WAR ON DRUGS or is it a WAR ON US???

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
This thread will be about drugs legal and illegal!! We're going to start at the so called beginning and work our way to the present. Some articles are going to be long reads, sum short and sum video!! At the end, hopefully we will be able to connect sum dots and figure out whats really going on!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Hemp History Timeline
Through the Years

1606: French Botanist Louis Hebert planted the first hemp crop in North America in Port Royal, Acadia (present-day Nova Scotia).

1770s: In Virginia (and some other colonies), farmers are required by law to grow hemp.

1776: The U.S. Declaration of Independence is drafted on hemp paper.

1797: The U.S.S. Constitution is outfitted with hemp sails and rigging.

1790s: U.S. founding fathers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams grow hemp.

1800s: Upper Canada’s Lieutenant Governor, on behalf of the King of England, distributed free hemp seed to Canadian farmers.

1840s: Abraham Lincoln uses hemp oil to fuel his household lamps.

1890s: USDA Chief Botanist begins growing hemp varieties at the current site of the Pentagon and continues until the 1940s.

1916: USDA (Bulletin No. 404) shows that hemp produces four times more paper per acres than trees!

1928: The Canadian House of Commons encourages Canadian farmers to grow hemp.

1937: Hemp was strictly regulated by the Marijuana Tax Act, largely due to confusion with other kinds of cannabis. Hemp could only be grown through specially issued government tax stamps, making any type of possession/transfer without a tax stamp illegal.

1938: Popular Mechanics Magazine determines that over 25,000 different products could be made from hemp and declares hemp as the “New Billion Dollar Crop.”

1942: Henry Ford builds an experimental car with panels partially made from hemp fibre. That same year, without any changes to the Marijuana Tax Act, the United States Army used their Hemp for Victory campaign to urge farmers to grow hemp to support them in World War II. Between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. cultivated 400,000 acres of hemp for their war effort.

1957: Once World War II had ended, demand for hemp decreased and so did hemp production. The last commercial hemp fields were planted in 1957 in Wisconsin.

1970: The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act went into effect abolishing the taxation approach of the Marijuana Tax Act, effectively making all cultivation of cannabis illegal by setting a zero tolerance for THC.

1992: Manitoba Harvest Hemp Foods’ Co-Founder Martin begins importing and manufacturing handmade hemp items.

1993: Martin conducts research and establishes important relationships with farmers and government leaders.

1994: Martin organizes industrial hemp events and helps establish the University of Manitoba Hemp Awareness Committee (UMHAC).

1995: UMHAC becomes the Manitoba Hemp Alliance and lobbies the Government of Manitoba for assistance in advancing hemp agriculture. Harry Enns, Manitoba’s Agriculture Minister at the time, approves a funding grant and offers the services of a New Crops Agronomist. In less than nine months, the first hemp crops are harvested.

1996: Hemp trial results indicate that hemp can be grown with undetectable amounts (less than 0.003%) of THC.

1998: Industrial hemp is legalized in Canada! Hemp foods begin exporting to the U.S.

1999: North Dakota, Minnesota, and Hawaii legalize the growing of industrial hemp at state level, but federally, industrial hemp is still illegal to grow in the U.S.

2001: The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) begins a campaign to make sales of all hemp foods illegal in the U.S. The Hemp Industries Association (HIA), Dr. Bronner’s, and other companies that offer hemp products take legal action against the DEA.

2004: Ninth Circuit Court rules in favour of the Hemp Industries Association and protects sales of hemp foods and body care products in the U.S.

2006: New innovations in hemp processing and new hemp products hit the market.

2010: Hemp Industries Association estimates $419 million in U.S. retail sales of hemp products.

2012: A record setting year in terms of the number of industrial hemp acres seeded in Canada. The number of acres is nine times the acres seeded in 1998 when industrial hemp was legalized.

2013: Annual U.S. retail sales of hemp products exceeds $581 million. Industrial hemp celebrates fifteen years of legalization in Canada.

2014: U.S. President Barack Obama signs Federal Farm Bill with hemp amendment, allowing states with hemp legislation in place to grow hemp for research purposes.

2015: Hemp food industry pioneers Manitoba Harvest and Hemp Oil Canada merge.

2016: Product innovations continue and hemp as an ingredient gains popularity, making hemp foods easier than ever to add into everyday eating.

Fun Fact!

Back in the 1700s, farmers in certain U.S. colonies were required by law to grow hemp as an essential crop.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Medical History Timeline

Terminology
Cannabis
– the Latin term from Greek and older origin for a group of medicinal herbs of the family Cannabaceae used in traditional medicine. The group includes Cannabis {Indica, Sativa, Americana, Africans and Ruderalis} with a Sativa/Indica cross being in most commonly used.

Marihuana – marijuana; a slang term adopted for the Cannabis herb {See: William Randolph Hearst, Spanish American war, Poncha Villa, La Coocaracha}.

Cannabinoid – one of the 60 {according to PDR} to 420 {asst. medical literature} medical constituents of the Cannabis herb.

Hemp – old world term for Cannabis usually associated with the non drug fibers used in rope and sail making and about 50,000 other industrial products.

THC – short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, considered to be the most psychoactive Cannabinoid and the active ingredient in Cannabis.

CBD – short for Cannabidiol one of the least psychoactive and most anti-inflammatory Cannabinoids.

As you read this timeline, note that the treatment of disease with Cannabis [marijuana] has until very recently been done with tinctures and extracts. That is, most smoking of cannabis, for medicine in particular, is a function of prohibition. It takes much, much less of the plant material to gain a medicinal effect by smoking than by eating and cannabis is quite simply too expensive to make a tincture or extract when it’s price is increased by several thousand percent because of the war on drugs.

This point cannot be overemphasized because as you will read below, without the risk of smoking, cannabis poses a risk which is comparable with the safest medicines currently in use. {MK 1999}

Medical Cannabis History Timeline
Five thousand years ago, a Chinese emperor named Shen Nung prescribed cannabis for beriberi, malaria, rheumatism, constipation, absent-mindedness, and menstrual cramps.

In ancient India, cannabis was valued as a way to lower fevers and relieve dysentery. The drug was seen by some as a gift from the Gods. Reference: Marijuana: Current Facts, Figures and Information, Brent Q. Hafen and David Souler

In his influential book Materia Medica, published in 70 A.D., Roman physician Pedacius Dioscorides recommended cannabis to treat earache and diminished sexual desire.

1854

More recently, The 1854 United States Dispensary said this about cannabis;

Extract of hemp acts as a decided aphrodisiac, increases the appetite, and occasionally induces the cataleptic state. In morbid states it has been found to produce sleep, to allay spasm, to compose nervous inquietude, and to relieve pain. In these respects it resembles opium in its operation; but it differs from that narcotic in not diminishing the appetite, checking the secretions, or constipating the bowels. It is much less certain in its effects; but may sometimes be preferably employed, when opium is contraindicated by its nauseating or constipating effects. The complaints to which it has been specially recommended are neuralgia, gout, tetanus, hydrophobia, epidemic cholera, convulsions, chorea, hysteria, mental depression, insanity, and uterine hemorrhage. Dr. Alexander Christison, of Edinburgh, has found it to have the property of hastening and increasing the contractions of the uterus in delivery. It acts very quickly, and without anesthetic effect. It appears, however, to exert this influence only in a certain proportion of cases.

1938

”’Marijuana was made illegal in this century {1937/8} by congress over the objection of the American medical Association.

Dr. W. C Woodward of the American medical Association {AMA} was the only witness to oppose the bill. The legislative activities committee of the AMA wrote to protest the impending legislation {Grinspoon 1971}:

There is positively no evidence to indicate the abuse of cannabis as a medical agent or to show that its medicinal use is leading to the development of cannabis addiction. Cannabis at the present time is slightly used for medicinal purposes, but it would seem worthwhile to maintain its status as a medicinal agent… There is a possibility that a restudy of the drug by modern means may show other advantages to be derived from its medicinal use. [p. 226]

1941

Against all medical advice, the Marijuana Tax Act was approved by congress in 1937 and cannabis preparations were removed from the United States pharmacopoeia in 1941 {Bonnie and Whitebread 1974}. As Walton {1938, 162} noted, “Sasman in 1937 listed 28 pharmaceuticals which contained Cannabis indica. Most of the manufacturers are now removing cannabis from such combinations since the 1937 federal restrictions make it inconvenient to use such formulae”

1944

Only a few years later, the LaGuardia Committee took a clear-headed look at the marijuana “problem” in New York and found most of the claims that it caused crime, violence, insanity and death were completely unsubstantiated.

In regard to medical use, the LaGuardia report said;

“Marijuana has two qualities which suggest it may have useful actions in man.

The first is the typical euphoria-producing action which might be applicable in the treatment of various types of mental depression; the second is the rather unique property which results in stimulation of appetite” [1944, 147]

It is interesting that the committee did not shrink from commending euphoria itself as having therapeutic potential, and it noted more than 50 years ago the greatest contemporary {1990’s} use of cannabis as an appetite stimulant for patients with cancer, Aids or Hepatitis C.

1970

“The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed illicit drugs in one of five schedules, and the final decision about which schedule a drug was put in was made not by medical experts but by the Justice Department-the attorney general (John Mitchell) and the

Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, later named the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Cannabis and it’s derivatives were placed in schedule I, for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no medical use (Baum 1996).

Ironicaly, two new medical uses were discovered shortly after the law was passed. the first was the ability of Cannabis to reduce interoccular pressure (Hepler and Frank 1971; Hepler, Frank and Petrus 1976; Roffman 1982; Colasanti 1986;

Adler and Geller 1986), which suggested its use as a treatment for glaucoma.

Robert Randall, a schoolteacher suffering from glaucoma who was arrested for using cannabis to keep from going blind, fought

his case through the courts and finally in 1976 forced the federal government to provide him with cannabis for this purpose–the first legal marijuana smoker in the United States since 1937.

The second discovery can be considered new because of a new context, the horrors of more than 40 kinds of chemotherapy used by contemporary doctors as treatment for cancer (Roffman 1982). The most frequent toxic side effect of chemotherapy is violent, uncontrollable nausea and vomiting that lasts for hours, and conventional antiemetics often do not help. Patients who smoked cannabis before chemotherapy, however, reported to their doctors that the illegal drug helped them enormously, stopping the vomiting and even making them hungry (Grinspoon and Bakalar 1995).

This led to many clinical reports on the antiemetic effect of cannabis and the cannabinoids, starting with Sallen, Zinberg, and Frei (1975). Most of the research in this field has been summarized by Regelson et al. (1976), Roffman (1982), Levitt (1986), and Randall (1990). The successful use of cannabis in cancer chemotherapy led to the marketing of an expensive synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol under the name Marinol and rescheduling of this synthetic drug into Schedule II, though the plant and THC extracted from the natural source, remain in Schedule I.

The proven antiemetic value of cannabis also led to its use by many AIDS patients in the mid 1980’s, both as an appetite stimulant against the AIDS wasting syndrome and as a remedy against the intense nausea often caused by the HIV’s gradual takeover of the immune system and by the toxicity of AZT therapy. There are AIDS and cancer patients all over the country using cannabis for these purposes, regardless of the laws. Ironically, so many people with AIDS applied for admission to the federal “Compassionate Access” program for marijuana that in 1992 the United States Department of Health and Human Services shut the program down.”

{Reference: Cannabis in Medical Practice, M.L.Mathre 1997}
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The Differences Between Hemp and Cannabis

While hemp and cannabis are both derived from the same species (Cannabis sativa), there are major differences in the characteristics of the respective plant strains that produce industrial hemp on the one hand, and cannabis products on the other. Most people understand these differences in terms like “cannabis is a drug but hemp isn’t”, and “hemp comes from the male plant and cannabis comes from the female plant.” However, the reality of the situation is a little more complex.

WHAT IS HEMP?
In Short: hemp is a strain of the Cannabis sativa plant that is grown primarily for use in industrial applications. It has been specifically cultivated to produce a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content and a high cannabidiol (CBD) content.

THC is the psychoactive constituent of cannabis, and is responsible for producing the effects of the drug. CBD is another active ingredient present in Cannabis sativa plants, and it largely acts to neutralize the psychoactive effects of THC.

Since hemp strains have very little THC and a lot of CBD, they do not produce psychoactive effects when ingested. Rather, hemp is used for a wide range of industrial purposes, including:

  • Clothing and textiles
  • Building materials
  • Plastic and composite materials
  • Paper
  • Cordage
  • Cosmetics
  • Food
c5cebe_c9c71b278ea74a67a338e434ec6baad0~mv2.webp


c5cebe_37b2abbf8f8941afae724e56541d9231~mv2.png



Hemp also has important applications in plant-based pest control, and it has been used for many years as a natural method of controlling the growth of weeds and invasive plants. Because they have such dense growth characteristics, hemp plants effectively “crowd out” weeds that are present in the soil, killing them off without the need for pesticides.

More recently, hemp has also been considered as a potential source of biofuel, and hemp plants can also be specially treated to produce ethanol, or alcohol fuel. Currently, most biofuel is produced from other sources, such as cereal grains and dead plant matter. However, research into the viability of hemp as an alternative fuel source is ongoing.

c5cebe_a2c78826cf0941c1822c3be266047362~mv2.webp




HEMP VS. WEED: HOW HEMP DIFFERS FROM CANNABIS
Cannabis sativa strains that produce cannabis contain many times more THC than the strains the produce hemp.

In Canada, a Cannabis sativa plant can only be classified as hemp if it contains 0.3 percent THC or less. Anything exceeding that threshold is technically considered cannabis, though most Cannabis sativa plants that are cultivated for their cannabis actually contain between about 5 percent and 30 percent THC.

While it is true that most hemp plants are male and do not produce flowering cannabis buds, their lack of psychoactive effects is mainly the result of many years of selective breeding. Hemp plants are also hardier, grow more quickly, and tend to be taller. Cannabis plants, on the other hand, require much more carefully controlled growing conditions to produce optimal results.

c5cebe_a59728a350114e5d95e90fba504885db~mv2.webp


Many of the differences in these respective forms of Cannabis sativa stem from decades of cannabis prohibition. While hemp plants are very versatile with a broad range of industrial uses, governments wanted to ensure they were incapable of producing intoxicating effects. This drove the production of cannabis plants almost exclusively underground for a long period of time, a situation that is only now beginning to change.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Were we all eating a lot more CBD before prohibition?
Posted on June 27 2016

cannabis_cow_large.jpg


I came across an interesting theory recently regarding why CBD and other cannabinoids seem to solve so many modern health problems. The theory goes something like this - that when farm animals were fed industrial hemp containing CBD before the prohibition of marijuana and the discontinued use of hemp as animal fodder, people were consuming much more CBD that came in through the food chain. This in turn led to the health benefits of CBD and other cannabinoids, solving problems traditionally medicated with CBD treatment. These problems cover everything from digestive tract issues to arthritis.

On the surface, this theory does indeed seem to have some credibility. CBD could well be transferred in the meat and fats of animals we eat. However, one would also have to have evidence that people were actually healthier in regards to illnesses that can be treated by CBD before prohibition. This doesn’t seem to have much evidence to back it up. When looking, I couldn’t find any studies confirming that people who ate hemp fed (i.e. animals that ate hemp as part of their diet) food products seemed to have less illnesses on the whole.

There could be a great many reasons for this. The main significant reason one would suspect is the lack of scientific studies done on large groups of people prior to prohibition of hemp in the 1930s. Another is the fact that many of the illnesses we would treat with CBD have gone under many different names over the years, and some are pretty ambiguous to say the least.

Maybe CBD is the reason that we seem to have developed health problems that we weren’t aware of before. Many more people than ever before are finding themselves with symptoms of Irritable bowel syndrome, gluten intolerance and other ‘twenty-first century’ diseases. Until we have the ability to study CBD and its effects on the food chain from hemp fed animals, we really won’t be able to tell whether we had more CBD in our diet before the prohibition of marijuana, but it’s definitely possible.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
YOUR GUIDE TO INDICA, SATIVA, AND HYBRID CANNABIS
Part 1, Sativa vs. Indica: An Overview of Cannabis Types


When browsing cannabis strains or purchasing cannabis at a shop, you may notice strains are commonly broken up into two distinct groups: indica and sativa. Most consumers have used these two cannabis types as a touchstone for predicting effects:

  • Indica strains are believed to be physically sedating, perfect for relaxing with a movie or as a nightcap before bed.
  • Sativa strains tend to provide more invigorating, uplifting cerebral effects that pair well with physical activity, social gatherings, and creative projects.
This belief that indicas and sativas deliver distinct effects is so deeply rooted in mainstream cannabis culture that budtenders typically begin their strain recommendations by asking you which of these three types you prefer.


RELATED STORY
The Leafly Starter Pack: A Comprehensive Guide to Recreational Cannabis

However, data collected by cannabis researchers suggests these categories aren’t as prescriptive as one might hope—in other words, there’s little evidence to suggest that indicas and sativas exhibit a consistent pattern of chemical profiles that would make one inherently sedating and the other uplifting. We do know that indica and sativa cannabis strains look different and grow differently, but this distinction is primarily useful only to cannabis cultivators.

So how exactly did the words “indica” and “sativa” make it into the vernacular of cannabis consumers worldwide, and to what extent are they meaningful when choosing a strain?

Indica and Sativa: Origin and Evolution of the Terms
Sativa-vs-Indica-1-1024x640.png

(Amy Phung/Leafly)
The words “indica” and “sativa” were introduced in the 18th century to describe different species of cannabis: Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica.The term sativa, named by Carl Linneaus, described hemp plants found in Europe and western Eurasia, where it was cultivated for its fiber and seeds. Cannabis indica, named by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, describes the psychoactive varieties discovered in India, where it was harvested for its seeds, fiber, and hashish production.


RELATED STORY
The Cannabis Taxonomy Debate: Where Do Indica and Sativa Classifications Come From?

Although the cannabis varieties we consume largely stem from Cannabis indica, both terms are used–even if erroneously–to organize the thousands of strains circulating the market today.

Here’s how terms have shifted since their earliest botanical definitions:

  • Today, “sativa” refers to tall, narrow-leaf varieties of cannabis, thought to induce energizing effects. However, these narrow-leaf drug (NLD) varieties were originally Cannabis indica ssp. indica.
  • “Indica” has come to describe stout, broad-leaf plants, thought to deliver sedating effects. These broad-leaf drug (BLD) varieties are technically Cannabis indica ssp. afghanica.
  • What we call “hemp” refers to the industrial, non-intoxicating varieties harvested primarily for fiber, seeds, and CBD. However, this was originally named Cannabis sativa.
Confused? Understandably so. As you can see, with the mass commercialization of cannabis, the taxonomical distinctions between cannabis species and subspecies got turned on its head and calcified. It seems the contemporary use of indica and sativa descriptors is here to stay, but as an informed consumer, it’s important to understand the practical value of these categories—which brings us to the research.

Indica vs. Sativa Effects: What Does the Research Say?
This three-type system we use to predict cannabis effects is no doubt convenient, especially when first entering the vast, overwhelming world of cannabis. With so many strains and products to choose from, where else are we to begin?

“The clinical effects of the cannabis chemovar have nothing to do with whether the plant is tall and sparse vs. short and bushy, or whether the leaflets are narrow or broad.”
Ethan Russo, neurologist and cannabis researcher
The answer is cannabinoids and terpenes, two words you should put in your back pocket if you haven’t already. We’ll get to know these terms shortly.

But first, we asked two prominent cannabis researchers if sativa/indica classification should have any bearing on a consumer’s strain selection. Ethan Russo is a neurologist whose research in cannabis psychopharmacology is respected worldwide, and Jeffrey Raber, Ph.D., is a chemist who founded the first independent testing lab to analyze cannabis terpenes in a commercial capacity, The Werc Shop.

“The way that the sativa and indica labels are utilized in commerce is nonsense,” Russo told Leafly. “The clinical effects of the cannabis chemovar have nothing to do with whether the plant is tall and sparse vs. short and bushy, or whether the leaflets are narrow or broad.”


RELATED STORY
Cannabis Anatomy: The Parts of the Plant

Raber agreed, and when asked if budtenders should be guiding consumers with terms like “indica” and “sativa,” he replied, “There is no factual or scientific basis to making these broad sweeping recommendations, and it needs to stop today. What we need to seek to understand better is which standardized cannabis composition is causing which effects, when delivered in which fashions, at which specific dosages, to which types of [consumers].”

What this means is not all sativas will energize you, and not all indicas will sedate you. You may notice a tendency for these so-called sativas to be uplifting or for these indicas to be relaxing, especially when we expect to feel one way or the other. Just note that there’s no hard-and-fast rule and no determinant chemical data that supports a perfect predictive pattern.

If Indica vs. Sativa Isn’t Predictive of Effects, What Is?
The effects of any given cannabis strain depend on a number of different factors, including the product’s chemical profile, your unique biology and tolerance, dose, and consumption method. Understand how these factors change the experience and you’ll have the best chance of finding that perfect strain for you.

Cannabinoids

The cannabis plant is comprised of hundreds of chemical compounds that create a unique harmony of effects, which is primarily led by cannabinoids and terpenes. Cannabinoids like THC and CBD (the two most common) are the main drivers of cannabis’ therapeutic and recreational effects:

  • THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol) makes us feel hungry and high, and relieves symptoms like pain and nausea.
  • CBD (cannabidiol) is a non-intoxicating compound known to alleviate anxiety, pain, inflammation, and many other medical ailments.
Cannabis contains over a hundred different types of these cannabinoids, but start by familiarizing yourself with these two first. Instead of choosing a strain based on its indica or sativa classification, consider basing your selection on these three buckets instead:

  • THC-dominant strains are primarily chosen by consumers seeking a potent euphoric experience. These strains are also selected by patients treating pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and more. If you tend to feel anxious with THC-dominant strains or dislike other side effects associated with THC, try a strain with higher levels of CBD.
  • CBD-dominant strains contain only small amounts of THC, and are widely used by those highly sensitive to THC or patients needing clear-headed symptom relief.
  • Balanced THC/CBD strains contain balanced levels of THC, offering mild euphoria alongside symptom relief. These tend to be a good choice for novice consumers seeking an introduction to cannabis’ signature high.
It’s worth noting that both indica and sativa strains exhibit these different cannabinoid profiles. “Initially most people thought higher CBD levels caused sedation, and that CBD was more prevalent in indica cultivars, which we now know is most definitely not the case,” Raber told Leafly. “We are more prone to see some CBD in sativa-like cultivars, but there isn’t a systematic rule or relationship in that regard.”


RELATED STORY
Predicting Cannabis Strain Effects From THC and CBD Levels

Terpenes

If you’ve ever used aromatherapy to relax or invigorate your mind and body, you understand the basics of terpenes. Terpenes are aromatic compounds commonly produced by plants and fruit. They can be found in lavender flowers, oranges, hops, pepper, and of course, cannabis. Secreted by the same glands that ooze THC and CBD, terpenes are what make cannabis smell like berries, citrus, pine, fuel, etc.

“Terpenes seem to be major players in driving the sedating or energizing effects.”
Jeffrey Raber, Founder of The Werc Shop
Like essential oils vaporized in a diffuser, cannabis terpenes can make us feel stimulated or sedated, depending on which ones are produced. Pinene, for example, is an alerting terpene while linalool has relaxing properties. There are many types of terpenes in cannabis, and it’s worth familiarizing yourself with at least the most common.

“Terpenes seem to be major players in driving the sedating or energizing effects,” Raber said. “Which terpenes cause which effects is apparently much more complicated than all of us would like, as it seems to [vary based on specific] ones and their relative ratios to each other and the cannabinoids.”

According to Raber, a strain’s indica or sativa morphology does not specifically determine these aromas and effects. However, you may find consistency among individual strains. The strain Tangie, for example, delivers a distinctive citrus aroma, while DJ Short’s Blueberry should never fail to offer the hallmark scent of ripe berry.

If you can, smell the strains you’re considering for purchase. Find the aromas that stand out to you and give them a try. In time, your intuition and knowledge of cannabinoids and terpenes will guide you to your favorite strains and products.


RELATED STORY
At the Trichome Institute, Students Learn to Predict Cannabis Effects by Aroma

Biology, Dosing, and Consumption Method

Lastly, consider the following questions when choosing the right strain or product for you.

  • How much experience do you have with cannabis? If your tolerance is low, consider a low-THC strain in low doses.
  • Are you susceptible to anxiety or other side effects of THC? If so, try a strain high in CBD.
  • Do you want the effects to last a long time? If you do, consider edibles (starting with a low dose). Conversely, if you seek a short-term experience, use inhalation methods or a tincture.
There are many factors to consider when choosing a strain, but if you truly find that indica strains consistently deliver a positive experience, then by all means, keep ‘em coming. However, if you’re still searching for that ideal strain, these are important details to keep in mind.


RELATED STORY
The Different Ways to Smoke and Consume Cannabis

What Cannabis Strain Is Right for You?
Before choosing indica or sativa, it is important to consider a third cannabis type: hybrid. Hybrids are thought to fall somewhere in between the indica-sativa spectrum, depending on the traits they inherit from their parent strains.

This may seem overwhelming, especially if you’re a budtender whose job it is to guide consumers to the right product. Ironically, the more you know about cannabis, the more questions seem to arise. But understanding the basic properties of cannabinoids, terpenes, and consumption methods will often answer the most fundamental question of cannabis: What product is right for me?

Here are some helpful beginner resources to get you started:

For budtenders, be cognizant of the basis of your recommendation, especially for customers treating medical ailments. Educate yourself on the benefits of different cannabinoids and terpenes, and use that knowledge to make a recommendation beyond the oversimplifications and marketing tactics embedded in the sativa/indica distinction.

“In the future, I’d like to see the terms ‘sativa’ and ‘indica’ be abandoned in favor of a system in which the consumer tells the budtender what s/he would like to have in terms of effects from their cannabis selection, and then study the offerings together,” Russo said. “If a buzz is all that is wanted, then high THC with limonene or terpinolene would be desirable. If someone, in contrast, has to work or study and treat their pain, then high CBD with low THC plus some alpha-pinene to reduce short-term memory impairment would be the ticket.”

Cannabis may not be as simple as we’d like, but its diversity and complexity is what makes it such a remarkable plant and tool for consumers of all types.

Lead image by Amy Phung/Leafly
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
YOUR GUIDE TO INDICA, SATIVA, AND HYBRID CANNABIS
Part 2, Indica vs. Sativa Strains: Which Has More THC & CBD?


Raise your hand if you’ve heard someone say, “Indica strains produce more CBD and sativas have more THC.” Or maybe you’ve heard that claim in reverse. But which is true?

According to cannabis lab testing data, neither is. At least not in any significant way that could explain the perceived difference between these two cannabis types.

In other words, that indica isn’t sleepy because it has more CBD, and that sativa isn’t more energizing because it produced more THC.

But before we get too deep into the numbers, it’s important to first flip a popular notion on its head.


RELATED STORY
CBD vs. THC: What’s the Difference?

Indica & Sativa Designation Isn’t a Reliable Predictor of Effects
It’s possible you’ve noticed that indica and sativa strains look a bit different. One forms chunky, dense buds while the other often grows into airy, fluffy spears. The physical differences between indica and sativa plants allowed each to thrive in different climates, from rugged and cold highlands to tropical regions along the equator.


Click to enlarge. (Amy Phung/Leafly)
Cool, but what does that have to do with how indicas and sativas affect you? Nothing. Exactly.

Ethan Russo, prominent cannabis researcher and neurologist, put it this way:

“The way that the sativa and indica labels are utilized in commerce is nonsense. The clinical effects of the cannabis chemovar have nothing to do with whether the plant is tall and sparse vs. short and bushy, or whether the leaflets are narrow or broad.”

One way we know that this perceived correlation between plant type and effect is flawed is by looking at the chemical profiles—the compounds cannabis produces that contribute to the mood or experience of that strain.

Here, we’ll take a look at the average cannabinoid content of each strain type. Terpenes also play an important role in a strain’s effect, but don’t worry—we’ll get to that in the next installment.


RELATED STORY
Predicting Cannabis Strain Effects From THC and CBD Levels

CBD vs. THC in Indicas and Sativas
Using data from Confidence Analytics, a state-certified testing lab in Washington, we were able to see how much THC or CBD is produced, on average, by each strain type.

First, let’s take a look at the average abundance of THC in strain samples grouped by their sativa, indica, and hybrid designation on Leafly, for THC-dominant samples only:


Click to enlarge. (Elysse Feigenblatt/Leafly)
As shown in the graphic above, THC-dominant sativa strains on average produced 0.4% more THC than their indica counterparts. So, yes, you could look at that graph and say that sativas produce more THC, but the difference is fairly negligible in terms of statistical significance.

What the graphic does contradict is any claim that THC abundance accounts for the perceived “opposite” effects of indicas and sativas. If that were true, we’d expect hybrids—which are typically seen as a balance of indica and sativa effects, would fall somewhere in between, around 17.5%.

Now let’s see if there are any notable differences in CBD abundance for CBD-containing strains:


Click to enlarge. (Elysse Feigenblatt/Leafly)
Once again, the graph above shows small differences in the average amount of CBD among the three plant types, but not so much that we’d expect to see polar opposite experiences delivered. Indicas, on average, produce 0.4% more CBD than sativas. Again, hybrid strains produced slightly more.

While the bird’s eye view we get with larger sample sizes is helpful in seeing the big picture, you don’t need huge amounts of data to realize that THC and CBD profiles are specific to plant types. Peruse the lab-tested flower on dispensary menus and you’ll see that THC and CBD contents can vary widely, no matter its sativa or indica designation.

How to Shop for Cannabis Without Saying ‘Indica’ or ‘Sativa’
What’s important to you as a consumer shopping for a specific mood is not the shape of the bud or the climate it was grown in. Instead, it has everything to do with potency, dose, and chemical profile (i.e., cannabinoids and terpenes).

For example, if you’re prone to anxiety and looking to avoid an uncomfortable, racy experience, look for a strain with more CBD and less THC. Then dose modestly. If you tell a budtender you hate sativas because they make your thoughts race, they may still hand you a THC powerhouse like White Fire OG simply because it’s not a sativa.

Although it isn’t as simple as grouping strains into the indica-sativa-hybrid triumvirate that has long been our compass while navigating menus, try using potency to guide you. You may find that a strain packing 25% THC isn’t as enjoyable as that very fragrant strain tapping in at 16%, or the balanced THC/CBD variety that provides 10% of each cannabinoid.


RELATED STORY
How Cannabidiol (CBD) Works for Treating Anxiety

Shopping by strain name is also a more reliable way of achieving desirable effects. For example, if you loved the dreamy, blissful euphoria of Granddaddy Purple, you’ll likely have a comparable experience with the next GDP you come across.

Cannabis is a personal experience, and how you select it is, too. This data is meant to give you an alternative perspective on what qualities one should look for in a strain. For many consumers, this level of precision in strain selection is paramount to having a good experience.

Others, well, we’d be happy to sit down with a strain of any variety, any time.





 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
How K2 and Other Synthetic Cannabinoids Got Their Start in the Lab
Originally intended for basic neuroscience research, the drugs were ultimately hijacked for illicit recreational use.
Nov 27, 2018
ASHLEY YEAGER



About a decade ago, Clemson University chemist John Huffman started getting calls from law enforcement agencies. Officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other federal agencies wanted to know more about JWH-18, a synthetic cannabinoid bearing Huffman’s initials that he’d created in the lab in 2004 and described in scientific paper in 2005. The compound was turning up in incense, which, rather than being burnt for its scent, was being smoked and was making people sick.

Huffman’s intent, like other scientists who had generated synthetic cannabinoids over the years, was not to create recreational drugs. It was to study the effects of cannabis in the body and how the cannabinoid system works, as well as to develop molecules to image areas of the brain. “The chemistry to make these things is very simple and very old,” Huffman told The Washington Post in 2015. “You only have three starting materials and only two steps. In a few days, you could make 25 grams, which could be enough to make havoc.”

Chemists studying cannabinoids have become unwitting participants in a growing synthetic cannabinoid drug epidemic with no signs of stopping.

And havoc it’s been. The number of emergency room visits as a result of smoking synthetic cannabinoids, often laced with other drugs, is in the thousands annually, and poison control centers have seen a spike in calls about the compounds in recent years, with nearly 8,000 in 2015. Called K2 or Spice, these synthetic compounds first started sickening Americans in 2008, with illnesses reported in Europe before the drugs reached the US. In 2011, the DEA made it illegal to sell JWH-018 and four related compounds or products that contained them, but that hasn’t kept new synthetic cannabinoids from emerging on the illegal drug market and leading to life-threatening overdoses.

See “Synthetic Cannabinoid K2 Overdoses Are Rampant. Here’s Why.
Synthetic cannabinoids are not the first substances concocted in a lab and then hijacked for illicit use. The same thing happened to ecstasy, also called MDMA, and LSD. The difference is that the structure of the cannabinoid system makes it receptive to a diverse set of compounds, setting it up as an easier target for an array of synthetic drugs compared to other systems, says Northeastern University chemical biologist Alexandros Makriyannis. This means chemists studying cannabinoids have become unwitting participants in a growing synthetic cannabinoid drug epidemic with no signs of stopping. Makriyannis himself generated synthetic cannabinoids that served as blueprints for those later sold illegally. “It’s terrible,” he says.

The history of synthetic cannabinoids
The first scientists to study cannabis and create synthetic cannabinoids back in the 1940s had no idea that cannabinoid receptors even existed, nor did they know how marijuana’s phytochemicals interacted with other molecules in the body. Back then, the research seemed a bit more straightforward. Alexander Todd of the University of Manchester and Roger Adams from the Noyes Chemical Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were building analogs to cannabis using organic compounds called terpenoids to try to tease apart the bioactive elements of the drug and the effects they had on the body. These two were the first to produce synthetic molecules that mimicked the effects of cannabis and to show that the compounds they made could have even greater physiological effects than marijuana.

Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, Raphael Mechoulam, a chemist at Hebrew University in Israel, isolated THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. He and others subsequently started to make synthetic compounds based on the structure of THC. The first scientists to study cannabis and create synthetic cannabinoids back in the 1940s had no idea that cannabinoid receptors even existed, nor did they know how marijuana’s phytochemicals interacted with other molecules in the body. Back then, the research seemed a bit more straightforward. Alexander Todd of the University of Manchester and Roger Adams from the Noyes Chemical Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were building analogs to cannabis using organic compounds called terpenoids to try to tease apart the bioactive elements of the drug and the effects they had on the body. These two were the first to produce synthetic molecules that mimicked the effects of cannabis and to show that the compounds they made could have even greater physiological effects than marijuana.

At the same time, scientists at drug companies started to used these researchers’ data and do their own experiments to attempt to make non-opioid–based pain medicine. Among the products created was Nabilone, an FDA-approved drug first developed by Eli Lilly that is designed to reduce brain signals that spur nausea and vomiting, typically in response to cancer treatments such as chemotherapy. Pfizer was also in on the work to make marijuana-based painkillers, which led to what the company called non-classical cannabinoids. Pharmaceutical developers there made many of them, all of which had different effects on the body, depending on slight structural modifications.

See “Your Body Is Teeming with Weed Receptors
The National Institute on Drug Abuse organized a meeting in 1986 of many of the leading cannabinoid researchers at the time to discuss what was known and still unknown about THC and its analogs. Not long after, a few of the scientists at the meeting, including Makriyannis, independently identified the structureof a nerve cell receptor, now called CB1, which responded to THC. It was the first cannabinoid receptor to be documented. A few years later, other researchers identified an additional cannabinoid receptor, CB2. CB2 is fairly rare in the mammalian brain, unless there’s been brain inflammation, neurodegeneration, or cancer, Makriyannis says.

With information on cannabinoid receptors in hand, scientists rushed to create hundreds of synthetic cannabinoids, many by Huffman, to push the system and see how it worked.

From the lab to the street
The efforts to create new synthetic cannabinoids took place mainly in the 1990s and early 2000s—the same time internet access was beginning to become mainstream and researchers started publishing their results online. “When research on synthetic cannabinoids first started, not many people had access to the research journals with the chemical structures of the compounds,” Jenny Wiley, a behavioral pharmacologist who studies cannabinoids at RTI International, tells The Scientist.

As journals went online, she says, chemists looking to make illicit drugs could access not only the chemical compounds of synthetic cannabinoids, but also the data on their potency. In fact, compounds such as Huffman’s might have been hijacked first because he reported both the chemical formula and the potency together in academic journals, Wiley speculates. On the other hand, many of the drug companies’ compounds were patented, and the patents probably did not contain information on the physiological effects of the compounds.

“These rogue chemists were taking the recipes of these synthetic cannabinoids right out of the journals,” says Barbara Carreno, a public affairs officer at the DEA. Wiley suspects the street drugs were first generated in China, but no one knows for sure their precise origin. DEA officials first started to notice the drugs turning up in raids they were doing of shipping containers coming from Europe. There had been reports of use of the drugs in Europe in 2005, but the compounds hadn’t hit the US market until 2008. When the DEA tested the compounds, Huffman’s JWH-18 showed up first, then JWH-250 and JWH-073. “At the time, he was irate that rogue chemists were hijacking his work to make street drugs,” Carreno says.

A public health calamity
There’s not much data on how much money is spent each year on synthetic cannabinoid drug sales, but the DEA does record the top 25 most frequently identified drugs. In 2017, methamphetamine topped the charts with 347,807 drug reports from labs testing compounds in cases of overdoses or drug raids and seizures. Cannabis/THC was second at 344,167 reports. Two synthetic cannabinoids made the top 25 list: FUB-AMB, with 8,108 reports and 5F-ADB with 6,951 reports.

These rogue chemists were taking the recipes of these synthetic cannabinoids right out of the journals.

—Barbara Carreno, DEA
It’s mostly 20- to 30-year-old men, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who turn to synthetic cannabinoids as an alternative to marijuana. Some products are “legal” to smoke, if the substances aren’t yet banned by the DEA, and because the ingredients continue to change constantly, they are less likely to be detected in drug screens that may be required for jobs, included in drug addiction treatment plans, and used by law enforcement.

Although the numbers suggest usage is lower for synthetic cannabinoids than for meth or cannabis, the DEA started to become concerned about synthetic cannabinoids as soon as they appeared in the US, mainly because people were getting sick from them. The trouble is that quality control for making synthetic cannabinoids is essentially non-existent, Carreno says. The drug is sprayed onto plant material in large warehouses or sometimes mixed in animal feed troughs, and so the amount of chemical that lands on each piece of plant material is variable, making some batches of Spice of K2 really strong and others not potent at all.

Synthetic cannabinoids have been connected with strings of deaths and devastating overdoses since 2009. In 2018 alone, 56 people overdosed and two died in Chicago; nearly 50 users overdosed in Brooklyn; and more than 100 people got sick in New Haven. In that case, some individuals did test positive for fentanyl, an opioid, in combination with synthetic cannabinoids, which can be a factor in overdosing. But according to a blog published by The Lancet, the main culprit was Fubinaca—a Pfizer-created synthetic cannabinoid–based painkiller that was made illegal in 2014.

The DEA moved to make five synthetic cannabinoids illegal for consumption in 2010, and the federal law passed in 2011. But new ones sprung up to take their places. In later years, some of Makriyannis’s compounds, including AM-2201, turned up on the black market. And since then, rogue chemists keep on tweaking the chemical structure of the compounds to evade restrictions. The DEA continues to test for new substances, but it’s a bit like playing whack-a-mole, Wiley says, with one drug being banned and another popping up on the market.

Makriyannis says he feels some remorse that his compounds escaped the lab and made it to the street. Despite the unanticipated negative effects of his work, he has been undeterred in his studies of the cannabinoid system. In some of his more recent work, he’s been focusing on the CB2 receptor, mainly to show that agonists targeted to it can have pain-relieving effects. Initially, scientists argued that this wasn’t possible, but Makriyannis, in collaboration with Mechoulam and others, demonstrated that activating the receptor reduced pain and also inflammation in animal models. And preclinical studies of Makriyannis’s compound AM-4113, which blocks CB1 receptor activity, suggest it could be a potential treatment for heroine addiction.

“The cannabinoid system is a major biochemical system,” Makriyannis says, explaining that it plays a role in regular brain function and even as part of the immune system. “And there’s a lot left unexplored,” he adds, arguing that researchers have to go on developing drug probes, including synthetic cannabinoids.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Synthetic Cannabinoid K2 Overdoses Are Rampant. Here’s Why.
NIDA pharmacologist Michael Baumann explains how “unscrupulous vendors” hijacked compounds used in neuroscience and turned them into dangerous drugs.
Aug 17, 2018
ASHLEY YEAGER

On Wednesday and Thursday (August 15 and August 16), more than 85 people in New Haven, Connecticut, overdosed on synthetic cannabinoids. In Washington, DC, last month, more than 300 people overdosed on the drugs, commonly called K2 or Spice, with similar cases reported in Baltimore, Brooklyn, and Los Angeles. In 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown banned possession of the synthetic drugs in his state, and in 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio made it illegal to sell them in the boroughs of New York City. Still, such legislation hasn’t mitigated the overdoses in New York and other areas.

baumann.jpg

Michael Baumann
NIDA
Michael Baumann, a pharmacologist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse who has been studying the effects of synthetic cannabinoids in animal models, tells The Scientist that part of the problem is that K2, Spice, and similar drugs are often referred to as fake marijuana, which can entice people to try it. After all, it seems safer than smoking the real thing, right? But what people don’t realize is that these synthetic products contain chemicals that are much more potent than THC—tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive constituent of marijuana—or any other naturally occurring compound in pot, Baumann says. “K2 and Spice are dangerous because there’s no quality control in their packaging, and you don’t know what’s in it,” he says. “These mini-epidemics of intoxication illustrate that beautifully.”

Here, The Scientist talks with Baumann about synthetic cannabinoids’ activity in the body and the brain, how the drugs originated as basic neuroscience tools to study the endocannabinoid system, and what makes users prone to overdose.

The Scientist: What are synthetic cannabinoids, and how do they work pharmacologically?

Baumann: K2, Spice, and similar products usually consist of an inert plant material that’s laced with synthetic chemicals, and those chemicals stimulate cannabinoid receptors in the brain. The receptors are known as cannabinoid-1, CB1, receptors. THC, the active ingredient of marijuana, also exerts its effects by that same set of receptors. But it’s important to note that synthetic cannabinoids are completely different in chemical structure compared with THC, and they’re much more potent than THC, so they have stronger effects.

TS: If synthetic cannabinoids are more potent than THC, are they safe to use?

Baumann: We have a lot of clinical observational studies now from cases that have come into emergency departments showing synthetic cannabinoids have a much greater propensity to cause adverse effects than THC. The adverse effects include vomiting, hypertension, hallucinations, psychotic episodes, seizures, coma, and there’s even been deaths. However, the biological effects of most of these chemicals have not been studied in humans or animals, so we don’t know their effects on the body. There’s no quality control in the preparation and packaging of the products, so overall, I would say they’re definitely not safe.

TS: In many of these overdose cases, the synthetic cannabinoids have been laced with other chemicals, such as brodifacoum, a rodenticide, or fentanyl, an opioid. Why create such chemical combinations?

Baumann: It’s an excellent question, and I don’t know the answer, but it does seem hard to imagine why drug dealers would poison their customers, right?

TS: Could it increase the high experienced from the drugs?

The synthetic cannabinoids were used as tools to examine the endocannabinoid system. . . . But what’s happened now is that these compounds have been hijacked.

—Michael Baumann, NIDA
Baumann: In the case of brodifacoum, no, it definitely did not. People were bleeding from the eyes and the nose, and they weren’t getting any higher. Now, with the opioids, you would get an opioid high in combination with the cannabinoid high. But for the user, they’re unaware of this exposure. They don't know this is happening. They don’t know this is going to happen, and they’re not expecting it when they take this product. So, if they wanted opioids, they would seek those out, right?

TS: In these devastating overdose cases, is it the combination of the different compounds in the products that is deadly, or is it actually the K2 or the Spice itself, or could it be both?

Baumann: Again, that’s a really good question. It’s hard to answer, but I think both are probable. The added substances can elicit adverse effects on their own. We know that brodifacoum induces severe bleeding by itself. We know fentanyl induces respiratory depression that can lead to death by itself. So both of these additives are extremely dangerous.

But the important thing to note is that there’s the risk that the combined effects of the cannabinoids and the added chemicals will be worse than either drug alone. That’s always a risk when you combine two powerful psychoactive substances. But really, scientific data to back that up in these cases are few and far between.

TS: What antidotes are being developed to counteract these overdoses?

Baumann: We already have antidotes for cannabinoids and for opioids. For example, Rimonabant, or Acomplia, was once clinically available [as an anti-obesity drug] in Europe. It was taken off the market. But it’s an antidote that can reverse the effects of THC and synthetic cannabinoids. Naloxone or Narcan is an FDA-approved antidote to reverse the effects of opioid overdose.

So we do have antidotes. But here’s the significant challenge . . . for first-responders and medical personnel in the field, many times, they can’t give a targeted intervention with a specific antidote because they don’t know what drug or drug combinations have been ingested. Instead, clinicians are treating symptoms as they arise. If somebody has a high temperature, they’re doing cooling. If somebody is psychotic, they give benzodiazepines to calm them.

TS: Do K2, Spice, and other synthetic cannabinoids have any use in neuroscience or clinical research?

Baumann: They do. This is why the compounds were first identified. The synthetic cannabinoids were used as tools to examine the endocannabinoid system, the system of cannabinoid compounds and their associated receptors in our bodies and in our brains, which is absolutely necessary for normal brain function. Synthetic cannabinoids were really important in identifying the receptors, characterizing the receptors, giving us information about how the endocannabinoid system works. But what’s happened now is that these compounds have been hijacked. The biomedical literature has been hijacked by unscrupulous vendors who are selling these compounds for recreational purposes, and that was never the reason why these things were identified initially.

TS: Why were synthetic cannabinoids initially developed for research?

Baumann: These substances were actually made because THC itself is such a weak agonist at the CB1 receptor, so it becomes difficult to use to activate CB1 receptors in a laboratory setting. It is so weak that scientists wanted to get other compounds that would activate the receptors more strongly, more potently, so that they could learn more about them.

TS: Do synthetic cannabinoids act on any receptors in the body and brain other than CB1?

Baumann: We don't know whether or not these chemicals hit other receptor sites. This is another critical question that, at this time, is not known because most of these substances, once they’re identified, are made illegal by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Once they become illegal, you can’t send them off to be tested on different receptors, and you can’t test them in animals unless you have a particular license. So we really don’t know that much about the biology and the biological effects of most of these chemicals.

Editor’s note: The interview has been edited for brevity.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The shocking story behind Richard Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’ that targeted blacks and anti-war activists


This Sunday, June 17 will mark the 48th anniversary of a shameful day in US history — it’s when President Richard Nixon’s declared what has been the US government’s longest and costliest war — the epic failure known as the War on Drugs. At a press conference on that day in 1971, Nixon identified drug abuse as “public enemy number one in the United States” and launched a failed, costly and inhumane federal war on Americans that continues to today. Early the following year, Nixon created the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) in January 1972 to wage a government war on otherwise peaceful and innocent Americans who voluntarily chose to ingest plants, weeds, and intoxicants proscribed by the government. In July 1973, ODALE was consolidated, along with several other federal drug agencies, into the newly established Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a new “super agency” to handle all aspects of the War on Drugs Otherwise Peaceful Americans.

But as John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s counsel and Assistant for Domestic Affairs, revealed in 1994, the real public enemy in 1971 wasn’t really drugs or drug abuse. Rather the real enemies of the Nixon administration were the anti-war left and blacks, and the War on Drugs was designed as an evil, deceptive and sinister policy to wage a war on those two groups. In an article in the April 2016 issue of The Atlantic (“Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs“) author and reporter Dan Baum explains how “John Ehrlichman, the Watergate co-conspirator, unlocked for me one of the great mysteries of modern American history: How did the United States entangle itself in a policy of drug prohibition that has yielded so much misery and so few good results?” As Baum discovered, here’s the dirty and disgusting secret to that great mystery of what must be the most expensive, shameful, and reprehensible failed government policy in US history.

Americans have been criminalizing psychoactive substances since San Francisco’s anti-opium law of 1875, but it was Ehrlichman’s boss, Richard Nixon, who declared the first “War on Drugs” in 1971 and set the country on the wildly punitive and counterproductive path it still pursues. I’d tracked Ehrlichman, who had been Nixon’s domestic-policy adviser, to an engineering firm in Atlanta, where he was working on minority recruitment. At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away.

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Nixon’s invention of the War on Drugs as a political tool was cynical, but every president since — Democrat and Republican alike — has found it equally useful for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the growing cost of the Drug War is now impossible to ignore: billions of dollars wasted, bloodshed in Latin America and on the streets of our own cities, and millions of lives destroyed by draconian punishment that doesn’t end at the prison gate; one of every eight black men has been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction.

MP: As much as Prohibition (The War on Alcohol) was also an expensive, epic and misguided failure of government policy, it didn’t have its origins in any type of equivalent sinister and evil plot like the War on Drugs to destroy enemies of the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1919. In fact, President Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act, the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, but the House and Senate both voted quickly to override the veto and America started the War on Alchohol Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily Chose to Ingest Beer, Wine, and Spirits in 1920.

If the real goal of the War on Drugs was to target, convict and incarcerate subversive anti-war “hippies” and black Americans, as Ehrlichman describes it, it sure worked as the chartabove of the male incarceration rate in the US shows. During the nearly 50-year period between 1925 and the early 1970s, the male incarceration rate was remarkably stable at about 200 men per 100,000 population, or 1 US male per 500, according to data from Bureau of Justice Statistics. By 1986, about a decade after the War on Drugs started locking up drug users and dealers in cages, the male incarceration rate doubled to 400 per 100,000 population. Then within another decade, the male incarceration rate doubled again to more than 800 by 1996 before reaching a historic peak of 956 in 2008 (about one in 100) that was almost five times higher than the stable rate before the War on Drugs. The arrest and incarceration data show that the War on Drugs had a significantly much greater negative effect on blacks and Hispanics than whites, making the Drug War even more shameful for its devastating and disproportionate adverse effects on America’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.

Since the 2008 peak, the male incarceration rate has been gradually declining in each of the last seven years of available data through 2016, possibly because of three trends: a) decriminalization of weeds at the city and state level, b) the legalization of medical weeds at the state level, and c) now legalization of recreational weeds at the city and state levels.

While there could have been other factors that contributed to the nearly five-fold increase in the male incarceration rate between the early 1970s and the peak in 2008, research clearly shows that the War on Drugs, along with mandatory minimum sentencing in the 1980s and the disparate treatment of powdered cocaine and “crack cocaine” (powdered cocaine processed with baking soda into smokable rocks) were all significant contributing factors to the unprecedented rate of incarcerating Americans. Here are some conclusions from the 2014 book The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (my emphasis):


  1. The states’ combined incarceration rates increased across all crime categories between 1980 and 2010 (see chart above). Most striking, however, is the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate for drug-related crimes. In 1980, imprisonment for drug offenses was rare, with a combined state incarceration rate of 15 per 100,000 population. By 2010, the drug incarceration rate had increased nearly 10-fold to 143 per 100,000. Indeed, the rate of incarceration for the single category of drug-related offenses, excluding local jails and federal prisons, by itself exceeds by 50% the average incarceration rate for all crimes of Western European countries and is twice the average incarceration rate for all crimes of a significant number of European countries.
  2. Arrest rates for federal drug offenses climbed in the 1970s, and mandatory prison time for these offenses became more common in the 1980s. Mandatory prison sentences, intensified enforcement of drug laws, and long sentences contributed not only to overall high rates of incarceration but also especially to extraordinary rates of incarceration in black and Latino communities. Intensified enforcement of drug laws subjected blacks, more than whites, to new mandatory minimum sentences—despite lower levels of drug use and no higher demonstrated levels of trafficking among the black than the white population.
  3. As a result of the lengthening of sentences and greatly expanded drug law enforcement and imprisonment for drug offenses, criminal defendants became more likely to be sentenced to prison and remained there significantly longer than in the past. The policy shifts that propelled the growth in incarceration had disproportionately large effects on African Americans and Latinos. Indeed, serving time in prison has become a normal life event among recent birth cohorts of African American men who have not completed high school.
Bottom Line: Even without the nefarious, vile, and veiled origins revealed by Ehrlichman in 1994, the War on Drugs Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily Choose To Ingest or Sell Intoxicants Currently Proscribed by the Government, Which Will Lock Up Users or Sellers in Cages if Caught would represent one of the most shameful chapters in America’s history. But with its intention to destroy the black community and anti-war peace activists, which has certainly been “successfully” achieved for the black community, the shamefulness of the War on Drugs is elevated to a much higher level of despicable, evil immorality.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
12 Of The Sketchiest Things The DEA Has Done While Waging The War On Drugs


The Drug Enforcement Administration was established under the Justice Department in 1973 by President Richard Nixon. Its mission was to keep the nation off and away from drugs, which, at least according to the White House, were a moral evil and catalyst of criminal behavior. The agency was formed just two years after Nixon launched what became known as the “war on drugs.” Congress and the rest of the nation remained convinced that the scourge of narcotics and drug abusers — and perhaps particularly those who were young, poor or black — was pounding at the gates. Over the next four decades, with most drug policy now firmly in the grips of law enforcement officials, the DEA’s annual budget saw a fortyfold increase, going from a paltry $75 million to nearly $3 billion in 2014.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Subscribe Now
With more than 11,000 employees and a host of responsibilities, the agency’s activity has expanded worldwide, all the while attracting scrutiny from critics of the drug war who contend that the DEA is an ineffective agency that uses controversial tools to enforce often misguided or unjust federal drug laws.

The catalog of controversies below helps explain why the public has often questioned the DEA’s priorities, as well as the methods it employs to advance them. While the DEA does its best to keep many of its dealings out of the public eye — it regularly claims secrecy is imperative to the success of its anti-drug operations — here are some of the most sketchy, messed up things that we know it has done:

The DEA claimed Prohibition was a success.

r-ALCOHOL-PROHIBITION-OFFICERS-large570.jpg


Most historians believe the “noble experiment” of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s backfired, creating a myriad of negative unintended consequences and serving as a lesson about the hazards of governing public morals. The DEA, however, tells a different story. In 2010, the DEA and the International Association of Chiefs of Police released a report providing key arguments against drug legalization. In one passage, first highlighted by the Republic Report, the report set out to combat what it called the “myth” that “prohibition didn’t work in the 20’s and it doesn’t work now.” Its main argument was that the 18th Amendment didn’t go far enough to restrict the manufacturing and consumption of alcohol at the onset of Prohibition.

Citing figures that suggest there was a decline in alcohol use during that 13-year period — statistics that are regularly contested and impossible to verify — the document argues that Prohibition was a successful policy. The report also downplayed the secondary effects of banning alcohol, such as the precipitous rise of organized crime, at one point suggesting that those effects were increasing before the enactment of Prohibition.



A sample of the DEA’s report.

Unsurprisingly, the report made no mention of the clear negative parallels between early-20th century Prohibition laws and today’s laws that target drugs. In both cases, strict prohibition has taken away resources from treatment for addiction and abuse, overburdened court systems and jails, fostered corruption in law enforcement, propped up organized crime and even, some argue, created a damaging disrespect for the rule of law. In return, these incredibly costly enforcement experiments have largely failed to actually limit people’s consumptive habits.

The DEA imprisoned an innocent suspect in a holding cell for five days without food or water.

In 2012, 24-year-old Daniel Chong was detained by DEA agents in San Diego after his friend’s house was targeted by a drug raid. Chong was told there were no plans to charge him and that he’d be released the same day. But he wasn’t released, and agents who heard or saw him over the next five days did nothing, each believing he was somebody else’s responsibility. Chong was trapped in a windowless 5-by-10 enclosure without food or water, all for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he was finally discovered, he was incoherent and required medical attention. He said he’d drank his own urine to survive, and at one point attempted suicide. At some point, Chong began to carve “sorry mom” into his arm with broken glass from his eyeglasses, which he ate before being released.

r-DANIEL-CHONG-large570.jpg


Chong, seen during an interview with NBC San Diego in 2012.

The ordeal ultimately ended in a $4.1 million settlement for Chong. Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General released a report excoriating top DEA officials not only for the incident itself, but also for failing to immediately report it to their office.

A DEA agent shot himself in a classroom full of children.

Anyone who’s spent too much time watching viral videos is familiar with this one:

 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The DEA Once Turned A 14-Year-Old Into A Drug Kingpin. Welcome To The War On Drugs


Americans spent approximately $100 billion a year on illegal drugs between 2000 and 2010, according to a 2012 report published by the RAND corporation. Part of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s job, alongside several other law enforcement agencies, is to make that process more difficult at home, where harsh federal drug laws have ensured that such transactions are conducted — until recently, in some states — entirely on the black market. The DEA also works to cut off imported illicit drugs at the source, which means mounting operations around the world to tackle a global drug trade that generates $322 billion annually, according to UN estimates.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Subscribe Now
It’s a gargantuan task. Critics of the war on drugs say it’s an impossible one. Over 40 years, the U.S. has spent more than $1 trillion in the fight. Thousands of people on both sides of the battle have lost their lives. In the end, it’s led only to cheaper, higher quality drugs at home and abroad, and by most accounts, little change in the number of people using them. While the momentum may finally be shifting away from an enforcement-first national drug policy and toward prevention and treatment, aggressive enforcement of the nation’s drug laws doesn’t appear to be going anywhere just yet.

Until the nation drastically rethinks its approach on drugs, the DEA will continue to play an integral part in the war against them, and that sometimes means resorting to controversial tactics. Below, find out how domestic spying, broken promises and a 14-year-old from Detroit have all played a part in that seemingly endless struggle.

The DEA has been spying on U.S. citizens with a surveillance program more expansive than the NSA’s.

Just months after Edward Snowden unmasked the National Security Agency’s massive domestic spying program, The New York Times broke news of the Hemisphere Project, which pairs experts from telecommunications giant AT&T with federal and local anti-drug officials, including DEA agents. It gives law enforcement officials access to “every call that passes through an AT&T switch — not just those made by AT&T customers — and includes calls dating back 26 years,” according to the Times report. That’s around 4 billion call records every day, each logged with information on the location of callers. The official government slideshow describing the program suggested it had been helpful in tracking drug dealers who frequently change phones, or use disposable “burner” phones.

r-BURNER-PHONE-large570.jpg


The White House attempted to allay privacy concerns about the Hemisphere Project last year, noting that AT&T stores the collected data, unlike in the NSA’s program, in which data is turned over to the government. Federal officials can quickly access the records, however, often within an hour of a subpoena.

The ACLU criticized the apparent secrecy of the program, which had been in existence for six years before being revealed by the Times in 2013. The organization suggested that blanket surveillance and close federal involvement could represent a violation of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“Hemisphere is deeply troubling, not only because the government is amassing detailed, comprehensive information about people who’ve done nothing wrong, but also because the government has deliberately kept Hemisphere secret, even from criminal defendants who’ve been subjected to the program,” wrote ACLU attorney Linda Lye.

And the DEA instructs agents not to tell the truth about sources of key intelligence.

A Reuters report, also from 2013, detailed how the DEA’s Special Operations Division, or SOD, teaches agents to cover up vital tips that come from the department. A DEA document obtained by Reuters shows that federal agents are trained in “parallel construction,” in which essential intelligence obtained SOD wiretaps, informants or other surveillance methods can be concealed by crediting it to another source.

An unnamed former federal agent who received tips from the SOD gave an example of how the process worked: “You’d be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.’ And so we’d alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it,” the agent said.

If an arrest was made, agents were instructed to hide the fact that the initial tip had come from SOD, and instead use “normal investigative techniques to recreate the information.” This process is sometimes used to hide case details from prosecutors and judges, as well as defense attorneys. Several lawyers told Reuters that the practice could jeopardize a defendant’s constitutional right to fair trial and cover up evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible.

DEA officials defended the technique, however, calling it a common law enforcement tool that allows the SOD to crack high-profile cases.

The DEA has confidential informants who have made it a lifetime career.

Confidential informants — sometimes referred to as “snitches” — are crucial assets in the DEA’s war on drugs. In 2005, the agency told the Justice Department it has around 4,000 of these sources actively working for it at any given time. Many of these informants are recruited after being caught for drug crimes themselves, and are offered a chance to work for the DEA as a way to earn a reduced sentence. Others have made a full-time profession out of informing, a controversial practice in itself, as some critics suggest it encourages longtime informants to go after and potentially entrap low-level dealers rather than higher profile targets.

Informants can make tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars helping the government prosecute and convict drug dealers, with payment often contingent on how much money is seized in an eventual bust. That’s how Andrew Chambers Jr. once made a name for himself as “the highest-paid snitch in DEA history,” with a 16-year career as a federal informant between 1984 and 2000, during which time he reportedly netted as much as $4 million in government money, nearly half of it from the DEA. A report earlier this year in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette found that Chambers was only one of the agency’s million-dollar informants.

r-ANDREW-CHAMBERS-JR-large570.jpg


Chambers, seen in a YouTube video from the Speakers Agency.

The “highest-paid snitch in DEA history” was also found to have lied repeatedly in testimony. Despite his reputation, he recently resumed work with the DEA.

Chambers’ work with the DEA halted in 2000, after a review of testimony revealed he’d committed perjury in at least 16 cases, when he lied on the witness stand about his credentials. Agents who’d worked closely with Chambers during the time, however — including Michele Leonhart, who became DEA administrator in 2010 — spoke highly of him despite the criticism that made him a national story. Around the time of Leonhart’s confirmation, the DEA reactivated Chambers as an informant.

While his current role with the DEA is unclear, legal professionals have expressed concerns beyond Chambers’ record of perjury. Defense attorneys told the Arizona Republic that he regularly failed to record introductory meetings, which left open the possibility that he was entrapping suspects and compromising cases.

Shortly after news broke that Chambers had resumed working with the DEA, a case in which he served as the primary informant fell apart and federal prosecutors asked for the charges to be dismissed.

Confidential informants are given so much free rein that one top DEA source actually had his own sub-network of informants.

While the DEA has released information about the general size of the program and the basic guidelines under which it operates, less is known about exactly how — and to what extent — the agency controls its informants.

The perils of this ambiguity were exposed in 2004, when it was revealed that a star DEA informant was actually paying his own sub-informants to help him set up drug deals. In one case, in which this arrangement wasn’t initially revealed to defense attorneys, a sub-informant made a number of calls to a defendant who would later be facing charges for trafficking methamphetamines. The calls weren’t recorded, however, which opened up the possibility that the alleged meth trafficker had actually been pressured to go through with the deal that led to his arrest. A judge determined that this raised the possibility of entrapment and ordered federal prosecutors to release a full list of the cases in which the informant and sub-informant had collaborated. When the government refused, the judge threw out the indictment and freed the defendant, writing that the DEA had tried to “shield itself from accountability by hiring someone outside of law enforcement who is free to violate citizens’ rights.”

In a ruling explaining her decision, the judge also blasted the DEA, suggesting it was “highly unlikely” that it was unaware of the informant’s sub-contractors. In an earlier case, the informant had testified that he’d never told his DEA handlers about his network, and that they’d never asked.


The DEA allows informants to break the law, but have no records as to how often it happens.

Federal agencies came under fire in 2012 in the wake of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal for not adequately tracking instances in which they authorize informants to commit crimes in the line of government duty. In the case of Fast and Furious, gun dealers working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sold 2,000 weapons to Mexican cartels, but failed to have them traced. In response to a USA Today report, both the ATF and DEA claimed they were “in compliance” with rules determining when they could advise their informants to break the law.

Both agencies also acknowledged that they didn’t track how frequently they granted such permission.

Some congressional representatives have called for more accountability among federal agencies with regard to informants. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) sponsored an unsuccessful bill in 2013 that would have required federal agencies to report to lawmakers whenever an informant commits a serious crime, with or without authorization.

One of America’s most notorious terrorists once served as a DEA informant.

In 2013, David Coleman Headley, an American of Pakistani descent, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, which killed at least 164 people and wounded hundreds more. Government officials with knowledge of Headley’s past spoke of a man who had grown increasingly radicalized in the years leading up to the attack, but subsequent reporting also followed up on his work as a confidential informant for the DEA between 1997 and 2005, according to sources.

The DEA, which sent Headley on a number of trips to gather intelligence on heroin traffickers in Pakistan, has denied that he was working officially with the agency as late as 2005, or at any time when he was receiving training at militant camps in the region.

r-MUMBAI-TERROR-ATTACKS-large570.jpg


An Indian soldier takes cover as the Taj Mahal hotel burns during gun battle between Indian military and militants in Mumbai, India. (AP Photo/David Guttenfelder, File)

Another informant allegedly shot and killed a man who confronted him for molesting his child.

Sometimes informants get caught doing unauthorized dirty deeds while on the agency’s payroll. In Albuquerque, the DEA is facing a lawsuit claiming it was negligent in supervising an informant who allegedly shot and killed another man earlier this year. The informant has been charged in the man’s death, as well as with criminal sexual penetration of a child under 13 and a host of other charges. The victim had allegedly confronted the informant over the sexual assault of his son when he was shot. The suit is seeking $50 million in damages, alleging that the informant had prior felony convictions and a history of violence and should not have been recruited by the DEA.

The DEA strung one informant along for 20 years with the promise of citizenship. She still hasn’t received it.

When Norma was just 19 years old, she became a confidential informant for the DEA. She told her story to Yolanda Gonzalez Gomez as part of a partnership between New America Media and HuffPost Voces. Norma explained how desperation and the promise of citizenship led her to sign up for a commitment she knew little about. Over the course of 20 years, Norma says she repeatedly put her life on the line for the DEA, and in return, she got paid, although she said agents sometimes refused to give her the money she was owed. Citizenship, however, never came, and now Norma fears she’ll be deported and sent back to Mexico, where she hasn’t lived since she was 5 years old. She also said she believes her life would be in danger there as a result of her work for the DEA.

Norma is an alias — she asked that her real name be withheld — but immigration attorney Jodi Goodwin knows stories like hers are not uncommon. “Federal government agencies use and abuse undocumented confidential informants for years, trample their rights with impunity, promise them permanent residency and never deliver on it,” she told Gomez. “And they know they don’t have to deliver on it. But they keep pressuring them with that promise so they will keep cooperating.”

The DEA has also been accused of using other exploitative means to recruit assets.

In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, a New Mexico man and former DEA informant alleged that the agency had recruited him by targeting his history of substance abuse. An attorney representing 38-year-old Aaron Romero claimed that her client had recently beaten a crack cocaine addiction in 2011, when a DEA-sponsored informant offered him the opportunity to sell drugs — provided to him by the U.S. government — and to feed the agency information on other drug dealers. His payment, Romero’s attorney alleged, came in the form of crack for personal use. Romero relapsed, his attorney said, and was eventually arrested on federal counts of distributing crack cocaine near a school, charges that were ultimately dropped after he spent a number of months in jail.

r-CRACK-COCAINE-PIPE-large570.jpg


The DEA once turned a teenager into a drug kingpin so he could act as an informant.

In the 1980s, federal agents with the DEA and FBI plucked 14-year-old Richard Wershe from his Detroit high school and began crafting a new identity for him as a drug kingpin. Over the next few years, the teenage Wershe would live a double life, one as the legend who’d later be known as White Boy Rick, one of the most notorious drug lords in city, and the other as a valuable informant for the DEA and other law enforcement agencies.

“I was just a kid when the agents pulled me out of high school in the ninth grade and had me out to 3 in the morning every night,” Wershe told The Fix in 2013. “They gave me a fake ID when I was 15 that said I was 21 so I could travel to Vegas and to Miami to do drug deals.”

With intelligence provided by Wershe, authorities were able to make a series of high-profile arrests, disrupting Detroit’s rampant drug trade and the police corruption that had grown alongside it.

But in 1988, then 17 and no longer an informant, Wershe was pulled over and busted for work in the same drug business as the one to which the DEA had introduced him. The 17 pounds of cocaine found in his car resulted in a life sentence. He’s the only convict still behind bars in Michigan to receive a life sentence as a minor under the state’s now-repealed “650-lifer” law. Many of the targets whom Wershe helped put in jail have long since been released.

original.jpg


The DEA did treat one informant very nicely, giving him nearly $900,000 for information it could have gotten for free.

The Associated Press reported in August that the DEA had paid an Amtrak secretary $854,460 over nearly 20 years as an informant to pass confidential information about passenger reservations. But as the AP reported, Amtrak police are already part of an anti-drug task force that includes the DEA, and would have given the agency that information free of charge.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Heroin, Morphine and Opiates

Heroin, morphine, and other opiates trace their origins to a single plant—the opium poppy. Cultivation of the plant dates back to the earliest years of human civilization, and opium use was well known in ancient Mesopotamia. The narcotic drug has been used both recreationally and as a medicine for centuries. Opium derivatives, including morphine, became widely used pain relievers, particularly in the 1800s. Heroin, too, was first synthesized for medical use before physicians realized its potent addictive properties.

What Is Opium?
Opium comes from the milky sap of a flower called the opium poppy. The earliest reference to opium use and the cultivation of opium poppies comes from Mesopotamia around 3,400 B.C.

The ancient Sumerians—who inhabited the southernmost region of Mesopotamia in modern-day Iraq and Kuwait—referred to the bright red poppy flowers as hul gil, “the joy plant.”

Opium cultivation spread to the ancient Greeks, Persians and Egyptians. Opium use in ancient Egypt flourished under the reign of King Tutankhamen, around 1333-1324 B.C., and the Greek author Homer referred to opium’s healing powers in the Odyssey.

These ancient societies used opium to help people sleep, to relieve pain and even to calm crying children. There is also some evidence that opium-based medicines were used as anesthesia during surgery. They may also have used the drug recreationally, though they probably weren’t aware of its addictive effects.

Silk Road, which connected the Mediterranean cultures of Europe to central Asia, India and China. The region stretching from Afghanistan and Pakistan eastward into India, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand still produces much of the world’s opium poppies.

The First Opium War
In the 1700s, the British empire conquered a major poppy-growing region of India and, rather than quash the production of opium, began to smuggle opium from India into China through the East India Company.

Great Britain used the profits from the lucrative opium trade to buy and export tea, silk, porcelain and other Chinese luxury goods back to Europe. As a result of this trade, opium addiction in China rose steeply. The Qing Dynasty, attempting to curb the havoc caused by widespread opium addiction, outlawed opium importation and cultivation.

Two armed conflicts, called the Opium Wars, followed China’s attempts to suppress opium use within its borders, and British efforts to keep opium trafficking routes open. In each case, the Chinese lost, and European powers gained commercial privileges and land concessions from China.

During the First Opium War (1839-1842), the British government resorted to “gunboat diplomacy” to force the Chinese government to keep the ports in Shanghai, Canton and elsewhere open to trade. China ceded Hong Kong to the British in the Treaty of Nanking following the First Opium War.

The Second Opium War
During the Second Opium War (1856-1860), the British and French joined forces against China to make the opium trade legal in China, and to extractfurther concessions (including the right to own property) from the Chinese emperor’s family.

British Parliament, William Ewart Gladstone denounced the First Opium War as “a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace.” Gladstone’s younger sister Helen, it should be noted, suffered from opium addiction.

China’s losses in the Opium Wars ushered in what was known in China as the “Century of Humiliation,” which ended with the Japanese defeat in World War IIand the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

Opium Dens
Thousands of Chinese came to America to work on railroads and in the California gold fields during the 1849 Gold Rush. They brought with them the habit of opium smoking.

Chinese immigrants soon established opium dens—places to buy, sell and smoke opium—in so-called Chinatowns throughout the West. By the 1870s, opium smoking had become a popular habit for many Americans, and in 1875, San Francisco became the first city to pass legislation trying to limit opium use. The ordinance made it a misdemeanor to maintain or frequent an opium den.

Some people believed that opium smoking would encourage prostitution and other crimes. These concerns, and fears of unemployment among white Americans, fed into an anti-Chinese campaign that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882—a 10-year moratorium on Chinese immigration.

Types of Opiates
German scientist Friedrich Sertürner first isolated morphine from opium in 1803. Morphine, a very powerful painkiller, is the active narcotic ingredient in opium.

In its pure form, morphine is ten times stronger than opium. The drug was widely used as a painkiller during the U.S. Civil War. As a result, an estimated 400,000 soldiers became addicted.

By the second half of the nineteenth century, scientists had begun to look for a less addictive form of morphine, and in 1874, an English chemist named Alder Wright first refined heroin from a morphine base. The drug was intended to be a safer replacement for morphine.

Morphine is still the precursor to all other opioids, including prescriptionnarcotic painkillers such as codeine, fentanyl, methadone, hydrocodone (Vicodin), hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol) and oxycodone(Percocet or Oxycontin).

Medical Uses of Heroin
Before it became a popular recreational drug, heroin was used in medicine until its addictive properties became known.

In the 1890s, German pharmaceutical company Bayer marketed heroin as a morphine substitute and cough suppressant. Bayer promoted heroin for use in children suffering from coughs and colds.

Partly as a result of these medical treatments, by the early 1900s, heroin addiction in the United States and western Europe had skyrocketed.

Black Tar Heroin
Black tar heroin is a form of heroin that is dark orange or brown. It can be sticky and tar-like or hard like coal.

Mississippi River. The traditional white powder form dominates the eastern half of the United States.

Black tar heroin typically comes from Mexico, while powder heroin is often imported into the United States from Colombia.

Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
The use of opium had reached such levels in the United States that in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Dr. Hamilton Wright as Opium Commissioner of the United States.

In The New York Times in 1911, Wright was quoted as saying, “Of all the nations of the world, the United States consumes most habit-forming drugs per capita. Opium, the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this country, with far fewer safeguards than any other nation in Europe fences it with. China now guards it with much greater care than we do; Japan preserves her people from it far more intelligently than we do ours, who can buy it, in almost any form, in every tenth one of our drug stores.”

In response, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914—the first major piece of U.S. legislation to control the sale and use of opiates—was passed. The act passed restrictions on the distribution and sale of heroin and opium, as well as cocaine.

Ten years later, Congress made it illegal to make, import or sell heroin when it passed the Anti-Heroin Act of 1924.

Opiate Addiction and Withdrawal
All opiates, including heroin, morphine and narcotic pain relievers, can cause physical dependence, forcing users to rely on bigger and bigger hits of the drug to prevent withdrawal symptoms. Addiction can have devastating consequences for addicts, their communities and society as a whole.

An estimated 26 million to 36 million people worldwide abuse opiates, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the United States, an estimated 2.1 million people abuse prescription opiate pain relievers, and about 467,000 Americans are addicted to heroin.

In recent years, the rates of opiate addiction and opiate-related deaths have risen sharply: In just one year—from 2014 to 2015—the death rate from synthetic opioids increased by 72 percent, and heroin death rates increased by almost 21 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This upsurge in opiate abuse has caused many officials to view the problem as an epidemic in need of a broad range of solutions to curb abuse and overturn the profound effects of opiate addiction.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
A BRIEF HISTORY OF OPIUM

"Opium teaches only one thing, which is that aside
from physical suffering, there is nothing real."

André Malraux
MAN'S FATE
  • c.3400 B.C.
    The opium poppy is cultivated in lower Mesopotamia. The Sumerians refer to it as Hul Gil, the 'joy plant.' The Sumerians would soon pass along the plant and its euphoric effects to the Assyrians. The art of opium poppy-culling would continue from the Assyrians to the Babylonians who in turn would pass their knowledge onto the Egyptians.



  • c.1300 B.C.
    In the capital city of Thebes, Egyptians begin cultivation of opium thebaicum, grown in their famous poppy fields. The opium trade flourishes during the reign of Thutmose IV, Akhenaton and King Tutankhamen. The trade route included the Phoenicians and Minoans who move the profitable item across the Mediterranean Sea into Greece, Carthage, and Europe.


  • c.1100 B.C.
    On the island of Cyprus, the "Peoples of the Sea" craft surgical-quality culling knives to harvest opium, which they would cultivate, trade and smoke before the fall of Troy.


  • c. 460 B.C.
    Hippocrates, "the father of medicine", dismisses the magical attributes of opium but acknowledges its usefulness as a narcotic and styptic in treating internal diseases, diseases of women and epidemics.


  • 330 B.C.
    Alexander the Great introduces opium to the people of Persia and India.


  • A.D. 400
    Opium thebaicum, from the Egyptian fields at Thebes, is first introduced to China by Arab traders.


  • 1020
    Avicenna of Persia teaches that opium is "the most powerful of stupefacients."


  • A.D. 1200
    Ancient Indian medical treatises The Shodal Gadanigrah and Sharangdhar Samahita describe the use of opium for diarrhoea and sexual debility. The Dhanvantri Nighantu also describes the medical properties of opium.


  • 1300s
    Opium disappears for two hundred years from European historical record. Opium had become a taboo subject for those in circles of learning during the Holy Inquisition. In the eyes of the Inquisition, anything from the East was linked to the Devil.


  • 1500
    The Portuguese, while trading along the East China Sea, initiate the smoking of opium. The effects were instantaneous as they discovered but it was a practice the Chinese considered barbaric and subversive.


  • 1527
    During the height of the Reformation, opium is reintroduced into European medical literature by Paracelsus as laudanum. These black pills or "Stones of Immortality" were made of opium thebaicum, citrus juice and quintessence of gold and prescribed as painkillers.


  • 1600s
    Residents of Persia and India begin eating and drinking opium mixtures for recreational use. Portuguese merchants carrying cargoes of Indian opium through Macao direct its trade flow into China.


  • 1601
    Ships chartered by Elizabeth I are instructed to purchase the finest Indian opium and transport it back to England.


  • 1620s -1670s
    Rajput troops fighting for the Mughals introduce the habit of taking opium to Assam. Opium is given daily to Rajput soldiers. From 1637 onwards Opium becomes the main commodity of British trade with China.


  • 1680
    English apothecary, Thomas Sydenham, introduces Sydenham's Laudanum, a compound of opium, sherry wine and herbs. His pills along with others of the time become popular remedies for numerous ailments.


  • 1700
    The Dutch export shipments of Indian opium to China and the islands of Southeast Asia; the Dutch introduce the practice of smoking opium in a tobacco pipe to the Chinese.


  • 1729
    Chinese emperor, Yung Cheng, issues an edict prohibiting the smoking of opium and its domestic sale, except under license for use as medicine.


  • 1750
    The British East India Company assumes control of Bengal and Bihar, opium-growing districts of India. British shipping dominates the opium trade out of Calcutta to China.


  • 1753
    Linnaeus, the father of botany, first classifies the poppy, Papaver somniferum - 'sleep-inducing', in his book Genera Plantarum.


  • 1767
    The British East India Company's import of opium to China reaches a staggering two thousand chests of opium per year.


  • 1773
    East India Company assumes monopoly over all the opium produced in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Warren Hastings introduces system of contracts. Contracts for dealing in opium were awarded through auction.


  • 1793
    The British East India Company establishes a monopoly on the opium trade. All poppy growers in India were forbidden to sell opium to competitor trading companies.


  • 1796
    The import of opium into China becomes a contraband trade. Silver was smuggled out to pay for smuggling opium in.


  • 1797
    East India Company introduced Bengal Regulation IV to enable appointment of Opium Agents for purchase of opium from cultivators and its processing at factories owned by the company at Patna and Ghazipur


  • 1799
    China's emperor, Kia King, bans opium completely, making trade and poppy cultivation illegal.


  • 1800
    The British Levant Company purchases nearly half of all of the opium coming out of Smyrna, Turkey strictly for importation to Europe and the United States.


  • 1803
    Friedrich Sertürner of Paderborn, Germany discovers the active ingredient of opium by dissolving it in acid then neutralizing it with ammonia. The result: alkaloids - Principium somniferum or morphine.
    Physicians believe that opium had finally been perfected and tamed. Morphine is lauded as "God's own medicine" for its reliability, long-lasting effects and safety.



  • 1805
    A smuggler from Boston, Massachusetts, Charles Cabot, attempts to purchase opium from the British, then smuggle it into China under the auspices of British smugglers.


  • 1812
    American John Cushing, under the employ of his uncles' business, James and Thomas H. Perkins Company of Boston, acquires his wealth from smuggling Turkish opium to Canton.


  • 1816
    John Jacob Astor of New York City joins the opium smuggling trade. His American Fur Company purchases ten tons of Turkish opium then ships the contraband item to Canton on the Macedonian. Astor would later leave the China opium trade and sell solely to England.


  • 1819
    Writer John Keats and other English literary personalities experiment with opium intended for strict recreational use - simply for the high and taken at extended, non-addictive intervals


  • 1821
    Thomas De Quincey publishes his autobiographical account of opium addiction, Confessions of an English Opium-eater.


  • 1827
    E. Merck & Company of Darmstadt, Germany, begins commercial manufacturing of morphine.


  • 1830
    The British dependence on opium for medicinal and recreational use reaches an all time high as 22,000 pounds of opium is imported from Turkey and India.
    Jardine-Matheson & Company of London inherit India and its opium from the British East India Company once the mandate to rule and dictate the trade policies of British India are no longer in effect.



  • 1837
    Elizabeth Barrett Browning falls under the spell of morphine. This, however, does not impede her ability to write "poetical paragraphs."


  • March 18, 1839
    Lin Tse-Hsu, imperial Chinese commissioner in charge of suppressing the opium traffic, orders all foreign traders to surrender their opium. In response, the British send expeditionary warships to the coast of China, beginning The First Opium War.


  • 1840
    New Englanders bring 24,000 pounds of opium into the United States. This catches the attention of U.S. Customs which promptly puts a duty fee on the import.


  • 1841
    The Chinese are defeated by the British in the First Opium War. Along with paying a large indemnity, Hong Kong is ceded to the British.


  • 1842
    The Treaty of Nanking between the Queen of Great Britain and the Emperor of China.


  • 1843
    Dr. Alexander Wood of Edinburgh discovers a new technique of administering morphine, injection with a syringe. He finds the effects of morphine on his patients instantaneous and three times more potent.


  • 1852
    The British arrive in lower Burma, importing large quantities of opium from India and selling it through a government-controlled opium monopoly.


  • 1856
    The British and French renew their hostilities against China in the Second Opium War. In the aftermath of the struggle, China is forced to pay another indemnity. The importation of opium is legalized.
    Opium production increases along the highlands of Southeast Asia.



  • 1874
    English researcher, C.R. Wright first synthesizes heroin, or diacetylmorphine, by boiling morphine over a stove.
    In San Francisco, smoking opium in the city limits is banned and is confined to neighboring Chinatowns and their opium dens.



  • 1878
    Britain passes the Opium Act with hopes of reducing opium consumption. Under the new regulation, the selling of opium is restricted to registered Chinese opium smokers and Indian opium eaters while the Burmese are strictly prohibited from smoking opium.


  • 1886
    The British acquire Burma's northeast region, the Shan state. Production and smuggling of opium along the lower region of Burma thrives despite British efforts to maintain a strict monopoly on the opium trade.


  • 1890
    U.S. Congress, in its earliest law-enforcement legislation on narcotics, imposes a tax on opium and morphine.
    Tabloids owned by William Randolph Hearst publish stories of white women being seduced by Chinese men and their opium to invoke fear of the 'Yellow Peril', disguised as an "anti-drug" campaign.



  • 1895
    Heinrich Dreser working for The Bayer Company of Elberfeld, Germany, finds that diluting morphine with acetyls produces a drug without the common morphine side effects. Bayer begins production of diacetylmorphine and coins the name "heroin." Heroin would not be introduced commercially for another three years.


  • Early 1900s
    The philanthropic Saint James Society in the U.S. mounts a campaign to supply free samples of heroin through the mail to morphine addicts who are trying give up their habits. Efforts by the British and French to control opium production in Southeast Asia are successful. Nevertheless, this Southeast region, referred to as the 'Golden Triangle', eventually becomes a major player in the profitable opium trade during the 1940s.


  • 1902
    In various medical journals, physicians discuss the side effects of using heroin as a morphine step-down cure. Several physicians would argue that their patients suffered from heroin withdrawal symptoms equal to morphine addiction.


  • 1903
    Heroin addiction rises to alarming rates.


  • 1905
    U.S. Congress bans opium.


  • 1906
    China and England finally enact a treaty restricting the Sino-Indian opium trade. Several physicians experiment with treatments for heroin addiction. Dr. Alexander Lambert and Charles B. Towns tout their popular cure as the most "advanced, effective and compassionate cure" for heroin addiction. The cure consisted of a 7 day regimen, which included a five day purge of heroin from the addict's system with doses of belladonna delirium.
    U.S. Congress passes the Pure Food and Drug Act requiring contents labeling on patent medicines by pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the availability of opiates and opiate consumers significantly declines.



  • 1909
    The first federal drug prohibition passes in the U.S. outlawing the importation of opium. It was passed in preparation for the Shanghai Conference, at which the US presses for legislation aimed at suppressing the sale of opium to China.


  • February 1, 1909
    The International Opium Commission convenes in Shanghai. Heading the U.S. delegation are Dr. Hamilton Wright and Episcopal Bishop Henry Brent. Both would try to convince the international delegation of the immoral and evil effects of opium.


  • 1910
    After 150 years of failed attempts to rid the country of opium, the Chinese are finally successful in convincing the British to dismantle the India-China opium trade.


  • Dec. 17, 1914
    The passage of Harrison Narcotics Act which aims to curb drug (especially cocaine but also heroin) abuse and addiction. It requires doctors, pharmacists and others who prescribed narcotics to register and pay a tax.


  • 1923
    The U.S. Treasury Department's Narcotics Division (the first federal drug agency) bans all legal narcotics sales. With the prohibition of legal venues to purchase heroin, addicts are forced to buy from illegal street dealers.


  • 1925
    In the wake of the first federal ban on opium, a thriving black market opens up in New York's Chinatown.


  • 1930s
    The majority of illegal heroin smuggled into the U.S. comes from China and is refined in Shanghai and Tietsin.


  • Early 1940s
    During World War II, opium trade routes are blocked and the flow of opium from India and Persia is cut off. Fearful of losing their opium monopoly, the French encourage Hmong farmers to expand their opium production.


  • 1945-1947
    Burma gains its independence from Britain at the end of World War II. Opium cultivation and trade flourishes in the Shan states.


  • 1948-1972
    Corsican gangsters dominate the U.S. heroin market through their connection with Mafia drug distributors. After refining the raw Turkish opium in Marseilles laboratories, the heroin is made easily available for purchase by junkies on New York City streets.


  • 1950s
    U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Communism in Asia involves forging alliances with tribes and warlords inhabiting the areas of the Golden Triangle, (an expanse covering Laos, Thailand and Burma), thus providing accessibility and protection along the southeast border of China. In order to maintain their relationship with the warlords while continuing to fund the struggle against communism, the U.S. and France supply the drug warlords and their armies with ammunition, arms and air transport for the production and sale of opium. The result: an explosion in the availability and illegal flow of heroin into the United States and into the hands of drug dealers and addicts.


  • 1962
    Burma outlaws opium.


  • 1965-1970
    U.S. involvement in Vietnam is blamed for the surge in illegal heroin being smuggled into the States. To aid U.S. allies, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sets up a charter airline, Air America, to transport raw opium from Burma and Laos. As well, some of the opium would be transported to Marseilles by Corsican gangsters to be refined into heroin and shipped to the U.S via the French connection. The number of heroin addicts in the U.S. reaches an estimated 750,000.


  • October 1970
    Legendary singer, Janis Joplin, is found dead at Hollywood's Landmark Hotel, a victim of an "accidental heroin overdose."


  • 1972
    Heroin exportation from Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle, controlled by Shan warlord, Khun Sa, becomes a major source for raw opium in the profitable drug trade.
    Solomon Snyder and Candace Pert discover opiate receptor in the brain.



  • July 1, 1973
    President Nixon creates the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) under the Justice Dept. to consolidate virtually all federal powers of drug enforcement in a single agency.


  • Mid-1970s
    Saigon falls. The heroin epidemic subsides. The search for a new source of raw opium yields Mexico's Sierra Madre. "Mexican Mud" would temporarily replace "China White" heroin until 1978.


  • 1975
    Hans Kosterlitz and his colleagues isolate and purify an endogenous opioid in the brain, enkephalin.


  • 1978
    The U.S. and Mexican governments find a means to eliminate the source of raw opium - by spraying poppy fields with Agent Orange. The eradication plan is termed a success as the amount of "Mexican Mud" in the U.S. drug market declines. In response to the decrease in availability of "Mexican Mud", another source of heroin is found in the Golden Crescent area - Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, creating a dramatic upsurge in the production and trade of illegal heroin.


  • 1982
    Comedian John Belushi of Animal House fame, dies of a heroin-cocaine - "speedball" overdose.


  • Sept. 13, 1984
    U.S. State Department officials conclude, after more than a decade of crop substitution programs for Third World growers of marijuana, coca or opium poppies, that the tactic cannot work without eradication of the plants and criminal enforcement. Poor results are reported from eradication programs in Burma, Pakistan, Mexico and Peru.


  • 1988
    Opium production in Burma increases under the rule of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), the Burmese junta regime.
    The single largest heroin seizure is made in Bangkok. The U.S. suspects that the 2,400-pound shipment of heroin, en route to New York City, originated from the Golden Triangle region, controlled by drug warlord, Khun Sa.



  • 1990
    A U.S. Court indicts Khun Sa, leader of the Shan United Army and reputed drug warlord, on heroin trafficking charges. The U.S. Attorney General's office charges Khun Sa with importing 3,500 pounds of heroin into New York City over the course of eighteen months, as well as holding him responsible for the source of the heroin seized in Bangkok.


  • 1992
    Colombia's drug lords are said to be introducing a high-grade form of heroin into the United States.


  • 1993
    The Thai army with support from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) launches its operation to destroy thousands of acres of opium poppies from the fields of the Golden Triangle region.


  • January 1994
    Efforts to eradicate opium at its source remains unsuccessful. The Clinton Administration orders a shift in policy away from the anti- drug campaigns of previous administrations. Instead the focus includes "institution building" with the hope that by "strengthening democratic governments abroad, [it] will foster law-abiding behavior and promote legitimate economic opportunity."


  • 1995
    The Golden Triangle region of Southeast Asia is now the leader in opium production, yielding 2,500 tons annually. According to U.S. drug experts, there are new drug trafficking routes from Burma through Laos, to southern China, Cambodia and Vietnam.


  • January 1996
    Khun Sa, one of Shan state's most powerful drug warlords, "surrenders" to SLORC. The U.S. is suspicious and fears that this agreement between the ruling junta regime and Khun Sa includes a deal allowing "the opium king" to retain control of his opium trade but in exchange end his 30-year-old revolutionary war against the government.


  • November 1996
    International drug trafficking organizations, including China, Nigeria, Colombia and Mexico are said to be "aggressively marketing heroin in the United States and Europe."


  • 1999
    Bumper opium crop of 4,600 tons in Afghanistan. UN Drug Control Program estimates around 75% of world's heroin production is of Afghan origin.


  • 2000
    Taliban leader Mullah Omar bans poppy cultivation in Afghanistan; United Nations Drug Control Program confirms opium production eradicated.




  • July 2001
    Portugal decriminalizes all drugs for personal consumption.


  • Autumn 2001
    War in Afghanistan; heroin floods the Pakistan market. Taleban regime overthrown.


  • October 2002
    U.N. Drug Control and Crime Prevention Agency announces Afghanistan has regained its position as the world's largest opium producer.


  • December 2002
    UK Government health plan will make heroin available free on National Health Service "to all those with a clinical need for it". Consumers are sceptical.


  • April 2003
    State sponsored heroin trafficking: Korea's attempt to penetrate the Australian heroin market hits rocky waters.


  • October 2003
    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) launch special task force to curb surge in Net-based sales of narcotics from online pharmacies.


  • January 2004
    Consumer groups file a lawsuit against Oxycontin maker Purdue Pharma. The company is alleged to have used fraudulent patents and deceptive trade practices to block the prescription of cheap generic medications for patients in pain.


  • September 2004
    Singapore announces plans to execute a self-medicating heroin user, Chew Seow Leng. Under Singapore law, chronic heroin users with a high physiological tolerance to the drug are deemed to be "traffickers". Consumers face a mandatory death sentence if they take more than 15 grams (0.5 ounces) of heroin a day.


  • September 2004
    A Tasmanian company publishes details of its genetically-engineered opium poppies. Top1 [thebaine oripavine poppy 1] mutants do not produce morphine or codeine. Tasmania is the source of some 40% of the world's legal opiates; its native crop of poppies is already being re-engineered with the mutant stain. Conversely, some investigators expect that the development of genetically-engineered plants and microorganisms to manufacture potent psychoactive compounds will become widespread later in the 21st century. Research into transgenic psychotropic botanicals and microbes is controversial; genes from mutants have a habit of spreading into the wild population by accident as well as design.


  • September 2004
    The FDA grants a product license to Purdue's pain medication Palladone: high dose, extended-release hydromorphone capsules. Palladone is designed to provide "around-the-clock" pain-relief for opioid-tolerant users.


  • October 2004
    Unannounced withdrawal of newly-issued DEA guidelines to pain specialists. The guidelines had pledged that physicians wouldn't be arrested for providing adequate pain-relief to their patients. DEA drug-diversion chief Patricia Good earlier stated that the new rules were meant to eliminate an "aura of fear" that stopped doctors treating pain aggressively.


  • December 2004
    McLean pain-treatment specialist Dr William E. Hurwitz is sent to prison for allegedly "excessive" prescription of opioid painkillers to chronic pain patients. Testifying in court, Dr Hurwitz describes the abrupt stoppage of prescriptions as "tantamount to torture".


  • May 2005
    Researchers at Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center in Emeryville, California, inhibit expression of the AGS3 gene in the core of nucleus accumbens. Experimentally blocking the AGS3 gene curbs the desire for heroin in addicted rodents. By contrast, activation of the reward centres of the nucleus accumbens is immensely pleasurable and addictive. The possible effects of overexpression and gene amplification of AGS3 remain unexplored.


  • December 2005
    Neuroscientists close in on the (hypothetical) final common pathway of pleasure in the brain. The "hedonic hotspot" is activated by agonists of the muopioid receptor. In rats, at least, the hedonic hotspot is located in a single cubic millimeter of tissue: the substrates of pure bliss may lie in medium spiny neurons in the rostrodorsal region of the medial shell of the nucleus accumbens.


  • May 2006
    In Mexico, Congress passes a bill legalising the private personal use of all drugs, including opium and all opiate-based drugs. President Vicente Fox promises to to sign the measure, but buckles a day later under US government pressure. The bill is referred back to Congress for changes. "We welcome the idea of Mexico reviewing the legislation to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated in Mexico," says the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.


  • June 2006
    University of Southern California neuroscientist Irving Biederman publishes in the American Scientist a theory of knowledge-acquisition likening all human beings to "junkies". On this hypothesis, knowledge junkies are driven to learn more information by a craving for the brain's own natural opium-like substances.


  • September 2006
    The head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that Afghanistan's harvest in 2006 will be around 6,100 metric tons of opium - a world record. This figure amounts to some 92% of global opium supply.


  • November 2006
    Senior UK police officer Howard Roberts advocates legalisation of heroin and its availability without charge on National Health Service (NHS) prescription.


  • August 2007
    Afghanistan's poppy production rises an estimated 15 percent over 2006. Afghanistan now accounts for 95 percent of the world's opium poppy crop, a 3 percentage point increase over last year. The US State Department's top counternarcotics official Tom Schweich claims that Afghanistan is now "providing close to 95 percent of the world's heroin".

  • October 2007
    Death of Golden Triangle opium lord and former Shan separatist leader Khun Sa (1933-2007). At its peak, Khun Sa's narcotics empire controlled production of an estimated quarter of the world's heroin supply.

  • March 2008
    A report by The Pew Centre, a Washington think tank, reveals that over one in 100 adults in the USA is now in jail: some 2,300,000 prisoners, triple the rate in the 1980s. American prisons now hold around a quarter of the world's inmates. Nearly half of US federal prisoners are imprisoned for non-violent, drug-related "crimes". Law professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah comments on the size of the US prison population: "it's the price of living in the most free society in the world.”

  • November 2008
    Swiss voters overwhelmingly endorse a permanent and comprehensive legalized heroin program.


  • February 2009
    FDA announces plans further to restrict access to opioid-based pain-relievers by American citizens and their doctors.


  • March 2009
    According to the World Health Organization, around 80% of the world’s population does not have adequate access to pain relief. The international organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) blames a failure of leadership, inadequate training of health care workers, and “over-zealous drug control efforts”.


  • May 2010
    Research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirms that mice (and humans?) can synthesise their own morphine.


  • July 2011
    Seattle hosts Kappa Therapeutics, the world's first conference dedicated to kappa opioids and antagonists. The kappa receptor is the "nasty" opioid receptor, bound by dynorphin. Selective, orally active kappa opioid antagonists, notably JDTic and the shorter-acting zyklophin, are subjectively enjoyable and relaxing; but they (probably) lack significant "abuse potential". Investigators hope that selective kappa opioid antagonists can be used therapeutically to treat anxiety disorders, clinical depression, anhedonia, eating disorders, alcoholism and a variety of substance abuse disorders.


  • July 2014
    Unexpected discovery that the licensed antidepressant tianeptine (Stablon) is a full agonist at the mu and delta opioid receptors with negligible effect at the kappa opioid receptors.


  • August 2014
    Phase 1 study planned or orally active kappa antagonist LY2456302


  • January 2015
    State-owned Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation Embrapa announce the discovery of mood-brightening and anxiolytic opioid peptides in coffeethat exert a longer-lasting effect than morphine.

pad.gif
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
A BRIEF HISTORY OF LSD


LSD’s history has been brief but tumultuous.

Underlying each of these ‘bullet points’ is a story with many words and many pages. In this article, I will unveil part of the known history of LSD, including famous figures, research breakthroughs, various abuses in the 1960s, and the recent resurgence of interest, specifically in microdosing.

INVENTION OF LSD
I wrote about the entire story of LSD’s invention in another article, but I’ll summarize again. Albert Hofmann, a Swiss pharmacological research, accidentally invented LSD in 1938 while trying to develop medicine for giving birth. He derived it from the ergot fungus.

After its invention, LSD was shelved because it was comparatively ineffective for its intended use. However, its observed side effects, including general restlessness in animal subjects, stuck in the back of Hofmann’s mind.

In 1943, he pulled LSD-25 back off the shelf to re-test it. In this process, he accidentally spilt a little bit on his skin. He had a minor trip.

Three days later, he self-administered the very first dose of LSD. Hofmann took way too much, not aware of the effective dose size. He had a bad trip experiencing demons and the total dissolution of his ego. Although intense, he recovered.

After his boss had confirmed Hofmann’s observations, LSD-25 was re-admitted for experimental observations.

9780979862229-us.jpg


LSD USE IN THE 1950S – FOCUS ON MEDICAL SCIENCE
Once Hoffman discovered LSD’s magical effects, Sandoz carried out animal trials to determine tolerance and toxicity. Once all was given the OK, Sandoz carried out the first systematic investigation of LSD on human beings, at the psychiatric clinic in Zurich.

The year was 1947. The research involved healthy subjects as well as schizophrenic patients. The term ‘Psychedelic’ had yet to be invented, so the head of the research, Werner A. Stoll, labeled LSD as a phantasticum.

In the experiments, subjects consumed micro to moderate dose amounts of LSD – anywhere from 20 micrograms to 130 micrograms. Although this first experiment did not measure LSD’s therapeutic ability, it did mention the possibility of LSD directed psychotherapy.

Fast-forward three years to 1950.

Because of its psychoactive effects, LSD was thought to replicate schizophrenia. In fact, much of the beginning research carried out in American medical centers focused on LSD’s ability to replicate the effects of mental illness.

In the late 1950s, research began to expand outside of mental illness and delved into assisting psychotherapy pursuits. Psychedelic therapy, defined as therapy in which hallucinogenic drugs are used to facilitate the final goal, became increasingly mainstream.

In one study, Dr. Humphrey Osmond gave LSD to Alcoholics Anonymous, who had failed to quit drinking. In total, LSD psychotherapy was administered to approximately 1000 patients. Around 50 percent of the subjects completely quit or seriously reduced consumption.

This fifty percent success rate was approximately ten times as effective as AA without psychedelic therapy.

Throughout the 1950s, mainstream media reported on LSD research. These reports included undergraduate psychology experiments, articles describing the effects of the drug, and its growing use in psychiatry.

In fact, Time Magazine published six positive reports on LSD between 1954 and 1959.

Between 1950 and 1965, research on LSD and other hallucinogens generated over 1000 scientific papers, several dozen books, and six international conferences. In total, LSD was prescribed as a treatment for over 40,000 patients.

“Psychedelic therapy, defined as therapy in which hallucinogenic drugs are used to facilitate the final goal, became increasingly mainstream.”



MKULTRA, THE CIA, AND LSD
In the 1950s, the CIA became interested in the use of psychedelics as a truth serum.

Inspired by the Nazis use of mescaline in concentration camps during WWII, the CIA carried out these top-secret studies by administering LSD to uninformed experimental subjects. Hundreds of participants, including CIA agents, government employees, military personnel, prostitutes, members of the general public, and mentally ill individuals, consumed varying amounts of LSD, often without consent.

These experiments went on until the mid-1970s. Eventually, the CIA shut the program down due to the wild variability of LSD.



RECREATIONAL USE IN THE 1960S
Then came the 1960s. Dr. Sidney Cohen, who carried out measured, well-controlled experiments to test the psychoanalytical capabilities of LSD, warned of LSD’s widespread use by the mainstream public. In congressional hearings on LSD in 1966, Cohen told Congress that LSD was safe only if administered under strict medical supervision and that, if in the wrong hands, it was a “dangerous drug.”

His statement defined the differences between the 1950s and 1960s. While the 50s focused on the medical use of LSD, the counter-cultural movement of the 60s became a breeding ground for the abuse of a potentially harmful drug.

There were two primary parties promoting LSD within the counter-cultural movement: Timothy Leary’s League for Spiritual Discovery and Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters.

Leary’s League for Spiritual Discovery (Richard Alpert, later renamed Ram Dass, was also a member), focused on academic-like experiments related to mystical experiences and the raising of consciousness. While the League for Spiritual Discovery encouraged the widespread use of LSD (Tune in, Drop in, Drop out), they took few steps to ensure responsible use by those who used it.

jamie-street-630543-unsplash-1024x757.jpg


Ken Kesey encouraged public use of LSD through a grassroots approach. He led the Merry Pranksters on a cross-country bus trip fueled by large amounts of LSD.

Kesey and the Merry Pranksters aimed to confront the banality and conformity of American society with psychedelic-inspired spontaneity. During this experiment, Kesey, and the Merry Pranksters had no boundaries with the use of psychedelics and abused LSD to a previously unheard of degree. Tom Wolfe wrote an excellent account of this ‘experiment,’ which he published as ‘The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.”

The Merry Pranksters visited Leary and Alpert while on the cross-country bus trip. Leary, Alpert, and co. were holed up in a Victorian mansion in Millbrook, New York, conducting experiments in raising consciousness with LSD.

The Merry Pranksters expected a hearty reception. Instead, the Pranksters got nothing but a cold shoulder. While the Merry Pranksters perceived it as an opportunity for two great worlds to collide, the League for Spiritual Discovery viewed the Merry Pranksters as nothing but jokesters. Leary, immersed in a 3-day experiment, even refused to meet Kesey.

The gap between the League for Spiritual Discovery and the Merry Pranksters defined LSD use in the 1960s. Leary’s League for Spiritual Discovery operated within the walls of an academic ivory tower. By encouraging the mainstream public to ‘Turn on, Tune in, Drop out,’ without providing structure and guidance, Leary influenced many of the horror stories associated with LSD.

The Merry Pranksters lived out such stories on their cross-country bus trip. Representing the symbol of LSD proliferation in the 1960s, the Merry Pranksters used LSD without regard for its powerful effects. In effect, Leary’s proseltyzing created Kesey’s Merry Pranksters movement. By encouraging the public to use LSD, no matter the situation, Kesey shouldered Leary’s advice and brought it to the mainstream public.

“By encouraging the mainstream public to ‘Turn on, Tune in, Drop out,’ without providing structure and guidance, Leary influenced many of the horror stories associated with LSD.”

As LSD grew in popularity, horror trips became the publicized norm. People jumped out of 10th story windows, tried to stop moving cars, and inflicted self-harming casualties. When people paid no attention to set and setting, panic and disorientation soon followed. And with panic and disorientation came accidents and even crime.

As Albert Hofmann wrote in his book, ‘LSD: My Problem Child,’ “Publicity about LSD attained its high point in the years 1964 to 1966, not only with regard to enthusiastic claims about the wondrous effects of LSD by drug fanatics and hippies, but also to reports of accidents, mental breakdowns, criminal acts, murders, and suicide under the influence of LSD. A veritable LSD hysteria reigned.’

And then, as quick as the counter-cultural movement blossomed, it died. In 1968, the U.S. government declared possession of LSD illegal. In 1970, it declared LSD a Schedule I drug. When a drug is declared Schedule I it has, according to the government, ‘a high potential for abuse’ and was without ‘any accepted medical use in treatment.’

Although there had been a myriad of positive results when used under controlled circumstances, the dissemination of LSD into the hands of mainstream USD caused its eventual prohibition.



USE FROM THE 1970S TO TODAY
Use of LSD dropped off in the late 60s and 70s. In the 1980s, as MDMA became increasingly popular, recreational and psychotherapeutic use of LSD increased. In 1986, the association MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies) was founded by Rick Doblin. Doblin carried out studies on the benefits of MDMA for treating PTSD. Because of MDMA’s success in treating psychological issues, more psychotherapists turned to LSD in their sessions.

Another Association, the Guild of Guides, was founded at some point in the 90s or 00s. According to the guild’s website, the mission of the Guild of Guides is, “to support a category of profound, prized experiences becoming more available to more people…The Guild also encourages its members and friends to find or create and to develop social contexts that will contain those experiences and help them yield lasting benefits.” Entheogens, which are also called psychedelics, remain the principal tool used by the Guild of Guides.

In more current news, MAPS hosts a yearly conference called ‘Psychedlic Science in the 21st Century.” Over 1200 people showed up to the conference in 2010, including legal researchers and not-yet-legal guides. This massive turnout for a conference about largely illegal substances showcased the increased interest in psychedelic therapy going forward.

Additionally, with the information age of the Internet, several resources and websites have focused content on the benefits of psychedelics. One such website is Reset.me. According to its ‘About’ section, Reset.me, “provides accurate journalism on natural therapies and medicines to enhance the mind, body, and spirit. Reset strives to help expand consciousness and spread more love around the world.”

One other resource that has helped to popularize LSD use specifically within entrepreneurial circles is Tim Ferriss’s podcast with James Fadiman, author of the Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide. While the podcast discusses all aspects of psychedelics, it also dives into the use of sub-perceptual doses (also called ‘microdoses’) for enhanced productivity and creativity.

For additional reading on the History of LSD, please refer to the resources section. One book I highly recommend is Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: the CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond.
 

Dannyblueyes

Aka Illegal Danny
BGOL Investor
Two of the most important rules of war is that it has to be against a man-made organization and it has to be made with clear objectives. The so-called "war " on drugs does neither.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
History of Cocaine


Header-cocaine.jpg


A brief history of cocaine
Timeline:

5000 BC: Fragment of pottery found by archaeologist Ronald K. Siegel depicts the use of coca leaf in an event that took place around this period.

3000 BC: Coca chewing is practiced throughout South America to help with working at high altitude and to stave off hunger. It is thought to be a gift from the Gods. Also used in embalming and trepanning (as a local anaesthetic). Also some evidence to suggest that it was used in Egypt at the same time.

1000 AD: Incan civilisation begins. The civilisation eventually rises to incorporate 75% of the Pacific coast of South America. Coca is very important to the Inca’s and is incorporated into almost every aspect of daily life including their measurement of distance and time. Cocada: The time it takes to use a wad of coca leaves and the distance covered in that time (approximately 45 minutes).

1400: Coca plantations are operated by the Incas in Peru. Chewed coca used on wounds as an anaesthetic.

1492: Columbus strikes land which he mistakes for China and begins a process which will swiftly bring about the fall of the Incan civilisation. The estimated population of the Incan empire 14,000,000.

1505: The first reports of coca use reach Europe.

Early 1500’s: First commercial production of coca by Europeans as holders of Spanish land grants are allowed to make their tax payments in coca leaves.

1548: Silver miners were getting through over half a million kilograms of coca per year.

1552: Because of inaccurate reports on coca the Catholic Church decide that they want to ban the use of the leaf (probably one of the first anti-drug campaigns).

Mid 1500’s: Forced labourers working in Spanish silver mines are kept well supplied with coca leaves. Roughly 8% of Europeans living in Peru are involved in the coca trade.

1577: The Church withdrew there petition to ban coca some years earlier when a 10% tax was levied on its purchase. This tax was given to the Church and helped support its growth in South America.

1600s: Coca first brought to Western culture. Some Europeans chewing for stimulation.

1662: Abraham Cowley writes a poem titled ‘A legend of Coca’. This is the first independent mention of coca in English literature.

1708: German physician and botanist Herman Boerhaave first mentions coca with regards to a use as medicine.

1835 First accurate drawing of coca appears in popular English press. Drawing by Sir William Hooker who was then the director of Kew Gardens.

1860 Cocaine is first isolated from the coca leaf by Albert Neiman. He receives his PhD for his efforts.

1870: Vin Mariani (cocaine wine) is on sale throughout France and also exported. Bottles contain 7.2 mg per ounce of wine. The Dutch are growing coca in Indonesia and the British in Ceylon. Germany and the USA are getting crops from plantations in South America.

1876: Race walkers in England chew coca leaves to enhance their performance.

1878: Cocaine is held up as a wonder drug that can cure the morphine addiction faced by many American Civil War veterans. Dr W.H. Bentley publishes these findings in the Therapeutic Gazette.

1884: Cocaine is used as a local anaesthetic in eye surgery and receives much attention from the medical profession. Freud publishes ‘On Coca’ in which he recommends that cocaine be used in a variety of psychiatric conditions. More importantly, Freud saw cocaine as a cure for morphine dependency. Freud’s rashness and endorsement of cocaine led to a close friend, Fleischl-Marxow, dying in a very short period of time from using both cocaine and morphine in a ‘speedball’ combination. Freud also treats his depression with cocaine, and reports feeling “exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which is in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person. . . You perceive an increase in self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work. . . . In other words, you are simply more normal, and it is soon hard to believe that you are under the influence of a drug.” [Quoted in Ernest Jones, *The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 1, p. 82]

1884: Coca-Cola is first introduced by John Pemberton. The drink contained two main stimulants, coca leaves and kola nuts, hence its name.

Late 1800’s: The manufacture of refined cocaine starts. Coca plantations start to appear in areas other than South America, such as India and Indonesia.

Early 1900’s: The Pure Food and Drug Act was passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration and giving it power to regulate foods and drugs, and requiring labelling of contents on foods and drugs. Cocaine is withdrawn from tonics due to its adverse effects and addictive properties. Products containing cocaine had to be labelled as poisons. There was no distinction made between the cocaine content in elixirs, that tended to be weaker, and stronger, more potent patent medicines, that had more adverse affects.

1905: Snorting cocaine starts to become popular, particularly in the United States. It is carried around in small ornate boxes and snorted in a similar fashion as snuff. Early cocaine snorting was known as ‘cocaine snuffing’.

1910: The first case of nasal damage due to cocaine snorting reported in American medical literature. Harrods selling cocaine over the counter.

1911: 5’000 cocaine and heroin related deaths are reported by the U.S. government. To prolong the opium trade Britain forces the U.S.A. to put cocaine on the international drugs agenda.

1914: Cocaine and opiates are banned as illegal substances in the U.S.A under the Harrison Act. Start of 1st world war in Europe. Cocaine given to British troops in the form of ‘Forced March Tablets’.

1916: The Defence of the Realm Act introduced which makes it illegal for cocaine and morphine to be sold to British Armed Forces.

1920: Cocaine is banned as an illegal substance in the U.K. under the Dangerous Drugs Act. This started an illegal importation trade. Some enterprising traffickers used homing pigeons sent from France to bring in a gram at a time.

1920’s: Evidence of a ‘modern’ underground drug scene emerging in Soho, London.

Early 1930’s: Japan is worlds leading cocaine producer, followed by the U.S.A., Germany, Great Britain and then France. China recovering from the British opium trade now have to endure Japan flooding the market with cocaine. Hitler condemns the use of cocaine, a popular society drug in the 1920s that the Nazis called “devil’s stuff”.

1944: Nazi researchers used concentration camp inmates to test a cocaine-based “wonder drug” they hoped would enhance the performance of German troops.

1950’s: Cocaine starting to regain popularity. Is used by the ‘Famous set’ where it begins to get its rich drug image, also very expensive at this time. Production has now shifted to South America though Peru was legally producing cocaine from 1880’s to 1950.

1960’s Cocaine regaining popularity with the drug revolution of the 60’s era. Media yet again play down its dependent qualities as in the late 1800’s. Importation starting to be controlled by the Cuban’s.

Early 1970’s: Freebase cocaine starts to be used. At first it is washed with ether and then ammonia. Columbians are now starting to gain control of the American and world market. USA is flooded with cocaine, especially Miami and New York.

Late 1970’s: Crack cocaine use starts in the United States. It is initially named ‘ready rock’ or ‘garbage freebase’ and later is called crack once it hit the New York street market. Crack becomes more popular because it is easier to mass-produce with the use of bicarbonate of soda and a microwave oven. During the 1970’s a small group of doctors in California prescribe ‘Esterene’ to chronic rheumatoid arthritis sufferers. Esterene was freebase cocaine prepared for nasal application.


History of cocaine timeline


c. 3000 B.C. Coca chewing is practiced throughout South America. Coca is believed to be a gift from God. 1
1400s Coca plantations are operated by Incas in Peru.
1505 First hand accounts of coca use made their way back to Europe. Amerigo Vespucci (1505), G Frenandez de Oviedo (1535), and Nicholas Monardes (1565). 2
Early 1500s Incan coca plantations are taken over by holders of Spanish land grants. Spanish tax laws are revised to allow land owners to make their tax payments in coca leaves. 2
1539 The Bishop of Cuzco tithes coca, taking 1/10 of the value of each crop in taxes.
Mid 1500s Coca production in Peru expands quickly causing a glut of leaf on the market which in turn precipitated a drop in the price of coca. 2
1574 Monardes’ text on coca is first translated into other European languages from Spanish; Latin (1574), Italian (1576), English (1577). 2
c. 1575 Forced laborors working in the Spanish silver mines were kept well supplied with coca leaves. Roughly 8% of the Europeans living in Peru were involved in the coca trade. 2
1662 Abraham Cowley writes a poem titled “A Legend of Coca”. This is the first independent mention of coca in English literature.
1708 Coca is first mentioned in a materia medica, Institutiones Medicae, written by German physician and botanist Herman Boerhaave.
1835 First accurate drawing of coca appears in popular English press. The illustration by Sir William Hooker, director of the Kew gardens, was published in Companion to the Botanical Magazine. 2
c. 1850 Coca tinctures used in throat surgery. 2
c. 1855 Cocaine first extracted from coca leaves. 2
1862 Merck produces 1/4 pound of cocaine. 2
1869 Seeds from the commercial variety of coca arrived at Kew Gardens.
1870 Vin Mariani (coca wine) is for sale throughout France, containing 6 mg cocaine per ounce of wine. Exported Vin Mariani contained 7.2 mg per ounce to compete with the higher cocaine content of American competitors. 2 /SUP>
1870s Parke,Davis manufactures a fluid extract of coca. 2
1876 – 1885 Race walkers in England chew coca leaves to improve their performance. 2
1883 Merck produces 3/4 pound of cocaine. 2
1884 Cocaine’s use as a local anesthetic in eye surgery is popularized. 2
1884 Freud publishes On Coca in which he recommends the use of cocaine to treat a variety of conditions including morphine addiction. 2
1884 Merck produces 3,179 pounds of cocaine. 2
1886 Merck produces 158,352 pounds of cocaine. 2
1886 Coca-Cola is first introduced by John Pemberton, containing cocaine laced syrup and caffeine.
Late 1880s Parke,Davis starts to manufacture refined cocaine. 2
c. 1901 Coca-Cola removed coca from their formula. 2
c. 1905 Snorting cocaine becomes popular. 2
1910 First cases of nasal damage from cocaine snorting are written of in medical literature. 2
1910 First cases of nasal damage from cocaine snorting are seen in hospitals. 2
1912 U.S. government reports 5,000 cocaine related fatalities in one year. 2
1914 Cocaine banned in United States. 1
Early 1930s Japan is the world’s leading cocaine producer (23.3%) followed by the United States (21.3%), Germany (15%), U.K. (9.9%), France (8.3%). 2
c. 1976 Freebase cocaine first developed (probably in California). It would soon be popularized by dealers and glamorized by Hollywood media.
1981 Wholesale cost of 1 kg of cocaine is $55,000. 1
1984 Wholesale cost of 1 kg cocaine is $25,000. 1
Mid 1980’s Freebase cocaine becomes popular.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
We must and have to question everything!!!



Tracking the Genesis of the Crack Trade
JESSE KATZThis story was reported by Times staff writers Ralph Frammolino, Jesse Katz, Victor Merina, Tony Perry, Bill Rempel, Claire Speigel and Dan Weikel. It was written by Katz


The crack epidemic in Los Angeles followed no blueprint or master plan. It was not orchestrated by the Contras or the CIA or any single drug ring. No one trafficker, even the kingpins who sold thousands of kilos and pocketed millions of dollars, ever came close to monopolizing the trade.

Instead, a Times investigation has found that the explosion of cheap, smokable cocaine in the 1980s was a uniquely egalitarian phenomenon, one that lent itself more to makeshift mom-and-pop operations than to the sinister hand of a government-sanctioned plot. Anyone, even an illiterate high school dropout, could learn to cook crack on a kitchen stove, hawk it on a street corner and be $100 richer--all in the same day.

A firestorm of controversy has followed a report in late August by the San Jose Mercury News that a Nicaraguan drug network with ties to the CIA-backed Contra rebels allegedly opened the first cocaine pipeline to the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles. These Nicaraguans are said to have provided tons of cocaine over the course of a decade to a South-Central dealer named "Freeway" Ricky Ross. Ross, in turn, purportedly funneled his supply to the Bloods and Crips, generating the cash that paid for their automatic weapons and catapulting the crack crisis across urban America.

That notion, advanced by activists and politicians and popularized via airwaves and computer lines, has revived the long-running debate over the roots of South-Central's painful clash with cocaine. Often repeated in hyperbolic terms, the allegations have bolstered suspicions of a genocidal conspiracy; an editorial cartoon appearing in newspapers last month showed CIA agents driving through the ghetto, tossing nuggets of crack from their car.

For many African Americans, such a scenario is within the realm of belief, even if the details might be inaccurate or unverified. It appears to help explain how the plague of crack infected a community that had neither the resources nor the machinery to import cocaine. It also fits into a pattern of official discrimination and disregard--from Jim Crow laws to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments--that is still felt by blacks to a degree that many whites don't readily comprehend.

The story of crack's genesis and evolution, however, does not follow a simple, linear path. It is filled with a cast of interchangeable characters, from ruthless billionaires to strung-out curb dealers, none of whom is central to the drama. They operate in a world of shifting alliances and fleeting fortunes, where buyers become sellers and sellers become buyers, sometimes from one day to the next, depending on the vicissitudes of supply and demand.

Although it's unclear what, if anything, the U.S. government may have known about this trade, a few truths are clear: Cocaine was flowing from Colombia into Los Angeles, including its black neighborhoods, long before the Nicaraguan traffickers arrived on the scene. Oscar Danilo Blandon, the ring's Los Angeles point man, was not "the Johnny Appleseed of crack in California," as the Mercury News contended. Crack already was here. South-Central drug dealers manufactured it, not Latin American middlemen.

There also is no evidence that any significant drug profits from the Nicaraguan ring were pumped back to the Contras. Far from the "millions" allegedly sent, less than $50,000 went to the rebel cause, according to a Contra supporter and a business partner who sold drugs with Blandon. Nor did crack sales fill the coffers of the Bloods and Crips. Although individual gang members profited from the drug, most experts consider the gangs too disorganized and preoccupied with their own rivalries to function as efficient criminal enterprises.

Ross, for his part, was determined to rise to the highest echelons of the drug world, with or without the help of his Nicaraguan sources. According to interviews and court testimony, he was an established crack retailer before meeting Blandon in 1983 or 1984, at which time the Nicaraguan said his tenuous links to the anti-Sandinista resistance already had been severed. Even then, Ross continued to curry favor with a host of other cocaine suppliers of various backgrounds, playing one group off the other in a quest for the best possible price.

"This was not some grand design of the drug cartels or someone at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., who was sitting around thinking up ways to raise money for the Contras," said UCLA professor Ronald K. Siegel, who did some of the nation's first research on smoking cocaine.

Rather, the rise of crack was driven by a broad array of factors, from a worldwide glut of powder cocaine to shifting tastes among addicts to the entrepreneurial moxie of the inner-city hustlers who marketed it, according to court records, epidemiological studies and numerous interviews with law enforcement officials, drug dealers and academics.

In many ways, crack's emergence served the needs of all who touched it. For the Colombian smuggling cartels, crack opened up a new market for exporting huge quantities of cocaine at a time when prices were plummeting. For the users, crack offered a swifter, more intense high than snorting the drug, and at a unit price--about $20--that seemed more affordable than it really was. For the street-level retailers, crack became a parallel economy, creating a new subclass of outlaw capitalists in an era of shrinking legitimate prospects.

"The crack cocaine market was highly decentralized, involving primarily freelance distributors," according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report on the history of crack. The trade, it added, was "open to any person with access to cocaine and a desire to distribute."

None of this was unique to Los Angeles. Crack was breaking out elsewhere--New York, Washington, Miami--at almost exactly the same time in the early 1980s. In the East, it was spread by a slew of independent contractors, often organized along ethnic lines, including Jamaicans, Dominicans and Haitians with direct ties to the Colombian cartels. In the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, the competition was equally fierce. Although Ross was a dominant figure, he still had to jostle with the likes of Thomas "Tootie" Reese, Wayne "Honcho" Day, Elrader "Ray Ray" Browning and the Bryant family--all drug lords of the late '70s and early '80s who came on the scene either before Ross or at the same time.

Ross was still big enough that Los Angeles authorities in 1986 formed the "Freeway Rick Task Force," which contributed to his reputation as crack's leading entrepreneur. But even members of that squad acknowledge they could have picked any number of targets.

"Ricky had his own piece of the pie, but it was a huge pie out there," said retired Los Angeles Police Officer Stephen W. Polak, a member of that task force. "There was enough for everybody."

At the Mercury News, Executive Editor Jerry Ceppos now acknowledges that he is unsure whether Ross' Nicaraguan ring was the first to bring cocaine to Los Angeles' African American neighborhoods. But Ceppos says he continues to believe it was the first to import the drug in "huge masses" that "people in South-Central could afford."

Highway to Riches

Today, as Ricky Donnell Ross awaits sentencing on cocaine conspiracy charges, he paints himself as a victim--created and betrayed by Blandon, who himself was convicted of cocaine trafficking in 1992 and then helped the government snare his old customer in a sting. For Ross, it is more than self-pity; if he can prove that the CIA or the Contras behaved more egregiously than he, he may be able to convince a U.S. District Court judge to spare him from a life in jail.

"I feel now just like the slaves, when they used to hang them for nothing," Ross said in a recent interview at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in San Diego.

But this was not always Ross' tune. In a series of interviews with The Times dating back to his last release from prison in 1994, Ross described himself in far cagier, more charismatic terms.

"I wanted to rise to the top," Ross said. "I wanted to be the biggest drug dealer in L.A. It's not something that just happened. I set out to do it."

His introduction to cocaine came not from a nefarious Latin American cartel, but a friend from his own South-Central Los Angeles neighborhood. His name, according to court testimony by Ross, was Michael Willie McLaurin. He was a few years older, a football player at San Jose State, "kind of like a big brother figure to me," Ross testified. (McLaurin, who was acquitted of cocaine distribution and conspiracy charges after being busted in the same undercover sting last year with Ross, could not be reached for comment.)

As Ross recounted in an interview, McLaurin came home on Christmas break, sporting gold jewelry and boasting of his luck with the ladies. "He starts telling me, 'Man, I'm having it my way up there,' " said Ross, who has sometimes put this exchange as early as 1979, but now says it was probably closer to 1981 or 1982. Ross said McLaurin presented him with a $50 chunk of crack.

"I say, 'No way, man, it ain't worth $50,' " recalled Ross, a Dorsey High dropout. "I didn't even believe it was cocaine."

Tempted by the promise of easy money, Ross said he took the rock to Algin Sutton Park, at 88th and Hoover, where he found an old pimp named Martin. Martin wasted no time smoking it up. Then he ordered $100 more from Ross, who instantly sensed the financial power of this transaction.

"Once Martin came back with that $100, there was no doubt in my mind," Ross said. "I came back and told everybody in the neighborhood: 'I'm fittin' to be rich.' "

*

In an effort to expand, Ross and a boyhood friend stole a car from the faculty lot of their alma mater, Bret Harte Junior High School. They sold the wheel rims, he said, for $250 and invested it in a few grams of crack. By breaking that into small rocks, they reaped $500 in return, then continued to "double up," sinking everything they earned into greater volume.

After several months dealing with McLaurin, Ross has testified that he began buying cocaine from an auto upholstery teacher at the Venice Skills Center whom he knew only as Mr. Fisher.

At the first opportunity, however, Ross slipped his phone number into the hand of Henry Corrales, an alleged Nicaraguan dealer whom he met at Fisher's Los Angeles home. For much of the next year, probably 1982 or 1983, according to court testimony, Ross was supplied by Corrales and his brother-in-law Ivan Arguellas, who shared a house in Downey. By then, Ross had graduated from ounces to pounds.

"Once we got to $20,000, it was, like, over . . . over the hill," Ross said. "The hard work had been done."

Through Corrales and Arguellas, Ross testified that he was introduced to a circle of Nicaraguan dealers, alternately friends and competitors, including Blandon. College-educated, with a master's degree in marketing, Blandon served as director of wholesale markets for a Bank of International Development project in Nicaragua until Sandinista rebels toppled the Somoza regime in 1979. He has told people that he arrived in America with just $100 in his pocket.

*

In recent court appearances, including the March trial in which Ross was convicted on cocaine conspiracy charges, Blandon testified that he began selling cocaine in 1982 at the behest of Norvin Meneses, a San Francisco Bay Area drug dealer and Contra sympathizer. By the end of 1982, however, Blandon said, he had decided that the Contras were receiving sufficient funds from the Ronald Reagan administration and no longer needed his help. So he began pocketing the drug money.

About a year later, Blandon said, he met Ross, who by then was "a big coke dealer."

In Ross, he found a disciplined hustler who could sell as much as he gave him, often 50 to 100 kilos a week. Blandon told a business associate at the time that he liked his South-Central customers because they were not especially picky about the quality of cocaine, which would be diluted, anyway, once it got cooked into crack. "No one in South-Central worried about pH levels and acidity and iridescence," the source said, adding that dealers like Ross were "buying [stuff] we wouldn't even show to connoisseurs."

Ross, meanwhile, continued to cultivate other sources of cocaine. According to testimony in his San Diego trial, Ross still dealt with Arguellas and another pair of Nicaraguan rivals, Jacinto and Edgar Torres, both of whom would later go to prison for drug trafficking. Ross, in an interview, said he once paid $60,000 just to meet a Colombian supplier. Police records and interviews also show that he maintained a long relationship with David Chow, "a major cocaine distributor in the Los Angeles area during the 1980s," according to court documents that allege that Chow first sold heroin, and then cocaine, in the city's black neighborhoods.

"Rick's an opportunist," said Polak, the former LAPD officer. "You show me the person who put the gun to his head and said, 'Here, deal this, infect your community.' "

Roots of the Trade

Although Ross had become a millionaire by 1984--one of the first to make his fortune solely on crack--the market was so huge by then that even a dealer of his stature could seem dwarfed.

"Even on the best day Ricky Ross had, there was way more crack cocaine out there than he ever could control," said Lt. Ernie Halcon, a San Fernando narcotics detective.

How the crack epidemic reached that extreme, on some level, had nothing to do with Ross. Before, during and after his reign, a bewildering roster of other dealers and suppliers helped fuel the crisis. They were all responding to market forces that many experts believe would have created the problem whether any one individual sold crack or not.

For nearly 5,000 years, coca leaves have been consumed by South America's indigenous Incans, who chew the plant for its mildly stimulating effect. So long as nobody tried to snort or smoke the stuff, "there was no cocaine problem," according to UCLA's Siegel, who was a consultant to President Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime.

But the history of the illicit drug world is one of experimentation, a restless quest for sharper highs. Cocaine took the nation by storm in the 1970s. "A veritable blizzard . . . is blowing through the American middle class," reported a 1981 Time magazine article. Nasal membranes, though, are an inefficient means of absorbing any drug. Lungs offer a more direct route.

Among cocaine aficionados, the preferred method of smoking was called "freebasing," a complicated procedure involving ether and a blowtorch. By 1980, an estimated 10%, or about 400,000, of all U.S. cocaine users were ingesting the drug this way. That same year, comedian Richard Pryor set himself on fire after a binge in his San Fernando Valley home. He now insists that it was a suicide attempt, not a freak accident. But police, professors and pushers all recall it as a pivotal moment: The publicity not only highlighted the dangers, but heightened awareness that cocaine could be smoked. The search was on for less volatile ingredients.

*

As it turned out, such a concoction already existed. Throughout the '70s, researchers had found evidence that underground alchemists in California were cooking cocaine with water and baking soda, a simple process that condensed the powder into an easily lit, rock-like lump. The baking soda recipe appeared in print as early as 1976 in a head-shop bestseller titled "Pleasures of Cocaine." In 1979, a California physician named Franklin Sher appeared before the House Select Committee on Narcotic Abuse and Control, openly describing the procedure for making what was first known here as rock cocaine, and later, crack.

"A saucer, a glass, a paper towel and Arm & Hammer baking soda are about all that is needed," he explained to the Washington lawmakers.

The shift to crack produced several key marketing advantages. Unlike powder, which could melt in your hand or disperse in an ill-timed sneeze, rock cocaine was durable and easy to package. It was also compact and premixed, requiring no chemical know-how or industrial paraphernalia.

Compared to powder, which usually required a $100 investment to get high, crack was sold in units cheap enough for almost anybody to afford. The sensation was both intense and fleeting--a perfect combination for luring new clientele.

"The product sold itself," said T. Rodgers, a founding member of a Bloods faction in the Baldwin Village community of southwest Los Angeles.

Rodgers, who was a pimp before he ever sold drugs, recounted a day in the early '80s when he tried to collect from one of his working girls. She was stepping out of a car, cash fresh in her hand. She eyed Rodgers on the curb, then a nearby rock house. In a second, she had bolted through the door.

"I said, 'If that stuff can take my whore from me, I need to be on its side,' " Rodgers recalled.

The Competition

An entrenched, highly efficient distribution network was already in place before Blandon or Ross entered the drug trade. Run by Colombians, it had been importing tons of cocaine into Los Angeles by the time crack even surfaced as a problem.

In 1979, federal agents broke up a Colombian ring in Granada Hills that had been flying in 200-kilo loads via Lear jets and twin-engine Cessnas. In 1981, authorities busted another Colombian ring in Van Nuys that had distributed more than 3,600 pounds of cocaine and processed at least $73 million in just seven months. To distribute the drug, the Colombians established a series of mini-rings known as "cells" in the bedroom communities of Los Angeles, sort of point-of-sale representatives for the cartel bosses back home.

"If there was cocaine being brokered by Nicaraguans, it was not much," said a former top DEA official in Los Angeles. "All the people we saw were Colombians, Colombians, Colombians. These guys worked the cocaine from the ton to the kilo."

Their distribution system did not bypass the black community, which has always used cocaine at about the same rate as white America, according to national drug abuse surveys.

Although the Mercury News reported that cocaine was "virtually unobtainable in black neighborhoods" until the Nicaraguan ring arrived, it was certainly no stranger to Tootie Reese, the South-Central kingpin of the '60s and '70s.

Court records show that Reese was arrested on cocaine charges at least three times--1972, 1977 and 1980--before the explosion of crack. He said in an interview that cocaine's emerging popularity was linked to heroin's decline.

"Lots of people were looking to leave heroin," said Reese, 59, now out of prison and vowing to lead a clean life. "Cocaine came along and took away the craving."

His introduction to crack came as early as 1976, long before Ross or Blandon were on the scene. Reese said he was in the Bay Area visiting a friend who knew some chemistry students--"white guys at Cal Berkeley," as Reese put it. From them, Reese said, his friend learned the mechanics of freebasing. Within a year, they had been taught how to substitute baking soda for ether, turning powder cocaine into crack.

"You know, you got to stay abreast of what's coming in," said Reese, adding that the market boomed in South-Central because black dealers "are the ones who can hustle it on the street."

By the time he was convicted in 1984 for selling cocaine and heroin to undercover agents, Reese was "probably the best known narcotics trafficker in this town, particularly in the black community," William R. Coonce, special agent in charge of the DEA, said at the time. Reese, who said he dealt with Colombian suppliers, owned three Rolls-Royces and real estate valued by the U.S. government at $2 million to $4 million.

When it became clear that Reese was out of the picture, word hit the streets that "it was wide open territory," according to former Assistant U.S. Atty. Daniel J. Broderick, who prosecuted Reese. The day after his sentence was handed down, "all the [news]papers in the L.A. County Jail were gone," so eager were the inmates to read about the demise of the "godfather of drugs," Broderick recalled.

As one South-Central millionaire was going down, another African American drug ring across town was on the rise.

Although they are not widely known outside of the northeastern San Fernando Valley, Jeffrey and Stanley Bryant, drug-dealing brothers linked to the Black Guerrilla family prison gang, are believed to be among the first in Los Angeles to create fortified rock houses, according to authorities. These mini-fortresses--equipped with steel bars, surveillance cameras, caged entrances and electronically controlled doors--resulted in the LAPD's first search warrant in 1985 involving the use of its 14-foot mechanized battering ram.

Detective David H. Lambert, who was assigned almost exclusively to tracking the Bryants, described a sophisticated operation with upward of 200 employees on round-the-clock shifts, their hours dictated by written work schedules that included paid vacations.

"What they probably did was fine-tune the cocaine distribution, from bulk right down to street level, as well as anybody I've seen," said Lambert, who worked on the Bryants case until 1990, when family members were accused and later convicted of orchestrating the chilling murder of two rival drug dealers and two witnesses, including a 2-year-old child sitting in a parked car.

New Frontiers

Just as crack sales were beginning to erupt across Los Angeles, turning street corners from MacArthur Park to Venice Beach into open-air drug bazaars, another event unrelated to Ross or Blandon dramatically altered the market.

In an effort to staunch the flow of cocaine into the country, U.S. authorities in the early '80s launched a massive crackdown in southern Florida, which was then the principal port of entry for the drug. Those air-and-sea interdiction efforts redirected traffickers through Mexico and then into Southern California. In 1985, the DEA issued a news release pointing out that Los Angeles cocaine prices, for the first time, were cheaper than those in Miami.

Those price differentials suddenly opened new frontiers for the South-Central dealers. If a kilo could be bought here for as little as $10,000--and then doctored into two kilos with cheap additives like procaine--there were tremendous profits to be made by shipping it to distant communities, such as Seattle, Denver and Kansas City, where prices might still be double or triple the Los Angeles rate.

Law enforcement authorities, frustrated by these inadvertent turns, often compare their efforts to squeezing a half-inflated balloon. As soon as one trafficker is brought down, another pops up. When one route into the country is plugged, another sprouts.

"Every way we turn, there's somebody finding a way to get it in," said Richard Gorman, associate special agent in charge of the DEA office in Los Angeles. "What remains consistent is that cocaine is coming into the Los Angeles area and, from L.A., it's being shipped out."

*

Ross began exporting too, taking his crack enterprise to Cincinnati, where federal authorities named him in a 1989 interstate trafficking indictment. In an odd turn of events, the Los Angeles officers who had been tracking him, including Polak, had also been indicted--part of a massive money-skimming and brutality case that ranks among the worst corruption scandals in local police history.

Although many of the most serious charges against the officers have been dismissed, the U.S. government wanted Ross as a witness. In exchange for his testimony, he was paroled in 1994, after serving less than five years.

As big as Ross was, his interstate operation was quickly surpassed by another South-Central up-and-comer, Brian Bennett, an audacious young dealer with the nickname "Waterhead Bo." In just two years, from 1986 to 1988, authorities contend that he rose from inner-city poverty to the heights of "high-roller" status, building one of "the largest cocaine distribution groups headed by a black trafficker," said former Assistant U.S. Atty. Russell Hayman. Just 24, Bennett was selling more than a ton of crack a week.

*

His secret weapon, according to federal investigators, was Mario Ernesto Villabona, a member of Colombia's notorious Cali cartel. Police don't know how the two met, if Bennett was recruited or if he sought Villabona out. Either way, their relationship provided the first evidence of a link that law enforcement officials had long suspected. "This is the single most important partnership ever established between a major South-Central drug dealer and the Colombians," LAPD Deputy Chief Glenn Levant said at the time of Bennett's arrest in 1988.

By then, however, the tide had begun to turn against the Colombian cartels. U.S. authorities launched a massive money-laundering sting known as Operation Pisces, which resulted in 241 arrests, the confiscation of 4,500 kilos of cocaine and the seizure of $23 million between 1986 and 1987. If they couldn't stop the drugs from coming into the country, authorities hoped, at least they could stop some of the profits from flowing back out.

Smuggling had become the domain of a new generation of Mexican drug lords, now believed responsible for 70% of the cocaine that enters the United States. That was underscored in 1989, when 21 tons of powder were found in a Sylmar warehouse, still the largest single U.S. seizure. At trial, evidence showed the drug was flown from Colombia to Mexico, where it was trucked in tractor-trailers filled with pinatas across the Texas border and on to Los Angeles.

Authorities say Mexican nationals not only continue to transport but are playing the preeminent role in selling, too, the role long played by Colombians.

The Gang Connection

From the time it hit the streets of South-Central, crack has been almost synonymous with Bloods and Crips--a perception reinforced by the Mercury News, which said gangs armed themselves with profits from Contra drug sales.

Although there remains much debate over the role of gangs in controlling drug markets, many experts have come to conclude it is a matter of individual members selling cocaine, not the organizations.

"It's not like an organized crime family, where all the money goes to the godfather and the godfather parcels it out to the lieutenants, or capos," Los Angeles County probation officer Jim Galipeau said.

Crack is a racket, not so much for gangsters but for "players," explained Rodgers, the former Bloods leader. Gangsters, as Rodgers sees it, thrive on their reputation for violence. Players, of which he considers himself and Freeway Ricky Ross to be among, "take the muscle out of the hustle," putting financial gain ahead of brute force.

"We didn't see red or blue," said Rodgers, referring to the trademark colors of the Bloods and Crips. "We saw green."

Malcolm Klein and Cheryl Maxson, USC sociologists who studied South-Central cocaine sales from 1983 to 1985, found that gang members accounted for only about 25% of all crack-related arrests. They said they were prompted to conduct their study largely because of media images that equated gang members with "African Americans, toting Uzis and selling crack," as Maxson put it.

A good crack ring "has to be cohesive, organized, strongly led and loyal--none of which fit with our understanding of the nature of street gangs," Klein added. "If a drug dealer has people in his organization who are throwing gang signs and doing drive-by shootings, that's going to screw up the business something furious."

Jim Brown, the former NFL hall-of-famer, has seen this whole story unfold from a ringside seat. He was called to comfort Pryor in the hospital when the comedian burned himself freebasing. Through Amer-I-Can Inc., his self-help program for ex-convicts and gangbangers, he has also struggled to keep some of Los Angeles' toughest characters toeing a straight line.

Although he believes the shadowy intelligence arms of the U.S. government are capable of anything, Brown insists that neither the CIA nor the Contras have much relevance to the crack trade. The drug business, he says, is ruled by its own economic logic; it preys on social conditions that continue to fester, regardless of any elaborate schemes.

"We need to deal with that reality," Brown said. "People are still hungry--and all this CIA-Contra stuff ain't going to feed them."
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack
Based on a year-long investigation, reporter Gary Webb wrote that during the 1980s the CIA helped finance its covert war against Nicaragua's leftist government through sales of cut-rate cocaine to South Central L.A. drug dealer, Ricky Ross.


In August 1996, the San Jose Mercury News initiated an extended series of articles linking the CIA’s “contra” army to the crack cocaine epidemic in Los Angeles. Based on a year-long investigation, reporter Gary Webb wrote that during the 1980s the CIA helped finance its covert war against Nicaragua’s leftist government through sales of cut-rate cocaine to South Central L.A. drug dealer, Ricky Ross. The series unleashed a storm of protest, spearheaded by black radio stations and the congressional Black Caucus, with demands for official inquiries. The Mercury NewsWeb page, with supporting documents and updates, received hundreds of thousands of “hits” a day.

While much of the CIA-contra-drug story had been revealed years ago in the press and in congressional hearings, the Mercury Newsseries added a crucial missing link: It followed the cocaine trail to Ross and black L.A. gangs who became street-level distributors of crack, a cheap and powerful form of cocaine. The CIA’s drug network, wrote Webb, “opened the first pipeline between Colombia’s cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the ‘crack’ capital of the world.” Black gangs used their profits to buy automatic weapons, sometimes from one of the CIA-linked drug dealers.

CIA Director John Deutch declared that he found “no connection whatsoever” between the CIA and cocaine traffickers. And major media–the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post–have run long pieces refuting the Mercury News series. They deny that Bay Area-based Nicaraguan drug dealers, Juan Norwin Meneses and Oscar Danilo Blandon, worked for the CIA or contributed “millions in drug profits” to the contras, as Webb contended. They also note that neither Ross nor the gangs were the first or sole distributors of crack in L.A. Webb, however, did not claim this. He wrote that the huge influx of cocaine happened to come at just the time that street-level drug dealers were figuring out how to make cocaine affordable by changing it into crack.

Many in the media have also postulated that any drug-trafficking contras involved were “rogue” elements, not supported by the CIA. But these denials overlook much of the Mercury News‘ evidence of CIA complicity. For example:

  • CIA-supplied contra planes and pilots carried cocaine from Central America to U.S. airports and military bases. In 1985, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent Celerino Castillo reported to his superiors that cocaine was being stored at the CIA’s contra-supply warehouse at Ilopango Air Force Base in El Salvador for shipment to the U.S. The DEA did nothing, and Castillo was gradually forced out of the agency.
  • When Danilo Blandón was finally arrested in 1986, he admitted to drug crimes that would have sent others away for life. The Justice Department, however, freed Blandón after only 28 months behind bars and then hired him as a full-time DEA informant, paying him more than $166,000. When Blandón testified in a 1996 trial against Ricky Ross, the Justice Department blocked any inquiry about Blandón’s connection to the CIA.
  • Although Norwin Meneses is listed in DEA computers as a major international drug smuggler implicated in 45 separate federal investigations since 1974, he lived conspicuously in California until 1989 and was never arrested in the U.S.
  • Senate investigators and agents from four organizations all complained that their contra-drug investigations “were hampered,” Webb wrote, “by the CIA or unnamed ‘national security’ interests.” In the 1984 “Frogman Case,” for instance, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco returned $36,800 seized from a Nicaraguan drug dealer after two contra leaders sent letters to the court arguing that the cash was intended for the contras. Federal prosecutors ordered the letter and other case evidence sealed for “national security” reasons. When Senate investigators later asked the Justice Department to explain this unusual turn of events, they ran into a wall of secrecy.
History of CIA Involvement in Drug Trafficking
“In my 30year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA.” — Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit.

The foregoing discussion should not be regarded as any kind of historical aberration inasmuch as the CIA has had a long and virtually continuous involvement with drug trafficking since the end of World War II.

1947 to 1951, France

CIA arms, money, and disinformation enabled Corsican criminal syndicates in Marseille to wrest control of labor unions from the Communist Party. The Corsicans gained political influence and control over the docks–ideal conditions for cementing a long-term partnership with mafia drug distributors, which turned Marseille into the postwar heroin capital of the Western world. Marseille’s first heroin laboratories were opened in 1951, only months after the Corsicans took over the waterfront.

Early 1950s, Southeast Asia

The Nationalist Chinese army, organized by the CIA to wage war against Communist China, became the opium baron of The Golden Triangle (parts of Burma, Thailand, and Laos), the world’s largest source of opium and heroin. Air America, the CIA’s principal proprietary airline, flew the drugs all over Southeast Asia.

1950s to early 1970s, Indochina

During U.S. military involvement in Laos and other parts of Indochina, Air America flew opium and heroin throughout the area. Many GI’s in Vietnam became addicts. A laboratory built at CIA headquarters in northern Laos was used to refine heroin. After a decade of American military intervention, Southeast Asia had become the source of 70 percent of the world’s illicit opium and the major supplier of raw materials for America’s booming heroin market.

1973 to 1980, Australia

The Nugan Hand Bank of Sydney was a CIA bank in all but name. Among its officers were a network of U.S. generals, admirals, and CIA men–including former CIA Director William Colby, who was also one of its lawyers. With branches in Saudi Arabia, Europe, Southeast Asia, South America, and the U.S., Nugan Hand Bank financed drug trafficking, money laundering, and international arms dealing. In 1980, amidst several mysterious deaths, the bank collapsed, $50 million in debt.

1970s and 1980s, Panama

For more than a decade, Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was a highly paid CIA asset and collaborator, despite knowledge by U.S. drug authorities as early as 1971 that the general was heavily involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. Noriega facilitated “guns-for-drugs” flights for the contras, providing protection and pilots, safe havens for drug cartel officials, and discreet banking facilities. U.S. officials, including then-CIA Director William Webster and several DEA officers, sent Noriega letters of praise for efforts to thwart drug trafficking (albeit only against competitors of his Medellín cartel patrons). The U.S. government only turned against Noriega, invading Panama in December 1989 and kidnapping the general, once they discovered he was providing intelligence and services to the Cubans and Sandinistas. Ironically, drug trafficking through Panama increased after the U.S. invasion.

1980s, Central America

The San Jose Mercury News series documents just one thread of the interwoven operations linking the CIA, the contras, and the cocaine cartels. Obsessed with overthrowing the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, Reagan administration officials tolerated drug trafficking as long as the traffickers gave support to the contras. In 1989, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations (the Kerry committee) concluded a three-year investigation by stating: “There was substantial evidence of drug smuggling through the war zones on the part of individual contras, contra suppliers, contra pilots, mercenaries who worked with the contras, and contra supporters throughout the region. . . . U.S. officials involved in Central America failed to address the drug issue for fear of jeopardizing the war efforts against Nicaragua. . . . In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter. . . . Senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the contras’ funding problems.”

In Costa Rica, which served as the “Southern Front” for the contras (Honduras being the Northern Front), there were several CIA-contra networks involved in drug trafficking. In addition to those servicing the Meneses-Blandon operation (detailed by the Mercury News) and Noriega’s operation, there was CIA operative John Hull, whose farms along Costa Rica’s border with Nicaragua were the main staging area for the contras. Hull and other CIA-connected contra supporters and pilots teamed up with George Morales, a major Miami-based Colombian drug trafficker who later admitted to giving $3 million in cash and several planes to contra leaders. In 1989, after the Costa Rica government indicted Hull for drug trafficking, a DEA-hired plane clandestinely and illegally flew the CIA operative to Miami, via Haiti. The U.S. repeatedly thwarted Costa Rican efforts to extradite Hull to Costa Rica to stand trial.

Another Costa Rican-based drug ring involved a group of Cuban Americans whom the CIA had hired as military trainers for the contras. Many had long been involved with the CIA and drug trafficking. They used contra planes and a Costa Rican-based shrimp company, which laundered money for the CIA, to channel cocaine to the U.S.

Costa Rica was not the only route. Guatemala, whose military intelligence service–closely associated with the CIA–harbored many drug traffickers, according to the DEA, was another way station along the cocaine highway. Additionally, the Medellín cartel’s Miami accountant, Ramon Milian Rodriguez, testified that he funneled nearly $10 million to Nicaraguan contras through long-time CIA operative Felix Rodriguez, who was based at Ilopango Air Force Base in El Salvador.>

The contras provided both protection and infrastructure (planes, pilots, airstrips, warehouses, front companies, and banks) to these CIA-linked drug networks. At least four transport companies under investigation for drug trafficking received U.S. government contracts to carry nonlethal supplies to the contras. Southern Air Transport, “formerly” CIA-owned and later under Pentagon contract, was involved in the drug running as well. Cocaine-laden planes flew to Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and other locations, including several military bases. Designated as “Contra Craft,” these shipments were not to be inspected. When some authority wasn’t apprised and made an arrest, powerful strings were pulled to result in dropping the case, acquittal, reduced sentence, or deportation.

Mid-1980s to early 1990s, Haiti

While working to keep key Haitian military and political leaders in power, the CIA turned a blind eye to their clients’ drug trafficking. In 1986, the Agency added some more names to its payroll by creating a new Haitian organization, the National Intelligence Service (SIN). SIN’s mandate included countering the cocaine trade, though SIN officers themselves engaged in trafficking, a trade aided and abetted by some Haitian military and political leaders.

1980s to early 1990s, Afghanistan

CIA-supported Moujahedeen rebels engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting the Soviet-supported government, which had plans to reform Afghan society. The Agency’s principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading drug lords and the biggest heroin refiner, who was also the largest recipient of CIA military support. CIA-supplied trucks and mules that had carried arms into Afghanistan were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan-Pakistan border. The output provided up to one-half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe. U.S. officials admitted in 1990 that they had failed to investigate or take action against the drug operation because of a desire not to offend their Pakistani and Afghan allies. In 1993, an official of the DEA dubbed Afghanistan the new Colombia of the drug world.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
How White Users Made Heroin a Public-Health Problem


In the past, when users of the drug were disproportionately black, they faced severe punishments.


lead_720_405.jpg



Heroin use and abuse in America has dramatically increased over the past decade. Between 2006 and 2013, federal records reveal that the number of first-time heroin users doubled from 90,000 to 169,000. Some of those users, no doubt, already are gone. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention announced last month that the rate of deadly heroin overdoses nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013.

These troubling figures, and a spate of more recent stories and daunting statistics, have prompted officials across the country to implement bold new policies and practices designed to reduce the harm of heroin use. Although there has been some push to enhance criminal sanctions to combat the surge, much of the institutional reaction to the renewed popularity of the drug has sounded in the realm of medicine, not law.

One public official after another, in states both “red” and “blue,” has pressed in recent years to treat increased heroin use as a public-safety problem as opposed to a criminal-justice matter best left to police, prosecutors, and judges. This is good news. But it forms a vivid contrast with the harsh reaction a generation ago to the sudden rise in the use of crack cocaine, and from the harsh reaction two generations ago to another heroin epidemic.

What accounts for the differences? Clearly policymakers know more today than they did then about the societal costs of waging a war on drugs, and dispatching low-level, nonviolent drug offenders to prison for decades. The contemporary criminal-justice system places more emphasis on treatment and reform than it did, say, during the Reagan years or when New York’s draconian “Rockefeller laws” were passed in the 1970s. But there may be another explanation for the less hysterical reaction, one that few policymakers have been willing to acknowledge: race.

Some experts and researchers see, in the different responses to these drug epidemics, further proof of America’s racial divide. Are policymakers going easier today on heroin users (white and often affluent) than their elected predecessors did a generation ago when confronted with crack addicts who were largely black, disenfranchised, and economically bereft? Can we explain the disparate response to the “black” heroin epidemic of the 1960s, in which its use and violent crime were commingled in the public consciousness, and the white heroin “epidemic” today, in which its use is considered a disease to be treated or cured, without using race as part of our explanation?


Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a group that targets racial disparities in the criminal-justice system, has been following this issue closely for decades. He agrees there is strong historical precedent for comparing the crises through the prism of race:

The response to the rise in heroin use follows patterns we've seen over decades of drug scares. When the perception of the user population is primarily people of color, then the response is to demonize and punish. When it's white, then we search for answers. Think of the difference between marijuana attitudes in the "reefer madness" days of the 1930s when the drug was perceived to be used in the "racy" parts of town, and then the 1960s (white) college town explosion in use.

It is now axiomatic that although the crack epidemic of the 1980s devastated communities of color, the legal and political responses to the crisis compounded the tragedy. Crack was an inner-city drug, a street-corner drug, a drug of gangs and guns that white America largely experienced from a distance. Powder cocaine, the more expensive version of the drug, found its way to more affluent users. The federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, passed in 1986, imposed mandatory-minimum sentences that were far harsher on users of crack cocaine than on those found with the drug in powdered form. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced that disparity in sentencing from 100:1 to 18:1, but that remains a striking gap.


Indeed, the harsh, punitive reaction to the crack era was the result of mythology about its use, and its users, that later turned out to be false, says Jeffrey Fagan, a Columbia University professor who has long studied the intersection of criminal justice and race. “It was instantly addictive, it created ‘superpredators,’ you became a sexual deviant, especially if you were a woman, it destroyed maternal instincts,” he said. All of that nonsense led to the draconian sentencing laws associated with crack use in the 1980s, Fagan told me.

And that, Fagan says, was the sequel to another criminal-justice crackdown that had taken place decades earlier. A surge in heroin use among blacks in the 1960s was blamed for a rise in violent crime, and provoked a harsh response.

By contrast to those earlier drug crises, the heroin epidemic of the 21st century is largely a white person’s scourge. The Center for Disease Control says the cheap, easily accessible drug is attracting affluent suburbanites and women. Nearly 90 percent of the people who tried heroin for the first time in the past decade are white, according to a study published in JAMA Psychiatry in July 2014, and there is no reason to believe the trend has eased since then. Said the researchers:

Heroin use has changed from an inner-city, minority-centered problem to one that has a more widespread geographical distribution, involving primarily white men and women in their late 20s living outside of large urban areas.

The cause for this may be simple. White people addicted to prescriptionopiates, the sorts of drugs they could conveniently get from a friendly doctor or pharmacist, are finding heroin an obvious (and cheap) substitute now that law-enforcement officials have cracked down on those opiates. The hottest fronts in this war now can be seen in rural states like Vermont and in suburban areas that largely missed the ravages of the crack craze.


And politicians on both sides of the aisle clearly are paying attention to what researchers diplomatically call the “changing face of heroin use.” According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, lawmakers in at least 24 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws in the past few years that make naloxone, a prescription drug that helps counter the effect of a heroin overdose, more broadly available. Just three weeks ago, Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, signed emergency legislation to make naxolone available without a prescription.

His neighbor in Kentucky, Senator Rand Paul, another Republican running for the White House, introduced the Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act earlier this year. It would make it easier for doctors to treat heroin users with a drug called buprenorphine. Nearly two-dozen states have also passed laws that protect “good Samaritans” who alert doctors or nurses to heroin overdoses.

Such public-health responses were not necessarily unthinkable during the crack-cocaine wave of the 1980s or the heroin epidemic of the 1960s. But the limited public-health measures adopted during those eras were overshadowed by more punitive responses to those crises. Can you imagine the Congress and the White House of 1985 debating a “Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Act” for crack users? Mauer remembers instead the brutal mandatory-sentencing laws of that era sweeping toward passage in Congress in near-record time. What accounts for the difference? “I don’t think that’s only because we are more thoughtful today,” Mauer said.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
HISTORY OF DRUGS IN AMERICA TIMELINE
How It All Went Down
Oct 12, 1492
Columbus Discovers America
Christopher Columbus "discovers America," landing in the Bahamas. On his very first day in the New World, Columbus meets with friendly Native Americans who offer him a valuable gift: tobacco. Not knowing what to make of the strange dried leaves, Columbus later throws the tobacco overboard.

1552
Church Against Coca
The Catholic Church's First Council of Lima denounces the use of the coca leaf, commonly chewed by the Native Americans of the Andes for its stimulant properties. The church writes, "The plant is the work of the Devil, and appears to give strength only by a deception of the Evil One; it possesses no virtue but shortens the life of many Indians who at most escape from the forests with ruined health. [...] t is a useless object liable to promote the practices and superstitions of the Indians."

1588
First Smoking Ban
Catholic Church leaders in Lima—the seat of Spain's South American empire—attempt to impose the world's first smoking ban, ordering its priests to abstain from smoking during church: "It is forbidden under penalty of eternal damnation for priests, about to administer the sacraments, either to take the smoke of [...] tobacco into the mouth, or the powder of tobacco into the nose, even under the guise of medicine, before the service of the mass."

1600
Tobacco Widespread
At the end of the 16th century, tobacco smoking—a tradition adopted from Native Americans—has become widespread in England.

1604
James I Opposes Smoking
England's King James I, who objects to his subjects' growing smoking habit, publishes England's A Counterblaste to Tobacco. "And now Good Countrymen," writes the King, "let us (I pray you) consider, what honour or policy can move us to imitate the barbarous and beastly manners of the wild, Godless and slavish Indians, especially in so vile and stinking a custom?"

1607
Jamestown
The Virginia Company establishes the first permanent English colony in North America at Jamestown in Virginia. Nearly two-thirds of the initial 144 colonists die within a year.

1612
First Tobacco Crop
Virginia colonist John Rolfe—best known today as the husband of Pocahontas—plants the first tobacco crop at Jamestown. Tobacco, Virginia's first viable cash crop, saves the colony from collapse.

1613
First Tobacco Shipment
The first shipment of Virginia tobacco arrives in London, fetching a good price.

1617
Tobacco Saves Jamestown
Captain John Smith, early leader of English settlement in Virginia, describes Jamestown a decade after its founding as a town with "only five or six houses, the Church downe, the palisades broken, the Bridge in pieces, the Well of fresh water spoiled," but "the market-place, the streets, and all other spare places planted with Tobacco."

1619
First Slaves in America
The first African slaves arrive in North America, as the Jamestown colonists purchase (in their words) "twenty negars" to work in their tobacco fields. Tobacco and slavery will dominate Virginia society for the next 240 years.

1619
Tobacco as Currency
Jamestown enthusiastically welcomes the arrival of a ship from England carrying "young maids to make wives." The colonists happily pay the price to buy women—"one hundred and twenty pounds of the best leaf tobacco" each. The English population in North America soon begins to grow through natural reproduction.

1619
Tobacco Price Floor
Virginia colonists create the first local government in America. The General Assembly's very first law is a measure to prop up the price of tobacco, ordering that no colonist should sell the crop for less than 3¢ per pound.

1632
Massachusetts Bans Public Smoking
Massachusetts bans smoking in public.

1633
Charles Taxes Tobacco
England's King Charles I justifies increased taxes on tobacco by condemning tobacco's impact on English society. He states:

"The plant or drug called tobacco scarce known to this nation in former times, was in this age first brought into this realm in small quantity, as medicine, and so used [...] but in the process of time, to satisfy the inordinate appetites of men and women it hath been brought in great quantity, and taken for wantonness and excess, provoking them to drinking and other incontinence, to the great impairing of their heaths and depraving them of their manners, so that the care which His Majesty hath of his people hath enforced him to think of some means of preventing of the evil consequences of this immoderate use thereof."

1650
First British Coffeehouse
The first coffeehouse in Great Britain opens in the university town of Oxford.

1651
First Rum
Rum makes its first appearance in the historical record when a visitor to the English colony of Barbados describes the island's favorite drink as "Rumbullion, alias Kill-Devil, and this is made of sugar canes distilled, a hot, hellish and terrible liquor." The word "rumbullion" is eventually shortened to "rum."

1655
Rum for Sailors
The English Royal Navy begins giving its sailors a daily ration of rum.

1656
Pubs in Massachusetts
The Massachusetts General Court passes a law requiring every town in the colony to have a pub.

1661
Rum a Menace
The General Court of Massachusetts rules that excess production of rum in the colony has become a menace to society.

1669
First Tea
The British East India Company delivers its first shipment of tea to England. At first, tea is an incredibly expensive luxury commodity. Not until the early-18th century will tea become affordable to ordinary Britons, transforming England into a nation of tea-drinkers.

Dec 29, 1675
No Coffeehouses
England's King Charles II issues A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee Houses, declaring that coffeehouses have become "the great resort of Idle and disaffected persons" and ordering their closure.

Jan 8, 1676
Coffeehouses Back
King Charles II gives in to public pressure and rescinds his A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee Houses, allowing the popular cafes to remain open.

Sep 15, 1682
Cotton Mather Objects to Quakers
Powerful Puritan minister Cotton Mather objects to the arrival in Massachusetts of a ship carrying "an hundred or more of the heretics and malignants called Quakers"—members of a different group of English religious dissenters, led by William Penn (who will eventually move south to found Pennsylvania). Mather suggests that the Puritans should capture the Quakers and sell them into slavery in Barbados, where they will "fetch good prices in rum and sugar."

1686
Cotton Mather Against Rum
In Massachusetts, the Puritan minister Increase Mather complains, saying, "It is an unhappy thing that in later years a Kind of Drink called Rum has been common among us. They that are poor, and wicked too, can for a penny or two-pence make themselves drunk."

1717
Twinings Tea Opens
Thomas Twining opens a tea shop in London, selling blends of the caffeinated beverage primarily to upper-class women. Twinings remains a major seller of teas to this day.

1733
Molasses Tax
In London, Parliament passes the Molasses Act, which imposes a duty on molasses imports into the American colonies from the French Caribbean. The idea is to force American distilleries to buy their molasses from English colonies, but in practice, the Molasses Act only encourages large-scale smuggling of French molasses to evade the duties.

1734
Haiti Grows Coffee
French colonial planters in the Caribbean colony of Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti) begin growing coffee.

1750
Tobacco Export Booms
Tobacco, grown primarily in Virginia, accounts for fully half the value of all exports from England's North American colonies.

1770
Rum Consumption in 1770
The 1.7 million American colonists consume 7.5 million gallons of rum a year-that's nearly four and a half gallons for each man, woman, and child in the 13 colonies.

1770
Rum Exports Boom
The American colonies are home to 143 rum distilleries, which use molasses imported from the Caribbean to produce 4.8 million gallons of rum each year. Rum accounts for 80% of New England's exports.

1773
Saint-Pierre Notes Ironies of Coffee
A French traveler to the Caribbean, J.H.B. de Saint-Pierre, writes on the ironies of African slaves tending American plantations to supply Europeans with caffeinated drinks, saying, "I do not know if coffee and sugar are essential to the happiness of Europe, but I know well that these two products have accounted for the unhappiness of two great regions of the world: America has been depopulated so as to have land on which to plant them; Africa has been depopulated so as to have the people to cultivate them."

Dec 16, 1773
Boston Tea Party Inspires Coffee
The Sons of Liberty, a group of American colonists angered by British taxation of colonial trade, stage the Boston Tea Party, raiding a docked English merchant ship and dumping its valuable cargo of tea into Boston Harbor. Patriotic rejection of the English habit of tea-drinking during the Revolutionary War helps to turn the United States into a nation of coffee-drinkers.

1788
Haiti Produces Half of World's Coffee
The French Caribbean colony of Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti) accounts for half the coffee grown in the world.

1791
Haitian Uprising
Slaves in the French Caribbean colony of Saint-Domingue mount a great uprising, opening 13 years of warfare that will eventually lead to the independence of the new nation of Haiti. The Haitian Revolution ends the island's status as the world's preeminent producer of both coffee and sugar.

1804
Morphine Discovered
A German chemist named F.W.A. Sertürner isolates morphine from opium.

1812
War Helps Coffee
The War of 1812 cuts off American access to English tea, helping to make cheaper Brazilian coffee the caffeinated beverage of choice in the United States.

1833
First Commercial Coffee Roaster
The first commercial coffee roaster in the United States begins operation in New York City.

1845
New Yorkers Love Coffee
Commercial coffee roasters in New York City alone now roast more coffee than is consumed in all of Great Britain.

1861
Morphine in Civil War
Morphine, a derivative of opium, is widely used to relieve the suffering of wounded soldiers during the Civil War. Union Army doctors issue nearly ten million opium pills to Northern soldiers. Morphine and opium addiction is so common among Civil War veterans throughout the late-19th century that addiction becomes known as "the army disease."

1861
No Coffee for South
During the Civil War, the North blockades all Southern ports, depriving the Confederacy of access to coffee. Southern soldiers are forced to drink chicory—a bitter brew that looks like coffee but tastes worse and lacks caffeine—instead. Black-market coffee in war-torn Virginia costs $5 a pound, up from 10¢ before the war.

1861 - 1865
Coffee Fuels North
Coffee fuels the Union Army through the Civil War. Each Northern soldier receives a ration of 1/10 pound of coffee grounds per day (36 pounds per year), making the boiling coffeepot a universal presence in Union camps.

1865
Prepackaged Coffee
Pittsburgh grocer John Arbuckle launches the first popular brand of prepackaged coffee, calling it Arbuckle's Ariosa Coffee. Sold in standardized one-pound paper bags under a colorful Ariosa logo, the coffee becomes wildly popular from urban cafes in the East to frontier chuck wagons in the West.

1872
Coffee Declared Essential to Commerce
Harper's Magazine observes, "The proud son of the highest civilization can no longer live happily without coffee. [...] The whole social life of many nations is based upon the insignificant bean; it is an essential element in the vast commerce of great nations."

Dec 22, 1873
Prohibitionists Organize
Feminists in New York state form the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which will become both one of the largest women's organizations and one of the largest prohibitionist organizations in American history.

Dried_Ducks_770x433.jpg

ShmoopTube
1876
Coffee Imports in 1876
The United States imports 340 million pounds of coffee a year, buying almost one-third of all coffee exported around the world.

1880
1880 Smoking
Americans smoke 500 million cigarettes a year, up from 42 million just five years earlier.

1883
New York Times Against Smoking
The New York Times editorializes against Americans' growing taste for smoking cigarettes (considered to be feminine) instead of (manly) pipes or cigars, saying, "The decadence of Spain began when the Spaniards adopted cigarettes and if this pernicious practice obtains among adult Americans the ruin of the Republic is close at hand."

Apr 30, 1884
Cigarette Machine Debuts
An automated cigarette-making machine installed in the factory of pioneering tobacco entrepreneur Buck Duke produces 120,000 cigarettes in a single day. Modern mass-production of cigarettes dramatically lowers the cost of tobacco in America.

1884
Cocaine Praised as Miracle Cure
The American medical community embraces cocaine as a miracle cure for a variety of ailments, including—ironically—addiction to morphine and alcohol. The New York Times reports on the new wonder drug, saying, "The new uses to which cocaine has been applied with success in New York [...] include hayfever, catarrh and toothache and it is now being experimented with in cases of seasickness. [...] All will be given to understand that cocaine will cure the worst cold in the head ever heard of."

May 1886
Coca-Cola Invented from Stimulants
John Pemberton, an Atlanta chemist, invents Coca-Cola. The sweet beverage is initially intended to be a medicine, combining the stimulants of the South American coca leaf (the source of cocaine) and the African kola nut (a source of caffeine).

1887
Oregon Bans Cocaine
Oregon becomes the first state to ban the sale of cocaine without a prescription.

1895
Charley Post Opposes Caffiene
Health-food guru Charley Post—the inventor of Grape-Nuts cereal—begins selling Postum, a grain-based non-caffeinated alternative to coffee. Post, a pioneer in modern advertising, sells Postum under the catchy (if grammatically dubious) slogan "If Coffee Don't Agree, Use Postum Food Coffee."

Post sells Postum by attacking coffee as a "poisonous drug—caffeine, which belongs in the same class of alkaloids with cocaine, morphine, nicotine, and strychnine." Charley Post, who makes millions of dollars selling Postum, never kicks his own coffee habit.

1895
Coca-Cola Marketed as Drink
Coca-Cola stops marketing itself as a medicine, launching new advertisements—"Drink Coca-Cola. Delicious and Refreshing"—that position the product as a thirst-quencher rather than as a drug. Sales skyrocket.

1898
Bayer Sells Heroin
The German drug company Bayer begins selling heroin as an over-the-counter cough suppressant.

Jun 30, 1906
Pure Food and Drug Act
Congress passes the Pure Food and Drug Act, which requires truth in labeling and bans adulterated food products and poisonous medicines.

1910
Coffee Drunkards
Dr. Harvey Wiley, Chief Chemist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and enforcer of the Pure Food and Drug Act, declares that "coffee drunkenness is a commoner failing than the whiskey habit. [...] This country is full of tea and coffee drunkards. The most common drug in this country is caffeine."22

1910
First Instant Coffee
A Belgian entrepreneur with the improbable name of George Washington begins selling the first instant coffee, calling it G. Washington's Refined Coffee. Initially less popular than traditional roasted coffee (because it tastes much worse), instant coffee will soon become a mainstay among American soldiers in the trenches of World War I.

1911
U.S. Sues Coke
The U.S. government sues Coca-Cola for violations of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, charging that the drink has been adulterated through the unnatural addition of caffeine to the formula. Coca-Cola wins the case.

Mar 12, 1911
Cocaine Linked with Prostitution
The New York Times warns that cocaine leads young girls into prostitution, saying, "There is no doubt that this drug, perhaps more than any other, is used by those concerned in the white slave traffic to corrupt young girls, and that when the habit of using the drug has been established, it is but a short time before such girls fall to the ranks of prostitution."

1912
FDA Against Caffeine
Dr. Harvey Wiley, the man charged with enforcing the Pure Food and Drug Act, declares to a stunned audience of coffee executives that Coca-Cola is "a first artificial cousin of coffee, because the dope that men put in Coca-Cola is the dope the Lord puts in coffee-caffeine. [...] I would not give my child coffee or tea any more than I would give him poison."

1914
Ford Condemns Cigarettes as Gateway Drug
Auto magnate Henry Ford condemns cigarettes, writing a pamphlet called The Case Against the Little White Slaver that warns American adolescents of the ruinous effects of smoking. "Morphine," writes Ford, "is the legitimate consequence of alcohol, and alcohol is the legitimate consequence of tobacco. Cigarettes, drink, opium, is the logical and regular series."

Feb 14, 1914
Drugs and Race
The New York Times publishes an article warning against a new peril at the intersection of drugs and race. "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are a New Southern Menace," reads the headline.

1915
California Bans Pot
California becomes the first state to ban cannabis consumption for non-medicinal purposes.

1917 - 1919
WWI Coffee
American troops in World War I consume 75 million pounds of coffee.

Jan 29, 1919
18th Amendment Ratified
The 18th Amendment is ratified, banning in one year's time the manufacture, sale, or transportation of "intoxicating liquors" in the United States.

Jan 16, 1920
Prohibition Era
Prohibition takes effect, making it illegal for Americans to drink alcohol. Contrary to the hopes and expectations of its boosters in the temperance movement, the law does not end alcohol consumption in the United States, as millions of citizens obtain liquor illegally through bootleggers or speakeasies.

1920
Maxwell House Grows
Coffee grows in popularity during the Roaring '20s, partly due to the fact that alcohol is banned by Prohibition. The decade sees the rise of Maxwell House, which becomes the country's dominant brand, consumed from coast to coast. Maxwell House's alluring advertising slogan—"Good to the last drop"—remains in use today.

1920 - 1929
Marlboro Begins as Woman's Cigarette
The tobacco firm Philip Morris introduces the Marlboro brand, targeted specifically to women. The cigarettes, which are made with a special tip designed not to stick to lipstick, are advertised under the slogan "Mild as May." The first advertising copy reads, "Women—when they smoke at all—quickly develop discerning taste. That is why Marlboros now ride in so many limousines, attend so many bridge parties, and repose in so many handbags." The rugged Marlboro Manis nowhere to be seen.

1930
History of Tobacco Published
Count Corti writes in his History of Tobacco, "a glance at the statistics proves convincingly that the non-smokers are a feeble and ever dwindling minority. The hopeless nature of their struggle becomes plain when we remember that all countries, whatever their form of government, now encourage and facilitate the passion for smoking in every conceivable way."

Dec 5, 1933
21st Amendment Ratified
Congress ratifies the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition. America's utopian experiment with banning one of its most widely used drugs—alcohol—ends in abject failure.

1936
Reefer Madness Released
The film Reefer Madness warns America's youth against the—seriously exaggerated—dangers of marijuana. In the film, smoking pot leads directly to car wrecks, suicide, rape, and insanity.

Aug 2, 1937
Marijuana Tax Act
Congress passes the Marihuana Tax Act, the first step toward criminalizing marijuana in the United States.

1938
Coca-Cola as the Essence of America
Journalist William Allen White calls Coca-Cola "a sublimated essence of all that America stands for, a decent thing honestly made, universally distributed, conscientiously improved with the years."

1939
Nazis Link Tobacco and Lung Cancer
On Germany, Nazi scientists conduct the first successful epidemiological study linking tobacco smoking with lung cancer.

1947
First Coffee Vending Machine
Instant coffee becomes more popular with the invention of the Kwik Kafe vending machine, which fills a paper cup with hot instant coffee in just five seconds. By 1955, the United States will be home to 60,000 coffee vending machines.

1949
Hollywood Promotes Cigarettes
Hollywood films heavily promote smoking. In The Sands of Iwo Jima, John Wayne celebrates the defeat of the Japanese Army by saying, "I never felt so good in my life. How about a cigarette?"

May 27, 1950
First Link Smoking and Cancer
The American Medical Association publishes the first U.S. study to confirm a correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

1952
Coffee Break
The Pan American Coffee Bureau (an association of South American coffee exporters) invents the coffee break, spending $2 million on an advertising campaign behind the slogan, "Give Yourself a Coffee-Break—And Get What Coffee Gives to You." By the end of the year, 80% of American companies will allow their employees to take a few minutes off for coffee during work hours.

1953
Marlboro Man
Marlboro, originally introduced in the 1920s as a ladies' cigarette, is rebranded to appeal to manly men (and the women who love them). The iconic Marlboro Man—a rugged cowboy—first appears in advertisements for the cigarettes, which skyrocket in popularity.

1954
Tobacco Companies Deny Lung Cancer
The major American tobacco companies join together to place a large advertisement in nearly 450 American newspapers. Their "Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" challenges the emerging scientific consensus "that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings.

Although conducted by doctors of professional standing," the statement argues, "these experiments are not regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research. [...] Distinguished authorities point out: (1) That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. (2) That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is. (3) That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. (4) That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. [...] We believe the products we make are not injurious to health."

Jan 14, 1957
Bogart Dies of Lung Cancer at 57
Hollywood star Humphrey Bogart, a frequent smoker on screen and in real life, dies of lung cancer at the age of 57.

1965 - 1970
Drug Use Grows in 1960s
During the 1960s, recreational illegal drug use (particularly of marijuana) becomes much more common among middle-class, white young people, especially on college campuses.

Jan 1, 1966
Warning Label Required
The federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act takes effect, forcing cigarettes to be sold with a warning label: "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health." The weak language of the warning is a product of heavy lobbying by the tobacco industry, which defeats competing proposals for a much stronger warning.

Apr 1, 1966
Peet’s Coffee Opens First Store
Peet's Coffee and Tea opens its first store in Berkeley, California, challenging the market dominance of weak, poor-quality instant coffee by selling high-quality, fresh-roasted beans.

Sep 21, 1969
Operation Intercept
The Nixon Administration launches Operation Intercept, a massive effort to block marijuana from entering the United States from Mexico. The operation effectively shuts down the U.S.-Mexico border for two weeks by subjecting every single vehicle to an intensive inspection. Remarkably, the operation uncovers no major shipments of marijuana.

Oct 27, 1970
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act
Congress passes the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which reduces the penalty for marijuana possession but gives law enforcement new powers to conduct drug-related searches.

1964 - 1973
Drug Use in Vietnam
Drug abuse has become rampant among American soldiers fighting a demoralizing war in the jungles of Vietnam. While marijuana is the most common illegal drug used by American servicemen, heroin is the most troubling.

Jun 17, 1971
Nixon Begins War on Drugs
President Richard Nixon coins the phrase, "War on Drugs," promising in a major speech to defeat "public enemy number one in the United States. [...] If we cannot destroy the drug menace, then it will destroy us."

Jan 2, 1971
Cigarette Ads Banned from Television
Cigarette advertisements are banned from American television.

Mar 30, 1971
Starbucks Opens in Seattle
The first Starbucks Coffee opens in Seattle, initially selling only bulk coffee beans bought from Peet's Coffee in California.

Oct 1972
Mr. Coffee Brewer
The Mr. Coffee drip brewer goes on sale for the first time, allowing customers to brew high-quality drip coffee at home instead of boiling it (which destroys its taste).

Jul 1973
DEA Established
The Nixon Administration creates the Drug Enforcement Agency.

1975
Minnesota Limits Public Smoking
Minnesota becomes the first state to limit smoking in public spaces, passing the Clean Indoor Air Act to protect "the public health and comfort and the environment by prohibiting smoking in public places and at public meetings, except in designated smoking areas."

1976
Soft Drinks Beat Coffee
Soft drinks surpass coffee to become America's most widely consumed beverage other than water.

1980
Trafficking a Threat
A Presidential Commission on drugs finds that illegal drug trafficking presents a threat to American national security. It states, "The violence and corruption that are integral parts of organized criminal drug trafficking take the lives of American and foreign officials and private citizens, undermines drug control efforts and threatens entire governments to the extent that the stability of friendly nations is threatened, particularly in this hemisphere. Our national security is jeopardized."

Jun 9, 1980
Richard Pryor Ignites Self While Smoking Crack
Popular comedian Richard Pryor lights himself on fire while attempting to smoke freebase (a.k.a. crack) cocaine. The incident becomes the butt of many jokes (including Pryor's own) but also introduces many Americans to the idea of smoking cocaine for the very first time.

1980 - 1983
Freeway Ricky Ross
"Freeway Ricky" Ross, a South Central Los Angeles drug dealer, becomes America's premiere cocaine distributor by selling cocaine in a cheap, smokable form that Ross calls "Ready Rock," better known today as crack. By 1983, Ross will be moving $1 to 2 million of cocaine—and earning between $100,000 and $200,000 in profits—every single day.

1981
Kicking the Coffee Habit Published
Charles Wetherall publishes Kicking the Coffee Habit, which declares that coffee—which Wetherall calls "Public Health Enemy Number One"—is waging "a pathological war on this country."

1981
Medellin Cartel
Pablo Escobar's Medellin Cartel rises to dominate the Colombian cocaine trafficking industry.

Mar 1982
Pablo Escobar Granted Immunity
Pablo Escobar, kingpin of Colombia's Medellin Cartel, is elected to the Colombian Congress, granting him immunity from prosecution in Colombian courts.

1983
Sylvester Stallone Agrees to Smoke in Rocky
The Brown & Williamson Company—manufacturer of many cigarette brands, including Pall Mall, Lucky Strike, and Kool—signs an agreement to pay Hollywood star Sylvester Stallone $500,000 to smoke Brown & Williamson cigarettes on screen in his next five films (including Ramboand Rocky IV).

Mar 1984
Colombian Cocaine Destroyed
Colombian government forces working in collaboration with American anti-drug officials destroy more than $1 billion worth of cocaine in a series of raids against cocaine production facilities hidden deep in the jungles of Colombia.

Apr 30, 1984
Pablo Escobar Murders Justice Minister
Henchmen for Pablo Escobar's Medellin Cartel murder Colombia's Justice Minister, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, in retaliation for the government's raids against the cartel's cocaine production facilities a month earlier.

Apr 1984
Starbucks Begins Coffee To-Go
In Seattle, Starbucks Coffee experiments with an in-store espresso bar, for the first time selling to-go coffee drinks in addition to the whole beans that comprise the bulk of its business.

Nov 6, 1985
Medellin Cartel Murders Supreme Court
Medellin Cartel guerillas attack Colombia's Palace of Justice, killing nearly 100 people—including 11 Supreme Court justices—in the course of a daylong siege. Many fear that the cartel has become more powerful than the government of Colombia.

Jun 18, 1986
Len Bias Dies at University of Maryland
Len Bias, a basketball star at the University of Maryland, dies of a cocaine overdose one day after being selected as the second pick in the NBA draft by the Boston Celtics. Bias' shocking death fuels a nationwide panic about cocaine abuse.

Sep 2, 1986
48 Hours on Crack Street
15 million Americans tune in to watch a two-hour CBS News Special, "48 Hours on Crack Street," in which Dan Rather investigates the perils of crack cocaine. Throughout 1986, the media engages in intensive and sometimes exaggerated coverage of the crack epidemic, fueling a nationwide crack hysteria.

Sep 1986
"Just Say No"
President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan launch a "national crusade" against drug abuse behind the slogan, "Just Say No."

Oct 27, 1986
Mandatory Sentences Enacted
President Reagan signs the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, creating mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and leading to a massive increase in the number of people incarcerated in federal prisons.

Nov 18, 1986
Medellin Indictment
In a Miami courtroom, the U.S. government wins an indictment against the leaders of the Medellin Cartel on racketeering charges.

Apr 1987
Starbucks Stores
Under new ownership, Starbucks Coffee transforms its core business from the sale of whole beans for home consumption to the in-store sale of espresso drinks.

Oct 1987
Starbucks In Chicago
Starbucks Coffee opens its first store outside of the Seattle area, in Chicago. Chicagoans initially dislike the strong Starbucks coffee and the store loses money.

1988
New Drug Laws
American politicians respond to the crack epidemic by passing draconian new drug laws. Reasoning—with no evidence—that crack cocaine is 100 times more addictive than powder cocaine, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms proposes to make the penalty for possession of crack cocaine 100 times higher.

Helms' motion passes—the penalty for possession of 5 grams of crack now equals the penalty for possession of 500 grams of powder. Since crack is more popular among Black drug users and powder is more popular among whites, the result of the legislation is a massive racial disparity in the punishment meted out to users of the same drug.

1988
Tobacco Industry Lawsuit
The tobacco industry loses its first major lawsuit when a jury awards the family of lung-cancer victim Rose Cipollone a $400,000 verdict.

1989
Drug Arrests Rise
In 1989, 46% of all arrests made In New York City are for possession or distribution of crack cocaine.

Dec 2, 1993
Pablo Escobar Killed
Medellin Cartel kingpin Pablo Escobar is killed by Colombian police.

1998
Master Settlement
The American tobacco industry and 46 states sign the Master Settlement Agreement, in which tobacco companies agree to pay $246 billion over 25 years to offset the states' costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The deadliness of the opioid epidemic has roots in America’s failed response to crack
The US could have used previous drug crises to prepare for the current one. But it didn’t.

97327570.0.0.jpg



The death toll from the opioid epidemic ravaging the US has been climbing by the thousands for years:In 2015, opioid overdose deaths killed more people in the US — 52,000 — than guns, car crashes, and even HIV/AIDS at its peak, and overdoses since the epidemic began in the late ’90s had killed more people than the entire population of Atlanta.Based on preliminary data, 2016 will be worse. And 2017 could be even worse than that, as the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl continues to spread across the US.

Public health officials at every level of government have been unable to reverse or even stabilize the rising death toll from the crisis, which was sparked by the widespread misuse of highly addictive prescription painkillers. This stark inability to manage the crisis shows just how unprepared America is to deal with such a massive epidemic of addiction.

But that’s not because America has never dealt with a drug crisis in the past. Since the 1980s, for instance, devastating and prolonged crack cocaine and methamphetamine epidemics have destroyed and destabilized communities across the country. Rather, the opioid crisis has gotten so far out of control because of the spiraling effects of America’s flawed response to those previous crises. And that has a lot to do with who the victims of those crises were, and how that informed the way Americans viewed their struggle.

Consider a hypothetical scenario, raised to me by Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates: Back in the 1980s and early ’90s, America was ravaged by the crack cocaine epidemic, with thousands of overdoses a year and thousands more murders associated with the drug trade at the time. If the US had responded to this crisis by investing in drug addiction treatment, there would be an infrastructure for dealing with such a crisis that could have endured to this day. This may have prevented one of the biggest challenges in the current opioid crisis — that only about 10 percent of people with a drug use disorder get specialty treatment, according to a 2016 report from the surgeon general.

How to stop the deadliest drug overdose crisis in American history[/paste:font]
But crack largely afflicted black communities, and the response at the time was not public health–oriented. Instead, it focused almost entirely on criminalizing addiction, passing laws to lock up people who use drugs and drug dealers through exorbitant prison sentences, such as mandatory minimums — an approach that many policymakers, including some Republicans, now consider a mistake and are looking to undo. As a result, the US never got the treatment system it needs to deal with these crises.


Today, white Americans are the ones disproportionately suffering in the opioid crisis. The largely empathetic rhetorical response to their addiction, compared with the way black people addicted to crack were treated decades ago, has been noted many times over. But you can draw a direct line between the fact that the people suffering in this crisis can’t get the help that they need and society’s failure, 30 years ago, to view black people as worthy of the same help.

“There weren’t signs on the billboards and the subways that said save people at all costs,” Heather McGhee, president of the left-leaning public policy group Demos, told me. “White Republican politicians weren’t saying that this is a national crisis, and ‘there but for the grace of God go I,’ as Chris Christie has said. There is a difference. There absolutely is a difference.” She added, “Racial bias distorts our response and … made it so we did not create the infrastructure and the policy understanding during the earlier drug epidemics.”

This is just one of the many ways that systemic racism ultimately hurts not just those who are the targets of bigotry, but society as a whole. Time and time again, politicians have deployed explicit racism and dog whistles to justify policies to white constituents who harbor racial resentment. But these policies can lead to outcomes that ultimately hurt the white constituents who are activated by racial calls. The opioid epidemic, as the country’s deadliest drug overdose crisis in history, is a concrete example of this trend.

“In our interconnected society, racism — both interpersonal and institutional — is the flaw in the machine that often stymies our democracy and our economy,” McGhee, who’s working on a book on this topic, said. “Racism and bias against full portions of the population color the policy responses of elected officials.”

The US was totally unprepared to handle the opioid epidemic
The opioid epidemic is not America’s first drug overdose crisis, although it is so far the deadliest. In 2016, preliminary data suggests that 59,000 to 65,000 people died of drug overdoses — the highest death toll from overdoses ever recorded in the US. In the next 10 years, as many as 650,000 people could die from opioid overdoses alone — a death toll that totals more than the entire population of Baltimore.

Policymakers and the public are widely in agreement that people addicted to opioids need treatment. But there is little existing addiction treatment infrastructure in the US, and systems like that cannot be built overnight.

It’s common to hear stories across the US, particularly in places hit especially hard by the crisis (such as West Virginia and New Hampshire), about weeks- or months-long waiting periods to get into treatment — if patients can get into care at all.

Take Dean Lemire of New Hampshire: In 2012, as reported by NPR, Lemire was finally fed up with his heroin addiction. He tried to sign up for a state-funded treatment center but was put on a waiting list. He called multiple times a day for three weeks, but after repeated denials, he gave up. He drank some whiskey, got into his car to find heroin, and got into three car crashes before waking up in a jail cell. Only then could the treatment center let him in, apparently deeming his case serious enough.

And Lemire is one of the lucky ones — he survived and ultimately got into care.

States that want to treat a growing wave of newly addicted people just don’t have the resources in place to act quickly. That’s because they’re largely starting from scratch. And starting from scratch is expensive — New Hampshire, which is second in overdose deaths after West Virginia, still doesn’t have treatment centers in swaths of the state, especially in rural areas.

Drug policy experts have told me that the US as a whole will likely need to spend tens of billions a year to seriously boost addiction treatment. That may lead to financial savings in the long term, given that studies show addiction treatment prevents all sorts of negative, costly outcomes. But it’s a big upfront investment, and it will take years to implement and build on.

Meanwhile, people will continue to die — and so states may be tempted to use their existing criminal justice systems to deal with their overdose crises. Some states have, for example, begun asking prosecutors to bring more drug-induced homicide charges against people who supply opioids to someone who overdoses and dies.

129378493.0.jpg
Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Criminal justice experts widely agree this is not only costly but ineffective. A 2014 review of the research by Peter Reuter at the University of Maryland and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago, for example, found that while simply prohibiting drugs to some extent does raise their prices, there’s no good evidence that tougher punishments or harsher supply-elimination efforts do a better job of driving down access to drugs and substance misuse than lighter penalties. So increasing the severity of the punishment doesn’t do much, if anything, to slow the flow of drugs.

As ineffective as that may be, states already have the means to carry out this kind of response. They have enough prisons to make the US the world’s leader in incarceration. They have old laws in place that allow prosecutors to pursue stiffer penalties. And they have an incentive to use these systems, because it makes them look like they’re doing something about an epidemic that kills tens of thousands of people a year.

America “built up this massive incarceral state, which is a hungry critter,” Keith Humphreys, a Stanford drug policy expert, told me.

Put another way, the table is set so that America responds in the same way it has before to drug crises: not much on the public health side, but a lot more on the criminal justice side. And people will suffer and die as a result.

It didn’t have to be this way. In the 1980s, America had a chance to implement the sort of public health infrastructure for addiction that states are scrambling to put in place today. Under pressure from the public to do something about the crack epidemic, policymakers could have invested in a serious drug addiction treatment system that could have been scaled or retooled for other drugs, from meth to opioid painkillers and heroin.

Humphreys gave a concrete example of how this could have worked: “Something we could have done then, which is what we’ve done now, is we could have mainstreamed addiction treatment benefits into the Medicaid system.” That, he said, would have let patients more easily afford treatment today — and since health care providers would know those customers are around and now able to pay, they would have been more likely to scale up treatment to match demand even before the opioid epidemic got so bad.

Of course, that didn’t happen in the ’80s and ’90s.

The differences between the response of today and that of the 1980s and ’90s
In the 1980s, crack cocaine came to America. Taken up disproportionately by black and poor neighborhoods (while the original powdered version of cocaine remained popular in wealthier, whiter areas), crack quickly became the center of the illicit drug trade — contributing to thousands of overdose deaths as well as a spike in murders and violent crime in the ’80s and ’90s. As crack addiction strangled black communities in particular, policymakers didn’t reach to more treatment to deal with the problem; instead, the response to the crack epidemic was built almost entirely around the criminal justice system.

The media reflected this. There was not a day that the nightly news didn’t tell a new, horrifying story of a gang shooting related to crack. The New York Times ran headlines like “New Violence Seen in Users of Cocaine.” Stories of “crack babies” dominated much of the news, warning that crack use by single black mothers in particular would lead to a new wave of addicted, stunted, violent youth later called “superpredators” — warnings that later research found to be severely exaggerated.

“The media portrayals during the crack epidemic were exceedingly hostile,” Rachel Godsil, co-founder and director of research at the Perception Institute, previously told me. “When they talked about mothers who were crack-addicted, there wasn’t, ‘What kind of treatment can we provide for them?’ but, ‘What kind of criminalization can we impose upon them?’”

The prejudiced ties between race and drug use had a long history in America. In 1914, for example, the New York Times ran an article headlined “Negro cocaine ‘fiends’ are a new southern menace,” in which an actual physician claimed that cocaine made black men uniquely violent and even impervious to bullets. Many Americans can now look back at this kind of claim with scorn at its obvious absurdity, but it shows the sort of attitudes that have dominated American views on drugs for decades.

Policymakers responded in kind. Across the country, states passed tougher prison sentences for drugs. The federal government enacted with its own “tough on crime” laws, such as the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988. Republicans backed these measures, but Democrats played a big role too — with former Vice President Joe Biden even helping write some of the “tough on crime” laws of the ’80s and ’90s while he was a senator. It was a time when it was bipartisan to treat drugs as a moral failure and a criminal justice issue.

GettyImages_514678948.jpg
Bettmann via Getty Images
Take former President George H.W. Bush, who used his first televised national address in the Oval Office to warn of what he called “the greatest domestic threat facing our nation today”: drugs. He held up a bag of crack cocaine — purportedly bought near the White House, though later the story was found to be a bit more complicated — and vowed to escalate the war on drugs.

“Drugs are sapping our strength as a nation,” Bush said. “Who’s responsible? Let me tell you straight out: everyone who uses drugs, everyone who sells drugs, and everyone who looks the other way.” He was as brutal in describing the consequences, arguing that crack is “turning our cities into battle zones” and “murdering our children.”


There were also some treatment-focused programs in response to crack, such as the creation of drug courts. But the great majority of the response was punitive.

The opioid epidemic has inspired a different response. Media coverage of the epidemic is much more sympathetic of people struggling with drug addiction, with the New York Times now running headlines such as “In Heroin Crisis, White Families Seek Gentler War on Drugs.”

In a rarity in today’s politics, the compassion is even bipartisan. Michael Botticelli, President Barack Obama’s former drug czar, repeatedly stated that “we can't arrest and incarcerate addiction out of people.” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who’s leading President Donald Trump’s opioid commission, in 2015 gave a passionate speech urging Americans to treat addiction as a medical issue, drawing from a friend’s story to argue that “we need to start treating people in this country, not jailing them. We need to give them the tools they need to recover, because every life is precious.”

And the one major piece of legislation that Congress has passed related to the opioid epidemic, the 21st Century Cures Act, put $1 billion toward addiction treatment over two years — far from what experts say is necessary, but remarkable in that it approached the crisis exclusively as a public health problem.

Some states have passed laws toughening prison sentences related to opioids, and more have encouraged police and prosecutors to use old “tough on crime” laws to crack down on drug addiction. But these kinds of actions have not reached the all-consuming fervor, at least yet and at least not rhetorically, that engulfed the nation during the crack epidemic in the 1980s and ’90s.

Of course, a change in the public perception of addiction — a disease we still don’t fully understand but understood even less in the 1980s — has something to do with this disparity. But racism does too.

A key explanation in all of this is race
Consider this chart, which shows that until the early 2000s, black Americans tended to suffer more drug overdose deaths when controlling for population — and now white Americans have taken the lead by far, due to the opioid epidemic:

cdc_drug_overdoses_1999_2015_race_chart_w.png

The trend is central to understanding why America’s drug addiction treatment system remains woefully inadequate — to the point that as many as 90 percent of people with drug use disorders won’t access it.

Drug addiction was widely seen in the past as a problem that afflicted mostly racial minorities, especially black Americans. So a lot of Americans felt more comfortable treating it not as a medical problem but more as a criminal justice issue, with surveys of the era showing greater support for arresting drug dealers and, to a lesser degree, people who use drugs than later surveys have found.


As an example of how this can work, consider a 2007 study that examined the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In that study, researchers found that people tended to believe that victims in racial groups they don’t belong to suffered fewer “uniquely human” emotions like anguish, mourning, and remorse than victims in racial groups they did belong to. And in the aftermath of a natural disaster, that perception of fewer “uniquely human” emotions led participants to be less willing to help victims of a different race.

A 2009 study similarly found that when participants looked at images of people in pain, the parts of their brains that respond to pain tended to show more activity if the person in the image was of the same race as the participant. Those researchers concluded that their findings “support the view that shared common membership enhances a perceiver’s empathic concerns for others.” Other studies reached similar conclusions.

Really, it seems like common sense: Once someone can relate to the person who’s suffering, it becomes much easier to empathize. And when it comes to federal and state legislators — the majority of whom are white — empathy can then translate to more sympathetic policy preferences and outcomes.

So it’s not hard to understand why America didn’t have much in the way of serious discussions about scaling up drug addiction treatment in the 1980s and ’90s but is suddenly discussing the value of treatment in response to the opioid epidemic.

467512365.jpg
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Ithaca, New York, Mayor Svante Myrick, who’s black, previously told me the disparity in how crack was approached in previous decades and how opioids are now viewed has led to resentment in much of the black community in his predominantly white town.

“It’s very real,” he acknowledged. The typical response from his black constituents, he said, goes something like this: “Oh, when it was happening in my neighborhood it was, ‘Lock ’em up.’ Now that it’s happening in the [largely white, wealthy] Heights, the answer is to use my tax dollars to fund treatment centers. Well, my son could have used a treatment center in 1989, and he didn’t get one.”


Still, Myrick added, “I’m as angry about this as anybody. But just because these are now white kids dying doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care, because these are still kids dying.”

Now, race isn’t the only reason these systems turned out as they are today. For one, the crack epidemic was associated with more street violence — there were more shootings and murders during the crack epidemic, as the homicide statistics show, than there have been during the opioid epidemic. To some degree, that justified a criminal justice response at the time. (Although the greater levels of violence in minority communities can also be blamed on institutional racism.)

Class likely plays a role too. The recent meth epidemic was predominantly linked to white Americans, yet it also invited a punitive “tough on crime” response. That may be because it was also linked to poor white Americans, while the opioid crisis is associated more with middle-class white Americans.

And society’s understanding of addiction was simply much worse in the 1980s. As Humphreys has noted, activists in the addiction treatment and recovery fields have done a lot to boost the view of addiction as a medical problem in recent years. This kind of awareness simply wasn’t around in the ’80s, especially as racism colored how Americans viewed addiction.

The result, however, is that America is better suited to deal with drug addiction as a criminal justice, not public health, problem as it faces an extremely deadly overdose crisis.

Racism affects policy outcomes for everyone in all sorts of ways
The response to drug epidemics exemplifies just one way in which race can shape so much of American politics and policy.

A prominent example is President Donald Trump. Several studies suggest that racial resentment was a big predictor of support for his candidacy, which was launched with an infamous speech explicitly attacking Mexican immigrants. Yet his legislative policy agenda so far has focused on efforts to repeal Obamacare, a budget that slashes social services to the poor, and a tax reform package that will mainly benefit the wealthy. As Dylan Matthews explained for Vox, the cuts hit programs that help millions of white Americans and keep millions out of poverty — yet through racial resentment, Trump managed to get people to support this agenda.

“People’s level of racial resentment … was the single best indicator of whether they were against the ACA, or Obamacare, in the outset,” Godsil told me. “It is clear that the right used racial resentment and racism and this idea of who’s benefiting from certain kinds of government programs to undermine support for [Obamacare].”

There’s a lot of social science research behind this idea. As researchers Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel explained for Vox, racial attitudes are a very strong predictor for beliefs about government spending. “For decades, social scientists have found that attitudes about race, particularly toward African Americans, persistently impact political attitudes and opinions toward government services, spending, and welfare,” they wrote.

McElwee and McDaniel measured racial resentment, economic peril, and support for more government spending. They found that higher measured racial resentment correlated with a preference for decreased government spending and services, while more economic insecurity appeared to correlate — but not at a statistically significant level — with more support for increased government spending.

VoxMcDaniel2.3.png

A recent study is particularly illustrative in this regard. In a survey, white respondents were asked about their beliefs on housing assistance. (The researchers only used data from white respondents because support among minority groups for Trump was too low to be statistically reliable.) With the question, survey takers were primed with a subtle image of either a black or white man.

racial_cue_stimuli.png

The results were striking: Greater favorability toward Trump highly correlated with more opposition to a federal mortgage aid program, higher levels of anger that some people receive government assistance, and a greater likelihood to say that individuals who receive assistance are to blame for their situation. In contrast, favorability toward Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 opponent, did not have a statistically significant effect.

The researchers concluded, “These findings indicate that responses to the racial cue varied as a function of feelings about Donald Trump — but not feelings about Hillary Clinton — during the 2016 presidential election.” Trump was clearly attracting people with high levels of racial resentment.

Much of this is driven by the perception of who gets these benefits. If critics can paint a policy as benefiting black people, that makes white people more likely to oppose it. This is why coded rhetoric about “welfare queens” and other recipients of government benefits can be so effective: It suggests the government is taking money from white taxpayers and redistributing that money to people of color who are, McGhee argued, seen as “lazy at best and criminal at worst.” Never mind that, as just one example, the plurality of food stamp recipients are white.

This has been a trend for decades, going back to Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” Ronald Reagan’s original use of the term “welfare queen,” and now Trump’s own coded rhetoric. It’s what some experts call the identity politics of the right, and perhaps the big reason, McGhee argued, that a majority of white voters have rejected Democrats in presidential elections after 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed.

We see this consistently throughout American politics: Race plays a tremendous role in how people respond to certain policy issues and how people vote. That lets politicians like Trump leverage race to get white voters in particular to go along with an agenda that could actually hurt them — whether the issue is housing, welfare, Obamacare, or drug addiction treatment.

“It scapegoats and vilifies people of color,” McGhee explained. “It sets up a response among many white people that sees policies that benefit people of color as suspect, regardless of the fact that those policies would also benefit similarly situated white people.”
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Timeline: Black America’s surprising 40-year support for the Drug War
Posted by Brian Mann on Aug 12, 2013 | 5 comments


The first African American to hold the Attorney General post in the US, Eric Holder, initially opposed efforts to decriminalize marijuana and downscale drug war efforts. Photo: US Dept. of Justice

The African American War On Drugs

Attorney General Eric Holder – the first African American to hold the Federal government’s top law enforcement post — called this week for Federal drug laws to be reformed or repealed.

“We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, deter and rehabilitate – not merely to convict, warehouse and forget,” Holder said, according to his prepared remarks.

America’s forty-year national drug war has led to the incarceration of millions of black men, many imprisoned for decades for non-violent low-level crimes

Those laws have been described by many critics as oppressive, racist and even genocidal policies — comparable to the European Holocaust, to slavery, and to the Jim Crow segregation laws in the South.

But America’s modern war on drugs was established at a time of growing African American political power.

Many of the toughest crime laws were crafted based on ideas and political mobilization that came from the black community itself.


President Lyndon B. Johnson meets with Martin Luther King, Jr. on August 6, 1965. The drug war began as black political power was growing in America, following passage of the Voting Rights Act. (Source: Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, Public Domain)

This timeline illustrates the surprising story of how many prominent black Americans — including writers, poets, civil rights activists, elected officials, clergy, and their close allies in the Democratic Party– frequently supported the drug war, despite growing misgivings and controversy.

Our research also found evidence of significant if sporadic opposition to the drug war within the conservative white community, which seemed to inform the larger discussion in interesting ways. That, too, is documented here.

This timeline is a work in progress. We’ll be adding factual data, texts, video and images to the timeline as more information becomes available.

TIMELINE


1960s: DRUGS, LAW AND ORDER, AND GROWING BLACK POWER — TOTAL US INMATE POPULATION AT START OF DECADE 333,000


1965. August 6. President Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act. There are five black members of Congress, no African American members of the US Senate. That day, President Johnson met with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass) served from 1967-1979) (Photo: Wikipedia)

1967. African American Edward Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts, the first black man elected to the US Senate since Reconstruction.

Rev. Oberia Dempsey in Harlem in the the 1960s. (Photo source: Unknown)

1968. In Harlem, Reverend Oberia Dempsey recruits “volunteers from among retired policemen, guards and others who had been trained and held pistol permits” in order to patrol local streets and break up drug activity, according to the New York Times. In 1968, Dempsey publishes an op-ed in Harlem’s Amsterdam News , an African American newspaper, calling on local blacks to “please join the war on dope.” In a sermon broadcast that year, he argued that “the greatest challenge facing America is not North Vietnam. The greatest challenge facing America is crime.”

1968. November 4. Richard Nixon is elected to the White House after running a campaign that mingled messages about “law and order” and states’ rights. Asked by an African American voter whether these were code phrases for white bigotry, Nixon said it was a “very troublesome question for every American.”

Richard Nixon, at right, meeting with Lyndon Johnson in 1968 before the presidential campaign. (Source: Wikipedia)

“I don’t go along with people who say that law and order is a code-word for racism,” Nixon argued. “My studies of this situation indicate that black Americans have just as great a stake in a law and order society as white Americans.”

969. January 8. New York Times reports that an NAACP official in Harlem likens Harlem “to the Wild West” and warns that blacks are resorting to “vigilantism” in an effort to stop drug-related crime.

“A warning was issued yesterday that Harlem could become a community of gunfighters, reminiscent of the Old West, if the law failed to protect black citizens from outlaws.”

Walter Washington, who served as Washington DC’s first mayor, authorized a methadone treatment program in an attempt to slow the spread of heroin addiction in his city in 1969. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1969. After a clinical study offers evidence that large numbers of Washington DC jail inmates have heroin in their blood stream, the city’s African American Mayor Walter Washington allows pioneer methadone treatment program.

President Richard Nixon embraces the program and backers of the program cite evidence that drug therapy program cuts crime in half, but suspicion runs high in the black community.

“It was enslaving the black underclass,” says Dr. Robert DuPont, the founder of the study, citing rumors common at the timeduring an interview with PBS.

“It was robbing, it was the narcotic, the opiate of the masses, being given out by the government for political purposes, to make docile the revolutionaries who were otherwise going to free themselves and change the society. That’s the way people thought, what some people thought. And it was done for political purposes. I was the agent of Richard Nixon and it was anti-black, anti-poor.”

1969. December 3. President Richard Nixon convenes a gathering of nation’s governors to talk about drug crisis. Says that part of the solution must be treatment and rehabilitation.

“When you’re talking about thirteen year olds and fourteen year olds and fifteen year olds, the answer is not more penalties. The answer is information. The answer is understanding,” Nixon says.

According to CBS News, Nixon administration is considering reduced penalties for marijuana possession, along with more education, in an effort to convince young people to avoid “experimenting with still stronger drugs.”

However, administration also pushes states to adopt tougher drug laws.

1970. June. Ebony magazine publishes article titled “Blacks Declare War on Dope.”

“Most community groups agree that the first offensive must be against black pushers and distributors who, as one father of a 19-year-old addict says, ‘come brazenly into our neighborhoods and murder and cripple our children with that junk’,” the article argues, noting that a year earlier 224 New York City teen-agers died from heroin overdoses or drug-related infections.

Rep. Shirley Chisholm is quoted describing the drug epidemic in her district as “comparable to the bubonic plague.”

Rep. Shirley Chisholm, who would run for president in 1972, voted in favor of Richard Nixon’s first major piece of drug control legislation. She described narcotics as a “plague” in her urban district. (Photo: WIkipedia)

1970. September-October. MAJOR FEDERAL DRUG WAR LEGISLATION PASSES. Three of the nation’s ten African American lawmakers vote in favor of Nixon’s Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act, the first major piece of Federal legislation laying the groundwork for the national war on drugs.

Senator Brooke from Massachusetts, Rep. Shirley Chisholm from New York, and Rep. Robert Nix Sr. from Pennsylvania support the measure. Only two black congressman, including Rep. John Conyers from Michigan, vote against the bill. Five members of the black delegation don’t vote.


Richard Nixon is credited with and blamed for launching America’s modern drug war. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1970. October 27. President Richard Nixon signs the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act. The law criminalizes a wide range of drugs, including cocaine, heroine and marijuana, and broadens Federal enforcement powers.

“Those who have a drug habit find it necessary to steal, to commit crimes, in order to feed their habit,” Nixon said, at the signing ceremony. The new law, he argued, would give Federal agents “jurisdiction that we have not previously had. The jurisdiction of the Attorney General will go far beyond, for example, heroin. It will cover the new types of drugs, the barbiturates and the amphetamines that have become so common and that are even more dangerous because of their use.”

1970. November. A total of thirteen African American members of congress elected in mid-terms, nearly tripling black representation from 1965.


CBC founding members. The group became a force in American politics. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1971. February. The Congressional Black Caucus founded on a motion by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

According to historian Marguerite Ross Barnett, the group quickly made “a transformation from a small, relatively powerless, and ignored group of representatives to a national cynosure.” Through most of its history, the CBC would advocate actively for tough drug war legislation.

Nixon meeting with members of his cabinet. It was here in 1971 that he met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus (Source: Nixontapes.org)

1971. March 25. The Congressional Black Caucus secures a closed-door sit-down meeting with President Nixon in the Cabinet Room. During the session, the group demands more action to stop the flow of narcotics into urban neighborhoods. Members acknowledge that they are risking their credibility meeting with Nixon. The session is secretly recorded by the President.

Rep. Charles Rangel, a newly-elected Democrat from New York City and a former Federal prosecutor, urges Nixon to do more to fight drugs without waiting for further congressional action, warning that support might soon build for drug legalization.

“You do have the power and we implore you to use it as you would if this were a national crisis and I think we’ve reached that,” Rangel insists.

Before departing, the Black Caucus presented Nixon with a manifesto of sixty priorities for the African American community. It included the demand that “drug abuse and addiction be declared a major national crisis” and a call to use “all existing resources” to stop the trafficking of drugs.

1971. May 24. In a private meeting with White House chief of staff Bob Haldeman, Nixon is said to be “very much concerned about handling of the drug situation.”

“[The President wants the whole thing taken out of HEW [Health Education and Welfare Department]. He makes the point that they’re all on drugs there anyway, but he wants it handled in Justice. He also wants [HEW Commissioner Robert] Finch and [White House advisor Donald] Rumsfeld to quit emoting about the drug problem, which only builds it up. We should be talking about our solutions, not about the enormity of the problem.” – HR Haldeman, Diaries

1971. June 17. In a historic address, President Richard Nixon takes to the airwaves to declare a war on drugs. At times he seems to echo Rep. Rangel’s words from the March meeting.

“Public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse,” he says solemnly. “In order to defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.”

1972. March 10. National Black Convention held in Gary, Indiana. Despite turmoil, delegates issue statement of demands, including a call to eliminate the death penalty and “grant local community control” to court system and prisons.

1972 March 22. Nixon’s “Shafer” commission, made up largely of conservative white elected officials, recommends legalization of marijuana. “Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety,” writes co-author Gov. Raymond Shafer, a Republican from Pennsylvania. Measure receives no support from black lawmakers in Congress.

1972. August. Four months after hosting National Black Convention in his city, Gary Indiana Mayor Richard Hatcher requests Federal aid in combating drug crime in his city, according to the Associated Press. Drug crime has left 22 people dead in his community “since January.”

1972. In an interview during a campaign swing through New York, President Nixon promises to continue funding for drug war, despite budget pressures in Washington

1973. January. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a longtime member of the NAACP with close ties to the black community, rolls out drug laws that would set a new standard for tough sentences, even for low-level non-violent drug offenders.

“I have one goal and one objective and that is to stop the pushing of drugs and to protect the innocent victim,” Rockefeller declared, at a press conference.

He is joined at the podium by prominent black leaders from New York City who support the measure and urge Rockefeller to adopt even more stringent penalties including the death penalty for “pushers.”

“Our young people are dying, they’re being destroyed,” says Glester Hinds, who leads an organization in Harlem called the People’s Civic and Welfare Association.

“And unless you back this bill, New York state is doomed. And not only the state of New York, but all the other states are watching to see what New York is doing.”

1973. May 8. Governor Rockefeller signs laws setting minimum prison sentences of 15 years to life for possessing even small amounts of illegal narcotics, including marijuana, heroin and cocaine.

Jet magazine’s August 10 1972 issue warned of drug crisis.

1973. July 28. President Nixon creates the Drug Enforcement Agency (the DEA) within the Justice Department.

1972. August 10. Jet magazine publishes a cover story describing drugs as a form of “Slavery.”

1974. May. Jet magazine profiles Angela Davis and her efforts to reform America’s prison system. Article treats the “severity of the country’s prison situation” and Davis talks about the death penalty and the “severe forms of oppression that the country has experienced.”

Davis would emerge as one of the most enduring critics of the war on drugs and America’s mass-incarceration system.

In a speech in 2012, Davis argued that “we have to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society.”

“Those behind bars have not had a chance at education. Why don’t we start a long-range plan in this country to remake our educational system?”


Despite Nelson Rockefeller’s “tough” law and order stance, he enjoyed support from members of the CBC, including Rep. Charles Diggs (D-MI) (Photo: Wikipedia)

1974. August 21. Congressional Black Caucus meets with President Gerald Ford at Ford’s request. During the meeting, Rep. Charles Diggs (D-MI) “lauds” the appointment of New York Gov. Rockefeller to serve as Ford’s Vice President.

1974. December 19. Nelson Rockefeller confirmed and sworn in as Vice President of the United States. Congressional Black Caucus splits vote on confirmation.

1975. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduces legislation to create a Federal Sentencing Commission. Measure fails. Initially conceived as an effort to introduce fairness into sentencing, the concept would later be adopted by Reagan administration as a way to insure tougher prison terms.

Intentions aside, Kennedy was an early supporter of the idea of stripping sentencing discretion from judges.

“We believe that Senator Kennedy was wrong in assuming that Federal judges were generally arbitrary and discriminatory in their exercise of sentencing discretion. Indeed, it appears that deny judges the discretion to mitigate sentences on the basis of social disadvantage has worked against poor and minority defendants.” — Yale Law School Study, 1993

California Governor Jerry Brown in 1978. (Photo: Wikipedia/Alan Brown, used by permission)

1976. California’s Democratic legislature passes and liberal Democratic Governor Jerry Brown signs SB 42, establishing tough new mandatory minimum sentencing laws comparable to those approved by New York state three years earlier. According to a Rand study, the law produces prison commitment rates in California that have “increased substantially,” contributing to “major problem of prison crowding.”




Jimmy Carter was an early advocate of marijuana prohibition reform. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1977. August 2nd. President Jimmy Carter proposes easing Federal marijuana laws. Measure fails to find support in Democratically controlled Congress.

“I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. This decriminalization is not legalization. It means only that the Federal penalty for possession would be reduced and a person would received a fine rather than a criminal penalty. Federal penalties for trafficking would remain in force and the states would remain free to adopt whatever laws they wish concerning the marijuana smoker.”

1978. California’s Democratic party approves a second measure toughening incarceration and parole rules, called the Public Protection Bill. Governor Brown signs the measure into law. In a press statement, Governor Brown boasts that “for most crimes the bill triples the maximum period a person released from state prison can be placed on parole and subjected to conditions of parole and supervision by a parole officer.”

1980s: JUST SAY NO CAMPAIGN ENLISTS BLACK LEADERS, ENTERTAINERS. TOTAL INMATE POPULATION AT START OF DECADE 474,000
1982.
Just Say No. Nancy Reagan launches a national campaign designed to “inoculate” young people against the temptations of narcotics. Program is criticized by some within the black community as unrealistic and “naive.” But thousands of community and school based programs form and “Just Say No” is popularized by African American entertainers including Michael Jackson.

1982. February. Congressional Black Caucus releases “Black Leadership Family Plan for the Unity, Survival and Progress of Black People.”

The document, penned by civil rights icon and Washington DC non-voting representative Walter Fauntroy, includes criticism that “diminished drug enforcement increases [black youth] vulnerability to drug abuse.”

Document complains about “police brutality” and warns that the “incidence of crime in black communities is increasing because of intentional and unintentional failure on the part of law enforcement agencies to provide adequate protection.”

Plan urges police to “increase drug enforcement efforts and include community sources of information and cooperation.”

1982. Conservative Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden — both members of the House Judiciary Committee — partner on a new anti-crime bill penned initially by Biden’s staff.

“I told him and I told my Democratic colleagues, ‘I’ll make a deal. If you keep your right-wing guys from killing this bill, I’ll keep the liberals off the bill,” Biden said, in an interview about the effort.

The measure passed Congress, but President Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill.

1982. November 2. California voters approve bond act authorizing $495,000,000 expenditure on new state prisons. Also pass Victims Bill of Rights toughening prison sentences

1984. October 12. Ronald Reagan signs Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Creates tougher penalties for marijuana possession. Also creates a new Federal Sentencing Commission, first proposed by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Measure passes with overwhelming margins in House and Senate.


Walter Fauntroy, a close ally of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and later the non-voting representative for the city of Washington DC in Congress, described crack cocaine as “a threat to all civilized society.” (Photo: Wikipedia)

1986. July 15. Fauntroy testifies before a Committee hearing, describing crack cocaine as “the plague.”

“Every area of our life, every institution of our society is being affected by this tragedy and high cost of drug abuse,” he says.

Fauntroy laments the fact that prisons are “clogged” with drug offenders and cites a study suggesting that “65% of the persons arrested at the present time have some form of illegal drug in their system.”

“Drugs — and now ‘crack’ – are indeed the source of threat to all civilized society and each of us must accept 100% of the responsibility for eliminating this threat in our midst,” Fauntroy concludes, describing the drug war as a “terrible struggle.”


Actor and civil rights leader Ossie Davis, shown here in 1963, later joined anti-drug efforts in New York City. (Photo: WIkipedia)

1986. July 23. Actor Ossie Davis joins street vigils against crack epidemic organized by leaders of 60 black churches in New York City.

“Just as in the past we fought slavery and we fought racism, we are going to fight drugs and the total indifference of those in power,” Davis said.

New York City councilman Wendell Foster tells a gathering of 200 people that drugs “are a new form of genocide” for the black community.

“As devastating as drugs may be in the white community, they are ten times worse in the black community,” Foster declares.

1986. August. New York’s Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo introduces sweeping drug war legislation that escalates Rockefeller-era penalties, particularly for crack cocaine.

“Governor Cuomo’s proposal last week for penalties of up to life in prison for drug dealers convicted of selling even a small amount of crack – three vials, or $50 worth – has renewed a two-decade-old debate in New York State,” the New York Times reports. “Do severe penalties reduce drug dealing or are they political responses to appease an outraged public?”

Public pressure in support of the measure is intense. ”I’ve never seen anything like it,” said District Attorney Mario Merola of the Bronx. ”Hardly a week goes by that we don’t have an anti-crack rally in the Bronx.”

1986. October. MAJOR FEDERAL DRUG WAR LEGISLATION PASSES. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 passes Congress, enacting far tougher Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenders, including those caught with marijuana. Establishes a 100-to-1 disparity in punishments for crack cocaine compared with powedr form of drug.

The measure is supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, though some members want even harsher penalties for drug crimes. Sixteen of nineteen African American members of the House — including Texas Rep. Mickey Leland and California Rep. Ron Dellums — co-sponsor of the bill.


Charles Rangel and Nancy Reagan look on as Ronald Reagan signs the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. (Source: White House)

1986. October 27. President Ronald Reagan signs the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.

“The magnitude of today’s drug problem can be traced to past unwillingness to recognize and confront this problem,” Reagan argues. “And the vaccine that’s going to end the epidemic is a combination of tough laws—like the one we sign today—and a dramatic change in public attitude. We must be intolerant of drug use and drug sellers.”

In his remarks, Reagan singles out his wife, Nancy Reagan, for her anti-drug efforts, as well as Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

1987. January. Concerned about spiraling cost of drug war, President Reagan proposes significant cuts to spending on interdiction and treatment efforts. The measure draws fierce criticism from Rep. Charles Rangel.

“Reagan got in trouble with Democrats-and some Republicans-last week when he proposed cutting $913 million from drug education, enforcement and prevention programs because the action was at odds with his past rhetoric,” the Washington Post reports. “[Charles B. Rangel] and others said the proposed cutbacks don’t have much of a future on Capitol Hill.”


Comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory would repeat his fast against illegal drug use in 1989. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1987. March 5. Veteran civil rights activists begin political fast to demand Federal action to slow illegal drug use, according to the Associated Press.

Two veteran civil rights activists have begun a 40-day fast to protest drug abuse. The Rev. Hosea Williams and Dick Gregory, the comedian, camped out at the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s grave here Wednesday and said they planned to spend two days each outside the White House, the United States Capitol and the New York Stock Exchange. The two men said they would send a telegram to President Reagan asking him to commit more Federal money to the fight against drug abuse.

La Toya Jackson releases a single in support of Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign (Photo: WIkipedia)

1987-88. La Toya Jackson becomes a spoke-person for the Federal war on drugs. Her single “Just Say No” begins with the warning that “people are dying” because of drugs.

In an interview with Newsday, Jackson says she dedicated her album to the “children of the world” because she is”involved with the anti-drug campaign ‘Just Say No,’ which is designated to children between the ages of 3 to 7 and tries to prevent them from ever starting to take drugs.”

1988. May 17. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) publishes an op-ed in the New York Times titled “Legalize Drugs? Not on your life.” He chastises President Reagan for not doing enough to battle illegal narcotics and calls crack “the worst drug epidemic in our history.”

“Here we are talking about legalization, and we have yet to come up with any formal national strategy or any commitment from the Administration on fighting drugs beyond mere words,” Rangel argues. “We have never fought the war on drugs like we have fought other legitimate wars – with all the forces at our command.”


Jesse Jackson demands major reforms to drug war effort at 1988 Democratic convention. (Photo: WIkipedia)

1988. July. Presidential candidate Rev. Jesse Jackson gives speech at Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia and calls for “a real war on drugs” demanding reforms to interdiction efforts.

“You can’t just ‘say no’,” Jackson tells Democrats. He suggests that “bankers” and other high-placed individuals are enabling the drug trade and blames the drug epidemic on poverty. “Some of us take drugs as anesthesia for our pain.”

Jackson suggests that the Federal government hasn’t made a sincere effort to stop the drug trade. “We must end the scourge on the American culture,” he says.



1988. October 22. MAJOR FEDERAL DRUG WAR LEGISLATION PASSES. House of Representatives approves the Anti-Drug Control Act of 1988, a bi-partisan bill which further toughens narcotics penalties, adding the death penalty in certain cases, and creating the Office of National Drug Control Policy — establishing a so-called ‘drug czar’ for the first time. Also enables a Federal media campaign designed to curtail youth substance abuse. Passes House on 346-11 vote.

Many African American House members don’t vote on the measure. However, Julian Dixon, William Gray, August Hawkins and Charles Rangel vote in favor of the Reagan-backed bill. The only African American “No” votes are cast by John Lewis and John Conyers.

1988. November 18. Ronald Reagan signs Anti-Drug Control Act of 1988. The New York Times quotes Rep. Rangel, chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control,praising the provision of the law establishing a national director of drug policy.

”Now Congress and the American people will know who is in charge of dealing with the nation’s drug crisis, because this individual will be responsible full time for developing and coordinating all aspects of our war on drugs,” Rep. Rangel says.


Ishmael Reed in a photograph dated 1975. Source: Wikipedia

1989. Poet and essayist Ishmael Reed publishes essay “Ground Zero” about life in a drug-wracked neighborhood, portraying pushers and dealers as “black terrorists” and “crack fascists.”

“The patrolman who arrives after the second break-in of your car within the month of October says that the Oakland police can’t cover all of the posts, and that stopping the cocaine epidemic is like stopping sand,” Reed writes. “You hear this from most of the people you interview: the drug war is over and the bad guys have won. The chief of police cites all of the arrests that he’s made, only to conclude that “the problem is getting worse. It’s horrible.”

1989. March. Ebony magazine publishes an article describing Rep. Rangel as “The Front-Line General In the War On Drugs.” Rangel talks about the “cancerous epidemic” of drugs hitting black communities in America.

Rangel chastises the administration of President George H.W. Bush for not doing enough to stop drugs. Blasts the White House for moving with “turtle-like speed” to tackle narcotics.

“We need outrage,” Rangel says, “I don’t know what is behind the lackadaisical attitudes toward drugs, but I do know that the American people have made it abundantly clear: they are outraged by the indifference of the US government to this problem.”

According to Ebony, Rangel “credits” Richard Nixon with “taking positive steps to deal with the problem.”

Ebony magazine praised Rep. Charles Rangel as America’s “front-line General in the War on Drugs.”

1989. August. Ebony magazine publishes an issue with a front-cover illustration declaring “War: The Drug Crisis.” “The drug crisis in Black America has become a deadly, uncontrolled plague that has turned some neighborhoods into war zones.

In a letter to readers, publisher John Johnson describes the coverage as “one of the most important issues we’ve published.” According to the article, “a deadly plague rages in the streets” of black communities.

The series includes flattering depictions of black law enforcement officers combating street dealers, s well as a profile of Vincent Lane, the African American head of Chicago’s Housing Authority titled “High Noon.”

The article describes “paramilitary” sweeps which Lane has organized in the Chicago projects. “Drugs drive crime and drug dealers have found a haven for their business in public housing,” Lane says. “What we’re doing is akin to knocking off the classroom bullies.”


1990s: NEW QUESTIONS, NEW CONTROVERSIES IN NATION’S DRUG WAR. TOTAL INMATE POPULATION AT START OF DECADE 1.1 MILLION



Conservative William F. Buckley calls for the drug war to end. He faces opposition from Rep. Rangel who says legalization of narcotics is a dangerous idea. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1991. The Debate Rages On. Rep. Charles Rangel insists in a televised debate that the drug war should continue in a debate with conservative William F. Buckley Jr., wants drugs legalized.

“What do you want to do with the [800,000] people that you convict?” Buckley asks. “Do you want to torture them to death?” He argues that the drug war is leading to 800 deaths per day.

Rangel acknowledges that the “criminal justice system has not worked and has not been a deterrent to drug abuse in this country.”

But Rangel goes on to insist “I still believe that it should be there” and argues against legalization. He argues that someone “like Colin Powell” should be placed in charge of the effort.

“In order to fight this war, you need all of these factors working together. You should not allow people to distribute this poison without fear that they could be arrested and put in jail,” Rangel says.

1993. February 7. House votes 237-180 to disband the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, which is chaired by Rep. Rangel. “I recognize that select committees are not intended to continue indefinitely,” Rangel tells the LA Times, adding “unfortunately, the drug problem is not about to go away.”

1994. New York’s Republican Governor George Pataki proposes modest reforms to state’s Rockefeller drug laws, but changes face opposition in GOP-controlled state Senate.


Bill Clinton enacted major policy initiatives expanding drug war penalties and mass incarceration. (Photo: Wikipedia)

1994. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act passes Democratically-controlled Congress with overwhelming margins based on Democratic support, with significant Republican opposition. (Republicans opposed gun control measures within the bill.)

Major backers include Senate Judiciary chairman Joe Biden and New York Senator Charles Schumer. Measure is supported by the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

Goal is to expand police staffing with 100,000 new recruits nationwide. Establishes “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing rules. Expands death penalty to include drug trafficking crimes and also eliminates Federal funding for inmate education programs.

“No basic grant [for education] shall be awarded under this subpart to any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution,” the law reads.

Allocates $9.8 billion in Federal funds for construction of state prisons nationwide.

1994. September. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act signed by President Bill Clinton during a ceremony in the Rose Garden.

“The law abiding citizens of our country have made their voices heard,” President Clinton says. “If the American people do not feel safe…then it is difficult to say that the American people are free.”

“Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets and undermined our schools,” Clinton argues, claiming that the law will help fund enough prisons to keep “100,000 criminals off the street.”

1997. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) elected chair of Congressional Black Caucus. Pushes for hearings into rumors that US government and CIA have cultivated drug trade, harming black neighborhoods.

“Mandatory minimum prison sentences interfere with judicial authority and impose “one size fits all” penalties without considering specific circumstances,” Waters says. “In addition, mandatory minimum sentences – especially those related to drug possession – and laws that impose more severe penalties for crack cocaine than powder cocaine have resulted in the incarceration of a disproportionate amount of African Americans.”

1998. June 9. NAACP president Kweisi Mfume signs a public letter in the New York Timescalling for a re-evaluation of the war on drugs. Signatories include Walter Cronkite and former Secretary of State George Schulz.

President Clinton’s “drug czar” General Barry McCaffrey responds that the letter “a 1950’s perception” of the struggle against drugs.

1998. Rep. Charles Rangel publishes article in journal “Criminal Justice Ethics” arguing against drug legalization and claiming that “legalization of drugs would be a nightmare…in minority communities.”

In my view, the very idea of legalizing drugs in this country is counterproductive. Many well-meaning drug legalization advocates disagree with me, but their arguments are not convincing. The questions that I asked them twenty years ago remain unanswered. Would all drugs be legalized? If not, why? Would consumers be allowed to purchase an unlimited supply? Are we prepared to pay the medical costs for illnesses that are spawned by excessive drug use? Who would be allowed to sell drugs? Would an illegal market still exist? Would surgeons, bus drivers, teachers, military personnel, engineers, and airline pilots be allowed to use drugs?

2000s: CALLS FOR DRUG WAR REFORM GROW WITHIN BLACK COMMUNITY – TOTAL INMATE POPULATION AT START OF DECADE 1.1 MILLION

Russell Simmons helped to popularize opposition to the drug war among young black Americans. (Photo: WIkipedia)

2000. Drop the Rock Coalition forms in New York state, bringing together growing number of activists — including more African American leaders and public figures, including Russell Simmons — who oppose drug war era laws.

Its primary focus being repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws—the State’s notoriously harsh mandatory minimum sentencing statutes that apply to people convicted of drug crimes—the group became the Drop the Rock Coalition.

2000. May 11. Head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, calls for major reforms to drug war.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans employment discrimination,” Henderson tells a congressional panel. “But today, three out of every ten African American males born in the United States will serve time in prison, severely limiting their prospects for legitimate employment.”

2002. State Senator David Paterson — who would later become New York state’s first African American governor — is arrested while protesting in opposition to the state’s “draconian” Rockefeller drug laws.

2000. November. Libertarian Cato Institute publishes “After Prohibition,” a collection of essays urging an end to the war on drugs. Nobel Prize-winning onservative economist Milton Friedman writes the foreword, urging an end to drug war era policies.

003. March 26. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other top officials gather in Washington to honor civil rights icon Dorothy Height’s 91st birthday. The former ally of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is praised for a wide range of accomplishments, one of which is having “led numerous campaigns for the war on drugs.”

According to the YWCA, where Height worked in Harlem and New York City, she “advocated in the war on drugs.”

2006. February 20. NAACP chairman Kweisi Mfume sworn in at a ceremony held at the US Justice Department, hosted by Attorney General Janet Reno and President Bill Clinton.

2007. November. New York Rep. Charles Rangel publishes a memoir acknowledging that he partnered with President Nixon to launch the US drug war. “Nixon was tough on drugs,” Rangel recalls.


Rangel, himself a former US prosecutor, has acknowledged his support for Nixon’s drug war and the tough crime policies that followed.

“[We] worked closely together on what was the beginning of our international “war on drugs.” The national passion behind the war against drugs, I’m sorry to say, has [faded]. It hit its high point somewhere in Ronald Reagan’s presidency, during the crack

epidemic, and has since petered out. We never did win the war, of course.”

By his account, however, drug interdiction did produce tangible results: “So, to the extent that African-Americans as a whole advanced sharply from the mid 80’s through the Clinton 90’s, a lot of the drug-related bleeding was staunched.”

THE DRUG WAR IN THE AGE OF OBAMA – AS OF 2011, THERE WERE 2.26 MILLION INMATES IN AMERICA
2008. January.
In an interview with Ebony magazine, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promises to “review these mandatory minimum sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive warehousing of non-violent offenders.”

“I will also eliminate the disparity between sentencing for crack and powder cocaine,” Obama says.

2008. June 27. Rep. Maxine Waters is interviewed about escalating gang violence in Los Angeles and is asked about “faltering black leadership.”

“Of course we have gang problems in parts of my district,” Rep. Waters said. “I accept the fact that there are gang problems in South Central Los Angeles…and I accept the fact that there needs to be more work more resources.”

2009. January. New York Governor David Paterson, in state of the state address in Albany, calls for repeal of Rockefeller laws. “I can’t think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws,” says the state’s first African American governor.


The first African American to hold the Attorney General post in the US, Eric Holder, has opposed efforts to decriminalize drugs and downscale drug war efforts. (Photo: Wikipedia)

2009. February 25. US Attorney General Eric Holder — the first African American to hold the post — prosecutes the drug war aggressively. On February 25th, less than three weeks after taking office, he announces major drug-related arrests.

“We simply cannot afford to let down our guard,” Attorney General Holder says. “These [drug] cartels will be destroyed.”

2009. January. New York Governor David Paterson, in state of the state address in Albany, calls for repeal of Rockefeller laws. “I can’t think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws,” says the state’s first African American governor.


The first African American to hold the Attorney General post in the US, Eric Holder, has opposed efforts to decriminalize drugs and downscale drug war efforts. (Photo: Wikipedia)

2009. February 25. US Attorney General Eric Holder — the first African American to hold the post — prosecutes the drug war aggressively. On February 25th, less than three weeks after taking office, he announces major drug-related arrests.

“We simply cannot afford to let down our guard,” Attorney General Holder says. “These [drug] cartels will be destroyed.”

2010. July 19. Black leaders in California line up on both sides of California’s Proposition 19, a referendum to legalize marijuana. Dr. Jocelyn Elders, former African American surgeon general, supports legalization. But according to New York Times, “Kamala D. Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, who is black, joined the opposition last week.”


California Attorney General Kamala Harris opposed marijuana legalization. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Ms. Harris, who is running for state attorney general, issued a statement saying that the proposition would encourage “driving while high” and drugs in the workplace.

2010. July 28. Black leaders in California acknowledge deep divide in views about marijuana legalization.

Some African American church leaders call for the state’s NAACP chief, Alice Huffman, to resign for her support of legalization. According to NPR, the NAACP supports decriminalization as a strategy to “keep more young, black men out of jail.”

“[W]e agree in the disparities of arrests,” Bishop Ron Allen tells NPR. “That’s another show. And that’s another debate. We absolutely agree with that. But not only are blacks arrested for marijuana, when we take a look at crack cocaine and other crimes that are committed in the black neighborhood, we can see the disparities of arrests there also. So do we legalize crack cocaine? Do we legalize burglary? Do we legalize murder?”

2010. September 21. National Black Church Initiative formally opposes California’s Proposition 19, with the Rev. Anthony Evans promising to “use the full force of the 34,000 African American churches to kill Proposition 19, which he viewed as an ‘unconscionable’ move that would weaken the black church, the black community, and the black family.”

2010. October 16. US Attorney General Eric Holder — the first African American to hold the post — signals strong opposition to Proposition 19. In a public letter, Holder urges rejection of the measure, promising that the Obama administration will continue to vigorously prosecute Federal marijuana possession cases.

“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

2011. January 30. Chicago mayoral candidate and former US Senator Carol Mosely Braun — the first African American woman elected to the Senate and an opponent of the drug war — triggers controversy when she accuses black opponent of being “strung out on crack.” Mosely Braun later apologizes.

2011. August 15. University of Michigan poll finds that drug abuse tops concerns for African American parents, when asked about risks to children in their communities. 44% of black parents list drug abuse as a top concern, compared with just 28% of white parents.

“The perception of drug abuse as a big problem matches recent national data showing increasing use of marijuana and other drugs by US teens,” says Matthew Davis, M.D., director of the National Poll on Children’s Health and associate professor in the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the U-M Medical School.

2011. In a major reversal, Rep. Charles Rangel co-sponsors the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, a bill that would remove marijuana from the list of illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. The measure also draws support from Rep. John Conyers, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, also co-sponsors. Measure fails.

2012. Conservative Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tx) calls for an end to the drug war.

2010. September 21. National Black Church Initiative formally opposes California’s Proposition 19, with the Rev. Anthony Evans promising to “use the full force of the 34,000 African American churches to kill Proposition 19, which he viewed as an ‘unconscionable’ move that would weaken the black church, the black community, and the black family.”

2010. October 16. US Attorney General Eric Holder — the first African American to hold the post — signals strong opposition to Proposition 19. In a public letter, Holder urges rejection of the measure, promising that the Obama administration will continue to vigorously prosecute Federal marijuana possession cases.

“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

2011. January 30. Chicago mayoral candidate and former US Senator Carol Mosely Braun — the first African American woman elected to the Senate and an opponent of the drug war — triggers controversy when she accuses black opponent of being “strung out on crack.” Mosely Braun later apologizes.

2011. August 15. University of Michigan poll finds that drug abuse tops concerns for African American parents, when asked about risks to children in their communities. 44% of black parents list drug abuse as a top concern, compared with just 28% of white parents.

“The perception of drug abuse as a big problem matches recent national data showing increasing use of marijuana and other drugs by US teens,” says Matthew Davis, M.D., director of the National Poll on Children’s Health and associate professor in the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the U-M Medical School.

2011. In a major reversal, Rep. Charles Rangel co-sponsors the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, a bill that would remove marijuana from the list of illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. The measure also draws support from Rep. John Conyers, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, also co-sponsors. Measure fails.

2012. Conservative Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tx) calls for an end to the drug war.

2012. April 16. MSNBC commentators urge President Barack Obama to follow libertarian Ron Paul’s lead on drug war policy.



2013. February. Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013 introduced, calling for marijuana to be regulated in the same way that the US government treats alcohol. Rangel and Conyers not included as co-sponsors.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/499/cosponsors

Attorney General Eric Holder. Some rights reserved by Talk Radio News Service

2013. August 12. Attorney General Eric Holder calls for major reforms to drug war era sentencing laws. In an interview with NPR, Holder concludes that the war on drugs has meant “a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color.”
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The Heroin Epidemic, in 9 Graphs
Heroin use has skyrocketed in the U.S., and it's hitting young adults the hardest.

Hillary Clinton has called the heroin and methamphetamine addiction a "quiet epidemic" and held roundtables to discuss the issue with voters. Rand Paul has spoken repeatedly about the racial aspect of the war on drugs and said that he would change minimum sentencing laws if elected. Chris Christie has enacted reforms in his home state of New Jersey, saying he favored treatment instead of imprisonment, and calling drug addiction a disease that "can happen to anyone from any station in life."

In the last decade, heroin abuse has skyrocketed. The rate of heroin-related overdose deaths increased 286 percent between 2002 and 2013 . In 2002, 100 people per 100,000 were addicted to heroin but that number had doubled by 2013.

85

COURTESY CDC

The CDC says males, non-hispanic whites, 18- to 25-year-olds and people living in large metropolitan areas are at the most risk for heroin addiction, which covers most of the U.S. Heroin addiction spans all ages, races, genders, incomes, insurance statuses and locations.

The problem of substance abuse touches many areas of public policy, from border security to the health system and criminal justice. The rise may have been spurred partially by an increase in supply: the amount of heroin seized at the border with Mexico quadrupled by 2013 from the 2000s, making the drug cheaper in the U.S. and more pure. During 2008-2011, there were about 1.1 million emergency department visits for drug poisoning each year, or 35.4 visits per 10,000 people.

Abuse has increased most drastically in the Midwest.

85

Age-adjusted rates for drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin, by census region: United States, 2000, 2007, and 2013
COURTESY CDC


Who Abuses Heroin?

The average user of heroin has changed drastically in the last decade. In 2000, black Americans aged 45-64 had the highest death rate for drug poisoning involving heroin. Now, white people aged 18-44 have the highest rate. The share of people who say they have used heroin in the past year is actually decreasing for non-whites. Heroin has taken hold of the white suburbs, which has prompted more attention for what is now being called a " health problem."

85

Rates for drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin, by selected age and race and ethnicity groups: United States, 2000 and 2013
COURTESY CDC

The heroin epidemic is hitting young adults more than other age groups. The use among Americans aged 18-25 increased 109 percent from 2002-2004 and 2011-2013. For Americans 26 and older, it increased 58 percent.

85

Rates for drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin, by selected age groups: United States, 2000–2013
COURTESY CDC

85

Emergency department visit rates for drug poisoning, by age: United States, 2004–2007 and 2008–2011

COURTESY CDC


Although people aged 18 to 25 are more at risk for heroin use, according to the CDC, on average, heroin is a drug for slightly older adults probably because it is perceived as being more risky (rightly so) and because most heroin users have used other drugs in the past. Nine in 10 people who use heroin use it with at least one other drug, most with at least three other drugs.

85

COURTESY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Although heroin is perceived by teenagers as the most dangerous drug, the share of 12 to 17-year-olds who perceive the drug as very risky has declined slightly since 2002, according to the results of a 2013 survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Teens also say it is the most difficult to obtain with the share of teens saying heroin is fairly or very easy to obtain declining from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 9.1 percent in 2013.


But prescription drug abuse is the bigger epidemic.

Heroin abuse is tightly tied to prescription drug abuse. Almost half of people addicted to heroin are also addicted to painkillers. People are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin if they are addicted to prescription painkillers. Abuse of prescription painkillers is incredibly common — one in 20 Americans age 12 and older reported using painkillers for non-medical reasons in the past year. While it's true that heroin abuse has skyrocketed in the last years, prescription drug abuse is more common. The number of overdose deaths from prescription pain medication is larger than those of heroin and cocaine combined.

85

Age-adjusted rates for drug-poisoning deaths, by type of drug: United States, 2000–2013
COURTESY CDC

By 2011-2013, painkiller dependence among heroin users was more common than alcohol, marijuana or cocaine dependence.

85

Annual average percentage of past-year heroin users* with past-year selected substance abuse or dependence, by time interval — United States, 2002–2013
COURTESY CDC

One of the main differences between the two issues is that while the issue of heroin is intertwined with border security, the abuse of prescription drugs is largely the fault of our own health system. Enough painkillers were prescribed by American doctors during one month in 2010 to medicate every American around the clock for an entire month.

A majority of those who take prescription pain medicine for non-medical reasons get them free from a friend or relative. In nearly 85 percent of those cases, the friend or relative obtained them from one doctor. One in five users obtain prescriptions themselves from one doctor.

States have more ability to increase the monitoring of prescription drugs, identify people showing signs of problematic use earlier, and stop inappropriate prescriptions of painkillers (which can lead to abuse and then, abuse of heroin).

85

COURTESY CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

While some have warned that a crackdown on prescription drug abuse will only spur more abuse of heroin, one analysis of death rates in 28 states found that while heroin overdose rates were associated with an increase in overdose rates for prescription medication, a decrease in the prescription drug rate was not associated with an increase in the death rate for heroin. Still, more research is needed to combat both issues.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Gary Webb movie is pretty damn good!! But, the book Dark Alliance is even better!!



HOW THE CIA WATCHED OVER THE DESTRUCTION OF GARY WEBB


Eighteen years after it was published, “Dark Alliance,” the San Jose Mercury News’s bombshell investigation into links between the cocaine trade, Nicaragua’s Contra rebels, and African American neighborhoods in California, remains one of the most explosive and controversial exposés in American journalism.

The 20,000-word series enraged black communities, prompted Congressional hearings, and became one of the first major national security stories in history to blow up online. It also sparked an aggressive backlash from the nation’s most powerful media outlets, which devoted considerable resources to discredit author Gary Webb’s reporting. Their efforts succeeded, costing Webb his career. On December 10, 2004, the journalist was found dead in his apartment, having ended his eight-year downfall with two .38-caliber bullets to the head.

These days, Webb is being cast in a more sympathetic light. He’s portrayed heroically in a major motion picture set to premiere nationwide next month. And documents newly released by the CIA provide fresh context to the “Dark Alliance” saga — information that paints an ugly portrait of the mainstream media at the time.

On September 18, the agency released a trove of documents spanning three decades of secret government operations. Culled from the agency’s in-house journal, Studies in Intelligence, the materials include a previously unreleased six-page article titled “Managing a Nightmare: CIA Public Affairs and the Drug Conspiracy Story.” Looking back on the weeks immediately following the publication of “Dark Alliance,” the document offers a unique window into the CIA’s internal reaction to what it called “a genuine public relations crisis” while revealing just how little the agency ultimately had to do to swiftly extinguish the public outcry. Thanks in part to what author Nicholas Dujmovic, a CIA Directorate of Intelligence staffer at the time of publication, describes as “a ground base of already productive relations with journalists,” the CIA’s Public Affairs officers watched with relief as the largest newspapers in the country rescued the agency from disaster, and, in the process, destroyed the reputation of an aggressive, award-winning reporter.

(Dujmovic’s name was redacted in the released version of the CIA document, but was included in a footnote in a 2010 article in the Journal of Intelligence. Dujmovic confirmed his authorship to The Intercept.)




Actor Jeremy Renner stars as investigative journalist Gary Webb in the upcoming film “Kill the Messenger.”

Webb’s troubles began in August 1996, when his employer, the San Jose Mercury News, published a groundbreaking, three-part investigation he had worked on for more than a year. Carrying the full title “Dark Alliance: The Story Behind the Crack Explosion,” Webb’s series reported that in addition to waging a proxy war for the U.S. government against Nicaragua’s revolutionary Sandinista government in the 1980s, elements of the CIA-backed Contra rebels were also involved in trafficking cocaine to the U.S. in order to fund their counter-revolutionary campaign. The secret flow of drugs and money, Webb reported, had a direct link to the subsequent explosion of crack cocaine abuse that had devastated California’s most vulnerable African American neighborhoods.

Derided by some as conspiracy theory and heralded by others as investigative reporting at its finest, Webb’s series spread through extensive talk radio coverage and global availability via the internet, which at the time was still a novel way to promote national news.

Though “Dark Alliance” would eventually morph into a personal crisis for Webb, it was initially a PR disaster for the CIA. In “Managing a Nightmare,” Dujmovic minced no words in describing the potentially devastating effect of the series on the agency’s image:

The charges could hardly be worse. A widely read newspaper series leads many Americans to believe CIA is guilty of at least complicity, if not conspiracy, in the outbreak of crack cocaine in America’s cities. In more extreme versions of the story circulating on talk radio and the internet, the Agency was the instrument of a consistent strategy by the US Government to destroy the black community and keep black Americans from advancing. Denunciations of CIA–reminiscent of the 1970s–abound. Investigations are demanded and initiated. The Congress gets involved.

Dujmovic acknowledged that Webb “did not state outright that CIA ran the drug trade or even knew about it.” In fact, the agency’s central complaint, according to the document, was over the graphics that accompanied the series, which suggested a link between the CIA and the crack scare, and Webb’s description of the Contras as “the CIA’s army” (despite the fact that the Contras were quite literally an armed, militant group not-so-secretly supported by the U.S., at war with the government of Nicaragua).

Dujmovic complained that Webb’s series “appeared with no warning,” remarking that, for all his journalistic credentials, “he apparently could not come up with a widely available and well-known telephone number for CIA Public Affairs.” This was probably because Webb “was uninterested in anything the Agency might have to say that would diminish the impact of his series,” he wrote. (Webb later said that he did contact the CIA but that the agency would not return his calls; efforts to obtain CIA comment were not mentioned in the “Dark Alliance” series).

Dujmovic also pointed out that much of what was reported in “Dark Alliance” was not new. Indeed, in 1985, more than a decade before the series was published, Associated Press journalists Robert Parry and Brian Barger found that Contra groups had “engaged in cocaine trafficking, in part to help finance their war against Nicaragua.” In a move that foreshadowed Webb’s experience, the Reagan White House launched “a concerted behind-the-scenes campaign to besmirch the professionalism of Parry and Barger and to discredit all reporting on the contras and drugs,” according to a 1997 article by Peter Kornbluh for the Columbia Journalism Review. “Whether the campaign was the cause or not, coverage was minimal.”

Neverthess, a special senate subcommittee, chaired by then-senator John Kerry, investigated the AP’s findings and, in 1989, released a 1,166-page report on covert U.S. operations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean (summary here). It found “considerable evidence” that the Contras were linked to running drugs and guns — and that the U.S. government knew about it.




1983, Anti-Sandinista Contra forces move down the San Juan River which separates Nicaragua from Costa Rica.

From the subcommittee report:

On the basis of this evidence, it is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter.

The chief of the CIA’s Central America Task Force was also quoted as saying, “With respect to (drug trafficking) by the Resistance Forces…it is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people.”

Despite such damning assessments, the subcommittee report received scant attention from the country’s major newspapers. Seven years later, Webb would be the one to pick up the story. His articles distinguished themselves from the AP’s reporting in part by connecting an issue that seemed distant to many U.S. readers — drug trafficking in Central America — to a deeply-felt domestic story, the impact of crack cocaine in California’s urban, African American communities.

“Dark Alliance” focused on the lives of three men involved in shipping cocaine to the U.S.: Ricky “Freeway” Ross, a legendary L.A. drug dealer; Oscar Danilo Blandón Reyes, considered by the U.S. government to be Nicaragua’s biggest cocaine dealer living in the United States; and Meneses Cantarero, a powerful Nicaraguan player who had allegedly recruited Blandón to sell drugs in support of the counter-revolution. The series examined the relationship between the men, their impact on the drug market in California and elsewhere, and the disproportionate sentencing of African Americans under crack cocaine laws.

And while its content was not all new, the series marked the beginning of something that was: an in-depth investigation published outside the traditional mainstream media outlets and successfully promoted on the internet. More than a decade before Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, Webb showcased the power and reach of online journalism. Key documents were hosted on the San Jose Mercury News website, with hyperlinks, wiretap recordings and follow-up stories. The series was widely discussed on African American talk radio stations; on some days attracting more than one million readers to the newspaper’s website. As Webb later remarked, “you don’t have be The New York Times or The Washington Post to bust a national story anymore.”

But newspapers like the Times and the Post seemed to spend far more time trying to poke holes in the series than in following up on the underreported scandal at its heart, the involvement of U.S.-backed proxy forces in international drug trafficking. The Los Angeles Times was especially aggressive. Scooped in its own backyard, the California paper assigned no fewer than 17 reporters to pick apart Webb’s reporting. While employees denied an outright effort to attack the Mercury News, one of the 17 referred to it as the “get Gary Webb team.” Another said at the time, “We’re going to take away that guy’s Pulitzer,” according to Kornbluh’s CJR piece. Within two months of the publication of “Dark Alliance,” the L.A. Times devoted more words to dismantling its competitor’s breakout hit than comprised the series itself.

The CIA watched these developments closely, collaborating where it could with outlets who wanted to challenge Webb’s reporting. Media inquiries had started almost immediately following the publication of “Dark Alliance,” and Dujmovic in “Managing a Nightmare” cites the CIA’s success in discouraging “one major news affiliate” from covering the story. He also boasts that the agency effectively departed from its own longstanding policies in order to discredit the series. “For example, in order to help a journalist working on a story that would undermine the Mercury News allegations, Public Affairs was able to deny any affiliation of a particular individual — which is a rare exception to the general policy that CIA does not comment on any individual’s alleged CIA ties.”

The document chronicles the shift in public opinion as it moved in favor of the CIA, a trend that began about a month and a half after the series was published. “That third week in September was a turning point in media coverage of this story,” Dujmovic wrote, citing “[r]espected columnists, including prominent blacks,” along with the New York Daily News, the Baltimore Sun, The Weekly Standard and the Washington Post. The agency supplied the press, “as well as former Agency officials, who were themselves representing the Agency in interviews with the media,” with “these more balanced stories,” Dujmovic wrote. The Washington Postproved particularly useful. “Because of the Post‘s national reputation, its articles especially were picked up by other papers, helping to create what the Associated Press called a ‘firestorm of reaction’ against the San Jose Mercury News.” Over the month that followed, critical media coverage of the series (“balanced reporting”) far outnumbered supportive stories, a trend the CIA credited to the Post, The New York Times, “and especially the Los Angeles Times.” Webb’s editors began to distance themselves from their reporter.

By the end of October, two months after “Dark Alliance” was published, “the tone of the entire CIA-drug story had changed,” Dujmovic was pleased to report. “Most press coverage included, as a routine matter, the now-widespread criticism of the Mercury News allegations.”

“This success has to be in relative terms,” Dujmovic wrote, summing up the episode. “In the world of public relations, as in war, avoiding a rout in the face of hostile multitudes can be considered a success.”




Artwork that accompanied the original Dark Alliance series published in the San Jose Mercury News.

There’s no question that “Dark Alliance” included flaws, which the CIA was able to exploit.

In his CJR piece, Kornbluh said the series was “problematically sourced” and criticized it for “repeatedly promised evidence that, on close reading, it did not deliver.” It failed to definitively connect the story’s key players to the CIA, he noted, and there were inconsistencies in Webb’s timeline of events.

But Kornbluh also uncovered problems with the retaliatory reports described as “balanced” by the CIA. In the case of the L.A. Times, he wrote, the paper “stumbled into some of the same problems of hyperbole, selectivity, and credibility that it was attempting to expose” while ignoring declassified evidence (also neglected by the New York Times and the Washington Post) that lent credibility to Webb’s thesis. “Clearly, there was room to advance the contra/drug/CIA story rather than simply denounce it,” Kornbluh wrote.

The Mercury News was partially responsible “for the sometimes distorted public furor the stories generated,” Kornbluh said, but also achieved “something that neither the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, nor The New York Times had been willing or able to do — revisit a significant story that had been inexplicably abandoned by the mainstream press, report a new dimension to it, and thus put it back on the national agenda where it belongs.”

In October, the story of Gary Webb will reach a national moviegoing audience, likely reviving old questions about his reporting and the outrage it ignited. Director Michael Cuesta’s film, Kill the Messenger, stars Jeremy Renner as the hard-charging investigative reporter and borrows its title from a 2006 biography written by award-winning investigative journalist Nick Schou, who worked as a consultant on the script.

Discussing the newly disclosed “Managing a Nightmare” document, Schou says it squares with what he found while doing his own reporting. Rather than some dastardly, covert plot to destroy (or, as some went so far as to suggest, murder) Webb, Schou posits that the journalist was ultimately undone by the petty jealousies of the modern media world. The CIA “didn’t really need to lift a finger to try to ruin Gary Webb’s credibility,” Schou told The Intercept. “They just sat there and watched these journalists go after Gary like a bunch of piranhas.”

“They must have been delighted over at Langley, the way this all unfolded,” Schou added.

At least one journalist who helped lead the campaign to discredit Webb, feels remorse for what he did. As Schou reported for L.A. Weekly, in a 2013 radio interview L.A. Times reporter Jesse Katz recalled the episode, saying, “As an L.A. Times reporter, we saw this series in the San Jose Mercury Newsand kind of wonder[ed] how legit it was and kind of put it under a microscope. And we did it in a way that most of us who were involved in it, I think, would look back on that and say it was overkill. We had this huge team of people at the L.A. Times and kind of piled on to one lone muckraker up in Northern California.”

Schou, too, readily concedes there were problems with Webb’s reporting, but maintains that the most important components of his investigation stood up to scrutiny, only to be buried under the attacks from the nation’s biggest papers.

“I think it’s fair to take a look at the story objectively and say that it could have been better edited, it could have been packaged better, it would have been less inflammatory. And sure, maybe Gary could have, like, actually put in the story somewhere ‘I called the CIA X-amount of times and they didn’t respond.’ That wasn’t in there,” he said. “But these are all kind of minor things compared to the bigger picture, which is that he documented for the first time in the history of U.S. media how CIA complicity with Central American drug traffickers had actually impacted the sale of drugs north of the border in a very detailed, accurate story. And that’s, I think, the take-away here.”

As for Webb’s tragic death, Schou is certain it was a direct consequence of the smear campaign against him.

“As much as it’s true that he suffered from a clinical depression for years and years — and even before ‘Dark Alliance’ to a certain extent — it’s impossible to view what happened to him without understanding the death of his career as a result of this story,” he explained. “It was really the central defining event of his career and of his life.”

“Once you take away a journalist’s credibility, that’s all they have,” Schou says. “He was never able to recover from that.”

In “Managing a Nightmare,” Dujmovic attributed the initial outcry over the “Dark Alliance” series to “societal shortcomings” that are not present in the spy agency.

“As a personal post-script, I would submit that ultimately the CIA-drug story says a lot more about American society on the eve of the millennium that [sic] it does about either the CIA or the media,” he wrote. “We live in somewhat coarse and emotional times–when large numbers of Americans do not adhere to the same standards of logic, evidence, or even civil discourse as those practiced by members of the CIA community.”

Webb obviously saw things differently. He reflected on his fall from grace in the 2002 book, Into the Buzzsaw. Prior to “Dark Alliance,” Webb said, “I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, and judging journalism contests.”

“And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I’d enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn’t been, as I’d assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job,” Webb wrote. “The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn’t written anything important enough to suppress.”
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Methamphetamine
1 A Schedule II drug, methamphetamine is an extremely powerful amphetamine. The effects are long-lasting, and users have been known to stay awake for days on end during binges; these potent stimulant effects are the reason the drug is often labeled as a "club drug." Methamphetamine is produced in illegal laboratories and in larger "superlabs" across the United States, particularly in California, Arizona, Utah, and Texas.2 However, the expansion of Mexico-based traffickers and the growth of independent U.S.-based laboratories have dramatically increased in the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and some portions of the Southeast; production and availability is also beginning to spread to the Northeast.3

4 Methamphetamine has also been used in the treatment of obesity.5 It first came to the United States in the 1930's.6 Use of the drug surged in the 1950's and 1960's, when users began injecting more frequently. The drug was outlawed as a part of the U.S. Drug Abuse and Regulation Control Act of 1970. Production and trafficking soared again in the 1990's in relation to organized crime in the Southwestern United States and Mexico.7

Back to Top
8

9 Methamphetamine causes a release of dopamine and serotonin, producing the intense rush that users feel. Even after the initial rush subsides, the brain remains in an alert state and keeps the user's body on edge. After the effects have worn off, the brain is depleted of its dopamine, and depression is a common result. Methamphetamine easily hooks users because the highs are so intense and the lows are so awful. In addition, regular users build up a tolerance to the drug's effects, needing more of the drug to feel the original effect. Furthermore, methamphetamine can be extremely addictive. Methamphetamine appears to have neurotoxic (brain-damaging) effects, destroying brain cells that contain dopamine and serotonin.10 Over time, abuse appears to cause reduced levels of dopamine, which can result in symptoms like those of Parkinson's disease. 11 Methamphetamine also stimulates locomotor activity (i.e. - reflexes, basic physical movements) and produces "stereotypic behaviors" - random, repetitive, compulsive movements and actions such as twitching or picking at the skin - as a side effect.12

13 High doses or chronic use have been associated with increased nervousness, irritability, paranoia, and occasionally violent behavior, while withdrawal from high doses generally leads to severe depression. Chronic abuse produces a psychosis similar to schizophrenia and is characterized by paranoia, picking at the skin, self-absorption, auditory and visual hallucinations, and sometimes episodes of violence.

Back to Top
14 These physical signs are more difficult to identify if the tweaker has been using a depressant such as alcohol; however, if the tweaker has been using a depressant, his or her negative feelings - including paranoia and frustration - can increase substantially. A person should use extreme caution when dealing with an individual on methamphetamine.

15


The following effects are traits that methamphetamine users demonstrate while under the influence of the drug:

  • Brief rush, euphoria, surge of energy
  • Increased physical activity
  • Increased blood pressure and breathing rate
  • Dangerously elevated body temperature
  • Loss of appetite
  • Sleeplessness
  • Paranoia, irritability
  • Unpredictable behavior
  • Performing repetitive, meaningless tasks
  • Dilated pupils
  • Heavy sweating
  • Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
  • Tremors
  • Dry mouth, bad breath
  • Headache
  • Uncontrollable jaw clenching
  • Seizures, sudden death
Back to Top
17


These negative effects can onset during or after methamphetamine intoxication:

  • Damaged nerve terminals in the brain
  • Brain damage similar to Parkinson's or Alzheimer's Diseases
  • High blood pressure
  • Prolonged anxiety, paranoia, insomnia
  • Psychotic behavior, violence, auditory hallucinations and delusions
  • Homicidal or suicidal thoughts
  • Weakened immune system
  • Cracked teeth
  • Sores, skin infections, acne
  • Strokes, heart infections, lung disease, kidney damage, liver damage
  • Increased risk behavior, especially if drug is injected
  • When used by a pregnant woman, premature birth; babies suffer cardiac defects, cleft palate, and other birth defects
  • Death
18 In addition, users may have cracked teeth due to extreme jaw-clenching during a methamphetamine high.

19


  • Slang Terms for Methamphetamine:
    Meth, Crystal Meth, Crystal, Speed, Crank, Ice, Glass, Chalk, Redneck Cocaine, Yellow Powder, Yellow Barn, Tina, Tick-Tick, Spoosh, Scootie
  • Slang Terms for Smokable Methamphetamine:
    Hot Ice, Super Ice, L.A. Glass, L.A. Ice, Quartz, Batu, Hanyak, Hiropon

Methamphetamine History

Methamphetamine is a dangerous, addictive drug that has impacted the lives of many people since the early 1900s. At this point in time it is illegal, but it actually started off as a legal, medically prescribed drug. Its potential for abuse was realized, and the drug became illegal in 1970. It is still sometimes prescribed for medical uses, and in those cases it is legal, but those cases are very rare. This methamphetamine history explains how the drug got to where it is today.

It Started with Amphetamine…
The history of methamphetamine begins with a Romanian chemist at the University of Berlin. Named Lazar Edeleanu, this chemist synthesized amphetamine in 1887. Meth derives from amphetamine, and would not be made possible without this discovery. According to The University of Arizona, however, amphetamine was not used clinically until the 1920s. At that point, Gordon A. Alles re-synthesized it and it became used to treat asthma, hayfever, and colds.

meth-prescription-250x172.jpg

Meth was once prescribed as a medication, and amphetamines were also more widely prescribed.

Amphetamines were first mainly used as bronchial dilators in the form of an inhaler. Narcolepsy, obesity, and fatigue were also common uses of the medication. According to the Utah Department of Public Safety, non-asthmatics would remove inhaler strips wit amphetamine on them and soak them in their coffee during the Depression and Prohibition.

…Then Came Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine was first synthesized in 1919 by Nagayoshi Nagai, a Japanese chemist. It is a variant of amphetamine that was synthesized from the precursor ephedrine. According to the Vermont Department of Health and other sources, it was not used much until World War II. At that time Japanese, American, English and German military forces began giving it to their personnel to promote endurance and keep off fatigue.

Methamphetamine was also given to Japanese factory workers to enable them to work longer hours. After the war, the Japanese government had large stores of methamphetamine that they made available in over-the-counter medications. According to the University of Arizona this is where and when the first meth epidemic took place. The Japanese meth epidemic peaked in the mid-1950s.

According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, the Burroughs Wellcome company introduced methamphetamine tablets to commercial markets in 1940. Under the name Methedrine, methamphetamine was prescribed for a variety of uses. Its use did not spread as rapidly as in Japan because it still required a prescription, whereas in Japan it was available over the counter.

History of Methamphetamine Abuse
It did not take long for methamphetamine abuse to grow in the United States and other parts of the world, however. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) reports that “civilian use of amphetamine and methamphetamine began to escalate in the late 1950s and early 1960s with its appearance in other forms.” While these other forms (Dexedine, Dexamyl, Desoxyn and Biphetamine) were only available by prescription, they leaked onto the illegal market as drugs with abuse potential tend to do. According to the NCJRS, by the 1970s methamphetamines and amphetamines were the most widely abused drugs in the USA after marijuana.

Motorcycle gangs in the US are associated with the rise in meth abuse, and they are thought to have been primary actors in the drug’s distribution. However, until the late 1960s methamphetamine was used by many people for different reasons ranging from women looking to lose weight, truck drivers and college students seeking energy, and by others just to get high.

By this time, the methamphetamine abuse problem had grown so large that it became apparent something had to be done. In 1963 the US Department of Justice and the California Attorney General “requested that injectable ampoules of amphetamine products be removed from the market”, according to NCJRS. Soon after the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act classified amphetamine and methamphetamine as Schedule II drugs, and made methamphetamine illegal to possess without a prescription. In the following two decades prescriptions for amphetamines and methamphetamine dropped dramatically, which also meant that less of the drugs were diverted to the streets.

According to the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, illicit methamphetamine use and manufacture was largely kept in California until the 1980s. Since then it has spread throughout the United States, and an estimated 4.7 million Americans have tried meth at some point in their lives. Now meth proves to be a big issue in the US, with emergency room visits related to the drug on the rise and its use becoming more widespread. Meth abuse is very dangerous, and causes problems for the person using it, their loved ones, and society in general.

Timeline of Methamphetamine History
  • 1887: Amphetamine synthesized
  • 1919: Methamphetamine developed
  • 1920s: Use of amphetamines begins in medical settings
  • 1932: Benzedrine, the amphetamine-based inhaler becomes available
  • 1939-1945: Methampetamine and amphetamine are used by many different governments to enhance their military soldiers during WWII
  • 1945 – mid-1950s: Japan makes methamphetamine available over-the-counter, begins the first meth epidemic in Japan
  • 1950s-1960s: Amphetamine and methamphetamine prescriptions rise in US, become available under different trade names. Most widespread use is in California
  • 1963: Injectable amphetamine products removed from legal market
  • 1967: Peak in amphetamine prescriptions in the USA
  • 1970: Amphetamine and methamphetamine classified as Schedule II drugs of abuse by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, methamphetamine becomes illegal to have without a prescription
  • 1980s – 1990s: Amphetamine and methamphetamine prescriptions drop significantly
  • 1990s: New methods for producing meth created, some versions can create it to be much stronger. Meth use spreads to the Southwest, West, and rural Midwest
  • 1996: Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act passed by Congress which regulates the sale of some chemicals used to make methamphetamine
  • 2000 – Present Day: Methamphetamine use continues to spread and is now found throughout much of the United States. Emergency room visits associated with the drug increase as do addiction treatment admissions




 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Amphetamines
1 The collective group of amphetamines includes amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methamphetamine.2 Amphetamine is made up of two distinct compounds: pure dextroamphetamine and pure levoamphetamine. Since dextroamphetamine is more potent than levoamphetamine, pure dextroamphetamine is also more potent than the amphetamine mixture.3 Medications containing amphetamines are prescribed for narcolepsy, obesity, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.4 Prescription names for these medications include Adderall©, Dexedrine©, DextroStat©, and Desoxyn©.5 The basic molecule of amphetamine can be modified to emphasize specific actions—such as appetite suppressant, CNS stimulant, and cardiovascular actions—for certain medications, including diethylproprion, fenfluramine, methylphenidate (commonly known as the prescription drugs Ritalin© or Concerta©), and phenmetrazine.6 Both methylphenidate and amphetamine have been in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act since 1971.7In medical use, there is controversy about whether the benefits of amphetamines prescribed for ADHD and weight loss outweigh the drug's harmful side effects. There is agreement, however, that prescription amphetamines are successful in treating narcolepsy.8 "Look-alike" drugs, which imitate the effects of amphetamines and contain substances legally available over-the-counter, including caffeine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, are sold on the street as "speed" and "uppers."9

10 Oral and intravenous preparations of amphetamine derivatives, including methamphetamine, were developed and became available for therapeutic purposes. During World War II, the military in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan used amphetamines to increase alertness and endurance and to improve mood.11 Abuse began rising during the 1960s and 1970s with the discovery that the intravenous injection of amphetamines (particularly methamphetamine) produced enhanced euphoric effects with a more rapid onset than oral administration. Although structurally similar to amphetamine, methamphetamine has more pronounced effects on the CNS.12Between 1986 and 1989, law enforcement and treatment admission professionals in Hawaii reported that abuse of a concentrated form of methamphetamine (known as "ice," "glass," and "crystal") was increasing.13

Back to Top
14

15 When mixed with alcohol or other drugs, the effects of prescription amphetamines are enhanced.16 The onset of effects from injecting methamphetamines occurs immediately. When this drug is snorted, effects occur within 3 to 5 minutes; when ingested orally, effects occur within 15 to 20 minutes.17

Back to Top
1819
  • Increased diastolic/systolic blood pressure
  • Increased activity/talkativeness
  • Euphoria
  • Heightened sense of well-being
  • Decreased fatigue/drowsiness
  • Decreased appetite20
  • Dry mouth
  • Dilated pupils
  • Increased respiration
  • Heightened alertness/energy21
  • Nausea
  • Headache
  • Palpitations
  • Altered sexual behavior
  • Tremor/twitching of small muscles22
  • Release of social inhibitions
  • Unrealistic feelings of cleverness, great competence, and power23
Back to Top
24
  • Dizziness
  • Pounding heartbeat
  • Difficulty breathing
  • Mood or mental changes
  • Unusual tiredness or weakness25
  • Cardiac arrhythmias
  • Repetitive motor activity
  • Convulsions, coma, and death26
  • Ulcers
  • Malnutrition
  • Mental illness
  • Skin disorders
  • Vitamin deficiency
  • Flush or pale skin
  • Loss of coordination and physical collapse27
34 When prescription amphetamines are taken orally and in low doses, drug abuse and addiction is not a serious risk. However, drug addiction becomes a risk when prescription amphetamines are consumed at doses higher than those prescribed for medical treatment.35 Abuse of amphetamines, which can lead to tolerance and physical and psychological dependence, is characterized by consuming increasingly higher dosages, and by the "binge and crash" cycle, when users attempt to maintain their high by overindulging on these drugs.36 When binge episodes end, the abuser "crashes" and is left with severe depression, anxiety, extreme fatigue, and a craving for more drugs.37 The chronic abuse of amphetamine and methamphetamine is characterized by violent and erratic behavior, as well as a psychosis similar to schizophrenia, that can involve paranoia, picking at the skin, and auditory/visual hallucinations. All forms of methamphetamine are highly addictive and toxic.38

28
  • Street dextroamphetamine:
    dexies
  • Street methamphetamine:
    chalk, chris, crank, cristy, crystal, crystal meth, go, go-fast, meth, speed, and zip29
  • Concentrated methamphetamine hydrochloride:
    ice, crystal, and glass30
  • Combinations:
    Amphetamines and barbiturates: goofballs
    Methamphetamine and heroin: speedballs
  • Use and users:
    Speed run: increasing doses of injectable methamphetamine taken over several days or weeks31
    Speeders or speed freaks: serial speed users32; methamphetamine users who inject their drugs intravenously33
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Phencyclidine (PCP)
1 It is currently a Schedule II controlled substance.

2, and subsequently was used in veterinary medicine as a tranquilizer.3 By 1965, use with humans was discontinued as clinical studies revealed that patients experienced delusions, severe anxiety and agitation when emerging from the drug's effects.4, 5 Today, use even in the veterinary community is rare, though small amounts continue to be manufactured for research purposes.6

Manufactured in clandestine laboratories, PCP emerged as a substance of abuse in the mid-1960's. It often appeared in pill form and was known as "The PeaCe Pill," a term that contributed to the acronym PCP.7 It's use spread in the 1970's and peaked around 1978 as snorting or smoking (giving users a more immediate high) the powder form of PCP became more popular.8

Back to Top
9 Today we can add MDMA and formaldehyde to that list.

According to the DEA, in 2000, law enforcement agencies reported that some pills sold as MDMA or ecstasy actually contain PCP or a combination of PCP and other substances.10 The website EcstasyData.org, which provides results of laboratory tests done on pills sold as ecstasy, confirms that PCP has been found with other drugs in pills that had been sold as ecstasy across the country. Pills with such names as "green kryptonite," "orange pokemon," and "purple tear drops" contained ketamine, pseudo/ephedrine, caffeine, or methamphetamine in addition to PCP, but contain little or no MDMA.11

Some drug users claim they dip marijuana or tobacco cigarettes in embalming fluid (known as "loveboat" or "dippers") to enhance the high. While these users believe that what they are smoking has been treated with formaldehyde, researchers speculate that this fluid is actually PCP, sometimes referred to as "embalming fluid," or formaldhyde cut with PCP. Some who use loveboat experience effects very similar to the effects of PCP, including delusions, difficulty concentrating, and agitation. It is difficult to substantiate these suspicions, and researchers have called for further analysis.12

13 When the powder form is snorted or sprinkled on marijuana, parsley, or mint, and smoked, the effects are felt within 2 to 5 minutes and last four to six hours.14, 15 Users dip tobacco or marijuana cigarettes in liquid PCP and smoke it as well.16 PCP can be pressed into pills or put in capsules and swallowed; when ingested orally, effects are felt in 30 to 60 minutes and last 6 to 24 hours.17 Injection of PCP appears to be uncommon.

Back to Top
18

23

The following psychological effects may occur and vary in intensity depending on the dosage. Doses of less than 5 mg may produce milder effects, while doses of 10 mg or more may lead to more intense and erratic behavior.24
  • Mild to intense euphoria
  • Relaxation or drowsiness
  • Feelings of unreality and dissociation with the environment
  • Distorted sense of ones body, including a feeling of weightlessness
  • Distorted sense of time and space
  • Visual and auditory hallucinations and other sensory distortions
  • Difficulty concentrating and thinking
  • Anxiety
  • Agitation
  • Paranoid thoughts
  • Confusion and disorientation
  • Intense feelings of alienation
  • Depression
  • Bizarre or hostile behavior
  • Obsession with trivial matters
  • Grandiose delusions
  • Panic, terror, and the overwhelming fear of imminent death
The physical effects may also vary in intensity with the dose.25
  • Impaired motor skills
  • Blurred vision and constricted pupils
  • Dizziness
  • Painful reaction to sound
  • Blank staring
  • Speech disturbances, ranging from difficulty articulating to incoherent speech or inability to speak
  • Muscular rigidity
  • Decreased sensitivity and awareness of pain, touch, and position
  • Stupor or coma
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Alternately abnormally low and abnormally high blood pressure
  • Slow, shallow, and irregular breathing
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Salivation
  • Increased body temperature and sweating alternating with chills and shivering
  • Very high doses may result in an overdose and lead to coma, convulsions, or death
Back to Top
26

  • "Runs" - Chronic users may binge use PCP, taking it repeatedly for 2 or 3 days at a time without eating or sleeping, followed by a period of sleep. These runs may occur as many as four times in a month.
  • Impaired memory
  • "Flashbacks" similar to those experienced by chronic LSD users
  • Persistent speech problems, such as stuttering, inability to articulate, or the inability to speak at all
  • Chronic and severe anxiety and depression, possibly leading to suicide attempts
  • Social withdrawal and isolation
  • Toxic psychosis may appear in chronic users who do not have a prior history of psychiatric disturbances. The symptoms of toxic psychosis are aggressive or hostile behavior, paranoia, delusional thinking and auditory hallucinations.
27 Additionally, someone under the influence of PCP is often unaware of the dangers and limitations they face, and may react to physical confrontations in a way that makes it seem as though they have extraordinary muscular strength.28

29

Back to Top
30


  • Straight PCP:
    Angel Dust
    Amoeba
    Amp
    Belladonna
    Animal Trank
    Zoom
    Peace Pills
    Boat
    Sherm Sticks
    Super Grass
    STP
    Embalming Fluid
  • Marijuana/PCP Combination:
    Wet
    Dust Blunt
    Happy Stick
    Fry Sticks
    Love Boat
    Illy
    Dippers
  • PCP and MDMA:
    Elephant Flipping
    Pikachu
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Tobacco
1 In addition to nicotine, tobacco contains thousands of other chemicals and additives to enhance the effects and flavor of the tobacco. Many of these chemicals are known to cause cancer and various other ailments. Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States today, causing more than 430,000 deaths per year.

2

3

Snuff use was very popular in 18th Century Europe, but by the 19th century cigars had become the primary tobacco product. In the mid-1800's, Philip Morris, J.E. Liggett, and R.J. Reynolds began their tobacco companies. Then came the invention of matches and cigarette rolling machines. Cigarette use began to skyrocket. During World War I soldiers were provided with free cigarettes. Between 1910 and 1920, per capita consumption of cigarettes increased from 94 to 419 per year.3 The link between cigarette smoking and cancer was already evident. In 1930, the lung cancer rate for white men in the U.S. was 4.9 per 100,000. By 1948, the rate had increased to 27.1 per 100,000.3

The rapid increase in smoking and its health consequences led Congress to mandate in 1965 that a Surgeon General's warning appear on every pack of cigarettes. In the 1970's, airlines began offering nonsmoking sections on flights, and smoking was prohibited in many public spaces. In the 1980's, research revealed that secondhand smoke, as well as smokeless tobacco, have serious health consequences, including cancer. The 1990's saw a great deal of legal action taken against the major tobacco companies as well as numerous campaigns to inform the public about the dangers of smoking. In 1999, the Philip Morris Tobacco Company recognized that "there is an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers... there is no safe cigarette... cigarette smoking is addictive." 3Around this time, major tobacco companies began to confess to the fact that they had been focusing their advertising campaigns toward young people.

Back to Top
3 Nicotine from chewing tobacco takes a little longer to reach the brain, as it must first be absorbed into the bloodstream through the gums. At any rate, when nicotine reaches the brain, it acts as a stimulant, causing the brain to release excess neurotransmitters including dopamine - a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and motivation. A person can become addicted to nicotine even after just a few uses because the brain adjusts itself and develops a level of nicotine tolerance that the addict must reach in order to maintain the feeling of comfort. Once this comfort level has been established, a lack of nicotine in the brain will cause uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms in the user. These withdrawal symptoms can make the user edgy and irritable, and using tobacco while in this state will have a sedative effect on the user. 4 It is important to note that smoking, whether it is called "social smoking" or simply trying a cigarette, can easily lead to an addiction.

Back to Top
5


Short-Term Effects of Smoking
  • Addiction to nicotine
  • Damage to the respiratory system
  • Decreased lung capacity
  • Chronic cough
  • Bronchitis, asthma
  • Bad breath; bad taste in mouth
  • Smelly hair and clothes
  • Yellow or brown stains on teeth
  • Increased likelihood of drug use and risky behavior
  • Death from fire - the #1 cause of death from fire is smoking
Short-Term Effects of Chewing Tobacco
  • Addiction to nicotine
  • Receding gums; permanent gum loss
  • Sensitive teeth
  • Tooth decay
  • Sores, patches, and lumps in mouth
  • Bad breath; bad taste in mouth
  • Stains on clothing
  • Excess saliva production; drooling
  • Stained teeth
6


As stated before, smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Long-term tobacco use brings very serious health risks to the user. About 181,000 people die each year in the United States from smoking-related heart disease and stroke, 158,000 die from smoking-related cancer, and about 123,000 die from other lung diseases.

Heart Problems:
Tobacco use has many adverse effects on the heart, including hypertension (high blood pressure), blocked blood vessels, heart attacks, weakened pumping of the heart, narrow arteries leading to heart attack and death. In addition, weakened bloodflow to the brain can cause strokes.

Cancers:
Several types of cancers commonly afflict the tobacco user. Lung, upper respiratory tract, and cervical cancers are primarily found in smokers while stomach cancer is mainly found in chewing tobacco users. Other cancers that can attack users of both forms of tobacco include cancers of the larynx, mouth, throat, pancreas, kidney, and bladder.

Lung Disease:
Smoking causes chronic bronchitis, changing the size and shape of the airways of the lungs, enlarging the mucous glands, and causing coughing and production of excess phlegm. It is also the leading cause of emphysema, a lung condition marked by an abnormal increase in the size of the air spaces, resulting in labored breathing and an increased susceptibility to infection.

Other Health Problems:
Tobacco use can cause reproductive damage, including abnormal sperm cells and impotence in men and menstrual disorders, early menopause, and difficulty maintaining pregnancy in women. Smoking during pregnancy can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight, premature birth, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Children born to women who smoked during pregnancy can develop upper respiratory problems, ear complications, asthma, and learning and behavior problems. Other damage that long-term tobacco use can cause includes prematurely wrinkled skin, gum and tooth loss, lost or weakened sense of taste and smell, weakened immune system, stomach ulcers, and unwanted weight fluctuation.

The Guardian Newspapers Web site has a very cool interactive guide to smoking and health. Roll over the corpse to see the different effects smoking has on the human body.

Back to Top
7

Today there are many treatments available for someone trying to kick the habit. Nicotine replacement treatments such as nicotine gum and patches can help relieve cravings, and recently nicotine nasal sprays, inhalers, and mints have been introduced. Also, the antidepressant bupropion (Zyban) has been shown to be an effective treatment for limiting tobacco cravings.8

There are also behavioral treatments that can help train a person to avoid smoking. In general, behavioral methods are used to identify high-risk relapse situations, create an aversion to smoking, develop self-monitoring of smoking behavior, and establish coping responses. Behavioral and nicotine-replacement therapies can both be successful and even more so when used together. However, the harsh reality is that over 90 percent of the people who try to quit smoking either relapse or return to smoking within one year, with the large majority relapsing within a week.8
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Tobacco timeline


  • From Marlboro Man to smoking ban: a timeline of tobacco in America
    As a town in Massachusetts debates a ban on the sale of all tobacco products, we look back on the history of tobacco in America
    madmen_3082344b.jpg




    America and tobacco are and always have been inextricably linked.

    America’s cultural icons – from Texas cowboys to New York gangsters – have long been associated with smoking.

    The American South provided the lion’s share of the world’s tobacco for centuries, and the US continues to be one of the world's largest producers.

    However in more recent times America has been in the headlines not for growing tobacco, but for banning it.

    So how did the country of smoke-filled back rooms become the land of smoke-free streets, parks and, well, just about everything else?

    1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in the Bahamas, and is given dried tobacco leaves by native tribes as a token of friendship. Members of Columbus’ crew describe Cuban natives smoking tobacco from pipes.

    columbus_1772950c.jpg

    Getty

    1612: Early British settlers in Virginia, finding other crops unprofitable, experiment with tobacco plants. By 1640 tobacco is by far the most profitable export of the American colonies, with 1,500,000lbs shipped from Virginia to England annually.

    18th century- dominant tobacco product: snuff

    1776: Tobacco serves as a chief source of funding – and motivation – for America’s fight for independence from Britain. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other influential figures of the time owned large tobacco plantations, and had found themselves in severe debt to British tobacco merchants prior to the war.

    Washington__1385004c.jpg

    George Washington

    19th century- dominant products: chewing tobacco and cigars

    1880s: The first regulations on the use of tobacco take effect in various US states, as scattered reports emerge of health concerns for smokers. The majority of America’s states ban the sale of cigarettes to minors during the second half of the 19th century.

    20th century- dominant product: cigarettes

    1900s: Four states outlaw the sale of cigarettes, and the Anti-Cigarette League of America pushes for further bans. Despite that fact, 4.4 billion cigarettes are sold in 1900 alone.

    al-capone_2889893c.jpg

    By the 20th century cigarettes dominated the tobacco market, despite Al Capone's preference for cigars. Photo: Rex Features

    1918: A generation of American men return from the First World War addicted to smoking. One American general reports that cigarette rations had been as important to the troops as bullets. Tobacco consumption spikes after the war.

    1955: CBS airs the first TV news segment alleging links between smoking and lung cancer. Two years later the US Surgeon General releases a report tying tobacco to cancer, the first time the US government had taken a position on the subject.

    1965: Congress passes legislation forcing tobacco companies to put health warnings on packs of cigarettes.

    cigarettes_1569225c.jpg

    Photo: PA

    1970: President Richard Nixon signs a measure which bans cigarette advertising on radio and television.

    1975: Minnesota becomes the first US state to ban smoking in public, except in designated areas.

    1987: Beverly Hills, California and Aspen, Colorado ban smoking in restaurants. Several towns and cities across the country follow suit.

    Beverly_Hills_hote_3004791c.jpg

    Picture: Robert Harding World Imagery / Alamy

    1990: Smoking is banned on domestic flights across the United States.

    1993: Incoming President Bill Clinton prohibits smoking in the White House.

    2007: The Motion Picture Association of America announces that the use of tobacco in films will impact parental guidance ratings.

    lauren_bacall_3106355a.png


    Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart. (Photo: SNAP/Rex Features)

    2011: New York City bans smoking in public areas, including Times Square and Central Park.

    2014: The town of Westminster, Massachusetts debates a measure which would make it illegal to sell all tobacco products.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Alcohol
1 Though many consider alcohol to have stimulant effects, it is actually classified as a depressant - a substance that slows the central nervous system. Other purposes for ethyl alcohol include uses as a chemical solvent, a local anesthetic, and an irritant.

When a person drinks an alcoholic beverage, it is very unlikely that he or she is actually drinking pure alcohol; pure alcohol is extremely potent and takes only a few ounces to raise a person's blood alcohol level into the danger zone. The ethanol concentration for common types of alcoholic drinks is as follows:2

  • Beer: 4-6%
  • Malt liquor: 5-8%
  • Wine: 7-15%
  • Wine coolers: 5-10%
  • Champagne: 8-14%
  • Hard liquor (Distilled spirits - vodka, rum, whiskey...): 40-95%
  • Grain Alcohol: 95-97.5%
A standard drink contains 12 grams of pure ethanol - approximately the amount found in one 12 oz. beer, one 5 oz. glass of wine, or one 1.5 oz. 'shot' of hard liquor.

  • Beer 12 Oz. (1 Can or bottle)
  • Wine 5 Oz. (1 Glass)
  • Hard Liquor 1.5 Oz. (1 Shot)
In general, it takes the average drinker's body one hour to metabolize one drink. As the amount of alcohol consumed exceeds the body's ability to metabolize it, the user's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) increases, and he or she begins to feel the effects of alcohol intoxication. As one's BAC continues to increase, the user will experience different levels of intoxication.

Back to Top
3
  • Slowed reaction times and reflexes
  • Poor motor coordination
  • Blurred vision
  • Slurred speech
  • Lowered inhibitions and increase in risk behavior
  • Lowered reasoning ability, impaired judgment
  • Memory loss
  • Confusion, anxiety, restlessness
  • Slowed heart rate, reduced blood pressure
  • Slowed breathing rate
  • Heavy sweating
  • Nausea and vomiting
  • Dehydration – a leading cause of condom breakage
  • Coma
  • Death from respiratory arrest
A person who consistently uses alcohol over a period of time will develop a tolerance to the effects of drinking; that is, it takes progressively more alcohol to achieve the same effects. Over time, that person may grow dependent on alcohol, and in some cases this can lead to a vicious cycle of addiction.

Back to Top
4
  • Liver Damage
  • Accumulation of fat in the liver
  • Cirrhosis – heavy scarring of the liver prevents blood flow; usually fatal
  • Alcoholic hepatitis – swelling of liver cells, causing blockage; sometimes fatal
  • Liver cancer
  • Heart Damage
  • High blood pressure
  • Coronary disease – narrowing of the arteries, leading to heart attack or death
  • Enlarged heart
  • Irregular heartbeat, which can lead to heart attack or death
  • Decreased blood flow to the arms and legs
  • Stroke – blocked blood flow to the brain
  • Brain Damage
  • Lowered cognitive abilities
  • Destruction of brain cells, producing brain deterioration and atrophy
  • Mental disorders – increased aggression, antisocial behavior, depression, anxiety
  • Damage to sense of balance, causing more accidental injuries
  • Bone Damage
  • Bone growth that normally takes place in teenage years is stunted
  • Osteoporosis – severe back pain, spine deformity, increased risk of fractures
  • Pancreas Damage
  • Pancreatitis – Inflammation of the pancreas, causing abdominal pain, weight loss, and sometimes death
  • Cancer
  • Alcoholism increases a person’s chances of developing a variety of cancers of the pancreas, liver, breasts, colon, rectum, mouth, pharynx, and esophagus.
  • Sexual Problems
  • Reduced sperm count and mobility, as well as sperm abnormality
  • Menstrual difficulties, irregular/absent cycles, and decreased fertility
  • Early menopause
  • Birth Defects
  • Drinking any alcohol during pregnancy can cause permanent, severe damage, by putting the child at risk for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Back to Top
5

Two-thirds of alcoholics are men; however, the negative effects of heavy drinking are more severe for women. Female alcoholics are more likely to suffer alcohol-related damages and diseases than alcoholic men.6

Back to Top
7

  • Getting drunk repeatedly
  • Continuing to drink when others have called it quits
  • Comments and attitudes of peers indicating concern on their part for your drinking
  • Drinking due to a compelling need for alcohol when lonely, depressed, anxious, etc.
  • Experiencing blackouts
  • Feeling more comfortable under the influence of alcohol than when sober
  • Increasing tolerance and decreased hangover symptoms
  • Out-of-character behavior
  • A pattern of negative consequences associated with alcohol use
  • Rationalizing/excusing the need for alcohol and becoming defensive when others express concern

An Alcohol History Timeline

timeline.jpg

A timeline of interesting moments in the history of Alcohol.

8000 B.C.
In persia and the Middle East, a fermented drink is produced from honey and wild yeasts.

6000 B.C.
Viticulture, the cultivation of grapevines for making wine, is believed to originate in the mountains between the black and Caspian seas.

4000 B.C.
Wine making is established in Mesopotamia (which is present day Iraq).

3000 B.C.
Both beer and wine are produced in ancient Egypt; wine production and trade become an important part of Mediterranean commerce.

800 B.C.
Barley and rice beer are produced in India.

625
Islamic Prophet Muhammad orders his followers to abstain from alcohol.

1100
A medical school in Italy documents alcohol distillation. The product is named “spirits.”

1516
Germany passes a beer purity law, making it illegal to make beer with anything but barley, hops and pure water.

1600-1625
During the reign of James I in England, numerous writers describe widespread drunkenness from beer and wine.

1789
The first American temperance society is formed in Litchfield, Connecticut, with the goal of reducing alcohol consumption. Similar societies soon follow in other states.

1791
The act of 1791 (popularly called the “Whiskey Tax”) enacts a tax on both publicly and privately distilled whiskey in the United States.

1793
During the whiskey rebellion of Pennsylvania, government troops arrest a handful of distillery leaders who refused to pay taxes on their products.

1802
The Whiskey tax is repealed.

1814-1817
A new alcohol tax is temporarily imposed in the united States to help pay for the War of 1812.

1850s
New York Bartenders invent the cocktail.

1860
In the United States 1,138 legal alcohol distilleries are operating and producing 88 million gallons of liquor per year.

1862
Abraham Lincoln imposes a new tax on liquor to help pay the bills from the Civil War.

1884
Laws are enacted to make anti alcohol teaching compulsory in public schools in New York State. The following year similar laws are passed in Pennsylvania, with other states soon following.

1906
The Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, regulating the labeling of products containing alcohol.

1910
New York introduces the first drunk-driving laws.

1920
The passage of the 18th Amendment (prohibition) and the Volstead Act effectively outlaw the production, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States. (Alcohol was also illegal in Finland from 1919 to 1932 and in various Canadian provinces at various times between 1900 and 1948.)

1920-1933
The illicit alcohol trade booms in the United States.

1933
Prohibition is repealed; most states restrict youth under 18 (the minimum voting age) from possessing or consuming alcoholic beverages.

1935
Alcoholics Anonymous is established; the American Medical Association passes a resolution declaring that alcoholics are valid patients.

1944
The U.S. Public Health Service labels alcoholism the fourth-largest health problem.

1964
The Grand Rapids study shows that the risk of an automobile crash increases as more alcohol is consumed.

1970-1975
The minimum drinking age is lowered in 29 states from 21 to 18, 19 or 20 following the enactment of the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which lowers the legal voting age to 18.

1980
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is established with the goal of reducing alcohol-related highway fatalities.

2000
A new federal law requires states to pass legislation making it a crime to drive with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above .08 percent.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The History of Kratom

A native plant to southeast Asia, kratom (Mitragyna Speciosa) can be found growing wildly across Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Borneo. It has been harvested for centuries for it’s its, mood elevation, calming and stimulating properties. Kratom is still a natural solution many seek out today, as a componentin their holistic health toolbox.

The Background of Kratom
Kratom has been used for thousands of years by local villagers for therapeutic reasons, but it didn’t gain attention outside of southeast Asia until the early 1880s when it was discovered and documented by botanist, Pieter Willem Korthals. Traditionally, kratom has been used by Thai peasants, laborers, and farmers. It’s illegal in two of its native regions, Thailand and Malaysia. There are many kratom users worldwide who voice strong opinions over ending the criminalization of kratom, and ending the corrupt political ties to its illegalization that favored the booming opium trade of the past century. Today, Kratom is legal in most U.S. states.

The Kratom Plant and Its Varieties
Kratom, a part of the Rubiaceae coffee tree family, comes in four primary species that originate in different regions in southeast Asia, and provide varying effects:

  • Bali—Gives a more relaxing effect at higher doses, and can be stimulating when taken in low doses.
  • Thai—The longest lasting and strongest of the varieties. It’s said to be calming.
  • Malaysia—Almost identical to Balinese kratom. You may hear the term “ketum” used to describe kratom from Malaysia.
  • Maeng Da—Maeng Da kratom translates to “pimp grade” kratom and originates from Thailand. It’s the strongest kratom strain available and is used for its energizing effects.
Kratom strains are further categorized by “vein:”

  • Red Vein—Longer lasting, and more relaxing and less stimulating than other strains
  • Green Vein—Energizing and uplifting
  • White Vein—Energizing and euphoric

Kratom
Contents
The Kratom leaf is a psychoactive, traditionally chewed to provide euphoria. Its leaves contain 7-Hydroxymitragynine and mitragynine which act as a μ-opioid receptor agonist like morphine, and can be used to treat chronic pain. The leaves are chewed as an opioid substitute and stimulant in Thailand and especially in the southern peninsula. Kratom is also used in neighboring countries in Southeast Asia where it grows naturally, primarily among the working class. As traditionally used, kratom is not seen as a drug and there is no stigma associated with kratom use or discrimination against kratom eaters. They can also be smoked, brewed as a tea, or made into an extract. It has a relatively long history of human use.



History
Kratom appears to have been used in Thailand for centuries, recreationally and as an antidiarrhetic. Its use as an opiate substitute in Malaysia was reported in the nineteenth century. Peasants have used it to counteract the tedium of physical labor, similar to the use of coca in South America. The chemistry of its alkaloids was investigated in the 1920s, and mitragynine was isolated in 1923. Kratom leaves became part of the ethnobotanical trade in the United States and Europe in mid 2000. In the early 2000s, stories about the use of kratom to reduce opiod withdrawal effects began circulating on web forums.

Overview of different strains
Bali- Euphoric and the most classic opiate like among the strains of kratom.

Maeng Da - Energizing and stimulating with pain killing effects.

Red Vein Thai- Similar to Bali with fewer negative side effects.

Super Indo- Similar to Bali with less euphoria.

Super Green Malaysian- Varies between suppliers but is typically more stimulating with little euphoria.

Ultra Enhanced Indo- Most euphoric of the extracts and works well for reducing social anxiety.

Thai Essence- Somewhat weaker than Ultra Enhanced Indo by weight with a bit of a Maeng Da kick.

Full Spectrum Tincture (FST) - The original likely had synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine but current formulations are basically Ultra Enhanced Indo in liquid form.

Dosage
Kratom leaves differ greatly in potency, depending on the type, grade, and freshness. Leaves with green veins are often claimed to be more potent than those with red veins, but there is contradictory evidence.

Oral (Enhanced)
Threshold 1g
Light 1-2g
Common 2-3g
Strong 3-6g
Oral (Super)
Threshold 1-2g
Light 2-4g
Common 3-5g
Strong 4-8g
Oral (Premium)
Threshold 2-4g
Light 3-5g
Common 4-10g
Strong 8-15g
Oral (Low Potency)
Threshold 3-7g
Light 5-10g
Common 10-20g
Strong 20-50g
Duration
Oral
Onset 5-15 minutes
Duration 2-5 hours
After-effects 3-6 hours
Effects
The effects of Mitragyna speciosa are described as being a combination of both stimulation and sedation. The stimulatory effects may be shorter in duration than the sedation effect, coming on faster and fading sooner.

Postive
  • Simultaneous stimulation & sedation
  • Feelings of empathy
  • Feelings of euphoria
  • Aphrodisiac qualities for some people
  • Vivid waking dreams
  • Useful with physical labor
  • Low doses can result in a lasting "glow" in some people, feeling better than normal the next day
  • Increases sociability and talkativeness
Neutral
  • Relatively short duration
  • Change in ability to focus eyes
  • Analgesia
Negative
  • Very bitter taste
  • Dizziness, nausea and/or vomiting at higher doses
  • Mild depression during and/or after
  • Increase in (perceived) body temperature. (feel hot and sweaty)
  • Hangover similar to alcohol, including headaches and sometimes nausea (at higher doses)
  • Desire to repeat experience more frequently than intended, can lead to addiction
  • Tolerance building quickly after a few days in a row of repeated use, tolerance to effects reduces with a one to three days of abstinence
  • Psychosis
  • Convulsions
  • Hallucinations
  • Confusion (rare)
  • Constipation (chronic use)
  • Darkening of the skin color of the face (chronic use)
Chronic users have also reported withdrawal symptoms including irritability, runny nose and diarrhea. Withdrawal is generally short-lived and mild, and it may be effectively treated with dihydrocodeine and lofexidine.

Harm Reduction
  • Do not drive or operate heavy machinery.
  • Do not combine with opioids.
  • Do not combine with benzodiazapines.
  • Do not combine with any other CNS depressant.
Chemistry and Pharmacology
Kratom leaves contain the indole alkaloids mitragynine, mitraphylline, 7-hydroxymitragynine, and numerous other alkaloids, including paynanthine, speciogynine, and speciofoline. Mitragynine has traditionally been cited as the primary active chemical in kratom leaves, but some recent evidence points to 7-hydroxymitragynine instead. The pharmacological effects of kratom on humans are not well studied. Its metabolic half-life, protein binding, and elimination characteristics are all unknown. Kratom behaves as a μ-opioid receptor agonist, similar to opiates like morphine, although its effects differ significantly from those of opiates.

Mitragynine is a partial agonist of the mu- and delta-opioid receptors. This may account for its apparent efficacy in treating opiate withdrawal (see Erowid). Because kratom acts as both a stimulant and a sedative, secondary alkaloids may be pharmacologically important.

Legal status
In late August of 2016 the DEA issued a statement indicating intention to place Kratom on Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act in the temporary scheduling category. The ban is set to come into effect September 30th 2016.

Kratom is currently a controlled substance in Thailand, Malaysia, Denmark, Israel, Myanmar, New Zealand, Romania, Russia and South Korea.
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
History of Codeine
poppy-plant.jpg


According to the World Health Organization, codeine is the most widely and commonly used opiate in the world. It is usually administered orally and has the reputation of being the safest of all the opioid analgesics. However, this can be misleading since this use of “safe” does not include the numbers of persons that become physically and mentally addicted after extended and repeated use.

The History of the Discovery and Manufacturing of Codeine
Opium, coming from the opium poppy plant, was popular in England as early as 1704. In those early days, opium was usually sold in elixirs such as paregoric, which were marketed as “pain soothers”. In 1804, a German pharmacist discovered how to isolate morphine from opium, which gave rise to the discovery in 1832 of codeine by Pierre Robiquet, a French chemist. The name, “codeine” comes from the Greek word that refers to the head of the poppy plant.

Chemist and pharmacist continued to be excited about the medicinal properties of opium and many drugs that are still used today were isolated from these early experiments. Codeine is the “least addictive and safest” of all of the opiate drugs prescribed today, which accounts for its being the most widely used drug within this category of analgesics (falling into a group of drugs that most people call “pain-killers”). (It should be remembered that being the least addictive and safest doesn’t mean that Codeine is not addictive or safe… more about this later.)

Drug manufacturers have had to depend on using the tar from opiate poppies to synthesize morphine, codeine and almost all of the other opiate-based drugs, which is a problem since President’s Nixon’s War on Drugs made it increasingly difficult to obtain these poppies that grow mostly in areas of the world that are unfriendly to America’s pharmaceutical interest, such as Afghanistan. Drug manufacturers have had to barter with heroin dealers for the purchase of this raw codeine product. This led chemists to the discovery of a method to synthesize codeine from coal tar, which eliminated the need for having the original black-tar opium and freed the drug companies from having to compete with the illicit drug cartels.

The History of Codeine Use
cough-syrup-codeine.jpg

The most common medical use of codeineis related to its ability to suppress or even end chronic coughing, medically called an antitussive. Almost all cough syrups in the United States that require a prescription contain codeine. All opiate compounds help reduce nausea and/or diarrhea and codeine is used in many of the compounds since it is the weakest opiate that will treat these symptoms without causing as many side effects and a lower probability of physical addiction.

Since codeine is considered the least strong or dangerous of the opiate pain-killers, many physicians and the public have the attitude that it is a very safe drug to take for a cough or diarrhea and because it works so quickly, many people will pressure their doctors to give them compounds of codeine for common-cold symptoms that could be treated with non-narcotic elixirs that have almost no side effects of problem.

This sense of safety with its use and the prescribing of codeine has led to many problems that could have been avoided by being more precautious about its use. Codeine is metabolized in the body and become morphine, which everyone knows is a dangerous drug. In fact, many people are labeled as being “ultra-rapid metabolizers”, which means that their bodies break down codeine into morphine much faster than the average. There are many recorded deaths in children that were given small doses of codeine after surgeries, which led to their suffocation during sleep.

It needs to be remembered that the side effects of codeine are the same as all opiates and even more pronounced in children. Signs of serious side effects include unusual sleepiness, confusion, and difficult and noisy breathing. The advantage that codeine has in stopping one’s cough can also be seen as its danger since the cough reflex is there for the purpose of clearing the throat to allow for unrestricted breathing. When this reflex is suppressed through the use of codeine, one runs the risk of suffocation, especially during times of sleep and when lying down in bed.

The history of the use of codeine wouldn’t be complete without mentioning that it is used by many as a “recreational” drug to get a “buzz” or high, that is commonly thought of as not being an issue with this drug. Phenergan with codeine is a common brand name for a cough medicine that is widely abused and has been responsible for many overdoses and deaths. Rapper “Pimp C” from the rap group UGK died of an overdose from a similar combination of syrup.

In many countries throughout the world, codeine is regulated by narcotic control laws, as it is in America, but some countries do allow for its purchase over-the-counter without a prescription, which can more easily lead to abuse and addiction. It should be remembered that Codeine is an opiate, the same as is morphine and heroin, and the regular use of this drug will cause both physical and emotional or mental addiction.

One of the biggest problems with the drug is the perception that it is mild and not a danger like other notorious opiates like heroin. This is only partly true.

Regular use of cough syrups or other elixirs, that contain codeine are as dangerous as regular use of Oxycontin or any other opiate drug, with the only difference being that it might take a longer period of continual use to become addicted. But once addicted, the withdrawals and the road back to where one was before they started using codeine is arduous and painful and to have successful outcomes, it usually requires professional rehabilitation. As with all drugs, consumers need to be aware of how dangerous these drugs actually are and to not allow friends or doctors to tell you otherwise.
 

Mello Mello

Ballz of Adamantium
BGOL Investor
Overwhelming post of information.

I'm definitely interested in seeing how hemp fed animals affect our health vs what the animals are fed now.
 
Top