Saturday, April 30, 2016

DPA's Ethan Nadelmann Thwarts Discussion Beyond Marijuana Legalization


The Drug Policy Alliance is the successor to the Drug Policy Foundation founded in 1986, in response to the hysteria over cocaine, to go beyond the mandate of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws.

Yet it continues to stifle serious discussion about the details of legalizing drugs other than Marijuana, such as Coca-ine and Opiates, despite the lip service to 'Harm Reduction', as I have written about previously.
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/dpa-under-sells-harm-reduction.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/dpa-under-sells-harm-reduction.html
This sad situation would be highlighted at panel held at the November 18-21 2015 D.P.A. Conference Panel 'Beyond Marijuana: Legalization and the Movement to Reform Other Drug Policies', held that Friday at 11:30AM.

From the conference description:
http://www.reformconference.org/sites/reformconference.org/files/docs/2015_DPA_Reform_Conf_Program_v6_REFERENCE.PDF
Despite the growing social acceptance of marijuana nationwide, marijuana law violations still make up almost half of all U.S. drug arrests. Marijuana legalization is, therefore, often touted as a major step toward dismantling the drug war and scaling back mass incarceration. How can marijuana legalization be used to propel efforts to decriminalize other drugs, mitigate recidivism, minimize collateral consequences of drug convictions, and increase harm reduction policies? How might marijuana legalization repair – or exacerbate – the disparate harms of the war on drugs?
Moderator: Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director, Drug Policy Alliance, New York, NY

• Major Neill Franklin (Ret.), Executive Director, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Silver Spring, MD

Kassandra Frederique, Policy Manager, Drug Policy Alliance, New York, NY

Antonio Gonzalez, President, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project & William C. Velasquez Institute, San Antonio, TX & Los Angeles, CA

Harry Levine, Professor of Sociology, City University of New York; Co-Director, Marijuana Arrest Research Project, New York, NY

Lisa Sanchez, Latin American Programme Manager, TDPF/MUCD, Mexico D.F., Mexico

• Senator Tick Segerblom, Member, Nevada State Senate, Las Vegas, NV

Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director, NORML, Washington, D.C.

Marijuana stands in contrast to the other popular illegalized drugs as they are popularly available and known as an un-refined plant that is vastly safer than such substances as concentrated cocaine hci/sulfate and heroin, and pills.

Marijuana is virtually non-toxic, with an LD-50 of some 1,500 lbs, is non physically addictive, and is non dopaminergic.

Substances as the concentrates are dopaminergic, meaning that they can be highly reinforcive (psychologically addictive), with heroin being additionally physically addictive.

However, Marijuana is not the only popular illegalized drug that is a plant.   Both cocaine and heroin are derived from natural plants, directly with cocaine from the leaves of the Coca shrub, and less directly with heroin (actually morphine modified with an acid) which is found in the sap of the Opium poppy.  And like other popular drugs, particularly those that remained legal during the 20th century's drug war, notably caffeine and nicotine, all of these are found to occur naturally in small amounts in their respective plants as Coffee, various 'Teas' and Tobacco.  It is the iron law of a prohibition that prohibits both the parent plant and their respective most active components, with equal penalties for equal weights of either, that has led to the proliferation of the concentrated derivatives with the virtual disappearance of the far bulkier and safer parent substances of Coca and Opium, let alone commercial preparations of such.

So I ask this panel's moderator Ethan Nadelmann, what about dilute substances and preparations of such as Opium and Coca?

And all he can say is, we are not going to talk about that, only marijuana.

Never-mind that the Drug Policy Alliance's predecessor organization the Drug Policy Foundation was founded in 1986 by American University professor Arnold Trebach and NORML's Kevin Zeese to take the challenge to drug prohibition beyond Marijuana, in response to the media hysteria over cocaine following the fatal OD by University of Maryland Boston Celtics pick Len Bias that June 19).

The DPF had done much good work in this broader field during the late 1980s and early 1990s, before taking a far more timid approach starting about 1993.

Why not rename the Drug Policy Alliance the Marijuana Policy Alliance?


1986 - The Creation of the Drug Policy Foundation 

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/1986-creation-of-drug-policy-foundation.html

198X - 1992 The Drug Policy Foundation's Steps in the Right Direction http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/198x-1992-drug-policy-foundations-steps.html

1993 - America North DPF Takes a 'Lead' by saying "Just Say Whoa" http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/e.html

PETER LEWIS: IRA GLASSER is a waste of $$
Don't Spend Funds on Organizations Headed by the likes of Ira Glasser

Letter to Lewis, from a long time activist since the latter 1980s, about the mismanagement of the DPF-DPA
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2010/07/peter-lewis-ira-glasser-is-waste-of.html

Monday, March 28, 2016

More reporting should be done on the lives saved and enhanced by opioids, addressing chronic pain, sleep disorders and associated depression.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/opioid-use-and-abuse.html?_r=0

To the Editor: Re “A Strong Response to the Opioid Scourge” (editorial, March 17):

There are longtime users of low-dose opioids, like me, who never require an increase in dose and who find that this medication provides quality of life. How? By addressing chronic pain, sleep disorders and associated depression.

The alternatives proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, like aspirin and ibuprofen, can cause long-term damage to body organs and short-term stomach pain. For many of us, spare use of a low-dose opioid is the very best alternative.

Unfortunately, voices like mine are not heard often. Why? Because the media climate right now is so fiercely anti-opioid that those who rely on this drug can feel hesitant to speak out. More reporting should be done on the lives saved and enhanced by opioids, in addition to the terrible consequences of addiction. Policy should reflect a more complete picture of this important medication.

KATHERINE CAMERON
Alameda, Calif.
The writer is a social worker.


To the Editor: The proper treatment of pain disorders by physicians should not be directed by the fear of lawsuits or pressure by insurance payers but rather by sound guidelines developed by organizations like the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

The news media has readily noted a “prescription drug epidemic,” but overdoses mainly result from drug diversion and misuse rather than from taking an opioid as prescribed. Epidemiological data has reported up to 16,500 deaths a year from the aspirin-ibuprofen family of medicines, which can cause ulcers, kidney failure and liver inflammation, none of which occur with opioids.

The major health issue for an opioid is addiction, which rarely occurs in a properly selected and treated patient. One must understand the difference between dependency and addiction.

Chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are difficult to treat. Physician judgment is crucial and should not be inhibited by arbitrary limits that are not supported by the data.

LESLIE SCHOFFERMAN
San Francisco
The writer is a pain doctor.


To the Editor: For many people with chronic pain, opioid painkillers are a lifeline. The new guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while perhaps reasonable as a first approach, are unrealistic for patients who have done well (sometimes for years) on carefully monitored opioid doses under continuing medical care. As The Times has reported, these longtime patients must now be subjected to humiliating “pain contracts” and random drug tests.

Acetaminophen and ibuprofen are just short of laughable: If they worked for severe pain, no legitimate patient would be taking opioids. Nonpharmacological solutions like physical therapy and acupuncture may be effective for those who can afford them but are subject to strict, onerous insurance limitations or not covered at all.

It’s hard not to conclude that the politics of the very real and tragic opioid addiction crisis are drowning out the cries of people in pain. The medical profession only recently began to give serious attention to complaints of chronic pain, which not incidentally affects many more women than men.

Sadly, it looks as if a return to the bad old days will be upon us very soon.

LOIS AMBASH
Needham, Mass.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Trump To Increase Opiate Deaths By Further Popularizing DOMESTIC Fentanyl

by building a wall with the said goal to stop contraband drugs as his response to heroin





The "success" of this sort of policy would be to favor domestically produced bathtub "heroin" that would be likely spiked with the far more potent synthetic opiate fentanyl, in of course vastly varying potencies, unregulated thus promoting even more fatal ODs.

By banning Opium and its derivatives, the market availability was shifted to the more concentrated forms of opiates as Heroin HCI, and with the price likewise artificially increased to be pricier per weight than gold, encouraged its use in the way with the greatest 'bang for the buck" of injection- also the most addictive and potentially dangerous- further exacerbated by the variable potency of such a substance in an unregulated black market of uncertain purity and adulteration perhaps with something even stronger such as fentanyl.

By failing to address any of this Trump shows that he fails to understand basic economics, that he would rather pander to stupidity by supporting the very polices making the problem far far worse, that he would fail to even attempt to explain that, and that he is a shill for the powers that be that gave us this mess over a century ago.

Monday, February 22, 2016

How About A Methadone Model For Nicotine?!

if the polices towards opiates are really so valid, why not then apply them to other drugs, such as nicotine?









Virtually anything and everything written about the various "epidemics" of heroin and opiates or opioids treats the policy as if it were written in stone by God.

Regular use of such can not be tolerated.

People must be gotten off opiates, or rather off of their regular opiates and onto something longer lasting and stronger and more physically addictive.

From what one would gather, this is because the regular use of their regular opiates must be associated with various sorts of diseases and/or ill effects upon health.  That staying on say pain pills or heroin is intolerable because such invariably harms health.  Perhaps as that with the excessive use of alcohol causing cirrhosis of the liver.  Or that of the regular use of Tobacco, particularly the type bred for cigarettes and especially so when so adulterated for such, causing lung cancer and other diseases.

Given the degree on non questioning to that line of thought and policy, one must assume that the more potent opiate substitutes were somehow less harmful.  All of this never-mind the relative safety of pharmaceutically produced consistent measured dose pain pills with buffers to facilitate and regulate the absorption taken orally, versus that of contraband 'heroin' of vastly inconsistent varying potency from the degree that it is cut with adulterants that are inert, as well as those that are not as the far more potent synthetic opiate fentanyl.

Policy is so fixated upon "getting people off of their regular opiates" that it dictates physicians to discontinue patient's prescriptions to the relatively safe measured dose pills meant for oral use, thus driving some to the far more dangerous unregulated "heroin".   Indeed, this policy is so fixated that it lumps together the over-does fatalities of the regulated pills and the unregulated heroin- all in an appeal to emotion designed to protect and strengthen the markets in the latter.

Even factors about the policy of prescribing pain pills appears to be designed to make this worse, by denying such to patients with an occasional need for such, by limiting them to those for chronic -- all the time -- use.  As after all, patients can avoid physical dependence by not using them too frequently, say daily for more than 3 weeks, or only when needed, skipping days of little or no pain, and not escalating the dose, or if so, only moderately.   More recent prescription policies to ensure regular use, complete with drug testing requiring a dirty result for a refill, along with admonishments to not skip days, all serve to increase the likelihood of physical dependency- never-mind the lip service given to combating such.  hence, a great many people are unjustly denied needed pain medications, while others are shoehorned into patterns of use designed to foster addiction.  Ah, a medical profession that does not look out for patients, except for the sake of creating new ones for overly priced drug addiction treatment that would not even be needed if people could simply chose to maintain their dependencies, step away via stepping down their consumption, all with predictable, inexpensive pharmaceuticals, or better yet, preparations based more upon natural Opium, or break their dependencies with legal Ibogaine.

Though policy can't allow people their safe regulated supplies of Opium, hydrocodone, or even heroin, as it will not tolerate physical addiction, it must insist upon making such a situation arguably worse via its reliance upon programs of  maintenance based upon versions of opiates that are even more physically addictive, as methadone and more recently Buprenorphine.

Of course the idea is for people to be on something that is longer lasting for the sake of being something with a stable effect so they can lead more or less normal lives, rather than say the peaks and valleys of say injecting heroin.

Never-mind, that at least with the pills, people are capable of that, and with such they could take smaller doses to advert withdrawal while not getting super-high.

Indeed, when opiates were legal, many people lived more or less normal lives even as physical addicts to opiates, and especially so when their use of such was by some oral preparation, or perhaps even the smoking of whole Opium, rather than something hardcore as heroin by injection.   Small amounts of say an oral preparation would avoid withdrawal while not providing such a strong effect as to incapacitate, and the stuff was inexpensive, thus avoiding the situation under prohibition of the price being so horribly inflated to compel people to rob or burglarize to fund their consumption.

Prohibition of opiates, indeed of "Opium, Coca leaves and their derivatives" seriously affects drug use.  It eliminates the dilute more natural forms and preparations of such substances, shifting their market availability to ultra refined concentrates, which are infinitely more potentially problematic.  It removes any regulation of consistency of potency.  It tremendously drives up the prices, so what would otherwise be pennies is now pricier per weight than gold.  And it promotes more intensified modes of dosing for the greater bang for the buck as that of injection- all things that conspire together to create greater addictiveness and likelihood of a lethal overdose.

Nonetheless, this is a policy supported on both sides of the political spectrum, for the supposed sake of fighting drug abuse, even sadly enough by Bernie Saunders.  And thus is a policy supported even by a great many people who otherwise do see through the fraud of the prohibition of Cannabis, who correctly note that Cannabis is neither physically addictive nor toxic, yet who fail to grasp to the degree that prohibition actively makes matters far far worse for other such substances as opiates- or Coca/cocaine- itself a stimulant that is non physically addictive, but in concentrated form can invite overuse with toxic-mania.   Though cocaine is in fact only problematic in ultra concentrated forms, regarding actual matters of drug abuse, it was banned in all forms, in the U.S. via a political campaign at the national level coordinated through the USDA and the AMA-APhA starting cir 1904-1905 that primarily targeted its availability in the relatively safe dilute forms as soft drinks similar to the original Coca-Cola (1-3 mg cocaine per fluid ounce) and Vin Mariani (6 mg cocaine per fluid ounce), never-mind the real problems of abuse with the cocaine containing sniffing powders sold as catarrh cures, and the horrors of cocaine injections in anesthesiology.

The savage early 20th century demonification of both Opium and Coca without regard to matter of potency, healthiness, toxicity nor abuse potential, worked hand in glove with the simultaneous demonification of the idea of dilute medicinal preparations based upon herbs (via the muckraker slur term "nostrums" through the infamous Colliers Magazine "The Great American Fraud" disfo campaign), along with the simultaneous free pass given to Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco cigarettes.

Ridding pharmacies and supermarkets of dilute Opium and Coca leaf retail products would not only reduce the amount of such drug consumers, while shifting the reduced consuming population towards the infinitely more problematic concentrated 'hard' forms of these drugs, but it would shift people in general away from dilute preparations based on herbs in general and towards the now freed from the competition product of the Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco cigarettes- "Virginia Bright Leaf" being a variety initially bred a few decades earlier as a reduced nicotine variety designed to be smoother smoke for deeper inhalation, with the introduction of mass machine produced cigarettes cir 1884 enjoying relatively modest sales growth for more than two decades, until their initial two major spurts in sales respectively in 1907 and 1915- notably the years immediately following the U.S. 1906 Food and Drugs Act and the 1914 Harrison 'Narcotics' Act.

The 1906 Act would empower the USDA to ban from interstate commerce as "adulterated" food products containing ingredients that it decreed as deleterious to human health.  Never-mind that the Act included cocaine and opiates as ingredients that had to be labeled and thus were presumably legal; the labeling requirement was questionable and could serve as a suicide list insofar that it would be presented as limited to things 'bad" enough to be required to be labeled, whereas for instance caffeine and nicotine where not included; and the USDA powder to declare a substance "deleterious" required no scientific showing.  Notably, the USDA-AMA was especially concerned about the use of dilute cocaine; first by going after soft-drink manufacturers, whether those cowed into "mis-branding" for failing to label the cocaine content, even if labeled as Coca, or for so-called "adulteration"; subsequently with campaigning to amend the 1906 Act with federal bans upon such products even sold as medicines outside of a non-refillable prescription; and by 1910 with a blatant admission within an infamous USDA Farmer's Bulletin article "Habit Forming Agents- Their Sale and Use a Menace to the Public Welfare" of their particular "concern"- Coca being sold and used as a "Tobacco Habit Cure"!  But of course as Coca and Tobacco are both stimulants with overlapping uses, with Coca a foreign tropical plant that the USDA would confirm in 1904 required hothouses to be grown in the USA, while Tobacco was long established, especially throughout the southeast where there was all of this newspaper reported concern over Blacks on cocaine.

The 1914 Harrison Act would go further by denying the over the counter sale of any product containing any amount of cocaine alkaloid without a physician's prescription that was non-refillable, and likewise for those containing anything more than a small amount of opiates, with the sneaky inclusion of a requirement that such prescriptions be within the course of professional medical practice only, with the authority to define such given to the U.S. Department of Treasury- again without any requirement of any scientific basis.  Subsequently, the U.S Department of Treasury would issue regulations prohibiting maintenance doses for opiates, which would be upheld in the courts, both the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.  Likewise, subsequent policies would eliminate the availability of OTC preparations that contained small amounts of opiates initially allowed under the 1914 Harrison Act, thus eliminating the options of people maintaining or stepping down their opiate doses inexpensively and relatively safely.  But of course, as the whole market in medicines was being shifted generally away from herbs and dilute medicinal preparations and towards synthetics and concentrated preparations as pills, given that herbs could not be patented, whereas synthetics could, while concentrated preparations meant greater  monetary value per shelf space, with required physician visits all conspiring to vastly drive up costs and profits.

Such a pharmaceutical-Tobacco political alliance, further evidenced by the multitude of 20th century medical journal cigarette advertisements with the medical profession's virtual endorsement of such, as those facilitated by AMA President and self-proclaimed 'quack-buster' Morris Fishbein, had nothing to do with actually serving matters of the public's health, and everything with controlling markets in violation of basic human rights for the sake of maximizing profits, with negative ramifications extending throughout the field of health care through the popularization of more profitably and toxic synthetic pharmaceuticals.

Thus, with so many people failing to question our drug polices beyond the general issue of recreational and medicinal Cannabis (Marijuana), virtually everything being echoed in the mass media since about the other substances targeted by the continuing Inquisition of the drug war, is the same old, same old- to wit, that which is now being parroted about "Opioids" - the new name for Opiates.

- We have a new epidemic of heroin
- It is to be blamed upon the availability of newer opiate pain pills placed on the market during the 1990s.

Components of this are:

- blurring together OD deaths from the pills and the contraband "heroin"
- the assumption that the increase in heroin use is from people who started on pain pills
- sloganeering claims that pain pills are being prescribed- handed out "like candies" when in fact many doctors are afraid of prescribing them owing to intimidation by the government in place since 1915 with the abusive practices started via the U.S. Department of Treasury.
- a disregard that most people on pain pills don't go on to intensified abuse- as if we must make vodka prescription only because of its abuse by a subset of alcohol consumers.

Never-mind that ODs are generally from users not knowing the actual potency, and from not being educated about how tolerances to opiates go down during times of abstinence.  As pain pills represent predictable fixed doses, it is strange that suicides are generally not mentioned as the motive in at least some fatal ODs via the pills.

Never-mind that the oral use of pain pills and the popular use of heroin by injection are two radically different things.

Never-mind that only a small percentage of persons prescribed pain pills go on to heroin, by sniffing let along by injection.

Never-mind that it would be helpful to provide a breakdown among those that do, of what doses they were prescribed, and if they had a pre-history of excessive pain pill use or heroin use.

So if so many are to accept the drug war approach to opiates, then how how doing so with, say nicotine?

Nicotine addiction, it could be said, leads to about 500,000 premature deaths annually within the U.S., and over 6 million annually worldwide, through the mass consumption of cigarettes.

Now it can also be said that nicotine addiction can be separated from that of Tobacco, particularly cigarettes.

That we can maintain people on nicotine without conventional cigarettes.  E cigarettes can deliver nicotine via a relatively non toxic vapor- asides from the issue of whatever is contained in the flavoring.

Nicotine can be delivered alternatively by patch.

And by chewing gum.

And even by beverage.

All of these are currently OTC, except for the form of the beverage which the U.S. FDA moved to stop about 10 years ago regarding a product "Nica-Water" which contained 2 mg for a 12 ounce serving.

These all use the nicotine alkaloid which occurs naturally in Tobacco, presenting it in an appropriately dilute form, and do not present toxicity when used as directed.

Of course they can be toxic if abused, say with the simultaneous application of multiple patches and/or sticks of gum.  But so can caffeine pills, also OTC.  Let alone alcoholic beverages, particularly and especially distilled spirits, also all OTC.  We hear little about such abuses of nicotine and caffeine- instances of fatal ODs on say caffeine powder are sufficiently newsworthy to be occasionally reported, whereas those with alcohol are sufficiently common to go unreported.

Now it is said that we tried alcohol prohibition and that it was a failure for making things worse.

But almost no one it seems, says that about the policies of the drug war for say opiates, while of course we never tried such a policy nationally for Tobacco/nicotine.

So, if we are to have such policies towards opioids, then how about for Tobacco/nicotine?

Ban cigarettes.  Not simply the production, promotion, advertising, manufacturer and sale, but also the private possession, even on private property.

Ban Tobacco seeds and plants.  Ban private cultivation.

Also ban all nicotine containing products.  No more e cigarette liquids that contain nicotine.  No more nicotine patches.  Or chewing gums.  At the very least enact all of these bans outside of the confines of a non refillable prescription.   But better yet go further, as there may be hidden dangers in the continual availability of such products, whether perhaps the additives within the e cig liquid flavoring agents, or perhaps the food dyes in the gums, or something perhaps with the long term use of patches upon the skin.  Don't bother allowing such products without flavorings or dyes, as what follows is our true goal. 

Establish a vast new empire of nicotine addiction treatment facilities!

Refer all nicotine addicts to a "methadone" model clinic system.  Create vast new amounts of openings in employment in the drug treatment industry and bill the general public through tax and or insurance premium increases.

Develop longer lasting analogs of nicotine to satisfy the withdrawal/cravings, never-mind that such substances may be more physically addictive than nicotine itself.

If people are to continually believe that this is such a great policy towards opiates, than why then not apply it to nicotine?

Or better yet, have them see that such suggestions for nicotine would be about as insane as our prohibitionist-medicalized policies towards opiates, including that even of using pills rather than even safer more dilute versions of natural opium. 

But that would draw too much attention upon the larger picture of the medical establishment's political rejection of herbs in favor of more expensive and potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals.
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2013/01/stop-overlooking-opium.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2016/02/points-about-progressive-era-war-of.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/07/legalize-coca-opium-not-just-marijuana.html

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Points About the 'Progressive' Era War Of Drugs

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

 graph from page 230 of the book Licit & Licit Drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Sunday, January 31, 2016

Canada's Trudeau Wiggeling Out of Promise to Legalize MJ



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

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

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

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


https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/07/canada-needs-permission-from-internation#comment

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Italian Authorities Lie About Coca Tea

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


http://www.thelocal.it/20151222/cocaine-herbal-tea-pulled-from-italy-shelves

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