Vin Mariani U.S. Penetration

Angelo Francois Mariani b. December 17, 1838 - d. April 1, 1914

http://alcoholanddrugshistorysociety.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/shad-23-1-smith1.pdf

Perhaps the best way to explain Mariani’s success, however, is the examination of Mariani and Company’s promotional materials and published consumer responses in the United States from 1886 to 1910. It seems clear that Mariani’s wine, and its many imitators, were quite popular in the United States during these years.

Actual business records of the company do not seem to exist, but at least one unique source exists: The Efficacy of Coca Erythroxylon: Notes and Comments by Prominent Physicians, a Mariani pamphlet published in 1888 and apparently distributed as promotional material. Its contents include published letters from numerous doctors across the United States praising Mariani wine. 24

Of course, this data is not as reliable as say, sales figures, and certainly there could be letters received by the company that were unpublished. However, this evidence deserves consideration. There is no doubt Mariani’s company printed the pamphlet to help sell its product. On the other hand, given the randomness of the locations of the letter writers and the diverse numbers from those particular locations, it would be hard to conclude that the company simply made up the data to sell the product. Therefore, it is quite possible to treat this evidence like a primitive form of consumer research or polling data.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia were represented in the pamphlet, clearly indicating a nationwide distribution system. Roughly 300, or over a quarter of these letters, came from New York State. The second most represented state is Pennsylvania with about 10% of the total. Coming in third is Massachusetts with roughly 6% of the total. Ohio followed with about 5%. 25

One interesting aspect of the distribution of these letters is their concentration in some of the most heavily industrialized parts of the country. Here, Spillane and Gootenberg’s recognition of coca/cocaine as being an aspect of modern society, and a way to cope with it, rings true.

According to U.S. Census statistics New York, the state with the most letters, was the most industrially developed state in the union in 1890, with 65,840 manufacturing establishments, and 752,066 wage earners.26

Pennsylvania had 39,339 manufacturing establishments and an average number of 570,393 wage earners.27  Massachusetts and Ohio also had high levels of industrialization with 26,923 manufacturers and 447,270 wage earners in Massachusetts and 28,673 establishments and 292,982 wage workers in Ohio.28

Although those four states were the leaders, it is important to note that the wine was present in all regions of the country.

All the Border States of the near southern United States, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware (combined about 10% of total letters) had doctors who sent the company letters.29

The South is represented by Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, and Louisiana (about 8%).

The Midwest represented by Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (about 22%).

The West is the smallest by proportion, represented by Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and California (5%).

A little over half then (55%) of the correspondence is from the heavily industrialized Northeast: New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.30

The lowest levels of penetration are in the west, where levels of industrialization were low: Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and California combined for 11,495 manufacturing establishments and 108, 821 wage earners, only a fraction of just one state in the Northeast, like New York.31 The numbers of imitators spawned can also measure Vin Mariani’s success.

The Druggists Circular Price List of Drugs” published in April, 1903, lists 27 wine-medicines, out of over 100, that have the word coca in their name. The number increases to almost half if one counts the appearance of the word cocoa (the terms were often confused, however one cannot discount the possibility that cocoa and wine were mixed).32

There are also 24 total listings with “Vin,” “Vinum,” and “Vinegar,” in the name, showing the presence of many other wine-medicines.

Vin Mariani also appears to be affordable; it is listed at $1.75 a bottle.33

In 1910, the price decreased to $ 1.00.34

Who consumed Vin Mariani?

The price range of $1.00 to $1.75 probably fit the average wage of $543 a year in 1902. It is likely that factory workers making $61.20 a week (on average), or $3,182 a year, or clerks making an average of $1,037 a year, could consume more than low skilled workers or domestics making $501 and $270 a year respectively.35

The price of the wine also compared favorably to that of liquor at $1.00 a quart in 1902, and other
wines priced at $5.00 for 12 quarts.36  Vin Mariani consumers were for the most part, middle class, and that appears to be the audience they reached with their advertising.

MJ Displacing Alcohol = Increased Highway Safety

A Revelation February 21-22, 2012

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2013/02/stay-off-grass.html
 

Pot Smokers Drive Fine Far Above Legal THC Limit

[IIHS - MUST ADMIT IT- DW]

Jacob Sullum|Feb. 15, 2013 1:03 pm

 

KIRO-TVA recent report by KIRO-TV, the CBS station in Seattle, provides further evidence that Washington's new standard for driving while under the influence of marijuana is a poor measure  of impairment. Initiative 502, which legalized marijuana for recreational use, established a per se standard of five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Critics argued that cannabis consumers may exceed that level even when they are not impaired, and KIRO did a simple driving experiment (video below) that shows they were right. The station enlisted three volunteers: Addy Norton, "a 27-year-old medical marijuana patient and heavy daily marijuana user who smoked pot before arriving at the test site"; Dylan Evans, a 34-year-old weekend pot smoker; and Jeff Underberg, 56-year-old who smokes pot occasionally. All three of them satisfactorily completed a driving course at THC levels far above the legal limit.

Norton arrived with a THC level of 16 nanograms, more than three times the DUID cutoff, but nevertheless drove fine, according to the driving instructor who accompanied her with his foot hovering over a second brake and his hand ready to take the wheel. After Norton smoked three-tenths of a gram, she tested at 36.7 nanograms, more than seven times the legal limit, but still drove OK. Even after she consumed nine-tenths of a gram, a "drug recognition expert" from the Thurston County Sheriff's Office said her driving was merely "borderline." Only after consuming a total of 1.4 grams of pot and achieving a THC level of 58.8 nanograms, almost 12 times the legal limit, was Norton clearly too stoned to drive.

Evans arrived with zero THC in his blood but hit 26 nanograms, more than five times the DUID cutoff, after smoking three-tenths of a gram. He nevertheless was "doing fine behind the wheel." Underberg, who also started at zero, hit 21.7 nanograms, more than four times the legal limit, after smoking his three-tenths of a gram. "While his driving was slow," KIRO reported, "it was still acceptable." According to the driving instructor, "He did real well." Unlike Norton, Evans and Underberg were both clearly impaired after smoking twice more, consuming a total of nine-tenths of a gram. KIRO evidently did not draw blood from Evans or Underberg at that point. But two and a half hours later, Evans tested at 11.1 nanograms, more than twice the legal limit. Underberg was at 12.9 nanograms one hour and 45 minutes after his last puff. Those results suggest that occasional users may exceed the legal limit hours after they smoke, even when they are no longer intoxicated.

Keen not to be seen as encouraging people to drive while stoned, KIRO's correspondent closed his report with some responsible-sounding caveats. "It's true all three volunteers were able to safely drive a car for a while while four times or more over the legal marijuana DUI limit," he said, "but they eventually made driving errors that on a public road could have resulted in getting pulled over by police or much worse." Yes, but they made those errors at THC levels much higher than the legal standard for impairment. It's clear people can be too stoned to drive safely; the question, assuming it is appropriate to have a per se standard at all, is what the cutoff should be. Turning to that issue, KIRO's reporter said:

Some critics argue the legal limit for driving under the influence of marijuana was set too low. So does the fact that our volunteers were able to smoke pot and drive safely at four times the legal limit prove their case? Not necessarily. That's because the intoxicating effects of marijuana vary from plant to plant and from person to person. And you have to remember: Our volunteers were on a closed course, working with a safety net. They weren't out here, driving alone with the rest of us.

I see a couple of red herrings here. The plant-to-plant variation is irrelevant if the measure of impairment is THC in the blood, and the fact that the volunteers were driving "on a closed course, working with a safety net" does not change the fact that they drove competently even when they were far above five nanograms. By contrast, the fact that "the intoxicating effects of marijuana vary...from person to person," which helps explain how Norton was still OK to drive at 36.7 nanograms, is relevant, but it cuts both ways. Perhaps some people are impaired at five nanograms, but it seems clear that many are not. Setting a low cutoff may seem like erring on the side of caution, but that is true only if you discount the injustice of arresting and punishing people for driving under the influence when they do not actually pose a hazard to others. The variation in responses to marijuana, which is partly a function of tolerance and experience (presumably the main factors in Norton's case) but also due to pre-existing differences, argues against having any sort of per se standard.

Washington used to require evidence of impairment, including but not limited to blood test results, which is still the approach taken in Colorado, the other state that legalized marijuana last year. The Colorado legislature has considered a five-nanogram standard in the past and may yet adopt a modified version of it, establishing a rebuttable presumption of impairment at that level. But that makes no sense until we have a clearer idea of how many people really are too stoned to drive at five nanograms. Larger-scale, more systematic research along the lines of what KIRO did should come before any changes to the law.

You can watch video of the driving tests here and below.

we petition the obama administration to:

End the war on drugs and work with O.A.S. Presidents to open the U.N. Single Convention Treaty on Controlled Substances.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/end-war-drugs-and-work-oas-presidents-open-un-single-convention-treaty-controlled-substances/dlkkBzfx

Many Presidents in Central and South America, our friends in the Organization of American States have expressed interest in ending the war on drugs the USA is conducting in their countries.
Direct our UN Ambassador to support reopening the Single Convention Treaty on Controlled Substances.

Follow your own statements about not wasting resources for cannabis enforcement. Make sure your Attorney General and Department of Justice stops wasting money for enforcement of cannabis prohibition, that would include elimination funding for Drug Enforcement Agency.

Direct the Dept. of Agriculture to draft regulations for certification of farmers to allow cultivation of hemp and cannabis.

Ending the war on cannabis will reduce government spending, increase revenues and create an economic stimulus.

Created: Jan 11, 2013

Issues: Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Economy, Foreign Policy

Stop Overlooking Opium

Less addictive than Tobacco and non carcinogenic,
Opium was nonetheless demonified by the twentieth century pharma-cigarette criminal mercantilism - with a regimen that would otherwise be seen as silly if applied the methadone model to nicotine.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/20/if-you-know-too-much-about-poppies-you-c

Last July the Kennewick, Washington, Tri-City Herald profiled Poppydog Farms, a new local business selling dried pods from poppies grown on 40 acres in Pasco. The operation had attracted 2,400 customers from across the country, including wholesalers as well as consumers. "Every single day we're getting new customers," enthused co-owner Ken French. "It's turned out to be a lot more successful than we ever dreamed."

The paper explained that "crafters use the pods for ornamentation," while "florists grow red, pink and white-and-purple flowers with the seeds." French described the flowers as "stunningly beautiful."

They are also sort of illegal, a point that police clarified when they arrested French and his wife, Shanna, for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance less than four months after their business was featured in the Herald. Although Papaver somniferum is commonly used in gardening, floral arrangements, and food, it is also listed on Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act as "opium poppy."

That status usually means a substance can be produced and distributed only by people licensed to do so. But since the plant is widely grown in the United States by people ignorant of its identity as the source of opium, drug warriors generally do not bother with it.

They made an exception in French's case after he allegedly told detectives with a regional drug task force that tea made from crushed poppy pods could be used to relieve pain or improve one's mood. Police say he also announced that he sold the pods strictly for "ornamental purposes," adding, "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it."

A few weeks later, state prosecutors announced that they would not be pursuing charges against the Frenches. Although that sounds like good news, it may only have signaled that the feds were taking over the case. The Justice Department has moved to seize the couple's land, arguing that it is the site of an "ongoing drug enterprise," and their lawyer, Jim Egan, told the Herald he anticipates that if there are criminal charges, they will be filed in federal court. But Egan argued that the Frenches should not be held criminally liable for a business they thought was legal:

There's a plethora of evidence that Mr. Ken French [had] no idea this was an illegal activity. If he thought it was illegal, he probably would not have advertised on the Internet.... He incorporated the business, got a business license and did all the things he was supposed to do in order to set up the business. He also talked to the Tri-City Herald...and said what a wonderful business it was. That's something that people who are trying to hide their criminal activities don't usually do.

Egan has a point, although the Justice Department has been known to target medical marijuana suppliers who likewise operated openly, complied with regulations, and believed their businesses to be legitimate. Then, too, the detectives' report of their conversation with French, assuming it is accurate, suggests he knew there was something potentially illicit about selling poppy pods, depending on the intended use.

The same sort of guilty knowledge proved problematic for Jim Hogshire, who did not merely acknowledge in passing the analgesic and psychoactive properties of opium tea but wrote a whole book about it.

The book, Opium for the Masses, figured prominently in the decision to arrest Hogshire in 1996, when Seattle police charged him with "possession of opium poppy, with intent to manufacture and distribute." The charges were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence.

J.H. Covington Up-Held the Criminalization of Opium/Opiates
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/jh-covington-upheld-harrison-narcotic.html

23 months to the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Harrison 'Narcotics' Tax [Prohibition] Act effectively banning most Opiates and anything containing any amount of cocaine, signed into 'law' December 17, 1914. The following is an article about the predessessor to the Harrison Act, the U.S. Food and Drugs Act of 1906 so empowering the Bureau of Chemistry of the USDA the iniitial thrust of what became the 'drug war'.

Centennial of Federal Drug Laws - June 30th, 2006

By Dale Gieringer,Ph.D

This month marks the centennial of the first federal drug laws. On June 30th, 1906, Congress approved the Pure Food and Drugs Act, giving the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry - the forerunner of today's FDA - the unprecedented power to ban certain drugs from the market. The act proved to be a fateful step toward a regime of total federal control that would eventually restrict Americans' access to valuable medicine, stifle research, and create a vast new field of criminal enterprise.

At the time the act was passed, there was no such thing as an illegal drug. Americans could readily buy any drug at the pharmacy, including opium, morphine, cocaine, or cannabis, which was then widely recognized as a medicine. Nonetheless, there was little public fuss about drug abuse, and drug crime and violence were unknown in the legal market. However, that began to change when a coalition of drug bureaucrats and professional groups with an interest in regulation joined with the same temperance forces that would soon impose alcohol prohibition to enact tight new federal restrictions on drugs.

The intent of the Pure Food and Drug Act was basically sound: to stop misbranded, adulterated, and fraudulent products. One of its key provisions was to require truth in labeling. Drug manufacturers had to give notice of intoxicating ingredients such as opium, alcohol, cocaine - or cannabis, then a familiar pharmaceutical drug. In addition, however, the food provisions of the act empowered federal bureaucrats to ban certain ingredients deemed to be deleterious.

These powers were promptly abused by the first director of the Bureau of Chemistry, Harvey Washington Wiley, who favored prohibition of both drugs and alcohol. Wiley tried to use the new law to ban saccharine, caffeine, and sodium benzoate, but was fortunately unsuccessful.

However, Wiley did manage to banish mild coca beverages containing small amounts of cocaine on the unsubstantiated claim that they were deleterious to health. In fact, low-potency coca beverages had been on the market for a generation with no evident health problems, and had been endorsed by such luminaries as Thomas Edison and President McKinley. Coca products are still enjoyed today in South America, where they are thought to be helpful for weight control, digestion and diabetes.  However, public alarm had been fueled by the introduction of high-potency, pharmaceutical powder cocaine, which caused serious abuse and addiction problems. Ironically, while Wiley succeeded in suppressing harmless coca beverages, the market was soon flooded with high-grade pharmaceutical cocaine, which proceeded to metastasize into a worldwide criminal problem from the jungles of Colombia to the streets of American cities.

The spring of 1906 brought a second important new anti-drug law. On May 7th, Congress passed the District of Columbia Pharmacy and Poisons Act, aimed at cracking down on the sale of so-called narcotics to drug fiends. The DCPPA made it a crime to sell opium, cocaine or chloral hydrate except on a doctor's prescription for illness. This effectively marked the opening shot in the war on drugs , unleashing the police against narcotics. The act was the first of a series of anti-drug measures that would culminate in national narcotics prohibition with the Harrison Act of 1914.

The DCPPA applied only to the District of Columbia, since at that time it was still thought that Congress lacked power to regulate narcotics elsewhere, but it was intended as a model bill for the states, which promptly began to follow suit. Among the first was California, which enacted its own poison law in 1907 at the behest of the state board of pharmacy, an aggressive and nationally recognized pioneer in the war on drugs. Around the state, the board would dispatch undercover agents posing as addicts to wheedle drugs from unsuspecting pharmacists, then bust them and publicize their arrests in the local press. The board swept down on Chinatown, cleaning out the opium dens and burning their wares in public bonfires. It also prevailed on the legislature to pass additional laws criminalizing users and paraphernalia.

The board even procured a pioneering law against cannabis or ³Indian hemp² in 1913, at a time when hardly anyone had even heard of "marijuana." While admitting that cannabis was not a significant problem, the Board warned of an influx of cannabis-using "Hindoos" who might spread the habit. Ironically, only after becoming illegal did marijuana become popular, eventually spreading to millions of users. Cannabis continued to be legally available as a prescription medicine until 1941, when it was forced off the market by two new federal laws. The first was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which imposed prohibitive taxes on cannabis as part of a national prohibition scheme. Faced with prohibitive expenses, manufacturers were compelled to discontinue cannabis pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, the FDA acquired new powers to keep drugs off the market. The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 required that all new drugs henceforth be approved for safety. The act exempted "old" drugs already on the market in 1938, a category that in principle included cannabis.  However, once cannabis had been withdrawn from the market, the FDA reclassified it as a ³new drug.²

Fast forward to 2006, and the FDA insists on treating cannabis like an unproven new drug, conveniently forgetting a long medical history that predates the FDA's own existence.  Over time, federal drug regulations were extended to encompass virtually every aspect of pharmaceutical choice. Over-the-counter sales of prescription drugs were outlawed, effectively repealing Americans' right to self-medication. Use of experimental drugs was prohibited except by prior FDA approval, impeding research and denying access to potentially valuable new drugs, sometimes even to terminally ill patients with no other treatment alternatives. Decisions about access to drugs for birth control, abortion, end-of-life treatment and severe chronic pain were taken out of the hands of the patients and put in the hands of politicized bureaucrats at FDA and DEA. Finally, federal narcotics laws were vastly expanded to prohibit virtually every psychoactive substance of interest to humans except alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.

Unlike alcohol, drug prohibition was not the product of any popular initiative. Rather it was the work of insiders, led by pharmacy boards and bureaucrats with an interest in regulation. Public debate was minimal. Little consideration was given to the likelihood that prohibition might have counterproductive effects. Viewed in retrospect, the toll of the drug laws exceeds that of the great 1906 earthquake. In the past century, countless thousands have been killed by prohibition-related drug crime and violence, and countless more by exposure to dangerous black market products. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on drug law enforcement. Millions of Americans have been arrested and criminalized, and nearly half a million Americans are now in prison for drug offenses that simply did not exist a century ago. Despite this, the rate of narcotics addiction today is no lower than in the days when drugs were legal,­ around 1% of the population.

In retrospect, it is hard to escape the conclusion that 20th century drug control laws have failed. By every criterion, the free market regime of one hundred years ago worked better than today's comprehensive federal prohibition. At the dawn of the 21st century, the time is overdue to address the disastrous legacy of the Hundred Years' War on Drugs.

By Dale Gieringer,Ph.D

Based on an article in the June, 2006 edition of Liberty, "Centennial of an Unnatural Disaster," http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_06/gieringer-centennial.html

The Beginning of the End of Coca Prohibition

Bolivia re-acceeds to the UN 'narcotics; convention while still being allowed to legal Coca within Bolivia, over objections of USA and a largely northern bloc - U.K. and Sweeden

http://www.druglawreform.info/en/home/item/4245-objections-to-bolivias-reservation-to-allow-coca-chewing-in-the-un-conventions
http://www.undrugcontrol.info/en/newsroom/press-releases/item/4267-bolivia-wins-a-rightful-victory-on-the-coca-leaf

excerpt

After a first attempt to amend the Single Convention failed in 2011, Bolivia left the Convention with the intent to rejoin with a new reservation designed to align its international obligations with its Constitution.[i] The reservation applies only to Bolivian territory, and exportation of coca internationally remains proscribed.

Similar to the effort mounted by some countries to derail Bolivia’s proposed amendment two years ago, a group of countries again attempted to block Bolivia’s new reservation on coca. The United States spearheaded an arrangement whereby all the G8 countries would object, and several other countries also joined, including – embarrassingly – The Netherlands and Portugal. The amendment that Bolivia previously pursued could be stopped by a relatively small number of countries – 18 countries, including Mexico under Felipe Calderón, ultimately opposed the amendment. But the procedures regarding re-joining the Convention with reservations set a different threshold: a minimum of one-third of the 184 members of the treaty would be required to invalidate the reservation.

In fact, the number of objections fell far short of the 62 that would have been required to block Bolivia this time – despite a dramatic call from the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) to rally opposition, arguing that Bolivia’s move, should it succeed, “would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system.” In Latin America, the only country that moved to block Bolivia this time was again Mexico, now under President Enrique Peña Nieto.

http://www.drugwarrant.com/2013/01/u-s-and-incb-lose-battle-to-coca/comment-page-1/#comment-166862

These are the 15 countries against Bolivia and Coca:

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and the US.

The most under-stressed major point about the war on Coca-
Tobacco - cigarette market protection racket
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-evil-prohibition-to-promote.html

A Sucker's Smoke - Tabacum vs Rustica

Virginia Bright Leaf (Large Leaf) Tobacco

designed so places as Virginia could make more money

Ever notice the difference between Tobacco as initially found my Europeans during the 1500 and 1600s, and that developed by the 1800s.

The original Tobacco was a small leaf- Nicotiana Rustica. 

It was of sufficently high nicotine content, and that of other natural components making it too harsh and psychoactive to take more then a few 'hits' daily.  It was taken smoked in clay pipes.  Or taken as a finely ground snuff intranasally or in some fashion suckeled- but not swalled as the juice was simply too toxic.

The later stuff is this gigantic leaf - Nicotiana Tabacum

Its designed to make more money by making more smoking.  By breeding out Tobacco's more interesting psychoactive properties, and such breed results in a significently reduced nicotine content per given amount of leaf material.  The Tobacco, though still too toxic to be swallowed, is now sufficently 'mild' to be inhaled deeply into the lungs and so smoked repeatedly.

This is an economic process furthered by the development of cigars, cheroots and particularly cigarettes. 

One of two main categories of consumables exempt from being required to lable the ingrediants (the other being alcoholic beverages), Tobacco products are more often then not loaded with numerous additives.  These include burn accelerants, even within the paper, as I've seen by loading a cigarette tube with Cannabis with no Tobacco, and observing it burn way faster then as with regular rolling paper- encouraging smokers to take more hits more quickly.  And these include chemicals to facilitate the release of nicotine into the human CNS system.

And this at times includes marketing designed to faciliate confusion leading users to graduate to stronger versions unwittingly, such as Marlboro's use of label colors upon its 'lite' and its regular extra long '100s' to induce 'lite' smokers to try the longer cigarettes assuming they are 'lites' for having similar yellow or gold label color, rather then the red color of the regulars.