Basic HTML Version
Freud termed these reports a "Song
of Praise"- so high was his initial
opinion ofthe drug.
But his rapturous relationship
with the drug soon soured. True,
cocaine didn't build significant tol–
erance. (That is, it didn't require es–
calating doses with regular usage to
achieve the same high as did mor–
phinc.) And it dido't lead to ex–
cruciating withdrawal symptoms (as
did morphine). But Freud , and
other contemporaries working with
the drug, observed that a strong psy–
chic dependence often developed in
many users. The drug's high only
!asted 15 to 20 minutes, after which
the user sank back into a depressed
statc- a state which now seemed
worse when contrasted to the fleet–
ing drug-induced high. This strongly
motivated him to repeat the dose
frequently to restore the euphoria.
Repeated doses eventuaUy Ied to
toxic psychosis-hallucinations,
paranoia, etc. Prolonged snorting
also resulted in deterioration of the
mucous membranes and septum.
Freud published bis last defense
of the drug in July 1887 and short ly
thereaftcr discontinued use of the
drug personally and professionally.
Though he never developed a de–
pendence for cocaine, it is said he
had to undergo three operations to
repair the damage to his nose.
" The Real Thing"
The research into cocaine by Freud
and others contributed to a small
boom in the pseudo-medica! and
nonmedicinal use of the drug at the
close of the nineteenth century.
Makers of patent medicines quickly
jumped on the bandwagon and con–
cocted scores of potions containing
the drug. Cocaine was the "real
thing" in Coca-Cola until 1903. A
wine containing coca extract, called
"Vin Mariana," was heartily drunk
and endorsed by such notables as
Pope Leo Xlll, President William
McKinley, Anatole France and
Thomas Edison. "On a per capita
basis, cocai ne used in America in
the mid-1890s was considerably
greater than it is today because
it was found in the cola drink, was
the first remedy for hay fever
and seemed like one of the
miracle drugs," says Dr. David
F. Muslo, associate professor of
The
PLAIN TRUTH
June
1977
psychiatry and history at Yale.
But cocaine was rapidly acquiring
a bad name, and in 1922 the U.S.
Congress prohibited most impor–
tation of coca leaves and cocaine,
thus driving it underground. The act
also destroyed legitimate medica!
research on the drug. Consequently,
a deficiency of knowledge about the
drug exists to this day. "The medica!
and scientific community have ap–
paUingly little information [today]
about the etfects of cocaine," lament
Lester Grinspoon and James B.
Bakalar, coauthors of a new book
on the drug,
Cocaine: A Drug and
lts Social Evolution.
"The clinical
literature
is
sparse, and mostly more
than 50 years old."
Though cocaine was rediscovered
during the hippie rebellion of the
60s, it has been only in the past
couple of years that a really heavy
trade in the drug has developed.
Federal agents seized only 16.4
pounds
in
1964. That grew to 96.8 in
1968,407 in 1971 and 1,232 in 1975.
But they have been intercepting
only a minute fraction of the illegal
drug coming into the United States.
Comparing Cancer to Pneumonia
True to forro for today's decadent
culture, what started out as a drug–
induced thriiJ has become, in sorne
circles, a crusade for personal free–
doro. The inevitable call has gone
ou t to decrirninalize cocaine. Propo–
nents argue that "it's safer than al–
cohol and heroin"; "cocaine is as
harmless as coffee"; "wc allow and
promote the use of other psy–
choactive agents (such as caffeine,
tobacco, alcohol, tranquilizers, etc.),
so why not coke?" And so forth.
Many of the slogans and argu–
ments made on cocaine's behalf are
misleading and irresponsible. To
compare the relative merits or
demerits of various psychoactive
drugs is to obscure the central fact
that
no drug is perfectly saje.
All
drugs have undesi rable side effects.
lt's true that cocaine doesn't have
sorne of the dramatic side cffects of
such drugs as, say, heroin or am–
phetarnines. But cocaine presents
hazards to mind and body in its own
right. To compare it with heroin is,
in the words of one drug enforce–
ment official, "like comparing can–
cer to pneumonia."
To further exacerbate the debate.
opponents of cocaine are often
blinded by certain misconceptions–
or just plain ignorance- and issue–
misleading and irresponsible state–
ments of their own. They seern to
forget that each culture sanctions
the use of certain psychoactive
drugs. Those who decry the corro–
sion of the national fiber through
psychoactive drugs often use sev–
eral- usually alcohol, tobacco and
cotfee- themselves!
The current rage for cocaine must
be placed in the context of the drug
revolution of the past decade. And
that revolution in turn must be
placed in the context of the recrea–
tional use of psychoactive drugs by
almost every culture down through
history. The issues are complex and
there are no easy answers for coun–
tries that are wrestling with the
problem of which mind-altering
drugs should be sanctioned and
which should be taboo. For an over–
all Iook at today's drug problem,
write for your free copy ofour book–
let
The Dilemma ofDrugs.
O
DRUGS:
the
good,
the
bad,
and the
deadly
From booze to hash, from
caffeine to heroin, mind-al–
tering drugs have become a
way of lite. Nearly everyone
needs a " fix" -for pleasure,
for escape, or just to keep
going. lf you'd like to know
more about drug use, its
benefits and dangers, write
for
The Dilemma of Drugs.
lt's free-just return the cou–
pon on the back cover.
31