Sunday, January 28, 2024

Snorted Crack (cocaine SULFATE, instead of cocaine HYDROCHLORIDE)

 pp 308-312 Intoxication, by Dr. Ronald K. Siegel, 1989


 “Peggy Sue went square dancing. I saw the pictures and I still couldn’t believe it. She was sitting in my office, passing photographs to me from the family album, and explaining what had happened. Peggy Sue was seventy-three and she looked very tired; the pictures told the story of better days. In her youth she had been a champion square dancer; Bill, her husband and partner, had posed with the trophies to prove it. He still moved with grace as he guided her through the examination procedures. They now lived in a retirement village where Bill took care of Peggy. He helped her out of bed in the morning and tucked her in at night with all the tenderness of a lovesick boy. Peggy could only smile back. Sex was too difficult. 


As I examined her, I realized she needed Bill’s help. Her hands were gnarled; her limbs were stiff; and her joints were red and swollen. She could move only short distances with a slow shuffle. While she was able to hold a glass of water with two hands, turning a doorknob was impossible. She needed help in the bath and with grooming. None of these signs of advanced rheumatoid arthritis caused me to disbelieve her story of square dancing. It’s just that she got out of her wheelchair to do it. 


The medical records told of Peggy Sue’s battle with arthritis for almost twenty years. She had received all the conventional treatments, including gold shots, anti-inflammatory drugs, even surgery on her hands. She sought unconventional steroid treatments in Mexico and was desperate enough to try every new diet, exercise, or massage that promised to ease the progressive stiffness and pain. Then she moved to a desert clinic in California where she received Esterene. Several weeks later, Peggy Sue danced. 


The charts in her file showed an increased range of motion as muscle and joint functions became less restrained. Her strength improved, the inflammation and swelling of her joints subsided, and all the examining physicians agreed that Esterene had greatly improved Peggy’s condition. Although she never looked forward to taking the Esterene—she thought sniffing was a most peculiar way to take medicine—Peggy Sue had to agree she felt better, suffered less pain, could move her neck and body more freely, and could do without the dozen aspirins she normally took each day. Even when she was told that Esterene was a stimulant, she still didn’t get a rush from the drug. Bill was the one who seemed excited, though, especially now that his lover could once again get into bed on her own. 


I remained skeptical. Peggy Sue’s rising out of the wheelchair seemed like an act straight from a faith healer’s tent show, not the result of medical treatment by a national arthritis center, and Esterene was, after all, a slick trade name for crack! If used intranasally, crack, which is cocaine free base, would be ever so slowly absorbed by the mucous membranes of the nostrils. This would eliminate the rush that Peggy Sue denied experiencing, but would it also prevent abuse? There were over two hundred other people in the Esterene treatment program that I had been asked to evaluate. I was hopeful that detailed study of these patients would provide the answer. 


Esterene had been used for more than two years on hundreds of patients, yet I was unable to find a single case of abuse. Some patients had been taking as much as 750 milligrams per day with no ill effects. The program had not proven that Esterene was a cure for arthritis—at best it was only acting as an analgesic and psychomotor stimulant—but it did show that use of a drug, even one with the addicting power of crack, did not have to lead to abuse. It was important to understand how such use could be achieved. If crack could be used without abuse, then maybe any drug could be used safely. 


The key to this safety was the ultra-slow absorption of cocaine free base from the nasal membranes. Unlike the smoking of the drug, which results in almost instantaneous intoxication, the effects from topical application were like a time-release capsule. The nose functioned as the capsule and the cocaine free base slowly leached out into the blood. Users experienced mild intoxication but one that seemed to last for hours and didn’t need frequent boosts. It was the same effect achieved by chewing coca. Another aspect of safety seemed to be the medical set and setting for the Esterene use. Users were good patients who were under the direct supervision of physicians; they followed their doctor’s orders and their Esterene labels”


I didn't have long to wait for a group of such users to surface for study.  Sensationalist press stories about the Esternene program had prompted many people to experiment with intranasal cocaine free base.  Some were cocaine users attracted to the report that snorting the free base was safer than snorting cocaine hydrochloride.  Others were elderly people like Peggy Sue who were seeking treatment for arthritis or depression.  The state had halted the Esterene program and disciplined the physicians, and as a result people started whipping up home brews of the drug.  The authorities were understandably worried.  Cocaine free base was not a miricle cure for rheumatoid arthritis, but if people started believing it and feeling better we might have a new population of illegal drug users to worry about: senior citizens!  They could be readily be sold on the idea of cocaine as on Coca Cola, which was originally intended as a cocaine tonic for elderly people who easily became tired.  We would no more be able to raid retirement homes looking for little old ladies sniffing cocaine than to bust into cancer clinics where patients sometimes received other unconventional drugs.

I found a total of 175 users in the greater Los Angeles area.  Surprisingly, most were not experiencing problems.  They reported anti fatigue effects, as well as the suppression of chronic pain and discomfort, but they failed to experience problems.  They reported antifatique effects, as well as suppression of chronic pain and discomfort, but they failed to experience the rapid and reinforcing euphoria that gives cocaine its addictive (sic- instead say something as hyper alluric, stop reusing a given term in different ways, that simply masks the true addictiveness of caffeine, heroin, and above all NICOTINE) potential.  Unlike daily cocaine hydrochloride users who repeatedly dose themselves throughout the day, (into a toxic maniac cycle) people sniffing cocaine freebase administered the drug infrequently and do not show signs of dependency.  Some had financial or legal problems associated with their use; several also experienced loss of appetite or sleep.  yet their ability to maintain daily doses as high as 1,000 milligrams (?!) without severe dysfunction suggested that safe use was possible even in non medical settings.

The major conclusion of the Peggy Sue story is not that Esterene should be made available by prescription (???).  Rather, we see that the people can use certain forms of intoxicants.  They can do so safely on the streets as in the clinics.  How?  In the prescriptions of Esterene the doses of cocaine were as carefully fixed as they had in the coca tea bags.  Even street users, without the constraints of a medical set or setting, were handling these preparations.  Conversely, the uncontrolled doses of street cocaine or smokable crack can easily lead to abuse if not toxicity itself.  The apparent safety of the Esterene emphasized the dictum that a major difference between drug use and abuse is one of dose.

But our culture also views the difference in terms of medical approval.  Peggy Sue was engaged in the medical pattern of use.  Her crack was a medicine, therefore acceptable.  When used by street users for the purposes that are not approved by medicine, the pattern of use is called non medical, therefore unacceptable and immoral.  Their crack is a poison.  Yet the street users were medicating their health, with the same relative safety that Peggy Sue and other clinical patients enjoyed while medicating the symptoms of arthritis.  The resulting intoxication (??? "toxic"???) in both cases was medical, not nonmedical.

The medical purpose of intoxication is easier to understand if we think of intoxicating drugs as adaptogens.  Technically, an adaptogen is a substance that helps people adjust to changes in their physical or psychological environments.  Adverse fluctuations in their physical or psychological environments.  Adverse fluctuations in physiological, chemical, biological, or neurological systems may be corrected by some adaptogens.  Thus, if the body or mind is tired, an adaptogen perks up functioning.  Conversely, if one is overly excited, another adaptogen may temper the arousal (perhaps different coca leaf alkaloids) perks up functioning.  Some adaptogens not only correct imbalances but perform a normalizing function by helping even healthy humans increase their resistance to potential changes .  (Imagine applying these last few sentences to the matter of the effects of the different Coca leaf components and in different combinations, let alone the broader matter of food industry sciences).

Many adaptogenic substances are of plant origin and the most famous is ginseng, a plant that can rival cocaine in costs for some exotic preparations.  Ginseng has been used worldwide to help the body perform under stress, correct fluctuations in blood pressure, even repair damage from radiation.  Many people find it has a mild stimulating effect and also use it for fatigue, depression, and sexual indifference.  But this is really no different from the reasons chosen for using the other drugs, such as coca.  Proportionately, there is no greater incidence of abuse among the millions who use ginseng than among the comparative number who consume coca.


These findings do not mean that we should outlaw ginseng any more than we should legalize coca (???- let us not dare challenge the status quo).  What they show is that coca, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and the hallucinogens are just as much medicines as ginseng when used to help us adapt to changes in our physiological or physical environment.  (???Tobacco??? What is Dr. Siegel writing about, alien species from outer space with different types of bodies - physiologies - that respond different than humans?)  Intoxicating drugs (intoxicating rather than potentially toxic in some higher dosages?!) medicate the needs of the forth drive for a change in state or mood.  Whether we use coca tea to help us cope with high altitude sickness, or cocaine to fight the gloom and despair of consciousness, we are still medicating our needs.  The purpose of intoxication serves a legitimate medical purpose.

The solution to the drug problem of our species begins when we acknowledge the legitimate place of intoxication in our behavior.  We must ensure that the pursuit of intoxication with drugs will not be dangerous.  How can we do that?

Saturday, November 11, 2023

How The N.Y. Times Reported on Cocaine "THE BANEFUL DRUG" (while giving INJECTIONS a virtual free pass)


May 26, 1886



 Elmira, N.Y., May 25. - The victims of the cocaine habit, Dr. A.S. Hazen and daughter whose wild ravings at the Delavan House yesterday created such a furor among the guests and people in the vicinity, were seen by a TIMES representative today, after they had received treatment at the City Hospital during the night and morning.  Although seeming rational, the couple presented a sorry sight and showed clearly that their brains had undergone slow but sure poisoning by the persistent experimenting of the doctor on himself and daughter.  Hazen in his best spells, when balanced by cocaine, seems well satisfied with the result of his experimenting, and says that he will soon abandon the use of the drug; but this seems to be a delusion, as he is considered hopelessly lost to the cocaine habit.  Dr. Hazen stated that he had gradually used morphine while experimenting, and that the habit of using that drug grew so strong on him that his cravings for it were unbearable, and that in order for him to break himself of the habit and appease the pain sometimes caused by his in-satiate longings for morphine he began taking cocaine.  He was cured of the morphine habit, but he found the cocaine habit fastened upon him in its stead.  He then thought he would continue to see what the results would be, and he paid dearly for it.  He claims that he had demonstrated that those who have been discussing the drug did not know what they were talking or writing about, and said that he will himself write a work on cocaine and its effects on the human system.  He expected to take his daughter to Wellsborough, Penn., this afternoon and then go to Sharpsville, Penn., himself.

About noon Constable Fean repaired to the hospital, and on an attachment that had been sworn out by Bauch & Lomb, of Rochester, attached all of Hazen's belongings.  The firm brought suit before Justice Roper, of this city, to secure about $250 worth of goods that they had sent to Hazen on approval while he had his residence in Indiana.  The principle part of the goods sought after was a fine microcrope and a number of valuable objectives.  The microscope was found and taken possession of by the officer, but the objectives could not be secured.  Hazen had pawned goods with Watson, the East Waterstreet pawnbroker, to the amount of $38 50, and had invested a portion of the money in cocaine.  At one of the railway stations the constable also had levied on several boxes of household goods that had been shipped as freight.  Hazen had been running about the city considerably during the day, and both he and his daughter seemed to continue rational under the influence of the drug, which they use constantly to keep them braced up

No mention of the route of administration- how taken?



CINCINNATI, July 3, 1886 

For some time past the peculiar actions of Dr. J.W. Underhill, one of the most prominent physicians of this city, have excited the gravest apprehensions among his friends.  The neighborhood in which he lives has been almost terrorized by his eccentricities, but his brother physicians have hereto refused to state the exact nature of his trouble.  It is now developed that Dr. Underhill is a victim of the cocaine habit, being the third authenticated case on record in the United States.  The eminent doctor, who was twice elected Coroner, and was for several terms President of the Cincinnati Board of Education, has been in poor health for two or three years.  He went to the Bermuda Islands in the Winter of 1884, and returned in an improved condition.  While suffering from lung disorder the doctor contracted a desire for opium, which he used immoderately.  Upon the supposition that cocaine would cure him of the opium habit he began to use it, but it seems to have had a contrary and more horrible effect.  The exact time when Dr. Underhill began the use of cocaine cannot be ascertained, but it certainly dates back three or four months.  He is now a pitiful sight.  The dreadful drug has reduced him in fresh until he is a mere skeleton.  The pupils of the eyes are greatly dilated, and his whole appearance is indicative of a man under intense mental strain and excitement.  On several occasions during the past two weeks the unfortunate physicians has shown a disposition to be vindictive when deprived of his drug.  Persuasion has been useless, and coercive measures were not resorted to on on account of the high standing of the family and the unpleasant notoriety it would give them. Yesterday the doctor skipped out of his house while unobserved and went to a livery stable, where he hired a buggy and drove toward the country.  Shortly after his nonappearance Mrs. Underhill left her home in great alarm, but could find no trace of him.  It is certain that he had no trace of him.  It is certain that he had been taking large portions of cocaine hypodermic ally, and he was frenzied from the effect.  He had of late entirely neglected his practice, which brought him an income variously estimated at from $10,000 to $15,000 per annum, and his former patients awed by his horrible condition have avoided him.  A searching party was sent out, and he was found and brought home.  The publication of the distressing facts connected with this unfortunate affair will create a great sensation in this city.  Friends of the family say that the doctor will be committed to a private asylum next week.  At times he is quite rational, and after the influence of the drug has temporarily subsided it leaves him weak and debilitated.  Dr. Underhill is about 52 years old.


Only a single mention of the route of administration - taken hypodermic INJECTION!.

Zero mention nor discussion of the pharmacokinetics of taking cocaine or ANY stimulant by injections.

The Headline should have read "Cocaine Injections" - or "Hypodermic Cocaine".

Yet instead the N.Y. Times calls cocaine "the baneful drug", while giving a free pass to the idea of taking it by injection.   

Cocaine occurs naturally in Coca leaves.  People who consume Coca leaves are taking cocaine indirectly as Coffee drinkers take caffeine or Tobacco users nicotine.

By virtually ignoring the mode of administration - hypodermic injection" while labeling cocaine as "the baneful drug" The New York Times surrendered to caffeine/nicotine protectionism, and marked a surrender of journalistic integrity.

This is what the U.S. government did with misrepresenting cocaine by framing it as a drug taken by injection.  See:


Saturday, October 14, 2023

Opium and Coca Thrown Under The Bus


Mis-regulated to continually kill- Tobacco-Pharma Protectionism Masquerading as a "War on Drugs"

Lets face it.  Drug policy reformists had a bad idea of strictly focusing upon Cannabis, while saying nothing about any sort of legalization for Opium and Coca- the natural plant substances and products approximating their natural potency, simply resting upon fear of these substances select alkaloids in highly concentrated evermore problematic forms, even refusing to address ridiculous sentences, as a minimum of 1 year incarceration for possessing a dime bag with residue of cocaine/heroin etc.

The Drug Policy Alliance (previously the Drug Policy Foundation) started out as a great idea, especially for disseminating new ideas and perspectives, but was alas hobbled, particularly by tobacco industry connections, to with Ira Glasser and the Washington DC law firm of Covington & Burling.  To wit, the D.P.F. Conference Paper Compendiums.  Went from good to great 1989-1992, to subsequently crash and burn.  To wit the D.P.F. conference itenery, like the panels.

Now consider that the D.P.F. was founded in 1986, having its initial international conference the following year in London, and then in 1988 in Washington, D.C.- the year that Covington & Burling announced its pro bono program was going to advise the D.P.F. on corporate and tax matters- according to a dated March 1990 letter by D.P.F.'s Kevin Zeese and Arnold Trebach in the 1988-1990 Biennial Report.

D.P.F. had been founded in response to the great 1986 mass media hyperbole over the substance "cocaine" - an alkaloid found in minute amounts in Coca leaves - as are caffeine and nicotine.  Now, no one would expect to mess with powder caffeine rather than say drink Coffee or some other caffeine containing beverage, let alone the far deadlier nicotine.  Yet the mass media acts under a dictate that discussing cocaine must always assume zero need to discuss the drug's form - a plant product or an ultra concentrate.  So when a University of Maryland graduate who was accepted to play for the Boston Celtics, Len Bias, ODs from drinking a cup of tea laced with 1000 milligrams cocaine, the media simply reports that he died from cocaine (with zero mention of dosage), and the news industry starts singing in chorus the "need" to further increase cocaine prohibition statute violations.  So, both establishment parties demand this new legislation.  The 1986 Act, establishing the new mandatory minimum prison sentences for "crack" cocaine- a mass media coined term for cocaine sulfate (rather than cocaine hydrochloride), which the media sensationalized as the means for cocaine via the lungs- smoked or vaporized- for a far more toxic-alluring habit, though in fact is also the alternative means to take cocaine by inhalation (snorting), but in an infinitely more useful way, whereas snorting the hydrochloride yields a rapid absorption and subsequent crash, snorting the sulfate yields a considerably slower absorption, making it comparable indeed superior than drinking Coffee!  So once again the mass media helps popularize more dangerous ways of taking cocaine while ignoring those considerably safer.

So, where was the D.P.F. in going beyond Cannabis/Marijuana?  Kevin Zeese had come from NORML - National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws - so where and what would be the attention and focus regarding opiates, starting with good old Opium, and especially - given the Len Bias response - cocaine?  With people in problematic user relationships with such substances in the artificially concentrated forms guaranteed by prohibition - the 1914 Harrison Act set the practice of banning both the key active alkaloids and the respective parent plan, thereby eliminating safe, measured dose retail products, in favor of a contraband market of ultra concentrated key alkaloids without quality assurance.  So instead of things as the true original formula Coca-Cola (about 1 1/2 milligrams cocaine per fluid ounce), and Vin Mariani (7 milligrams cocaine per fluid ounce, sold in 17 ounce bottles made with an extract of 2 ounces of a variety of three types of Coca leaves), or ridiculous stuff as encouraged by trade-tax codes favoring Coca Wines that were "medicinal"- with that phrase being defined as a minimum of 30 milligrams of cocaine per fluid ounce! (and made instead with a coca alkaloid paste.  A 1905 NYS Pharmacy Law draft shows support for the idea of limiting the allowable amounts of cocaine, at 1/8th a grain, about 9 milligrams per fluid ounce- the same amount the Harrison Act allowed for heroin content.  Nevertheless, the U.S. government embarked upon a strident political campaign to absolutely ban cocaine (re: Coca), with zero allowable cocaine content.  This came about 1904, with the deliberations leading up to the U.S. Food & Drugs Act.  This was just after the pair of attempted shakedowns of Vin Mariani (the January 1898 & 1904 Papal Gold Medles to Vin Mariani inventor Angelo Francois Mariani (December 17, 1838 -  April 1, 1914) as a benefactor to humanity for making quality Coca available around the world, and of the U.S. acquisition of the project to construct the Panama Canal, which was completed in 1914, year of the Harrison Act, in time to block the canal for easing Coca leaf shipments to north Atlantic markets.  Research clearly shows how "medical" interests subverted any sane rational use of Coca, initially by marketing 30 milligram per fluid ounce "Coca" (chalk cocaine) Wines/Tonics", along with cocaine injection kits!  Subsequently then by not really addressing the massive differences in potency and effects, indeed just the opposite.  To wit The New York Times front page headline "Slaves to Cocaine Habit" about what ought to have been headlines "Victims to Cocaine INJECTIONS" - as if it were thus safe to inject caffeine or especially nicotine.  Medical guilds as the the American Medical Association, American Phamaceutical Association all insisted that state legislatures pass legislation to ban cocaine.  No mention of coca leaves, nor coca leaf extract, nor methods of preparation, storage, nor production.  And zero interest in setting allowable/permissible amounts (like the 1905 NY Pharmacy proposal for up to 9 milligrams cocaine per fluid ounce, versus the 30+ seen starting during the mid 1880s.  NO interest in any allowable amounts!  With cocaine/Coca natural/agricultural stimulants, the matter was not about simply prohibiting products with increasingly problematic, especially injections, and with that, mainly the cathhrr sniffing powders.

Rather, the supposed "medical" lobby was working with the establishment of protecting key commodities, above all, Coffee, Tea, and most disgustingly, Tobacco.  Coca as a stimulant had been examined and advocated as a substitute, even for alleviating the assumptions of nicotine withdrawal.  And it is that use, Coca as a "Tobacco Habit Cure" that was clearly the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s concern.  See their 1910 1910 USDA Farmers Bulletin article "Habit-Forming Agents- their sale and use a menace to the public welfare"

So given the relative health effects of Tobacco versus Coca, as well as the effects of prohibition and mis-regulation, we ought to have had an emerging political demand for stopping this criminal action of market subversion, starting with repealing the ban on cocaine, with restrictions based solely upon matters of content/potency.  For instance, Coffee is legal.  Caffeine powder is also legal, and can be sold on the internet to anyone, without any requirement of medical training.  And people have killed themselves unwittingly by treating purified caffeine like say salt or sugar.  Yet no one calls out in favoring a ban on caffeine.  So where would be a movement to not simply just reduce penalties, but to re-legalize with a comparably safe, regulated formula/content retail products based upon Coca leaf?

I began attending the Drug Policy Foundation international conferences in 1989.  Found nothing on Coca, though did find it included a pair of panels, each addressing opium/opiates, or cocaine.  And the cocaine panel was inclusive, so panelists could talk about Coca leaf, as well as snortable or smokable white cocaine.  And the November 1989; Drug Policy 1989-1990 A Reformer’s Catalog”,
“Coca: an Alternative to Cocaine?”by Anthony Richard Henman

The early 1990s Drug Policy Foundation was great opportunity for overlooked matters relating to the whole "war on drugs" modern day pharmacological inquisition.  So for 1990 D.P.F. conference, I submit a paper, The Ever Changing Ever Confused Popular Conception of Cocaine, which they publish.  For 1991 I submit a paper, and offer myself as a panelist, and am placed upon the cocaine panel.  I do likewise for 1992, and am again placed upon the cocaine panel, plus a second panel "Is America Exporting Its Problems."

These were my own authored papers that I submitted to and which were published by the Drug Policy Foundation 1990, 1991, & 1992:

 November 1990; “The Great Issues of Drug Policy”
“The Ever-Changing, Ever-Confused Popular Conception of Cocaine”, by Douglas A. Willinger

November 1991; “New Frontiers in Drug Policy”
“Cocaine Prohibition, Water or Gasoline…?” by Douglas A. Willinger

November 1992; “Strategies for Change”,
“Cocaine Conversion: Onwards to Coca” by Douglas A. Willinger

These were the panels were I was a panelist:

 - 1991 "The Cocaine/Crack Scene” held Saturday, November 16, moderated by Bruce K. Alexander, Simon Fraser University; Patricia Erickson; Steven B. Karch, forensic drug abuse adviser, Berkeley, California; Randy Salekin, graduate student Simon Fraser University; Douglas Willinger, graduate student, School of Justice, Law and Society, American University.

- 1992 "Cocaine and Trade” Moderated by Craig Reinarman, University of California; Bertha K. Madra, PhD, Harvard Medical School; Douglas Willinger, graduate student, American University; John Lindsay-Poland, Fellowship of Reconciliation; and Bruce Alexander, Simon Fraser University; as well as “The Americas: Is the U.S. Exporting Its Problems” Moderated by Ethan Nadelmann, J.D., PhD., Princeton University; Christina Johns. Ph.D. Alabama State University; Julius A. Gylys, Ph.D., University of Toledo; Patricia Castana, Journalist, Columbia; Doug Willinger, graduate student, American University.

Yet things changed afterwards.

For 1993, I again submit paper proposals, and I am rebuffed.

Thank you for your interest in the Seventh International Conference on Drug Policy Reform. I have read your recently submitted proposals addressing coca. Unfortunately, due to the large volume of proposals received we cannot accept all of the quality topics suggested for this year’s conference. Fortunately, with your help, coca is one of the subject matters we have more then adequately educated our members on in years past. This year, we must make room in the manual and the panel discussions for the plethora of current issues affecting drug policy. We thank you for your interest and dedication to the reform of drug policy. I hope you will attend the conference in November and encourage you to submit a proposal to next year’s call for papers.

 D.P.F. to Douglas Willinger, June 3, 1993, signed by Kendra Wright, Director of Development,

Notably that was the day the Wall Street Journal had a page one article about Bolivia's campaign to open up a legal market for coca leaf, “Bolivians Are High On a Toothpaste Made From Coca; Exporters Express Resentment That Kinship to Cocaine Is Blowing Their Business”.  I send D.P.F.'s Kendra Wright a copy of that article, along with others from the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post about Coca tea drinkers urine testing positive for cocaine metabolites and the controversies about their loosing job eligibility. I also include an abstract of a study of the medicinal use of coca tea to wean users/abusers of concentrated forms of cocaine. All to no avail.

Things radically changed at the Drug Policy Foundation after 1992.

No more serious conference paper compendium (book) open original independent research.   No more 428 or 391 page D.P.F. conference paper compendiums with over 100 original article.  Whereas previously square bound, 270+ pages with dozens of original article, and now a spiral bound tome 1/2 the size with all articles previously published elsewhere.


And any later cocaine panels are focused strictly upon the matter of crack smoking, so as to exclude any other modes of taking cocaine.

But we get this new panel as the substitution, on "Latin America"- for a while entirely or mainly female panelists - chaired by Colletta Youngers, who was later involved with Carter Center work on Coca.

For 1994, same refusal to place me on a panel, nor publish a paper.

With the sole exception in 1995, the organization refuses to hold any panels for coca, and only hold "cocaine" panels that are exclusively about "crack" cocaine.  Arnold Trebach starts a "student paper competition" which is held 1996, 1997, 1999 and in 2000- its final year, which ended up being a paper on coca.  

Zeese resigned October 1994, while Trebach would be removed by a D.P.F. Board of Directors at the 1997 conference, with Zeese involved in training new D.P.F. interns circa 1999.

D.P.F. becomes the D.P.A. via its merger with the Lindesmith Institute that Ethan Nadelmann founded circa 1992/3.  In its first 15 years, the D.P.A. held zero panels on coca, only doing so for 2015& 2017.  The panelists were all spanish speaking/if not bilingual. ALL were from South America.  And the focus was specifically about the rights of the indigenous to chew coca leaves, but nothing much if at all about expanding licit markets.  ALL the panelists were of course invited by the D.P.A. the George Soros "Open Society Institute", which held the same panel at its headquarters in Manhattan in 2018.  The D.P.A. though would not hold this panel at their 2019 conference in St. Louis, and it does not appear in their 2023 conference schedule.

Over the years, your truly made various panel proposals to the D.P.F./D.P.A., including:

1994-  “Coca- Turning Over a New Leaf in Reducing Health Care Costs.”

- Coca: powder cocaine and crack substitute: making their abuse obsolete.
- Medical Coca: a multitude of valuable therapeutic applications.
- Coca: the safer alternative to licit stimulants, particularly Tobacco.

Presenting Coca in this context is a potent antidote to popular misconceptions that drug prohibition somehow serves the general welfare. People support prohibition, generally viewing it favorably in inverse proportion to the degree they see illegal drugs as "bad." The story of Coca though is a powerful indictment of prohibition.

Here is something clearly good, useful for a variety of medical uses, and as a daily stimulant. Indeed, to a greater extent than medical Marijuana, drug war proponents acknowledge such medical uses of Coca as a remedy for high altitude sickness, other forms of nausea, and stomach aches; indeed recommendations for these uses of Coca are found in virtually any Andean tourist guide book. People in most parts of the world though are generally oblivious to this, focusing instead the situation with concentrated cocaine that prohibition created and sustains. As people have had the drug issue defined in such a convoluted way to misperceive the illicit market in powder cocaine and crack -- cocaine hydrochloride and sulfate -- as the natural situation that would exist without prohibition, ignorance of Coca is crucial towards maintaining popular support for the drug war!

The social importance of this panel is undeniably high. Let the following serve as but one example. The leaf's reported utility to the newly born --- as Coca is valuable to CNS stimulation and improves the blood count of oxygen, giving it to women in labor has immense potential towards reducing the instances of brain damage amongst new borns (see the Saturday newsletter from the 1993 DPF conference) -- alone could save millions of dollars in medical bills and lost productivity, to say nothing of the prevalence of these heart-breaking tragedies sustained by widespread ignorance of Coca's therapeutic benefits.

Given the President's concerns over reducing health care costs and Coca leaf's potential with this, is extremely valuable to the general welfare. Indeed, perhaps this is the drug policy reformists' most powerful approach towards dispelling the false utopic vision now clouding a clear perspective of the drug war, for nobody can dismiss (or ignore) it without appearing down right callous.

The Clintons ought to find this irresistible.

1996- COCA '96: Medical, Legal and Social Considerations for the Next Millennia, with the tentative Speakers: Dr. Ronald K. Siegel, Dr. Jorge Hurtado, Joseph Kennedy, Anthony Richard Henman.

Medically, economically and socially, the situation surrounding the Coca plant is unjustifiable. Respected medical researchers suggest that the leaves of Coca offer interesting medical benefits as an effective and relatively safe medicine and stimulant. Dr. Andrew T. Weil, a proponent of Coca as an alternative to Coffee, particularly for people suffering Gastro-intestinal tract problems, noted in a recent magazine interview that Coca is "very good for any type of stomach or intestinal disorder. It stabilizes blood sugar, treats motion sickness, [and] has a relaxing effect upon the larynx for people who are speakers or singers. It also could be used as an aid to weight loss, because you can chew coca instead of eating a meal and use the energy to exercise. I think it could definitely be useful as a treatment to get people off of cocaine [hydrochloride and sulfate].” Coca's use in treating cocaine addiction-- akin to the use of methadone with regard to heroin abuse - is advocated by specialists such as Dr. Jorge Hurtado of the International Coca Research Institute in Bolivia. (Dr. Hurtado spoke via video at the premier D.P.F. conference Coca workshop COCA ‘95: A Necessary Drug Policy Alternative from Abroad). As can be gathered from numerous readings, unrefined Coca is far safer than other substances -- prescription and over the counter preparations -- employed for similar purposes. Revelations such as these suggest that re-legalizing Coca's international trade would be immensely beneficial from a public health standpoint. Indeed, Coca's historic use as a Tobacco substitute or "cure", along with the government's interesting concerns about this, as illustrated by such government publications as the United States Department of Agriculture's 1910 Habit-forming Agents: their indiscriminate sale and use a threat to the public welfare, in conjunction with their relative health effects, make our "drug war" exceptionally galling.

Towards helping the public understand the Coca issue, this proposed Drug Policy Foundation Coca session shall address Coca leaf as medicine and stimulant, along with the current "war on drugs" now denying the world the myriad benefits of the natural leaf. Tentative speakers include Dr. Ronald Siegel [U.C.L.A.], Dr. Jorge Hurtado [International Coca Research Institute, in Bolivia], anthropologist Anthony Henman, [author, the 1978 book, MamaCoca] and archaeologist Joseph Kennedy [author, the 1985 book, Coca Exotica]. [All the speakers have been informed of this Proposal, and have responded favorably, conditional upon the Foundation providing their registration, travel and accommodation expenses.] As the audience participation and our speakers' lively presentations at the recent COCA '95 panel in Santa Monica suggest that COCA '96: Medical, Legal and Social Considerations for the Upcoming Millennia could be one of the 10th annual conference's more intriguing, if not important, events. It is also intended that the session will include discussion of new directions in drug policy reform advocacy. Discussion is intended to include the effects of the last (almost) one hundred years of government drug policies as well as identifying the policies likely to promote drug abuse by creating more potent drugs such as crack, i.e. banning the unrefined herb Coca and at the same time basing the penalties visited for its possession or sale upon the gross weights of the product. By shifting the entire "coca derivatives" market from Coca tea and Coca Wine "" towards crack, the war on drugs cruelly betrays the public's concerns over the problems of crime and drug abuse.

This proposal is best approved as a plenary panel with a workshop afterwards, perhaps accompanied by a special session for speakers from South America. It is further suggested that this proposal serve as one for the Foundation to include the Coca issue as a part of its mission towards educating the public about drug policy alternatives, via forums on Capital Hill, as we approach the upcoming millennia.

Douglas A. Willinger; (914) 636-8214 (fax)
COCA '96, Joep Oomen; 011 322 733 5708 (fax)


1997-  “Tinctures of Opium, Wines of Coca, etc: Popular, Pre-prohibition Uses of Natural Plants Perverted by Drug Prohibition into today’s “Hard” Drug Plague":

"Hard" drugs - e.g. "heroin" and "cocaine" -- have evoked great fears, leading people to advocate or acquiesce to more repressive and expensive drug laws and drug law enforcement, as if these molecules were necessarily pernicious.

Yet prior to prohibition, opiates and cocaine were widely used as safely as aspirin and caffeine are now. Because we are so conditioned to react to the powder forms of these drugs, we forget that these more direct modes of ingestion -- sniffing, smoking and injecting -- were formerly a relatively rare phenomenon.

Prior to the twentieth century's "war on drugs," most people using these drugs took them in dilute form, whether as raw plant material, or plant preparation of comparable potency. Such plants and their popular preparations, were widely recognized medicinal agents, worldwide.

These substances have long and positive histories predating their criminalization by U.S. federal statute via the 1914 Harrison "Tax" Act and successive laws, and were used throughout the medical community as effective, cheap, and safe treatments for a variety of ailments.

Opium poppies have been taken medicinally for thousands of years, taken topically, smoked and even brewed as a tea, as suggested in Hogshire's "Opium for the Masses.""Cocaine" -- or more accurately, Coca just had many uses. The Extra Pharmacopoeia (the British counterpart to the U.S. Pharmacopoeia) cited Coca as a "nervine andmuscular tonic, preventing waste of tissue, appeasing hunger and thirst, relieving fatigue, and aiding free respiration ... useful in various diseases of the digestive and respiratory organs.... "

Meanwhile, the Wine of Coca, became the most widely praised plant preparation of the time. ’s creator, Angelo Francois Mariani was hailed by Pope Leo XIII as a "benefactor of humanity" for making Coca available around the world- after 40 years of Coca wine distribution."

All of this of course, prior to prohibition. Any honest program of harm reduction in drug use must go beyond the narrow-minded discussion of today's "hard drug problems": heroin and cocaine HCI, to look at Opium and Coca, to reveal the drug war's most intense effects upon drug abuse -- shifting markets to the infinitely more dangerous concentrated substances, while the natural forms are virtually forgotten.

Meanwhile the Drug Policy Alliance failed to truly address the growing drug war threat from the mis-regulation of opiates.  Prior to 2010, opiates became more available with the release of oxycodin and oxycontin- all good and useful pain pills that were oversupplied insofar as their prescribing for continual daily use.  Every single day.  Even if the patient felt no need.  Also, the prescribed dosages may have been or were most definitely excessive.  Such as prescribing a 30 milligram, when 10 would suffice.  This sort of use would of course result in higher rates of problems.  But as can be expected, the dopy authorities make matters considerably worse.  First they replace normal pills that may be sectioned or ground, with hard shell "anti-abuse" formulas, that so end up resulting in a higher dosage administration when people attempt making a smaller dose. 

Then they interfere with the patient-client privilege.  

As they have done with the initial 1914 Harrison Act, where they claimed to allow prescribed medical use "within the course of professional medicine only"- with the definition of that crafted by the regulations made by un-elected bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Treasury.  Meaning the functionaries selected by and essentially through Georgetown University- of the society of jesus - jesuit order, strategic wing of the Catholic Church.

What the government does to consumers of opiates is despicable, and a violation of due process and equal protection under the law.  Imagine placing Tobacco-nicotine regular users under such restrictions.

It has made thing increasingly worse.  They reduce and cut off the pills.  They embark upon harassment suits, even suing Walgreens for simply filling prescriptions.  And upon the manufacturers for simply producing them.

So with licit prescribed pills unavailable, the underground market response by manufacturing its own pills, which lack the quality assurance of the legal manufactured pills.

And fatal ODs have increased on a curve resembling the sales graph chart of tobacco cigarette production following the 1906 U.S. Food & Drugs Act.  As can be expected when the government "drug warriors" attack licit supplies, spawning the inevitable contraband pills of sadly inadequate quality assurance.  Yet what has Ira Glasser and Ethan Nadelmann done to combat such evil policies?

D.P.A. as set under the mismanagement of the likes of Ethan Nadelmann, and Tobacco lobby fund connected Ira Glasser, has undermined its support of "harm reduction" with their continual deference to the entire crony capitalist- mercantilist political order.  All they can talk about is clean needles, crack pipes, and "safe injection rooms (for cocaine?!).  But dare not even mention coca leaves, coca teas, coca wines and other sensibly formulated retail retail products.  As that would conflict with above all perhaps, Tobacco.

This is a clear, text book example of a beneficial substance being denied a legal market, upon behalf of entities in control of the government.

D.P.A. touts "harm reduction" as a slogan, though alas guts it with their continual deference to the entire crony capitalist- mercantilist political order.  Though they claim to be working to carry forward drug policy reform, while actually working to considerably slow the pace of reform.  

Just like the phony reformist smiley faces like Jimmy Carter, alas, who hid behind the made up excuse of the Jack Anderson - Peter Bourne affair to end even any talk of even just penalty reductions.

They are just being faithful to the 1914 Harrison Act ban on any detectable content of cocaine in retail Coca leaf products, in conformance to a Theodore Roosevelt administration period political pact to block Coca leaf in order to facilitate the mass growth in Tobacco cigarettes, post 1906.  The U.S. had acquired control of the construction project for the Panama Canal in 1903.  It would have potentially improved market access for Coca leaves via the considerably shorter shipping distances from the coast of Peru, to north Atlantic markets.  And it would be completed and open to marine traffic in 1914, same year of the Harrison Act.

Monday, September 25, 2023

Drug Policy Alliance 2023 Conference Panels


to be held October 16 - 21, 2023, Phoenix, Arizona


 11:30 am - 1:00 pm

Breakout Sessions

Small Town, Big Drug War: Rural Policing and Surveillance, Resistance, and Resilience | Palo Verde A


Drug Policy That Saves Lives and Transcends Borders: A Conversation with Government Leaders | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.

Illness and Wellness: The Tradeoffs Between Medicalization and Pleasure in Drug Policy Reform | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.

The Disability Carceral State: Disability Justice Informed Abolition | Yucca


Unlearning the Drug War: An Exit Strategy for School-Based Drug Policing | Willow


Breakout Sessions


From the Ground Up: How People of Color Are Building Regulatory Models That Advance Equity in Marijuana Policy Reform | Palo Verde A


Righting Wrongs Worldwide: Drug War Reparations in a Global Context | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.

Psychedelic Decriminalization: Gateway or Hurdle to All-Drug Decriminalization? | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.

Methamphetamine as a Scapegoat: When an Old Drug is Framed as a New Social Problem | Willow


Resisting Surveillance: Movement Implications from Navigating Drug War Surveillance | Cholla


Book Talk: Whiteout: How Racial Capitalism Changed the Color of Opioids in America | Agave



Breakout Sessions


Who’s Body? My Body! The Fight for Bodily Autonomy When the Drug War, Reproductive Justice, and Family Regulation System Collide | Palo Verde A


The Lure of Coercion: Don’t Be Fooled By “Kinder, Gentler” Drug War Tactics | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.

Early Insights and Critiques of Safer Supply Models | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.


Introduction to Drug Policy Reform | Yucca


Environmental Justice for All: An Equitable Approach to Sustainable Development and Climate Justice in Drug Policy Reform | Willow


Who Deserves to Eat? Drug War Exclusion and the Fight for Basic Supports | Cholla



Breakout Sessions


Decriminalizing Personal Liberties and Building Freedom Across Movements | Palo Verde A


For Us, [Near] Us: A Conversation About OPCs, Gentrification, and Resource Allocation in Marginalized Communities | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.

Transitional Justice and Engaging Cartels in Reforms | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.


Policy Advocacy for Academics | Yucca


Reclaiming Our Movements: Building Power Between Drug User and Recovery Communities | Willow


Effective Communications for Difficult Conversations on Drugs: What’s the Secret? | Cholla


Feature Plenary | The Show Room

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.

Lunch | Acacia Ballroom and Event Lawn

Breakout Sessions


Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment | Palo Verde A


After Oregon: The Next Era of All-Drug Decriminalization | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.

Will Drug Checking Save Us? | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.

Lobbying 101 | Yucca


Fundraising Tips, Strategies, and Wisdom from the Field | Willow


Beyond Commercialization: How Regulation Can Create Legal Access and Safer Supply Without Big Business | Cholla


Afternoon Break

Breakout Sessions


Combating Drug Panics in Congress: How Law Enforcement, the Media, and Lawmakers Perpetuate Fear-Based Drug Policy | Palo Verde A


When Facts Fail: The Promises and Perils of Research in Drug Policy Reform | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.


Street-Based Harm Reduction Outreach to Combat “Public Disorder” | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.


We Never Get Anywhere but Mad: Building Racial Equity Caucuses in the Southwest | Yucca


Drug Testing in Employment: Narrative Change and Policy Shift | Willow


The Rise of Authoritarianism and Extremism in the Name of the Drug War | Cholla

Karaoke Night! | The Show Room




Breakout Sessions


The Controlled Substances Act: Reform or Abolish It? | Palo Verde A


The Deadly Game of Drug War Whack-A-Mole: Responding to the Ever-Changing Drug Supply | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.


Cannabis Legalization and the Dangers of Corporate Capture of Emerging Markets | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.


Beyond Housing First: Limitations, Gentrification, and Visibility | Willow


The Pueblo’s Budget Campaign: The Fight to Defund Phoenix Police and Build a Budget for the People | Cholla


Moving Beyond Alternative Sanctions: Assessing the Harms of Non-Criminal Punishment | Agave

Morning Break

Breakout Sessions


For Better or Worse? How Reform and Regulation Impact Drug Criminalization and Enforcement | Palo Verde A


Cashing in on the Drug War in Daily Life: Following the Money and Motivation of the Drug War Profiteers Outside of the Criminal System | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.


Advances in Health and Harm Reduction Services and Persisting Barriers | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.


Drug Policy in Disasters and Other Trying Contexts | Willow


The Intersections of Drug Policy, Policing, and Border Militarization in the Borderlands: Challenging the Dangerous Rhetoric of the War on Drugs | Cholla


Radicals, Resistance, and Rebellion: Lessons from Civil Disobedience and Direct Action | Agave

Lunch | Acacia Ballroom and Event Lawn

Breakout Sessions


Power Structures of Drug Trade Economies | Palo Verde A


Early Insights and Critiques of Psychedelic Regulation: Who’s Benefiting from the Psychedelic Renaissance? | Palo Verde B

Livestream available. Spanish interpretation available.


Immigration in the Age of Fentanyl: How the Overdose Crisis is Fueling Xenophobia and Racism and Undermining Sanctuary Policies in the U.S. | Palo Verde C

Spanish interpretation available.


Reclaiming Justice: Indigenous Perspectives Shaping Drug Decriminalization | Willow

Afternoon Break

Closing Plenary | The Show Room





Saturday, August 5, 2023

Jimmy Carter & The Continuing Drug War

Jimmy Carter, born October 1, 1924, served as the 39th U.S. President (1977 - 1981).

Carter has since involved himself with philanthropy, most famously the Habitat for Humanity, and as well with something called The Carter Center, a 501(c)(3) charity

A non governmental center, The Carter Center has helped to improve life for people in more than 80 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing democracy and human rights; preventing disease; and improving mental health care.

With regard to the area of policy reform regarding Coca, The Carter Center, in conjunction with something called the "International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance" came out with a report DRUG POLICIES IN THE ANDEES: Seeking Humane & Effective Alternatives".  Its listed authors are Socorro Ramírez and Coletta Youngers.  It's opening letter is signed by Jimmy Carter and Vidar Helgesen.

According to this report:

Jimmy Carter wrote in the New York Times:

"In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of
less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full treatment program for addicts. I also cautioned
against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by
saying: “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual
than the use of the drug itself.” These ideas were widely accepted at the time. But in the 1980s
President Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the
treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, towards futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign
97 countries."

NORML - the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws - famously claimed, such as in the following 1977 advertisement in Playboy Magazine, that Carter stated  

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself" ...

Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use.... The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded 5 years ago that marijuana should be decriminalized, and I believe it is time to implement those basic recommendations.

"Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana."

Jimmy Carter

Message to Congress, 8-2-77


From the actual remarks:


Today I am sending Congress a message which expresses my strong criticism about crime, sickness, and death caused by the abuse of drugs -- including barbiturates and alcohol.  The estimated cost of drug abuse in America exceeds $15 billion each year.

I am ordering the attorney general to concentrate on breaking the links between organized crime and drug traffic, to enhance cooperation among all law enforcement agencies and to ensure more certain conviction and quick punishment for those who habitually traffic in drugs. 

We will not have an effective and united federal effort against drugs unless we reorganize the current federal effort, now divided among more than 20 different, often competing agencies.  Therefore, I am directing my staff to study ways to eliminate this duplication and overlap and end the long-standing fragmentation among our international drug enforcement programs.  We must also have international cooperation to control the production and transport of dangerous drugs [and block their movement].

We are making some progress in this already, in part because of cooperation from the governments of Mexico, Burma, Columbia and Thailand.

Heroin sold on our streets is now in such short supply that it is only 4.9 percent pure -- the lowest quality detected since records have taken effect.

In our own country, I am ordering a study of how we can best control the abuse of barbiturates and other prescription drugs -- which cause many deaths -- while not interfering with their legitimate medical use.

We will make further efforts to deal with the problem on the international level. By cooperating with law enforcement officials abroad, by sharing treatment knowledge, by backing United Nations Drug Programs, by helping to find alternate crops for drug producing countries, and by supporting the ratification of the convention on psychotropic substances.

 In our own country, I am ordering a study of how we can best control the abuse of barbiturates and other prescription drugs -- which can cause many deaths - while not interfering with their legitimate use.

I support a change in law to end federal criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, leaving the states free to adopt whatever laws they wish concerning marijuana.

Decriminalization is not legalization.  I do not condone drug abuse, and we will do everything possible to reduce this serious threat to our society.  Federal civil penalties should be exacted as a continued deterrent to possession and use of marijuana

Drug research and treatment programs will also be improved to lessen the adverse impact of drugs on the lives of our people.

It is ultimately the strength of the American people, of our values and our society, that they will determine whether we can be successful in our fight against drug abuse."

Here is another source for Carter's August 2, 1977 remarks

Carter would prove himself a disappointment, by surrendering to the drug war's faux morality in response to a piece by syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, tattling upon White House drug policy advisor Peter Bourne participating in a Christmas 1977 NORML party where powdered cocaine was reportedly taken up the nose.  This report had come from remarks by NORML director Keith Stroup, who tattled upon Bourne for failing to oppose the Carter administration's efforts to poison Marijuana consumers by aerial spraying of Marijuana crops in Mexico with paraquat.

So rather than call for stopping the paraquat program, Carter makes an issue out of Bourne's purported sorting of a few bumps of cocaine recreational-socially at that Christmas party.  Carter fires Bourne, replacing him with more of a drug war toady, Peter Bessinger.  And for his remaining term, Carter reverts to being more overtly deferential to the status quo, as do others as shown with the ending of the various legislative moves in the various states to decriminalize Cannabis.

Seven states had decriminalized during the mid 1970s, but that ended with the Carter-Bourne affair.  Carter was subsequently defeated in his 1980 re-election bid by former California governor (and Chesterfield tobacco cigarette spokesperson) Ronald Wilson Reagan, who served as the 40th U.S. President.  Under Reagan, deference to the drug war was heightened.  DEA budgets shot up.  And at a 1985 CPAC - Conservative Political Action Conference -  we heard DEA administrator Jack Lawn brag about expanded powers to disregard the 8th amendment by seizing people's entire houses for the "crime" of using a house phone for a phone conversation about drug "conspiracy" - e.g. two people discussing a drug deal.  So much for Reagan's lip service to reducing the size and scope of government.

Marijuana policy reform would remain stagnate, as did that with any of the other drugs.  And worse, following the highly publicized June 1986 cocaine overdose of University of Maryland Boston Celtics draft select Len Bias, both the Republican AND Democrat parties capitulated to orchestrated mass media drug war madness by dramatically escalating cocaine related penalties, with their hyperbole over "crack" cocaine- their name for cocaine in sulfate rather than hydrochloride form.

Up to then, contraband cocaine had been available mainly in hydrochloride form for sniffing.  The sulfate form would emerge with the late 1970s fad of instead smoking cocaine which was highly intensely alluric ("addictive" in the psychological sense rather than physical sense like heroin caffeine and particularly nicotine)  Smoking the hydrochloride was inefficient, so using sulfate for smoking became popularized.  But here is the catch, taking the sulfate by sniffing - yes, sniffing the sulfate instead of the hydrochloride was an immensely LESS habituating.  With sniffing the hydrochloride people would have to re-dose every 25 minutes.  But with sniffing the sulfate, ground up into a power, the absorption was significantly improved, that is, slowed down.  SO people got a considerably more useful effect.  One can sniff powdered cocaine sulfate without any need to re-dose for over one or two hours.  Works better than drinking Coffee. But smoking the sulfate gives an immense rush, too intense for work.  And the mass media of course would report endlessly about smoking the sulfate, and sniffing the hydrochloride, while saying nothing about sniffing the sulfate.  The 1989 book Intoxication by UCLA's Robert S. Seigel made a mention of sulfate sniffing for temporary relief of arthritis with successes, yet that would be suppressed by supposed medical boards.  So rather than reporting upon a safer way of taking cocaine, the media sensationalizes and popularizes a more dangerous way.  

The next U.S. President, Herbert Walker Bush further exploits drug war hyperbole with a televised address showing off a bag of cocaine sulfate reportedly purchased from a teenager at Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, touting the usual drug war garbage.  Bush succumbs to some political chicanery with the supposed "independent" candidate H.R. Perot (also a drug war minion, who drops out of the race the day of Clinton's Democrat Party convention formal nomination, only to "re-enter" the day of Bush's Republican Party likewise nomination), who siphons enough votes to elect the next U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton.  Numerous people are thrilled about Clinton's election, since he is of a younger generation far likelier to consume legalized substances, and for being seen playing a saxophone on the Arsinio late night television show (much as the Allman Brothers seduced the many endorsing Carter in 1976.)  But as typical, Clinton likewise proved to be a tremendous disappointment.

As an example, in 1993, a report, commissioned by the U.S. government commissions a report on "Coca Reduction Strategies" - by Harvard University.  And to its credit the report suggests some legalization of Coca for a variety of medical uses, and even as a mild stimulant akin to Coffee (without any mention of Tobacco).  Nonetheless, the Democrat Administration of 42nd U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton buries the report, as it did with a 1994 United Nations World Health Organization report.  So much for all the enthusiasm we saw at the 1993 inauguration with posters and flyers of Clinton and his saxophone.

So where during all this time was Jimmy Carter?

We heard about his involvement with his favored charity Habitat For Humanity.

But what about anything towards alleviating let alone ending the drug war? 

In 2009, there appeared a bit of hope, with Carter's encounter with Bolivia's Evo Morales.

However, what about the recommendations within the above referenced 2011 report?

And what did it call for?

Did it say build upon the 1993 U.S. Congress of Technology Assessment Report Coca Reductions Strategies report, which recommended legalizing Coca leaf as well as a few Coca leaf based preparations?


It simply regurgitates the typical jesuitical glacial approach, by calling for respecting the rights of some indigenous peoples for small scale Coca cultivation for personal traditional uses - as if directed by the very same people behind the George Soros backed "Drug Policy Alliance" (founded in 2000 from the wreckage of the previous "Drug Policy Foundation" - with this D.P.A. too timid to hold any conference panels addressing the Coca issue, except for two identical panels in 2015 & 2017.

See this blog's numerous articles about the Drug Policy Foundation/Drug Policy Alliance, particularly about Ira Glasser and Ethan Nadelmann.....

Friday, August 4, 2023

Theodore Roosevelt- market supression of Coca leaf to protect Tobacco leaf CONSPIRACY?!


Teddy Old Virginia
Tobacco Cigarettes
introduced 1914, year of the U.S. Harrison "Narcotics" Act
(year of this particular label yet disclosed)

According to wikipedia:

Teddy was a Norwegian brand of cigarettes, owned by the multinational company British American Tobacco. Cigarettes were manufactured by the Norwegian subsidiary of BAT (formerly "Dr. J. L. Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik").[1]


Around 1905, after the establishment of the British-American Tobacco Co., (Norway) Ltd. in Oslo, the was an ongoing tobacco 'war.' The conflict was between the American tobacco trust (led by American Tobacco Company's James 'Buck' Duke) and the Norwegian manufacturers. In the United States president Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt was fighting the American trust/enterprise, and he was seen as an ally by the Norwegian manufacturers. In 1914 J. L. Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik honored Roosevelt by launching a cigarette brand named Teddy. The trust war in Norway ended in November/December 1930 when BAT (Norway) was split between BATCO (45%), Tiedemann (45%), DnC (5%) - a bank, Andresens Bank (5%) - a bank owned by the Andresen family, the real owners of J. L. Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrik, when A/S Norsk-Engelsk Tobakkfabrikk (NETO) was established. In November 1933 NETO was completely in the hands of J. L. Tiedemanns.[4][5]

In a commercial shown on early Norwegian TV, Teddy was presented as a cigarette for sportsmen and physically active Norwegians.

The brand was introduced in 1914 and the cigarettes use a Virginia tobacco. The brand was discontinued in 2010


Accordingly, these cigarettes were a reward to Teddy Roosevelt as a reward for his work in opposing the U.S.A. Tobacco trust.  

But why no further elaboration?

Where are the books, magazine articles or even scholarly thesis papers upon any of this?

And why 1914?  Which is incidentally the year of the Harrison 'Narcotics' Act banning whole Coca leaf and cocaine entirely (outside of a NON-refillable prescription), which the United States Department of Agriculture detested as an agricultural commodity market competitor to Tobacco.  See the infamous 1910 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers' Bulletin 393, issued April 29, 1910 "HABIT-FORMING AGENTS: THEIR INDISCRIMINATE SALE AND USE A MENACE TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE" by L.F. Kebler, Chief, Division of Drugs, Bureau of Chemistry, WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910.  Condemns ALL forms of "cocaine" regardless of how low-dilute the dose and the formulation.  And mentions Tobacco ONLY in the context of TOBACCO-HABIT CURES, at page 15.

"There are quite a number of so-called tobacco-habit cures on the market.  All of them are ineffective, and some contain cocain [sic] in one form or another.  Instead of eradicating what is commonly believed to be a comparably harmless habit [!], there is a grave danger of fastening a pernicious drug habit upon the user.  Examples of preparations of this character recently examined and found to contain cocain and cocain derivatives are Coca Bola, Tobacco Bullets, and Wonder Workers.  The Coca Bola is marketed by Dr. Charles L. Mitchell, of Philadelphia, and the Tobacco Bullets by the Victor Remedy Company, now the Blackburn Remedy Company, of Daytona, Ohio, while the Wonder Workers were promoted were promoted by George S. Beck, of Springfield, Ohio."


Of course with the alkaloids cocaine, nicotine and caffeine ALL serving as central nervous system stimulants, each represents its own agricultural commodity - cocaine (Erythroxlyn Coca) - caffeine (Coffee and "Tea") - nicotine (Tobacco, naturally as Rustica, but as by the early 1800s crafted as Virginia "Bright Leaf" - a considerably larger leaf resulting in reduced nicotine content per area of leaf, rendering it feasible for inhalation deep into the lungs and making it far far more habituating).  By the mid 1860s Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco (crafted there and in the Carolinas), became popular. However, such was via hand rolled cigarettes.  It was the 1881 development and patenting of the Bonsack cigarette mass production machines that tremendously facilitated far far greater levels of consumption.  Such machines were industrially adopted during the early and mid 1880s.  Yet sales growth was relatively modest until the period 1906ish-1914, with the imposition of Uncle Sam's bans upon Coca (as well as smoking Opium the importation banned by the U.S. Senate and House in 1908).

The Harrison Act was signed into statute December 17, 1914 by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.

The Opium Exclusion Act (banning the importation of Opium prepared for smoking) was enacted February 9, 1909 under U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (days before being succeeded by William Howard Taft).

The Foods and Drugs Act banning the sale of "mis-branded" and "adulterated" products sold as "foods" was signed into statute June 30, 1906 by U.S. Theodore Roosevelt.  On the surface this appeared sound.  But the devil was in the details.  Firstly, it limited its labeling requirement to its list of substances, without any consistency-e.g cocaine had to be listed, but neither caffeine or nicotine.  This was even so in products clearly containing cocaine, e.g. Coca leaf products.  But not with either Coffee, Tea nor Tobacco, thereby crafting a double standard, implying cocaine/Coca disparagingly, while granting the others a free pass.  Nevertheless, such an inclusion of cocaine in the list of substances that had to be labeled should have logically indicated that cocaine was not illegal, nor any of the other such listed substances, including opium.  Yet numerous manufacturers of beverages failed to so label the cocaine content, fearing loss of sales amidst the growing propaganda campaign by such publications of Colliers Magazine (try researching that publication), with its infamous series of articles bashing the so-called "patent" medicine industry, titled "The Great American Fraud".

Indeed, such writings, published under the name of Samuel Adams Hopkins, were crafted together with the guiding hand of L.Y. Kebler as well as Harvey Washington Wiley, the latter the chief of the U.S.D.A. Division of Chemistry.  BOTH Wiley and Kebler were American Medical Association stooges.  And their official U.S.D.A. writings all bashed Coca leaf, Opium, "cocaine" and "narcotics" while saying absolutely NOTHING concerning Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco, nor cigarettes.

But would not products labeled in accordance with this 1906 Act be permitted?  For instance, the soft drinks, made with Coca leaf extract, and containing about 1 milligram of the alkaloid cocaine per fluid ounce. (The Act was silent upon limits upon allowable amounts, such as how many milligrams per fluid ounce).

Apparently so from any rational reading of the Act, but definitely not so from the position of the U.S.D.A.'s American Medical Association stooges Kebler & Wiley.  Manufacturers of such products sold as "foods" were finding themselves being charged - regardless of the matter of "mis-labling" - with supposed "adulteration".  Under what supposed "argument"?  The supposed "argument" was that the inclusion of the alkaloid cocaine in any detectable amount constituted a supposedly dangerous and deleterious ingredient.  Yet the Act did not ban cocaine.  Nor did it even grant the U.S.D.A. the power the declare cocaine or any ingredient occurring naturally within a non illegal substance (indeed the Act nowhere even mentions Coca leaf).  The Act DID grant the U.S.D.A to declare ingredients that were ADDED.  So the U.S.D.A. was being empowered to declare *added" ingredients, but not those already occurring.  (The Act was silent upon any requirement of scientific backing, credibility nor consistency).

So, how were these U.S.D.A./American Medical Association stooges Kebler and Wiley able to bring prosecutions against Coca leaf extract beverage manufactures when Coca naturally contained the alkaloid cocaine?

Their argument was based upon a false & unsubstantiated supposition upon "injurious" regular and repeated use, hence having them more or less effectively ban the cocaine alkaloid entirely from products sold as "foods".  Products sold as "drugs" would be preserved, hence the subsequent political push to "amend" the 1906 Act, (see April 1912 joint Senate-Congress deliberations, with the participation of a certain new U.S. elective official, Congressman Harry James Covington).

But with the Act not allowing such U.S.D.A. prosecutions for substances occurring naturally within a used parent substance, but only those that were ADDED, how could such prosecutions fail to be laughed out of court?  Such after all was the distinction that caused the failure of their widely publicized and groundless suit against Coca Cola in 1911.  

So why did we not continue to have bottled naturally cocainated soft drinks under federal statute until the February 1, 1915 taking of effect of the Harrison Act?

And why would Angelo Francois Mariani, who produced Vin Mariani Coca Wine - effectively surrender within the U.S. early in 1907?  

Vin Mariani, sold in 17 fluid ounce (one pint) bottles, containing the extract of 2 ounces of a blend of several varieties, yielding a natural cocaine alkaloid of 6 or 7 milligrams per fluid ounce (others had such per fluid ounce content of perhaps 9 milligrams, while unscrupulous competitors sold so-called Coca wines made with either purely isolated cocaine or some chalk like alkaloid paste, with as much as even 30 or more milligrams cocaine per fluid ounce!).  Vin Mariani was developed circa 1863 in Paris, France.  It eventually was manufactured in other locals, including in New York City, with the same ingredients.  The American Medical Association would condemn Vin Mariani during the first year of the existence of its "Council on Pharmacy" (1905).  But that report as published to the public, contained nothing substantive, only for a supposed matter of "misbranding" for marketing implying that it was "French" product (its origin of initial formulation) when it was being compounded with the same components in New York- go figure.

What was the basis for Vin Mariani's surrender, by eliminating the cocaine alkaloid from Vin Mariani produced for U.S. markets, effective May 1907?

And what was the specific reason for Mariani & Company's Jacob Jaros attempt at a meeting with Wiley sometime in late 1908, early 1909?

That Vin Mariani so surrendered indicates that Mariani saw it as a lost cause within the U.S., as the U.S. government was so obviously and blatantly bent upon protecting its cherished agricultural commodity of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco from the market competition of Coca (which was NOT suitable as an outdoor crop within almost everywhere within the continental United States of America due to its inability to survive frost).  After all, the Panama Canal would have undeniably significantly reduced shipping distances of fresh Coca leaves from the western coast of Peru to north Atlantic markets.  The U.S. would gain control of the canal's construction project in 1903, and be completed by 1914, the year of the passage of the Harrison Act.

So are these "Teddy" cigarettes a reward simply for supposedly reining in U.S. Tobacco interests for the sake of Tobacco interests elsewhere?  Or is it also a reward for U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's overt participation for a blatant market conspiracy for banning Coca leaf (as well as smokable Opium) so as to enable the 20th century Tobacco-cigarette explosion?

Did Angelo Francois Mariani attempt a meeting with Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps somewhere around 1904-06?