<p>alot of products in the 1800’s and early 1900’s were based on cocaine, heroin etc.
[10</a> Cocaine and other Drug Products of the Past - Oddee.com (cocaine products, old drug products)](<a href=“http://www.oddee.com/item_96498.aspx]10”>http://www.oddee.com/item_96498.aspx)</p>
<p>however, the state of the law now is they are illegal, use them, suffer the consequences when caught.</p>
<p>
No, but they used opium and psychoactive plants. And later, of course, tobacco.</p>
<p>
Coca Cola was left off that list.</p>
<p>^^^Though it makes total sense, I remember being so shocked to hear that Coca cola contained cocaine originally. I was also surprised to hear that Dr. Pepper gets its distinctive taste from prune juice. But that turned out to be an urban legend, lol.</p>
<p>Agree with Consolation, SAE national is hypocritical. I guess Aubart will have to look to them for his future network as he is certain to be persona non grata in the Dartmouth community forever. This is not a person who will be going to reunions.</p>
<p>We are ALL called upon to do the best we can with the resources we have. Why should there be a special standard for rich people? Does money confer better emotional health? Less genetic propensity to chemical addiction? Greater intelligence? More common sense? Stronger self control? A better family life? More attentive parents? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t talk about privilege as this corrupting influence which results in the despicable behavior we’re discussing, while at the same time insisting that affluent students be held to a higher standard of behavior simply because they grew up with money. If they’ve been corrupted by their wealth, then they’re in a debilitated moral condition and actually less able to make ethical choices.</p>
<p>I guess the state school kids are off the hook then…They’re not as lucky as the Dartmouth brats and thus don’t have to act like they are.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m with you 100% on this. I consider the frats and sororities to be a blight on the Dartmouth campus, but unfortunately the current students have few or no alternatives. A residential college system would be GREAT.</p>
<p>I think some natives were chewing coca leaves well before the middle ages.</p>
<p>Traces of coca have been found in mummies dating 3000 years back.[5] Extensive archeological evidence for the chewing of coca leaves dates back at least to the sixth century A.D. Moche period, and the subsequent Inca period, based on mummies found with a supply of coca leaves, pottery depicting the characteristic cheek bulge of a coca chewer, spatulas for extracting alkali and figured bags for coca leaves and lime made from precious metals, and gold representations of coca in special gardens of the Inca in Cuzco[6][7] Coca chewing may originally have been limited to the eastern Andes before its introduction to the Incas. As the plant was viewed as having a divine origin, its cultivation became subject to a state monopoly and its use restricted to nobles and a few favored classes (court orators, couriers, favored public workers, and the army) by the rule of the Topa Inca (1471-1493). As the Incan empire declined, the leaf became more widely available. After some deliberation, Philip II of Spain issued a decree recognizing the drug as essential to the well-being of the Andean Indians but urging missionaries to end its religious use. The Spanish are believed to have effectively encouraged use of coca by an increasing majority of the population to increase their labor output and tolerance for starvation, but it is not clear that this was planned deliberately.[citation needed]
Coca was first introduced to Europe in the 16th century, but did not become popular until the mid-19th century, with the publication of an influential paper by Dr. Paolo Mantegazza praising its stimulating effects on cognition. This led to invention of cocawine and the first production of pure cocaine. Cocawine (of which Vin Mariani was the best-known brand) and other coca-containing preparations were widely sold as patent medicines and tonics, with claims of a wide variety of health benefits. The original version of Coca-cola was among these. These products became illegal in most countries outside of South America in the early 20th century, after the addictive nature of cocaine was widely recognized. In 1859, Albert Niemann of the University of Göttingen became the first person to isolate the chief alkaloid of coca, which he named “cocaine.”[8]</p>
<p>All those Dartmouth guys on Wall Street put the school behind the curve financially. They can’t afford new colleges.</p>
<p>“We are ALL called upon to do the best we can with the resources we have. Why should there be a special standard for rich people? Does money confer better emotional health? Less genetic propensity to chemical addiction? Greater intelligence? More common sense? Stronger self control? A better family life? More attentive parents? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t talk about privilege as this corrupting influence which results in the despicable behavior we’re discussing, while at the same time insisting that affluent students be held to a higher standard of behavior simply because they grew up with money. If they’ve been corrupted by their wealth, then they’re in a debilitated moral condition and actually less able to make ethical choices.”</p>
<p>except I was not having it both ways. I did not say the money corrupted them, only that it gave them more responsibilities. One is an empirical question, the other a question of societal ethics. It is possible that both are true - that money corrupts AND that one with money and/or other privileges has no right to be corrupted. The consequence of that would be that no one should have privileges/large amounts of money etc.</p>
<p>There is a long and honorable tradition in social thought that says precisely that, and I hope it still has a place on the Dartmouth campus. I myself am not that radical - I personally have known privileged people who not only were not corrupted into drugs, their actions as philanthropists, community leaders, etc completely justified their privilege (I leave aside the question of people who dabbled with cocaine and still became community leaders, etc) </p>
<p>I am not calling for an end to wealth or privilege. I AM justifying the greater attention to it at a place like Dartmouth.</p>
<p>"I guess the state school kids are off the hook then…They’re not as lucky as the Dartmouth brats and thus don’t have to act like they are. "</p>
<p>Now if it had been at a State University, I would have gotten on my high horse about my tax dollars. I do think thats a legitimate issue, but its for another thread.</p>
<p>Don’t worry, being an Ivy League “Coke-head” Felon worked out very well for Barack Obama and George W. No wonder the other “privileged” kids want to emulate it!</p>
<p>We aren’t hearing about the similarly despicable behavior by “less privileged” children occurring on large state school campuses everyday, because these schools have their own campus police forces who can deal with incidents internally and keep negative publicity to a minimum.</p>
<p>"Don’t worry, being an Ivy League “Coke-head” Felon worked out very well for Barack Obama and George W. No wonder the other “privileged” kids want to emulate it! "</p>
<p>IIUC Obama’s drug use was in high school, he had turned in a different direction before entering Occidental and certainly before Columbia. </p>
<p>I suppose we could talk about the obligations of students at the Punahou School, but I am not that interested.</p>
<p>I think The GFG is wrong. I think we don’t hear about this kind of thing at state schools because it’s not sexy and it’s not news. Even this isn’t news anywhere other than Dartmouth and CC, and if it were Ohio State it wouldn’t be news here, either. I also wonder whether colleges with stronger faculty/administration input into the college newspaper would have seen the degree and specificity of coverage the D has given this incident.</p>
<p>
Yes, but coca is not cocaine.</p>
<p>“I think we don’t hear about this kind of thing at state schools because it’s not sexy and it’s not news.”</p>
<p>I am in VA. The news about the JMU party, where kids couldnt get to their houses cause so many people were thronging there from all over, only got into the WaPost BEFORE the Lacross murder at UVA. The Koreans had better make sure they have their war when there aren’t major breaks in that case, or they won’t make it above the fold in the WaPo. </p>
<p>UMd we also hear about, but usually the attention is less on the drunken frat kids than on the abuses by the PG county police.</p>
<p>gracias, mokusatsu. i was just about to comment that folks need to stop pretending that the “coca” the first americans were chewing on is the same stuff people are smoking/snorting/whatever today. not the same at all.</p>
<p>^ Yes, that too, JHS. But it’s not just because it’s Dartmouth, since there have been other incidents at Dartmouth (eg. a heroin bust) which received almost no press. This is coinciding with some economic and/or political undercurrents, and of course the oddity of a frat member ratting out a fellow brother.</p>
<p>No but they are cousins and sometimes used for the same purposes.</p>
<p>Traditional use of Coca
The Erythroxylum coca plant was domesticated in Peru 7000 years ago. It was traditionally used as a bartering system, for the initiations of marriages and to strengthen kinship.It is also a common-practise amongst the Kogi Indians in the Andes, who, after puberty, undergo an initiation in which they are given coca leaves in a small gourd. Within it, coca leaves are mixed with an alkali produced from crushing seashells. When combined with saliva, it combats hunger, high altitude and fatigue. In the Andes, future tellers (the yatiri) use coca as an offering to gods and native doctors, the callawaya, use the shrub to cure ailments. Indian shamans religiously smoke coca-leaf to induce themselves into a ‘trance-like’ state.</p>
<p>yes, but with all the fillers, binders and other crazy stuff in today’s coke, what people are using pales when compared to anything organic. it’s simply not the same thing.</p>