|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 11:18 am: Edit|
You may believe that it was unethical for Scalia and Thomas to rule on this case and no doubt if asked they would say they acted ethically. The question is what can you or the American people do about it? Next to nothing. Those who sit on the Supreme Court are just as likely to act in an unethical prejudiced manner as the rest of us. Is it right that they can wield such power over your lives without being able to be held accountable to you? At least the your President is obliged to act (or at least appear to act) in the interests of the people, he is accountable to the people and they can sack him through the ballot box if he doesn't measure up. Is it right that the Supreme Court is unaccountable to you? Individual 'errors' by the Supreme Court or the 'unethical' actions of some of those who sit on it are not the problem. The problem is that the Supreme Court is unnacountable to the people for its actions.
|By Absinthesque on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 03:03 pm: Edit|
Briefly Hob -- judicial review has generally worked well as part of a system of checks and balances. In the case of Bush v. Gore, this system failed miserably. When I said unethical, I meant that there are serious questions of conflict of interest with respect to Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom had relatives with a personal interest in the outcome. I note that Justice Breyer recused himself from the marijuana case because his brother had been involved in ruling on the issue in a lower court; this is what a good judge should do, avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In my view, it was professionally unethical for Scalia and Thomas (and possibly O'Connor, for other reasons) to rule on the case.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 11:14 am: Edit|
The problem is that individuals will always act according to the circumstances that they find themselves in and in accordance with the interests that they percieve to be appropriate, ethics and morality are entirely subjective. Those sitting on the Supreme Court are no exception to this and we cannot blame individuals who act according to nature. The problem is the nature of the Supreme cOurt itself, not any individual supposed 'erroneous' judgements made by it. Such 'errors' are just symptoms of the problem, it is the cause of the problem that should be challenged. Is it acceptable that people who have power to make such important rulings are not accountable to the people?
|By Absinthesque on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 03:35 am: Edit|
As a matter of fact, Hob, I would object to such an egregiously bad decision, though perhaps without as much bitterness, even if it came down my way. I would recognize Bush as the legitimate President, though I disagree with him perhaps 99% of the time, if the process had been fair and if the Court had acted appropriately. I still believe there are good reasons for the judicial review, but in this unprecedented instance the court grossly (and I would say unethically) abused its authority.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 11:33 pm: Edit|
The issue is not that Bush won under dubious circumstances. Would all the people that currently whinge about the actions of the Supreme Court be whinging if the tables were turned and it was Gore who had won under such circumstances. I think not, many of them would be defending Gore's victory under the same circumstances.
Who 'won' the election in this case is not the core issue. The issue is the Supreme Court itself and how 1 individual unaccountable to the people can in effect ultimately determine legality. This isn't the first time thsi has happened and it won't be the last. Why blame Bush and the Republicans?
|By Absinthesque on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 04:18 pm: Edit|
We can debate who won Florida and which count to believe from now 'til doomsday. I happen to think it should have been Gore and that there was a lot of skullduggery to insure that Bush would win, beginning with the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters, prior to the election, and continuing until the Court decision. As far as I'm concerned this was nothing short of a putsch. But that's just my opinion as a left-wing Democrat, and nothing I can say is going to convince Bush supporters of my view.
The shocking thing about the decision in Bush v. Gore (and what should upset any true Conservative!) is that "Justices" who generally represent themselves as supporting states' rights and pay lip-service to "judicial restraint" rendered an extremely activist decision that went far beyond anything the Warren Court would have dreamed of doing. This decision flew in the face of long-established principles of judicial restraint regarding state court decisions on matters of interpretation of state law. At the same time, they tried to limit the impact of their decision to the case at hand so their assertions about voting rights would have no precedential value. In doing this, they demonstrated that they were nothing more than result-oriented hypocrites, willing to prostitute their oft-repeated "judicial philosophy" to crown their partisan choice.
This hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy was driven home by the extraordinary fact that the opinion of a divided court was issued "per curiam" (unsigned). In this per curiam opinion, the number of dissenting justices was misrepresented, providing "talking points" to Republican activists in the days ahead.
As I mentioned in a prior thread, I used to have respect for Rehnquist as a man of intellectual integrity, though I seldom agreed with him -- I can't say the same for Scalia, who's very bright but a partisan hack or Thomas, who has always been an embarassment and a disgrace. I lost all respect for Rehnquist in the wake of this decision. If he were a true believer in judicial restraint he would have dissented.
As far as the California marijuana decision goes; I haven't read it, but from the excerpts, I think it was legally correct, even though I disagree with the result.
|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 03:21 pm: Edit|
Blackjack said the SCOTUS had no jurisdisction. I like BJ but he is dead wrong. 8 of 9 justices agreed there were serious federal constitutional issues.
BUSH WON in Florida and if SCOTUS hadn't acted, the Florida ligislature would have seated a Bush slate of electors under its ABSOLUTE right to take charge, as the popular vite was a gift of the state House to the people, one in which the legislature retains its own rights absolutely.
|By Melinelly on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 10:08 am: Edit|
Term, it's not up to whether you agree or not. As a system of government, the US IS a republic, not a democracy. it is a republic based upon democratic ideals, but in the end resembling more an aristocracy than anything else.
|By Terminus on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 09:28 am: Edit|
As Justice Stevens wrote in his savage dissent, "The position by the majority of this court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land ... Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
((You want to argue popular vote, pick a different countrey, because that's not how we do things in USA. FYI it is a republic not a democracy.))
Who is we? You live in Thailand.
Why the fuck do you care who the President of the US is?
As for being a Republic, I agree, but I get pissed off everytime Dubya calls the US a democracy.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 07:21 am: Edit|
Terminus, according to the Miami newspapers, your arithmetic sucks.
Bush would have carried the state regardless. The electoral vote was his. You want to argue popular vote, pick a different countrey, because that's not how we do things in USA. FYI it is a republic not a democracy.
I wonder if you have bothered to read the 64 pages of Bush v.Gore? I have. Blackjack said the SCOTUS had no jurisdisction. I like BJ but he is dead wrong. 8 of 9 justices agreed there were serious federal constitutional issues. That's 5 conservatives and three of four liberals agreeinng. They had jurisdiction out the ass. The Florida State supremes IGNORED SCOTUS a week before and SCTUS spanked them for it. All the phony BS in Florida by the blacks has been shot to hell. BUSH WON in Florida and if SCOTUS hadn't acted, the Florida ligislature would have seated a Bush slate of electors under its ABSOLUTE right to take charge, as the popular vite was a gift of the state House to the people, one in which the legislature retains its own rights absolutely. BUSH WON and all SCOTUS did was forestall six months of legal wrangling that would have accomplished nothing. GORE LOST.
|By Mr_Rabbit on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 07:07 am: Edit|
George thinks we should use fossil fuels to overcome our energy crisis.
George is from Texas.
See George sell oil!
Sell George, sell!
George likes nuclear power plants too.
Glow george, glow!
|By Terminus on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 06:05 am: Edit|
"Its not over 'till its over."--Yogi Berra
Why quibble about a few hundred votes in Florida?
Overall, Dubya received at least 550,000 fewer votes than Gore.
Slobodan Milosovic claimed victory when he received fewer votes than his opponent.
If I ever hear the US referred to as a democracy again, I think I'll puke.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 11:07 pm: Edit|
...shouldn't be allowed to vote for dogcatcher...
Because, after all, dogcatcher *is* an elected office. ;-)
|By Heiko on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 10:47 pm: Edit|
sorry if I jump in late on this matter, but I just partly read the article you linked to.
One thing struck me:
"You know that the Mormon Church has always been opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind."
If I was on ephedrine all day long, I would also be opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind!
('Mormon Tea' made from Ephedra Nevadensis...)
One solution to be totally drug free:
Declare the drug of your choice a "gift of god" and you never have a drug problem any more ;-)
|By Marc on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 06:49 pm: Edit|
Its not over. The result of the election is affecting us everyday. Lets see what happens during Bush's presidency. I'm not optimistic. And so far, he's proving to be the menace I thought he would be.
|By Artemis on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 06:34 pm: Edit|
As to "miscast" votes for the socialist candidate, anybody not bright enough to use a punch card shouldn't be allowed to vote for dogcatcher, must less president of the United States. I have zero sympathy for their plight or that of the candidates they support.
And Ted is right, it's over. History. Let's not rehash it here any more. This is my last post on it.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 06:33 pm: Edit|
I am in Duval County every other week and this silly fabrication was debunked long ago.
|By Artemis on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 06:30 pm: Edit|
"Artemis, saying that the FlSC ruling would've allowed Gore to steal the election assumes that the recount would've been in his favor and that votes for him were indeed uncounted..."
Be careful now, I didn't mean to imply that the FLSC ruling would have allowed Gore to steal the election. What I meant to say was, the SCOTUS intervened to prevent the Florida Supreme Court from allowing Gore *the opportunity* to steal the election following the plan which he was following to carry that out. I'm quite sure Al Gore assumed, and the Florida Supreme Court assumed, that the counties Al had cherry picked for recount would put him over the top. The SCOTUS may or may not have believed that scheme would work, but they were obliged to intervene regardless, in my opinion.
|By Tabreaux on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 05:31 pm: Edit|
If anyone ever has the opportunity to play with the Vote-A-Matic machine as used in the Florida elections, I challenge anyone to make a dimpled chad. I couldn't do it no matter how hard I tried. What I observed is that no matter how lightly you 'poke' the chad, it pops right out. There is zero strength involved. About the only way to dimple it is to blow on it maybe.
Kinda makes you wonder........
Nevertheless, it's all over with, it's old news, it's spilled milk, and this kind of controversy will almost certainly never happen again. Those who want to muddy the waters will need to seek new ways to do it.
|By Terminus on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 05:07 pm: Edit|
|By Terminus on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 05:03 pm: Edit|
Florida "magic chad" makes more than 550,000 of your opponent's votes disappear instantly.
|By Melinelly on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 05:02 pm: Edit|
Artemis, saying that the FlSC ruling would've allowed Gore to steal the election assumes that the recount would've been in his favor and that votes for him were indeed uncounted... mind you i'm content with the FL vote for a couple reasons...
since taking office, most leftist group in the US has seen an increase in income and donations, and the american left has been revigorated with energy focused on changing the system...
also, in the county where the butterfly ballot was used (West Palm Beach was it?), the presidential candidate for the Socialist Party received more votes in that county alone than in the rest of Florida... in that county, we had only 16 dues paying members at the time of the election, and with almost zero publicity we pulled off hundreds of votes. looking at the ballot layout, one can easily conclude that votes were cast for David McReynolds that were meant to be cast for Al Gore...
...enough votes to cover more than the difference in the final vote tally in Florida for Gore.
no votes could've been miscast for Bush since they were the first candidate listed and the first punch-hole.
that's right... it wasn't Nader... it wasn't Buchanan...
the SOCIALISTS stole the Florida election!!!
card carrying member of the Socialist Party, USA since 1997
|By Tabreaux on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 04:55 pm: Edit|
"....nor the many thousands of African-American voters in Duval County (Jacksonville) who were flat out denied the right to exercise their franchise."
Hold on a minute. This supposed incident was clearly exposed as a farce. I am in Duval County every other week and this silly fabrication was debunked long ago. Of course, the debuking of it won't be reported by the media to the extent that the concoted version was. Ditto for other 'incidents' as well. It's not your fault. You didn't get the whole story (or even half of it for that matter). No one in Duval county was denied access to vote based upon race. Your source of information regarding this ruse was incomplete and misleading. Had the real story had been as you were led to believe, there would have been race riots in Jacksonville. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of not-so-objective reporting going on in today's media.
As far as the ballot, that is all but a dead issue. The ballot was designed and approved (largely by Democrats) prior to the election, so it is a non-partisan issue. Regardless, if one cannot read a ballot, the burden is upon that person to ask for assistance. That applies to persons of all ages, races, sexual orientiations, etc., etc. It applies to you and I as well.
I am not politically biased, and I'll vote for whomever I feel is best. If everyone followed suit, the partisan machines would not be so influential, and this country would be a better place. Peace!
|By Petermarc on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 04:11 pm: Edit|
|By Tlautrec on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 03:35 pm: Edit|
Artemis & Ted-
I don't want to get into a heated political debate, because from what I've read on this forum over the past months, I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence and the sagacity of both of you. However, please do not forget about the thousands of Jewish retirees in Palm Beach County whose votes for Al Gore were counted as Buchanan (!!!) votes, nor the many thousands of African-American voters in Duval County (Jacksonville) who were flat out denied the right to exercise their franchise. The fact is that the plurality of people who voted in Florida last November 7 voted for Al Gore. With that, I'll shut up and drop out of any further Bush-Gore discussion on this thread.
|By Artemis on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 03:12 pm: Edit|
I'm with Ted. All SCOTUS did in the election matter was to prevent the FLORIDA Supreme Court from allowing Al Gore to steal the election. I also have plenty of contempt for them, but in that particular case they ruled correctly.
|By Tabreaux on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 02:55 pm: Edit|
I agree with you in the S.C. ruling in the matter of medical marijuana.
In the case of the election, in case you haven't heard, after counting the 'uncountable' ballots (tallied just recently), Bush actually gained more than 100 votes. Rest assured that there were quite a few persons/groups trying to 'steal' the election, so fingering any single entity is like picking one bad apple from a bushel of bad apples.
|By Tlautrec on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 02:45 pm: Edit|
Speaking as an attorney, it is a pretty sorry thing for me to have to say that I have utterly no respect for the jurisprudence of the highest court of the land, but today's travesty simply reinforces the profound contempt I have developed for the current Supreme Court since their outrageous theft of the Presidential election last December.
|By Wormwood on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 01:44 pm: Edit|
AnisSatan is real here is a poster for it.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 12:00 pm: Edit|
More importantly, the SCOTUS dicked Steve Garvey.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 11:58 am: Edit|
There is a very good and funny essay regarding the absurd history of US marijuana laws at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm .
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 10:49 am: Edit|
The position that it is OK for Diamorphine (which is pretty close to Heroin) to be used, on a fairly regularl basis, to control pain, but Marijuana is too dangerous to be used under any circumstances is pure hypocrisy. People, and bodies, that uphold such views have no integrity and deserve nothing but contempt.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 10:48 am: Edit|
Ah, but Congress doesn't usually even have a say in what drugs are legal and illegal anymore. Since Nixon, the FDA has pretty much free reign to schedule drugs without legislative approval. The only time congress really gets involved is if there is an "emergency" where some mother starts screaming about the hazards of some drug (like GHB, which was available over the counter for 20 years) is KILLING OUR CHILDREN. Mind you, one of the girls after whom the emergency GHB bill was named actually died from a congenital hear defect and had no more GHB in your system than occurs naturally...
But, yeah, we had to amend the constitution to ban liquor, but we can camouflage drug prohibition under food and drug safety laws. This is partially because the previous attempt to ban drugs using the federal power to tax had been ruled unconstitutional.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 10:40 am: Edit|
the supreme court has overturned the entire state of California, upholding the federal legislature's wisdom in having declared that there are no possible safe medical uses for marijuana under any circumstances.
|By Artemis on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 10:35 am: Edit|
The sorriest thing about that sorry-ass Supreme court opinion is that the Constitution specifically says that any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government remain with the states. Where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the power to forbid the sale of marijuana? Whether it cures any illness or not is entirely beside the point.
|By Anatomist1 on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 10:29 am: Edit|
Another breakthrough for science in the public interest today: the supreme court has overturned the entire state of California, upholding the federal legislature's wisdom in having declared that there are no possible safe medical uses for marijuana under any circumstances. I bet all those terminal AIDS patients and heavy chemo users are very grateful for the protection.
|By Mr_Rabbit on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 09:10 am: Edit|
You know what? I know someone who spent a lot of time in cancer wards at the Mayo clinic. She asked the doctors what all the non-smokers were there for.
Most of the doctors believe the cause of the cancer to be decaf coffee.
How about that?
|By Tlautrec on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 12:08 pm: Edit|
"California seems to be determined to pick the worst policies from the kooks on both sides."
Don't get me started. I could go on for hours about this stuff. However, let me correct one minor apparent misunderstanding on your part. Actually, the siting and the environmental impacts of power plants in California are very tightly regulated. What the state fucked up on appallingly a couple of years ago was in dealing with how the electricity market would be structured. In an act of supreme ignorance of the way in which the marketplace really works (i.e., imperfectly in almost all cases), and driven by a herd of libertarian ideologues who believed that the "market" was solution to the "high" cost of electricity in the state (actually, prices weren't really so high; they just weren't the lowest - the lowest cost electricity was, of course, public power generated by such agencies as TVA, BPA and, in California, the Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power), the pinheads in the State Legislature passed a highly flawed "electricity restructuring" bill that has put us into the huge mess, with rolling blackouts and sky-rocketing prices, that we're currently in. As I said, I could go on & on, but I'll stop here. Thanks for listening.
|By Tlautrec on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 11:51 am: Edit|
"I think it's important to separate real science from pseudo science, science with an ax to grind, science that delivers exactly the results that the research money (tax money) paid for, science as filtered through the bias of the media presenting the scare story, etc."
I completely agree with you on this. However, the fact is that the people doing bad science are also scientists, and they usually hold themselves out to be objective truth-seekers. I have spent much of my professional career dealing with corporate apologists calling themselves "scientists" and hysterical "public interest sector" kooks calling themselves "scientists." Such individuals always proclaim to be searching for and promoting the "truth." I have accordingly become skeptical about a lot of what I hear being touted in the name of "science." Obviously, there are honorable and dispassionate men and women of science out there, for whom the moral questions raised by their work are as important as the work itself. However, I must blame "scientists", indeed, "many scientists" (although certainly not all scientists) for the considerable amount of junk science out there in the public arena today, and for the unnecessary fears and serious misinformation that this junk science implants in the minds of many.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 08:11 am: Edit|
"Japanese pharmacists torturing rats.
Can I give them the names of TimK and Dr Ordinaire? "
Good idea, Don. Unlike you, a rat can be useful in a laboratory...
|By Artemis on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 08:01 am: Edit|
"No disrespect to all you scientists out there, but I sometimes get the impression that the scientific community is inundating us with so much "data" about how everything out there is harmful or toxic or dangerous ..."
But are they really? I think it's important to separate real science from pseudo science, science with an ax to grind, science that delivers exactly the results that the research money (tax money) paid for, science as filtered through the bias of the media presenting the scare story, etc. In short, let's not be too quick to blame the scientists.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 03:17 am: Edit|
We should eat and drink what we like, we're all going to die someday so we may as well enjoy ourselves while we're alive. You're more likely to get miamed or killed driving a car, or crossing the road than consuming a few food additives that carry an remote risk of harming you.
The attitude that food and drink should be 99.999% risk free is bizzare when life is full of risks much greater risks that don't invoke the same level of paranoia and hypochondria. Life is full of risks, risk-taking is a vital part of human nature, it made (and makes) us what we are. The day we stop taking risks is the day we should just give up and die.
I'm with Tlautrec on this one. It really sickens me when someone tells me "you should really eat or drink or smoke less of that because it's bad for you", then they get into their cars and drive home. Do these sanctimonious hypocrits think that they can live forever by avoiding a few food additives?
|By _Blackjack on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 11:55 pm: Edit|
For example, here in California, we have a law called Proposition 65.
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 11:23 pm: Edit|
Anisatin and pinocamphene are so important that the Merck Index doesn't list them at all.
|By Tlautrec on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 11:01 pm: Edit|
Blackjack & Pants,
I did understand the valid point that Mr. um..pants was making. I'm just sick and tired of all the food fascists out there telling us what is good and what is bad for us, and what we should and shouldn't eat. After all, drinking too much water can kill you. No disrespect to all you scientists out there, but I sometimes get the impression that the scientific community is inundating us with so much "data" about how everything out there is harmful or toxic or dangerous to us that the only effect this data has is to create unreasonable and unnecessary anxiety on the part of those of us who lack a healthy skepticism about the methods and the ends of the scientific enterprise.
For example, here in California, we have a law called Proposition 65. It requires that prominent signs be posted in every public establishment where any chemical compound that is known or suspected to be a human carcinogen is used or served. Thus, every restaurant that serves liquor must have such signs posted. These signs are posted so ubiquitously throughout the state that they mean nothing to most people. It's an absurd paperwork exercise that doesn't provide any real, useful information to the public at large, and has no more social purpose than providing an opportunity for a handful of sleazy lawyers to extract money from small businesses who have inadvertently failed to post such signs.
Please, I don't need society telling me that every risk I take is a risk. Life is necessarily full of risks, and if we wanted to avoid all risk in our lives, we would become so paralyzed as to be unable to undertake any action at all.
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 01:26 am: Edit|
These are extremely minor components of the herbal oils.
Hyssop oil is 50% pinene (aka turpentine).
Star anise oil is not a mystery at all.
BTW Japanese Star anise is quite different (Illicium anisatum) from common star anise (Illicium verum) and contains, besides anethole, safrole and eugenol. The last two are not found in Illicium verum.
While the Spanish are obsessed with star anise oil for making absinthe, and the French are also consumed with its use in making pastis, Ted as you know is not so crazy about it.
Hyssop's role in the coloring step is such that very little of anything but chlorophyll is transferred to the liqueur, so a small component of such a small amount will have essentially zero to do with the effects of the liqueur.
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:52 am: Edit|
Japanese pharmacists torturing rats.
Can I give them the names of TimK and Dr Ordinaire?
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:40 am: Edit|
|By Bob_Chong on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:36 am: Edit|
He said "anise."
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:22 am: Edit|
And I, Heiko dear sir, am amused by the words "anise oil" and "anethole" in the same way Bevis and Butthead are amused by the name "TOOL"...
As for your hearty expounding on it's uses... I say "WOW?!?!?! That's why I felt so alive, healthy and (let's say) "productive" this long cold winter!"
and thank you for the new "Trans-anethole" term. I gotta find a way to utilize that one at work.
|By Heiko on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 11:46 pm: Edit|
Head, the name IS anethole - it's used in a wide variety of food flavoring.
btw. according to this site http://www.nutritionfocus.com/nutrition_supplementation/herbs/Anise_Oil.html , which seems to give pretty well referenced information, look at what anise oil is supposed to do (I guess this might also answer the "Serpis shits" and "Absinthe as cough syrup" questions):
Antiseptic, antispasmodic, carminative, diuretic, estrogenic activity (due to trans-anethole), expectorant (mild), fragrance, galactogogue, improves memory, licorice flavor substitute, narcotic (large doses), spice, stimulant, stomachic, sympathomimetic"
Ladies and Gentlemen, anise-oil, the new wonder of herbal medical drugs...believe it or not...
Don't understand this wrong, please: Anise oil and anethole are used worldwide as a very common food-flavoring. I only wanted to show (with an ironic smile on my face) how 'dangerous' a scientific medical description may sound for something we eat (& drink of course!) every day.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 07:25 pm: Edit|
Anethole. Keep it clean or it get's really itchy and irritated.
|By Heiko on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 06:39 pm: Edit|
I have to add something I recently found - I don't know if it's true, but one website said that anethole (from the oil of anise) might be used as an amphetamine precursor.
Uuuuh, aaaaaah, how eeeevil!
Of course that does not mean that anethole has the slightest effect, but some people might get the fears if they heard this...
Anise, la mort ... *LOL*
|By Wetpants on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:47 pm: Edit|
Thanks Blackjack, you got the point I was trying to make - perfectly!
|By Morriganlefey on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:19 pm: Edit|
Herbal Deathwatch 2001
|By _Blackjack on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 04:03 pm: Edit|
I don't think Mr...um...Pants' point was to cause a panic about absinthe's toxicity (it is 50-70% ethanol, after all) but to point out that there are probably several other chemicals in absinthe besides thujone that may be neuroactive, so assuming that thujone alone is the active nonalcohol ingredient in absinthe may less than accurate.
|By Tlautrec on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 02:45 pm: Edit|
And by the way, the benzo-a-pyrenes which are an important chemical constituent of that nice black charred stuff you see all over barbecued meat (that's what makes it taste so good) is a known human carcinogen! Oh my God!! In the interest of protecting human health, we must BAN it, I say, BAN IT ALL!!! BAN ALL THAT NASTY HEALTH-HARMING STUFF, AND MAKE IT A CRIME FOR PEOPLE TO POSSESS IT !!! INDEED, MAKE IT A CAPITAL OFFENSE FOR DAD TO CAUSE CANCER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY BY THE CRAVEN AND DESPICABLE ACT OF BURNING STEAKS ON THE OUTDOOR GRILL !!!! AND AS TO ALL THOSE HERETICS AND ALCHEMISTS WHO MAKE (AND EVEN DRINK) THAT EVIL POTION ABSINTHE, BURN 'EM ALL !!!! BURN 'EM AT THE STAKE !!!!! (the steak stake - I like that...heh...heh...)
|By Wetpants on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 01:45 pm: Edit|
Hi there folks!
There indeed seems to be some "evidence" that Thujone is not the not the only "demon" in some of the absinthes. Anisatin in Star Anise and (especially?) Pinocamphone in Hyssop also seem to do the "devils work"!
Analgesic Dosage: 0.03 mg/kg; Reference: CPB44:1908
Convulsant Dosage: 3 mg/kg orl mus; Reference: CPB44:1908
GABA-Antagonist Reference: MEDSCAPE'81
Neurotropic Dosage: 0.03-3 mg/kg orl mus; Reference: CPB44:1908
Sedative Dosage: 0.03 mg/kg; Reference: CPB44:1908
Toxic Reference: HHB
Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo) 1996 Dec;44(12):2344
Neurotropic components from star anise (Illicium verum Hook. fil.)
Nakamura T, Okuyama E, Yamazaki M.
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chiba University, Japan.)
Three new neurotropic sesquiterpenoids, veranisatins A, B and C, were isolated from star anise (Illicium verum Hook. fil., Illiciaceae). Veranisatins showed convulsion and lethal toxicity in mice at a dose of 3 mg/kg (p.o.), and at lower doses they caused hypothermia. Veranisatin A and the related compound, anisatin, were tested for the other pharmacological activities such as locomotor activity and analgesic effect. Both compounds decreased the locomotion enhanced by methamphetamine at oral doses of 0.1 and 0.03 mg/kg, respectively, and demonstrated the analgesia on acetic acid-induced writhing and tail pressure pain at almost similar doses.
PMID: 8904818 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Convulsant Dosage: >0.05 mg/kg ipr rat; Reference: ARO95:23 LRNSEP'96
Epileptigenic Reference: ARO95:23
Neurotoxic Reference: ARO95:23 LRNSEP'96
Plant species with highest amount
Hyssopus officinalis L. -- Hyssop; 24 - 12,040 ppm in Leaf JAD FFJ6:69 IP35:51; 4,870 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776; 4,620 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776; 4,600 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776; 200 - 2,060 ppm in Flower JAD FFJ6:69; 1,970 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776; 1,950 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776; 1,800 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776; 270 ppm in Shoot JAF42:776;
(Clin Toxicol 1981 Dec;18(12):1485-98 Related Articles, Books
Toxicity of some essential plant oils. Clinical and experimental study.
Millet Y, Jouglard J, Steinmetz MD, Tognetti P, Joanny P, Arditti J.)
Commercial preparations of essences of sage, hyssop, thuja, and cedar have caused human intoxication in eight cases, from which tonico-clonic convulsions were the major symptom. The experimental study of the toxic properties of commercialized essential oils of sage and hyssop has revealed that their convulsant action was of central nervous system origin in unanesthetized rats, as proven by electrocortical records. The toxicity of the hyssop oil seems to be more powerful than that of sage, since the dose limit from which the cortical events are only subclinical is 0.08 g/kg for hyssop oil and 0.3 g/kg for sage oil. Above 0.13 g/kg for hyssop oil and 0.50 g/kg for sage oil, the convulsions appeared and became lethal above 1.25 g/kg with hyssop oil and 3.2 g/kg with sage oil. The daily repeated injection of subclinical doses revealed the cumulative toxic effect of hyssop oil, since the same low dose induced electrocortical clonic seizures. The toxicity of each oil appeared to be related to the presence of terpenic ketones, camphor in sage commercial oil, camphor and thujone in sage Dalmatian oil, thujone in thuja and cedar oils, and pinocamphone in hyssop oil. The convulsant properties of camphor are well known. The neurotoxicity of thujone and pinocamphone is demonstrated in rats for the first time.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation