Radley Balko on CATO & REASON

Via Facebook:

Radley Balko You're onto them, Douglas. Obviously, the most pressing issue with current drug war is who is responsible for for its inception at the beginning of the 20th century. And Reason and Cato have ignored this because are firmly ensconced in the pockets of the 1906 tobacco companies. And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for your detective skills!

Thursday at 8:15pm · · 14

Alas they are STILL getting away with it- at least as I am the ONLY person writing about it...

Read more ►

The 'Elephant in the Living Room' of anti Coca pro Tobacco Protectionism

Licit & Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and Consumers Reports at page 230 showing upturns in cigarette use following the times of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 U.S. 'drug control laws'

Just look at that graph of cigarette production on page 230 of Licit & Illicit Drugs; EACH upturn in production -- note that it was relatively flat from the 1880s introduction of industrialized cigarette rolling machines -- until what we can call the 1906 Tobacco Market Protection Act, officially known as the 1906 'Pure' Foods and Drugs Act, and subsequently the continuations of such represented by the 1914 Harrison "Narcotics" Tax Act, and the 1937

This represented utterly unconstitutional usurpation for high level organized crime, and an enormous crime against humanity health wise, and human rights wise.

A usurpation of powers into the hands of a federal agency -- the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- set up to promote US domestic agriculture and hence establish a conflict of interest to ban foreign yet safer natural substances, to wit Coca Leaf- and doing so after expressing a clear interest in ascertaining whether Coca and other "drug" crops including Opium, and Indian Hemp were commercially feasible as U.S. domestic crops.

It was a clear abuse of the congress's constitutionally granted power to "regulate" interstate commerce. Yet its sly exemption of tobacco indicates it was an unconstitutional, a denial of equal protection and as an establishment of a religion of Tobacco Tea and Coffee, with severe costs.

The last bottle of Vin Mariani in the U.S.?

It banned the safest and most beneficial agricultural stimulant -- Coca Leaf -- for the sake of protecting and promoting the most dangerous -- Tobacco, particularly that agribusiness creation of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco for a smoother smoke for deep and repeated inhalation, resulting in countless billions in added costs attributed separately to the drug war and to cigarettes that together represent a major 'elephant in the living room' of the anti-Coca Tobacco Mercantilism.

Read more ►

Ignore Harm Reduction of Highlighting Agricultural Mercantilism- Drug Policy Alliance

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.html

http://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.html

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirOL9PgXPAEu4y-7zok9xwvpxdqbhp0HXlrhtp0M7_BYPViuvi6MtfCbEJynGsqilNYqp2QLHYVrJe-Qt_XCs64OVnABP6YfQuas_vZugJkWrRv9eRRkKlLmM89rT_IEXRyYZFcmxvwbc/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
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/harvey-wiley-resume-1915.html

Given their relative safety this has been an absolute disaster for health care costs:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/coca-leaf-stands-out-among-all.html

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.html

Panel Proposal for 2009 Drug Policy Alliance International Conference

Harvey Wiley

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.

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

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 (August 2002).

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.html

It 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.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.”

---

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
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/coca-come-back.html

Read more ►

Hillsdale's Omission

"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" - Ronald Wilson Reagan

So when will Hillsdale College, with Imprimis, and their Allan P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies & Citizenship ever address that greatest cause of government over-growth- that costly, cigarette-pharma market protection mercantilist scheme called the 'war on drugs'?

Or shall it continually pretend, as the does the 'Heritage' Foundation, and the rest of the cookie-cutter 'new right', that this 'drug war' is somehow 'moral'



Freedom of Medicine and Diet
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2007/07/freedom-of-medicine-and-diet.html

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. "

Drug War Tobacco-Pharma Criminal Mercantilism
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/03/drug-war-tobacco-pharma-agricultural.html

Drug Statutes Are Worse Than Most Realize
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/01/drug-statutes-infinitely-worse-than.html

The Drug War Promotes Drug Abuse
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-war-promotes-drug-abuse-over-drug.html

Drug War Perverts Safest Stimulant into Drug of Abuse for Sake of Protecting the Most Dangerous Stimulant
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/coca-as-tobacco-habit-cure.html

Key Points of the unconsitutional and immoral 1906 US Pure Foods and Drugs Act
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/harvey-wileys-1906-us-food-drugs-act.html

Top anti MJ Researcher's 180 degree turnaround
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2010/12/top-anti-researcher-180.html

Criminal Virginia Bright Leaf Cigarette Conspiracy- More Consumption, Taxes, Fires...
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/04/criminal-virginia-bright-leaf.html

Adulterated - Misbranded Virginia Bright Leaf Cigarettes
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/04/adulterated-tobacco-cigarettes.html

Contrary to the rhetoric about 'limiting government', entities within the political-intellectual landscape crafted as "the right", such as the 'Heritage' Foundation, are slavish devotes of the very 'drug war'.

So was the figure of Ronald Wilson Reagan, who was most loyal to these very such costly and socially destructive polices initiated by such "progressive" figures as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt.

Freemason T Roosevelt Approved Wiley 1906 'Pure Food and Drugs Act'

Freemason Theodore Roosevelt
establishing USDA authority to steer agricultural-pharma mercantilism, via 1906 U.S. Pure Foods & Drugs Act of Harvey Washington Wiley


Freemasonry responsible for treasonous subversion of freedom of diet and medicine for tobacco-cigarette/pharmaceutical racketeering: 100 million lives and countless years of the waste of the drug war

http://limasons.blogspot.com/2006/07/theodore-roosevelt-president-and-mason.html

By W:.Patrick Bellotti, Past Master Meridian Lodge 691

THEODORE ROOSEVELT (1858-1919)
Twenty-sixth President (1901-1909)


Theodore Roosevelt is known as one of the greatest American Presidents this country has known. He was primarily known as a great conservationist and started the National Park System. He did renovations to the White House and imprinted a “can-do” attitude which helped the population face the challenges of the new 20th Century.

Among all these things, Theodore Roosevelt was also an active Mason who exemplified the spirit and brotherhood of Masonry while serving as President. He believed in Masonry until his death.

I did some research and thought I would share some of these facts with you in this Blog.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT’S MASONIC RECORD

Brother Theodore Roosevelt was initiated: January 2, 1901, Matinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, New York. Brother and President Roosevelt visited the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (in its present home, the Masonic Temple at One North Broad Street) on November 5, 1902, for the Celebration of the Sesqui-Centennial of Brother George Washington's Initiation into Freemasonry. Governor of New York, 1899-1901. Brother and President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order, dated, October 17, 1901 changing the name of the "Executive Mansion" to the "White House".

Theodore Roosevelt, said in 1902, "One of the things that attracted me so greatly to Masonry . . . was that it really did live up to what we, as a government, are pledged to -- of treating each man on his merits as a Man"

The following is an excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt’s obituary which was published upon his death. His obituary further validated his love and commitment to Masonry.

“Colonel Roosevelt was a member of the local lodge of Masons, and never failed to keep up his interest in it. He had made a habit for many years of visiting Masonic lodges wherever he went, as a member of the Oyster Bay lodge, and, returning, to tell his brother Masons here of his visits. He found Masonic lodges when he was in Africa at Nairobi, and in South America he found a lodge on the Asuncion River. The Masons here knew from Colonel Roosevelt of the doings of Masonic lodges in all parts of the world. The members of the local lodge suggested a Masonic funeral yesterday, but this was dropped when the wishes of the family became known.”

While a member of Matinecock Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt resided and raised his family in a beautiful home there which he called Sagamore Hill. I recommend that any Mason take the tour of this beautiful home which is brimming with historical significance. Today this residence is run by the National Park Service which gives public tours.

If I sound biased about Theodore Roosevelt, it is with good cause as I am proud to say that in 2001 I was a recipient of the Theodore Roosevelt Award and I personally was given a tour of his home. It was a fascinating and unforgettable experience for me which I will never forget.

For a more in depth study of Roosevelt’s Lodge service, you can read the web page taken from the web site for Matinecock Lodge which is located in Roosevelt’s hometown of Oyster Bay, New York. I put this web address here for your convenience.

http://www.matinecock.org/portal/desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=23&item=10

Read more ►

100 Yrs Ago- Wiley's 1906 Act Inspired Massachusetts MJ Prohibition

According to researcher Dale Gierlinger, the first U.S. State to ban MJ -- without a prescription -- was Massachusetts with its 1911 statutes' requirment of such for any of the substances listed in Harvey Wiley's 1906 U.S. 'Pure' Foods & Drugs Act's inconsistent labeling requirement list (of essentually habit-forming agents other then caffeine and nicotine).

alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein

opium, morphine, heroin, codeine, cannabis indica, cannabis sativa, or any other hypnotic drug or any salt, compound or preparation of said substances is kept .

Richard M. Evans, a Northampton lawyer and the author of H1371, the Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act, who blogs at www.cantaxreg.com, writes:

http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/x1336254162/Evans-100-years-of-marijuana-prohibition

One hundred years ago today, Massachusetts Governor Eugene Foss signed into law Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1911, "An act relative to the issuance of search warrants for hypnotic drugs and the arrest of those present." Since then, marijuana has been illegal in Massachusetts, although the voters reduced possession of a small amount to a civil infraction in 2008. Remarkably, the 1911 law was the first state prohibition of marijuana in the United States.

Steve Elliott of Toke of the Town writes:

http://www.theweedblog.com/april-29th-marks-100th-anniversary-of-first-marijuana-prohibition/

Friday marks an unhappy anniversary in hemp history. On April 29, 1911, Massachusetts enacted the first state law making it illegal to sell or possess cannabis without a prescription, becoming the first U.S. state to institute marijuana prohibition.

Violators of the new law were subject to a $100 fine and up to six months in jail, and just being present in the same room with marijuana could get you three months, according to cannabis historian Dale Gieringer of California NORML.

Ironically, marijuana was merely collateral damage of the Massachusetts law, which was aimed primarily at other “hypnotic” drugs such as opium, morphine and heroin. Abuse of opiate painkillers had become a concern among reformers and temperance advocates in the early 20th century, and cannabis was added to the list “for the sake of completeness,” since it was also a hypnotic palliative commonly found in pharmacies.

'Collateral' insofar as being included in the list of substances in the 1911 Massachusetts statute.

A portion of chapter 372, acts of 1911, entitled, "An Act relative to the issuance of search warrants for hypnotic drugs, and the arrest of those present," is as follows: —

Section 1. If a person makes complaint under oath to a police, district or municipal court, or to a trial justice or justice of the peace authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases, that he has reason to believe that opium, morphine, heroin, codeine, cannabis indica, cannabis sativa or any other hypnotic drug or any salt, compound or preparation of said substances is kept . . .

Section 2. Whoever is so present where any of the aforesaid drugs is found shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment in the house of correction for three months.

Section 3. Whoever, not being a manufacturer or jobber of drugs, wholesale druggist, registered pharmacist, registered physician, registered veterinarian, registered dentist, registered nurse or an employee of an incorporated hospital, or otherwise entitled by law to have possession of any of the above mentioned drugs, is found in possession thereof, except by reason of a physician's prescription, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for six months in the house of correction.

opium, morphine, heroin, codeine, cannabis indica, cannabis sativa, or any other hypnotic drug or any salt, compound or preparation of said substances- 1911 Massachusetts statute

alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein- 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act (includes alcohol only for drugs and not for foods)

Read more ►

Wiley's Usurpation of Power Over Medicine and Diet

January 1912 NATIONAL DRUGGIST















DR WILEY'S LATEST ATTEMPT AT USURPATION OF POWER THE Board of Food and Drug Inspection of the Department of Agriculture has recently issued what it calls a Tentative Food Inspection Decision which regulates or assumes to regulate the importation and sale of opium cocaine and coca their derivatives and preparations

And this tentative decision has been submitted to the drug trade for such suggestions and criticisms as they may see fit to make although we notice that the letter of transmittal states that the Board has weighed all evidence possible and believes this decision to be correct Starting out with the rather platitudinous pronunce ment that the indiscriminate and promiscuous use of opium morphine etc is recognized as a great menace to the public health the decision undertakes to regulate not only the importation but all subsequent sales whether by wholesaler or retailer even going so far as to lay down rules regarding the dispensing of the substances on physicians prescriptions It prescribes a form of declaration which the importer and each and every subsequent purchaser or receiver down to the ultimate consumer shall make setting forth that the drugs are intended to be used for the treatment of disease only which is construed not to include the use of any of these products for inducing sleep in infants or similar purposes It provides however that the making of this declaration is waived when purchases are made on the prescriptions of authorized medical dental or veterinary practitioners though it requires that all such prescriptions shall be dated and signed and shall contain the name of the persons for whom they are intended and shall be kept on file by the pharmacists for five years and must not be refilled except on the written order of the original prescribes It also provides that each and every package containing any of the specified drugs shall bear in conspicuous manner on the label or labels including any wrapper or cover the word poison in uncondensed Gothic type and the skull and cross bones all printed in red on a white background or white on a red background There are other regulations relating to the entering and warehousing etc of the products which not immediately concerning the retail druggist we do not think it necessary to recapitulate here

We have quoted sufficiently to show that the proposed regulation is of great importance to the retailer in that it imposes upon him the obligation to see that all the cough cholera or diarrhea remedies and all liniments ointments or other preparations including such simple household remedies as Dover's powders paregoric etc which contain the specified drugs in even the minutest quantities must bear the poison and the skull and cross bones label to say nothing of other annoying and troublesome requirements

The Board pretends to derive its authority for this extraordinary assertion of power from a portion of Section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act which reads as follows Sec 11 The Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of Agriculture upon his request from time to time samples of foods and drugs which are being imported into the United States or offered for import giving notice thereof to the owner or consignee who may appear before the Secretary of Agriculture and have the right to introduce testimony and if it appear from the examination of such samples that any article of food or drug offered to be imported into the United States is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act OR IS OTHERWISE DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES or is of a kind forbidden entry into or forbidden to be sold or restricted in sale in the country in which it is made or from which it is exported or is otherwise falsely labeled in any respect the said article shall be refused admission and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refuse delivery to the consignee and shall cause the destruction of any goods refused delivery which shall not be exported by the consignee within three months from the date of notice of such refusal under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe

Now the power conferred by this section is exceedingly broad and arbitrary much broader and more arbitrary than in our opinion should be conferred on any man or set of men however great and good they may be or however worthy the object sought to be attained But even under its most strained interpretation we fail to find anything in it to authorize such power as is here asserted Indeed whatever may be the powers that the section confers are conferred not upon the Secretary of Agriculture and certainly not on the Board of Food and Drug Inspection but upon the Secretary of the Treasury and the authority given relates altogether to the matter of importation and not in the slightest degree to the sale and distribution of the drugs

And the function of the Secretary of Agriculture under the section is limited to the mere examination of such samples of imported goods as may be delivered to him on his request by the Secretary of the Treasury and to the determination of the question as to whether they comply with the Food and Drugs Act or are otherwise dangerous to the health of the people of the United States or are of a kind forbidden entry into or forbidden to be sold or restricted in sale in the country in which they are made or from which they are exported How in the world this clause can be made a warrant for a set of regulations requiring the filing of declarations by retailers and physicians in the States and by all other purchasers of their intentions in purchasing the goods in question the manner of packing and labeling the articles the preservation and inspection of prescriptions orders and transactions in these commodities and for other directions for the conduct of purely infra state transactions we are at a loss to understand The truth of the matter is that this tentative decision is not really a procedure under the Food and Drugs Act at all having in its nature and scope nothing whatever to bring it within the intent and range of that act but is a barefaced and impudent attempt to amend the United States Statute of February 9 1909 entitled An Act to Prohibit the Importation and Use of Opium for other than Medicinal Purposes

This act confines itself exclusively to opium its preparations and derivatives Congress had it seen fit might have included other drugs conducive to dangerous habit formation but it remains that it failed to do so and the Board of Food and Drug Inspection has brazenly taken it upon itself to correct what it evidently regards as a Congressional delinquency by amending and extending this statute to include other drugs which they think ought to be included going so far as to assume to dictate the terms upon which they shall be sold long after the original packages have been broken and they have lost their character as articles of interstate commerce It is easy to detect in this move the fine Italian hand of our old friend Dr Harvey W Wiley who has a peculiar penchant for usurping authority and attempting to give the force of law to his private opinions

It will be remembered that in testifying before the Congressional Investigating Committee Dr Wiley complained very vehemently of the action of Solicitor McCabe the legal officer of the Department in overruling some of Dr Wiley's decisions involving questions of law He chafed under such interference and said to the Congressional Committee Give me a law officer and a good stenographer right here in my bureau and I will get the work done get it done better and get done at one hundredth part of the expense now involved in working through the Solicitor of the Department He significantly added would welcome a law officer of sympathetic views with mine as to what the law is It seems that his wish for unchecked power has been more than granted for Solicitor McCabe having resigned the Board now has no law officer at all Dr Wiley being practically the whole thing and having now no one to check or restrain him his high handed action in the present matter is only what might have been expected from a man of his temper and disposition under the circumstances What will be the effect if this assumption of power be sustained

The answer is plain Dr Wiley can at will on the pretext that it is dangerous to the health of the people of the United States prevent the importation of any article of food or drug that he pleases and thus can destroy the business of any individual at his whim or caprice or when it becomes to hi interest to do so

What constitutes a danger to health Is very largely a matter of individual opinion It can not always be definitely and scientifically ascertained and determined One set of officials may think a certain product is deleterious and their successors in office may disagree with them entirely Put a prohibitionist in power and he could under this pretext exclude all alcoholic beverages Dr Wiley or Mr CW Post of Postum Cereal fame holding as they do that caffeine is dangerous to health could prevent the importation and sale of tea and coffee Someone else in the office with equal show of reason and authority might forbid the importation of tobacco cigars and cigarettes There are a few cranks who regard common table salt as injurious and so if one of them were in Dr Wiley's place he could prevent the importation of salt if the contingency should ever arise for its importation

If Dr Kellogg of Battle Creek were in the office he would if he followed his teachings exclude sugar and candy from the country for he has recently stated that the free use of cane sugar is a very injurious practice causing catarrh of the stomach and bowels acid dyspepsia diabetes and disease of the liver and kidneys Dr Woods Hutchinson on the other hand advises parents to permit their children to eat these substances ad libitum and so if he should follow Dr Kellogg in office he would reverse the latter's ruling and admit sugar as a wholesome product And finally if a disciple of Mrs Eddy were to occupy Dr Wiley's position he would exclude all drugs of every nature as injurious to health And so we repeat that the question of what is dangerous to health is one so largely of opinion and of such variability that it ought not to be left to the decision and determination of any official or set of officials who may happen to be in office at a particular time

This is a matter of most serious import to the druggists of the country or it would be if we could bring ourselves to believe that the tentative decision here commented on would ever become binding We are however disposed to look upon it as another erratic outbreak of Dr Wiley's irrepressible itch for notoriety and power and can not believe that so well poised and experienced a man as Secretary Wilson will ever permit it to be dignified into an actual ruling of his Department The requirements of the regulations in themselves may or may not be of a salutary nature That is not the question here Whether they are or not it is admitted that the States have full power to regulate the sale of narcotic drugs within their own bounds and practically all of them have done so But Dr Wiley and his Board of Food and Drug Inspection have no more authority to make such requirements than has the humblest citizen of the republic and the attempt thus to override statutory and constitutional law and to usurp the police powers of the States is as offensive an exhibition of arrogance and gall as we have ever seen or read of Indeed we can not enter into the minds of the man or men who would dare attempt a thing of the kind nor can we understand the temper of the American people that will put up with it for a moment The opium habit is certainly a great evil It affects however a comparatively small number of people But the usurpation of authority and lawless government such as Dr Wiley here and in the past has so often attempted are a menace to the liberty and property rights of every citizen who may come within the scope of his influence for they strike at the very root of our government and carried to their logical conclusion mean ultimate anarchy and ruin As we have said the Board of Food and Drug Inspection invite criticisms of and suggestions regarding the proposed regulations We therefore recommend that unless the druggists of the country desire to submit themselves to the espionage of the Washington officials and want to go to the trouble of putting the poison and skull and cross bones label on each and every package of the large number of medicines they sell which contain the specified drugs that they ought to let the Board of Food and Drug Inspection hear from them in no uncertain tones

If Dr Wiley should be upheld in his present attempt to dictate to the retailers with regard to the substances here under consideration he could with equal warrant extend his authority to and make rules regarding any or all other drugs which the pharmacist handles and we believe he would not hesitate to do so in any case in which he thought he would be subserving the interests of the gang of political doctors who have control of the American Medical Association at Chicago of one of whose most important committees he is an active and zealous member and worker

Read more ►

A Wiley U.S. 'Drug War'

Read more ►

Harvey Wiley's 1906 U.S. Food & Drugs Act Key Points

Wiley is now made chief inspector, chief examiner, instigator of the charge, prosecutor, jury and judge; and if any manufacturer dares cry out against such an unjust condition he is met with the cry from Wiley and the Wiley press: "He is an adulteror and a dopester..." And all this power in the hands of a man who says: "I am the spirit and essence of the pure food and drug law, and without me there would be no law." - The American Food Journal, February 15, 1912, cited at p 109 of For God, Country and Coca Cola by Mark Pendergrast

SEC. 4

That the examinations of specimens of foods and drugs shall be made in the Bureau of chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, or under the direction and supervision of such Bureau, for the purpose of determining from such examinations whether such articles are adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this Act; and if it shall appear from any such examination that any of such specimens is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause notice thereof to be given to the party from whom such sample was obtained. Any party so notified shall be given an opportunity to be heard, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed as aforesaid, and if it appears that any of the provisions of this act have been violated by such party, then the Secretary of Agriculture shall at once certify the facts to the proper United States district attorney, with a copy of the results of the analysis or the examination of such article duly authenticated by the analyst or officer making such examination, under the oath of such officer. After judgment of the court, notice shall be given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules and regulations aforesaid.

[IOW who ever was in Wiley's position as Chief Chemist at the US Department of Agriculture could declare a substance "bad" and thus ban it from interstate commerce]

SEC.6

That the term “drug,” as used in this Act, shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals. The term “food,” as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound.

[IOW "drugs" excluding Tobacco, since it was dropped from the USP in 1905- a mere one year earlier as if perhaps in anticipation of the 1906 Act; and "foods" which would technically exclude Tobacco as the plant matter is considered too toxic to actually swallow]


SEC. 7

That for the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be adulterated:

In case of drugs:

First. If, when a drug is sold under or by a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National formulary, it differs from the standard of strength, quality, or purity, as determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary official at the time of investigation: Provided, That no drug defined in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary shall be deemed to be adulterated under this provision if the standard of strength, quality, or purity be plainly stated upon the bottle, box, or other container thereof although the standard may differ from that determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary.

Second. If its strength or purity fall below the professed standard or quality under which it is sold.

In the case of confectionery:

If it contains terra alba, barites, talc, chrome yellow, or other mineral substance or poisonous color or flavor, or other ingredient deleterious or detrimental to health, or any vinous, malt or spirituous liquor or compound or narcotic drug.

[IOW- anything containing what the USDA wished to supress, without of course any backing science]

In the case of food:

First. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.

Second. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article.

Fifth. If it contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health: Provided, That when in the preparation of food products for shipment they are preserved by any external application applied in such manner that the preservative is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water, or otherwise, and directions for the removal of said preservative shall be printed on the covering or the package, the provisions of this act shall be construed as applying only when said products are ready for consumption.

[IOW- anything containing what the USDA wished to supress, without of course any backing science]

SEC. 8

That the term “misbranded,” as used herein, shall apply to all drugs, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of food, the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular, and to any food or drug product which is falsely branded as the State, territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced.

That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded:

In the case of Drugs:

First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the name of another article.

Second. If the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed, in whole or in part, and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if the package fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein

In the case of food:

First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.

Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if it fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein.


[IOW- anything containing what the USDA wished to supress, without of course any backing science- thereby allowing the USDA to serve its first and foremost role as a protector of U.S. domestic agriculture, thereby allowing them to demonifiy say "cocaine" while ignoring/protecting "caffeine" and "nicotine" - AGRICULTURAL MERCANTILISM]

Read more ►