...although not literally opiates, (although heroin does get a mention later) this is the South American equivalent - as in drug and addiction equivalent, not in effects as they are widely different.
Cocaine is extracted from the plant called Erythroxylon coca, and other species containing lesser quantities of ‘cocaine’, and is a local anesthetic and central nervous system stimulant. It can be taken by chewing on coca leaves, smoked, inhaled ("snorted") or injected; E.coca is to cocaine as poppies/opium are to heroin/morphine (morphine is the active ingredient in opium).
By the turn of the twentieth century, the addictive properties of cocaine had become clear to many; in 1903, the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were “bohemians, gamblers, high- and low-class prostitutes, night porters, bell boys, burglars, racketeers, pimps, and casual laborers.”….nice. It was finally made illegal in 1914 but the law incorrectly referred to cocaine as a narcotic, and this misclassification still exists today: as stated above, cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic: a narcotic is an addictive drug that reduces pain and induces sleep (and may alter mood or behavior) - such state is narcosis - derived from the Greek word narkotikos.
Early Spanish explorers noticed how the native people of South America were able to fight off fatigue by chewing on coca leaves. This led eventually to a medical account of the coca plant being published in 1569 and almost 3 centuries later , in 1860 - after several failed attempts mainly due to lack of chemical technologies - Albert Neiman, a PhD student at Göttingen Uni in Germany, isolated cocaine from the coca leaf and described the anesthetic action of the drug; his dissertation titled Über eine neue organische Base in den Cocablättern (On a New Organic Base in the Coca Leaves), is now in the British Library…he got his PhD too!
Afterwards, various medicinal wines became available and later, in the USA, John Pemberton developed a non-alcoholic version, Coca Cola, a drink that contained cocaine and caffeine; no coke in ‘Coke’ since 1906.
In 1879 cocaine began to be used to treat morphine addiction and was introduced into clinical use as a local anaesthetic in Germany in 1884, about the same time as Sigmund Freud published his work Über Coca, in which he wrote that cocaine causes:
...exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person...You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work....In other words, you are simply normal, and it is soon hard to believe you are under the influence of any drug....Long intensive physical work is performed without any fatigue...This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleasant after-effects that follow exhilaration brought about by alcohol....Absolutely no craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug...
He recommended cocaine for a variety of illnesses and for alcohol and morphine addictions with the conclusion that many of his patients went on to become addicted to cocaine....a Freudian slip!
In 1909, the great explorer Ernest Shackleton and his teams in Antarctica took cocaine tablets, the brand was “Forced March”, clearly marketed to fight fatigue; as did Captain Scott a year later on his ill-fated journey to the South Pole
The following, which I read and saved was reported in The Observer last year; not really sure why I chose to post it now, especially with what Augustus has been telling us lately - perhaps it's the surroundings I find myself in. Anyway, the article:
"This is when your lungs get fucked,' the cook splutters as he unscrews the top of a plastic bottle and carefully pours hydrochloric acid into the brown liquid. Gun tucked in his waistband, he reacts nervously to any sound, even the chickens rooting through the undergrowth. We have been told to run if any shooting starts but are not sure where to. At the bottom of the bowl, the acid and the brown liquid start to turn white. A minute in the microwave, and we have a kilo of cocaine."
"We are in the depths of the Peruvian jungle watching coca leaves being converted into one of the most potent commodities on the planet. Using a few leaves, lime, alcohol and acid, cocaine costs about £500 a kilo to make. By the time it reaches the streets of Soho, supplemented with anything from aspirin to powdered glass, it weighs two kilos and is worth around £35,000, a profit of more than £34,000. "
Read the rest here: The White Stuff, Sunday January 9, 2005 The Observer. "Celebrated documentary-maker Angus Macqueen spent 18 months on the cocaine trail across Latin America from the dirt-poor valleys of Peru to the shanty towns of Rio. Here he recalls the journey that revolutionised his views and explains why he believes 'the dandruff of the Andes' should be sold in Boots."
The final few paragraphs:
"Just as with Colombia's civil war, all the social problems cannot be laid at the door of cocaine. But the white stuff feeds huge amounts of criminal money into the conflict. The picture, though not on the same scale, is much the same on British and American inner-city streets.
When we read about the rise of gun crime, the phrase 'drugs-related' is rarely far away as rivals battle for a piece of that £34,000-per-kilo profit. This journey has left me thinking the politically unthinkable. With an election looming, the Blair government has made the war on drugs a populist law-and-order priority, once again conflating the taking of drugs with the crime and violence that surrounds them. But it is the war itself that is the problem. The politicians rightly warn that demand will go up if it is legalised. It is not good but not the nightmare they summon up: neither cocaine nor heroin is a cancer. In quantities it destroys your nose and is bad for your brain, but it very rarely kills - unlike that other addictive plant we can use legally: tobacco. Nor is it a direct cause of violence, like alcohol. "
"Let's be honest. People try drugs, whether in the form of alcohol or pills, because they are fun. Tens of thousands of UK citizens regularly consume cocaine; hundreds of thousands more use other illegal drugs, completely discrediting the law. In his book Cocaine, Dominic Streatfield quotes the monetarist Milton Friedman: 'I do not think you can eradicate demand. The lesson we have failed to learn is that prohibition never works. It makes things worse not better.'
Streatfield quotes the extraordinary statistics involved in fighting cocaine and drugs. Here are a couple: over the past 15 years, the US has spent £150 billion trying to stop its people getting hold of drugs. In Britain and the US almost 20 per cent of the prison population is inside for drugs offences. So what is left? We can muddle on or we can legalise cocaine - and indeed all drugs. "
"This won't solve the social ills of poverty or inequality here or in Latin America but it would remove vast sums of money from the criminal world. We should allow the farmers to grow coca and sell it for decent prices direct to government-controlled factories which can produce a high-quality product. And then it should be sold over the counter from registered chemists such as Boots to anyone over 18 at a reasonable, taxed price that does not encourage a black market. At least then we will know it is pure. Then we must attack demand by using some of the millions saved to invest in education drives that are honest. Look how effective a generation of anti-smoking education has been in bringing the public behind stringent restrictions on smoking in public, but not an outright ban." "Yes, more people will try these drugs and there will be tragedies. But 30 years of the war on drugs have achieved almost nothing except to make a few people fantastically rich, to arm our inner cities, to criminalise a generation of users, and to leave tens of thousands of Latin Americans dead. As our cocaine maker in Peru happily told us, 'People want our cocaine because it is good and, for a while at least, makes them happy.' "
S.O. (as usual, all the pictures are links)
Cocaine is extracted from the plant called Erythroxylon coca, and other species containing lesser quantities of ‘cocaine’, and is a local anesthetic and central nervous system stimulant. It can be taken by chewing on coca leaves, smoked, inhaled ("snorted") or injected; E.coca is to cocaine as poppies/opium are to heroin/morphine (morphine is the active ingredient in opium).
By the turn of the twentieth century, the addictive properties of cocaine had become clear to many; in 1903, the American Journal of Pharmacy stressed that most cocaine abusers were “bohemians, gamblers, high- and low-class prostitutes, night porters, bell boys, burglars, racketeers, pimps, and casual laborers.”….nice. It was finally made illegal in 1914 but the law incorrectly referred to cocaine as a narcotic, and this misclassification still exists today: as stated above, cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic: a narcotic is an addictive drug that reduces pain and induces sleep (and may alter mood or behavior) - such state is narcosis - derived from the Greek word narkotikos.
Early Spanish explorers noticed how the native people of South America were able to fight off fatigue by chewing on coca leaves. This led eventually to a medical account of the coca plant being published in 1569 and almost 3 centuries later , in 1860 - after several failed attempts mainly due to lack of chemical technologies - Albert Neiman, a PhD student at Göttingen Uni in Germany, isolated cocaine from the coca leaf and described the anesthetic action of the drug; his dissertation titled Über eine neue organische Base in den Cocablättern (On a New Organic Base in the Coca Leaves), is now in the British Library…he got his PhD too!
Afterwards, various medicinal wines became available and later, in the USA, John Pemberton developed a non-alcoholic version, Coca Cola, a drink that contained cocaine and caffeine; no coke in ‘Coke’ since 1906.
In 1879 cocaine began to be used to treat morphine addiction and was introduced into clinical use as a local anaesthetic in Germany in 1884, about the same time as Sigmund Freud published his work Über Coca, in which he wrote that cocaine causes:
...exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person...You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work....In other words, you are simply normal, and it is soon hard to believe you are under the influence of any drug....Long intensive physical work is performed without any fatigue...This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleasant after-effects that follow exhilaration brought about by alcohol....Absolutely no craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug...
He recommended cocaine for a variety of illnesses and for alcohol and morphine addictions with the conclusion that many of his patients went on to become addicted to cocaine....a Freudian slip!
In 1909, the great explorer Ernest Shackleton and his teams in Antarctica took cocaine tablets, the brand was “Forced March”, clearly marketed to fight fatigue; as did Captain Scott a year later on his ill-fated journey to the South Pole
The following, which I read and saved was reported in The Observer last year; not really sure why I chose to post it now, especially with what Augustus has been telling us lately - perhaps it's the surroundings I find myself in. Anyway, the article:
"This is when your lungs get fucked,' the cook splutters as he unscrews the top of a plastic bottle and carefully pours hydrochloric acid into the brown liquid. Gun tucked in his waistband, he reacts nervously to any sound, even the chickens rooting through the undergrowth. We have been told to run if any shooting starts but are not sure where to. At the bottom of the bowl, the acid and the brown liquid start to turn white. A minute in the microwave, and we have a kilo of cocaine."
"We are in the depths of the Peruvian jungle watching coca leaves being converted into one of the most potent commodities on the planet. Using a few leaves, lime, alcohol and acid, cocaine costs about £500 a kilo to make. By the time it reaches the streets of Soho, supplemented with anything from aspirin to powdered glass, it weighs two kilos and is worth around £35,000, a profit of more than £34,000. "
Read the rest here: The White Stuff, Sunday January 9, 2005 The Observer. "Celebrated documentary-maker Angus Macqueen spent 18 months on the cocaine trail across Latin America from the dirt-poor valleys of Peru to the shanty towns of Rio. Here he recalls the journey that revolutionised his views and explains why he believes 'the dandruff of the Andes' should be sold in Boots."
The final few paragraphs:
"Just as with Colombia's civil war, all the social problems cannot be laid at the door of cocaine. But the white stuff feeds huge amounts of criminal money into the conflict. The picture, though not on the same scale, is much the same on British and American inner-city streets.
When we read about the rise of gun crime, the phrase 'drugs-related' is rarely far away as rivals battle for a piece of that £34,000-per-kilo profit. This journey has left me thinking the politically unthinkable. With an election looming, the Blair government has made the war on drugs a populist law-and-order priority, once again conflating the taking of drugs with the crime and violence that surrounds them. But it is the war itself that is the problem. The politicians rightly warn that demand will go up if it is legalised. It is not good but not the nightmare they summon up: neither cocaine nor heroin is a cancer. In quantities it destroys your nose and is bad for your brain, but it very rarely kills - unlike that other addictive plant we can use legally: tobacco. Nor is it a direct cause of violence, like alcohol. "
"Let's be honest. People try drugs, whether in the form of alcohol or pills, because they are fun. Tens of thousands of UK citizens regularly consume cocaine; hundreds of thousands more use other illegal drugs, completely discrediting the law. In his book Cocaine, Dominic Streatfield quotes the monetarist Milton Friedman: 'I do not think you can eradicate demand. The lesson we have failed to learn is that prohibition never works. It makes things worse not better.'
Streatfield quotes the extraordinary statistics involved in fighting cocaine and drugs. Here are a couple: over the past 15 years, the US has spent £150 billion trying to stop its people getting hold of drugs. In Britain and the US almost 20 per cent of the prison population is inside for drugs offences. So what is left? We can muddle on or we can legalise cocaine - and indeed all drugs. "
"This won't solve the social ills of poverty or inequality here or in Latin America but it would remove vast sums of money from the criminal world. We should allow the farmers to grow coca and sell it for decent prices direct to government-controlled factories which can produce a high-quality product. And then it should be sold over the counter from registered chemists such as Boots to anyone over 18 at a reasonable, taxed price that does not encourage a black market. At least then we will know it is pure. Then we must attack demand by using some of the millions saved to invest in education drives that are honest. Look how effective a generation of anti-smoking education has been in bringing the public behind stringent restrictions on smoking in public, but not an outright ban." "Yes, more people will try these drugs and there will be tragedies. But 30 years of the war on drugs have achieved almost nothing except to make a few people fantastically rich, to arm our inner cities, to criminalise a generation of users, and to leave tens of thousands of Latin Americans dead. As our cocaine maker in Peru happily told us, 'People want our cocaine because it is good and, for a while at least, makes them happy.' "
S.O. (as usual, all the pictures are links)
16 comments:
I agree span.
I was at the cinema last week and the latest road safety ad was shown;
'Don't die before you have lived' two teenagers are killed or injured on Londons roads every day.
Yes people can die from drugs like they can from just about anything else we choose to do in life.
Education and 'safer' [cleaner] drugs has got to be the way forward.
It would free up so much space in the prisons at the very least.
Span, that's a very thought provoking, and at the same time, depressing article.
I agree with you both and am in two minds about which way I really feel this situation should go, i.e. legalisation/ or not etc. For info I have completely redone the post (still includes the article) but yesterday I was just so knackered all I really had time for was adding the Observer article, which is the reason I wanted yto post but I had wanted to add a bit of history/"research" etc...which I have now done.
Another interesting post Span and it shows again how many things can not be thought of in black and white terms. There are obviously some very good points for the use of the drug(or shall I say direvitives of the original substance)and if controlled correctly could benefit soceity rather than harm it.
But equally it depends on who is getting access to it and why and naturally who is supplying. That will always be the case on anything where there is a demand. And the possiblity of a profit being made.
Your post actually allowed me briefly to look elsewhere on the net because of the illustration you included regarding how the plant looks...and the biggest problem is that there is so much information on so many subjects, I could go crazy trying to read all that there is out there and can only scratch the surface.
I could live without a pc and the internet but having had one, I would hate not to. The thought of being perhaps in a residential home one day and not being able to afford to access what I can now would probably finish me off.
Hello Gildy! You were commenting whilst I was editing...
It's worth remebering that most of our drugs (aspirin etc) began life as organic matter from some plant or other.
"I could live without a pc and the internet but having had one, I would hate not to."...100% in agreement. In the last 3 hotels I've been in the only TV I've watched was the World Cup Final but in that same period I've been online for many many hours...obviously some of that that is work...some (about 30%)
However, what's on the net can sometimes be misleading (and in some cases downright wrong) but I think that percentage is very low.
I don't really know how we guard against false information on the net, in the end commonsense and a decent amount of double checking from different sources probably helps but the trouble is...if the original source is incorrect, its just going to be repeated many times and seen by more people because of the reach the internet has.
Many of the stories in the newspapers used to be written by a correspondent at each paper but often having looked at a newspaper on line, I discovered the same story word for word on another paper's site so all it is is a press release sent out to all publications and then published by those that decide to carry it.
Perhaps it always was so. Alot of what we are fed is spin and you start to wonder what is fact or fiction or where the two blur into each other.
Some are downright lies and others become urban myths.
Its also trying to decide what is opinion or truth.
Even just an odd word misplaced or put in at a certain point can slant something a particular way.
Take the song title "What is this thing called Love"
Depending on which word you emphisize it can sound so different.
What is this thing called love?
What is this thing called love?
What is this thing called love?
Even a comma can make a difference...
What is this thing called, love?
Understanding received language and being clear is just as important as what is said.
It's a lazy Sunday afternoon here(well, if you don't count trying to get all the clutter of the pc)
correct a few errors along the way. Now that's when I could throw my pc out the window ;-)
I don't have any reason to but I bothered a bit more with the Alta Vista Babel Fish Translation program(because I have no one to write to in another language)but it was fun finding my blog turn into a variety of languages and seeing it do the same with your's and a few others...but I like the idea that others can change mine so they can read it.
I've added a clock of sorts but it altered my blogs layout...pushing the text to the right. I managed to reduce the width but the height would not alter no matter what I did to the dimensions in the script so it remains quite small.
I've also added a sort of counter to see if and where people are reading. So far America and England but of course I am unsure if when I log onto my own site it counts me as a visitor :-)
So there's a little bit of alteration going on....
Its pretty quiet outside except for a few birds in the garden either laying on the lawn, eating, drinking or having a bath.
What a life...
Stay safe...
Gildy
Thanks Gildy, I'll pop over and have a look at your blog now.
What you say re the way a sentence is written is very true and I read something similar to your 'what is this thing called love' many years ago in an Agatha Christie Poirot novel....obviously with differnet words of course, the little Belgian was explaining the same thing...long before any modern technology except for the telephone.
"Its pretty quiet outside except for a few birds in the garden either laying on the lawn, eating, drinking or having a bath.
What a life..." ahhhh (sighs) it gives me images of relaxed bliss :-)
Babel fish is OK for a few words but don't think it's longer translations are anyway near accurate but it does give a general idea of what the writing is about.
Gildy if you ever have to go into a residential home, which won't be for at least another 30 years, they'll all have pc's by then !
If not kick up a fuss until they get you one !
Well I think that all drugs should be legalised and that anyone creating derivatives like crack should be banged up for ever.
I had some mates, years ago, who were bang on crack. They spent thousands of pounds a week on it. I used to be partial to the odd bit of charlie, myself. Then there was the hundreds of pills I've done. So I've been there, and done that. You know, I often think what those people are up to nowadays. I'm so glad I not into that anymore. I'm not sure that legalising drugs is a good thing, except cannabis.
I'm with Six on this one and have always thought that way. Legalise or at least take the criminality out of drugs. Half the problems with regard to addicts are the crimes they have to commit to obtain the money to fund the habit.
I've never taken so called 'hard' drugs. Saw too many hippy relics from the 60's in my youth and what the hard stuff had done and continued to do to them. A better education I could not have had. I'll admit to E when it was new, young and unadulterated but I stopped as soon as it became popular and you didn't have a clue as to what you were taking. The first time I took it must rate as one of the most magical experiences in my life because of the sensations. Absolutely wonderful. Speed came in handy a few hundred times when I needed to get to work after a long weekend and I loved a joint until the children came along. I love it when I'm walking around in Brum and catch a whiff of a joint...brings back happy memories.
OK, Six, that seems a good plan...we'd have to accept a few lost souls who are affected in the short term but in the long term millions of people would be in a better state as the criminal element is removed and a whole (or several) underworlds would vanish.
Finny, I rememebr you posted re your habits (or maybe it was on someone elses blog)...worth a more in depth 'article' from you...:-)
Mags, I've kept away from all 'drugs'...I put it in quote marks because alcohol has been a conatnt companion. I don't smoke and the two puffs of weed that I took sent me into a coughing fit so I had to make do with the six bottles of wine and six bottles of champagne that we had bought after falling out of the pub after lunchtime drinking (six mates on graduation)...they had the weed that they'd grown in an old ladies garden/greenhouse without her knowing!
Span, when I lived in London I was always amazed at the amount of weed that was grown and not in secret. Pots on balconies and in front gardens plus alotments too. Nobody ever seemed to hide the practice.
It was all for medicinal purposes of course...
Actually I don't think people should smoke it...very bad for you.
Span i think you need to change your intro top box. You seem to know exactly what you're doing.
Hmmm...guitar lessons!
Six, you're right (about it needing changing, not that I know exactly what I'm doing); I'll change it later when I post again (this weekend probably) but not much - I like the quotes and it is till fairly new...maybe I'll turn my hand to webpage design.
Post a Comment