XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: soc.veterans   
   From: bliss@sfo.com   
      
   Bama Brian wrote:   
   > Steady Eddy wrote:   
   >> On Mar 21, 4:01 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:   
   >>> "Steady Eddy"  wrote in message   
   >>>   
   >>> news:d1574401-2c1c-4a41-a6f4-da488f4e798c@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>   
   >>> #   
   >>> # You are right. When drugs like cocaine and heroin were legal our   
   >>> # nation had a huge addiction problem. Now, the addiction problem is a   
   >>> # small percentage of the population. This case is closed   
   >>> #   
   >>>   
   >>> Really ?   
   >>>     And naturally, you can support that claim with DATA ?   
   >>> People who make unsupported claims and then declare the "case closed"   
   >>> are   
   >>> usually pissing in their hats.   
   >>>     Are you such a hat-pisser ?   
   >>   
   >> Title: The problem of drugs is nothing new in America. By: Musto,   
   >> D.F., Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights &   
   >> Responsibilities, 00468185, Summer90, Vol. 17, Issue 2   
   >> Database: MasterFILE PremierHTML Full TextThe problem of drugs is   
   >> nothing new in America   
   >> Section: commentary   
   >>   
   >> We commonly act as if the heroin "epidemic" of the 1960s or the   
   >> current cocaine "epidemic" is a new phenomenon in the United States.   
   >> Some of us assume that the widespread use of a drug implies that   
   >> legalization is the only reasonable response.   
   >>   
   >> In fact, Americans have much to learn from our earlier' and extensive   
   >> consumption of opium, heroin, and cocaine before World War I. This era   
   >> can teach us a great deal about controlling drugs.   
   >>   
   >> New laws against drugs, and a shift in public opinion, appear to have   
   >> reduced enormous opiate and cocaine consumption in the United States   
   >> earlier in the century by well over fifty percent.   
   >>   
   >> Throughout the nineteenth century, drug addiction was a growing   
   >> problem. Even before the Civil War, physicians like Oliver Wendell   
   >> Holmes deplored "opium drunkards." Opium was either smoked or, in the   
   >> form of morphine, injected. By the 1890s, as many as five Americans in   
   >> a thousand was addicted--a rate about twice that of current addiction.   
   >>   
   >> The Bayer company of Germany began selling heroin in the American   
   >> market in 1898 as a superior cough suppressant. It was essentially   
   >> unrestricted in this country for more than a decade. By 1912, it had   
   >> replaced morphine as the recreational drug of choice of young New York   
   >> City males. Heroin became linked in the popular mind to male gang   
   >> violence and the commission of crimes. In the early 1920s, most of the   
   >> crime in New York City was blamed on heroin.   
   >>   
   >> Cocaine also made its appearance in the late nineteenth century.   
   >> Initially it was thought to be a wonder drug. Freud called it the   
   >> first drug that worked as an anti-depressant. Beginning in 1885, the   
   >> Parke-Davis company manufactured it in many forms for drinking,   
   >> smoking, or inhaling. it was an ingredient in Coca-Cola until 1903.   
   >> Warnings soon surfaced, and it gradually became associated in people's   
   >> minds with violence, paranoia, and collapsed careers. Still, the   
   >> number of addicts rose, apparently peaking around 1905.   
   >>   
   >> Throughout the nineteenth century, drugs were virtually unregulated in   
   >> the United States. We had no practical control over the health   
   >> professions and no controls on the labeling, composition, or   
   >> advertising of compounds that contained opium or cocaine.   
   >>   
   >> Public concern about drug abuse led to new laws in the first two   
   >> decades of the twentieth century. The anti-drug movement was part of   
   >> the reformist impulse of the Progressive Era. This impulse produced   
   >> federal laws affecting the entire nation, often with the purpose of   
   >> improving the nation's morals. In many ways the Prohibition movement   
   >> was also part of the Progressive Era, and it and the antidrug movement   
   >> were related in people's minds. Both movements progressed inexorably   
   >> toward a policy of no compromise.   
   >>   
   >> The simplest antidrug reform, correct labeling, was part of the Pure   
   >> Food and Drug Act of 1906. It simply informed the purchaser whether   
   >> certain drugs were present. It did not prevent purchase or limit the   
   >> amount of the drug. Nevertheless, with the help of public concern, it   
   >> may have cut consumption of the drugs listed in the law by as much as   
   >> 50 percent.   
   >>   
   >> In 1909, the U.S. banned opium not intended for legitimate medical use   
   >> (e.g., opium for smoking). In 1914, a much more sweeping law was   
   >> passed. The Harrison Act was directed at doctors and druggists who   
   >> provided drugs to addicts with no intent to treat or cure them.   
   >>   
   >> It was accompanied by strong antinarcotic laws in many states, such as   
   >> New York. It was also strengthened by new state licensing of   
   >> physicians and pharmacists which could cost these health professionals   
   >> their careers if they provided drugs to addicts. Narcotics clinics set   
   >> up by states and localities to provide maintenance doses to addicts   
   >> were also driven out of business by the new laws.   
   >>   
   >> By the beginning of World War II, the number of addicts fell by more   
   >> than fifty percent from its high around the turn of the century. The   
   >> war reduced supplies of narcotics to the U.S, and in 1945 the United   
   >> States had its lowest number of addicts since the mid-nineteenth   
   >> century.   
   >>   
   >> The combination of strict laws and intense public support of control   
   >> measures brought on a reduction of consumption, which, at the peak of   
   >> its popularity, must have seemed impossible.   
   >>   
   >> ~~~~~~~~   
   >>   
   >> By D. F. Musto   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Dr. David F. Musto teaches at Yale University Medical School and   
   >> Yale's Department of History. This article is abridged from "The   
   >> History of Legislative Control over Opium, Cocaine, and their   
   >> Derivatives," which appeared in the book Dealing with Drugs:   
   >> Consequences of Government Control (Lexington Books, 1987).   
   >   
   > It's easy for many, including doctors, to belittle those who seek solace   
   > in drugs.  Even today, most doctors don't understand how someone in   
   > chronic pain - whether physical or psychic - can want to take the pain   
   > away.  Yet there are many people who commit suicide rather than live   
   > with chronic pain.   
   >   
      
   	And the compassionate doctors in pain control have to keep in   
   mind that the FDA & DEA are trying to bust them no matter how ethical   
   their treatment standards are and will send in addicted stooges to   
   persuade the doctors to make a less than wise choice.   
      
      
   > How many types of over-the-counter pain killers are offered today?  Are   
   > there any folks out there on prescription psycho-active drugs, such as   
   > Prozac?   
   >   
   > I think that most of the drugs of the past have been replaced with a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)