According to wikipedia:
Teddy was a Norwegian brand of cigarettes, owned by the multinational company British American Tobacco. Cigarettes were manufactured by the Norwegian subsidiary of BAT (formerly "Dr. J. L. Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik").[1]
History
Around 1905, after the establishment of the British-American Tobacco Co., (Norway) Ltd. in Oslo, the was an ongoing tobacco 'war.' The conflict was between the American tobacco trust (led by American Tobacco Company's James 'Buck' Duke) and the Norwegian manufacturers. In the United States president Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt was fighting the American trust/enterprise, and he was seen as an ally by the Norwegian manufacturers. In 1914 J. L. Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik honored Roosevelt by launching a cigarette brand named Teddy. The trust war in Norway ended in November/December 1930 when BAT (Norway) was split between BATCO (45%), Tiedemann (45%), DnC (5%) - a bank, Andresens Bank (5%) - a bank owned by the Andresen family, the real owners of J. L. Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik, when A/S Norsk-Engelsk Tobakkfabrikk (NETO) was established. In November 1933 NETO was completely in the hands of J. L. Tiedemanns.[4][5]
In a commercial shown on early Norwegian TV, Teddy was presented as a cigarette for sportsmen and physically active Norwegians.
The brand was introduced in 1914 and the cigarettes use a Virginia tobacco. The brand was discontinued in 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_(cigarette)
Accordingly, these cigarettes were a reward to Teddy Roosevelt as a reward for his work in opposing the U.S.A. Tobacco trust.
But why no further elaboration?
Where are the books, magazine articles or even scholarly thesis papers upon any of this?
And why 1914? Which is incidentally the year of the Harrison 'Narcotics' Act banning whole Coca leaf and cocaine entirely (outside of a NON-refillable prescription), which the United States Department of Agriculture detested as an agricultural commodity market competitor to Tobacco. See the infamous 1910 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers' Bulletin 393, issued April 29, 1910 "HABIT-FORMING AGENTS: THEIR INDISCRIMINATE SALE AND USE A MENACE TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE" by L.F. Kebler, Chief, Division of Drugs, Bureau of Chemistry, WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910. Condemns ALL forms of "cocaine" regardless of how low-dilute the dose and the formulation. And mentions Tobacco ONLY in the context of TOBACCO-HABIT CURES, at page 15.
"There are quite a number of so-called tobacco-habit cures on the market. All of them are ineffective, and some contain cocain [sic] in one form or another. Instead of eradicating what is commonly believed to be a comparably harmless habit [!], there is a grave danger of fastening a pernicious drug habit upon the user. Examples of preparations of this character recently examined and found to contain cocain and cocain derivatives are Coca Bola, Tobacco Bullets, and Wonder Workers. The Coca Bola is marketed by Dr. Charles L. Mitchell, of Philadelphia, and the Tobacco Bullets by the Victor Remedy Company, now the Blackburn Remedy Company, of Daytona, Ohio, while the Wonder Workers were promoted were promoted by George S. Beck, of Springfield, Ohio."
Of course with the alkaloids cocaine, nicotine and caffeine ALL serving as central nervous system stimulants, each represents its own agricultural commodity - cocaine (Erythroxlyn Coca) - caffeine (Coffee and "Tea") - nicotine (Tobacco, naturally as Rustica, but as by the early 1800s crafted as Virginia "Bright Leaf" - a considerably larger leaf resulting in reduced nicotine content per area of leaf, rendering it feasible for inhalation deep into the lungs and making it far far more habituating). By the mid 1860s Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco (crafted there and in the Carolinas), became popular. However, such was via hand rolled cigarettes. It was the 1881 development and patenting of the Bonsack cigarette mass production machines that tremendously facilitated far far greater levels of consumption. Such machines were industrially adopted during the early and mid 1880s. Yet sales growth was relatively modest until the period 1906ish-1914, with the imposition of Uncle Sam's bans upon Coca (as well as smoking Opium the importation banned by the U.S. Senate and House in 1908).
The Harrison Act was signed into statute December 17, 1914 by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.
The Opium Exclusion Act (banning the importation of Opium prepared for smoking) was enacted February 9, 1909 under U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (days before being succeeded by William Howard Taft).
The Foods and Drugs Act banning the sale of "mis-branded" and "adulterated" products sold as "foods" was signed into statute June 30, 1906 by U.S. Theodore Roosevelt. On the surface this appeared sound. But the devil was in the details. Firstly, it limited its labeling requirement to its list of substances, without any consistency-e.g cocaine had to be listed, but neither caffeine or nicotine. This was even so in products clearly containing cocaine, e.g. Coca leaf products. But not with either Coffee, Tea nor Tobacco, thereby crafting a double standard, implying cocaine/Coca disparagingly, while granting the others a free pass. Nevertheless, such an inclusion of cocaine in the list of substances that had to be labeled should have logically indicated that cocaine was not illegal, nor any of the other such listed substances, including opium. Yet numerous manufacturers of beverages failed to so label the cocaine content, fearing loss of sales amidst the growing propaganda campaign by such publications of Colliers Magazine (try researching that publication), with its infamous series of articles bashing the so-called "patent" medicine industry, titled "The Great American Fraud".
Indeed, such writings, published under the name of Samuel Adams Hopkins, were crafted together with the guiding hand of L.Y. Kebler as well as Harvey Washington Wiley, the latter the chief of the U.S.D.A. Division of Chemistry. BOTH Wiley and Kebler were American Medical Association stooges. And their official U.S.D.A. writings all bashed Coca leaf, Opium, "cocaine" and "narcotics" while saying absolutely NOTHING concerning Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco, nor cigarettes.
But would not products labeled in accordance with this 1906 Act be permitted? For instance, the soft drinks, made with Coca leaf extract, and containing about 1 milligram of the alkaloid cocaine per fluid ounce. (The Act was silent upon limits upon allowable amounts, such as how many milligrams per fluid ounce).
Apparently so from any rational reading of the Act, but definitely not so from the position of the U.S.D.A.'s American Medical Association stooges Kebler & Wiley. Manufacturers of such products sold as "foods" were finding themselves being charged - regardless of the matter of "mis-labling" - with supposed "adulteration". Under what supposed "argument"? The supposed "argument" was that the inclusion of the alkaloid cocaine in any detectable amount constituted a supposedly dangerous and deleterious ingredient. Yet the Act did not ban cocaine. Nor did it even grant the U.S.D.A. the power the declare cocaine or any ingredient occurring naturally within a non illegal substance (indeed the Act nowhere even mentions Coca leaf). The Act DID grant the U.S.D.A to declare ingredients that were ADDED. So the U.S.D.A. was being empowered to declare *added" ingredients, but not those already occurring. (The Act was silent upon any requirement of scientific backing, credibility nor consistency).
So, how were these U.S.D.A./American Medical Association stooges Kebler and Wiley able to bring prosecutions against Coca leaf extract beverage manufactures when Coca naturally contained the alkaloid cocaine?
Their argument was based upon a false & unsubstantiated supposition upon "injurious" regular and repeated use, hence having them more or less effectively ban the cocaine alkaloid entirely from products sold as "foods". Products sold as "drugs" would be preserved, hence the subsequent political push to "amend" the 1906 Act, (see April 1912 joint Senate-Congress deliberations, with the participation of a certain new U.S. elective official, Congressman Harry James Covington).
But with the Act not allowing such U.S.D.A. prosecutions for substances occurring naturally within a used parent substance, but only those that were ADDED, how could such prosecutions fail to be laughed out of court? Such after all was the distinction that caused the failure of their widely publicized and groundless suit against Coca Cola in 1911.
So why did we not continue to have bottled naturally cocainated soft drinks under federal statute until the February 1, 1915 taking of effect of the Harrison Act?
And why would Angelo Francois Mariani, who produced Vin Mariani Coca Wine - effectively surrender within the U.S. early in 1907?
Vin Mariani, sold in 17 fluid ounce (one pint) bottles, containing the extract of 2 ounces of a blend of several varieties, yielding a natural cocaine alkaloid of 6 or 7 milligrams per fluid ounce (others had such per fluid ounce content of perhaps 9 milligrams, while unscrupulous competitors sold so-called Coca wines made with either purely isolated cocaine or some chalk like alkaloid paste, with as much as even 30 or more milligrams cocaine per fluid ounce!). Vin Mariani was developed circa 1863 in Paris, France. It eventually was manufactured in other locals, including in New York City, with the same ingredients. The American Medical Association would condemn Vin Mariani during the first year of the existence of its "Council on Pharmacy" (1905). But that report as published to the public, contained nothing substantive, only for a supposed matter of "misbranding" for marketing implying that it was "French" product (its origin of initial formulation) when it was being compounded with the same components in New York- go figure.
What was the basis for Vin Mariani's surrender, by eliminating the cocaine alkaloid from Vin Mariani produced for U.S. markets, effective May 1907?
And what was the specific reason for Mariani & Company's Jacob Jaros attempt at a meeting with Wiley sometime in late 1908, early 1909?
That Vin Mariani so surrendered indicates that Mariani saw it as a lost cause within the U.S., as the U.S. government was so obviously and blatantly bent upon protecting its cherished agricultural commodity of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco from the market competition of Coca (which was NOT suitable as an outdoor crop within almost everywhere within the continental United States of America due to its inability to survive frost). After all, the Panama Canal would have undeniably significantly reduced shipping distances of fresh Coca leaves from the western coast of Peru to north Atlantic markets. The U.S. would gain control of the canal's construction project in 1903, and be completed by 1914, the year of the passage of the Harrison Act.
So are these "Teddy" cigarettes a reward simply for supposedly reining in U.S. Tobacco interests for the sake of Tobacco interests elsewhere? Or is it also a reward for U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's overt participation for a blatant market conspiracy for banning Coca leaf (as well as smokable Opium) so as to enable the 20th century Tobacco-cigarette explosion?
Did Angelo Francois Mariani attempt a meeting with Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps somewhere around 1904-06?
See:
https://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2017/02/defeating-drug-war-requires-better.html
Also:
https://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/05/freemason-t-roosevelt-approved-wiley.html
No comments:
Post a Comment