|Opium knowledge Pt. 2 -Hogshire||Bookmark|
the Hive BB
Opium knowledge Pt. 2
profile | register | preferences | faq | search
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Opium knowledge Pt. 2
unregistered posted 04-28-98 07:02 PM
OK, sorry for the diatribish trip off track sucking the tangent.
As I mentioned before, I wrote the book to try to gather true information on poppies and related subjects so lemme take this opportunity to comment a bit on Pakker's very informative posts.
First of all, it seems like his posts about opium cultivation and preparation and other chemistry information came from a 1993 Department of Justice publication that was sponsored by the DEA.
That booklet is, I understand, out-of-print, and will not be reprinted. It is an amazing document because it essentially tells you all you really need to know about opium poppies, opium, and the basic procedures for extraction and conversion of morphine to heroin.
There are a couple of errors (mostly by omission) but the unofficial official response to that has been that the mistakes or mmitted material were just mistakes and not done deliberately. I can't say where I got this official but not really offical respnse, but I did get it from someone who should know.
I can also tell you that a USDA scientist named Mary Acock, was involved in the larger project that produced the book. It's my opinion that, had any of those government dudes thought about it for more than a few minutes, they never would have published it in the first place. It is simply too full of "dangerous" information.
Had you or I written it, it would have been immediately denounced.
Fo a time it was up on the web at someone's homepage but that link is dead as hell and I am pretty sure that person will not be reposting it.
But I know the thing exists out there and some people were bright enough to download it and even have the thing ready for slapping back up on the web.
If you have it, please, please repost it! As a government publication, it has NO COPYRIGHT, none at all. You cannot get into any kind of legal trouble for reprinting and publishing government publications. Believe me. Loompanics and Paladin routinely reprint and republish government manuals of many sorts without any problems.
That thing is out there and you can be sure the government will not be so kind as to reprint it for you. But anyone else can do it. If you don't want to, at least send the thing to the HIVE or me or somebody else and have them put it up.
Common Misconception Numero Uno appears in pakker's history of opium. It is the dreaded "soldier's disease"....
In the 1860s morphine was used extensively pre- and post-operatively as a painkiller for wounded soldiers during the Civil War...The inevitable result was opium addiction, called the 'army disease' or the 'soldier's disease'.
This is an example of anti-drug propaganda which sounds so damned *possible* few ever question it. And it has worked well for the Drug Warriors from the beginning, which was just a few years before the Harrison act was passed. In fact, this yarn was invented to portray opium and morphine as so powerful and so addicting that it could take over the soul of anyone, even against their will.
But on Cliff Schaeffer's Site there is an essay about "soldier's disease" that does question the story and, lo and behold, it's not true!
No doubt, opium was used very extensively in during the Civil War, and before and after it, too. But there is just no documentation of any mass addiction and the phrase "soldier's disease" or its variants didn't appear for something like 40 years after the war.
I think the essay is called "The Mythical Roots of US drug policy."
Another slight error I think is worth correcting is what pakker says about the Harrison Act:
"In December 1914, the United States Congress passed the Harrison Narcotics Act which called for control of each phase of the preparation and distribution of medicinal opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, and any
The Harrison Act wasn't that bad. It did *not* outlaw heroin, for instance. That didn't happen until 1923. And it didn't make possession of opium, opiates or cocain illegal but pretended to be a tax measure only.
What's kind of scarey is that in 1919, the Supreme court heard two other cases in which the law was upheld. Between 1916 and 1919 some of the judges had changed but it still wouldn't account for the 5-4 vote in favor of the government and (very strangely) overturning its own opinion so quickly -- something the Supremes just hate to do.
But, looking at the rosters it becomes apparant that *Holmes changed his mind*. I have still not completely verified this, but it sure looks like it. I can't figure out why in the hell he would do this, though.
As for the part about "any new derivative" with similar poperties, etc. is also not correct. That really didn't happen until 1986 with the Analog Substances Act.
Earlier versions of the "Harrison Act" outlawed caffeine, too. So I guess we can count ourselves lucky.
Btw, the poppy plant itself was outlawed in 1943 by the "poppy control Act" and then it was "repealed" in 1972 when the congressjerks realized the new Controlled Substances Act was sufficient to make them illegal.
And Pakker is right about what's illegal. Papaver somniferum is illegal. Every pat of the plant is illegal *except the seeds*. As soon as the seed sprouts, it seems to me, the thing is illegal.
Do not, repeat, do not, believe in Harper's author and human jackal Michael Pollan's carefully constructed "innocent gardene" defense because it will not work in front of a real-life judge. With all drugs, "mens rea" or "bad intent" is supposed.
OK, I gotta go now. Till later,
I think I'm gonna try to answer some of the common questions I've read here & there ... and it is in *no way* my intent to diss anyone's work. It is really difficult to get good info and then to check it out. ciao, jim I think I'm gonna try to answer some of the common questions I've read here & there ... and it is in *no way* my intent to diss anyone's work. It is really difficult to get good info and then to check it out. ciao, jim Also, if it is true about all parts being illegal, then how is it possible to legally buy poppy pods? I know I sound like a kiss-ass, but I love you book, especially the section on other opiates-> I miss my Oxycodone Also, if it is true about all parts being illegal, then how is it possible to legally buy poppy pods? I know I sound like a kiss-ass, but I love you book, especially the section on other opiates-> I miss my Oxycodone
I think I'm gonna try to answer some of the common questions I've read here & there ... and it is in *no way* my intent to diss anyone's work. It is really difficult to get good info and then to check it out.
Also, if it is true about all parts being illegal, then how is it possible to legally buy poppy pods?
I know I sound like a kiss-ass, but I love you book, especially the section on other opiates-> I miss my Oxycodone