Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Dale Gieringer On The Slippery Slope to Prohibition

How the 1906 'Pure Foods and Drug Act' practically empowered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ban dilute cocaine, thus shifting the market of that drug to the infinitely more dangerous concentrated forms ....

... and to go further, how lying about cocaine was meant to protect markets for Tobacco.  That was evident with the 1906 Act's limiting the USDA's authority over substances in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, from which Tobacco had been deleted in 1905, and the 1910 USDA Farmers' Bulletin article "Habit Forming Agents- Their Sale and Use a Menace to the Public Welfare", which decried the use of Coca against Tobacco, so described as "what is commonly believed to be a comparatively harmless habit" - authored by L.F. Kebler.  Yet it was Kebler, who in 1912 testified at a U.S. House of Representatives COMMlTTEE ON lNTERSTATE AND FORElGN COMMERCE hearing on the Food and Drug Act, that "tobacco and preparations of tobacco contain arsenic and lead, due to the fact that there has been used in the growing of tobacco lead arsenate, a chemical to deter or kill certain pests. As a matter of fact, some tobacco contains a goodly quantity of arsenic.... most of them would be dangerous to health".


One of the [1906 Food and Drug] act's central provisions was to require that medicines bear warning labels if they contained habit-forming drugs such as alcohol, opiates, cocaine, cannabis, or chloral hydrate (plus the now-forgotten alpha- and beta-eucaine, chloroform, and acetanilide). It further required that the quantities of these drugs be specified on the label. In essence, this was a "truth in labeling" policy, which, being informative, not prohibitive, was altogether consistent with the principles of J.S. Mill. Contemporary observers credited the act with a substantial decline in the use of patent medicines with dangerous intoxicants.5

However, the act had a dark side as well, as it put the power to make decisions about what drugs could be sold into the hands of a new federal regulatory agency — the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor of today's FDA. In specific, the Bureau was empowered to remove products that it found to be "adulterated" with substances "deleterious" to human health, and to ban the importation of any drug deemed "dangerous to the health of the people of the United States." The definition of such terms inevitably involved subjective value judgments, which under the act would be determined by federal bureaucrats instead of individual consumers and producers in the market. The dangers of this arrangement were aptly pointed out by Sen. Nelson Aldrich (grandfather of Gov. Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the eponymous author of New York's punitive drug law), who warned that "the liberty of all the people of the United States" would be undermined by "chemists of the Agriculture Department" with an interest in regulation.6 No doubt Sen. Aldrich's remarks were aimed at the Bureau's crusading director, Harvey Washington Wiley, who had championed the new law. An aggressive proponent of regulation, Wiley was a forerunner of today's consumer protectionists, highly averse to chemical additives, inclined to exaggerating scientific evidence about their dangers, and prohibitionist with regards to many substances, including alcohol. Taking an aggressive interpretation of the act's provisions regarding "adulteration," Wiley sought to have several popular ingredients banned from the food supply, among them saccharin, sodium benzoate, and caffeine. His efforts wound up discrediting him with President Theodore Roosevelt, who remarked, "Anybody who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot."7

However, Wiley was more successful with cocaine, which enjoyed popularity as an ingredient in several tonics and beverages but had recently come into disrepute. Cocaine is derived from the coca leaf, used since time immemorial by South American Indians with no evident ill effects. It was first popularized in the form of relatively mild tonics such as the famous Vin Mariani — endorsed by Thomas Edison, Pope Leo XIII, and President McKinley — and the original Coca-Cola. Like the coca tea enjoyed in the Andes, these beverages contained low levels of cocaine, and produced no evident ill effects.

However, problems began to arise with the introduction of more potent cocaine in pure, powdered form following the announcement of its remarkable pharmaceutical properties by Carl Koller in 1884. A brief flurry of medical enthusiasm was soon dampened by disturbing reports of addiction, as previously normal patients became transformed into crazed "cocaine fiends." In the South, cocaine was blamed for inciting violent behavior in blacks. In the nation's capital, cocaine was seen as "one of the growing evils of the city among the lower classes," and became a motivating factor in the District Commissioners' push for the D.C. Pharmacy and Poisons Act.8 By 1906, nearly half the states had laws prohibiting the sale of cocaine except on a doctor's prescription — essentially the model followed in the Harrison Act.

Although the Pure Food and Drugs Act was not prima facie a prohibition law, its provisions regarding food adulteration gave the Bureau leverage to intervene in the marketplace. In specific, the act defined adulterants to include any "deleterious ingredient" that might render the article "injurious to health."

Seizing on this provision, Wiley declared cocaine to be an "adulterant" and sued to have it removed from beverages. At no point did Wiley ever show that the low levels of cocaine in coca beverages were actually injurious to health. Indeed, coca beverages and leaf remain legal to this day in the Andean countries, where they are thought to help stave off fatigue, hunger, and diabetes. Nevertheless, Wiley succeeded in pressuring manufacturers to withdraw all cocaine from their beverages.

Ironically, that left only the more potent, addictive form of cocaine available on the market as a pharmaceutical drug. Although cocaine was ultimately restricted to prescription-only use under the Harrison Act, nothing could stop it from leaking out into the nonmedical black market, eventually metastasizing into other countries and becoming one of the world's largest criminal enterprises. Wiley's ban on coca would eventually be incorporated into international law by the Single Convention Treaty (1961), at the insistence of U.S. drug bureaucrats. While criminalization of the coca trade has effectively "protected" American consumers from harmless coca beverages, it has left millions more exposed to illicit, high-potency cocaine. Meanwhile, it has inflamed a violent war in Latin America that has cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, claimed thousands of casualties, and injected corruption, violence, gangsterism, and criminality into what was a peaceful and lawful business a century ago.


Friday, August 28, 2015

Eric Holder Returns to Covington & Burling

the man who had the power to re-schedule drugs under the CSA
returns to his law firm Covington & Burling

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Returns to Covington

WASHINGTON, DC, July 6, 2015 — Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is returning to Covington as a partner after more than six years of service as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
Mr. Holder will be resident in the firm’s Washington office and focus on complex investigations and litigation matters, including matters that are international in scope and raise significant regulatory enforcement issues and substantial reputational concerns.

“It is a source of great pride to welcome Eric back to the firm after his distinguished service as attorney general,” said Timothy Hester, chair of the firm’s management committee. “Eric’s entire private practice career has been as a Covington partner, and we look forward to the role he will again play as a colleague, leader, client adviser and advocate.”

Mr. Holder is the third longest serving attorney general in U.S. history and the first African American to hold the office. As a member of President Obama’s cabinet and head of the Department of Justice, he oversaw the government’s efforts to address many critically important issues arising at the intersection of law and public policy, including national security investigations and prosecutions; landmark antitrust, environmental, fraud, and tax cases; the defense of voting rights and marriage equality; and reform of the federal criminal justice system. In 2014, Time magazine named Mr. Holder to its list of 100 Most Influential People, stating that he “worked tirelessly to ensure equal justice.”

Mr. Holder’s service as attorney general marks the most recent chapter in a remarkable career in public service. Prior to joining Covington in 2001, he served during the Clinton Administration as Deputy Attorney General and United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Earlier, Mr. Holder served as Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, having been appointed by President Reagan in 1988. Before becoming a judge, he served for many years as a public corruption prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which he had joined in 1976 upon his graduation from Columbia Law School.

Mr. Holder was a partner at Covington from 2001 until February 2009, when President Obama appointed and the Senate confirmed him as the nation’s 82nd Attorney General.

“Returning to Covington is like coming home. I couldn’t be happier to rejoin the firm and to have the opportunity once again to work with its exceptional lawyers and staff, for whom I have such high regard,” Mr. Holder said. “I am returning to Covington for the same reasons that drew me to the firm in the first place—its commitment to excellence in the service of clients, a collaborative and team-oriented culture, and a dedication to pro bono and public service.”


Eric Holder advises clients on complex investigations and litigation matters, including those that are international in scope and involve significant regulatory enforcement issues and substantial reputational concerns. Mr. Holder, who was a partner at Covington from 2001 to 2009, rejoined the firm after serving for six years as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States.

Before his service as Attorney General, Mr. Holder maintained a wide-ranging investigations and litigation practice at Covington. Among numerous significant engagements, he led the firm’s representation of a major multi-national agricultural company in related civil, criminal, and investigative matters; acted as counsel to a special investigative committee of the board of directors of a Fortune 50 technology company; successfully tried a complex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a leading financial services company; and represented several life sciences companies in litigation and investigations.

Mr. Holder served as Attorney General from February 2009 to April 2015. As the third longest serving Attorney General in U.S. history and the first African American to hold that office, Mr. Holder is an internationally recognized leader across a broad range of regulatory enforcement, criminal justice, and national security issues. In 2014, Time magazine named Mr. Holder to its list of 100 Most Influential People, noting that he had “worked tirelessly to ensure equal justice.”

Including his tenure as Attorney General, Mr. Holder has served in government for more than thirty years, having been appointed to various positions requiring U.S. Senate confirmation by Presidents Obama, Clinton and Reagan.

Previous Experience

  • Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (2009-2015)
  • Partner, Covington & Burling (2001-2009)
  • Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (1997-2001)
  • U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia (1993-1997)
  • Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia (1988-1993)
  • Trial Attorney, Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division (1976-1988)

James Harry Covington Sold Out Medical Freedom

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