Pages

Showing posts with label Tobacco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tobacco. Show all posts

Saturday, October 2, 2021

Deleted Wiki Covington & Burling - Tobacco Industry Information

 Information removed from the wikipedia article on the Washington D.C. regulatory powerhouse corporate law firm Covington & Burling, founded 1919.

Something to give pause to the idea of that law firm's connections with organizations as MPP, the DPF/DPA and others

Philip Morris & Tobacco Institute

Covington & Burling represented tobacco interests for decades, instrumental in the founding of, and serving as counsel to, the Tobacco Institute, established in 1958.[8] The institute attacked scientific studies, although more by casting doubt on them rather than by rebutting them directly. It also lobbied Congress, although initially at a low level.[9] The institute also served as corporate affairs consultants to the Philip Morris group of companies, according to a 1993 internal budget review document which indicated the firm was paid $280,000 to "serve as general counsel to the Consumer Products Company Tort Coalition, agree the legal objectives with member company litigators, draft legislation and amendments, prepare lobby papers and testimony for legislative committees and administer the coalition's budget."[10]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) brought suit against multiple Tobacco companies and trade associations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and after a lengthy trial, on August 17, 2006, the Judge issued a 1,683 page opinion (449 F.Supp.2d 1, D.D.C. 2006) finding the tobacco companies liable.[11] The court found "As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO." The court issued a harsh rebuke: "over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as 'replacement smokers,' about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, they suppressed research, they destroyed documents, they manipulated the use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction, they distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting, and they abused the legal system in order to achieve their goal – to make money with little, if any, regard for individual illness and suffering, soaring health costs, or the integrity of the legal system."[12]

But the Court also directly addressed the law firm Covington & Burling specifically: "Covington & Burling was counsel for the Tobacco Institute and was also described as counsel for the 'industry'. ... An attorney from Covington & Burling attended every meeting of the Committee ... also cleared press releases issued by the Tobacco Institute. ... Covington & Burling, became the guiding strategists for the Enterprise and were deeply involved in implementation of those strategies once adopted."[13] Along with two other firms, which helped create the Tobacco Institute in 1958, and served the industry for the next 50 years came this condemnation:

"Finally, a word must be said about the role of lawyers in this fifty-year history of deceiving smokers, potential smokers, and the American public about the hazards of smoking and second-hand smoke, and the addictiveness of nicotine. At every stage, lawyers played an absolutely central role in the creation and perpetuation of the Enterprise and the implementation of its fraudulent schemes. They devised and coordinated both national and international strategy; they directed scientists as to what research they should and should not undertake; they vetted scientific research papers and reports as well as public relations materials to ensure that the interests of the Enterprise would be protected; they identified 'friendly' scientific witnesses, subsidized them with grants from the Center for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research, paid them enormous fees, and often hid the relationship between those witnesses and the industry; and they devised and carried out document destruction policies and took shelter behind baseless assertions of the attorney-client privilege. What a sad and disquieting chapter in the history of an honorable and often courageous profession."[14]

The defendants filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On May 22, 2009, the three-judge panel unanimously upheld Judge Kessler's decision finding the tobacco companies liable. The court upheld most of the ordered remedies, but denied additional remedies sought by public health interveners and the Department of Justice (566 F.3d 1095, 2009).[15]

During the $280 billion U.S. federal lawsuit against big tobacco, Covington & Burling partner John Rupp, a former lawyer with the industry-funded Tobacco Institute, testified that "the industry sought out scientists and paid them to make an 'objective appraisal' of whether secondhand smoke was harmful to non-smokers, a move they hoped would dispel the 'extreme views' of some anti-smoking activists." He "said the scientists, who came from prestigious institutions such as Georgetown University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst, did not consider themselves to be working 'on behalf' of cigarette makers even though they were being paid by the industry." Rupp said, "We were paying them to share their views in forums where they would be usefully presented," according to Reuters.[16]

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Self Styled "Quackbuster" JAMA editor 'Dr' Morris Fishbein "instrumental in helping the tobacco companies conduct acceptable "scientific" testing to substantiate their claims"

AMA Quack Morris Fishbein


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Fishbein#cite_note-2

Morris Fishbein M.D. (July 22, 1889 – September 27, 1976) was a physician with surprisingly little clinical experience but despite this he became the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from 1924 to 1950. In 1961 he became the founding Editor of Medical World News, a magazine for doctors. In 1970 he endowed the Morris Fishbein Center.[1] He was also notable for exposing quacks, notably the goat-gland surgeon John R. Brinkley, and campaigning for regulation of medical devices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-the-ama-got-rich-powe_b_6103720.html

excerpt

Fishbein was a medical doctor who did not practice medicine. He was, however, an effective advocate for conventional medicine and a vocal critic of unconventional treatments. Shortly after he became head of the AMA, he wrote several books sharply critical of "medical quackery." He called chiropractic a "malignant tumor," and he considered osteopathy and homeopathy "cults." While Fishbein certainly provided benefit to the general public by warning them about some of the medical chicanery that existed at the time, he lumped together everything that was not taught in conventional medical schools and considered all such modalities quackery.(6) When one considers that the vast majority of medicine practiced in that era was inadequately tested and dangerous to varying degrees, Fishbein's obsessive fight against certain treatments provided direct benefits to the physicians he was representing.

Fishbein's frequent and strident attacks on "health fraud" were broadcast far and wide, in part through his own newspaper column, syndicated to more than 200 newspapers, as well as a weekly radio program heard by millions of Americans. His influence on medicine and medical education was significant, and it is surprising how few medical history books mention his influence or his questionable tactics. Time magazine referred to him as "the nation's most ubiquitous, the most widely maligned, and perhaps most influential medico" (June 21, 1937).

There are also numerous stories about Fishbein's efforts to purchase the rights to various healing treatments, and whenever the owner refused to sell such rights, Fishbein would label the treatment as quackery (Ausubel, 2000). If the owner of the treatment or device was a doctor, this doctor would be attacked by Fishbein in his writings and placed on the AMA's quackery list. And if the owner of the treatment or device was not a doctor, it was common for him to be arrested for practicing medicine without a license or have the product confiscated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Fishbein denied these allegations, but the AMA was tried and convicted of anti-trust violations for conspiracy and restraint of trade in 1937. Further, Fishbein wrote numerous consumer health guides, and his choice of inclusion for what works or what doesn't work was not based on scientific evidence.

Fishbein extended Simmons's idea for the AMA seal of approval to foods, and by including a significant amount of advertising from food and tobacco companies, he was able to make the AMA and himself exceedingly rich. In fact, under his reign, the tobacco companies became the largest advertiser in JAMA and in various local medical society publications. In fact, Fishbein was instrumental in helping the tobacco companies conduct acceptable "scientific" testing to substantiate their claims. Some of the ad claims that Fishbein approved for inclusion in JAMA were: "Not a cough in a carload" (for Old Gold cigarettes), "Not one single case of throat irritation due to smoking Camels," "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette," "Just what the doctor ordered" (L&M cigarettes), and "For digestion's sake, smoke Camels" (because the magical Camel cigarettes would "stimulate the flow of digestive fluids").

By 1950, the AMA's advertising revenue exceeded $9 million, thanks in great part to the tobacco companies.

Coincidentally, shortly after Fishbein was forced out of his position in the AMA in 1950, JAMA published research results for the first time about the harmfulness of tobacco. Medical student Ernst Wynder and surgeon Evarts Graham of Washington University in St. Louis found that 96.5 percent of lung cancer patients in their hospitals had been smokers. Very shortly after the Morris Fishbein left the AMA, he became a high-paid consultant to one of the large tobacco companies, and JAMA finally was able to publish a slew of studies that confirmed the real dangers of tobacco.

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-ama-needs-to-be-sued-for-criminal.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-evil-prohibition-to-promote.html

Monday, July 2, 2012

Legalize Coca & Opium, Not Just Marijuana


A serious flaw of the drug policy reform movement- limiting attention to Marijuana while acting afraid of Coca-cocaine and Opiates; from a comment at Drug War Rant that quotes this article:
"When we talk about legalizing marijuana, we inevitably have to decide what other drugs should be legalized. Do we legalize cocaine, crack, ecstasy, meth, heroin? If not, why not? Shouldn’t we legalize all drugs, regulate them and tax them like alcohol?

I’m all in on legalizing marijuana. Tax it and we can retire the deficit overnight. Smoke it in bars and coffee houses and have laws governing where it can be used.
I don’t know about the other drugs, though. We can debate it, but it seems futile to try to outlaw stuff that people want no matter the cost. At least maybe we could have a sane drug policy that recognizes reality.”
Why do we continue to hear/see such nonsense. There’s NO reason not to legalize Opium and Coca, indeed no reason they go un-mentioned- the plants and products representing them in their natural potencies at a minimum.  The prohibition ensures that we do not have Opium nor Coca, only instead the highly concentrated derrivitives of heroin and cocaine hci or sulfate- denying the safe while promoting the dangerous.  No way is that rational- except as a criminal scam of market protection - mercantilism.

Imagine an alternative reality where we made caffeine and nicoine into white powder poisons. Drug policy reform must break away from the death grip around Ira Glasser etc, like some sort of twisted advice from some cigarette-pharma conflict of interest law firm to protect pharma and cigarettes:

July 4, 2012 Seize the Day
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/06/july-4-seize-it.html

Douglas Andrew Willinger Angelo Francois Mariani Coca Activism
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/06/douglas-andrew-willinger-angelo.html

Drug War Tobacco Pharma Agricultural Mercantilism
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/03/drug-war-tobacco-pharma-agricultural.html

Drug War Criminal Mercantilism to Protect Pharma and Cigarettes
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/it-was-criminal-mercantilism-to-protect.html

Drug 'Warriors' Neglect History of Coca - Vin Coca Mariani
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-warriors-ignore-history-of-coca.html

Drug 'Warriors' Neglect Pharmacokinetics - Promote Drug Abuse
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-warriors-ignore-pharmacokinetics.html

April 1 "interview" concerning drug policy movement - pharma cigarette law firm advise program
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/04/about-drug-policy-covington-and-burling.html

NO discussion of the drug war should overlook the reality of it as an illegal market protection scam for cigarettes- which is obvious from that p 230 chart of cigarette production with the upturns happening with the various ‘drug control’ statutes in 1906, 1914 and 1937.

Yet we continue to see all of this ‘scholarly’ work that completely neglects this.

USDA Banned Coca to Protect Tobacco - Public Health DISASTER
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/coca-as-tobacco-habit-cure.html

By focusing upon MJ to the exclusion of Coca and Opium we have unwittingly extended prohibition. Why continue to do so?




Saturday, March 24, 2012

Open Letter to David Boaz- CATO


Licit & Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and Consumers Reports at page 230 showing upturns in cigarette use following the times of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 U.S. 'drug control laws'

David-

Is CATO willing to demonstrate its independence by addressing certain issues, such as the Tobacco Mercantilistic nature of the drug war?

Drug War - Tobacco - Pharma Mercantilism
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/03/drug-war-tobacco-pharma-agricultural.html

1906 Tobacco - Pharma Mercantilism Act
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/harvey-wileys-1906-us-food-drugs-act.html

Pre-1906 Coca Products as Vin Mariani
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-warriors-ignore-history-of-coca.html

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

Drug War Criminal Mercantilism Public Health Subversion
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/criminal-mercantilism-public-Linkhealth.html

Drug War Infinitely Worse Than Acknowledged
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/01/drug-statutes-infinitely-worse-than.html

USDA Feared Coca as a Tobacco Habit Cure
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/coca-as-tobacco-habit-cure.html

Tobacco-Alcohol Sweat-heart Exemption From Labeling the Ingredients
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/04/criminal-virginia-bright-leaf.html

Does CATO support the sweat-heart exemption of Tobacco products and alcoholic beverages from retail product labeling laws?

Shall CATO continue to effectively sanctify the drug war by continually neglecting the issue of anti Coca, pro Tobacco Mercantilism, as does the Drug Policy Alliance?

Let's not forget that opposition to the drug war should NOT be limited to Marijuana, and must include the drug that was used as the hysteria-excuse during the 1980s -- cocaine -- which the drug warriors made into a drug problem (imagine snorting or smoking NoDoz instead of drinking Coffee or Tea), and which the failure to address by groups as CATO and the Drug Policy Foundation/Drug Policy Alliance, conveys the false message that cocaine must remain illegal.

Sincerely

Douglas Willinger
Freedom of Medicine and Diet

DPF COCA '95 Panel October 1995, moderated by Douglas Willinger
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/11/14-years-ago-coca-95.html

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Radley Balko on CATO & REASON

Via Facebook:
Radley Balko You're onto them, Douglas. Obviously, the most pressing issue with current drug war is who is responsible for for its inception at the beginning of the 20th century. And Reason and Cato have ignored this because are firmly ensconced in the pockets of the 1906 tobacco companies. And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for your detective skills!
Thursday at 8:15pm · · 14



Alas they are STILL getting away with it- at least as I am the ONLY person writing about it...

Monday, September 19, 2011

DPA Raising Suspicions with its Continuing Neglect of Harm Reduction - Coca




The DPA continues to neglect the coca issue along with that of the plants perverted into white power poisons of abuse- focusing upon Medical Marijuana and limited sanitary measures for the existing concentrated drug forms, thus pretending that MJ is the only illicit substance with therapeutic benefit, while maintaining the fear of the other drugs. Thereby, it serves to slow drug policy reform to a speed of progress best described as glacial.

Having attended the conferences of the DPA and it predecessor organization the Drug Policy Foundation since 1989, I noted that the DPF was more comprehensive until about 1993- for instance downplaying the very issue that inspired their creation -- the hysteria over cocaine --- eliminating the cocaine panel and folding that issue into a virtual woman's panel on Latin America.

Now this year - 2011 - Bolivia has DENOUNCED the 1961 U.N. "Narcotics" Treaty, yet the DPA still refuses to invite Evo Morales to its conference, let alone hold a Coca panel- lest it educate people that Coca has many benefits that remain widely unknown because of the drug war.

So what could be the reason, indeed the hidden hand, upon and strangling drug policy reform?

The funders? George Soros may be involved with certain investments that would suffer under a comprehensive legalization program- e.g. allowing the return of the plant drugs no only mainly known of their concentrated drug forms. IOW Opium and Coca leaf extract products rather then simply the white powders of concern, as heroin and cocaine HCI. However, the problem with the DPF came before Soros became its funder. Likewise, the previous major funder Richard Dennis was involved with commodities trading- yet the DPF was way better run under his time, than his successors (post 1992).

The founders? Co founder Arnold S. Trebach was a notorious apologist for the drug war as supposedly simply well-intended:
Despite its bad reputation, however, I am, on balance, prepared to ascribe “a good motive”, in Senator Lane’s words, to the HNA itself. Although I have long considered it a repressive piece of legislation, a fresh reading of the historical record now leads me to believe that it was, on the whole, a rather intelligent, rational and progressive one.
The Heroin Solution, Arnold Trebach, at p 122
Yet the DPF was still a better organization during its early years (1987-1992), with my observations of Trebach, along with DPF now DPA figures of Ira Glasser and Ethan Nadelman, being yanked from higher up in the political pyramid.

Rather the problem was already there- something working upon behalf of slowing the pace of drug policy reform in order to go the easiest upon the existing markets threatened by re-legalization and re-popularization of the plant drugs.

Coca after all had been advocated (and feared by the USDA and its politically allied AMA-APhA) as a "Tobacco Habit Cure".

So then, what about this? (- towards the end of the very introductory DPF letter of Trebach and Zeese dated March 1990):
The Foundation is not a legalization organization, even though many in the Foundation support outright legalization. The Foundation is concerned with a variety of issues, including education the public about the effects of drug use, preventing the spread of AIDS among drug users, allowing the medical use of currently prohibited drugs, allowing doctors to prescribe drugs as they and their patients see necessary, expanding the availability of drug treatment, creating more effective and less corrupt police forces, preventing the erosion of civil liberties, ensuring the proper use of drug tests in society, and developing social, instead of criminal, controls to prevent drug abuse.

The Foundation is an education, research and legal center. It publishes books, articles and newsletter; rewards people for outstanding achievement in the field of drug policy; responds to media and scholarly information requests; presents regular forums and annual international conference; and represents in court those wronged by the drug war.

The Foundation is a charitable corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia and section 501 ©(3) of the U.S Internal Revenue Code. Thus, all contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductable. To maintain its independence, the Drug Policy Foundation neither seeks nor will it accept government funding. The Drug Policy Foundation extends thanks to these persons and organizations who provided vital support during 1988-89. Special thanks go to our three largest contributors: the Chicago Resource Center and its president, Richard Dennis, and executive director, Mary Ann Snyder; the Linnel Foundation in Boston, Mass., and the late Robert Linnell; and Anne “Petey” Cerf of Lawrence, Kan. Their support was and continues to be invaluable to the work of the Foundation.

While the Drug Policy Foundation has outstanding counsel in Kevin Zeese, the leading Washington law firm Covington and Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to corporate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington and Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”
Covington & Burling just happens to be perhaps the largest law firm legal representative of food, drug and pharmaceutical industries, and is the firm that has not only represented but rather COORDINATED the legal representation of the cigarette industry.

For nearly the same amount of time, Covington & Burling has had its pro bono program

If you are aware of the history of the drug war as agricultural mercantilism to protect Tobacco from Coca, and aware of the Coca issue's neglect, the plausible potential conflict of interest is quite evident.

Holder-Breuer Law Firm Long Involved with Drug Policy
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/01/holder-breuer.html

DPF-Washington, D.C. Pro Bono Legal Connection
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.html

DPF Advised by C&B Food & Drug & Insurance Attorney
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html

DPA Refuses Agricultural Panel

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/ignore-harm-reduction-of-highlighting.html

So far, additional information about this valuable and other such advice given to the Drug Policy Foundation, this Covington & Burling relationship with the various drug policy reform organizations, nor any other such pro bono program relationships regarding organizations promoting drug policy reform, has not been forthcoming.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Ben Masel Civil Rights Activist Dead of Lung Cancer


Another victim of Harvey Wiley's Tobacco-cigarette agricultural mercantilism
http://host.madison.com/news/local/article_68fbe4a4-7385-11e0-b755-001cc4c002e0.html

Ben Masel, prominent marijuana activist and professional rabble rouser, died Saturday from complications due to lung cancer. He was 56.

Diagnosed in January, Masel had recently made it through 25 radiation treatments for the disease, but was too weak to face chemotherapy. He died just before 9 a.m., surrounded by family at a nearby hospice center.

"He made a point of living at the front lines and fighting for his rights," said Semilla Anderson, Masel's daughter. "He will be remembered for that."

Masel was born in the Bronx and grew up in New Jersey. He moved to Madison in 1971 and quickly became a fixture of the counter-culture, known specifically for acts of civil disobedience in the cause of legalizing pot.

For the past 10 years he served as the vice president of the state chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Masel was the state director for six years in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

And in truth, when news broke last month that Masel had lung cancer, there were many who thought it made sense. After all, he spent a lifetime smoking cigarettes and was, by his own admission, a "heavy" marijuana smoker.

But friends and family hope that people will remember that Masel stood for a lot more than just one controversial cause.

"He wasn't just some pothead," said Sal Serio, a longtime friend. "He respected the constitution. He respected the system. And he fought to make sure others did too."

In fact, Masel made his living fighting those who tried to limit personal freedoms and rights. He was, for lack of a better term, a professional activist.

Jeff Scott Olson, Masel's attorney for the past 20 years, said his client focused mainly on challenging limitations to free speech and right to assemble. Whenever police departments or cities tried to stop him from collecting signatures or protesting, he would sue. And according to Olson, he almost always won.

Said Amy Gros-Louis, a friend of 25 years, "Ben knew the laws better than the police did."

Masel often joked that his method of making a living offered a "great hourly rate if you can wait forever to get paid." Masel joked a lot; it's one of the things people say about him most.

He was a perennial candidate for elected office. He ran for Dane County Sheriff once; governor and senator too.

And he was a protester to the end. Even in his weakened state, Masel managed to show up at the Capitol during the month-long protest in March.

But behind all of that was a funny and decent man. He may have looked like a graying lion, but friends said he was a gentleman. "He was always courteous and reasonable," Olson said. "And that was because he was always ready to give someone the chance to change his mind."

Said Serio, "He was a special person. He will be missed."

I was privilaged to have known him via attending NORML conferences since the late 1980s.

I was always amazed at the propensity of people as intelligent as Ben, taking up the Tobacco-cigarette habit, despite all that has been known and revealed about the dangers.

Coca as Tobacco Habit Cure


Two Leaves with Historically Parallelling Uses-

one getting a head start internationally due to it being less volatile then the other leaf, and thereby being easier adaptable to remaining sufficently fresh on the long ocean voyages back to the 'Old World'.

Tobacco becomes a major international commodity by the 1600s, whereas Coca does not begin to so make it big until the 1860s with its formulation and marketing as Vin Mariani, initially sold as an energizer for overworked, overstressed Parisian opera performers, and inspiring other such Coca leaf derived herbal products as other Coca beverages, lozenges, found to have numerious therapeutic virtues- including as a substitute for other substances with similar uses, particularly Tobacco.
Writing about Vin Mariani's use:
“I have also employed it in cases, happily rare in our army, of chronic alcoholism resulting from the abuse of brandy, absinthe or strong liquors. The produced all the excitement sought by drinkers, but had at the same time a sedative influence on their nervous systems. I have frequently seen hardened drinkers renounce their fatal habit and return to a healthy condition." "I have also used to save smokers of exaggerated habits, from nicotinism. A few glasses of taken in small doses, either pure or mixed with water, acted as a substitute for pipes and cigars, because the smokers found in it the cerebral excitement which they sought in tobacco, wholly preserving their intellectual faculties."
-- Dr. Liberman and Villeneuve

And writing, in an article by a Dr. F.E. Stewart appearing in the September 19, 1885 Philadelphia Medical Times, about a newer form of Coca leaf products intriduced by the 1880s- Coca leaf smokables- cigars, cheroots and even cigarettes.
"Coca has been used with great success in the treatment of the opium habit, it is also an excellent substitute for Tobacco [emphasis added]. It has been successfully used in dyspepsia, flatulency, colic, gastralgia, enteralgia, hysteria, hypochondria, spinal irritation, idiopathic convulsions , nervous erethism, and in the debility following severe acute affections. As it is a valuable restorative agent, checking tissue-waste, it is also a useful remedy in consumption [?] and wasting diseases generally. It is also of value in the nervous forms of sick-headache, migraine. It is also said to be an aphrodisiac." -- Dr. F.E. Stewart appearing in the September 19, 1885 Philadelphia Medical Times
Reporting on several cases of experiences with smoking Coca, Stewart found that most found them useful, with a high percentage finding Coca cigars as useful for stemming depression -- the "blues" -- and as a mild stimulant. Citing one example of a leading Wilmington, Delaware physician:
"After dinner, he smoked a couple of the cigars, with the effect that the blues were expelled and he felt the exhilarating effect of the drug in the same manner as after a dose of the wine. It is his opinion that the effect of the cigars is milder than that of the wine, but he is satisfied that he experienced the peculiar power of the coca by smoking it."
Citing others, a man suffering dyspepsia -- a digestive disorder -- and its attendant depression:
"smoked the cigars...the result being to dispel the depressed feeling and remove the fullness experienced after each meal. Repeated experiments confirm this. As coca is said to stimulate the gastric nerves and greatly facilitate digestion, the above experiment seems to prove that the cigar has a similar effect."
These experiments included Dr. Stewart's own use. Writing upon his personal discovery of Coca leaf smoking as a treatment for hay fever:
Personally, I have found the effect of smoking coca leaves to bear out the statement that the drug produces a general excitation of the circulatory and nervous systems. Smoking and inhaling the smoke of one or two cigars will increase my own pulse rate some eight or ten beats to the minute.

It certainly relieves the scene of fatigue. Smoked at night, in my own case and in the cases of several of my patients, it produces wakefulness similar to strong coffee. The exaltation produced by it does not seem to be followed by any feeling of languor or depression. I find it a relief after a full meal, like a good tobacco cigar. It seems to impart increased vigor to the muscular system as well to the intellect, with an indescribable feeling of satisfaction. I have never experienced any intoxicating effects from smoking it.

Dr. Bartholow says that coca, as in the case with tea and coffee, acts as an indirect nutrient by checking waste, and hence a less amount of food is necessary to maintain the bodily functions; and as I have just learned, in a letter from Messrs. Parke, Davis and Company, that "a Mr. Stevens, a citizen of Abilene, Kansas, who was afflicted with hay fever, and was about to go to the mountains, has concluded to remain at home, having obtained relief from the use of cigarettes of coca. Every morning he uses a cigarette and perfect relief. He uses three per day.

Information on Coca leaf smokables, their history and decline is rare- for records showing sales or later accounts are generally inaccessible.

As these even included a pipe mixture, described in its day with the misnomer as a "smoking Tobacco", Coca leaf smoking presented some interesting parallels, for one the possibility they were a more benign substitute to smoke then Tobacco.

Among “chewers” of these respective agricultural commodities, oral cancer is common with those using Tobacco, yet its rare among chewers of Coca.

Among "smokers" of these plant substances, Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco is long associated with lung cancer- far longer then commonly thought, significently pre-dating the official U.S. government acknowledgment of 1964- for instance, Harvey Wiley warned about it in Good Housekeeping reportedly as early as 1916, and with the correlation even noted on the floor of the U.S. Senate during the 1914 debates upon the Harison 'Narcotic' Tax Act signed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, December 17, of that year.

The Coca leaf smokables were introduced only about 30 years before this 1914 ban, hence having less of a history to be fully aware of their long term chronic effects, though no recognized such corelation. Research upon this appears non-existent- baring any possible secret research, much like the cigarette companies' purported non-study of the pharmacological properties of nicotine.

In any event, either smoked, or drank as a beverage or some other oral means, Coca's effectiveness as a Tobacco substitute was recognized, as evidenced by the positive accounts as the preceeding, and the type of 'misunderstanding' that began being peddled by the latter 1880s.

An example of that mindset was the anonymously written June 12, 1891 Atlanta Constitution article “What's in Coca-Cola? A Popular Drink Which Is Said to Foster the Cocaine Habit”, in a virtual monologue (reproduced in its entirety as reported) between two individuals, described only as a "thoughtful citizen" and a "gentleman":
Thoughtful Citizen: I want to call your attention to a very vicious and pernicious thing which is going on in this and almost every other town," said a thoughtful citizen yesterday'

Gentleman: What is that?

Thoughtful Citizen: The drug stores and the soda founts are selling enormous quantities of something they call coca cola. It is said to relieve nervousness, and "that tired feeling" and all that sort of thing, and people are drinking it a dozen times a day. I am told by a physician that the ingredient which makes coca cola so popular is cocaine. There is evidently enough of it in the drink to affect and it is insidiously but surely getting thousands of people into the cocaine habit, which is ten times worse than alcoholism and is bad as the morphine habit. It is an awful drug and the victims of it are slaves. I have seen it!"

And here the gentleman shuddered.

Thoughtful Citizen: "A friend of mine was a victim of it," he continued, "and he killed himself before my eyes. He got so under the power of the cocaine habit that he saw he could not stop it, and he took a pistol and ended his life. "I am confident that a chemical analysis of coca cola would show the presence of cocaine. A physician tells me that is the ingredient which makes it popular, and it seems to me that it is a matter which the board of health ought to look into."

This anti-Coca mindset also appeared in medical publications- again, interestingly, by the anonymous. According to such an anonymous "letter to the editor" -- lacking even a city of origin -- appearing in the August, 1897 The Druggists' Circular and Chemical Gazette at page 1xxxv:
I [sic] know, therefore, whereof I speak, when I point out the awful danger threatened by the popular sale and use of such drinks as are founded upon the support of the coca leaf and the kola nut, and the catarrh snuff containing pure cocaine. Cocaine is not a safe drug for self-administration, in any way [emphasis added], and what then can be said of its use in ignorance, under a delusion that it is a tonic to nerve and stomach, and heart, administered at soda fountains, and out in chewing gum, to give strength to some organ.

This blurring of Coca and sniffed or injected cocaine also appeared in various pharmacy journals, as with this following April 1897 piece from the same – and again, anonymous -- "The Cocaine Habit":
If one may believe but a tithe of the reports which have lately been made from various quarters, the cocaine habit is spreading to an alarming extent. This habit is one so disastrous in its results as to excite the gravest concern of all those who have had the least sense of sympathy with their fellowmen; those upon whom it becomes flexed sink to depths of physical and mental degradation not sounded by even the devotees of opium. Physicians are doubtless responsible for some of the spread of this frightful evil; in treating disturbances of the nasal passages they have used this agent as a palliative, often placing it in the hands of the patient to be employed at pleasure. As it cannot be expected to have any real curative action, its frequent application as a measure of temporary relief may be expected to follow, and its constitutional effect will soon become pronounced. But the chief cause is presumably to be found in the placing of the drug before the nostrum-taking public in the guise of catarrh "cures" and the like. The use of such preparations is manifestly fraught with the gravest danger, as the self-prescriber has no warning as to the risk he is incurring The question of prohibiting the sale of the drug in any form, "patent" or otherwise, excepting under suitable stringent regulations, is attracting legislative attention in Illinois. A bill is to be, or possibly already is, introduced in the Legislature for this purpose, and the local government of Chicago has been considering the matter independently. All reputable druggists may be expected to cordially favor such a movement wherever it may take form. And now that the note of alarm has been so strongly sounded, they may be expected to exercise renewed care as to the chance of placing in the hands of a lay customer a drug which is none too safe even in the hands of the physicians. And this warning may be extended to the parent drug, the use of which, especially in wines, has become popular during late years, and is asserted to be on the increase. It must always be borne that the use of any drug of this nature is attended with the risk of the formation of a "habit," and the responsibility for the employment of such agents should rest with the physician and not the pharmacist [emphasis added].

Such reflected the fear of Coca in the portion of the U.S. where it was enjoying its greatest popularity growth- the southeastern U.S. where Tobacco is 'King'.

Such a geographically based fear was evident through the post 1903 national campaign to ultimately supress Coca- an agricultural commodity that at that time was otherwise destined for even greater international commercae popularity, given the United State's takeover of the project to construct a Panama Canal, which once completed would have significently shortened the shipping of Coca from ports on South America's Pacific coast to northern Atlantic markets, and which was completed and opened to traffic in 1914, the year of the Harrison 'Narcotic' Act banning Coca.

It was evident in the 1908 'Homes' Commission.
During the past decade soda fountain specialties containing caffeine, extract of kola nut and extract of coca leaf, the active property of which is cocaine, have been offered in considerable quantities and, due to extensive and attractive advertising, both as beverages and as headache remedies and nerve tonics, their sale has assumed large proportions.

The first appearance of preparations of this type was in the South in the eighties, their importation following the success which Moxie had attained in the East, though this particular drink was of an entirely different character. From the South the demand spread in other sections and the number of products has increased until the present time, there are probably over one hundred of them bottled and sold all over the United States.

The greatest demand in still in the South, however, almost every drug store, confectionery shop, and fruit stand has its favorite products on sale. -- 1908 U.S.D.A. report to the U.S. Congress in a President's Homes Commission "Report on Soft-Drinks Containing Caffeine and Extracts of Coca Leaf and Kola Nuts”, transmitted on October 21, 1908


U.S.D.A. Chief of Drug Division Lyman F. Kebler, M.D.:

The USDA crusade against Coca or cocaine in any amount particularly ironic was the particular medicinal use of Coca the USDA was to reserve its fury for: Coca as a Tobacco substitute!

According to the 1910 U.S.D.A. Farmer's Journal article "Habit-Forming Agents: Their Indiscriminate Sale and Use A Menace to the Public Welfare":

There are quite a number of so-called tobacco habit cures on the market.

The USDA here wrote "so-called tobacco habit cures.." in refusing to acknowledge the utility it was here condemning, continuing:

All of them are ineffective, and some contain cocain in one form or another, which at once indicates the purpose of the promoter of the remedy. Instead of eradicating what is commonly believed to be a comparatively harmless habit, there is 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 caffein 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 Dayton, Ohio, while the Wonder Workers were produced by George S. Beck, of Springfield, Ohio.


This USDA reluctance to openly acknowledge Coca's utility as a Tobacco substitute contrasts with an article in the Journel of the American Medical Association, at least for those who had formed (or would be likely to form) the habit for cocaine- what ever this may have exactly meant - dated January 1, 1910 by E.F. Ladd, a chemist at the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, at pages 63-64 of Volume LIV, Number 1 of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), under the heading Pharmacology, titled “Coca Bola and Oxy-Tonic: Two Nostrums Exposed by the Chemists of the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station”

COCA BOLA

"We have recently had occasion to examine a sample of Coca Bola, a product labeled as having been produced by Charles L. Mitchell, M.D., Philadelphia, and the face label bears the following statement:
Each ounce contains 0.71 grams of cocain. A chewing paste of leaves of the cocoa [sic] plant, combined with other valuable tonics. The directions for use say coca-bola is made in the form of flat cakes or plugs divided into squares and should be used by chewing one of the small squares marked on the plug and swallowing the saliva.
They further say it should be used at occasional intervals as needed throughout the day. To get its full effect it will be necessary to use several squares. They further say:
"Although a powerful muscular or nervous tonic, coca-bola has no evil after-effects, and hence is far superior to any other stimulant in the material medica"
Now this information given out in the advertising which accompanies each package is, it would seem, intended to give the impression that this product is an entirely harmless one; in other words, that a preparation containing cocain as an active constituent, is to be generally recommended for use without any caution as to the harm that may come from forming a habit for cocain. They further say:
"A small portion chewed occasionally acts as a powerful tonic to the muscular and nervous system, enabling the chewer to perform additional labor, and also relieves fatigue and exhaustion without evil after effects. It contains no injurious ingredients and is perfectly harmless."

So we might quote from the circular which is sent out by a man who claims to be a physician, urging, as it were, on the people the use of a product of this kind, which, as has clearly been shown, must in the end result in the formation of the cocain habit, if not in the complete demoralization and degradation of the individual himself.

The laws of North Dakota prohibit the sale of any compound or product in the state which contains cocaine in any form. It further prohibits the refilling of a physician’s prescription that contains cocain, and yet a product of this kind, it would seem from information that has been gathered, is sold directly to the customer, although it is true that the proprietor of the product maintains that it is now sold only to physicians.

In a letter under date of Aug. 19, 1909, signed by Charles L. Mitchell, M.D., he says:
September 13, 1909
E.F. Ladd, North Dakota Agriculture College, N.D.

Dear Sir;

Your favor of September 7th duly received for which please accept my thanks. Owing to the “crank’ legislation of many states we have discontinued the manufacturer of all coca and cocaine preparations.

Any “fool” druggist of your state who gets or sells an old package of our coca-bola does so at his own risk, as necessarily, having been put out some time ago, there is no guarantee, and we will not protect him.

The people are getting a little sense into their heads, however, gradually, and they will sometime realize that preparations of both coca and cocain have an honest and legitimate use by the medical profession. Your state law is silly and on par with the 9-foot bed sheet laws of Texas and Oklahoma. Of course, your duty is to enforce the law, not to criticize it. I can do that.

I am, ours very truly
Charles L. Mitchell, M.D.

A letter of this kind needs no comment, and a product of this kind, in the judgment of the writer, can only be sent out for malicious purposes and its sale is illegal in North Dakota. We warn the public against either handling the same or using the same, if they would avoid the formation of a serious drug-habit and one that must result in positive injury to our people.

This product, put in the form of a gum, would easily take the place – for one who had formed the habit for cocain – of tobacco; and it might be made to take the place of chewing gum with young people who would be entirely innocent of the intentional use of any such preparation, not knowing the evil effects that would come from its continued use.

In the judgment of the writer, no man who will allow his name to be connected with a scheme of this kind should be permitted to disgrace the profession of medicine by using the title M.D.
L.D. Ladd’s above closing words are perversely ironic given this ‘fear’ over Coca’s displacement of Tobacco, with its basis upon confusing the abuse of concentrated cocaine sniffing powders and injections with Coca leaf and extracts of comparable low potency and how this would completely disregard these two different plant commodities’ relative health effects.


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

Friday, April 29, 2011

Coca Wine Versus Tobacco Cigarettes



the fluidextract of coca in a glass of sherry wine, taken immediately before the curtain rises, will do much to secure a satisfactory control of the voice during the performance.

Chronic laryngitis is a chronic inflammation of the mucous membrane of the larynx.

Etiology.—It is generally the result of faulty use of the voice by singers or public speakers, and also of excessive smoking, especially cigarette smoking. The smoking of cigarettes is particularly injurious, not on account of the paper wrappers or any peculiarity of tobacco, but from the habit all cigarette smokers soon acquire of inhaling the smoke and bringing it directly into contact with the sensitive mucous membrane of the larynx. It is the very "mildness" of the smoke from cigarettes, in comparison with cigar smoke or that of a pipe, that makes them more injurious. The convenience and cheapness of cigarettes also causes the cigarette smoker to light a cigarette whenever he has a few moments to spare and under circumstances when he would not think of smoking a cigar or a pipe, the ill effects of which are generally confined to the pharynx. Dusty occupations and the frequent drinking of undiluted distilled liquors are also causes of the disease, while the affection is sometimes simply the expression of the rheumatic diathesis. The presence of tumors inside the larynx usually is the result rather than the cause of chronic laryngitis.

Symptoms.—The voice, as a rule, is chronically hoarse, but the degree of hoarseness varies materially from time to time. In singers the injury to the voice will be manifested in loss of range, diminished endurance, and loss of control. As the disease advances, all vocal efforts will be obviously strained and labored. Cough is by no means a constant symptom. The secretion is at no time very great in amount and diminishes as the disease advances. It is thick, starch-like, and tenacious. Small amounts of mucus frequently collect in the interarytenoid space and, being suddenly detached by coughing, are thrown out through the mouth to a considerable distance, while little bridges of mucus are sometimes seen with the laryngoscope extending from cord to cord. There is a constant feeling of constriction, as of a foreign body in the air-passages. Upon inspection certain portions of the mucous membrane of the larynx appear redder than normal; and sometimes the entire mucous membrane of the larynx is of a uniform red color, with the exception of the cords, which may be somewhat lighter in color than the surrounding parts. The mobility of the cords is frequently impaired, either from swelling of the mucous membrane covering the arytenoids or from slight muscular pain. Erosion of the interarytenoid space is frequently seen.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Harvey Wiley's Abuse of the Public Trust


Ignored pharmacokineticspushed for law allowing him to do so while forever forbidding his office from looking at that agricultural commodity of tobacco.

Demonified substances in campaign for agricultural mercantilism - pro coffee, tea, tobacco monopolising of stimulant-tonic markets against coca leaf and other medicinal herbs -- through confuse the public yellow journalism eschewing science nor safety in favor of brain-deadening sloganeering:
In the sudden light which the Pure Food law throws into certain dark corners, that widely-bruited pick-me-up for lassitudinous ladies, Vin Mariani, takes on a changed aspect. From the enthusiastic encomiums, given out for advertising purposes by sundry actresses, one might suppose that the so-called French preparation was at once the most bracing and the most harmless of concoctions. Across its label, however, the pure food law has recorded the warning fact: "Each ounce represents one-tenth of one grain of cocain." This shuts it out of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, all cities and towns in Massachusetts, and many other places. As the average American woman can read and is not a fool. I fancy that even in those localities where cocain can be sold only in patent medicine form without a prescription (as has been the case until recently in the District of Columbia, thanks to Senator and ex-Doctor Gallinger's efforts on behalf of the nostrum people), the Vin Mariani trade will rapidly decline.

Next to cocain nostrums, the most dangerous class of patent medicines is that containing narcotics, such as opium, morphin and cannabis indica. Various are the evasions and contortions resorted to by these dopes in their efforts to make the best of the new law.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Drug War Tobacco Pharma Agricultural Mercantilism


From Licit & Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and Consumers Reports at page 230 showing upturns in cigarette use following the times of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 U.S. 'drug control laws'
Neither the 1914 US Harrison Narcotics Act, nor the legislative efforts leading up to it, particularly the 1906 'Pure Foods and Drugs Act' can be viewed as honest or truly 'progressive', but rather a hurried-rush of hysteria for a political economic agenda, with its central public figure of Harvey Washington Wiley- Chief of the USDA Bureau of Chemistry and prominent within the private organizations- the American Medical Association and American Pharmaceutical Association.

It was most certainly not about the publics' health.

It was about protecting markets: first and foremost for that favored agricultural commodity of 'Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco' - a variety that was not found in nature, but rather selectively bred to produce a far larger leaf with far less active Tobacco ingrediants per leaf area and with little or none of the natural more psychoactive components put there by God that had made it a more interesting and infrequent smoke- now with no interesting psychedelic properties but now far 'smoother' to be now taken deeply into the lungs- repeatedly fostering consumtion/addiction and far greater profits starting with such places as Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas; and secondly for that to be favored class of drugs, 'pharmaceuticles' that is syntheticly derived chemicals, remotely or not based upon natural substances as plants: IOW favoring the patentable drugs over those naturally occurring.

The 1906 US Pure Food and Drug Act reflected this by giving dictatorial power to the USDA Bureau of Chemistry to declare a substance 'dangerous' or deleterious to human health' WITHOUT any scientific requirements, while setting up certain substances (while lacking any justifiable science) for a public perception as extra-problematic by only requiring them but not any of their comparable competitor substances within the Act's retail lableing requirments for opiates and cocaine to be labled, but not caffeine or nicotine- skipping out on the latter by the 'grandfathering of Tobacco', by the Act's limitation of its jurisdictions over substances within the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, and that publication's convenient deletion of Tobacco a mere one year earlier in 1905. Fathom that: an Act empowering the US Department of Agriculture to effectively ban anything EXCEPT that agricultural commodity of Tobacco.


Also fathom a Harvey Washington Wiley lionized in the William Randolph Hearst's yellow journalist' mass press as a great protector of the public's health, who conducted numerous 'poison squad' experiments upon the toxicity of numerous food additives, yet apparantly never did so for the isolated caffeine, cocaine and whole Coca leaf extract that he so strongly opposed particularly the latter two- while making no real distinction between them or any levels of potency- fostering vague notions by those unacqainted with Coca/dilute cocaine to suppose that drinking the original formula Coca Cola or Vin Mariani led to injecting cocaine.

Such a view is something that was seen in certain medical journals, particularly those emanating from locations within Tobacco growing regions following the near simultaneous development of commercialized pharmaceutical grade concentrated cocaine, the industrial cigarette rolling machines, and the medical recognition of Coca's utility as a way of getting people off of Tobacco "to save smokers from exaggerated habits of nicotinsm". It was a view fully adopted by about 1904 (Harvey Washington Wiley, interestingly apparantly wrote or said little about Coca or cocaine previously, even though he had held his USDA position since 1883); and its reflected throughout such things as the 'concern' over Coca/dilute cocaine's popularity in regions that just happen to be major Tobacco growing regions, particularly as a "Tobacco Habit Cure"!

Notably, the USDA had then recently explored the commercial agricultural potential of Coca, Opium, Cannabis and other such drug plants, as it does a century later with regards to the concept of GMO Tobacco plants for manufacturing pharmaceutical (patent) drugs.



Friday, May 21, 2010

Letter to the obstensibly 'liberal' Washington Post

On Tobacco versus Coca
Health Effects

April 2, 1992

The Washington Post
Washington, D.C.

Letters to the Editor

[unpublished]

In light of the popular assumption that drug policy has something to do with protecting the public’s health, it’s a most interesting coincidence that the articles U.S., Bolivia Mount Massive Drug Raid and Dangerous Dips on pages A16 and D5, respectively appeared in the same day’s issue of the Post. Both deal with the popular use of stimulants, cocaine-containing Coca leaf in the fromer, nicotine containing Tobacco in the latter, which I’m sure many people will find informative. I do feel though that the health problems surrounding the roles now occupied by cocaine and nicotine – laike caffeine, alkaloids found in plants that serves as central nervous system (CNS) stimulants – necessitate the airing of these facts:

- the unrefined natural coca leaf like tobacco leaf is a stimulant with a several thousand year history of use

- like Tobacco Coca has been chewed – or more correctly masticated – in a custom much like Tobacco’s, being held in a quid between the check

- unlike tobacco though cocaleaf is not carcinogenic; in fact the charge has never been made even in the “anti-drug” propaganda churned out by the governments of the world and the United Nations. While Tobacco and betel nut (a widely used stimulant plant in Asia) chewing are highly correlated with oral cancer, that disease is rare in the regions of South American where Coca is “chewed”.

_ Unlike Tobacco, Coca is not poisonous. Those unlikely enough to swallow Tobacco, if not risking death. (drinking a glass of water for instance in which a cigar was soaked can kill a person) will become quite ill and possibility spit up blood; for this reason, Tobacco chewers must spit. In contrast, ingesting Coca leaves is not only benign, but medically beneficial, being used as a traditional South American herbal remedy for gastro intestinal ills.

- Indeed, Coca leaf was once widely promoted both as a medicine and as a stimulant, being widely promoted as a Tobacco substitute in the U.S., where the sale of Coca beverages- the preferred choice of Westerners- enjoyed their greatest popularity in the South East.

With today’s concerns about refined, artificially concentrated cocaine, it’s remarkable that hardly anyone cares to note that the use of that white powder was the exception prior to the effectively [prohibitive] anti Coca statutes (in the U.S.) of 1906 and 1914. Prior to prohibition, most “cocaine” use was Coca use (As nicotine and caffeine use really is Tobacco or Coffee use), such as the original (pre-1903) formula version of Coca Cola, and Coca popularizer Angelo Francois Mariani’s internationally esteemed Vin Tonique Mariani ala Coca de la Perou. Sold outside of South America throughout the half century immediately prior to the great twentieth century war on [certain] drugs, Coca was not regarded as a social or health harm, being endorsed by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X in addition to over 8,000 physicians in Europe and North America.. Nor is Coca regarded as a problem today, as guide books in South America routinely recommend it; according to the 1991 edition of Insight Guide’s South America, “scientists who have studied Coca agree that there are no dangers at all in chewing the leaf, nor is it addictive in the slightest.” Indeed, as Dr. Ronald K. Siegel’s 1989 book Intoxication states, Coca is what researchers have found to be the safest of “all the stimulants, licit and illicit… least likely to produce toxicity or dependency.”

Billions of dollars are now spent annually in dealing with today’s deplorable situation with Tobacco and cocaine3 in eth forms universally popularized by prohibition in the field of health, to say nothing of the law enforcement costs in additional tax dollars or civil liberties; yet oddly enough the policies leading to this situation are commonly viewed as moral and just. That such policies were seen as “progressive” in the early 1900s, intelligent in the mid 1900s or mercantilism by future people should be taken as a reminder of the dominance of popular conception over reason. [IOW something must be true if the majority of people believe so] Perhaps no other quote can better serve as prophecy on national and international law’s selection of which drugs are to be repressed and which are to be promoted then this one of Thomas Jefferson:

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be keeping as our souls are now.

Do such policies really have more to do with health then politics, and should we refuse to consider the facts about what these polices have done? Refusing to ask ourselves these questions about the conceptions underlying the governments choice of our medicine and diet only guarantees an epidemic of Sean Marsee- to say nothing of the Len Bias- type of tragedies for ourselves and future generations.


Douglas A. Willinger
April 2, 1992

Monday, June 15, 2009

Marlboro Protection Act


A Public Health Disaster in the Making

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Congress is poised to pass one of the worst public health laws ever conceived.

Congress is poised to pass one of the worst public health laws ever conceived. There is no getting around the awfulness of HR 1256, which was passed by the House last month and is now being debated before the full Senate. The topic is Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco. HR 1256 would create a new FDA division, supported by industry user fees, which would exercise sweeping control over the introduction, manufacturing, and marketing of all tobacco products. Existing products would be grandfathered in—no worries for the Marlboro Man—but new entrants would face something like the FDA’s famously demanding new drug approval standards, except the standards would be even tougher in one very important way to be described later.

HR 1256 pays almost no attention to the most fundamental point in all of tobacco control, if not all of public health: the distinction between tobacco smoke, which causes almost all the harms from smoking, and nicotine, whose dangers are roughly on the order of those from caffeine. Most smokers are interested in the nicotine, a fact that opens the door to all sorts of ways to reduce or practically eliminate the health harms from tobacco. HR 1256 goes in the wrong direction by encouraging the FDA to reduce nicotine yield, which would mean deeper inhaling and more harm rather than less.

Fortunately, there are already some products on the market that pose no more than a tiny proportion of the risks of traditional cigarettes. Smokeless cigarettes heat tobacco rather than burn it, delivering mainly nicotine and flavorings. And there are “smokeless tobacco” products, which are made from tobacco but are delivered by means of tiny pouches that usually dissolve in the mouth. The best-known smokeless niche is occupied by snus (rhymes with moose), which has been widely used in Sweden and is available in the United States but almost nowhere else because of prohibitions. Years of research have shown that the risks of snus are roughly 1 percent or 2 percent of the risks of traditional cigarettes, and maybe less, while both male smoking and lung cancer are at lower levels in Sweden than just about anywhere else. There has also been extensive research on improving traditional cigarettes by, for example, using better filters and altering tobacco itself to remove well-known carcinogens.

All these products involve trade-offs in the sense of sacrificing sensory experience or rapid, controlled flow of nicotine. Those things are greatly valued by many smokers. (Full disclosure: I’ve never smoked, so I’m relying on second-hand accounts.) That is one reason smoking rates have stuck stubbornly at about 15 percent to 20 percent in the United States and other advanced nations despite decades of antismoking information and campaigns and mammoth tax increases.

Most smokers are interested in the nicotine, a fact that opens the door to all sorts of ways to reduce or practically eliminate the health harms from tobacco.

The problem now is that it is almost impossible for manufacturers of safer products to tell consumers about why they are safer and why smokers should switch. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates advertising, has resolutely enforced the prevailing views in the public health community, which has invested itself almost exclusively in a decades-long gamble to get smokers to quit rather than resort to safer tobacco use. Any suggestion in marketing materials that a product is safer—even one that emits no smoke whatsoever—is inevitably attacked by the antismoking watchdogs with FTC and FDA action a constant threat. The FDA does not have jurisdiction over tobacco products, of course, but products that are marketed (even indirectly) as a method to quit smoking are classified by the FDA as drugs, which cannot be sold until they pass through years of clinical trials and so forth. The nearly complete suppression of informative marketing of safer tobacco use has two consequences, both profoundly deleterious to the health of current and future smokers. It makes it almost impossible for manufacturers to provide the “reason why” messages that are the primary means for informing smokers of ways to reduce the harm from a difficult-to-quit habit. That impedes massive health-improving switching to safer products.

The upstream effects are even worse, because incentives to develop safer products are severely undermined if (to borrow a quote from the infinitely complicated history of cigarettes and health) “you build a better mousetrap and then they say you can't mention mice or traps.” The federal government has made the problem far worse by promoting the idea that all tobacco products, even smokeless ones, are equally unsafe.

Enter HR 1256, hundreds of pages of it. Two features would have devastating effects. One is the new tobacco product approval apparatus. Manufacturers would have to demonstrate that their products are not merely safer than some of the existing alternatives. They would have to demonstrate that once the products enter the market, they would not have undesirable second-order effects such as encouraging smokers to switch instead of quit, or encouraging non-smokers to start who otherwise would not have started.

Meeting this kind of standard would be extraordinarily difficult; it is nearly a recipe to discourage the development of almost any new product no matter how much safer it would be than what smokers now use. It moves the FDA far beyond the contours of drug regulation. Imagine that a dramatically effective new HIV drug could not be approved until the manufacturer demonstrated that the entry of the drug would not tempt some people into unsafe sex because they knew a better treatment could be used if worse came to worse. Suppose a better diabetes drug was kept on the sidelines while the manufacturer figured out how to show that the availability of the drug would not encourage obesity by discouraging weight loss and the like. No one wants the FDA to do that for drugs because we want better drugs, and we are willing to let consumers make their own decisions about how to revamp their lives accordingly. The imposition of this bizarre standard for new tobacco products reveals an intention to largely dispense with the task of reducing tobacco harm while demeaning the choices of smokers and potential smokers.

The product approval process would be greatly complicated by another of HR 1256’s innovations, the insertion of an outside board to participate in these decisions. The board almost certainly would be dominated by public health representatives who share a long-standing opposition to safer tobacco products and especially to any information about relative safety, stoked by the fear that even the safest products can wreak harm by impeding cessation and indirectly encouraging smoking.

None of this would apply to existing products, of course. The bigger the brand, the greater the benefit of this grandfathering arrangement. No wonder HR 1256 is called the “Marlboro Brand Protection Act.” No wonder the political breakthrough in getting FDA tobacco regulation came in 2004 when Philip Morris (now Altria) came out in support of FDA regulation; Altria remains a bulwark of support for HR 1256.

Imagine that a dramatically effective new HIV drug could not be approved until the manufacturer demonstrated that the entry of the drug would not tempt some people into unsafe sex because they knew a better treatment could be used if worse came to worse.

The same hostility to harm reduction infuses HR 1256’s provisions on marketing. Needless to say, advertising would become even rarer than it is today. The most important information—about the product’s risks and why it might be safer than something else—would be hemmed in by requirements of unknown rigor. Of course manufacturers would have to demonstrate to some degree the relative safety of their product. But most important, there would be another beyond-FDA-drug-regulation requirement to demonstrate that if smokers are told about a safer product, they will not react by failing to quit smoking and so on. Again, one wonders about how the pharmaceutical market would work if heart drug manufacturers had to prove whether telling consumers how to reduce the risk of heart attacks would adversely affect their lifestyle choices about diet and exercise.

Again, the grandfathering effect comes into play. What dominant brands fear most is aggressive marketing by competitors, especially competitors with a good safety story to tell. “Marlboro Brand Protection,” indeed.

Fortunately, there is dissent from all sorts of otherwise incompatible sources. Altria’s biggest competitors have been running full-page newspaper ads in opposition to HR 1256. But some stalwart antismoking figures are also in opposition. Professor Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health has a piece in today’s Los Angeles Times opposing HR 1256. The American Association of Public Health Physicians has vocally opposed HR 1256. So has William Godshall’s advocacy organization, Smokefree Pennsylvania, which logically enough is against measures that impede the substitution of smokeless for smoked.

Senators Richard Burr and Kay Hagan of North Carolina have introduced a bill that avoids the worst features of HR 1256 and has the virtue of lodging tobacco regulation in a separate agency and therefore avoiding the FDA, whose snail-like pacing in approving wider use of pure nicotine products has been deplorable. An even better alternative would be to unleash the FTC, whose regulatory philosophy is the simple toleration if not encouragement of truthful information in marketing. The FTC could regulate tobacco marketing like it regulates marketing for automobiles, computers, and just about everything else. It would require a reasonable basis for health claims. The standard can be tough when the stakes are high; you do not want to claim your car can stop in 100 feet from 60 mph unless you have solid evidence. But if the FTC were free of an implicit obligation to enforce what public health gurus want (sometimes including FDA staff), we could see an extraordinarily fruitful unleashing of methods for safer tobacco use and a consequent decline in the lamentable toll of cigarette smoking.

Jack Calfee is resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

FURTHER READING: AEI held an event titled “Can Smokeless Tobacco Reduce the Health Consequences of Smoking?

Image by Flickr User Kevin Burkett found here.