Stop Overlooking Opium

Less addictive than Tobacco and non carcinogenic,
Opium was nonetheless demonified by the twentieth century pharma-cigarette criminal mercantilism - with a regimen that would otherwise be seen as silly if applied the methadone model to nicotine.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/20/if-you-know-too-much-about-poppies-you-c

Last July the Kennewick, Washington, Tri-City Herald profiled Poppydog Farms, a new local business selling dried pods from poppies grown on 40 acres in Pasco. The operation had attracted 2,400 customers from across the country, including wholesalers as well as consumers. "Every single day we're getting new customers," enthused co-owner Ken French. "It's turned out to be a lot more successful than we ever dreamed."

The paper explained that "crafters use the pods for ornamentation," while "florists grow red, pink and white-and-purple flowers with the seeds." French described the flowers as "stunningly beautiful."

They are also sort of illegal, a point that police clarified when they arrested French and his wife, Shanna, for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance less than four months after their business was featured in the Herald. Although Papaver somniferum is commonly used in gardening, floral arrangements, and food, it is also listed on Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act as "opium poppy."

That status usually means a substance can be produced and distributed only by people licensed to do so. But since the plant is widely grown in the United States by people ignorant of its identity as the source of opium, drug warriors generally do not bother with it.

They made an exception in French's case after he allegedly told detectives with a regional drug task force that tea made from crushed poppy pods could be used to relieve pain or improve one's mood. Police say he also announced that he sold the pods strictly for "ornamental purposes," adding, "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it."

A few weeks later, state prosecutors announced that they would not be pursuing charges against the Frenches. Although that sounds like good news, it may only have signaled that the feds were taking over the case. The Justice Department has moved to seize the couple's land, arguing that it is the site of an "ongoing drug enterprise," and their lawyer, Jim Egan, told the Herald he anticipates that if there are criminal charges, they will be filed in federal court. But Egan argued that the Frenches should not be held criminally liable for a business they thought was legal:

There's a plethora of evidence that Mr. Ken French [had] no idea this was an illegal activity. If he thought it was illegal, he probably would not have advertised on the Internet.... He incorporated the business, got a business license and did all the things he was supposed to do in order to set up the business. He also talked to the Tri-City Herald...and said what a wonderful business it was. That's something that people who are trying to hide their criminal activities don't usually do.

Egan has a point, although the Justice Department has been known to target medical marijuana suppliers who likewise operated openly, complied with regulations, and believed their businesses to be legitimate. Then, too, the detectives' report of their conversation with French, assuming it is accurate, suggests he knew there was something potentially illicit about selling poppy pods, depending on the intended use.

The same sort of guilty knowledge proved problematic for Jim Hogshire, who did not merely acknowledge in passing the analgesic and psychoactive properties of opium tea but wrote a whole book about it.

The book, Opium for the Masses, figured prominently in the decision to arrest Hogshire in 1996, when Seattle police charged him with "possession of opium poppy, with intent to manufacture and distribute." The charges were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence.

J.H. Covington Up-Held the Criminalization of Opium/Opiates
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/jh-covington-upheld-harrison-narcotic.html

Read more ►

Lamar Smith Racketeering For Big Pharm

Legislative Criminal Lamar Smith (R) Texas who blocks consideration of Ron Paul's HR 2306 MJ legalization bill, gets to pass "Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011" to effectively extend U.S. legislative crime internationally

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/rondonit/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993_112167359.html

I believe this law could also be applied to any person seeking Medical (Pharmacue­tical) Treatments outside this country that are unavailabl­e here. Seems like a Big Pharma / AMA Monopoly Grant. We can't allow a person to buy his prescripti­on outside this country when they're able to buy it here "Sanctione­d" at ten times the price. For the same drug, produced on the same assembly line, in the same strength and packaging, We and our Insurance Industry gets to buy it at the American Premium. Who Controls the House writing this bill? It sure isn't the voters or even a minority of them.

Indeed, "...to engage in conduct ..." Lamar Smith would extend the U.S. criminal racketeering regarding suppression of freedom of medicine and diet, internationally, by criminalizing "conspiracy" to engage in conduct that would be "illegal" within the U.S., even if legal where it would take place, such as receiving an IBOGAINE treatment in Mexico.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-313

HR 313 "Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011"

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 313

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 18, 2011

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO CLARIFY CONSPIRACIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES MAY BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES.

Section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846) is amended by--

(1) inserting ‘(a)’ before ‘Any’; and

(2) inserting at the end the following:

‘(b) Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.’.

This legislative crime was approved by a Judiciary Committee Chairman vote of 20 to 7. Accordingly:

So who voted for this sweeping new assertion of power to regulate the personal behavior of Americans? All fifteen Republicans on the Judiciary Committee present voted for the bill, including such supposed champions of individual liberty as Ted Poe and Mike Pence. Back on March 10, 2010, for example, Poe was ranting that the “American people don’t desire more oppressive, intrusive government” and they want “to control their own lives.” And back on July 2, 2010 Pence was effusing that Americans, “live and breathe the cause of liberty. Freedom is the very core of an American spirit that is alive and well today.” But that was then and this is now.

The other seven Republicans on the committee didn’t bother to show up for the vote, including none other than Louis Gohmert. Perhaps he was off on crusade in the Middle East. All but two of the sixteen Democrats on the committee managed to put in an appearance, with five of them actually voting FOR passage. A minority of Democrats can often be found to support any bad idea embraced by all Republicans.

IMHO an overlooked matter explaining the political dynamics, asides from the openly listed political donations from pharma interests, are these elected officials' fraternal order memberships- as they are clearly beholden to something other than popular opinion, and need.

For this action certainly goes beyond the stated impetus of a case (where the U.S. government prosecution lost a potential conviction of cocaine smugglers from South America to Canada where the cocaine never entered the U.S. - with cocaine being illegal in Canada), simply by limiting the statute change to activities illegal where committed.

It is not about stopping persons within the U.S. smuggling certain drugs into places where already illegal, rather it is about extending and expanding the U.S. backed Pharmacratic Inquisition worldwide.

http://www.theweedblog.com/lamar-smiths-bill-to-extend-us-drug-laws-overseas-making-progress-passes-committee/

"... as Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance noted, the bill is written so broadly that it could criminalize any violation of US drug laws if that violation is planned in the US. For instance, heroin maintenance therapy is illegal under US drug laws. As the law is written, a US health care professional who made plans to work with colleagues doing heroin maintenance in a country where it is legal could potentially face prosecution".

Or an Ibogaine treatment.

Or drinking Coca in Bolivia.

Obama Racketeering For Big Pharma
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/obama-racketeering-for-big-pharm.html

Read more ►

Georgetown Simplistic "Thinking"

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/ronpaul/

WAR ON DRUGS: Paul would immediately end the war on drugs. All dangerous drugs would be legal if they were approved by a state government.[29]

---
This may imply that MJ, Coca and Opium are more dangerous than alcohol, caffeine (Coffee, tea, other caffeinated beverages and caffeine pills, and other forms of concentrated caffeine), and that prohibition somehow makes things safer, particularly by eliminating Coca and Opium in favor of concentrated cocaine and concentrated opiates.

It was written by Gregory Hilton, of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service National Security Studies Program, and appears within an article of his "The Case Against Ron Paul", at his blog "The DC World Affiars Blog"

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/ronpaul/
http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/

The blog is described as:

This Blog is focused on students in the National Security Studies Program, the DC Diplomatic Community, and anyone else who has assisted my course, "The United States in World Affairs.".

Accordingly, the National Security Studies Program:

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/nssp/

The term National Security Studies Program has been in use since 1965, but the official launch was in March of 1977 when Georgetown University established a program under that banner. At the same time the American Security Council’s Congressional Conference Center became an off campus center for Georgetown, and the university emblem was displayed at the entrance of the estate. The NSSP then offered a Master’s Degree in International Security Affairs which was jointly conducted by Georgetown and the Department of Defense, with ASC’s assistance.

This first Director and the founder of the program was by Dr. Stephen P. Gibert. He was then and remains to this day a professor of government at Georgetown. The NSSP was then the only advanced degree-granting program in national security studies in the United States and Europe. The faculty was composed of experts in the field, and classes were held in the Pentagon on weekdays, and at ASC’s Conference Center on weekends. ASC also provided over $1 million in financial assistance for the NSSP.

The first class of forty students was enrolled in September 1977. They were scheduled to graduate in June of 1979 with a Master of Arts degree in government and a Certificate in National Security Studies. Beginning with the first group, the classes were generally made up of equal numbers of military officers, and civilians from government agencies.

Some were sent by the services of other countries; a fair percentage already were advanced degree holders or graduates of the service War Colleges. It was hoped that the horizons opened for them by their acquaintance with national security and strategy would have in time a significant impact on policy as those individuals rose to positions of prominence. To obtain a Master’s Degree the student had to be enrolled at Georgetown, and they had to meet the universities vigorous requirements.

Today many academic institutions offer national security studies programs, but Georgetown’s remains the largest. The current faculty includes former Ambassadors Chester Crocker, Robert Galluci and Donald McHenry, as well as the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Anthony Lake.

National Security Studies Programs have now been established at Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Tufts, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, George Washington, the University of Chicago, the University of Georgia; the University of Illinois, the Army War College; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces; the College of Naval Warfare; the Naval Post Graduate School; the National Security Institute and the George C. Marshall College of International and Security Studies.

In addition to assisting the Georgetown program, ASC continued to administer its own NSSP. While the NSSP’s curriculum often changed, several key courses were always maintained. These included “Counterintelligence and Covert Operations” by James J. Angleton; the “U.S./Soviet Military Balance” by Generals George Keegan and Dan Graham; “Cuba’s Foreign Policy” by Dr. Herminio Portell Vila; “The United States in World Affairs” by Greg Hilton; “The Peace Through Strength Strategy” by John M. Fisher; “The Rising Tide: Free Markets and Free Trade” by Colonel Philip S. Cox; “Latin America’s Democratic Transition” by Colonel Samuel T. Dickens USAF (Ret); “Congressional Oversight in Defense and Foreign Policy” by Dr.Lren Thompson of Georgetown University; “Russia’s Global Strategy” by Ambassador William Kintner and Col. Ray Sleeper; and “Arms Control and Verification” by Thomas B. Smith.

The 25th anniversary of Georgetown’s National Security Studies Program was held in 2001, and the University honored ASC with an impressive plaque and presentation. The 25th anniversary was also a decision time for ASC. Veteran Chairman John M. Fisher had often expressed his desire to step down from the programs many administrative burdens, and it was clear the NSSP had outgrown the Congressional Conference Center. The Center will always be an important part of the NSSP’s history, but its primary drawback was that is was located too far away from the nation’s capital (a 79 mile drive), and it was only able to accommodate 60 residential students.

THE NSSP TODAY

The Georgetown University program is today known as the Peace and Security Studies Program, and it is part of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. The new Security Studies Program is awarding doctoral degrees. When Georgetown renamed its program, ASC kept the original name. For ASC the program began with annual conferences in the 1950′s and it was expanded steadily over the years to include a Fall, Spring and Summer Semester.

When potential students contact me I always refer them to the Application Form. This should be downloaded and sent to us along with your resume, and a writing sample (preferably a paper you have already submitted for academic credit). A letter of recommendation is also useful, particularly if it is from a Member of Congress, a Foreign Service Officer, a U.S. Flag Officer or a former member of the Peace Corps.

The “Frequently Asked Questions” section will hopefully address many of your concerns...

Gregory Hilton's blog does not have a tag for anything regarding the drug war, coming only as close as a tag for "Health Policy" which nonetheless fails to address the 'drug war'. Hilton's field appears to be primarily security related matters, as can be expected from Georgetown University, founded and run by the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order in 1789 (during the period of time 1774-1814 when the Order was officially 'suppressed'), and where the U.S. 'PATRIOT Act was crafted.

Concerning his brief attention given in his anti Ron Paul piece to the 'drug war' I suggest this reading list for Professor Hilton:

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-warriors-ignore-pharmacokinetics.html

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-war-promotes-drug-abuse-over-drug.html

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/03/drug-war-tobacco-pharma-agricultural.html

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/01/drug-statutes-infinitely-worse-than.html

Instead of what I have written as a blogger, starting out with my initial South Capitol Mall blog in 2006, and as a drug policy, Coca Leaf history researcher since 1987, we get this overly simplistic, overly generalized muddled slop. It comes out throughout the MSM. Its style is found in publications particularly as "Readers' Digest" examplified (concerning the 'drug war') by Yale's David Musto- that blur the reputations of Coca and highly concentrated cocaine. Alas this comes out also through the 'prestigious' & expensive educational institutions, adhering to a sacred doctrine of white is black and black is white Soviet style brainwashing, coalescing as a within the Beltway fortress that festers upon deliberately confusing/misinterpreting ill effects of what it does, as somehow justifying throwing more good money and lives down the multi-trillion dollar continuing mega boondoggle of the ‘drug war’ , particularly Jesuit Georgetown University, the virtual fist in the glove of the U.S. State Department.

All distracting from the broader picture of manipulative political control- mercantilism.

Read more ►

Jesuitical Gov Brown Against MJ Legalization-Regulation

continuing the criminal Roman Catholic Church's criminal mercantilism against MJ popularized by Vatican suck up Wiliiam Randolf Hearst

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/30/california-rallying-cry-vote-green-not-brown/

California Rallying Cry?: Vote Green, Not Brown

In an apparent attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown yesterday expressed his opposition to the Tax Cannabis 2010 campaign to make marijuana legal in the state.

Mr. Brown, who is was in Monterrey for a conference, said legalizing the drug would open the flood gates for the ruthless and deadly Mexican drug cartels.

“Every year we get more and more marijuana and every year we find more guys with AK-47’s coming out of Mexico going into forests and growing more and more dangerous and losing control,” Mr. Brown said.

For the purpose of this short post, I will not address in full here the idiocy of decrying the involvement of drug cartels in the marijuana trade while opposing a regulated system of distribution. Suffice it to say that burying your head in your ass the sand and hoping the drug war will eliminate drug cartels from the planet hasn’t been the most effective tactic over the past few decades.

But this post is about politics, not policy. The problem for Brown is that he is potentially turning off hundreds of thousands of voters who will be showing up in November simply to vote to make marijuana legal. Many of these “green” voters don’t give a real hoot who the next governor of the state is, as long as they can purchase their recreational drug of choice safely, conveniently and legally.

That said, single-issue marijuana voters tend to lean toward the Democratic side of the spectrum, so their votes would likely benefit Brown overall. The only thing that could reverse that likelihood is Brown dissing Proposition 19, as the initiative is now known. (Brown supporters should hope that the campaign is carefully studying polling data to determine his standing among individuals who will be turning out to vote because of the Tax Cannabis initiative.)

Here is my political advice to Mr. Brown. From now on, if he is asked about Proposition 19, he should say, “I have some concerns about the initiative, which I hope could be addressed by the state legislature if it passes, but if I am elected to be the next governor of the state I certainly plan to respect the will of the people.”

If he chooses to ignore this advice, he may be hearing or seeing – or simply feeling the effects of — the following slogan in the fall: “Vote green, not Brown.”

Steve is the director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy Project, co-founder of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), and co-author of "Marijuana is Safer: So why are we driving people to drink?" (Chelsea Green, August 2009).

---

About Jerry Brown:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/about

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., known as Jerry, was born in San Francisco on April 7, 1938. He attended both public and parochial schools, graduating from St. Ignatius High School in 1955. He completed his freshman year at the University of Santa Clara before entering Sacred Heart Novitiate, a Jesuit seminary in August 1956. Two years later, he took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. In 1960, he left the Society of Jesus and enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley. He received his B.A. degree in Classics the next year and then entered Yale Law School, where he graduated in 1964.

Following law school, Brown worked as a law clerk to California Supreme Court Justice Mathew Tobriner, traveled and studied in Mexico and Latin America and then took up residence in Los Angeles, working for the prestigious law firm, Tuttle & Taylor. In 1969, Brown was elected to the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, placing first in a field of 124. In 1970, he was elected California Secretary of State. During his term, he forced legislators to comply with campaign disclosure laws, exposed President Nixon’s use of falsely notarized documents to improperly earn a large tax deduction and drafted and helped pass the California Fair Political Practices Act. Brown personally argued before the state Supreme Court and won against Gulf, Mobile and Standard Oil for election law violations (Brown vs. Superior Court).

Brown was elected Governor in 1974 and reelected in 1978, by over one million votes.

---

Some comments from the above linked article, reflecting that Jerry Brown serves the whims of the existing political pyramid:

• mikesoul: If anyone thinks that Jerry Brown will offer a progressive alternative to the Republicans, they should read the article that the SF Chronicle published on March 4, 2010, after interviewing him. Brown made it clear he was running as a centrist who will not challenge the status quo on anything, and certainly not the state budget--he even supports continuing the two thirds requirement for budgets to pass. What you can expect from Brown is not bold progressive leadership and real substantive change, but rather more of the same.

• matthewsbeachmikek: I am still amazed at the politicians who don't get it, especially those like Brown who has to know dozens of people who smoke or smoked pot: the war over the legalization of cannabis is over. A politician who gets out in front of this issue will gain more votes than he or she loses. The facts are just too persuasive, ultimately. And politicians nowadays worth their salt should be able to present the issue to voters on multiple fronts.


Such is what I term the dynamics of a political system dominated by a pyramid hierarchy, one that relies upon having two controlled-contrived sides to a political debate, and keeping the people fearful of breaking out of such, as the following statement reflects.

• grolaw: Single issue voters are anathema to democracy. Meg Whitman has committed $150 Meg of her own money to gain the Governor's Office in CA. Think about the implications of that, massive investment, on the part of the former eBay executive and billionaire. No good businessperson makes an investment without expecting a profitable return on that investment. What does Meg Whitman want and how does she expect to realize the return on her investment? Pot politics pales in the light of a Whitman holding office in Sacramento.


How can ‘pot politics’ so pale when they at are the stage where California could become the first US State to break MJ from the criminal mercantilist drug war, and the supposedly ‘progressive’ Democrat, Jesuit Jerry Brown is already leading over Whitman, and would be likelier to pick up votes by favoring rather then opposing MJ legalization?

• winchelenator: According to the latest poll, Brown leads Whitman 45% to 39%, so I don't know why he feels the need to come out against weed at this point. Wasn't he talking pro-legalize some years back? If so, why the flip flop?
• woodyc: He’s always been that way, (flip flops); I guess he is just a politician
• moldy: Jeeze, those comments condemning prop 19 are surprising to say the least. It used to be political suicide to support marijuana but now people know its safe and non toxic. Using the old scare tactics don't work anymore. We've heard it ALL before. But I don’t get it. There is a majority of voters that support prop 19 and like 36% against it. We all know that prohibition is a failure and a fucking colossal one at that. Why would he shoot himself in the foot? Is this moral high ground a short cut to the Gov’s mansion? Or maybe the Prison Guard Union got a hold of him with some $$$$$? A failed initiative is exactly what Brown and his Union is betting on otherwise they may have to shut down some very profitable prisons.


Indeed, this reflects the reality of a grossly corrupt hierarchy that continually profits from the drug war criminal mercantilism, from such entities as the ‘Fraternal Order of Police’ founded in May, 1915, to such interests directly protected, including big pharm and the cigarette industry.


Jerry Brown's Religious Roots
http://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2008/11/jerry-brown-jesuit-agent-from-hell.html

Read more ►

"Law & Order" TV Show Takes on Anti-Ibogaine Criminal Mercantilism

Clip from NBC:

http://www.nbc.com/Law_and_Order_Special_Victims_Unit/video/clips/svu-two-minute-replay-users/1172744/

What do we do?
Send him to rehab. It's methadone now or it's heroin later.
There is one other option: Ibogaine Hydrochlorite.
Within 24 hours he would loose his craving for heroin.
Clinics around the world use it to treat heroin addiction.
Let's do it.
I can't. The drug is illegal here. Because the patent expired and no drug company can make a profit of it.

What you are doing is illegal.
One dose of Ibogaine and he is clean- we are leaving.
It's kidnapping.
I am a doctor; I have a moral obligation to treat him.
Even it means loss of your license?

http://www.entheogen.com/forum/showthread.php?p=274970

Law and Order SVU -Ibogaine - 7th November 2009, 12:42 AM

---

Did anyone see the Wed nite episode of L&O SVU? Finally a somewhat good message. Wong, the psychiatrist put his job on the line by healing a heroin addict with ibogaine. He knew it was illegal. He and Elliot were talking how dumb it was to be illegal but that the pharm companies don't want people to have access except for the inferior big pharma drugs. I'd imagine they were talking about suboxen. So Wong took the kid to an ibogaine clinic and administered 800 mgs of ibogaine hydrochloride.

Now the silly part was they were saying it "cures" addiction in 48 hours. They also made it sound like the "trip" part was a side effect of the ibogaine instead of one of the main reasons. Also once the kid was healed they needed him to testify against a cult/minister drug dealer. Wong reported himself and had a 30 day suspension of his license for using ibogaine. He was adamant about the positive properties.

I just thought the mention of greedy big pharma on primetime due to an illegal helpful psychedelic was interesting. The message was put forth even with all the silliness surrounding the episode.

This mention of big pharm is but the tip of the iceberg, as provided by the following helpful comment:

1."drug" scam;2."therapists";3.$cigtaxquidproquo;4.Big pHARMa

Comment posted by maxwood on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 3:33pm

1. To paraphrase the previous comment, many defendants plead guilty in order to pass for "easy" and avoid the hard time that "hard cases" get. ("Admission" to the drug court program is a better deal than prison-- you are better protected against gang-rape, persecution etc.) That in turn enables prohibitionists to "prove" marijuana is a problem-causing "drug" by pointing to the large statistical number of marijuana "offenders" admitted to the drug court program.
2. Both in prison and in "drug programs" are to be found well-paid bureaucrat "therapists" punitively pretending to "treat" the marijuana "drug offenders" on the premise that cannabis must be classified as a "drug" rather than as an "herb" or "nutritional supplement" which would place it in a non-punitive category.
3. Police, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, guards are all benefiting from their share of over $30-bil./yr/US nicotine $igarette tax money, and for that they reward the big tobackgo corporations by suppressing cannabis as an illegal "drug" and thereby suppressing the anti-overdose smoking and vaporizing equipment (which, if cannabis were legal, could become readily available to tobacco users and replace the now entrenched profitable hot burning overdose $igarette marketing format), on the premise that such equipment is related to illegal cannabis and thus also illegal or "evidence". (How would you like your $600 Volcano vaporizer to be confiscated, or used as evidence to convict you of a crime?)
4. Big pHARMa doesn't want unprofitable homegrown cannabis to get a chance to (a) outclass their currently profitable proprietary Stop Smoking remedies at $20, $40, $60 a box and a 10% success rate, and (b) cause an abrupt decline in cigarette smoking, leading to a consequent decline in sales of profitable Statins and other drugs now used to manage chronic tobacco-related degenerative diseases.

This influence plausibly extend to the drug policy reform movement in the form of legal advice via an important and well-connected food, drug, pharmaceutical and cigarette industry law firm:

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

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

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue: Covington & Burling building

How about better employing such legal resources for Ibogaine -- note that the legal adviser herself is a food, drug and insurance attorney: should not the insurance industry be interested in ways of reducing health care costs? -- as suggested for Coca and alternatively with Marijuana more generally as a public health measure, at the following links, as part of a general drive to reduce health care costs?

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

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/10/dana-beal-on-public-health-marijuana.html

Read more ►

Dana Beal on Public Health Marijuana

Dana Beal

PUBLIC HEALTH MARIJUANA:

The New Direction in Harm Reduction

by Dana Beal | Cannabis Health Journal | Issue 11

When the National Institute on Drug Abuse turned its sights on the mechanism of cannabinols and their endogenous analogues such as anandamide in the brain, they were disappointed to find that the dopamine model they relied on to explain drug abuse and addiction seemed to let cannabis off the hook. The modest uptick in dopamine levels produced by pot confirmed what the old hippies saw, marijuana is pleasurable, but not particularly addictive.

More recent work tracing the pathways of another neuro-transmitter, glutamate, has further explicated the question of marijuana’s addictiveness. Familiar to aficionados of cheap Chinese food as mono-sodium glutamate (MSG), it performs multiple functions throughout the brain and the body involved in long-term learning and memory and as a kind of natural stimulant that takes the brakes off” metabolic processes, causing everything to burn hotter.

In 2001 a Swiss researcher, Francois Conquet , made an interesting discovery with “knock-out” mice who had been bio-engineered not to have a particular glutamate pathway called m (for messenger) GluR5. Mice with no mGluR5 could not be trained to self- inject cocaine. This is highly significant because elimination of dopamine transporters and receptors in other knock-outs still left them able to be addicted through cocaine’s rewarding effects on serotonin. Microdialysis recorded the same dopamine spikes in both wild mice and the mGluR5-deficient ones, but soon after the researchers substituted intravenous cocaine for food, the mGluR5 knock-outs stopped pressing the lever. Their affinities for food, water, mating were unaffected; but cocaine could no longer “fool” the knock-outs into accepting it as a replacement for food, water and mating .

Cannabis and Glutamate

In Colorado Springs, the Chairman of the University of Colorado Biology Department is Bob Melamede . Dr. Melamede teaches a whole course on medical marijuana. Central to his thesis is the finding that cannabinols and the endogenous neuro -transmitters they mimic are glutamate antagonists; but not the kind of noncompetitive antagonists , like ibogaine , that come along to “plug the hole” after inonotropic glutamate receptors have opened up to let minerals through the cell membrane. Instead, cannabinols and anandamide act to “ backsignal ” along the metabotropic glutamate pathways that work (like mGluR5) through the second messenger systems and modulate signals of other neurotransmitters.

What cannabinols do is to tell glutamate-firing cells to chill out, to stop firing so much glutamate, an effect that is necessary whenever too much glutamate causes cell processes to burn too hot. Melamede believes the original evolutionary function of anandamide was to control inflammation, and that its role in the body and nervous system grew as glutamate came to be used to do more and more things.

[Suetaznote: This is why marijuana is beneficial to those that suffer from glaucoma, asthma and many other physical problems that result from inflammation.]

Marijuana, Tobacco, Cancer

So beyond the question of cannabis addictiveness, an understanding of glutamate mechanism has important public policy implications regarding marijuana, tobacco, and carcinogenesis. The oftrepeated myth that “one joint is 3 (or 10) times more carcinogenic than a cigarette”—based on the resin content—collapses upon consideration of the role of chronic glutamate inflammation of the linings of the lungs in generating the free radicals that attack the DNA of immune cells in these linings. Like white blood cells, these immune cells are there to attack pathogens (the lungs are a big vector for infection) that come their way.

The truism that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin becomes a lot easier to understand when we remember that the mediating neurotransmitter of the nicotine high is glutamate. Once you acclimate to the nicotine, so that it no longer makes you sick, its primary “cascade” effect is a quick fix of glutamate, lasting no more than 5 or 10 minutes, which has the effect of calming the addict down while giving them a lift. Typically, because it potentiates long term memory, writers use it to finish articles.

In the lining of the lung, however, nicotine has the perverse effect of putting the damaged immune cell into kind of suspended animation, blocking apoptosis, or cell death. What happens if you keep a damaged cell alive while filling it with free radicals produced by chronic glutamate inflammation ?

Eventually you get bad genetic code, the cell goes cancerous and starts migrating all over the body spreading that bad code. Which is why smokers end up with cancer in some of the strangest places.

It has been estimated that the average New Yorker breathes in pollutants equivalent to a pack and a half of cigarettes every day. But without the key co-factor of the nicotine, they do not get lung cancer at anything like the rate of packand -a-half-a-day smokers. We all have multiple redundant natural immunities that block the sea of crap we breathe from giving us cancer. Indeed, the crowning blow to the prohibitionist argument that burn products, not nicotine, cause the cancer is the widespread incidence of cancer of the lip and gum among people who chew tobacco. There are no published reports of stomach cancer from marijuana brownies.

Beyond the reports of direct cannabis efficacy against certain kinds of tumors, the mechanism of action of cannabinols is 180 degrees opposite of nicotine: anti- glutaminergic , anti-inflammatory. That is why cannabis is prescribed for all kinds of inflammation and auto-immune disease. So regardless of the amount of tar or burn products—and meaning no disrespect to the vaporizer advocates—with cannabinols instead of nicotine in the mix there’s nothing to “turn on” the carcinogens therein.

[Suetaznote: This debunks what people have been told by the government about smoking. That because smoking causes cancer, it must be bad to smoke marijuana. Not true, according to Dana Beal. Nicotine causes cancer, marijuana does not, in any way shape or form, nor does it cause any lung damage.]

Marijuana, Alcohol, Accidents

The final bit of confusion that can be cleared up here is the widespread fallacy, based on the outdated notion marijuana works like alcohol, that pot is a major cause of accidents. Once again, mechanism of action confirms the epidemiological studies that already show people drive, if anything, more safely on cannabis.

Where cannabis has its very own receptors, alcohol works by unleashing a flood of endorphins in response to major trauma caused by ethanol stripping the myelin sheaths of the nerve cells. From there the addictive process is straightforward, with the endorphins engendering a dopamine spike, which eventually locks in the mGluR5 pathway and so on. But while the trauma is occurring, and you’re drunk, you ability to function is severely damaged in a way that just doesn’t happen with a mild glutamate antagonist working through its own specific set of receptors.

Considered from the public health standpoint, cannabis is more often than not a replacement for alcohol and other drugs. When cannabis use goes up, alcohol use goes down. And because the cannabis effect is NOT incapacitating like alcohol intoxication (every single study to date shows no significant impairment of driving, for instance) the effect of the substitution of cannabis is the saving of lives. Economists Frank Chaloupka and Adit Laixuthai , at the University of Illinois at Chicago , estimate that cannabis decriminalization would reduce youth traffic fatalities by 5.5 per cent, youth drinking rates by eight per cent and binge-drinking rates by five per cent. Other evidence suggests we would see similar declines in emergency-room drug and alcohol cases.

Tobacco, Marijuana, Harm Reduction

Harm reduction approaches to cannabis have focused heretofore on the market separation of cannabis and other illegal drugs. According to Dutch government facts-sheets, out of the total population of 727,000, Amsterdam has around 5,100 hard-drug users. The primary thrust of policy is to discourage the use of drugs, and to combat the trade in drugs. The authorities also seek to minimize the risks incurred by drug users and to reduce as far as possible the nuisance factor for the general public . In the context of use, Amsterdam ’s drug policy differentiates between hard and soft drugs, i.e.: cannabis is available, but at locations where no other illicit substances may be sold, and this “market separation” is strictly enforced.

Of some 5,100 hard-drug users, around 2000 are of Dutch origin, with some 1,350 having roots in former colony of Surinam , the Netherlands Antilles and Morocco . Around 1,750 users come from other European countries, mainly Germany and Italy . The total number of hard-drug users is steadily decreasing, while their average age is rising, from 26.8 years in 1981 to 39 years in 1999. In the same period the total number of drug users under 22 years of age dropped from 14.4 percent to 1.6%.

The singular flaw of the Dutch system from the standpoint of nicotine carcinogenesis is the almost universal practice of smoking cannabis mixed with tobacco a habit that totally undermines the health benefits of smoking pure cannabis. It will be a hard habit to break, considering the basic chemistry involved.

Combining nicotine’s glutamate agonist effect with pot’s glutamate antagonism offers the benefits of a kind of “speedball”: cutting back on the “stoned” effect of the cannabidiol without interfering with the initial THC-induced melatonin rush—the high.** But the seeds of change are contained within the almost 90% switch from hashish to hydro by Dutch consumers during the last decade. Without the need for tobacco to make a hash joint, better tasting bud—plus the ever-growing popular consciousness of tobacco’s dangers— may in the end be enough to change European tastes. This changeover can and should be augmented by all the publicity tools of a full-fledged public health campaign, with slogans like “Pure Pot Tastes Even Better!”

A better understanding of the mechanism of marijuana as a glutamate antagonist versus the licit glutamate agonists, alcohol and nicotine, raises the interesting prospect of the next logical step for our worldwide movement being not strictly medical, but public heath marijuana. In a generation or less, all carrots and sticks of public health policy may be enlisted in a conscious effort to REPLACE alcohol and cigarettes with a marijuana monoculture, and to REMOVE all cannabis opponents from any role in setting that policy. The benefits of saving up to 600,000 lives a year from cancer and auto accidents in the U.S. alone will make the switchover well worth it!

[Suetaznote: This is the best news I've read yet! This whole article proves what some of us have known all along. The truth is, no one has yet come up with any viable proof that marijuana is bad for one's health. Everything that people like John Walters and Andrea Barthwell, the ex-deputy director of the ONDCP, have said about marijuana has been thoroughly debunked.]

** I will explain the health benefits of melatonin supplements for regular cannabis users in my next article.


Dana Beal, organized the first marijuana protests during the summer of love, 1967. He was a founding member and chief theoretician of the Youth International Party, started the YIPster Times after the Miami Convention protests in 1972 and crusaded for marijuana legalization in the 70’s. He collaborated with Tom Forcade , founder of High Times, changed the name of the paper to Overthrow in 1979, started Rock Against Racism in December 1980, he initiated an Ibogaine project with Howard Lots in an effort to make this addiction interrupter available to addicts everywhere. He published the Yippie anthology, Blacklisted News in 1983, advocated medical marijuana for AIDS patients in 1986, joined ACT UP in 1988, pushed Ibogaine through ACT UP and NIDA until he was unmasked as a medical marijuana activist after a short prison stint in ‘93, co-founded Cures not Wars, started NYC Medical Marijuana Buyers’ Club with Johann Moore in 1995. Beal published the Ibogaine Story with Paul DeRienzo in January, 1997. Dana was part of the Wheelchair Walk for Medical Marijuana from Boston to D.C. in fall 1997, brought Ibogaine to U.K. in 1998, initiated the Million Marijuana March in 1999 and co-sponsored First International Ibogaine Conference at NYU in November, 99.

__________

DTN-Marijuana and the Free Radicals

Dr. Robert Melamede, noted scientist describes the true effect of marijuana on the human body. Produced by the Drug Truth Network

Read more ►

There is a special place in Hell reserved for the Vatican

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2009/02/there-is-special-place-in-hell-reserved.html

William Randolph Hearst,
Vatican tool
(SMOM) Knights of Malta

who dedicated his newspapers towards unjustifiably demonifying Cannabis and other herbs
for criminal mercantilism market protection for Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes and big pharm

From Pete Guither:

There is a special place in Hell reserved for the Vatican

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2009/02/26.html

Oh sure, there were the Crusades, the Inquisition, the destruction of science (Galileo), silence during the Holocaust, coverup of pedophiles, and the direct responsibility for millions of deaths to AIDS due to opposing safe sex practices (particularly in third world countries).
But NO, that's not nearly enough for the Vatican. Surely there's more evil that they can promote, more people they can kill in the name of God the Pope.
Oh yes, how about drug users. Let's kill some of them, too.

You see, the United States finally, finally, finally, came to its senses and the Obama administration sent a new message through its representatives to the United Nations that at least needle exchange as a harm reduction approach would be accepted. While that was not nearly all that was needed, it was at least an opening, and even the most rabid global drug warriors agreed that needle exchange was now a sure thing to be included in the new global drug policy.
But then, guess who intercedes?

The Vatican has been accused of putting the lives of thousands at risk by attempting to influence UN drugs policy on the eve of a major international declaration.
The Vatican's objection to "harm reduction" strategies, such as needle exchange schemes, has ignited a fierce debate between the US and the EU over how drugs should be tackled.
A new UN declaration of intent is due to be signed in Vienna on 11 March. However, there are major disagreements between member countries over whether a commitment to "harm reduction" should be included in the document, which is published every 10 years.
Now the Vatican has issued a statement that claims that using drugs is "anti-life" and "so-called harm reduction leads to liberalisation of the use of drugs". The Vatican's last-minute intervention appears to have led to Italy withdrawing from the EU consensus on the issue and thrown the talks over the declaration into confusion. [Guardian, UK]

Now, just to be clear, is there any doubt as to the actual truth? No.

Seven federally funded studies during the 1990s, conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the CDC and the National Academy of Sciences among others, all reached similar conclusions that NEPs work in reducing HIV's spread among IV drug users, their partners and children, and that they do not encourage increased drug use. Furthermore, a more recent study by the World Health Organization compiled the results of over 200 such reports from around the world and came to the same conclusions. [emphasis added]

The Vatican knows this, and yet they oppose needle exchange. Dr. William Martin, Professor Emeritus of Religion and Public Policy at Rice University says:

When the science is clear, when we know that something will help save lives and choose not to do it that is not only pigheaded, it is immoral.

There is no doubt that the Vatican is immoral.
I am no stranger to spirituality. I was raised in church (my father is a minister). But religion does not own, beget, nor bestow morality. And some of the most moral people I've known are atheists.
In fact, when a group of people claim to be the holders of religious truth and use that ill-gotten power for destruction rather than for the good of the people, then they are terrorists, whether they reside in caves in Pakistan, or high in the Holy See.

11:00:23 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink | comment [1]

Roman Catholic Anti Christ Cocaine Prohibition

Read more ►

Drug prohibition – an untenable hypocrisy

Julian Critchley has come out and said what those in charge of UK drug policy won't admit: prohibition doesn't work

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/drugspolicy.drugstrade

All comments (208)

• 
• • Danny Kushlick
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Wednesday August 13 2008 10:00 BST
  • Article history

The former head of the government's UK anti-drug co-ordination unit (UKADCU), Julian Critchley, posted to BBC Home Affairs correspondent Mark Easton's blog last week, The War on Drugs, calling for the legalisation of drugs. In his post he also reports how those he met during his time at the unit knew that criminalisation was causing more harm than the drugs themselves. (This comes as no surprise to anyone who has read the damning report from the prime minister's strategy unit from 2003.)

Critchley says:

I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew that the Government's policy was actually causing harm.

Critchley is to be congratulated for speaking out with such candour on the issue. I have met many former and current civil servants who are of the same opinion, but haven't gone public. What Critchley makes absolutely clear is that many, if not most of those working in the drugs field are knowingly colluding with a regime that actively causes harm. Their silence is not based on ignorance but is tacit support for one of the great social policy disasters of the last 100 years.

Critchley, having retrained as a teacher, concludes with the following:

I find that when presented with the facts, the students I teach are quite capable of considering issues such as this, and reaching rational conclusions even if they started with a blind Daily Mail-esque approach. I find it a shame that no mainstream political party accords the electorate the same respect.

His final comment ought to send a shiver down the spine of every UK voter. If you voted in the last election, you probably voted for prohibition. You voted to gift hundreds of billions of pounds to organised crime each year, to undermine the social and economic development of producer countries such as Colombia, Afghanistan as well as transit countries such as Guinea Bissau and Jamaica. You voted to double the amount of acquisitive crime in the UK and to double the prison population with it. Your "X" contributed to misery and degradation for millions of the most marginalised people on earth. Unless we all do something to change it, you will probably vote for prohibition next time too.

In 2003 at a press conference, I asked the then drugs spokesperson at the Home Office, Bob Ainsworth MP, whether the government would support a cost benefit analysis of drug law enforcement. Quick as a flash his reply came back: "Why would we want to do that unless we were going to legalise drugs?" Does that sound like a man ignorant of where that audit trail would lead?

It is the candour of the likes of Critchley and others that exposes the hypocrisy of those failing to speak out and makes prohibition untenable in the long term. As Joseph McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City and San Jose put it: "The drug war cannot stand the light of day. It will collapse as quickly as the Vietnam war, as soon as people find out what's really going on." Tragically and despicably, the government's commitment to populist posturing means that the collapse will come far too late for many.

Julian Critchley: All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs
Thursday, 14 August 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/julian-critchley-all-the-experts-admit-that-we-should-legalise-drugs-894367.html

Eight years ago, I left my civil service job as director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit. I went partly because I was sick of having to implement policies that I knew, and my political masters knew, were unsupported by evidence. Yesterday, after a surreal flurry of media requests referring to a blog I wrote that questioned the wisdom of the UK's drug policies, I found myself in the thick of the debate again, and I was sorry to discover that the terms hadn't changed a bit.

I was being interviewed on the BBC World Service, and after I tried to explain why I believe that drugs should be decriminalised, the person representing the other side of the argument pointed out that drugs are terrible, that they destroy lives. Now, I am a deeply boring, undruggy person myself, and I think the world would be a better place without drugs. But I think that we must live in the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. And so my answer was, yes, I know that drugs are terrible. I'm not saying that drugs should be decriminalised because it would be fun if we could all get stoned with impunity. I'm saying that we've tried minimising harm through a draconian legal policy. It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven't worked. There is evidence that this works.

Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation. This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to Government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be otherwise. Studies suggest that the market is already almost saturated, and anyone who wishes to purchase the drug of their choice anywhere in the UK can already do so. The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is ridiculous.

Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line.

The case is overwhelming. But I fear that policy will not catch up with the facts any time soon. It would take a mature society to accept that some individuals may hurt, or even kill themselves, as a result of a policy change, even if the evidence suggested that fewer people died or were harmed as a result. It would take a brave government to face down the tabloid fury in the face of anecdotes about middle-class children who bought drugs legally and came to grief, and this is not a brave government.

I think what was truly depressing about my time in the civil service was that the professionals I met from every sector held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those people were forced to repeat the mantra that the Government would be "tough on drugs", even though they all knew that the policy was causing harm.

I recall a conversation I had with a Number 10 policy advisor about a series of announcements in which we were to emphasise the shift of resources to treatment and highlight successes in prevention and education. She asked me whether we couldn't arrange for "a drugs bust in Brighton" at the same time, or "a boat speeding down the Thames to catch smugglers". For that advisor, what worked mattered considerably less than what would play well in the right-wing press. The tragedy of our drugs policy is that it is dictated by tabloid irrationality, and not by evidence.

Read more ►

USDA/FDA Regulatory Mercantilism Free Pass For Adulterated, Misbranded Tobacco

"Tobacco" does not appear in the US Pharmacopoeia, an official government listing of drugs. "The removal of tobacco from the Pharmacopoeia was the price that had to be paid to get the support of tobacco state legislators for the Food and Drug Act of 1906. The elimination of the word tobacco automatically removed the leaf from FDA supervision."--Smoking and Politics: Policymaking and the Federal Bureaucracy Fritschler, A. Lee. 1969, p. 37

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History20-1.html

"FDA" in that above quote should actually read the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Read more ►

1988 - The U.N. Continues the Pharamacratic Inquisition

This organization defiles the public interest with its continued support for criminal mercantilism via pushing upon the world the pharamacratic inquisition

Read more ►

New Dark Age of the Pharmacratic Inquisition: The U.S. 'Pure' Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906

From my unpublished manuscript "Coca- Forgotten Medicine"

The U.S. 'Pure' Food and Drug Act of 1906 did not ban coca, nor even mention it. But would treat it unfairly via requiring labeling of cocaine content (with no such requirement for caffeine and nicotine containing substances), and allowing the USDA to define something as “adulterated” for containing whatever the USDA could declare to be a dangerous, habit-forming or deleterious (with no requirement that any such declaration be grounded in consistent science).

The 1906 act would effectively exempt Tobacco via its definition of USDA authority over drugs as confined to those listed in the US Pharmacopeia.

Tobacco was included in this Pharmacopeia until being dropped in 1905.

US Pharmacopeia - Wikipedia

Read more ►

The New Crusade for a Pharmacratic Inquisition via the Basilica of Cornstalks and Tobacco Leaves

From my unpublished manuscript "Coca- Forgotten Medicine"

The New Volatile Politics: U.S. Drug Law Apostasy

Within the next 15 years after the Popes feted Mariani, Coca all but disappeared from vast swaths of major industrialized world consumer markets, virtually prohibited by laws illegalizing its sale outside of non-refillable prescriptions, and largely forgotten by a medical profession that was turning its backs upon plant based substances defined as drugs, in favor of the then relatively new class of synthetic substances defined as drugs, within a political situation where how things were defined was not necessarily consistent with science nor public health.

Coca did not become prohibited because of any showing that it was detrimental to public health. Rather it was vilified by those citing the acute toxicities of concentrated cocaine (that is, when taken over a short period of time in high doses), who publicly assumed this translated to Coca being unacceptably dangerous (whether acute or over time), whereas Tobacco and Coffee were not). This position, previously adopted by some within the south-eastern United States with its market motive to protect Tobacco, was adopted by a number of national US organizations about 1904 involved with political matters relating to medicine and to foods.

It correlates to the market competition involving two plants.

One is long grown in the continental U.S. as a commodity enshrined solidly at the top of the columns of the U.S. Capitol building and a major commodity crop commodity in North America before the creation of the U.S. during its 1776-1783 war for independence.

The other was being touted as replacement but can’t be grown outdoors in almost all of the U.S. but for portions of southern Florida, Texas, and portions of the South west, and is thus a foreign agricultural crop commodity primarily exported from South America’s west coast; that’s a coast that was otherwise soon destined to become significantly “closer” to North Atlantic markets with the impending completion of the Panama Canal: a project that the US re-started in 1903, and would reduce shipping distances from Peru to New York or Europe by 9,000 miles upon opening in August of 1914.

Tobacco had been a major crop and Coca after all was being touted as a means to combat the Tobacco habit, something unlikely to endear it to U.S. Tobacco interests.

It also correlates with a more generalized movement to further peoples’ liberties under the guise of protecting society, but done in the name of more mundane political objectives of controlling markets for the sake of various political interests of Tobacco and pharmaceuticals, and against non-patentable medicinal substances: IOW plants.

Read more ►

Pharmacratic Mentality: Favoring Toxicity

The pharmacratic mentality favors generally more toxic substances: isolated elements in concentrated forms, whether derived from nature or synthetic, versus herbal compounds in dilute forms. It promotes a trend in general medical practice in much of the industrialized world since the early 1900s.

It’s not necessarily scientifically consistent, applying different standards to different substances with comparable and different uses. Coca leaf has comparable uses to that for Coffee and Tobacco leaf, with each containing small amounts of an alkaloid that for humans serves as a stimulant. Yet no one judges caffeine and nicotine by the standard used to condemn cocaine. Likewise those that would define any marijuana use as abuse would not do the same with the more toxic alternative of alcohol.

This encourages confusion and mis-information on the relative safety of these substances by distracting from the importance of the different forms of drugs:

- Dilute are the safest

- Concentrated the most dangerous.

It also distracts from the relative safety of the different substances.

- Coca

- Tea (caffeine-containing)

- Coffee

- Marijuana

- Opium

- Alcohol

- Tobacco- Bright Leaf (for cigarettes)

Read more ►

Pharmacratic Mentality: Intellectually Lazy Over Generalizations

Nearly everyone takes “drugs” of some sort. A drug is something that effects a temporary change on the human organism, with the definition between a drug and a food overlapping.

Of some sort includes:

- Drinking dilute preparations such as Coffee, tea

- Smoking plants such as Tobacco and Marijuana

- Swallowing pills such as anything at a drug store

- Snorting powders (ground up pills).

- Smoking rocks (chunks of pills) such as crack

- Injection

Each of these forms of drug use have different effects: a reality commonly overlooked in favor of U.S. Congress enacted, William Randolph Hearst pushed mercantile schemes of protecting favored commodities.

William Randolf Hearst's Reefer Madness

Read more ►