Author Topic: Prior to prohibition  (Read 5368 times)

11mc22

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Bogometer: -8
    • View Profile

Travis Retriever

  • Sarcasitron collider
  • *****
  • Posts: 6000
  • Bogometer: -1
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantART
    • Email
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2009, 01:19:56 PM »
from: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/drug_law_timeline.htm
"1906     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 labeling of contents on foods and drugs. The most important effect on the drug problem was the demise of the patent medicine industry. Drug addiction began a dramatic drop. "
I wonder if THIS is what first caused our crime rates to increase in the USA in that year (according to the murder per 100,000 chart)...
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole worldó'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

11mc22

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Bogometer: -8
    • View Profile
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2009, 04:30:57 AM »
Ok I'm just going to dump a bunch of websites I didn't even know were in my favorites that had to do with drugs
Some I just found like a few days ago

Medical uses of illegal street drugs:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5774421&page=4

Comparison to Netherlands to the USA on the amount of drug users:
http://ideas-canada.ca/medmj/canusage.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3925

Cop criticizes a smoking law:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/588345

EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED HEROIN USE:
http://www.gcal.ac.uk/news/pressoffice/releases/030205.html

Addicts become stable on prescribed heroin:
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=3bfd88e9-a233-44e6-ba99-4d4e6e93a92f

Marijuana side effects:
http://www.videojug.com/interview/marijuana-side-effects-2

"H: The surprising truth of heroin and addiction" by no other than Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28809.html

Age limit 'encourages children to smoke':
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908860.ece

Prescribed heroin might dent illegal drug trade:
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=84d4a637-45f1-4907-aaec-8c2552fd5a98

Legalize meth:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 04:35:50 AM by 11mc22 »

AHPMB

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Bogometer: -11
    • View Profile
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2009, 09:45:14 AM »
I don't know if you can match the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act with Prohibition.  The Clean Food and Drug Act was a necessary thing given the nature of the patent medicine industry.  You had thousands of snake oil salesmen pedaling laudanum and opium as cures for caulicky babies.  You had widespread cocaine addiction due to it being pushed as a medicinal for everything from headaches to alcoholism cures.  The actual case that brought the legislation on was against Coca-Cola for basically claiming they could pump as much cocaine and caffeine into their drinks as they wanted without informing the public.  Thus the chief requirement of the food and drug act was to force producers to print labels informing consumers of the ingredients of their goods.  While the resultant Food and Drug Administration is a disaster, it was built off of a real need.

Prohibition runs on a separate but related philosophical track, and started with the temperance movement in the 1820s-30s.  Every time there is monumental social change, the prohibition movement gains steam, as it blames the anomie brought on by that change on something simple and easy to digest: consumption of certain goods.  So with the on-set of the Industrial Revolution, you get the temperance movement and blue laws.  You get legal alcohol prohibition in the late Tzarist, early Communist period in Russia, you get prohibition in post-war United States, and a major crack-down on narcotics in the U.S. timed with the 1950s red scares and the growth of the counter-culture.

The FDA came out of social reform movements and a desire to inform the consumer, the Prohibition movement comes from a reactionary attempt to enforce a moral shift in society through legislation.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6042
  • Bogometer: -41
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2009, 10:27:59 AM »
You have to remember at that time, they didn't have the fully formalized concept of the double-blind placebo-controlled study. They were still working out placebo controls, and double-blinding had yet to be considered.

Coca-Cola never had any significant amounts of cocaine: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

Quote
So, yes, at one time there was cocaine in Coca-Cola. But before you're tempted to run off claiming Coca-Cola turned generations of drinkers into dope addicts, consider the following: back in 1885 it was far from uncommon to use cocaine in patent medicines (which is what Coca-Cola was originally marketed as) and other medical potions.  When it first became general knowledge that cocaine could be harmful, the backroom chemists who comprised Coca-Cola at the time (long before it became the huge company we now know) did everything they could with the technology they had available at the time to remove every trace of cocaine from the beverage. What was left behind (until the technology improved enough for it all to be removed) wasn't enough to give a fly a buzz.

Snopes is your friend.

AHPMB

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Bogometer: -11
    • View Profile
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2009, 11:12:36 AM »
The Coca-Cola trial was less about cocaine and more about caffeine.  As for significant amounts of cocaine, I'd be interested in their sources.  First, the source they cite is in 1902, before that it's difficult to say how much coca was put into the drink.  At one point you had 2 or 3 different companies under that name if memory serves. Coca-Cola was first sold as a medicinal in the late 19th century, and as far as I know we have no records of the amount of cocaine content then, so I'd be unwilling to say that it's coca content was always negligible.  I'll have to pick up Frederick's book and see if his records go past the turn of the century.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6042
  • Bogometer: -41
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2009, 01:02:39 PM »
Well, I covered caffeine in Episode 4. The American Beverage Association handles it quite well, no need for government oversight.

AHPMB

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Bogometer: -11
    • View Profile
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2009, 02:00:45 PM »
I completely agree.  The government has absolutely no business regulating the amount of caffeine I drink.  I don't however, see any problem with requiring companies to print what they put in their products and abide by those standards.  In fact, the PF&D and Clean Meat Acts were embraced by the industry as a way to prove they were putting out decent product, so that people wouldn't be confused by shysters that were adulterating milk, medicine and meat products and then lying to consumers.  Here's an article on how industry saw regulation as a way to restore competitiveness (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf)  That's beside the point, however.

The point I was trying to make, and I think you'll agree, is that Prohibition has nothing to do with public safety.  Every instance of prohibition of alcohol or narcotics was a result of reactionary social pressures, and were explicitly sold as a way to maintain or restore a moral society.  It shouldn't be any surprise that prohibition movements happen when they do.  In the 1830s you have the Temperance movements start up in response to industrialization.  The saloon culture was a by-product of changing family norms thanks to the rise of the factory system, not a collapse into lawlessness (See Shopkeeper's Millennium by Paul Johnson). 

Thus you have the imposition of draconian standards on alcohol consumption, something that was a part of daily life prior to the 1830s in an explicit attempt to control part of society.  Ditto that during official prohibition in the 1910s and 20s, again a response to sweeping social changes brought on in the post war period.  It's no surprise that it's this same period that sees systematic crack-downs on gay culture in New York (see Gay New York by Chauncy.)  Ditto in the 1950s when narcotic use was explicitly tied to communism, along with any form of deviant sexual behavior.  Ditto in the 1970s when the war on drugs was launched as part of a reaction to the waning counter-culture of the 60s.  In every case, the prohibitionists were responding to shifts in society in the most moronic way possible, limiting consumption of something that was at best a side-affect what they were attempting to fix.  In every case its about restoring some form of mythic moral reality to society rather than protect individuals' health.  As you pointed out in the video, these people, like creationists are only interested in science insofar as they can cherry pick it to support their case.

Talking about this issue purely from a regulatory stand-point strips it of its context.  This is about stupid fundamentalists (though not always in the religious sense).  People attempting to deny consenting adults their rights, because they're too moronic to see that drugs and alcohol have nothing to do with the social changes they're seeing around them.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6042
  • Bogometer: -41
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Prior to prohibition
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2009, 05:02:57 PM »
In fact, the PF&D and Clean Meat Acts were embraced by the industry as a way to prove they were putting out decent product, so that people wouldn't be confused by shysters that were adulterating milk, medicine and meat products and then lying to consumers.

Yeah, and as I look around and see homeopathic "medicine," Law of Attraction videos, and ugly "psychics" on talk shows dispensing medical advice, I have to ask: how's that workin' out?

Quote
Here's an article on how industry saw regulation as a way to restore competitiveness

See, I've got a couple of problems. They ALWAYS say they want to restore competitiveness, but what they REALLY want is regulations that they would have no problem following, but that would make it more difficult for start-ups to emerge and compete.

Don't you think it's an interesting coincidence that this happened a mere decade after UL was formed and PROVED that you can have effective testing of products without government? What do you think they were REALLY wanting to do?

Quote
Talking about this issue purely from a regulatory stand-point strips it of its context.  This is about stupid fundamentalists (though not always in the religious sense).

Isn't it always?