bulletin article "Habit Forming Agents Their Sale and Use a Menace to the Public Welfare".  Notably the U.S.D.A. hysteria against cocaine - regardless of actual matters of a preparation's potency/abuse potential - escalated sharply after the U.S. took control of the project constructing the Panama Canal that would significantly reduce transport distances for Coca leaves from the coast of Peru to North Atlantic markets.  Coca leaf is what experts as Dr. Ronald K. Siegel of U.C.L.A. have noted "...stands out among all the stimulants, licit and illicit, as the easiest to control and the one least likely to produce toxicity or dependency."

We know the worst are Tobacco products, particularly cigarettes, actively promoted for decades by American Medical Association figures as "Dr." Morris Fishbein, and now credited by the U.N. World Health Organization with causing some 100 million premature deaths during the 1900s.  We can see how cigarette production spiked in the wake of the successive 1906, 1914 and 1937 U.S. drug control legislative Acts, and can just begin to calculate this rarely acknowledged enormity of public health subversion caused by the war on drugs.  Yet article after article about the drug war can never dare mention any of this, choosing instead to fail to get beyond New York Times promoted fake news from 1914 that cocaine was banned in the U.S. because Black people liked it and that it made them impervious to bullets prompting some police units to adopt larger caliber guns.



U.S. Cigarette production spiked with drug prohibition: 1906, 1914,1937;
coinciding with the crackdowns on Opium, Coca and Cannabis
(p230 Licit & Illicit Drugs Breecher)

Has anyone ever seen a 20th century article about medical 'quackery' include the profession's promotion of Tobacco cigarettes so prevalent in the half century following the 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act?
That Act that so empowered the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Chemistry over foods and drugs, had cleverly exempted Tobacco products, by cleverly limiting its jurisdiction to drugs listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, which did list Tobacco prior to de listing it the previous year- 1905!

The 1906 Act would effectively grandfather Tobacco with its Section 6:
"That the term “drug,” as used in this Act, shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals. The term “food,” as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound."
Tobacco had been included in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia since at least 1890, yet was deleted in 1905.

Accordingly, "Former [U.S.] SenatorMaurine Neuberger has claimed that the removal of tobacco from the Pharmacopoeia was the price paid to get support of tobacco-state legislators for the Food and Drug Act of 1906. The leaf was thereby removed from the jurisdiction of the FDA (Wagner, 1971: 74)." 

That statement and the timing suggest that the 1905 deletion was done in anticipation of the 1906 Act.

The drug war's lack of scientific quality has a broader purpose.

That would be a campaign not only against opiates and cocaine, but also against the idea of self medication (that is individuals medicating without a doctor's prescription), against medications that were based upon natural substances as herbs and components of herbs, and hence un-patentable, against products that were generally dilute, hence taking more shelf space than concentrates as powders and pills.  That campaign relied heavily upon such code terms as 'nostrums' - see Colliers Magazine cir 1905, as well as  "Patent Medicines' - actually a misnomer used against what were correctly termed 'proprietary medicines' as patent medicines where those that could be patented because they were man made chemicals rather than ones occurring naturally in things as plants- hence the basis for today’s overly expensive and toxic- re side effects - pharmaceutical monopoly medicines.  The U.S. government's years of suppression of knowledge about the potential efficacy of Cannabis in fighting cancer, for instance, is but a part of this subversion of choice, which is a key factor in the crisis of rising health care costs.

The current habit of assuming that the 'war on drugs' simply started with Richard Nixon’s Presidency, and the near universal tendency to only focus upon Cannabis "Marijuana-Marijuana" distracts from the broader picture, serving to further perpetuate the quite costly assault on freedom of medicine and diet.

Also see:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-evil-prohibition-to-promote.html

http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/2012/08/drug-war-cigarette-mercantilism.html