Thursday, February 10, 2022

INVESTIGATE FDA/AMA & mass media campaign against Ivermectin Therapeutic Benifits for treating Covid

The U.S. National Library has reported favorably on the use of ivermectin - a patent expired medicine - for treating cases of Covid:

February 2021

Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the rapidity of viral clearance and safety of ivermectin among adult SARS-CoV-2 patients. The trial included 72 hospitalized patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh, who were assigned to one of three groups: oral ivermectin alone (12 mg once daily for 5 days), oral ivermectin in combination with doxycycline (12 mg ivermectin single dose and 200 mg doxycycline on day 1, followed by 100 mg every 12 h for the next 4 days), and a placebo control group. Clinical symptoms of fever, cough, and sore throat were comparable among the three groups. Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27). There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings. 

Nonetheless the USFDA postulates otherwise, focusing upon excessive use via formulations meant not for humans but for 900lb horses

Numerous media organs report simply against ivermectin, often citing nameless multiples of "medical experts" while failing to report what can be found by simply searching *ivermectin - U.S. National Library of Medicine*

And of course, thoroughly discredited medical monopoly trade organizations as the viciously mercantilistic American Medical Association- an entity long overdue for being sued into oblivion for starters their key role in the banning of Coca leaf for the sake of market protectionism for Tobacco cigarettes, circa 1907.

Why do these media organs, along with the AMA, almost never report on the US NLM findings?  Why not even mention the favorable conclusions, nor any reports or article to the contrary showing some sort of study, agreement and even disagreements there regarding ivermectin for treating Covid?

An investigation is needed into this mis-reporting by such media sources as CNN, MSNBC (Microsoft/Bill Gates NBC), the Daily Beast, Huff Post (what happened to Arianna Huffington over the past 15 or so years- did she join some club?), and even NPR.  How about issuing subpoenas to the people running these news outlets for interrogators - public and televised

If safety is an issue, why block the availability of human dose formulations?  Even the FDA's safety concerns are focuses upon excessive dosages from veterinarian formulations, especially taken without adequate dosage information.  And if ivermectin is dangerous in certain contexts, say with other medicines, then let the information be spread as to what to avoid taking it with.  So why is youtube blocking videos on that very topic?

If ivermectin turns out to be better some some cases of Covid than others, why the refusal to allow availability and conduct data gathering?

Why was CNN-MSNBC treating the head of the infamous American Medical Association as some sort of respectable figure and that organization as trustworthy?

Accordingly a dosage regimen of ivermectin costing less than $3.00 can be used to remarkably treat cases of Covid.  With proper availability (human dosage formulations) and advise (informing about interactions, ivermectin could make a considerable dent in Covid.

Yet the same type of folks who decry ivermectin tend to be very pro covid 'vaccine' despite the lack of testing routinely demanded for vaccines.  Go figure.

There MUST be a public investigation as to the obvious mass media conspiracy against non patented, as well as patent expired medications for potentially treating covid!

Particularly with the deceitful NPR National Public Radio.

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]

Monday, August 2, 2021

U.S. Customs Now Stealing Peoples' Coca Tea Shipments

No legitimate legal authority

Based upon junk statutes that are grossly unconstitutional, a denial of equal protection, a criminal mafia agricultural market protection racket to flood the planet with TOBACCO, and a public health threat of monstrous enormity

Posted to the Facebook page of the Drug Policy Alliance:

U.S. Customs has embarked upon massive thefts of Coca tea shipments. They are stealing millions of dollars in merchandise that they have zero legitimate legal reason to steal (seize). They are making absolutely false statements regarding cocaine (the delightful alternative to caffeine and especially nicotine). The junk statutes that only morons would support were enacted to thwart this competitor to Tobacco to protect and open up markets for the 1907+ explosion in Tobacco cigarettes. Coca use as a Tobacco habit cure was the reason cited by the 1910 USDA Farmer Bullitan article Habit-forming Agents their sale and use a menace to the public welfare. U.S Customs needs to stop participating in this criminal tobacco mercantilism. Where is the DPA on ending this criminal and nonsensical ban? At the start a lawsuit enjoining U.S. Customs from this criminal involvement and pay damages for stealing peoples' Coca tea.
U.S. Customs thefts of Coca tea: a criminal interference in trade based upon junk statutes best described as legislative crime in furtherance of a criminal mafia market protection racket to protect Tobacco and be instrumental in spawning the 1907+ market explosion in TOBACCO CIGARETTES.  Note that the machinery for mass produced cigarettes was invented in 1881 and quickly deployed, yet sales growth was little, until the 1907-1914 period with the empowerment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture' to make baseless claims per se against cocaine in any amount and remove all cocainated products from retail, thus REMOVING THE COMPETITION TO NICOTINE.  Both cocaine and nicotine are reinforcing CNS stimulants.  Coca and Tobacco have overlapping uses.  Coca leaf is smokable like Tobacco, yet Tobacco is too toxic to drink, thus no Tobacco Tea.  The respective polices towards Coca and Tobacco represent a GROSS violation of equal protection as well as a crime against the public's health of monstrous enormity. 

U.S. Customs is now touting their criminal thefts of Coca tea shipments as concenrning so called "Green Cocaine" leaving out the word tea and behaving completely oblvios to its vast disticnions from say pure powder coaine with added green food dye.

Friday, March 13, 2020

Douglas Greene's 1st TV Appearance on the Morton Downey Jr. Show July 4, 1988

Douglas Greene
b March 13, 1967-June 4, 2019

July 4, 1988 appearance with Ron Paul and Dana Beal on The Morton Downey Jr. Show

Dana Beal, Doug Greene with Lisa Sliwa at right, 
July 4, 1988 Morton Downey Jr. Show

It was 1987.

1986 had brought the the great new bi-partisan U.S. escalation of the 75+ year old "drug war".

Seizing upon the fatal overdose (cocaine) of Len Bias, a University of Maryland student and draft pick of the Boston Celtics in 1986, and in an orchestrated response to newspaper hyperbole, the bipartisan government of President Ronald Reagan and U.S. Speaker of the House William O'Neil, with rashly promoted legislation to further escalate the long-running drug war (started up during the years leading up to the start of World War I largely for the sake of making the world markets safer for cigarettes), by a so-called Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986.

This spurred the entry of a bunch of us into the protest movement against the drug war.

We included Doug Greene and yours truly, meeting other more established protesters, and threading our way into a variety of venues.  Greene, lived in Cedarhurst, N.Y., on Long Island near the eastern edge of Queens, was an NYU under-graduate in psychology, and involved with the Libertarian Party. I was from New Rochelle, N.Y. in southeastern Westchester County, and was an incoming 1st year student at University of Bridgeport School of Law student, recently inspired to research the war on cocaine, as well as researching the story of the longest used and favorably regarded cocaine containing product prior to the start of the drug war- Vin Mariani and its creator Angelo Francois Mariani.

Doug and I met at a Libertarian Party event in White Plains N.Y. in April 1988.

I vividly recollect seeing him that first time with his name-badge, and immediately recognizing his name from an article he authored for the (now defunct) newsletter "Burning Issues" written and published by R.B. Wilks - an energetic anti-drug war female activist and for a time girlfriend of Libertarian Party activist (and former member of Young Americans for Freedom) Don Meinshausen.  His article against the drug war made the rarely made much needed point that the self perpetuating problem is not "drugs" but rather prohibitionist policies banning a substance in any and all forms without regard to potency/concentration, with the dynamics meaning safer, dilute, guaranteed low potency options are eliminated and replaced with infinitely riskier higher concentration/wildly variable potency.  Hence, Greene then advocated for legalizing Opium and Coca leaf, providing a welcome contrast to the standard group thought of thinking of "heroin" and "cocaine" concentrated white powders.

His name's irony was immediate and comforting. 

Doug Greene, born March 13, 1967.  A man with a surname suggestive of his public stance for green plant drugs - Cannabis, Opium and Coca - as well as his advocacy of veganism.  And born a mere 3 months before the release of that Monkees song "Pleasant Valley Sunday" with its line "Mr. Greene, he's so serene, he's got a TV in every room"  - a prophetic description of a Mr. Greene into having the newest level of computer/operating system.

Greene interned that year at the Drug Policy Foundation, working under Arnold Trebach and Kevin Zeese. We both attended the 1988 NORML convention, held in a hotel on Wisconsin Avenue in upper Georgetown, Washington D.C.  And later that summer, Greene first introduced me to that most colorful personality and political protester long headquartered at 9 Bleeker in Manhattan, Dana Beal.  A longtime drug war opponent - he has a recording of him calling out George McGovern on the issue back in 1972 - Beal holds annual pro marijuana legalization marches the earliest Saturday in May; and he has his own approach to the drug war: highlighting its absurdity via his advocacy of the use of Iboga plant root bark alkaloid Ibogaine as a drug-addiction interrupter, as discovered by his longtime friend Howard Lotsoff in 1962, who tried Ibogaine and found his physical addiction to Heroin had vanished.

Greene and Beal would get seen to the world by getting on an episode of that unforgettably late 1980s icon of "trash-talk" television- The Morton Downey Jr. Show, named for its host.

The show was started by WWOR of Secaucas, New Jersey, and first aired October 19, 1987.

It was textbook "trash-talk" - host with panelists and audience, with questions/statements from the latter permitted. It combined a variety of elements of "audience" shows from those devoted to matters as personal soap opera stories with its vast arrays of family feuds, into a show addressing political issues, with a design to provide a platform for dissident views, but in an arena so stacked as to have them effectively silenced with the moderator encouraged a raucous audience to chant the establishment mode of thought, regarding persons with ideas contra.  The show's early ratings successes lead to it being taken on national syndication in 1988.

Hmm, allow a platform for a few dissidents, but in a sort of arena where rather than their ideas receiving a fair and just consideration, instead are met with the most simplistic ridicule, representing that of the powers that be be here presented as the popular opinion that they seek to perpetuate.

Of course include those espousing status quo views.  For instance, Lisa Sliwa (Evers), then wife of the founder of the citizen vigilante organization the Guardian Angels, Curtis Sliwa.

The episode that Greene and Beal appeared was that of July 4, 1988, featuring - as its best known speaker that day - Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas..

See the following link at 18:30- 20.20
Doug Greene and Dana Beal July 1988 Morton Downey Jr. Show

Friday, September 13, 2019

DPA Drug Policy Alliance 2019 Proposal: Nicotine Versus Cocaine 1906+ Disaster!

Nicotine v Cocaine 1906+ Disaster
Douglas A. Willinger

“one of the recommendations from the project was to examine a key factor that shapes U.S. drug research: the pervasive belief that some drugs are inherently harmful and addictive, a position that influences research questions and populations studied, as well as the outcomes that are measured.”
This pervasive belief dates back in U.S. national legislation to the 1906 Food and Drugs Act.

It was widely lauded for its task of stopping the interstate commerce in “adulterated” and “misbranded” products sold as foods or drugs, as an “progressive” act of consumer protectionism.  

But, alas, it was seriously flawed and biased, a proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothes, cleverly written to enable anti-competitive regulatory abuse favoritism for key agricultural commodities.  

It did not prohibit any substance fought by the “drug war”.  

It introduced the idea of labeling ingredients, but only in a fashion designed to convey the idea of a set of essentially blacklisted substances, via the 1906 Act’s enumerated list - morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide. 

As this list is limited it for instance conveys the a likely impression to potential and actual consumers that such are intrinsically more worrisome than those unlisted, such as say caffeine and nicotine.  

It established a bureaucratic regulatory dictatorship to establish what was “legitimate” concerning not only foods and drugs, but also medical practice; and committed the mortal sin of granting such regulatory authority to the Bureau of Chemistry of the U.S.D.A. without any requirement of science credibility; hence it was under this sort of initial legislative direction that we the people got a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as a tool of longstanding dominant economic interests to use the power of the expanding “progressive” state to suppress their market competition.   AKA cigarette protectionism.

To wit, Opium and Coca Leaf.

Opium is the classic “narcotic”, a drug inducing sleep.  An effective pain killer and even anti-depressant.  Physically addictive, and because of its utility and relative lack of toxicity, is adaptable to higher and higher doses via the then recent – later 1800s – developed practices of refining plants into powders, creating ultra-concentrated HC. forms of alkaloids found in the plant matter in minute quantities.  Hence, drinking or eating Opium, or Opium infusion – tea – was far less addicting than an injected alkaloids, say morphine or its man-modified form heroin.

Coca leaf, which contains the alkaloid cocaine akin to Coffee containing the alkaloid caffeine and Tobacco leaf nicotine, has an ancient history of use in South America, particularly the Andean mountain areas, as in and near Peru, routinely served to tourists to help acclimate them to the high altitude conditions.  Europeans first encountered Coca leaf about the same time as Tobacco, yet Coca was hampered due to its volatility – it more easily went stale – making it a less desirable shipping commodity, thus delaying its market penetration within Europe for 300+ years, to the creation and marketing of Vin Mariani and its widespread medical use for the half century leading up to its 1914 U.S. prohibition.  Vin Mariani was a “wine of coca” made with an extract blending three varieties of Coca leaves.  It contained roughly 6 or 7 mg of cocaine alkaloid per fluid ounce.  It inspired numerous competing coca wine products, eventually including non alcoholic beverages that became known as soft drinks, such as Coca Cola with reportedly 1 1/2 milligrams per fluid ounce .  It also came with products pattered after traditional uses of Tobacco, with cigars, cheroots and cigarettes made with Coca leaves.

These sort of uses of “cocaine” were comparable to that of caffeine in Coffee, nicotine in Tobacco.

Concentrated cocaine was only first made commercially available as pharmaceutical forms about 1885 via Merck, in Germany, and Parke Davis, in the U.S., in salt (hydrochloride) and freebase (sulfate) varieties, dry or in solutions for injection.  Uses of 89% pure cocaine powder (HCI), and solutions of lesser concentration though meant for the infinitely more direct mode of administration as injections, would clearly introduce many undesirable case studies, particularly in the field of anesthesia.

There are numerous medical records concerning all of this.   

The issue became muddled with those misrepresenting acute toxicities of ultra-high doses as intrinsic to any dosage, with societies with relatively little exposure to Coca thus being susceptible to dis-information designed to spark support for the drug war.  Sadly, for its market competition being squashed by the drug war, with the USDA prosecution of beverage manufacturers for containing a supposedly dangerous, deleterious substance, the cocaine alkaloid, Tobacco cigarettes would be overwhelmingly the main daily use stimulant drug war beneficiary. 

“I have … used [Vin Mariani] to save smokers of exaggerated habits from nicotinism.  A few glasses taken in small doses … 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 facilities.”
The Drug Policy Alliance and allied groups need to commission a study of uses of the parent plant products Opium, Coca, in products so designed to deliver doses of opiate and/or coca alkaloids.

This DPA study should look at the health issues of relating to any displacement of existing markets in Coffee, Tea, anything else that contains caffeine, as well as those in Tobacco and anything else that contains nicotine.  Imagine particularly Coca displacing nicotine markets.

It could and should for instance ask a “what if” question regarding alternative historical possibilities, a world that did not get the drug war. 

Douglas A. Willinger
Freedom of Medicine and Diet

San Marcos, California
September 13, 2019


I am author of papers that were published in the Drug Policy Foundation Conference compendiums, The Ever-changing, Ever-confused Popular Conception of Cocaine; Cocaine Prohibition; Water or Gasoline for the flames of drug abuse; and Onwards to Coca!

I was a panelist in the 1991 and 1992 Cocaine panels, and the 1992 panel Is America Exporting its Problems.

I organized and moderated the panel COCA '95, a Necessary Policy Alternative from Abroad.

Additional panel proposals I submitted, but which were rejected include (1994) Coca: Turning Over A New Leaf Towards Reducing Health Care Costs, (1997) Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca: How Prohibition Perverts Useful Substances into white powder poisons,and (2009) Agricultural Politics of Drug Policy.

Since 2007, I have authored a blog on drug policy related matters Freedom of Medicine and Diet.  It includes details on the polices towards Opium, opiates, Coca leaf and cocaine, as well as the formulation of the legislative and regulatory matters, dating forward from the 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act that empowered the USDA Chemistry Bureau dictatorial powers, lacking any requirement of underlying consistent science.

Points About the 'Progressive' Era War Of Drugs

as embodied by such pieces of U.S. legislation as the 1906 Food & Drugs Act ; the 1914 Harrison 'Narcotics' Tax ...

Friday, June 7, 2019

Douglas Greene's 1992 Drug Policy Foundation Paper

How to Make the Loyal Opposition Part of the Political Mainstream
appearing at pp 389-391 in
Strategies for Change New Directions in Drug Policy
The Drug Policy Foundation Press
Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin Zeese editors

Douglas Greene

At an April 1991 New York State Libertarian Party convention, drug policy scholar and Cato Institute associate James Ostrowski confirmed a suspicion of mine that had been developing for the past year.  He claimed that the drug policy reform movement has crested and that it would require a new wave of activism to rekindle interest in the topic.

From the perspective of media attention to the subject,Mr. Ostrowski would appear to be correct.  Although polls in the late 1980s consistently named drugs as the most critical problem for the country to deal with, more traditional concerns, such as foreign policy and the economy, have overtaken drugs both in the polls and on the air.  The current lack of attention paid to the subject is a far cry from the hey-day of 1988 (which marked Baltimore Mayor Schmoke's historic statement to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Ted Koppel's town meeting and Congressional hearings on legalization.

There are hints of renewal within the chaos of drug policy reform.  From books by(three in the past year) to ballots (Proposition P in San Francisco) to the burnt out areas of L.A., drugs are still recognized as a significant public policy issue.  More important, they were a fresh reminder of the failure of the status quo.

But we can no longer rely on the environmental factors that sparked the last wave of interest in drug policy reform - a high level of public salience and high visibility figures willing to discuss the issue.  A new strategy is necessary to catalyze public support for reform.

It's fine for us to discuss cocaine and heroin legalization as possibilities for a future drug policy.  But it's not going to happen, not in the near future at any rate.  It might be possible to convince a substantial minority of the wisdom of cocaine and heroin legalization, but only at immense cost and I doubt that we would be able to convince enough of the public to change the drug laws, which must be our eventual goal.

We need to focus on attitudes that are already held by a significant proportion of the the public, including:

1) The need for a shift in emphasis from law enforcement to education and treatment.

Harvard professor Mark Kleiman does a good job at delineating the confusion surrounding persuasion, help and control, as he puts it, in Against Excess.  Despite concerns over objectives and effectiveness, even libertarians will admit that there will always be ignorance about and problems with drugs.  Promoting the therapeutic potential of ibogaine would help ease many qualms about the increased availability of drugs.  It would be a great coup for the forces of reform if we were able to take credit for making available a treatment that has been suppressed by agents of the United States pharmacracy for decades.  Unfortunately, the media and the Food and Drug Administration, not usually our two greatest allies, seem to have caught on quicker than some of us reformers.

2) The need for more aggressive AIDS prevention.

San Francisco voters passed Proposition O, calling upon the state legislature to repeal laws prohibiting the sale of needles without a prescription.  The National Commission on AIDS recommended removing legal barriers to the purchase and possession of injection equipment.  Needle exchange activists around the country have been acquitted of criminal charges.

And perhaps most significantly, the success of Hartford's needle exchange program has caused new York City Mayor David Dinkins and U.S. Rep. Charles Rangal to reconsider their opposition to needle exchange.  This was quite a reversal from 1990, when I was told by a member of the Mayor's Study Group on Drug Abuse that legalization and needle exchange were taboo topics.

3) Medical Marijuana

This issue affects people with many different illnesses, and appeals to the compassionate nature of even those who oppose recreational marijuana use.  On Nov. 5, 1991, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition P, recommending that the state of California and the California Medical Association restore hemp medical preperations to the list of available medicines.  Let's work to convince the California state legislature to enact Proposition O and P into law.

In addition to these positions, which already enjoy substantial public support, there are two issues which we do need to change the public's opinion about:

1) The radically altered nature of a deregulated drug market.

In every debate I have seen on the drug issue, an unstated premise of opponents of reform is that the dominant forms of drug use would intensify.  While we cannot predict its exact nature, we need to assert the radical impact of reform on the forms of drugs that would be available under  a more liberal drug regime.  There would be no doubt that a significant market share would be ceded by refined and synthetic forms (i.e. cocaine hydrochloride and base, and heroin, and fentanyl) to plant forms (i.e. coca and opium products).  The resultant indirect form of administration, decrease in potency and improvement in quality control would lead to a dramatic improvement in the health of drug using populations.

2) Hemp for humanity instead of marijuana legalization.

One of the classic strategies of the advertising world has been to follow up a failed campaign by repositioning the product.  Advocates of marijuana reform should learn from the lessons of Madison Avenue.  Marijuana use has been on the decline for over a decade, and interest in drugs and drug policy has shifted to more potent pharmaceuticals and prescriptions for change.  At the same time, everyone has become an environmentalist, and great concern has been expressed about the future of small farms.  It's become clear that NORML's approach to the problem is not working.  the generals of our loyal opposition ought to pay attention to the guerrilla soldiers of the Hemp Tour and the enthusiastic response of those who learn about the illustrious past and bright future of this plant.

But what about the best vehicle to deliver these messages to the public and the government?  Our current approach is centered on 501(c)3 non profit educational organizations.  These have been successful in attracting media recognition and in per-suing reform through the legal system.  However, this has not bee enough to reverse the generally hostile attitude of the media, and the legal battles have been limited in scope and extremely lengthy in duration.

It is in the area of political action that these organizations have really failed to make an impact.  This is due to their tax status (although IRS regulations do allow a limited percentage of revenues to be used for lobbying), their legal and academic bases of support and perhaps most important, the enormous amount of money necessary for effective political actions.

Candidates for public office have been reluctant to deal with the issue of drug policy reform, and can be expected to do so until we build public support for our positions.  It's a cliche, but one that bears repeating: politicians are followers, not leaders (present company excepted of course).  Libertarian candidates can always be counted on for support, but many supporters of drug policy reform are reluctant to embrace the rest of the Libertarian platform.

Initiatives seem to offer more of a chance of success than candidate campaigns.  States with the initiative process could do well by trying to focus on some of the issues above.  However, recent attempts in this area have been marred by the same lack of money and professionalism that has plagued other candidates and organizations.

This leaves us with the prospect of a lobbying organization.  This is our best bet for accomplishing political change.  This type of organization could focus on defeating bad bills and nurturing the seeds of change, instead of hoping that educational activities will motivate isolated individuals to stem the tide of repression on their own.  Individual support is essential for financing and communicating with legislators, but coordination is necessary to track events and devise effective responses.

A lobby would also be better able to form alliances with other political supporters of our agenda, who have themselves learned the power of political action committees and lobbyists.  It's hard to mobilize people around public education.  We need specific goals that can be operationalized to measure their success or failure.

Although I believe a lobby would be the best organization to achieve our goals, sheer inertia and lack of funds may prevent it from happening.  there are several ways we can improve our political effectiveness through existing organizations.

Probably the most important thing we can do is stop viewing other drug policy reform organizations as competitors.  At a meeting at the national NORML officie, I heard references to NORML people or CAN people.  While certain people may belong to one or another organization, we should view organizations by their mission, not their membership.

We should actively share information between organizations, especially membership and prospect lists, with agreed upon security and privacy precautions.

We must reaffirm that our ultimate goal is to change the drug laws, and to that end provide activists at the state and local levels with the information and support they need to accomplish their goals. Almost as important is focusing on defeating bad laws and initiatives (i.e. Proposition 2 in Alaska).  Until we're consistently winning these battles, we can't hope to pass our own agenda.

We might consider pooling our resources to fund media and lobbying initiatives that would not be feasible for individual organizations.  And until we can alter the drug laws, we should publicize the right of jurors to acquit drug offenders through the use of the jury veto (also known as "jury nullification").  Fully informed juries played a key role in undermining Prohibition and setting the stage for the passage of the 21st Amendment.

Washington is a seductive environment - not only for those in power, but for the loyal opposition as well.  The Beltway mentality has a way of detaching those caught in its grasp from the grassroots of support that supply them with money and power.  If we are to succeed, those of us in the capital must judge themselves by the peace they can conclude - partially fought and negotiated in Washington, but for the rest of the country too - and given the predominance of the United States in international drug policy, the rest of the planet as well.

574 Albermarle Place, Cedarhurst, N.Y.  11516-1004

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Doug Greene: Colleague, Advocate, Friend, Dead in Subway

We met at an April 1988 N.Y. Libertarian Party gathering in White Plains, N.Y. where I recognized his name from an article he wrote for the (now defunct) R.B. Wilks newsletter Burning Issues, where he includes advocacy for legalizing Opium and Coca leaf, providing a welcome contrast to the standard group thought of thinking of "heroin" and "cocaine" concentrated white powders...

Douglas Greene: March 13, 1967 - June 4, 2019

Longtime Empire State NORML member and tireless cannabis legalization advocate Doug Greene died in a subway accident on June 4. He was 52.

By Steve Bloom

Longtime Empire State NORML member Doug Greene died in a subway accident on June 4. The Daily News reports that, according to the police, "a man was fatally struck by an A train after he fell onto the subway tracks on the Upper West Side Tuesday night," adding that he was hit by "a southbound express train at the 72 St. station near Central Park West just before 10:45 p.m."

Though the police did not identify the victim, reports of Greene's death started appearing on his Facebook page around 5 pm on June 5. A transit police representative has since confirmed that it indeed was Greene.

Greene attended the George Clinton concert at SummerStage in Central Park with fellow activist Todd Hinden on Tuesday night. After the show ended at 10 pm, they walked west and left the park, crossing Central Park West, and parted ways after a fun evening of music, Hinden on bicycle and Greene on foot. The last time Hinden saw Greene was when he descended the stairs into the 72 St. subway station at approximately 10:30 pm.

The station is on the A, B and C lines. The A express passes the station on one of the middle tracks. The B and C local trains make stops in the station. Greene, who lived in Cedarhurst in Nassau Country, likely planned to take the C train (or the A if it was running on the local track) to Penn Station where he'd board a Long Island Railroad train to Cedarhurst, a 50-minute ride.

What happened to Greene on the subway platform is unknown, though police said they "did not suspect foul play." The possibilities are several: he suffered a heart attack or stroke, he fainted, he slipped, he was pushed, he had a confrontation with someone on the platform or he committed suicide. It's also unclear if there were any eyewitnesses.

The 52-year-old advocate had a 30-year history as a tireless champion for cannabis legalization. I met him in the early '90s at NORML conferences and other marijuana events. Doug was a student of drug policy.

While he held a day job at a law firm that specialized in bankruptcy, Doug's passion was legalizing marijuana. With a bill currently in the state legislature, he worked incessantly to convince the oppositon to change sides. In January, he was featured on the cover of Crain's New York Business and quoted in the article.

Recent negativity around the prospects for the legislation, the Marijuana Taxation and Regulation Act, steeled his resolve. Doug reminded me several times recently to not to buy into the general belief that the bill didn't have enough votes. If it does pass, it should be named for him.

In addition to his legislative pursuits, Doug was a ardent vegan and a music fan. We attended several concerts together, including the Ziggy Marley/Steel Pulse show last August at Pier 17. I was also at the Clinton show, but we didn't run into each other. I last saw Doug at the NORML FORML fundraiser on May 29.

He's survived by his sister and his mother.

I will update this article when more information is made available.