of the enormous continuing mega boondoggle of Tobacco Mercantilism Against Coca
We're not going to move forward with your proposal below on agricultural policy because I believe it's still not a clear connection for many of our attendees, and doesn't touch on their main work areas. As for the topic of coca, we won't be having an entire panel, but if you come to the conference I think you'll find that it's addressed on a couple of them, primarily panels with a South / Latin America focus.
Drug Policy Alliance- August 15, 2011
Coca is the stimulant described as the safest natural stimulant plant, whereas Tobacco the most dangerous- taking some 100 million plus lives during the first century of mass manufactured Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes.
Coca was what the U.S. government via its United States Department of Agriculture targeted for its sale and use as a "Tobacco habit cure" and its growing popularity particularly through the southeastern U.S. where Tobacco predominates politically and agriculturally.
Coca was what the British medical journalist Anita Bennett informed the 1993 'Latin America' where she met myself and Ira Glasser who then expressed an avid interest in her notation of the utility of coca tea to women for easing childbirth (relaxing the muscles of the vagina) and hence reducing the tragic instances of brain damaged newborns. http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/it-was-criminal-mercantilism-to-protect.htmlhttp://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/coca-as-tobacco-habit-cure.html
The DPF to its credit approved the COCA ’95 panel proposal that I moderated with speakers Roger Rumrill, Anthony Richard Henman, Dr. Jorge Hurtado (by video) and UCLA’s Dr. Ronald K. Siegel
, which was that breakout panel session’s 2nd best attended (including Ethan Nadelman and Jacob Sullum), bested only by a California topic specific panel at a conference held that year in Santa Monica, California. It also deserves credit for publishing Anthony Richard Henman’s paper in its 1989 conference compendium, as well as my papers "The Ever-changing Ever confused Popular Conception of Cocaine"
; "Cocaine Prohibition Water or Gasoline [for treating the flames of drug abuse]"
; and "Cocaine Conversion- Onwards to Coca!"
respectively in 1990, 1991 and 1992 (though strangely in contrast to the 1989 Henman article, don’t appear within the DPA online library). Likewise, I appreciate being placed upon the DPF cocaine panels in 1991 and 1992, plus Ethan Nadelman’s decision placing me upon the Foreign Trade panel that latter year.http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/11/17-years-ago-just-say-whoa.htmlhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BZaPGsbLyHM/SvewiqJjdEI/AAAAAAAAEZg/z7ipdDes87M/s1600-h/City+Paper+JSW+December+18+1992+p26_1280.GIF
Yet ever since the DPF/DPA has seriously stalled out on the Coca issue.
It stopped holding a cocaine panel at each year’s conference (even as continuing otherwise regarding MJ). It has relegated coca to a sub-topic within a generally female ‘Latin America’ panel.
It denied every paper proposal that I have made to them after 1992, and have published or presented precious little regarding coca- a rare exception being an excellent 1st place awarded paper in the DPF’s brief (1996-2000) ‘Student Paper Competition’ – appearing as a presentation hand-written into the schedule at the conference itself and thus not appearing in the printed conference materials.
It denied my 1994 panel proposal- ‘Coca- Turning Over a New Leaf Towards Reducing Health Care Costs’
, that had the support of Harvard’s Dr. Lester Grinspoon, who phoned DPF President Arnold S. Trebach, only to be rebuffed.
It denied all of my other proposed panels regarding Coca as well as the broader issue of the drug war’s perversion of drug forms and modes of use, such as that in 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’.
Should not that alone have qualified Coca as ‘HARM REDUCTION’?
It’s undeniably bad to ban whole Coca- ensuring that cocaine is only available in highly concentrated forms.
It’s undeniably worse to ban Coca- ensuring that the far larger markets in general for stimulants is denied Coca, while the stimulant that is the one that those pushing the early 1900s Coca ban were evidently most concerned with protecting- the one that’s the most politically established in the U.S., and the one most dangerous: Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco.
Yet drug policy reform organizations utterly neglect this broader issue of this Panama Canal construction era Agricultural Mercantilism (the U.S. took over the Canal Project in 1903 and completed and opened it in the year of the Harrison ‘Narcotic’ Act banning ‘Coca, cocaine, etc”- 1914- with the USDA exploring the domestic feasibility of Coca, Opium and other drug crops agricultural potential
): the shameful history of the USDA-AMA-APhA Tobacco-Pharma alliance
embodied by such figures involved
with this trio of special interests described as a ‘knight showing great prowess’ Harvey Washington Wiley, and the subsequent decades many cigarette advertisements in medical journals. Though the DPF/DPA accepted by 1999 ‘History Panel’ proposal, I, along with the Coca-cocaine issue and the early politicking of the AMA-APhA and USDA would be excluded, including at the subsequent such panel in 2003.Harvey Wiley Resume
Given their relative safety this has been an absolute disaster for health care costs:
In each major category of intoxicant used by our species, there appear to be one or two drug plants that researchers have noted, are more controllable, hence safer, than all the other plants or synthetics in that category. Coca leaf stands out among all the stimulants, licit and illicit, as the easiest to control and the one least likely to produce toxicity or dependency.
And they would know that in 1914:
... there are tens of thousands of people in the United States who die every year from the excessive use of cigarettes; and yet I find Senators still pulling away at the cigarette as though t were a perfectly harmless thing. I believe the Senator will agree with me that there are many thousands of people who die from what is called tobacco cancer, a cancerous growth affecting the throat from overuse of cigars; and we find perhaps 60 percent of the Senators pulling away at the cigar as unconcerned as though no one were dying as a result of these cigars...
U.S. Congress, Senator Porter James McCumber (R) North Dakota, August 15, 1914
Nonetheless our governments have proven their loyalty to this apostasy from common sense with the descent into and continuation of this criminal mercantilism primarily for the sake of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco that came in the early 1900s.
The United National World Health Organization reports that Tobacco cigarettes have cost some 100 million premature deaths during the 1900s.http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/tobaccos-relative-toll.html
How would finally beginning to highlight this suppression of coca/protection of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco not qualify as HARM REDUCTION?
Illustration: 1900s sales chart of cigarette production spikes at the times of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 drug control statutes.
By banning Coca, and protecting Tobacco- conveniently ‘grandfathered’ by the 1906’s Act’s exclusion of its USDA based jurisdiction [!] over substances not included in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia – allowing its mass sale in a fashion that would otherwise be considered adulterated and misbranded for the unlabeled additives, and reckless for such as burn accelerants to boost sales while increasing house fires, the authorities have not merely created the black market perversion of Coca into concentrated cocaine, rather they have additionally suppressed and denied a highly useful stimulant, for the sake of allowing the rapid spread of the most dangerous and physically addictive stimulant that’s politically established in the U.S. This has undeniably tremendous costs economically in lost productivity, lives and enormously increased medical costs.
The DPA must not pretend that such does not qualify as “HARM REDUCTION”.
Holding this panel proposal “Agricultural Mercantilism” would be excellent as a start.http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/agrilcultural-politics-of-drug-policy_27.htmlPanel Proposal for 2009 Drug Policy Alliance International Conference
Agricultural policies gave forth the existing drug control regimen; this dates back to its milestone of the 1906 U.S. Pure Foods and Drugs Act granting the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) the power to ban a substance from interstate commerce via declaring an ingredient as deleterious to health, and of limiting its jurisdiction to substances within the U.S. Pharmacopoeia
from which Tobacco was conveniently dropped 1 year earlier in 1905.
Since the U.S.D.A. was established to promote agricultural commodities, its empowerment would have severely unappreciated detriments regarding the market protection of the most intrinsically toxic yet domestic agricultural commodity of Tobacco from the foreign 'menace' of least toxic Coca.With the public health thus beneath mercantilism, the consequences have been thus severe for numerous people, entities and interests.Potential Speakers:
Sharon Y. Eubanks , former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, and the lead prosecutor for a R.I.C.O. act suit against the major cigarette companies by the U.S. department of justice, who in 2005 resigned in response to the Bush administration’s commands to reduce the proposed settlement by 90%. She gave interviews to CBS about this.http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-administration-accused-of-rigging.html
Marialuisa S. Gallozzi is a food, drug and insurance company attorney. Since 1987 she has been with the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling, long established with food and drug law. In 1988, she was assigned “primary responsibility for advising the [Drug Policy] foundation” according to a letter dated March 1990 appearing in the 1988-1990 Biennial Report of the Drug Policy Foundation (a reform organization) by its Presidents Dr. Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin Zeese, crediting her with giving them valuable advice.
Her activities include that upon GMO plant made pharmaceuticals, as a panelist of “Perils and Pitfalls of Plant Based Pharmaceuticals”
with her paper “The U.S. Food Industry’s View of Plant Based Pharmaceuticals”
, viewable here.
Her published papers include "Inactive Ingredients in Over-the-Counter Drug Products," Regulatory Affairs FOCUS magazine
She is prominent within insurance law, so described as:
Rising star Marialuisa Gallozzi enters the tables in recognition of her vast experience in asbestos, silica, pharmaceutical and other coverage claims, in addition to insurer insolvencies. Described as “an expert on London insolvency matters and schemes of arrangement,” she works with US, Bermuda and London market insurers and captive insurers. Peers consider her “an intellectually strong negotiator and adviser with excellent judgment.”
---About Covington & Burling:
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.htmlIt was initially founded in 1919 by Judge James Harry Covington, a former U.S. Representative from the 4th District of Maryland (1909-1913) who was in office shortly after the enactment of the 1906 Food and Drugs Act, through the time leading to the 1914 Harrison Act, and who was appointed as a Judge by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.
It became Covington and Burling with the addition of Chicago lawyer Edward Burling, who was married to Louise Peasley, a daughter of railroad tycoon James C. Peasley of the Burlington Railroad also president of the National State Bank (of whom another daughter Mathilda was married to Frederic A. Delano- uncle of later U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914), who moved to Washington, D.C. to become chief counsel of the Shipping Board during World War I, following U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's government’s nationalization of the railroads and seizing control of the shipping industry. (The early 1900s brought a sharp increase in federal law-making, not limited to the 1906 Food and Drug Act and the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.) The founders of Covington & Burling foresaw the pervasive effects of the forthcoming era of federal legislation, regulation, and taxation. In 1919, they sought to create a firm in the nation's capital that could advise and represent corporations located anywhere in the nation or the world on a wide range of legal issues.
Today our Washington office has over 300 lawyers representing clients according to the highest standards and fulfilling the firm's strong commitment to public service. Our lawyers are supported by nearly 100 paralegals and by information management specialists in the library, and in the litigation and practice support, and technology departments. http://www.covingtonandburling.com/offices/washington/description.html This firm’s oldest practices is its presence in food and drug law,
with its web-site in 2005 listing 18 attorneys at its Washington, D.C. headquarters – 9 partners including two former Chief Counsels to the Food and Drug Administration (including Marialuisa Gallozzi, ”assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the [Drug Policy] Foundation”
), and 9 associates – who devote all or a major portion of their time to this practice, plus 6 additional lawyers at its offices in London and Brussels. According to the firm’s site at http://www.cov.com/practices/oid52689/description.html Covington & Burling has a large and comprehensive food and drug law practice. The Firm’s food and drug practice began at the Firm’s founding in 1919 with representation of the National Canners Association (now the National Food Processors Association and still a client).
From that time, the Firm’s practice has steadily expanded to include all types of food and drug work and work relating to scientific and technology research. Past and present clients for which the Firm serves as general counsel or principal outside counsel include the Animal Health Institute, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Bakers Association, American Forest & Paper Association, Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Corn Refiners Association, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, International Dairy Foods Association, National Food Laboratories, National Pharmaceutical Council, Consumer Healthcare Products Association and Toxicology Forum.
This work includes political organization on behalf of its clientèle industries. According to the firm’s site at
http://www.cov.com/practices/oid6266/description.html The Firm was actively involved on behalf of major clients in connection with each important statutory revision in the federal food and drug laws
, including the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and its major amendments, including —
the Pesticide Amendments of 1954,
the Food Additives Amendment of 1958,
the Color Additive Amendments of 1960,
the Drug Amendments of 1962,
the Animal Drug Amendments of 1968,
the Medical Device Amendments of 1976,
the Orphan Drug Act,
the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984,
the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988,
the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1988,
the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990,
the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990,
the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992,
the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994,
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994,
the Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996,
the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996,
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, and
the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. Our lawyers have advised or represented clients in a wide range of legislative matters at both the federal and state levels. We have prepared draft legislation and analyzed legislative proposals, including interaction with Congressional members and staff.
We have prepared Congressional testimony and advised clients in connection with committee and subcommittee hearings. Our lawyers have advised clients on compliance with new statutory enactments, and represented trade association clients in rulemaking proceedings to implement new statutes. As the 104th Congress undertook to address the issues of general regulatory reform and more specifically FDA reform, firm lawyers played a major role in conjunction with food, drug and cosmetic industry trade associations and other clients in analyzing and drafting legislative reform proposals, and in preparing testimony for presentation at committee hearings. http://www.cov.com/practices/oid6266/description.html
Covington & Burling’s clientele amongst pharmaceutical and agriculture related firms includes:
GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto, Merck, Warner-Lambert (Pfizer), Eli Lilly, The Balli Group
Covington for decades has been a preeminent antitrust advisor, regularly providing U.S. and EU antitrust advice to Rx and OTC pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms around the world in connection with mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, litigation, R&D collaborations, licensing transactions and other strategic transactions. We have been home to four former heads of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and two Chairmen of the ABA Antitrust Law Section - a unique distinction among law firms actively practicing in the antitrust area.
Unmentioned in the firm’s web site is its long established activities as one of, if not unquestionably in every way the world’s largest, legal representative of such agricultural-commodity related industries in one way or another, of pharmaceutical and Tobacco (cigarette) interests.Covington & Burling also represents every major American tobacco company, including Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, as well as the now-defunct industry trade association, the Tobacco Institute. The firm helped develop and coordinate the Whitecoat Project, an attempt to keep controversy alive regarding the dangers of passive smoking by hiring scientists to back up and attempt to give credibility to the tobacco industry's point of view that second-hand smoke is not a health risk.According to internal tobacco industry documents analyzed in 1999 by Public Citizen and the Center for Justice and Democracy, Covington & Burling was a principle organizer and funding conduit for tort reform efforts on behalf of the tobacco industry. Covington & Burling has acted as a pipeline to direct money from its tobacco industry clients to tort reform groups in the states and across the country. For example, in 1995, the tobacco industry allocated nearly $5.5 million to the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), more than half of ATRA’s $10.2 million budget according to the Associated Press.8A memo written by a Covington & Burling partner that year reveals the extent to which the law firm helped orchestrate the tobacco industry's tort reform agenda. Written to the industry’s "Tort Reform Policy Committee," the memo called for an expansion of efforts, including a "communications program … intended to enhance our ability to enact favorable legislation at both the federal and state level." The memo noted that "these media activities, to be effective, must not be linked to the tobacco industry."Covington & Burling is also one of the largest contributors of pro bono work for a wide array of causes from Big Brothers/Sisters to medical marijuana (Therapeutic Cannabis), and has provided valuable legal assistance in a number of such cases, including that by that firm’s Partner Dr. Michael Michelson. This includes work for various tax exempt status Foundations dedicated to some issue or another, including the Drug Policy Foundation. Philanthropic and Grant-Making Organizations.
The Firm’s lawyers are regularly sought out to advise on the creation, reorganization and funding of private foundations (including family and company foundations, as well as foundations affiliated with associations or other tax-exempt entities), supporting organizations and public charities and the use of charitable contributions to accomplish specific client goals. In addition, charitable remainder and charitable lead trusts, which require analysis of the federal and state income, gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax consequences of each structure, are used to achieve clients’ charitable, tax and family goals. Our clients include the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, the Packard Humanities Institute, Verizon Foundation and UTC Foundation. In one instance we represent affiliated grant-making organizations worth well in excess of $1 billion.
Covington & Burling’s practice with foundations is a long established connection, with the name Frederic A. Delano (Edward Burling’s bother in law by marriage), appearing amongst the 1909 founders of the Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C. (with Daniel Coit Gilman, Cleveland H. Dodge, Andrew Dickson White, and Elihu Root, Darius Ogden Mills and William E. Morrow), and in 1921 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was incorporated by Frederic A. Delano, Robert S. Brookings, Elihu Root, who became its first president, John W. Davis, Dwight Morrow, James T. Shotwell. Frederic A. Delano’s name appears as the 1924 founder of the influential Washington D.C. planning group “Committee of 100.”---
The Drug Policy Alliance grossly undersells drug policy reform by limiting 'Harm Reduction' more simply towards things as clean needles and safer crack pipes.Coca Come Back