Vin Mariani- The Latter Years

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

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

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

GUARANTEED BY MARIANI & Co. UNDER THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT JUNE 30, 1906; SERIAL No. 448

VIN MARIANI

[MARIANI WINE]

17 PER CENT ALCOHOL BY VOLUME

AN IMPORTED FRENCH BORDEAUX WINE WITH A SPECIAL 

PROCESSING OF LEAVES OF ERYTHROXYLON COCA

PREPARED AND BOTTLED AT OUR NEW YORK FACILITY 

MARIANI AND COMPANY

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/us-state-departments-opium-convention.html

1938

1938

1946- this shows the classic Vin Mariani bottle

1938

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

About the Drug Policy - Covington and Burling Connection

An Interview By The Federal Triangle:
About Appearances of Conflict of Interest with Covington & Burling’s pro-bono advisement relationship with drug policy reform organizations

With 'ML' Marialuisa S. Gallozzi, with C&B since 1987, in 1988 “assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation”

By “FMD” Freedom of Medicine and Diet/ Douglas Willinger

FMD- As reported in FMD, from the initial Drug Policy Foundation biennial report, Arnold Trebach-Kevin Zeese preface letter identifies Covington & Burling’s pro-bono program linkage to the Drug Policy Foundation:

“… the leading Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to cooperate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington & Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”

People throughout the drug policy reform movement are asking about this advisor-advisee relationship- owing to what they see as a clear potential for how advice from this law firm may affect the drug policy reform organizations, owing to C & B’s long history of clientele. Founded in 1919 at the start of the great growth in U.S. regulatory law, C&B is big into pharmaceuticals and other industries that benefit from the hysteria over the illegalized drugs, particularly Tobacco, there’s a clear interest in keeping up the hysteria over “cocaine” in order to obscure and keep illegal Coca Leaf, and thus a potential conflict of interest in this C&B relationship with drug policy reform organizations.

ML- Absolutely, FMD. A great many thanks for the opportunity to address this appearance of conflict of interest. As the attorney ‘assigned primary responsibility for advising the Foundation’ of this pro-bono program of this major food-tobacco-pharma industry law firm, I have an obligation to the public and to Covington & Burling to make myself available to answer questions regarding this pro bono relationship with the Drug Policy Foundation- now Drug Policy Alliance and other such organizations dedicated to reforming the laws regarding the now illicit drugs. Particularly at a time of this “Fast & Furious” controversy regarding a government program under U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, to flood illicit gun markets in order to better arm the various drug gangs so they may shoot and kill more people, including U.S. border guards, and thereby continue and even escalate this drug war that was started in part by Covington & Burling’s co-founder, James Harry Covington, one time U.S. Congressman from the Maryland eastern shore. You see, Holder is from Covington & Burling, and so is his assistant AG Breuer. And Holder in particular, among his legal practices, represented some pharmaceutical companies- indeed as Covington is perhaps the largest legal representative of much of the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, with the Controlled Substances Act granting so much power to the USAG, it can be said that the CSA thus so empowers a recent former Covington & Burling attorney who has represented big pharma- so likely guaranteeing a good show at some upcoming Congressional hearing on Fast & Furious.

FMD- Go on.

ML- Covington is the largest representative of so much, including food, drugs-pharmaceuticals. Its first client was the National Canners Association- still a client as the National Food Processors Association. The firm became THE firm for coordinating the defense of the cigarette industry- to sell what would be otherwise deemed a adulterated and mis-branded substance- oh but for the tradition established with that 1906 act for excluding a list of the additives.

Indeed Covington was established in the wake of and along with the tremendous rise in government regulatory expansion, indeed so much centralization in so much at that time, like a re-codification of cannon law to further centralize power within and near Rome.

Indeed, our founder James Harry Covington was involved in the drug war’s creation. Our founder was in the U.S. Congress when the 1906 U.S. Food and drug act was being crafted into the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act which he than upheld as a federal judge regarding giving the power over health choice to the U.S. Department of Treasury!
As so much of this has created problems that concern many people, such as the tremendous increase in the prison population, it leads us to assist the various organizations that are set up to challenge such problems; but since we represent such a broad array of industry, that we inevitably get caught up in issues that threaten the established interests that we have and continue to represent. By long representing much of the drug-pharmaceutical industry for instance we end up representing those that benefit from the current century old drug control scheme. Hence our involvement with the drug policy reform or legalization movement inevitably raises conflicts with our established interests we represent.

FMD- Such as interests benefiting from this drug war as …?

ML- Various drugs that would be to some degree displaced by legalized Marijuana, Opium, Coca leaf.

Recently 10 pharmaceutical products were enumerated as potentially threatened by legalized Marijuana. Jack Herer of course pointed out the numerous industrial products likewise threatened by legalized Marijuana or rather, in many cases, Hemp, as they don’t use it for its medicinal-psychoactive properties. And of course that elephant in the living room ignored by everyone but yourself of Tobacco-Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes by Coca Leaf particularly as both are plant-stimulants each respectively with nicotine or cocaine- two well known substances though blatantly perceived differently. You already done a masterful job with your DPF published papers during the early 1990s, though they have not published you since 1992. That is so weird given the potential effectiveness of your arguments to actually undermine support for the drug war regarding cocaine. Yet Ira Glasser, who anyone who can google can find takes Tobacco cigarette industry money, runs away from addressing the issue.

FMD- Oh yes. Did you read my accounts about him? Asides from 1995 with my COCA '95 panel they have not placed me on any panels, nor accept any of my panel proposals except the 1999 History Panel which nonetheless did not include any speakers on the Coca-cocaine issue, even rejecting such proposals as Coca Turning over a new leaf towards reducing health care costs with Dr Lester Grinspoon and Tinctures of Opium Wines of Coca Popular Pre Prohibition Uses of what became today’s white power poisons of abuse, with numerous speakers including Dr, John Morgan and former DPF employee, the writer Cynthia Cotts. The pharma tobacco drug legalization conflict is undeniable. The DPF clearly went away from the Coca cocaine issue, for instance discontinuing holding a regular “cocaine” panel after the 1992 DPF conference- though all in spite of the clear message of 1986 that reformers had to address the drug that was used for the post death of Len Bias by overdose hysteria used to generate public support for more draconian drug contraband penalties of cocaine. And it has gone conservative. We already had NORML and were to additionally get Marijuana Policy Project. Groups as the Drug Policy Foundation and its successor Drug Policy Alliance are about the broader issue of the popular illicit drugs which of course includes cocaine. So why not address it to belay the hysteria? Why keep cocaine a feared “narcotic” while nicotine remains part of a larger chronic poison taking some 440,000 premature lives annually within the U.S. and 6 million plus (if not as high as 40 million) annually worldwide, and 100+ million within the last calendar-century. Why deny the benefits of the Coca leaf- the stimulant according to UCLA’s Dr Ronald K. Siegel, the toxicologist who testified at the trial regarding Len Bias’s cocaine overdose supplier’s trial, that is the safest of its category? Why? Just look at the history, the 20th century drug control scheme in the U.S. came via the USDA- Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Mercantilism. This has raised numerous eyebrows.

ML- I can imagine seeing those eyebrows. A food and drug and insurance attorney at this powerhouse of a law firm for big pharma and the cigarette industry with a pro bono program advising drug policy reform/legalization organizations. And oh boy what a conflict. Our firm represents the interests that benefit from the “drug war”- so people are naturally going to wonder. Especially with no information forthcoming from myself, Covington nor any of these drug policy organizations since FMD began spotlighting this connection back in early 2008.

FMD- Indeed.

ML- This cigarette industry and that of the patent – aka patentable synthetic substances rather then un-patentable natural plant substances were and are the main beneficiaries of this new drug control scheme, of cocaine something to be feared by being required to be labeled while caffeine and nicotine were not, and to be arbitrarily deemed deleterious to human health irregardless of the concentration by a USDA that had been established to protect the interests of domestic business rather than health, thus favoring domestic Tobacco from the foreign market threat of the ‘Tobacco Habit Cure” of Coca Leaf.

Anyone with a background in vocal arts or anesthesiology would know this history.

FMD- Ah yes- Vin Mariani!

ML- Indeed, Vin Mariani.

Way better than powder cocaine, or cigarettes.

Popularized by Angelo Francois Mariani.

He was born December 17, 1838; and died April 1, 1914.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/coca-come-back.html

A Corsican by birth who moved to Paris to become a pharmacist in service to Parisian women who liked performing in opera, who all found Coca beneficial for the vocal cords and providing useful energy.

He understood Coca, deemed in South America as the essence of MamaCoca - the Earth Mother Figure - Most Special Gal. He bottled her essence. It gave a lot of people benefit, and was a good thing.

Alas the public allowed itself to be bamboozled by a “liberal-progressive” media that lied through its teeth, confusing “cocaine” in people’s minds from delightful alternative to caffeine to alluring concentrated white power poison of abuse. A mind over matter. Confuse the mind to allow destructive policies confused as beneficial and necessary but rather a deceptive self perpetuating lie. Result countless trillions in law enforcement/civil rights violations, plus trillions in added health care costs with some 100 million premature deaths resulting from this market distortion suppression of cocaine, protection-promotion of tobacco actually meeting the definition of adulterated and mis-branded.

This is to the benefit of a disastrous decision made in the early 1900s.

With the dragging of their feet regarding the Coca leaf issue, it is understandable that people are going to inquire upon what is tying this down and hence wonder about this linkage between the drug policy reform organizations and Covington & Burling.

What are they going to do- have the world think they hired me to suppress drug policy reform, drastically needed change in policies that are a continuing mega boondoggle health care human rights disaster?! Google my name with the terms “pharmaceutical” and there will be hits, only leading people to further wonder about this Covington and Drug Policy Reform organizations relationship. Even moreso given that current USAG Eric Holder's scandal- "Fast & Furious."

Tobacco the most dangerous was protected by the ban on Coca via the ridiculously overly simplistic hysteria against “cocaine”.

A mega colossal disaster, with a chain reaction of effects and successive reactions like a dog eternally chasing its tail.

We get the crack epidemic.

We get the trillions on added health care costs from the cigarettes.

We get amnesia about the Vin Mariani era.

Don’t they remember Vin Mariani?

It started as a favorite of Parisian stage performers helping tone their voices and given useful energy, not the up – down and afterward harshness of refined cocaine.

That was why cocaine was remembered favorably- as a delightful alternative to caffeine and even nicotine. And who would think of using the latter two as they bastardized cocaine starting during the mid 1880s.

So why has the Drug Policy Foundation stopped your excellent efforts to address cocaine after the 1992 conference?

People going to ponder that, knowing that its my name, an attorney specializing in food, drug and insurance, from Covington with its lengthy and extensive experience, and plus that with the clear market protection angle of the drug war that you cover but which all of the good old boy, fraternalistic orderesque organizations are naturally too chicken to do, so people are going to wonder about this program and ask, Bottleneck or Facilitator?

They have not yet let me stand up. The DPA would not even approve that excellent plenary panel on Agricultural Mercantilism with the former U.S. prosecutor Sheila Eubanks you made for the 2009 and 2011 DPA conferences.

Either we continue to stonewall, but more people will see this as an admission of the utter corruptness of Washington D.C. Fewer may want to send money to such foundations as the “Drug Policy Foundation” or Drug Policy Alliance” if it is seen as a tool of a Washington D.C. cigarette-pharmaceutical legal powerhouse founded by a man who helped found prohibition!

Or we do the right thing- for freedom of diet and medicine.

Covington & Burling has a long history going back to the very foundations of the great 20th century “war on drugs” or rather some drugs, a great deception that gets people to confuse its effects as somehow its continuing justification. People see the problems with prohibition and with ultra concentrated drugs – a situation engendered in most cases by Prohibition’s Iron Law that was the subject of an article by NORML’s Dick Cowan in the National Review way back in December 1986. They overlook the iron law of prohibition – remember when cocaine was in Coca Cola rather than taken as now. The FDA has been reluctant to approve other drugs taken in such a manner, such as nicotine nasal spray because of the pharmacokinetics how drugs are assimilated into the human body, aka slow versus fast all at once release. Its an issue known by science yet disregarded by that Basilica on the New Tiber- the U.S. Congress with its blatant cigarette-pharma mercantilism dating back at least to 1906.

Our founder was in the U.S. Congress when the 1906 US Food and Drug Act was being crafted into the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act which he than upheld as a federal judge regarding giving the power over health choice to the U.S. Department of Treasury!

As for the advice I have given the DPF and any other such drug policy related organizations, that can wait for my upcoming public presentations, including those that the Drug Policy Alliance needs adding to its conferences, complete with a minimum of 20 minutes of question and answer time with the audience.

Give me the opportunity to answer any such questions about such advice, along with what I and Covington & Burling shall be doing to assist in the re-legalization of Coca Leaf and other plant preparation products, including possible class action suits on behalf of the global public against a scheme denying us the benefits of Coca, instead perverting its use for the sake of protecting the most intrinsically dangerous drug its class- Tobacco.

I will answer questions about that by being available for questions as a participant in the various drug policy reform organization conferences, including DPA, Harm Reduction Coalition, and Marijuana Policy Project and to provide an overview of what I and Covington must do with a full scale legal effort, both internationally and within the U.S. Just think about the arguments used against Obama Care, particularly those regarding the Commerce Clause. We can use momentum from this to scrap the Cigarette-Pharma-Market-Protection "Controlled Substances Act" drug-war-scam.

We have a moral obligation to reverse the madness.

And to think of the juxtaposition. After, accordingly Washington, D.C. is the city of the beautiful virgin, though now, given the political dynamics, particularly Ledochowski’s Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, remains a city of the great whore.

From the very beginning, the city was intended to celebrate the mystery of Virgo – of the Egyptian Isis, the Grecian Ceres and the Christian Virgin. This truth – and this truth alone – explains the structure of the city, and the enormous power of its stellar symbolism. Washington, D.C., is far more then a city of zodiacs – it’s a city which was built to celebrate a massive cosmic symbolism, expressed in stars. Its the main buildings – Capitol, White House and Washington Monument – mark on the Earth the annual renewal of that magical pyrotechnic display in the skys, which occurs on the days around August 10. (page 344)

From whatever direction one approaches the history of Washington, D.C., the processional avenue of L’Enfant seems always to find its way into the story, and the tale is usually linked with Masons. If we glance at the history of the capital from the viewpoint of, say, sculpture, we find a seamless fabric which joins together generations of artists through almost two centuries. And, this is a fabric woven in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Today, the Old Post Office is set back from Pennsylvania Avenue, oriented to the squares drawn on the original map along D Street, as though some planner had forgotten about what L’Enfant had indicated on his map. Across the road is the beaux arts building that once housed the most influential newspapers in the city, the Washington Evening Star, its façade still looking down onto the statute of Benjamin Franklin, who occupies the triangular-shaped declivity in Pennsylvania Avenue. It is entirely fitting that this building, so intimately linked with a setting star, should look onto one of the most influential of early American Masons, one who had knowledge of the stars and was a keen astronomer. The sculpture, commissioned of Jacques Jouvenal as a gift to the city by the newspaper proprietor Stilson Hutchins, was designed to look onto Pennsylvania Avenue from 10th Street [note. It sits on the south-eastern corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 12th Street, being re-located there in 1982], because in those days the avenue was flanked by printers and newspapers: within a stones throw was the largest litho printer in the United States. Now the printers and newspaper have fled in the wake of threatened and actual development, leaving Franklin, displaced from his original symbolism, raising his right hand as though astonished in their disappearance. Nonetheless, there seems to be a destiny even in accidents, and this placing of a Mason on one side, and a building named after an evening star, is propitious.

The Evening Star departed its famous building in 1955, leaving only its stellar name in metallic and lapidary inscriptions overlooking the Pennsylvania frontage. The reception hall of the newspaper has been revamped in modern times, but it is possible that a meaningful symbolism has survived from earlier days. In its marble floor is a huge sunburst, or starburst pattern. The five splendid radiants throw their beams out toward this magical avenue, as though he were part of the profound secret of Washington, D.C. [emphasis added] (pp 311-312)

Does the state of Franklin, on its pedestal below the campanile, hold up its hand in amazement of this solar wonder? (page 344)

This account’s fixation upon the Eastern Star upon the Evening Star building may be misleading as it is to his 4 o’clock; curiously the book fails to mention the address of where Ben Franklin’s statute actually stares in astonished amazement diagonally across the intersection of Pennsylvania and 12th Street. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue- the Covington & Burling building.

http://savethecapitalcity.blogspot.com/2007/06/benjamin-franklins-mysterious-sunfire.html

Consider, the continuing to this very day ancient regime, and its many wars not limited to its insane pervert cocaine to protect cigarettes drug war, but including Ledochowski’s vicious counter reformation revenge for the Kulturkampf, with Maximillian Kolbe’s “our war” deification of the Mary figure, suggestive of this woman, born on the Winter solstice as the Mother of War (some variant of Mary Lou given Louise=warrior?), at that spot of Washington, D.C. described by a Masonic book as the center of the universe where Ben Franklin’s statute stares in wondrous astonishment. Is not that suggestive that Covington is at the center of the universe? And that we have a job we must do!

FMD- Absolutely! Ben Franklin and everyone else are awaiting the Covington & Burling - Marialuisa Gallozzi move to end the travesty of anti Opium-Coca pro cigarette criminal mercantilism.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/1904-2004-usda.html

"The Farmer and the Cowman"

I'd like to say a word for the farmer,
He come out west and made a lot of changes
He come out west and built a lot of fences,
And built 'em right acrost our cattle ranges.
The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends

Rogers, Richard and Hammerstain, Oscar. Oklahoma: Broadway Cast Album. Laurence Guittard, Christine Andrea, Mary Wickes et al. Mus. Dir. Jay Blackton. Red Seal, 1980; cited by Marialuisa S. Gallozzi in her USDA conference paper: "The Food Industry's View About the Development of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Industrials" presented at the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, Arlington, Virginia February 19-20, 2004

The Evil 'Drug' Prohibition to Promote Tobacco Cigarettes
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-evil-prohibition-to-promote.html

MisManaged Drug Policy Reform Organizations - DPF/DPA
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2010/07/peter-lewis-ira-glasser-is-waste-of.html

2012 - April 1 - South Mall Blogger
http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-april-1.html

South Mall Blogger
http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/

James Harry Covington- Fraternal Bio

Upheld U.S. Harrison Act TD 2309
Founded the food, pharma and cigarette industry powerhouse law firm that advises the drug policy reform organizations: Covington & Burling



http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA239&dq=Rep.+James+Harry+Covington&id=VwETAAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false



JAMES HARRY COVINGTON

James Harry Covington, the retiring editor of The Caducei's, was born in Baltimore, May 3, 1870. His parents removed to Easton, Md., a short time afterward, and his preparatorv education was secured at private schools and at the well-known Easton High School. In 1885 he entered the Maryland Military Academy, remaining there two years. In 1887 he concluded to take up a mercantile career, and went into the service of such an establishment, but at the end of two years he found that his tastes were for study, and entered the law office of U. S. Senator Charles H. Gibson, at Easton, pursuing the study of the law and keeping up his general studies under the tutelage of a junior member of Senator Gibson's law firm. In 1891 he entered the law department of the University of Pennsylvania, and was graduated in 1894. After his admission to the bar, he returned to his home in Easton and began the practice of his profession. He is the author of a legal monograph, "The Sale of Liquors by Social Clubs," which is recognized as an authori tative treatment of the relation of club membership to excise laws; and he has built up a substantial law practice.

For ten years he has been active in Democratic politics in Maryland, appearing frequently on the stump in every campaign from 1895 to the present time. In 1899 he was the candidate of his party for state senator, and conducted a long fight in the courts which ended in a decision that there was no senatorial vacancy in his district. In 1901, without his solicitation and against his wish, he was unanimouslv nominated to represent the district composed of Talbot county, as state senator, for a full term of four years. After a fierce campaign, in which his Republican opponent was Robert B. Dixon, one of the wealthiest bankers in the state, he was defeated by thirty-eight majority. In 1903 he was elected State's Attorney for Talbot county, Maryland, for a term of four years, receiving the largest majority of any candidate on the Democratic ticket.

He was a charter member of the old Delta Chapter of Kappa Sigma, at the Maryland Military Academy, and later he becameone of the founders of Alpha-Epsilon, at the University of Pennsylvania. From his initiation he took an active interest in the Fraternity, and his evident fitness for positions of responsibility led to his election as W. G. P. in 1892, which was followed by election as W. G. M. in 1894. Upon the retirement of Editor Warner in 1895, he was made editor-in-chief of The Caduceus, and served continuously from that time until Jan. 1, 1905, being four times unanimously reelected. He was chairman of the committee to draft the present Constitution of the Fraternity, adopted by the Richmond Conclave, 1894, and that instrument is practically his work. Its fitness and completeness is shown bv the fact that for ten years it has served as the supreme law of the Fraternity, receiving in all that time but a few amendments in details.

Brother Covington took charge of The Caduceus at a time when the Fraternity stood greatly in need of his services, and upon the shortest of notice. During the nine and one-half years of his incumbency the character and tone of the magazine have steadily improved, and it has for years been frequently mentioned with approval by other fraternity editors, as approaching their ideal of that which a fraternity magazine should be. Covington's editorials, thoughtful but not ponderous, sensible but not too unworldly in their wisdom, have probably been copied more widely than those of any other writer for the fraternity press. This is due to the fact that while always dignified in tone and pure in English, they have continually been addressed to the need of the hour in Greek affairs, being void, withal, of narrowness and bitterness. He has known how to take up the cudgels on occasion, however, and has never been uncertain in his support of the just claims of the Fraternity in any matter. Genial and jovial in intercourse with his fellows, a mighty hunter, a master of argument and a good judge of a good story, Brother Covington is as well known to the Fraternity at large as any man in it.

College Fraternities as Satanic Romish-Masonry (the behind the scenes Ancient Regime)
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2008/08/college-frats-as-satanic-romish-masonry.html

JH Covington UPHELD Harrison 'Narcotic' Act

JAMES HARRY COVINGTON

(May 3, 1870 – February 4, 1942)

https://books.google.com/books?id=kRo8AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA22-PA15&lpg=RA22-PA15&dq=United+States+ex+rel+George+B.+Ashley,+relator,+vs.+William+H.+Osborn+and+W.+G.+McAdoo,+respondents.&source=bl&ots=5hGr62v_3t&sig=ACfU3U2-HNwjOmH1sRQwsqiNZTF80fSrew&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD2ZqJ06XnAhU3JzQIHX4wAqcQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=United%20States%20ex%20rel%20George%20B.%20Ashley%2C%20relator%2C%20vs.%20William%20H.%20Osborn%20and%20W.%20G.%20McAdoo%2C%20respondents.&f=false

p 15

INTERNAL REVENUE

(T.D. 2489.)

Narcotic Law - Decision of Court

Refusal of writ of mandamus, directed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, as not being the proper remedy to abrogate a regulation (T.D. 2309, dated March 11, 1916), issued under authority of the act of December 17, 1914, to carry into effect the provisions of section 6 of said act, which regulation was issued in the exercise of official discretion.  Demurror by relator to answer of respondent to rule to show cause overruled.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT
Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Washington, D.C. May 11, 1917

The appended decision of Covington, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in the case of United States ex rel George B. Ashley v William H. Osborn and W.G. McDoo, is published for the information of internal revenue officers and others concerned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

United States ex rel George B. Ashley, relator, vs. William H. Osborn and W. G. McAdoo, respondents

(at law no 5995)

http://books.google.com/books?id=yqHOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=Covington+Harrison+narcotics+act+vote&source=bl&ots=SAPtMsXT59&sig=CrtCjWEnJojwweGmMd5rXJokQUw&hl=en&ei=0KiUTp__B6fv0gH1uIWyBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


T. D. 2309 SUSTAINED

Chief Justice Covington of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia last Saturday overruled the demurrer of the relator to the answer of the respondents in the case of United States ex rel George B. Ashley, relator, vs. William H. Osborn and W. G. McAdoo, respondents. This means that the court did not sustain the contentions of Mr. Ashley on the questions of law placed in issue. Counsel for Mr. Ashley thereupon noted their intention to plead over, which will raise questions of fact and permit testimony to be adduced in support thereof.

This is the case testing the right of the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Internal Revenue through Treasury Decision No. 2309 to prohibit the refilling of a prescription calling for a preparation containing a narcotic drug in a proportion exempted by section 6 of the Harrison act when mixed with ingredients of medicinal virtue and used in good faith for medicinal purposes. The opinion of the court will not be analyzed, or commented on in detail at this time. It follows:

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus, directed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, commanding them to abrogate and cancel Treasury Decision No. 2309 and all other decisions or regulations in conflict with and in derogation of the act of congress of December 17, 1914, commonly called and known as the "Harrison Narcotic Law," and commanding them also to make hereafter only such needful rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the provisions of that act into effect. A rule to show cause was issued and the respondents have answered the rule. To this answer the relator has demurred. The petition, answer, and demurrer, have brought the proceeding to such issue that the question whether or not the relator is entitled to the mandamus as prayed for in the petition is squarely before the court for decision.

The petition states in substance that the relator, suffering from a serious cough, consulted professionally a regular practicing physician in the District of Columbia, who prescribed for him certain drugs to be used to alleviate the cough, and wrote the same out on one of his regular prescription blanks. That prescription was as follows:

"Ammonium chloride, 1 dram; morphine sulphate, one-fourth grain; syrup of scillae, one-half ounce; and syrup .of pruni, virg., one and one-half ounces; dose, one teaspoonful every two hours."

The relator, it is alleged, then had the prescription filled at the store of a registered druggist of the District of Columbia, and thereafter took the medicine in the doses prescribed by the physician until the quantity prescribed for him was exhausted. He then went to the drug store from which he had purchased the original quantity of medicine prescribed for him by the physician, and asked the druggist to refill the prescription. This the druggist declined to do, stating that he could not legally refill it because of the operation of Treasury Decision No. 2309, relating to the "Harrison Narcotic Law." Section 6 of the "Harrison Narcotic Law" provides:

"That the provisions of this Act shall not be construed to apply to the sale, distribution, giving away, dispensing, or possession of preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium, or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroine, or more than one grain of codeine, or any salt or derivative of any of them in one fluid ounce, or, if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ounce; or to liniments, ointments, and other preparations which do not contain cocaine or any of its salts or alpha- or beta-eucaine or any of their salts or any synthetic substitute for them: Provided, That such remedies and preparations are sold, distributed, given away, dispensed, or possessed as medicine and not for the purpose of evading the intentions and provisions of this Act. The provisions of this Act shall not r.pply to decocainized coca leaves, or preparations made therefrom, or to other preparations of coca leaves which do not contain cocaine."

Section 1 of that law provides, among other things: "That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall make all needful rules and regulations for carrying the provisions of this Act" into effect."

In pursuance of section 1 of the law, as just quoted, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, issued on March ll, 1916, Treasury Decision No. 2309, which is as follows:

"Section 6 of the Act of Congress approved December l7, 1914, does not apply to extemporaneous prescriptions unless written for preparation or remedy as hereinafter defined. The exemptions in that section apply exclusively to ready-made preparations and remedies prepared in accordance with the United States Pharmacopoeia, National Formulary, or other recognized or established formula. . . . Preparations and remedies within the intent of Section 6 are hereby defined to be readymade compound mixtures prepared in accordance with a recognized or established formula as indicated above, which contain not more than one of the enumerated drugs in a quantity not greater than that specified, together with other active medicinal drugs in sufficient proportions to confer upon such preparations or remedies valuable medicinal qualities other than possessed by the narcotic drugs if dispensed alone."

This decision, the relator alleges in his petition, has been issued by the respondents in contravention of law, in that it is not a regulation in harmony with, and merely for the purpose of carrying into effect, the provisions of the law, but is in fact a regulation clearly beyond the scope, power, and intent of the law. And the relator then alleges in his petition that by section 6 of the "Harrison Narcotic Law" he was entitled to have refilled as many times as might be necessary for medicinal purposes the doctor's prescription which was given to him as recited in the petition. And the relator then alleges that, as the refusal to refill the same by the druggist to whom he applied was based upon the Treasury Decision No. 2309, and that decision having been promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury contrary to the provisions of the "Harrison Narcotic Law," and being an arbitrary abuse of the authority vested in them, the relator is entitled to have a writ of mandamus issue out of this court commanding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury to abrogate Treasury Decision No. 2309 and hereafter to make only such needful regulations as may be necessary to carry the "Harrison Narcotic Law" into effect.

Before considering at all the validity of Treasury Decision No. .2309 in connection with section 6 of the "Harrison Narcotic Law," it is of first importance to determine whether or not the relator has actually such a private legal interest in the proper enforcement of the law as to give him the right to institute proceedings to secure such enforcement by the writ of mandamus.

A general duty to the public is not a special duty to the relator, or a duty which he can require the performance of through resort to the courts. Every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the proper administration of law, but the general interest is not a private interest, and is not sufficient to authorize private citizens to institute mandamus proceedings to secure from the appropriate officials the legal administration of such law. The mere fact, therefore, that the relator desired to become a purchaser of a combination of a narcotic drug with other drugs, and was refused them by a druggist because of the operation of Treasury Decision No. 2309, would, of itself, give the relator no sufficient private interest to proceed by way of mandamus to compel the officials charged with the enforcement of the "Harrison Narcotic Law" to abrogate existing regulations preventing such sale and purchase, even if those regulations are so arbitrary and so in contravention of the law as to constitute an abuse of official authority.

But the relator contends that the "prescription," given to him by a regular practicing physician for a combination of a narcotic drug with other drugs in proportions permitted in "preparations and remedies" as specified in section 6 of the law, operated to put him in possession of something in the nature of a property right, the interference with which gives him a peculiar and private interest in the proper enforcement of the law and enables him properly to institute these mandamus proceedings. But is his possession of a so-called "prescription" a property right? If so, it must be because the "prescription" is the formula of a "preparation or remedy" which does not contain more than the prohibited quantity of opium or other narcotic to the ounce of the preparation, within the meaning of section 6 of the narcotic law. His contention, therefore, resolves itself into the proposition that each time a physician, using his professional knowledge, evolves in his mind a particular combination of drugs that will benefit an immediate ailment of the patient, he creates a "preparation or remedy" within the ordinary acceptation of those terms in the drug trade. It seems to the court that such a contention is erroneous and would overturn the entire theory of the practice of medicine. The relator consulted a physician, and presumably gave him a history of his case. The physician diagnosed his case, and determined that the particular patient, the relator, with certain existing symptoms, needed in a certain quantity and for certain dosages a combination of drugs which included a narcotic drug. The physician might have given his directions for the medicine for his patient, the relator, directly to the druggist verbally if he chose to. The patient, the relator, acquired no property in the thing called the "prescription," and when he went a second time to the druggist to purchase the combination of drugs, including the narcotic drug, which the physician at a particular time prescribed for him to take in a given quantity, he was not in any different position from any one of the public who might have gone to the druggist to make the same sort of a purchase. The relator, therefore, has no private right involved with which the court can undertake to interfere.

However, apart from the right of the relator to institute the present mandamus proceedings, it seems clear that the duty imposed upon the respondents in relation to the "Harrison Narcotic Law" to "make all needful rules and regulations for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect," required in its performance the exercise of a high degree of judgment and discretion.

It is quite true that the law cannot be amended by a regulation issued by the respondents in virtue of the power conferred upon them under section l of the law. The regulations must be in harmony with the law and in an appropriate proceeding a mere arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of power by the respondents might be held invalid by the court .

In this case, however, the respondents have acted. They have exercised their judgment and discretion, and they have acted under the power given them to provide the appropriate administrative details for enforcing the "Harrison Narcotic Law," including, of course, section 6 of that law. The exercise of such a power certainly cannot be said to be ministerial. In Field vs. Clark, 143 U. S. 694, the court said: "The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making powers, and must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation."

If the existing regulations were abrogated by judicial order, and new ones, proper in the judgment and discretion of the officials, were promulgated, and they did not suit the petitioner, he would be again before the court for another writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to abrogate the new regulations and to promulgate still others. The mere statement of that proposition shows that the relator seeks the review of an act of official discretion by the prerogative writ of mandamus.

In the case of United States vs. Black, 128 U. S., 40, it was said by the court, speaking through Justice Bradley: "The court will not interfere by mandamus with the executive officers of the Government in the exercise of their ordinary official duties, even where those duties require an interpretation of the law."

In the case of Louisiana vs. McAdoo, 234 U. S. 627, the court said: "There is a class of cases which hold that if a public officer be required by law to do a particular thing, not involving the exercise of either judgment or discretion, he may be required to do that thing upon application of one having a distinct legal interest in a doing of the act. Such an act would be ministerial only. But if the matter in respect to which the action of the official is sought is one in which the exercise of either judgment or discretion is required, the courts will refuse to substitute their judgment or discretion for that of the official entrusted by law with its execution. Interference in such a case would be to interfere with the ordinary functions of Government."

It is possible that in a case where Treasury Decision No. 2309 as a regulation in relation to section 6 of the "Harrison Narcotic Law" is to be construed by a court, the regulation may be found to be contrary to the law (although it is fair to say that it seems to this court to be in harmony with the law), but a proceeding to secure a writ of mandamus is certainly not the proper remedy. The court might compel the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury to make regulations and enforce the act, if they had not acted, and if such were needed, but it cannot command them to exercise their discretion in formulating those regulations in a particular manner.

The writ being refused for the reasons given, it is unnecessary to discuss the other contentions of the relator made at the oral argument and presented in his brief.

The demurrer is overruled.

[Signed] J. Harry Covington,
Chief Justice.

HW Wiley JH Covington Subversion of 1st Amendment on Foods & Drugs

USDA-AMA-APhA Racketeering

James Harry Covington founded the law firm Covington & Burling

"The proof of intention in the criminal law," he said "does not mean the metaphysical reading of a man's mind. Specific proof of intent is not necessary; it may be established by evidence of attending facts and circumstances, and therefore the Government can easily show that a false statement on a label regarding a drug is one from which fraudulent intent may be implied. Conviction in all proper cases will be consequently comparatively sure."------ James Harry Covington

http://www.quackwatch.com/13Hx/MM/03.html

excerpt

The misbranding section of the law did not explicitly refer to curative promises. A food or drug article was misbranded, the law stated, "the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular." Wiley and Kebler, in their initial regulations, had aimed this general clause directly at unwarranted assertions that promised relief or cure. At the time questions were raised about the Bureau's interpretation. In view of the differences of opinion prevailing over matters therapeutical, a drug editor suggested, "it will be interesting to know who is to be judge of the truth or falsity of the therapeutical claims which may be made." [16] Certainly among medical practitioners an ancient therapeutic debate had reached a new and bitter stage. In the American Medical Association's effort to improve standards, Association spokesmen were condemning the healing practices of various sects and cults [17]. These groups fought back with vigor, defending their therapies and opposing the AMA's effort to enforce therapeutic monopoly. While such a debate was going on, could Wiley and Kebler, perusing nostrum labels, find firm scientific grounds on which to approve or reject? They themselves took this for granted and, during the first years of the law, so did the trade. Many manufacturers toned down their therapeutic claims. Others did not, but when hauled into court admitted Wiley's view of the law's applicability by pleading guilty [18].

Out in Kansas City an eclectic physician named Johnson decided on a different legal course. He had been vending an assortment of tablets and liquids as "Dr. Johnson's Mild Combination Treatment for Cancer." For this purpose, of course, the concoctions were worthless. Johnson fulfilled the law's requirements as to the accurate labeling of his ingredients. It was solely against his false curative promises that the government brought its suit. The medicine man's lawyers moved to quash the indictment, pleading that Congress had not intended the law to forbid such practices. When the case had run its course, the Supreme Court had agreed. Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the decision, a tortuous exploration of grammatical construction that could find no proper link between the prohibition of false labeling and assertions of healing potency. Congress was not apt to legislate, Holmes argued, in the debatable realm of what could cure and what could not. This would "distort the uses of its constitutional power to establishing criteria in regions where opinions are far apart." [19]

Charles Evans Hughes wrote a vigorous dissent. His study of the grammar of the law revealed the connection Holmes could not see. He cited the act's legislative history to show that Congress had indeed intended a prohibition of therapeutic nonsense on nostrum labels. Even the makers of medicines had generally assumed the law to be so written, Hughes pointed out, since so many had promptly entered pleas of guilt. Holmes had "impressively described," the dissenting justice said, the conflict that did indeed exist between schools of medicine and the difficulty of legislating in such an uncertain area. "But granting the wide domain of opinion," he added, "and allowing the broadest range to the conflict of medical views, there still remains a field in which statements as to the curative properties are downright falsehoods and in no sense expressions of judgment. This field I believe this statute covers." This type of downright falsehood was what Johnson had placed on the labels of his cancer cure.

But Holmes had the majority with him. The decision, wrote an incensed George Creel, was "first aid to fraud and murder," leaving the nostrum provisions of the law with "as much bite as a canton flannel dog." Wiley was angry. Maybe Holmes understood his opinion, the chief chemist said. I don't. All I can make out is that it gives anyone the right to lie about drugs whenever he feels like it." Wiley preferred to stand with Hughes. "He disagreed," the chemist added bitterly, "probably, because he had not been on the bench long enough to know better." [20]

The decision in the Johnson case, said President Taft, meant that over 150 cases of the same type pending in the courts, "involving some of the rankest frauds by which the American people were ever deceived," would have to be dismissed. He urged the Congress promptly to pass a law to plug the hole. Holmes had made clear—and Hughes had agreed—that "any attempt to legislate against mere expressions of opinion would be abortive." Thus the new law should proscribe only "knowingly false misstatements of fact as to the effect of the preparations." Such a measure, the President was persuaded, would control "the greater part of the evil." [21]

Congressman Swagar Sherley of Kentucky introduced a bill, and it was passed by Congress "without any blare of trumpets." The amendment to the food and drug law declared an article misbranded "if its package or label shall bear or contain any statement, design, or device regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or substances contained therein, which is false and fraudulent." [22]

In view of the Johnson decision, "false and fraudulent" was as strong a phrase as Congress could very well enact. But would proving fraud be such an impossible task as to offer quackery an open road? Congressman Sherley acknowledged this hazard: "very frequently," he said, the government would have difficulty "in convicting the guilty man." A fellow Congressman, James Covington of Maryland, foresaw no untoward danger. "The proof of intention in the criminal law," he said "does not mean the metaphysical reading of a man's mind. Specific proof of intent is not necessary; it may be established by evidence of attending facts and circumstances, and therefore the Government can easily show that a false statement on a label regarding a drug is one from which fraudulent intent may be implied. Conviction in all proper cases will be consequently comparatively sure." [23]

Wiley was less cheerful. The dangers Congressman Sherley saw as likely, Wiley viewed as certain. The word "fraudulent" in the amendment, he said, was a "joker" which would nullify the law's intent. Congress had "given the manufacturers of fake cure-alls another lease on life and enabled the roots of fraud and corruption to sink deeper into the soil of protective legislation-protective to vested interests, not to public welfare." But enforcing the Sherley Amendment was not to be Harvey Washington Wiley's responsibility. Five months before Taft signed the law, Wiley had resigned his post as chief of the Bureau of Chemistry. The decision had been, perhaps, impending since 1906. The talents required for crusading in behalf of a law are not the same talents required for enforcing it. The measure was a pioneering one, and weaknesses in drafting became apparent, especially a lack of clarity as to enforcement responsibilities. Wiley's categorical stand against food preservatives antagonized industries with great political power, and this power they brought to bear. President Roosevelt, becoming unsure of Wiley's science, created checks upon his single-banded action within the Bureau which hamstrung the chief chemist. Bitter internecine warfare developed which, in Taft's administration, led to a charge of malfeasance against Wiley. Although he was vindicated by the President, Wiley felt that Taft should then have proceeded to oust his enemies and restore his authority. This the President did not do. Embittered, tired of fruitless fighting, and anxious to increase his income because of his recent marriage, Wiley quit [24].

In the whole protracted struggle, patent medicines played almost no part at all. One of Wiley's opponents within the Department of Agriculture had chided the chemist for working up weak food cases when so many strong cases might be developed against vicious nostrums sold within "the shadow of the National Capitol." Granted that the complaint possessed some merit, it has all the earmarks of a blow aimed at embarrassing Wiley in the continuing battle. At any rate, the Johnson case had already been decided against the government in the District Court [25]

Ignore Harm Reduction of Highlighting Agricultural Mercantilism- Drug Policy Alliance

of the enormous continuing mega boondoggle of Tobacco Mercantilism Against Coca

We're not going to move forward with your proposal below on agricultural policy because I believe it's still not a clear connection for many of our attendees, and doesn't touch on their main work areas. As for the topic of coca, we won't be having an entire panel, but if you come to the conference I think you'll find that it's addressed on a couple of them, primarily panels with a South / Latin America focus.

Drug Policy Alliance- August 15, 2011

Coca is the stimulant described as the safest natural stimulant plant, whereas Tobacco the most dangerous- taking some 100 million plus lives during the first century of mass manufactured Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes.

Coca was what the U.S. government via its United States Department of Agriculture targeted for its sale and use as a "Tobacco habit cure" and its growing popularity particularly through the southeastern U.S. where Tobacco predominates politically and agriculturally.

Coca was what the British medical journalist Anita Bennett informed the 1993 'Latin America' where she met myself and Ira Glasser who then expressed an avid interest in her notation of the utility of coca tea to women for easing childbirth (relaxing the muscles of the vagina) and hence reducing the tragic instances of brain damaged newborns.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/it-was-criminal-mercantilism-to-protect.html

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/coca-as-tobacco-habit-cure.html

The DPF to its credit approved the COCA ’95 panel proposal that I moderated with speakers Roger Rumrill, Anthony Richard Henman, Dr. Jorge Hurtado (by video) and UCLA’s Dr. Ronald K. Siegel, which was that breakout panel session’s 2nd best attended (including Ethan Nadelman and Jacob Sullum), bested only by a California topic specific panel at a conference held that year in Santa Monica, California. It also deserves credit for publishing Anthony Richard Henman’s paper in its 1989 conference compendium, as well as my papers "The Ever-changing Ever confused Popular Conception of Cocaine"; "Cocaine Prohibition Water or Gasoline [for treating the flames of drug abuse]"; and "Cocaine Conversion- Onwards to Coca!" respectively in 1990, 1991 and 1992 (though strangely in contrast to the 1989 Henman article, don’t appear within the DPA online library). Likewise, I appreciate being placed upon the DPF cocaine panels in 1991 and 1992, plus Ethan Nadelman’s decision placing me upon the Foreign Trade panel that latter year.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/11/17-years-ago-just-say-whoa.html

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKYlQNnzOpX5EBKZe8rlBmduhyphenhyphensOEYkfB0wfBHF-lkm5xuJ1Yqywkh9hiBijKR4KKXIwgf47drcIHL5mOo3KlWu_mJtszuGb3S5IPDHM1MOlIrR8mu_Px7DIVSJExaqPMhO0cOMp4LnKc/s1600-h/City+Paper+JSW+December+18+1992+p26_1280.GIF

Yet ever since the DPF/DPA has seriously stalled out on the Coca issue.

It stopped holding a cocaine panel at each year’s conference (even as continuing otherwise regarding MJ). It has relegated coca to a sub-topic within a generally female ‘Latin America’ panel.

It denied every paper proposal that I have made to them after 1992, and have published or presented precious little regarding coca- a rare exception being an excellent 1st place awarded paper in the DPF’s brief (1996-2000) ‘Student Paper Competition’ – appearing as a presentation hand-written into the schedule at the conference itself and thus not appearing in the printed conference materials.

It denied my 1994 panel proposal- ‘Coca- Turning Over a New Leaf Towards Reducing Health Care Costs’, that had the support of Harvard’s Dr. Lester Grinspoon, who phoned DPF President Arnold S. Trebach, only to be rebuffed.

It denied all of my other proposed panels regarding Coca as well as the broader issue of the drug war’s perversion of drug forms and modes of use, such as that in 1997- ‘Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca, etc: Popular, Pre-Prohibition Uses of Natural Plants Perverted by Drug Prohibition into today's "Hard" Drug Plague’.

Should not that alone have qualified Coca as ‘HARM REDUCTION’?

It’s undeniably bad to ban whole Coca- ensuring that cocaine is only available in highly concentrated forms.

It’s undeniably worse to ban Coca- ensuring that the far larger markets in general for stimulants is denied Coca, while the stimulant that is the one that those pushing the early 1900s Coca ban were evidently most concerned with protecting- the one that’s the most politically established in the U.S., and the one most dangerous: Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco.



Yet drug policy reform organizations utterly neglect this broader issue of this Panama Canal construction era Agricultural Mercantilism (the U.S. took over the Canal Project in 1903 and completed and opened it in the year of the Harrison ‘Narcotic’ Act banning ‘Coca, cocaine, etc”- 1914- with the USDA exploring the domestic feasibility of Coca, Opium and other drug crops agricultural potential): the shameful history of the USDA-AMA-APhA Tobacco-Pharma alliance embodied by such figures involved with this trio of special interests described as a ‘knight showing great prowess’ Harvey Washington Wiley, and the subsequent decades many cigarette advertisements in medical journals. Though the DPF/DPA accepted by 1999 ‘History Panel’ proposal, I, along with the Coca-cocaine issue and the early politicking of the AMA-APhA and USDA would be excluded, including at the subsequent such panel in 2003.

Harvey Wiley Resume
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/harvey-wiley-resume-1915.html

Given their relative safety this has been an absolute disaster for health care costs:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/coca-leaf-stands-out-among-all.html

In each major category of intoxicant used by our species, there appear to be one or two drug plants that researchers have noted, are more controllable, hence safer, than all the other plants or synthetics in that category. Coca leaf stands out among all the stimulants, licit and illicit, as the easiest to control and the one least likely to produce toxicity or dependency.

And they would know that in 1914:

... there are tens of thousands of people in the United States who die every year from the excessive use of cigarettes; and yet I find Senators still pulling away at the cigarette as though t were a perfectly harmless thing. I believe the Senator will agree with me that there are many thousands of people who die from what is called tobacco cancer, a cancerous growth affecting the throat from overuse of cigars; and we find perhaps 60 percent of the Senators pulling away at the cigar as unconcerned as though no one were dying as a result of these cigars...

U.S. Congress, Senator Porter James McCumber (R) North Dakota, August 15, 1914

Nonetheless our governments have proven their loyalty to this apostasy from common sense with the descent into and continuation of this criminal mercantilism primarily for the sake of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco that came in the early 1900s.

The United National World Health Organization reports that Tobacco cigarettes have cost some 100 million premature deaths during the 1900s.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/tobaccos-relative-toll.html

How would finally beginning to highlight this suppression of coca/protection of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco not qualify as HARM REDUCTION?


Illustration: 1900s sales chart of cigarette production spikes at the times of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 drug control statutes.

By banning Coca, and protecting Tobacco- conveniently ‘grandfathered’ by the 1906’s Act’s exclusion of its USDA based jurisdiction [!] over substances not included in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia – allowing its mass sale in a fashion that would otherwise be considered adulterated and misbranded for the unlabeled additives, and reckless for such as burn accelerants to boost sales while increasing house fires, the authorities have not merely created the black market perversion of Coca into concentrated cocaine, rather they have additionally suppressed and denied a highly useful stimulant, for the sake of allowing the rapid spread of the most dangerous and physically addictive stimulant that’s politically established in the U.S. This has undeniably tremendous costs economically in lost productivity, lives and enormously increased medical costs.

The DPA must not pretend that such does not qualify as “HARM REDUCTION”.

Holding this panel proposal “Agricultural Mercantilism” would be excellent as a start.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/agrilcultural-politics-of-drug-policy_27.html

Panel Proposal for 2009 Drug Policy Alliance International Conference

Harvey Wiley

Agricultural policies gave forth the existing drug control regimen; this dates back to its milestone of the 1906 U.S. Pure Foods and Drugs Act granting the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) the power to ban a substance from interstate commerce via declaring an ingredient as deleterious to health, and of limiting its jurisdiction to substances within the U.S. Pharmacopoeia from which Tobacco was conveniently dropped 1 year earlier in 1905.

Since the U.S.D.A. was established to promote agricultural commodities, its empowerment would have severely unappreciated detriments regarding the market protection of the most intrinsically toxic yet domestic agricultural commodity of Tobacco from the foreign 'menace' of least toxic Coca.

With the public health thus beneath mercantilism, the consequences have been thus severe for numerous people, entities and interests.

Potential Speakers:

Sharon Y. Eubanks , former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, and the lead prosecutor for a R.I.C.O. act suit against the major cigarette companies by the U.S. department of justice, who in 2005 resigned in response to the Bush administration’s commands to reduce the proposed settlement by 90%. She gave interviews to CBS about this.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-administration-accused-of-rigging.html

Marialuisa S. Gallozzi is a food, drug and insurance company attorney. Since 1987 she has been with the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling, long established with food and drug law. In 1988, she was assigned “primary responsibility for advising the [Drug Policy] foundation” according to a letter dated March 1990 appearing in the 1988-1990 Biennial Report of the Drug Policy Foundation (a reform organization) by its Presidents Dr. Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin Zeese, crediting her with giving them valuable advice.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.html

Her activities include that upon GMO plant made pharmaceuticals, as a panelist of “Perils and Pitfalls of Plant Based Pharmaceuticals” with her paper “The U.S. Food Industry’s View of Plant Based Pharmaceuticals”, viewable here.

Her published papers include "Inactive Ingredients in Over-the-Counter Drug Products," Regulatory Affairs FOCUS magazine (August 2002).

She is prominent within insurance law, so described as:

Rising star Marialuisa Gallozzi enters the tables in recognition of her vast experience in asbestos, silica, pharmaceutical and other coverage claims, in addition to insurer insolvencies. Described as “an expert on London insolvency matters and schemes of arrangement,” she works with US, Bermuda and London market insurers and captive insurers. Peers consider her “an intellectually strong negotiator and adviser with excellent judgment.”

---

About Covington & Burling:
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.html

It was initially founded in 1919 by Judge James Harry Covington, a former U.S. Representative from the 4th District of Maryland (1909-1913) who was in office shortly after the enactment of the 1906 Food and Drugs Act, through the time leading to the 1914 Harrison Act, and who was appointed as a Judge by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. It became Covington and Burling with the addition of Chicago lawyer Edward Burling, who was married to Louise Peasley, a daughter of railroad tycoon James C. Peasley of the Burlington Railroad also president of the National State Bank (of whom another daughter Mathilda was married to Frederic A. Delano- uncle of later U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914), who moved to Washington, D.C. to become chief counsel of the Shipping Board during World War I, following U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's government’s nationalization of the railroads and seizing control of the shipping industry. (The early 1900s brought a sharp increase in federal law-making, not limited to the 1906 Food and Drug Act and the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.)

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.

http://www.covingtonandburling.com/offices/washington/description.html

This firm’s oldest practices is its presence in food and drug law, with its web-site in 2005 listing 18 attorneys at its Washington, D.C. headquarters – 9 partners including two former Chief Counsels to the Food and Drug Administration (including Marialuisa Gallozzi, ”assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the [Drug Policy] Foundation”), and 9 associates – who devote all or a major portion of their time to this practice, plus 6 additional lawyers at its offices in London and Brussels. According to the firm’s site at

http://www.cov.com/practices/oid52689/description.html

Covington & Burling has a large and comprehensive food and drug law practice. The Firm’s food and drug practice began at the Firm’s founding in 1919 with representation of the National Canners Association (now the National Food Processors Association and still a client). From that time, the Firm’s practice has steadily expanded to include all types of food and drug work and work relating to scientific and technology research. Past and present clients for which the Firm serves as general counsel or principal outside counsel include the Animal Health Institute, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Bakers Association, American Forest & Paper Association, Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Corn Refiners Association, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, International Dairy Foods Association, National Food Laboratories, National Pharmaceutical Council, Consumer Healthcare Products Association and Toxicology Forum.

This work includes political organization on behalf of its clientèle industries. According to the firm’s site at

http://www.cov.com/practices/oid6266/description.html

The Firm was actively involved on behalf of major clients in connection with each important statutory revision in the federal food and drug laws, including the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and its major amendments, including —

the Pesticide Amendments of 1954,
the Food Additives Amendment of 1958,
the Color Additive Amendments of 1960,
the Drug Amendments of 1962,
the Animal Drug Amendments of 1968,
the Medical Device Amendments of 1976,
the Orphan Drug Act,
the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984,
the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988,
the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1988,
the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990,
the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990,
the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992,
the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994,
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994,
the Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996,
the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996,
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, and
the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997.

Our lawyers have advised or represented clients in a wide range of legislative matters at both the federal and state levels. We have prepared draft legislation and analyzed legislative proposals, including interaction with Congressional members and staff. We have prepared Congressional testimony and advised clients in connection with committee and subcommittee hearings. Our lawyers have advised clients on compliance with new statutory enactments, and represented trade association clients in rulemaking proceedings to implement new statutes. As the 104th Congress undertook to address the issues of general regulatory reform and more specifically FDA reform, firm lawyers played a major role in conjunction with food, drug and cosmetic industry trade associations and other clients in analyzing and drafting legislative reform proposals, and in preparing testimony for presentation at committee hearings.

http://www.cov.com/practices/oid6266/description.html

Covington & Burling’s clientele amongst pharmaceutical and agriculture related firms includes:

GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto, Merck, Warner-Lambert (Pfizer), Eli Lilly, The Balli Group

Covington for decades has been a preeminent antitrust advisor, regularly providing U.S. and EU antitrust advice to Rx and OTC pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms around the world in connection with mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, litigation, R&D collaborations, licensing transactions and other strategic transactions. We have been home to four former heads of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and two Chairmen of the ABA Antitrust Law Section - a unique distinction among law firms actively practicing in the antitrust area.

Unmentioned in the firm’s web site is its long established activities as one of, if not unquestionably in every way the world’s largest, legal representative of such agricultural-commodity related industries in one way or another, of pharmaceutical and Tobacco (cigarette) interests.

Covington & Burling also represents every major American tobacco company, including Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, as well as the now-defunct industry trade association, the Tobacco Institute. The firm helped develop and coordinate the Whitecoat Project, an attempt to keep controversy alive regarding the dangers of passive smoking by hiring scientists to back up and attempt to give credibility to the tobacco industry's point of view that second-hand smoke is not a health risk.

According to internal tobacco industry documents analyzed in 1999 by Public Citizen and the Center for Justice and Democracy, Covington & Burling was a principle organizer and funding conduit for tort reform efforts on behalf of the tobacco industry. Covington & Burling has acted as a pipeline to direct money from its tobacco industry clients to tort reform groups in the states and across the country. For example, in 1995, the tobacco industry allocated nearly $5.5 million to the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), more than half of ATRA’s $10.2 million budget according to the Associated Press.8

A memo written by a Covington & Burling partner that year reveals the extent to which the law firm helped orchestrate the tobacco industry's tort reform agenda. Written to the industry’s "Tort Reform Policy Committee," the memo called for an expansion of efforts, including a "communications program … intended to enhance our ability to enact favorable legislation at both the federal and state level." The memo noted that "these media activities, to be effective, must not be linked to the tobacco industry."

Covington & Burling is also one of the largest contributors of pro bono work for a wide array of causes from Big Brothers/Sisters to medical marijuana (Therapeutic Cannabis), and has provided valuable legal assistance in a number of such cases, including that by that firm’s Partner Dr. Michael Michelson. This includes work for various tax exempt status Foundations dedicated to some issue or another, including the Drug Policy Foundation. Philanthropic and Grant-Making Organizations.

The Firm’s lawyers are regularly sought out to advise on the creation, reorganization and funding of private foundations (including family and company foundations, as well as foundations affiliated with associations or other tax-exempt entities), supporting organizations and public charities and the use of charitable contributions to accomplish specific client goals. In addition, charitable remainder and charitable lead trusts, which require analysis of the federal and state income, gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax consequences of each structure, are used to achieve clients’ charitable, tax and family goals. Our clients include the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, the Packard Humanities Institute, Verizon Foundation and UTC Foundation. In one instance we represent affiliated grant-making organizations worth well in excess of $1 billion.

Covington & Burling’s practice with foundations is a long established connection, with the name Frederic A. Delano (Edward Burling’s bother in law by marriage), appearing amongst the 1909 founders of the Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C. (with Daniel Coit Gilman, Cleveland H. Dodge, Andrew Dickson White, and Elihu Root, Darius Ogden Mills and William E. Morrow), and in 1921 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was incorporated by Frederic A. Delano, Robert S. Brookings, Elihu Root, who became its first president, John W. Davis, Dwight Morrow, James T. Shotwell. Frederic A. Delano’s name appears as the 1924 founder of the influential Washington D.C. planning group “Committee of 100.”

---

The Drug Policy Alliance grossly undersells drug policy reform by limiting 'Harm Reduction' more simply towards things as clean needles and safer crack pipes.

Coca Come Back
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/coca-come-back.html