Friday, May 21, 2010

Letter to the obstensibly 'liberal' Washington Post

On Tobacco versus Coca
Health Effects

April 2, 1992

The Washington Post
Washington, D.C.

Letters to the Editor


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas A. Willinger
April 2, 1992

Letter to the obstensibly 'conservative' Human Events

March 18, 1987

To the Editors:


Re: The October 18, 1986 Human Events article “The Marijuana Litmus Paper Test”

Upon a recent visit to Hillsdale College, I received a stack of H.R.s (Human Events) and was astonished to find an article as this in a publication that states on its inside front page that it is “biases in favor of limited constitutional government, local self government, private enterprise and individual freedom.”

How can you in all seriousness support the intrusive deferral government “war on drugs” (really a war on individuals whom with New right conservatives do not identify) while claiming to support totally contrary values? As a publication professing such a statement do you actually think that the federal government ought to led a government war on millions of individuals with personal you might not personally like? To harass people with sanctions of fines and imprisonment for marijuana of all things is contemptuous in a free nation. The vast majority of users of illegal drugs, like alcohol, have no problems except for the threats posed to them by our government’s intrusive policies. Drug prohibition does not keep products as marijuana or cocaine away from the public, including those who do have problems with the use of these items. Driving the problem underground (the main effect of this asinine Edwin Meese Lyndon LaRouche policy) only makes the matter worse through the laws of contraband: stronger, easier to misuse substances or versions of such substances are imported, such as cocaine versus marijuana, pr pure smokable cocaine (which is dangerous) versus weaker snort able cocaine hydrochloride, or better yet coca leaf, coca tea and Mariani coca wine.

Indeed not only has it not worked, it has made the problem worse.

And one more important thing, drug “warriors” are often total hypocrites, my congressman for instance (20th district, N.Y.) who cries out against even pot decriminalization, yet alone legalization (apparently a $100 or $250 fine for possession for adults is wrong- they should be jailed [and at what cost?]; his main campaign contributor was U.S. Tobacco.

As long as conservatives eschew the constitutional principles of limited government and individual liberty which they claim as being dear when it does not sit their personal preferences- the millions who are torn too disgusted to vote will see them as being little to no better then the liberals who also want to control our lives but for equalitarian reasons as opposed to moralitarian ones.

Please get serious, don’t describe a joker like Carl Turner who makes silly statements as marijuana use causing homosexuality as being “no-nonsense”. Reconsider your view, or add that common “New Right” conservative disclaimer to your statement of principles that reads “traditional values”: translated: our personal preferences over constitution principles when convenient.


Douglas A. Willinger

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Green Party Candidate for Criminal Mercantilism

Natasha Pettigrew is a 30 year old law student, seeking the nomination of the Maryland Green Party for U.S. Senate

Thanks for your email; first, my statement was to convey that corporate criminals must be punished for their behaviors just like the person who gets time for possession and while drugs can harm, the only crime here is intent (to distribute). Why should those who knowingly created a scheme that they knew would fail and who the people ultimately bailed out go unpunished?

With regards to your question, do I support the War on Drugs? This is a war that society has been battling for at least 70 years. Who even remembers the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and has it been effective? We can ask those who were at Woodstock! What is the process for collecting this tax and how successful have we been? Where is the money and what is being used for? Fourteen years later the Boggs Act established mandatory minimum federal sentences followed in 1952 by the War on Drugs. The Mexican Border was closed to combat drug traffic, and drug abuse became "Public Enemy Number One!"

The DEA are the foot soldiers in the great war and then there was "Just Say No!" Let's not forget Senator Joe Bidden's 1994 provision that allowed for federal execution of drug kingpins because the problem was just that bad!! To be honest, I am 1000% in favor of every effort lodged against illegal/illict drugs but the war on drugs is a marketing campaign slogan much like "two all beef patties on a sesame seed bun!"

Seventy years, the DEA and many campaigns later in a very small community where I spent my summers they are plagued with HS dropouts, drugs and now, gangs and graffitti. The drug lords are mostly all HS dropouts who cannot read or write if given several hundreds of thousands of dollars would not be able to find Mexico, Jamaica, etc on the map. How can they facilitate moving large quantities of drugs by plane or other means of transportation?

I believe that people must realize that the folks at the top control drugs and determine with what speed, if any, this "war" will be fought. I believe that easy access to drugs in certain communities is planned and intentional. In this small county above I could erase and remove all drug elements so why can't the highly skilled and trained DEA?

Further, even the most recent drug czar from President Obama's administration has called for an end to the war on drugs' phraseology recognizing the need to rebrand. As he rebrands, I hope he gets serious about this major problem and declares victory in a time much shorter than the past seventy years.

Hope this gives you some insight into my perspectives on the major problem with drugs.

Natasha P

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Douglas Willinger <> wrote:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Douglas Willinger <>
To:;; Montgomery County <>;
Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 12:40:50 PM
Subject: Re: [TPGreens] Fw: [Village Green] Natasha Pettigrew (in her own words) [1 Attachment]

"Corporate Criminal Crimes must be punishable by law just like the teen who robbed an ATM of $2 thousand and went to jail or being caught with drugs with the intent to distribute comes with jail time and while it is wrong fewer people are impacted so perhaps jail time until the economy rebounds and everyone is working."
So is this saying that we ought to continue with the criminal mercantilism drug statutes that protect the trade in adulterated, mis-branded cigarettes while perverting coca leaves to crack?

Please see the tags regarding coca, tobacco and criminal mercantilism at my blog "Freedom of Medicine and Diet".

In particular, please examine the archives from March and April 2008, and April 2010.

Douglas A. Willinger
Freedom of Medicine and Diet
Green Party candidate assumes that substances are bad because they are illegal and says NOTHING about the basic human liberty of the right to choose one's diet and medicine.

She also appears to show zero interest in thinking out of the box, e.g. learning about Cannabis, Coca and Opium, and how the drug war is essentially agricultural food and drug mercantilism..

I recommend NOT wasting votes upon the 'Green' Party and sticking for the most part with Libertarians.