Covington & Burling's Continuing Involvement With Drug Policy Organizations

Longtime Tobacco-Pharmaceutical Legal Powerhouse



http://www.cov.com/washington/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/21/marijuana-researchers-get-pro-bono-representation-in-dea-lawsuit/

(excerpt: dated Wednesday, September 21st, 2011)

"The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) has received free legal representation in a lawsuit against the DEA over a license to grow marijuana for federally regulated research.

The D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling LLP, one of the foremost law firms representing the pharmaceutical industry, has offered pro-bono legal representation to the research group to appeal the DEA’s August 15 final order in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. MAPS estimated the law firm saved them $175,000 in legal costs.

The DEA rejected University of Massachusetts professor Lyle Craker request to obtain a license to grow marijuana to study its potential medical uses, claiming that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can be the only one to supply marijuana for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated research."

The Drug Policy Alliance conference schedule devotes significant time to Marijuana, but with weirdly little for Coca , (even in 2011 the year Bolivia denounces the 1961 'narcotics' conference, with Covington & Burling, already known for advising the DPA predecessor DPF); doing significant work upon Marijuana, but nothing as far as I know regarding Coca, despite the tremendous potential for good.

The Covington & Burling website (Health page, early 2005) acknowledged the law firm's work with the Drug Policy Foundation and other organizations involved with drug policy reform:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html

Commonwealth v. Hutchins. We represent Mr. Hutchins and the interests of similarly situated patients for whom the medical use of marijuana is necessary, in a variety of state and national initiatives aimed at decriminalizing such use. We work closely with the Drug Policy Foundation, the Marijuana Policy Project and sympathetic members of Congress and selected state legislatures. American Civil Liberties Union - Drug Policy Litigation Project. We were asked to assist the ACLU in preparing a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency in support of an application by a professor at the University of Massachusetts for registration to manufacture or distribute controlled substances for the purposes of a scientific study on medical marijuana. Specifically, they requested that we opine on the consistency of the application with the United States' treaty requirements pursuant to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. We have continued to provide advice on related aspects of this matter.

That the firm would use the present tense

"We work closely with the Drug Policy Foundation, the Marijuana Policy Project and ... the American Civil Liberties Union Drug Policy Litigation Project"

in 2005, five years after the Drug Policy Foundation was superseded by the Drug Policy Alliance (by merging with the Lindesmith Institute in July 2000), appears to suggest that Covington & Burling works closely with the Drug Policy Alliance.

Notably, the Drug Policy Alliance has continued the Drug Policy Foundation's post 1992 malevolent malaise towards the Coca issue, and that'elephant in the living room' continuing mega boondoggle - public health disaster of pro Tobacco anti Coca Agricultural Mercantilism, embodied in U.S. statute since the 1906 Food and Drugs Act.


http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/09/continuing-powerhouse-alongside-federal.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2011/09/continuing-powerhouse-alongside-federal.html

Holder - Breuer Law Firm Long Involved With Drug Policy

Obama Justice Department Appointees from powerhouse food, pharmaceutical and cigarette industry law firm of
Covington & Burling
that advised the anti drug war Drug Policy Foundation

Obama's selection as the U.S. Attorney General: Eric Holder

Holder, yet another ex-Clintonite, was Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and US Attorney General for the Washington DC area. He is an extreme drug warrior who believes that harsher and longer sentences should be enacted for minor crimes such as marijuana use and prostitution. This, in spite of the mounting evidence that the "war on drugs" is a failure and has amounted to nothing more than a war on black people, which also appears to be it's original intent. He wants harsher sentencing for marijuana, which will impact American youth more than any other demographic, and it will specifically impact African-American youth, who are already targeted to be shuffled off to America's new plantations, US prisons.

From a Wall Street Journal comments board:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/01/12/fdas-light-scrutiny-of-investigators-financial-ties/

Eric Holder the Attorney General nominee, has been a pharmaceutical company prostitute working for many companies in their defense. he will come before the Senate on Thursday and let us hope that Senator Grassley or Specter among others will crucify him in his defense of Medicaid fraud. He , for example was the lead defense lawyer for Merck in their huge fraud case involving marketing practices and billing. How can make over 2 million per year defending corrupt Big Pharma, and then be expected to be an agresssive advocate against Medicaid fraud. Get rid of this creep and get someone with no ties to PhRMA….Holder would be the worst choice imaginable at the same time the DOJ is trying to clean up the billions of dollars bilked from taxpayers illegally from Pharmaceutical companies. Go get him Grassley-we will be watching.

Comment by Pharmacleanup - January 12, 2009 at 1:14 pm

From The Washington Independent:

http://washingtonindependent.com/22858/eric-holder-the-2-million-plus-ag-nominee

Here’s an interesting tidbit from yesterday’s Legal Times: Attorney General-designate Eric Holder last week revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he earned more than $2.1 million in 2008 as a partner at Covington & Burling. That’s even better than the average partner at the firm, who earns a measly $1.175 million. And it soars high above the $186,000 salary Holder would get if he’s confirmed as attorney general.

2009 is projected to look even better, even if Holder is no longer at the firm, Legal Times reports. Holder expects to rake in $2.5 million in deferred compensation, some other work he did at the firm this year, and a severance payment of $1.3 million. (That’s severance for quitting?!)

Holder listed his net worth at $5.7 million.

How did Holder make all this money at the firm? By representing huge corporations when they got into trouble. As I’ve reported before, Holder’s clients at Covington included the National Football League, the pharmaceutical giant Merck, the big banana Chiquita Brands, UBS Financial Services and Bank of America. He’d also registered as a lobbyist for Global Crossing and other companies.

Having earned millions of dollars defending the world’s wealthiest corporations doesn’t make Eric Holder unqualified to be attorney general; one could argue that having been both a prosecutor and a defender, he knows how both sides work and can be particularly effective.

On the other hand, it does underscore the circles he travels in and who he might be inclined to do favors for in the future.

From his Covington & Burling bio:

http://www.cov.com/eholder/

"The Feds Increasing Focus on the Pharmaceutical Industry," Update Magazine 2001, Issue 6 with permission from FDLI (11/30/2001), Co-Author

Obama's selection for heading the Justice Department criminal prosecution division: Lanny Breuer

From his Covington & Burling bio:

http://www.cov.com/lbreuer/

Lanny Breuer, co-chair of Covington’s White Collar Defense and Investigations practice group, specializes in white collar criminal and complex civil litigation, internal corporate investigations, congressional investigations, antitrust cartel proceedings, and other matters involving high-profile legal, political, and public relations risks. Mr. Breuer represents corporations and individuals across a broad array of subject matters including corporate accountability, fraud and abuse, securities investigations and litigation, food and drug regulation, medical device health and safety, antitrust, conflicts of interest [bold added], environmental crimes, foreign corrupt practices, national security, and export controls. Mr. Breuer has been recognized as a leading litigator, including being named a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers. Washingtonian Magazine recently described Mr. Breuer as “one of the cleverest in Washington.”

Representing several major corporations before Congress, including a leading Internet company in a hearing concerning its foreign business activities, major pharmaceutical companies targeted in oversight investigations, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in a national security investigation, and a large Wall Street firm in the Enron hearings.

· Washingtonian, named one of thirty “Big Guns,” the top lawyers in Washington (December 2007).

· Best Lawyers in America, selected as a top white collar criminal defense, health care, corporate governance and compliance law attorney as well as a top commercial and product liability litigator (2009).

The law firm: Covington & Burling:

James Harry Covington

Edward B. Burling

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 (and 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.

---

From Coca: Forgotten Medicine

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.html

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.8

A 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.”

---

Covington & Burling's work with foundations has included that with the Washington, .D.C. based Drug Policy Foundation, founded by American University professor Arnold S. Trebach with Kevin Zeese.

Covington & Burling has advised the Drug Policy Foundation.

1988-1989 Drug Policy Foundation Biennial Report- March 1990 Letter by D.P.F.'s Trebach and Zeese

The Drug Policy Foundation was created by people who were convinced that the excesses of the massive worldwide war on drugs were an evil that had to be openly opposed by good men and women everywhere. While the founders of the organization were Americans, they had sympathetic colleagues in many countries who urged tem on and joined with them in this effort. These citizens and officials constitute what may be termed what may be termed the loyal opposition to the war on drugs. They support the worldwide effort to control drug-related crime and corruption, to combat predatory criminal syndicates, to ameliorate the tragedies of drug abuse, and to improve public health. But hey oppose many of the extremist tactics and counter productive strategies now used in this effort.

The Foundation believes that peaceful methods offer the best hope for curbing drug abuse while preserving the constitutional rights of all. Through research, education, legal action, and public information programs, the Drug Policy Foundation hopes to delineate rational models of effective drug policy reform for the nations of the world. The first step is to convince the public and policy makers that opposition to the drug war is decent and humane.

Contrary to claims made by drug warriors, we in the reformist movement are not “pro-drug”. We are concerned about the negative health effects of drugs, but we see the problem aggravated by a prohibitionists policy. Drug prohibition provides criminals a thriving black market that generates obscene profits. These criminals uses their money to buy guns and bribes police. Overworked police fight a loosing battle with the drug gangs.

We in the movement are alarmed at the harsh, mandatory penalties for drugs. In some places, a rock or two of crack will land a user in prison for at least 10 years

The Foundation is not a legalization organization, even though many in the Foundation support outright legalization. The Foundation is concerned with a variety of issues, including education the public about the effects of drug use, preventing the spread of AIDS among drug users, allowing the medical use of currently prohibited drugs, allowing doctors to prescribe drugs as they and their patients see necessary, expanding the availability of drug treatment, creating more effective and less corrupt police forces, preventing the erosion of civil liberties, ensuring the proper use of drug tests in society, and developing social, instead of criminal, controls to prevent drug abuse.

The Foundation is an education, research and legal center. It publishes books, articles and newsletter; rewards people for outstanding achievement in the field of drug policy; responds to media and scholarly information requests; presents regular forums and annual international conference; and represents in court those wronged by the drug war.

The Foundation is a charitable corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia and section 501 ©(3) of the U.S Internal Revenue Code. Thus, all contributions to the Foundation at=re tax-deductable. To maintain its independence, the Drug Policy Foundation neither seeks nor will it accept government funding. The Drug Policy Foundation extends thanks to these persons and organizations who provided vital support during 1988-89. Special thanks go to our three largest contributors: the Chicago Resource Center and its president, Richard Dennis, and executive director, Mary Ann Snyder; the Linnel Foundation in Boston, Mass., and the late Robert Linnell; and Anne “Petey” Cerf of Lawrence, Kan. Their support was and continues to be invaluable to the work of the Foundation.

While the Drug Policy Foundation has outstanding counsel in Kevin Zeese, the leading Washington law firm Covington and Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to corporate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington and Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”

Notably, with the DPF's work involving drugs that were banned ostensibly based on beliefs that such substances were too risky, the attorney-adviser has her fields of promenance in practices in food, drug and insurance industry law.

http://www.cov.com/biographies/detail.aspx?attorney=11360&morepubs=true

Marialuisa ("ML") Gallozzi is a partner in the insurance coverage and food and drug practices.

Her insurance advisory practice focuses on: negotiating settlements of insurance coverage disputes; advising policyholders on the insurance aspects of transactions; negotiating and analyzing terms of policies, including clinical trials, patent and other specialty coverages; and representing policyholders in claims against insolvent and runoff insurers in the United States and abroad, and state guaranty funds. She also provides food and drug advice to manufacturers of medical devices, over-the-counter drugs, and dietary supplements. [bold added]

Ms. Gallozzi is a managing partner for Legal Personnel at the firm, with responsibility for associate issues. She served as an Associate Ombudsperson and co-chaired the summer associate program from 2004 to 2006.

[Her activities include:]

• Advised Sotheby's on placement of its E&O coverage.
• Represented a major American food supplier in complex novation transaction involving workers compensation policies.
• Advised a clinical trials organization on coverage under its clinical trials policy.
• Represented a multinational corporation seeking coverage for an employee dishonesty claim involving a foreign subsidiary.
• Represented a medical device manufacturer in dealings with FDA concerning a product recall and subsequent investigation.
• Represented a financial services company in recovering for its property and business interruption losses caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Negotiated numerous settlements with domestic and foreign insurance carriers securing coverage for silicone breast implant, IUD, heart-valve, asbestos, and environmental claims.

Honors and Rankings

• Chambers USA, leading Insurance - Policyholder lawyer (2007-2008)
• Guide to the World’s Leading Insurance and Reinsurance Lawyers, Legal Media Group/Euromoney (2006)
• The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers (2007)

Publications

• "Climate Change: D&O Issues for Policyholders," The Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin (February 2008), Co-Author
• "Insuring Against Disaster: Coverage for Product Recalls," The Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin (October 2007), Co-Author
• "Climate Change: Issues for Policyholders," The Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin (May 2007), Author
• "Policyholder Alert," Covington E-Alert (1/11/2007), Co-Author
• "London Market Issues: The Formation, Funding and Future of Equitas," Journal of Insurance Coverage (Autumn 2002), Co-Author
• "Representations and Warranties," Environmental Claims Journal (Autumn 2002), Co-Author
• "Inactive Ingredients in Over-the-Counter Drug Products," Regulatory Affairs FOCUS magazine (August 2002), Author
• "Introduction to Environmental Risk Policies," Environmental Claims Journal (Winter 2001), Co-Author

Presentations and Speeches

• "Settlement Credits and Excess Insurers," Mealey’s “All Sums: Reallocation & Settlement Credits” Conference (November 2005)
• "The Food Industry’s View About the Development of Plant-Made Pharmaceutical and Industrials," USDA’s Agricultural Outlook Forum: Ensuring a Healthy Food Supply (February 2004)
• "Insuring Biotech Risks," American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar (March 2003)

She is highly regarded 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.”

"[She] focuses on representing policyholders in claims against insolvent insurers, an area where she is “really making a name for herself.”

No elaboration is given about what Trebach or Zeese term the 'valuable advice' that she gave the Drug Policy Foundation.

Obama AG From Covington & Burling

Covington & Burling - Bio - Eric H. Holder Jr.

Obama Asst AG Breuer Also From Covington & Burling

Covington & Burling - Bio - Lanny A. Breuer

Drug Policy Foundation Washington, D.C. Legal Connection

Drug Policy Foundation Was Advised By Covington & Burling Food and Drug Attorney

Covington & Burling - Bio - Marialuisa S. Gallozzi

Voice, Song and Speech - Mariani Coca Wine

From Vin Mariani advertisement appearing in the 1884 book
Voice, Song and Speech
by Lennox Browne, Emil Behnke
MARIANI COCA WINE

The wonderful properties of Coca are daily becoming more known, both as a general tonic and as a special fortifier of the throat and voice.

Coca (Erythroxylon Coca) is not, as is often supposed, Cocoa, but a shrub very much resembling Tea. It grows wild in South America, and is cultivated in Bolivia and other parts especially lor its leaves, which contain its Tonic and Ktitoralirt properties. Various methods have been tried for extracting these properties, but nothing has been found to succeed so well as a maceration of the leaves in wine.

A generous Bordeaux, of particular vintage and special character, has been employed in its manufacture. The reasons for its selection are that it contains only just the proportion of alcohol absolutely necessary to extract and hold in permanent suspension the mucilaginous, resinous, and essential atoms of the leaves, besides which it contains in its natural state small quantities of Iron and Tannin, which add to its general properties, but do not derange the digestive organs, or upset the system by the unpleasant astringent properties of most tonics. Further reasons are, that the wine when thus prepared is of very agreeable taste and pleasant aroma, and that it still contains the comforting and nutritious properties of a good Bordeaux. Unlike Quinine and many medical wines it can be taken for any length of time without fear of inflammation, or injury to the gastric juices. The beneficial effects of Vin Mariani have already been noticed in medical works, where it has been recommended to actors, barristers, clergymen, orators, singers, and to all who make great demands on the throat and voice.

EXTRACTS FROM MEDICAL JOURNALS, 1881.

COCA WINE (not Coco*)

Forms a very agreeable, and, according to the clinical experience of physicians in France, as well as in England, a very useful nervine stimulant. The value of Coca as an element of economy, as Manaud has judiciously named it, and as a similarly active agent in restraining waste, has been insisted on by Sir Robert Chrislison and many others. Coca wine is largely prescribed and used in France ; and it has been found generally valuable as a remedial agent in cases of nervous exhaustion, over-study, or excessive mental exertion. It has a certain reputat1on for enabling athletes to perform fatiguing feats without the usual amount of bodily waste, and will certainly be found considerably to alleviate the distress often incurred by students and others who are called upon to make considerable mental efforts.—British Medical Journal, May 5th, 1881.

MARIANI'S WINE.

We can speak very highly of Mariani's Wine as the most palatable and efficient preparation of coca leaves which has come under our notice. It is within our knowledge that when adm1nistered t , persons suffering from nervous exhaustion and extreme mental and bodily fatigue, it has proved most grateful and restorative. Singers, public speakers, students, and others, have found relief from mental and bodily strain from its use, and we arc inclined to think, as it becomes better known in England, it will be much more extensively employed.—Medical Record, June 15, 1881.

L'usage mode're' du vin .Mariani cst done utile aux hommes de cabinet fatigue's par un labcur CTcessif, aux convalescents dont un sejour prolonge' au lit aura aboli les forces musculaircs, aux diabetiques, dont les muscles ont perdu leur clasticite' et leur vigueur.—iiascttt des H&pitaux.

THEATRICAL OPINIONS AND TESTIMONIES.

"Messrs. Roberts & Co., "Manh, 1881.

" 76, New Bond Street.

" Dear Sirs,—As I have derived great benefit from the use of Mariani Coca Wine (taken some twelve months ago under medical advice,', I have no hesitation in recommending it as a vocal restorative to all who have to use their voice professionally. " Very truly yours,

vocal instructors were early Vin Mariani enthusiasts.

At the special recommendation of Dr. Lennox Browne, of London, I have tested carefully the " Vin Mariani, " and I recognize that its splendid eflfect upon the voice is extremely satisfactory, and almost instantaneous. For over two years I have tried it, ordering it to my pupils, both ladies and gentlemen, whom I had under my care for the development of the voice, and I have invariably remarked that when-ever they had any difl&culty in singing or elocution, the " Vin Mariani" enabled them to continue the lesson, which, without it, would have been utterly impossible. I have thus every reason to be glad that my attention was called to this wonderful preparation, and am convinced that all artists and orators will welcome it and be happy to adopt it.

Emil Behnke.

The late Dr. Elsberg recommended " Vin Mariani " to me when I had been suffering with hoarseness from a severe cold, and had a long New England tour before me. I found it to act like magic upon my vocal organs. I found it also an excellent nervine. I consider Mr. Mariani a benefactor to public speakers and singers.

Settie Blume.

After having given the " Vin Mariani " a fair trial, I have found it very beneficial for my exhausting profession, " teaching singing." It strengthens not only my voice, but my whole nervous system, that I can go through my heavy daily work.

Luisa Cappianl

It is with much pleasure that I send you my testimonial for your " Vin Mariani " and your " Elixir  Mariani." During my professional career, I have been compelled to use both preparations, and know from experience that they are far ahead of any others manufactured. For toning the system and stimulating the vocal cords, they have no superior. I have come to rely upon them almost entirely, both during the many fatiguing hours of teaching and the various concerts I am called upon to participate in.

Francis Fischer Powers.

It is with special pleasure that I testify my most thorough appreciation of the excellent properties of the "VIN MARIANI." I have carefully watched its splendid effect upon the vocal bands, the mucous membranes, and the entire vocal apparatus, as likewise on the d'gestive organs and the system in general. I take it in small glassfuls before meals, and also occasionally during the day as a gargle, where it has proved itself most effective.

MAX ALVARY.

VERY cheerfully I state that I would never be without " Vin Mariani," and that since I used same, never have suffered from hoarseness.

Minnie Palmer.

I have found nothing to so thoroughly effect its purpose as the "Vin Mariani."

Harry Paulton.

I consider your " Vin flariani " a most excellent tonic for both singers and speakers.

J. W. Parson Price.

I would like to recommend to every singer, or any one going before the public, the use of the most delightful ''VIN MARIANI." I am never without it ; it is always on my dressing-table

JESSIE BARTLETT-DAVIS.

William Tibbles on Coca and Tobacco, cocaine and nicotine

from

FOOD AND HYGIENE:AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE UPONDietetics and Hygiene Treatment

BY WILLIAM TIBBLES, LL.D. L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A.

(excerpt- pp 266-268)

Coca, the leaves of Erythroxyloii coca, N.O. Erythroxylaceae.

A South American plant, grown largely on the Andes of Bolivia and Peru. The annual consumption in South America is said to exceed 100,000,000 pounds. It has been an incalculable blessing to the natives in all ages. Its physiological action places it in the same category as tea and coffee, but its effects are more strongly marked. Its power of preventing fatigue or of removing it has been well established.

Sir E. Christison made many experiments with it. He found during great exertion that fatigue was lessened and hunger and thirst prevented by it, and the mental faculties were liberated from the dullness and drowsiness which follow great bodily activity ; that the waste of the tissues was lessened by its use, although it did not diminish perspiration, nor were the digestive functions impaired by its use. The South American usually consumes coca by chewing it with a trace of lime or chalk. Its effects are those of a stimulant and restorative ; while quickening the heart and respiration, it prevents muscular and nervous exhaustion and diminishes the consumption of the bodily tissues, and enables a person to bear up against bodily fatigue with less food than usual, or even without any. It enables persons to climb high mountains without the difficulty of breathing customary in ascending from a low to a higher plane. The mental faculties are, however, said to be less stimulated by coca than by tea or coffee.

Composition. — Coca-leaves contain 02 per cent, of cocaine (C^-HgjNO^), an alkaloid occurring in colourless monoclinic prisms, having a bitter taste, which is followed by a tingling sensation and numbness ; secondary alkaloids are ecgonine and Iso-atropyl cocaine ; it also contains hygrin, which gives aromatic properties to the leaf, together with coca-tannin and coca wax."

The physiological effects of coca are due to the alkaloids, and are analogous to those of tea and coffee. It may therefore be used in the form of an infusion, wine, or elixir, as a general stimulant to diminish or remove the exhaustion due to muscular exertion and mental fatigue from overwork, worry or trouble, and in convalescence, nerve exhaustion, neurasthenia, nervous and muscular debility ; it may also be usefully employed in cases of insomnia, in gastric and intestinal indigestion, in which food is not properly assimilated, in cachectic conditions due to many diseases and blood poisons, and to combat the effects of opium and alcohol.

As in the use of other stimulants, a habit may be formed which is comparable in its results with the worst moral effects of opium-eating, morphinism, or alcoholism; but these cases are rare, except when cocaine is taken hypodermically for long periods and in excessive doses. Even chewing the leaf in excess will bring on various disorders, and the desire for it increases to such an extent with indulgence that a confirmed coca chewer is said to be never cured.

Of the alkaloids, iso-atropyl cocaine is a powerful heart poison, and cocaine will in time not only benumb the cerebral faculties, but reduce the subject to a state of complete mental imbecility, unable alike to perform his professional or social duties, and more or less unfitted for the companionship of his fellows. It is a good servant, but a bad master ! The increasing use of cocaine in the treatment of disease points to the necessity for care in prescribing it. ' A delicious beatitude' follows its application for hay-fever and other diseases, which has a tendency to make the patient a slave to the habit. Symptoms due to the habit usually begin with disorders of digestion, as loss of appetite and emaciation. But its chief pathological effect is, as indicated, upon the nervous system, in which some form of degeneration takes place which induces insomnia, tremors, incoordination ; even convulsions, paralysis, hallucinations or delusions, and delirium or insanity, may follow. It behooves all medical men to be extremely careful how and for whom they prescribe it, and to take especial care that the patient does not have a free hand in its use.

An agreeable coca essence or cordial may be made like an ordinary tincture by macerating 2 ounces of the leaves in 1 pint of proof spirit, with the addition of ginger, cloves, allspice, or other aromatics ; two teaspoonfuls added to a tumblerful of warm sweetened water makes a good beverage for all times of the year.

Coca wine may be made thus : Soak 4 ounces of ground coca- leaves in 16 ounces of hot water for three hours ; then add 64 ounces of port wine ; percolate 56 ounces ; and in it dissolve the sugar, add 6 ounces of alcohol, strain, and make up to 64 ounces with port wine. Each ounce represents 30 grains of leaves.


----

On Tobacco
(excerpt pp 271 - 278)

Tobacco {Nicotiana tabacum, N.O. Solanaceae). According to modern statistics, the average consumption of tobacco per annum by each inhabitant is as follows :

Netherlands, 3,400 grammes ; United States, 2,110; Belgium, 1,552 ; Germany, 1,485; Australia, 1,400; Austria and Hungary, 1,350; Norway, 1,335; Denmark, 1,125 ; Canada, 1,050 ; Sweden, 940 ; France, 933 ; Eussia, 910 ; Portugal, 850 ; England, 680 ; Italy, 635 ; Switzerland, 610 ; and Spain, 550 {Medical Becord, December 21, 1901).

Tobacco is a poison in every form in which it is used ; but use inures the individual to its effects, as it does to those of opium and other narcotics. The active principle is nicotine (Cj^H^^Np^), an acrid, oily, volatile liquid, of pale amber colour, smelling strongly of tobacco ; it can be resolved into nicotina, an alkaloid in the form of malates and citrates ; and nicotianine, or tobacco camphor, which is a concrete volatile oil. There are other principles besides nicotine in tobacco. Pictet and Eotschy4*5 extracted from 10 kilos of crude tobacco juice 1,000 grammes of nicotine, 20 grammes of nicoteine, 5 grammes of nicotinine, and 1 gramme of nicotelline, from which it is evident that nicotine is the principal agent, although the others probably have deleterious effects or become decomposed into secondary substances.

The proportion of nicotine varies according to place of growth, soil, and other circumstances. French tobacco contains as much as 7 or 8 per cent., Kentucky and Virginia 6 or 7, Havanna not more than 2 per cent. Sinnbold's analyses give the following results : European cigars contain 0-648 to 2-967 per cent, of nicotine ; Havanna cigars, 0-841 to 2-241 ; cigarette tobacco, 0-80 L to 2-887 ; and pipe tobacco, 0-518 to 1-584.-

"The physiological effects of tobacco are — (a) short stimulation of the central nervous system, followed by depression ; (b) similar stimulation of the sympathetic nerves, followed by a lasting paralysis ; (c) an action, like that of curare, on the terminal nerve-plates of the motor nerves in the muscles, also followed by paralysis. The heart is at first slowed and its contraction prolonged ; the blood-pressure is raised by constriction of the arterioles, due to excitation of the vaso-motor centres in the peripheral ganglia ; at a certain stage, however, this system is paralyzed and the blood-pressure is no longer affected by it ; motor paralysis is induced by its action on the intramuscular part of the nerves.' Other effects are trembling, giddiness, head-ache, salivation, contraction of the pupils, convulsions, paralysis, etc. That nicotine, the oily fluid containing the two alkaloids, is a powerful poison cannot be denied. The active principle in the smoke of a single cigar suffices to produce convulsions, paralysis, and death in a frog.

A drop of nicotine near the beak of a canary will kill it; two drops on the tongue will kill a terrier dog in a minute; two drops on the tongue of a cat caused convulsions and death in two minutes; and a mastiff dog was destroyed in five minutes by the application of ten drops in the same manner.

Death was always preceded in cases seen by the author by convulsions of a tonic character, and rigor mortis set in at once. In man, death has followed the injudicious application of a quid of tobacco to stop the bleeding of a wound ; the application of nicotine on the point of a needle to a decayed tooth caused serious collapse, and the use of an infusion of tobacco as an external application in skin diseases, and an injection into the bowels for intestinal obstruction, have caused death ; on the other hand, recovery is recorded after the injection of an infusion made from half an ounce of snuff and an infusion made from five tobacco-leaves.

The symptoms of acute nicotine-poisoning are observed when a person smokes a pipe or cigar for the first time ; there is confusion of the mind, giddiness, nausea, vomiting or purging, trembling of the limbs, faintness, feeble pulse, and a cold clammy sweat, which are the signs of shock or collapse as the result of a profound impression on the nervous and muscular systems. These symptoms have been observed in a man who was induced to chew a piece of ' twist tobacco ' to relieve him of toothache. When the dose is a large one, the breathing becomes difficult, the vision
dim, and convulsions occur ; death, preceded by more or less paralysis, may take place in fifteen to thirty minutes from tobacco, or in three or four minutes from the use of nicotine.

By custom most people become inured to the influence of nicotine in tobacco smoking, snuffing, or chewing. The moderate use of tobacco has a soothing and beneficial effect upon the nervous system of the man of business;' it soothes and cheers the weary toiler and solaces the overworked brain'; that it has a stimulating effect upon the cerebral functions can scarcely be conceded, although it temporarily increases the flow of blood through the cerebral arteries and may thereby spur a weary brain, and by the free supply of oxygen and food assist that organ in its work.

Many men of great intellect have been large smokers. In like manner, the after dinner pipe or cigar aids digestion by increasing gastric secretion and peristalsis, and has a hygienic effect in stimulating the corresponding intestinal movements.

The effects of excessive use of tobacco, or chronic nicotine-poisoning, are best understood by reference to its physiological action. The most immediate effect of tobacco or nicotine in any form is to make the heart beat slower, but more powerfully ; this is followed by an acceleration of the heart's pulsations by 30 to 50 per cent., due to the influence of nicotine upon the cardiac branches of the pneumogastric nerve.

Nicotine suppresses or paralyzes the inhibitory fibres of that nerve, and there is consequently an acceleration of the action of the heart. It also paralyzes the sympathetic ganglia and prevents the passage of impulses through them, and consequently the vasomotor nerves are paralyzed. Interference with the functions of the vasomotor nerves, especially those in the abdomen, causes dilatation of the arterial system and lowering of the blood-pressure. The vertigo, dizziness, and trembling are, in the first instance, a consequence of diminished supply of blood to the brain, and later of the toxic effects of nicotine on the nerve cells. The effect of a pipe of tobacco on the stomach is chiefly due to its influence upon the nerves ; the inhibitory fibres of the vagus being suppressed, the gastric mucous membrane becomes flushed with blood owing to vascular dilatation, the secretion of the gastric juice takes place with greater rapidity, and the peristaltic movements are accelerated ; intestinal movement and secretion are likewise increased. But excessive and long continued use of tobacco causes the gastric and intestinal secretions to be diminished and the peristaltic movements to be slower and feebler ; it enfeebles the nerves of the ganglionic system, secretion and movement are slower, the mucous membrane of the mouth and throat gets dry, the throat inflamed, thirst becomes great, appetite fails, dyspepsia or gastric catarrh appears, and nutrition is impeded.

Nicotine is a cardio-vascular poison acting through the nerves upon the muscular tissue. The influence of excessive smoking on the heart consists of an increase of the excitability of that organ ; the pulse becomes intermittent and irregular, periods of acceleration are followed by enfeeblement of its action. In some cases it causes abnormal quickening or tachycardia ; in others, abnormal slowing or bradycardia. Functional derangements of the heart and digestive organs are common results, and organic changes sometimes occur in the nervous system where it influences the circulation unfavorably and leads to degeneration and paralysis of nerve cells.

One of the effects of chronic tobacco poisoning is shown by anemia of the brain, resulting in dizziness and vertigo on rising from a bed or chair, and enfeeblement of memory and power of concentration of thought. Further deleterious effects on nerve tissue are shown by general nervous debility ; by tachycardia, as the result of paralysis of the vagus, or bradycardia, from degeneration or paralysis of the ganglia; by defects of vision, as amblyopia or amaurosis and paralysis of the portio dura, which are due to the exhibition of small doses of the poison frequently absorbed and acting over a lengthened period.

Much discussion has taken place as to what produces the harmful effects of smoking tobacco. Some writers assert that nicotine does not, and others that it does, exist in the smoke; that pyridine and other products of its decomposition during combustion produce the injury. Pontag gives the following composition of tobacco smoke : Hydrocyanic acid, 0'080 per cent. ; pyridine, 0'146 ; nicotine, 1-165 ; ammonia, 0'360 ; carbon monoxide, 410 c.c. from 100 grammes of tobacco. Thorns says tobacco smoke contains nicotine and its decomposition products, pyridine and its homologues, and a peculiar ethereal oil only produced during the combustion of the tobacco.

He states that this oil causes violent headache, trembling, and giddiness, and he attributes the toxic effects of tobacco to it, since it is known that they do not depend altogether on nicotine. The quantity of carbon monoxide is too small to have any effect on the health. Brunton states that pyridine acts chiefly on the sensory nerves ; that small doses stimulate, but large ones have a paralyzing effect on, the heart muscle.' Nicotianine, the so-called tobacco camphor, is a mixture of nicotine valerianate, camphorate, oxy-camphorate, and pyridyl-carbonate; and nicotine-pyridyl-carbonate is the most highly toxic principle of tobacco, the other salts chiefly imparting fragrant characters to it. The influence of the frequent inhalation of carbon monoxide upon the blood, which is ordinarily injurious, should not be overlooked ; but Wahl says it is so highly diluted that it may be breathed for four hours without ill results. Arsenic is known to exist in some kinds of tobacco, and being volatile can be detected in the smoke, and may have an injurious effect upon the smoker. Smoking a pipe is healthier than cigars or cigarettes ; some of the carbon adheres to the pipe and forms a cake which absorbs a portion of the nicotine, and a plug of ashes and tobacco at the bottom of the bowl adds to the absorbent power. An oleaginous extract containing nicotine is deposited along the tube. The longer the pipe the less nicotine will there be in the smoke, and it has the advantage of being cooler and consequently less irritating to the mouth and throat. A hookah, with its bowl of rose-water through which the smoke is drawn, is as much superior to a pipe as the latter is to a cigar or cigarette. The pipe-smoker gets only half of the nicotine originally in the tobacco, while that in the smoke is only in contact with the mouth a short space of time. On the other hand, when smoking a cigar, the leaf is held constantly in the mouth, an infusion of tobacco is formed, and a considerable portion of the nicotine may be swallowed. In cigarette-smoking there is the additional temptation to inhale the smoke, which increases its injurious effects.

There can be no doubt whatever that the moderate consumption of tobacco, two or three pipes a day, is not injurious to the majority of smokers ; that it acts as a powerful sedative, soothing the brain and assisting in the concentration of thought ; that the after-dinner pipe aids digestion and the action of the bowels and kidneys ; but it adds no potential strength to the body, is not a food, does not spare the tissues, and its action is destructive rather than constructive. In excess, its influence upon the digestive organs, heart, brain, and nerves, indicate its powerful deleterious effects. Very many people have no idea that tobacco is capable of producing ill effects; in others a habit of excessive smoking is formed which is most diflicult to break. It is advisable never to form such a habit; in all cases the lightest and mildest tobaccos are the best, and a limit of 2 ounces per week is a moderate allowance, beyond which it is not safe to indulge. The anti-smoker tells of cases of sudden heart failure, loss of memory, dwarfed growth, and early death attributed to smoking. Ardent smokers point to the hale and hearty old man who has smoked for fifty or sixty years, and attributes his health and longevity to it. Both have arguments in their favour ; but the anti-smoker is prone to exaggerate, and the hearty old man does little justice to his sound constitution when he attributes his health and longevity to it. A well-known tobacco manufacturer says that tobacco is injurious in nine cases out often ; but this he attributes to the large consumption of inferior kinds of tobacco, and he states that sufficent attention is not paid to the growth and blending of the leaf, to the soil on which it is grown, nor to the paper of which cigarettes are made. The best tobaccos are grown on virgin soil ; the best cigarettes made with pure rice-paper. Many inferior tobaccos are used by mixing them with a better class of leaves ; the color is little to go by, as some leaves are blanched, others darkened by chemicals or colouring agents. Tobacco Leaf, which is a trade journal, says too much attention should not be paid to the outside of a cigar ; a light-coloured cigar is not necessarily a mild one, nor a dark-coloured one a strong cigar ; avoid greasy or streaky leaves, which contain an excess of nicotine, and pale yelloio ones, which contain too little and are flavourless ; unripe tobacco leaves are nauseous to the taste and have greenish blotches. Tobacco is neither better nor worse for being spotted. The ash should always be white or gray, never black or uneven. Good tobacco burns freely until it reaches the mid-rib or vein across a leaf, will never scorch or blister ; it is an infallible proof of a had cigar, made from inferior tobacco, if it shows a black rim or blister near the ash or if it goes out as soon as the light is withdrawn. Take off the outside cover of a cigar and apply a light to it ; in a good cigar it will burn, but in a bad cigar made of inferior tobacco it will not take fire.

When one considers the enormous growth of the cigarette trade, and the almost incalculable number of cigarettes consumed annually, the consideration of their use becomes an important sanitary question. One has only to observe the pale face, the marble brow, the haggard and dwarfed appearance of boys who indulge the habit freely to conclude that cigarette smoking is decidedly injurious.

This is, to some extent, due to the inferior tobacco from which so many of them are made; the commonest of tobaccos, frequently chemically treated and mingled with tobacco dust, are rolled in impure papers to make cheap cigarettes. The evil effects of cigarette-smoking are greatly enhanced by inhaling the smoke ; that it really is inhaled is proved by the fact that very little smoke is exhaled. The fact that the smoke of a cigarette is not very irritating does not lessen the evil effect of drawing it into the lungs, for by this method the absorption of the poisonous principles is more rapid. Some absorption takes place in the mouth, but it is trilling in comparison with that which takes place in the lungs. It is admitted that moderate smoking allays restlessness and irritability and is beneficial in other respects ; but the sequel to the habit of inhalation may be very bad indeed, the heart and nerves bearing chiefly the effects of it. The fumes likewise appear to create an unnatural desire to be always smoking cigarettes, and those who indulge the habit generally consume more tobacco than they would by smoking a pipe, and the consumption is greater than is necessary for the ordinary enjoyment to be obtained from smoking. The habit should therefore be discountenanced by all medical men and others who have the interest of the human race at heart. Repressive measures are required to stop the practice of cigarette smoking by children, for it is firmly believed that it prevents growth and renders its devotees a ready prey to disease. It not only makes them tired, lazy, and irritable, but it lowers their mental capacity and moral tone, makes them stupid, dull and weak, and prone to lying and cheating. Attempts are being made in America, Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and Norway, to suppress the habit by law ; in some places it is a misdemeanor to sell or give cigarettes to a minor, and in others it is unlawful for a minor to smoke tobacco in any form.

William Tibbles, a British physician, was author of Erythroxylon Coca: A Treatise on Brain Exhaustion as the Cause of Disease, (1877), which recommended the use of coca for a variety of physical and mental diseases.

Historical Ignorance Sadly Fostered By the DPF/DPA

That so few people fathom the sheer illegality of the pharmacratic inquisition -- aka the US Constitution was amended to ban the manufacture, transport and sale of alcohol, yet people acquiesce to criminal "laws" [legislative crime] banning even possession of other consumables -- spotlights an ignorance of history- an ignorance alas fostered by the Drug Policy Foundation/Alliance.

From my unpublished manuscript "Coca Forgotten Medicine"

The 1999 international conference of the Drug Policy Foundation, held that May 12 -15, included a panel that I had proposed: "The History Panel", featuring Rufas King. Although I had included myself with a presentation of the history of the criminalization of Coca through the USDA, I was excluded, as was the issue. However that panel did have a full array of speakers (none addressing Coca), and really should have been split into two or more sesions.

It would be Rufas King's final appearance at a DPF conference; he would pass away in late December 1999.

I would continue to propose a "History Panel" for subsequent DPF/DPA conferences (the organization would have a name change from a "Foundation" to an "Alliance"). I remember that they would hold such a panel, titled or subtitled "A Century of Prohibition". It included no presentations regarding Coca or cocaine prohibition, nor about the entities and processes which through it was brought about, particularly the entire swath of the initial U.S. Federal government anti-Coca crusade via the U.S.D.A. (Department of Agrilculture) and its Bureau of Chemistry Chief Harvey Wiley.

In sharp contrast to the 1999 History Panel, this latter panel had fewer speakers, only 2 if I recall correctly, one being Marijuana historian Dale Geringer, hence leaving plenty of time for additional presenters.

They were clearly not only blackballing me, they were blackballing the very issue.

Jesuitical Drug Policy Treason

From my unpublished manuscript "Coca Forgotten Medicine"

A Foreign Military Order's Un-Constitutional Rule & Treason to Humanity through the Jesuit Order Run Georgetown University, the U.S. State Department and the National Institute [for promoting] Drug Abuse

The allegiance to the drug control status quo was prevalent from the onset throughout the Clinton Administration’s bureaucracies, as has been the case with either the Democrat or Republican Parties throughout the 1900s. I found it typified by two Washington, D.C. meetings held on successive days in July 1993, some 6 months into the then new Clinton Administration, with the official presentations and responses at the Q&A sessions indicating how truth was beholden to this false ideology.

The first of these events was a plenary panel organized by the U.S. State Department and the like-wise Jesuit Order run Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies. The second one was a workshop panel held during the multi-day conference by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (N.I.D.A.).

The State Department-Georgetown University event was titled "Multilateralism and Drugs", and was held July 15, 1993 at the Rayburn U.S. House of Representatives Office Building. Its speakers included Yale University’s David Musto, and Timothy E. Wirth, U.S. President Clinton’s appointee as Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.

David Musto

At this event, Musto admitted a fact that he would leave out of his Readers' Digest style articles: that dilute cocaine alkaloid containing Coca beverages such as Vin Mariani, were not problematic.

Tim Wirth

Wirth, previously a U.S. Representative and later a Senator from Colorado, was described as the Clinton Administration’s point man on everything from refugees to global warming, and described in glowing terms by newspapers such as The Washington Post, as a “reformer”, was there to give a speech titled “New Approaches to Global Drug Problems”. So I figured that he would be a good person to ask about the Coca issue, which I did at that panel’s Q and A period:

Douglas Willinger- Question: Sir, you mentioned crop eradication -- Coca eradication -- as the solution but have you consider the alternative. Instead of crop substitution, why not cocaine conversion- that is, remove the things creating this bad situation, having coca tea in supermarkets rather than crack in the streets. Indeed, sir, what about Bolivia's recent proposal to review the effects of Coca, and adjusting the laws accordingly if need be?

Timothy Wirth- Answer: Did I talk about crop eradication? Do I have to answer that? You sound like one of those Hemp people! Next question.

The NIDA event, a workshop panel Update on Drugs- Cocaine and Stimulants, was held at the second day of the U.S. N.I.D.A. National Conference on Drug Abuse Research and Practice; An Alliance for the 21st Century. It featured a number of speakers, including a Dr. Millwood, all testifying to the dangers of cocaine. One of the presenters spoke about brain damage with combined cocaine and alcohol use, including its metabolization of cocaethyline. All in all, while their prognosis upon cocaine was negative, I heard little to no mention of actual doses. From memory, as NIDA is uncooperative with public requests for such transcripts:

Douglas Willinger- Question: Question of dosage and paradigm. You speak of the dangers of cocaine and alcohol, but could you please elaborate as to the dosages? What stimulant would not be harmful in such does? Is cocaine itself anymore toxic as asides from the concentrated forms as developed under prohibition.

Dr. Millwood- Answer: About 1 ¼ gallon of vodka and an eight ball of pharmaceutical grade cocaine hci snorted in one night. Well, uh yes, we just don't think it's that important, let's change the subject, okay?!

In other words, cocaine was a highly toxic-addictive drug in doses dangerous with any stimulant. They had no showing that it was anymore toxic then other naturally occurring stimulants caffeine and nicotine, in like contexts. Cocaine, Caffeine and Nicotine are all alkaloids that serve as CNS stimulants found in minute amounts in such plants as Coca, Coffee and Tobacco.

As licit drugs, they are taken through the use of the parent substance, or in isolated form in a mode of delivery of a pharmaceutical preparation, e.g. caffeine as No Doz or Vivarin tablets largely consisting of mannitol, and more recently various nicotine chewing gums and patches.

As an illicit drug under a prohibition of Coca leaves and cocaine, with penalties based upon the contraband’s gross weight, the amount of cocaine use is significantly reduced, but the amount of cocaine taken per dose may be higher, with the concentration definitely far higher in doses of the type more akin to produce the big bang favored by these drug law’s economics, with prohibition driving up concentration and prices hence promoting the justification for the price- e.g. spending $50 or $100 for a chewing gum package sized foil of white powder is more justified by the pronounced effects of doses that are more dangerous in every way: larger more concentrated and more direct.

And this is popularly supported as somehow fighting drug abuse!

Such a drug policy regimen that suppresses a safer substance for the sake of a one intrinsically dangerous, that is the adulterated, misbranded cigarettes undeniably benefited by this criminal mercantilism, underwent no visible criticism within the room where Mr. Wirth brushed aside my question. This was also so in the room where Dr. Millwood would answer my question about the amount of cocaine needed to produce the toxicities he discussed, but not answer my second question about the silence in the drug abuse research industry over maintains the drug control policy that stops Coca while promoting concentrated cocaine. One could only imagine if either Wirth and Millwood, nor the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services N.I.D.A. had even given any thought about whether such anti-Coca leaf policies were reconcilable with any stance respecting either the public's health, let alone the human rights of the millions of Andeans who consider Coca eradication an infringement upon their individual and their cultural rights, in this day and age of moral certainty. I suppose they simply care less for that then appeasing their masters that gave them their jobs.

Georgetown University's Jesuit Order's Underappreciated 20th Century Role

U.S. Democrat & Republican Drug Policy Treason

From my unpublished manuscript "Coca Forgotten Medicine"

Public Health & Liberty Subversion in the United States of America

Seeking the Coca issue's redress, I approached the government, hoping that the right thing would happen: that government officials would ask questions about the prohibition laws that ban Coca along with isolate cocaine, and initiate scientific studies to ascertain the truth of its potential. How could one object to studying Coca and its effects upon humans, subjecting it to the same criteria as other medicines and stimulants?

As I was to soon find out, Coca was an issue to be simply brushed aside, starting with the replies to my initial letters about the Coca issue to "my" U.S. Senators, from my home State, New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of the U.S. Democratic Party, and Alphonse D'Amato, of the U.S. Republican Party, in latter 1987.

Neither Moynihan nor D’Amato’s replies actually addressed my charge that their drug probation policies perverted Coca’s role internationally, with significant human costs D’Amato’s letter merely reiterated his general support for the drug war, with no mention of the safety, or the medicinal benefits, nor the health effects of Coca. Moynihan's letter likewise contained no such thoughts about Coca, and additionally was not even about the coca issue, coca prohibition or more generally the drug war, but rather a crime bill. Logistical realities were a likely explanation for this shoddiness since neither Senator had likely read my letter (not a likely occurrence given the volumes of such Constituent mail involved); in fact they might not have even been informed of it, with the choice of word processor mail merge reply being left entirely to their Congressional staffs. But they could hardly be used to explain away the following signals that there was no desire -- let alone intellectual integrity -- amongst the Washington D.C. power elite to touch the Coca issue -- in any way other than as something to be shunned -- with the proverbial ten foot pole: just imagine such an alternative reality for Tobacco cigarettes were treated like this. Both of the two dominant political parties in the United States, the Democrat and Republican parties would be unquestionably loyal to the whole drug control regimen, and the idea of maintaining it forever, or, if change is inevitable, at least delay or minimize it.

This was sadly evident with the preceding Republican Party U.S. Presidential Administrations of George Walker Bush (1989-1993) and Ronald Wilson Reagan (1981-1989), with the former serving as the latter’s Vice President. Both espoused their commitment to this drug market control regimen through their election campaigns and shortly upon taking office. In his acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention in 1988, Bush stated:

"I want a drug[sic]-free America. Tonight, I challenge the young people of our country to shut down the drug dealers around the world....My Administration will be telling the dealers, "Whatever we have to do, we'll do, but your day is over. You're history.'"

George Bush’s most famous drug war espousal was his nationally televised September 5, 1989 speech’s visual of him holding up a bag of crack, obtained immediately across the street from his residence – the White House – at Lafayette Park (from a teenage crack dealer who government agents had to give directions to find the area):

"This is crack cocaine," Bush solemnly announced, holding up a plastic bag filled with a white chunky substance in his Sept. 5 speech on drug policy. It was "seized a few days ago in a park across the street from the White House . . . . It could easily have been heroin or PCP…. It's as innocent looking as candy, but it is turning our cities into battle zones, and it is murdering our children``… ``Let there be no mistake, this stuff is poison.`

And this from a man who had a likely role in making revealing the additives in cigarettes a 'felony'!

Under the Bush years, spending in the U.S. for maintaining the drug control regimen increased significantly, with the annual budget for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency raising from $597 million in 1989 to $910 million in 1992. This followed the increase under his predecessor Ronald Reagan from an annual DEA budget for $219 million in 1981 to $522 million in 1988).

By what sort of intellectual ethical standard did George Bush base his call for a “drug free” America. Do note the irony that the Bush family are long involved with pharmaceuticals, such as EL Lilly. By “drug”, Bush means those that have been made illegal, starting with natural plants, regardless of the lack of science and the abundance of political corruption. It has nothing to do with relative safety as attested by the college student ritual of alcohol poisoning.

The November 1980 election victory of Ronald Wilson Reagan over his incumbent predecessor, Democrat Party U.S. President Jimmy Carter, elected in November 1976, based upon two main popular ideas: that the government was too larges; and that the U.S. was getting too weak (this latter perception being greatly assisted by the final 444 days of his 4 year term with the Iranian capture of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and holding of its personnel as hostages). Reagan would appease the former with such libertarian quotes as:

“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves” Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? Reagan served what was perceived as U.S. “strength” with his firm obedience with the established drug control regimen via his actions; shortly after taking office in 1981 he declared:

“We are not going to raise the battle flag of surrender as in so many previous drug wars”

Under the Reagan years, spending in the U.S. for maintaining the drug control regimen increased significantly. On January 28, 1982, Reagan created the South Florida Task. On March 23, 1983, Vice President Bush was placed in charge of the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System. In August, 1986 US officials presented to their Mexican counterparts a scheme called Operation Alliance, a new border enforcement initiative that was allegedly to do for the U.S.-Mexican border area what the South Florida Task Force had allegedly already done for the southeastern states. Vice President George Bush was appointed chief of Operation Alliance, which involved 20 federal agencies, 500 additional federal officers, and a budget of $266 million.

The June 18, 1986 death of Len Bias, a University of Maryland student athlete from a massive cocaine overdose during a night of celebrating his acceptance by the professional basketball team, the Boston Celtics, quickly prompted massive waves of newspaper and television news coverage for political reasons to induce the people to support or acquiesce to increasing the penalties for violating the drug control regimen. Appearing with his wide, First Lady Nancy Reagan in their famous “Just Say No” speech nationally televised September 14, 1986:

Despite our best efforts, illegal cocaine is coming into our country at alarming levels and 4 to 5 million people regularly use it. Five hundred thousand Americans are hooked on heroin. One in twelve persons smokes marijuana regularly. Regular drug use is even higher among the age group 18 to 25 - most likely just entering the work force. Today there's a new epidemic: smokable cocaine, otherwise known as crack. It is an explosively destructive and often lethal substance which is crushing its users. It is an uncontrolled fire. And drug abuse is not a so-called victimless crime. Everyone's safety is at stake when drugs and excessive alcohol are used by people on the highways or by those transporting our citizens or operating industrial equipment. Drug abuse costs you and your fellow Americans at least $60 billion a year.

The Reagan and Bush Administrations faithfully follow the basic drug control regimen in place and supported by the preceding Administrations of U.S. President Jimmy Carter (1977-81) of the Democratic Party, Gerald Ford (1974-77) and Richard Nixon (1969-73 of the Republican Party, the first U.S. President to speak about this on television, along with every proceeding U.S. Presidential Administrations since the early 1900s.

Nixon and the preceding four U.S. Presidents -- Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) of the Democratic Party, and Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) of the Republican Party, and Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) – had given nationally televised speeches. The drug inquisition was in place throughout their terms, with President Kennedy being the most independent minded by getting Harry Anslinger’s resignation. But Nixon was the first to give a speech about the drug war: aka the growth of contraband drug use, and the drug laws’ re-codification resulting from the Leary case, which went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969, and which overturned the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act’s tax authority as self-incriminatory (by forcing people to incriminate themselves by purchasing tax stamps for an illegal commodity).

This re-codification was the 1970 Controlled Substances Act (still in effect as of 2006). Under Nixon, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs created by Nixon’s predecessor Lyndon Johnson in 1968 by merging the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Narcotics, and the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, was replaced with the newly created U.S. Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Agency.

And it was Nixon that would display his obedience to the established drug control regimen, by disregarding the recommendations of the commission that he selected its members under the authority of the 1970 CSA to study and report on Cannabis (Marijuana) and on the broader issue of the drug war. “The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse”’ report on Cannabis "Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding" better known as the Shafer Commission Report was so-named after its chair, Raymond P. Shafer, former governor of Pennsylvania); it would recommend to liberalize prohibition to exclude private possession, use and distribution for "insignificant remuneration" and penalties beyond confiscation of up to one ounce, and to retain prohibition on greater amounts in public by a fine of up to $100, with public distribution of small amounts for no profit would also be punishable by a fine of up to $100, and with the cultivation of sale for profit remaining criminal, felonies. The report on the general drug war “Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective”, was issued in March 1973. It would include cocaine but not Coca.

In the November 1976 elections, Carter defeated Republican Party incumbent U.S. President Gerald Ford, largely due to Ford’s association with the preceding, Watergate scandal (involving Republican Party operatives burglary of Democratic Party offices in Washington, D.C.’s Watergate complex in 1972,) plagued administration of Richard Nixon, who was fist elected in November 1968. Ford had not been popularly elected, but was rather serving out the remaining portion of Nixon’s 2nd term after Nixon resigned his office August 9, 1974, with Ford then becoming President, because Nixon had made Ford his Vice President in 1973, following the resignation of the preceding Vice President Agnew.

Against this backdrop Carter was easily presentable as a reformer, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, throughout his candidacy for President, such as calling for “sunshine” laws mandating that inter-agency meetings be open to the public. With a candidacy that include numerous public appearance with popular music bands, in particular the Allman Brothers, and amidst rumors of cannabis and cocaine use among Carter staffers, Carter furthered his appeal to the many people favoring drug law liberalization by mentioning his support for reducing penalties for Cannabis possession, stating that jailing marijuana smokers was "counterproductive,” and stating during a nationally televised debate with the incumbent Gerald Ford that he “favor[ed] the decriminalization of marijuana.”

And he was the only one the U.S. Presidents who appointed as his Director of the Office of National Drug Policy (the position later dubbed as “drug czar”), a man who had publicly spoken in favor of legalizing Cannabis (marijuana) and cocaine; and who unfortunately failed to make this point about Coca, let alone writing in any detail of the entire cocaine continuum from Coca leaf chewing and tea to intravenous cocaine), and even writing in 1974 that:

Cocaine…is probably the most benign of illicit drugs currently in widespread use. … Short acting -- about 15 minutes -- not physically addicting, and acutely pleasurable, cocaine has found increasing favor at all socioeconomic levels in the last year." Peter G. Bourne, "The Great Cocaine Myth," Drugs and Drug Abuse Education Newsletter 5: 5 (1974). See also, F.H. Gawin and H.D. Kleber, "Evolving Conceptualizations of Cocaine Dependence," Yale Journal of Biological Medicine 61: 123-136 (1988).

While this raised further expectations of Carter as a “legalizer” of a currently illegal drug, this was like placing a new – and not very thick or deep -- façade over an existing building: while attention focused on this one appointee, Dr. Peter S. Bourne, who worked for Carter since the latter was elected Governor of Georgia in 1971, and who went on to run that State’s first drug abuse treatment program, that would distract people from noticing that Bourne was the exception and not the rule within the new Carter Administration, with actions otherwise consistent with the established drug policy control regimen, with liberalization limited to decriminalization – meaning no jail time – for only cannabis and only small amounts up to 1 ounce (28.35 grams). Carter’s other appointees, such as associate Mathea Falco to the U.S. State Department, as Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics, along with his predecessor Gerald Ford’s Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, Peter B. Benslinger, all supported the status quo.

Speaking for the Carter Administration at the March 14, 1977 House Select Committee on Narcotics hearings on marijuana decriminalization, Peter Bourne, the first witness, declared that the Carter administration wanted to discourage all drug use, including alcohol and tobacco, but it didn't believe that putting people in jail was the answer to the marijuana problem. He said the administration favored the decriminalization approach, and he cited the success of the Oregon law, as proved by the Drug Abuse Council surveys. He noted that moderate marijuana smoking caused no known health problems. Finally he stressed that the Carter administration opposed the legalization of marijuana, and would vigorously enforce the laws against smugglers. In his August 2, 1977 speech to the U.S. Congress, Jimmy Carter declared:

"Laws against the use of a drug," he said, "should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. No where is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use." The National Commission on Marijuana and Abuse concluded years ago that marijuana use 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 one ounce of marijuana."

This idea of a quite limited liberalization of Cannabis (for only up to one ounce!) met with resistance in the U.S. Congress, and the Carter Administration back off on the issue through later 1977 and afterwards. This included double-talk about a U.S. program in Mexico to spray Cannabis (Marijuana) fields with parquet which the National Organization for Marijuana Reform (NORML) was then campaigning to de-fund. While Bourne assured NORML director Peter S. Stroup that the Carter Administration would unofficially not oppose a ban on such funding – this ban being proposed in the U.S. Senate as the Percy Amendment -- Bourne, along with Mathea Falco of the U.S. State Department were doing just the opposite: actively lobbying against the Percy Amendment. This pissed off Stroup, who eventually spoke out against the Carter Administration. That would set up a chain of events leading to Bourne’s July 1978 resignation.

On July 7, 1978, Dr. Bourne wrote a prescription for the pharmaceutical drug Quaalude for a staffer, identifying her with a false name to save her the embarrassment of taken that pharmaceutical for a psychiatric matter. This staffer had the bad luck of taking this prescription scrip to a pharmacy in Virginia, with the presence of a D.E.A. (U.S Drug Gestapo). This story was “exploded” in the mass new media on July 18, 1978.

The Clinton Administration response was to publicly review and quickly “sentence” Bourne (that very same day), with a publicly announced suspension. Thereby, by announcing his punishment the very same day, Carter effectively set up Bourne for additional punishment, his resignation, for the double bomb shell of a previously unreported story that would likewise “explode” in the mass media the very next day. That story, planted in the media through the syndicated columnist Jack Anderson was that Dr. Bourne attended a NORML Christmas Party upstairs gathering where cocaine powder was passed around and sniffed. Although the event was described as social, Anderson, a Mormon who reportedly did not even drink caffeine, played it up as some sort of horrible thing, being thoughtless to the horrible things of people being arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted under this 20th century drug inquisition.

Following this resignation of Bourne, Carter’s lone “heretic”, Carter retained as his drug policy adviser, Lee Dogoloff, who insisted that illegal drugs were simply bad, with no difference between "soft" drugs like marijuana and "hard" drugs like heroin or cocaine, thereby justifying the same penalties. During the remaining portion of his 4 year term Carter said relatively little about any Cannabis decriminalization; with public attention focused upon Bourne’s scandals, the Carter Administration’s various branches would just continue the established drug control inquisitorial.

12 years elapsed between the January 20, 1981 last day of the Democrat Party Administration of Jimmy Carter, and January 20, 1992 first day of the next Democratic Party Administration of William Jefferson Clinton. Like the Carter Administration, the preceding Nixon Administration, and the succeeding Reagan and Bush Administrations, the Clinton Administration paid full obedience to this drug control status quo in every meaningful way in ways varying only in intensity not substance, as any other Democratic Party or Republican Party U.S, Administration anytime during the 1900s. Like all of these men as candidates except Carter, Clinton consistently promised more of the same, presenting the example of intellectual sophistry of his brother as an example of a person “saved” by prohibition.

Like the Carter Administration, the likewise Democratic Party Clinton Administration offered a solitary position to be filled by an individual “heretic” who gets sacrificed, and any such “heresy” silenced, amidst the orthodoxy that predominates, with the scores of other Clinton Administration positions all filled by “defenders of the faith.” Clinton’s “heretics” were his Attorney General Janet Reno and his Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, with both being marginalized, (with the latter eventually being asked to resigned days before her 21 year old son was arrested for a drug charge involving his alleged sale of less then 2 grams of cocaine powder resulting from his 3 month police surveillance the previous year during the time of her Senate Confirmation hearings). Reno’s early “heresy” was ordering a formal review of the effects of mandatory minimum drug sentences, which Clinton would disregard. Elder’s early “heresy” was ordering a review of the proceeding Bush Administration’s suspension of its “Compassionate” Medical Marijuana Access program, an effort which would be opposed by the Clinton Administration’s “Justice” Department. Her second “heresy” was her suggestion during a Q&A period to study different forms of drug legalization, with the Clinton White House promptly issuing its statement against any suggestion of alternatives to the existing drug control regimen, with Clinton himself thereafter forbidding her to even suggest such study publicly. Her third “heresy”, acknowledging masturbation as one of many different ways to combat the spread of AIDS, leading to Clinton asking for her resignation within hours of the erupting “outcry” by opposition Republican Party Senators and Representatives.

Jesuitical Drug Policy Treason