This document provides a history of drug enforcement in the United States from the late 19th century through the 1930s. It discusses how drugs were initially unregulated but concerns over abuse and social issues led to increased restrictions. The Harrison Act of 1914 was the first major federal law to regulate drugs through taxation and registration. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively criminalized cannabis across the United States through restrictive taxation. Throughout this period, federal drug enforcement expanded and the perception of drugs as a serious social problem grew.
This document provides a history of drug enforcement in the United States from the late 19th century through the 1930s. It discusses how drugs were initially unregulated but concerns over abuse and social issues led to increased restrictions. The Harrison Act of 1914 was the first major federal law to regulate drugs through taxation and registration. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively criminalized cannabis across the United States through restrictive taxation. Throughout this period, federal drug enforcement expanded and the perception of drugs as a serious social problem grew.
This document provides a history of drug enforcement in the United States from the late 19th century through the 1930s. It discusses how drugs were initially unregulated but concerns over abuse and social issues led to increased restrictions. The Harrison Act of 1914 was the first major federal law to regulate drugs through taxation and registration. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively criminalized cannabis across the United States through restrictive taxation. Throughout this period, federal drug enforcement expanded and the perception of drugs as a serious social problem grew.
in the composition of Coca-Cola.<br><b>1910</b> Dr Hamilton Wright, instigator of US anti-narcotics laws, reports that American contractors give cocaine to their black employees to improve their work rate.<br><b>1910</b> The British dismantle the India-China opium trade.<br><b>1912</b> MDMA first synthesised by German company Merck Pharmaceuticals.<br><b>1914</b> Forced March tablets containing cocaine are given to troops by the British Army.<br><b>1918</b> The death in London of Billie Carleton, a rising star of stage musicals, is one in a series of high profile cocaine-related scandals.<br><b>1920</b> Cocaine is banned in the UK under the Dangerous Drugs Act, following stories of 'crazed soldiers' in WWI.<br></strong></p><p><strong><br></strong></p><p><strong>1930s</strong></ p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>This report reviews federal domestic drug enforcement. First, it provides a history andbackground of drug enforcement in the United States including how drugs came under the controlof federal justice authorities and how legislation and administrative actions changed domesticdrug enforcement. It then provides a brief overview of drug enforcement in the United States andsummarizes U.S. drug policy. Finally, the report presents trends in federal drug enforcement andconcludes with a discussion of drug enforcement issues going forward.History and Background of U.S. Drug EnforcementThis section outlines historic development and major changes in federal drug enforcement to helpprovide an understanding of how and why certain laws and policies were implemented and howthese developments and changes shaped current drug enforcement policy.Late 19th Century–Early 20th CenturyBoth recreational and medical use of drugs, including cocaine and opium, were popular in the 19thcentury, but the federal government was not involved in restricting or regulating their distributionand use.8 During this time, the federal government did not have any agencies that regulatedmedical and pharmaceutical practice,9 and doctors freely prescribed cocaine and morphine astreatment for pain. By the end of the 19th century, abuse of these drugs was a significant socialissue, and public concern was growing.10Scholars identify the separation of federal and state power as a major reason for an unregulatedU.S. drug market in the 19th century. Attempts to establish federal control over drugs were metwith strong opposition from patent medicine firms11 and state officials.</p><p><br></p><p>The Harrison ActFederal control of drugs began to take shape in the early 20th century. In response to growinglevels of drug abuse, the federal government sought to regulate and control drugs throughtaxation. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (Harrison Act; P.L. 63-223), among other things,required importers, manufacturers, and distributors of cocaine and opium to register with the U.S.8 In some instances, state and local governments were involved in restriction and regulation of drugs. For example, theAnti-Opium Smoking Act was enacted in San Francisco in 1875 to prohibit opium dens. After San Francisco passedthis ordinance, states began to ban the smoking of opium.9 Attempts were made to regulate drugs. For example, U.S. Customs laboratories had been established to administerprovisions of the Import Drugs Act of 1848 to enforce drug potency and purity standards of imported drugs, butenforcement of this act was short-lived. </p><p><br></p><p>For more information, see Wesley J. Heath, “America’s First Drug RegulationRegime: The Rise and Fall of the Import Drug Act of 1848,” Food and Drug Law Journal, vol. 59, no. 169 (March2004).10 David T. Courtwright, Dark Paradise: A History of Opiate Addiction in America (Harvard University Press, 2001);David F. Musto, “The American Experience with Stimulants and Opiates,” in Drugs, Crime, & Justice, ed. LarryGaines and Janine Kremling, 3rd ed. (Waveland Press, Inc., 2013).11 In the 1800s, over-the-counter products were often referred to as “patent medicines” although typically theseproducts were trademarked and not patented.12 Wallace F. Janssen, The Story of the Laws Behind the Labels: Part I: The 1906 Food and Drugs Act, U.S. Food andDrug Administration, June 1981, http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/ucm056044.htm. </ p><p><br></p><p>Drug Enforcement in the United States: History, Policy, and TrendsCongressional Research Service 3Department of the Treasury (the Treasury), pay a special tax on these drugs, and keep records ofeach transaction. Under the Harrison Act, practitioners were authorized to prescribe opiates andcocaine; however, the law was subject to interpretation.13 The Treasury viewed patient drugmaintenance14 using these substances as beyond medical scope, and many physicians werearrested, prosecuted, and jailed.15 Under authority of the Harrison Act, the Narcotic Division ofthe Internal Revenue Bureau16 closed down state and city narcotic clinics and sent drug violatorsto federal penitentiaries.17 Enforcement agents were referred to as “narcs.” Ultimately, physiciansstopped prescribing drugs covered under the Harrison Act, thereby sending users to the blackmarket to seek out these substances.18The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937During the 1920s, narcotic enforcement was closely tied to Prohibition enforcement.19 In 1930,Prohibition enforcement was transferred to the Department of Justice while a standalone federalagency, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), was established within the Treasury to handlenarcotic enforcement.20 During Prohibition, a new recreational drug—marijuana—had quicklybecome unpopular with law enforcement, especially in the southwestern United States.21 AsProhibition ended, marijuana caught the attention of Congress and the FBN.Until 1937, the growth and use of marijuana was legal under federal law.22 During the course ofpromoting federal legislation to control marijuana, Henry Anslinger, the first commissioner of theFBN, and others submitted testimony to Congress regarding the evils of marijuana use, claimingthat it incited violent and insane behavior.23 Of note, Commissioner Anslinger had informedCongress that “the major criminal in the United States is the drug addict; that of all the offensescommitted against the laws of this country, the narcotic addict is the most frequent offender.”2413 Prescribers were allowed to prescribe opiates and cocaine “in the course of their professional practice only.”14 Doctors prescribed narcotics to addicts or habitual users of these substances.15 David F. Musto, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press,1999), pp. 183-200. Hereafter The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control.16 At this time, the Narcotic Division of the Prohibition Unit of the Internal Revenue Bureau was responsible for federaldrug enforcement.17 </p><p><br></p><p>The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control; Charles F. Levinthal, Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3rded. (Boston: Prentice Hall, 2012), p. 56. Hereafter Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice.18 Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, p. 56.19 In 1919, Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution which prohibited the manufacture, transportation,and sale of alcohol. In 1933, Congress passed the 21st Amendment and repealed the 18th Amendment. In 1927, theNarcotic Division was transferred from the Internal Revenue Bureau to the Bureau of Prohibition in the Department ofthe Treasury and remained there until 1930.20 The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control; National Archives, Records of the Drug EnforcementAdministration, Record Group 170; 170.1 Administrative History, http://www.archives.gov/research/guide- fed-records/groups/170.html.21 The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, p. 219; and Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, p. 58.22 It was also legal under state law. States regulated marijuana and did not begin to ban it until after 1937.23 See statements by H. J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury andDr. James C. Munch, before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Taxation of Marihuana, 75thCong., 1st sess., April 27-30, May 4, 1937, HRG-1837-WAM-0002.24 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Taxation of Marihuana, 75th Cong., 1st sess., April 27-30,May 4, 1937, HRG-1837-WAM-0002, p. 7. <br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></ p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><strong>The Great Depression in Global Perspective</strong> Previous Next Digital History ID 3433</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>The Great Depression was a global phenomenon, unlike previous economic downturns which generally were confined to a handful of nations or specific regions. Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America all suffered from the economic collapse. International trade fell 30 percent as nations tried to protect their industries by raising tariffs on imported goods. "Beggar-thy-neighbor" trade policies were a major reason why the Depression persisted as long as it did. By 1932, an estimated 30 million people were unemployed around the world.</p><p>Also, in contrast to the relatively brief economic "panics" of the past, the Great Depression dragged on with no end in sight. As the depression deepened, it had far-reaching political consequences. One response to the depression was military dictatorship--a response that could be found in Argentina and in many countries in Central America. Western industrialized countries cut back sharply on the purchase of raw materials and other commodities. The price of coffee, cotton, rubber, tin, and other commodities dropped 40 percent. The collapse in raw material and agricultural commodity prices led to social unrest, resulting in the rise of military dictatorships that promised to maintain order.</p><p>A second response to the Depression was fascism and militarism--a response found in Germany, Italy, and Japan. In Germany, Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party promised to restore the country's economy and to rebuild its military. After becoming chancellor in 1932, Hitler outlawed labor unions, restructured German industry into a series of cartels, and after 1935, instituted a massive program of military rearmament that ended high unemployment. In Italy, fascism arose even before the Depression's onset under the leadership of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. In Japan, militarists seized control of the government during the 1930s. In an effort to relieve the Depression, Japanese military officers conquered Manchuria, a region rich in raw materials, and coastal China in 1937.</p><p>A third response to the Depression was totalitarian communism. In the Soviet Union, the Great Depression helped solidify Joseph Stalin's grip on power. In 1928, Stalin instituted a planned economy. His First Five Year Plan called for rapid industrialization and "collectivization" of small peasant farms under government control. To crush opposition to his program, which required peasant farmers to give their products to the government at low prices, Stalin exiled millions of peasant to labor camps in Siberia and instituted a program of terror called the Great Purge. Historians estimate that as many as 20 million Soviets died during the 1930s as a result of famine and deliberate killings.</p><p>A final response to the Depression was welfare capitalism, which could be found in countries including Canada, Great Britain, and France. Under welfare capitalism, government assumed ultimate responsibility for promoting a reasonably fair distribution of wealth and power and for providing security against the risks of bankruptcy, unemployment, and destitution.</p><p>Compared to other industrialized countries, the economic decline brought on by the Depression was steeper and more protracted in the United States. The unemployment rate rose higher and remained higher longer than in any other western society. European countries significantly reduced unemployment by 1936. However, the American jobless rate still exceeded 17 percent as late as 1939, when World War II began in Europe. It did not drop below 14 percent until 1941.</p><p>The Great Depression transformed the American political and economic landscape. It produced a major political realignment, creating a coalition of big city ethnics, African Americans and Southern Democrats committed, to varying degrees, to interventionist government. The Depression strengthened the federal presence in American life, producing such innovations as national old age pensions, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, public housing, federally subsidized school lunches, insured bank deposits, the minimum wage, and stock market regulation. It fundamentally altered labor relations, producing a revived labor movement and a national labor policy protective of collective bargaining. It transformed the farm economy by introducing federal price supports and rural electrification. Above all, the Great Depression produced a fundamental transformation in public attitudes. It led Americans to view the federal government as the ultimate protector of public well-being.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>The first description of the use of cocaine by humans can be found in the memoirs of the Florentine traveller Amerigo Vespucci (1451-1512). For the next 300 years mostly the advantages of cocaine use, also as a medication, were emphasized. In 1860 Albert Niemann (1834-1861) isolated an active ingredient of coca leaves, which he named cocaine. After his death, his work was carried on by his disciple Wilhelm Lossen (1838-1906), who finally, in 1865, determined its proper chemical formula. Although the first observations concerning the effect of cocaine on mucous membranes were made by Niemann and Lossen, the first experimental studies involving the application of cocaine to animals were performed by the Peruvian surgeon Moréno y Maïz. In 1880 Basil von Anrep (1852-1925) published the results of his studies concerning the application of cocaine to humans. In the conclusion of his work he recommended cocaine as a surgical anaesthesia. But it was finally Carl Koller (1857-1944) who, in 1884, empirically demonstrated the benefits of cocaine use in medicine, most of all in ophthalmology. Subsequently, within a couple of months, the medical world learnt about and got interested in the use of cocaine for local anaesthesia. William Stewart Halsted (1852-1922) and his collaborator Richard John Hall (1856-1897) began their own research on cocaine injections. Eventually they developed the nerve and regional blocking techniques. Nowadays, due to the potential harmful effects of cocaine and the risk of addiction, the indications for the use of cocaine as an anaesthetic are strictly limited.</p><p>Popularization of cocaine is first evident with laborers who used it as a stimulant to increase productivity, [96] often supplied by employers.[97] African American workers were believed by employers to be better at physical work and it was thought that it provided added strength to their constitution which, according to the Medical News, made blacks “impervious to the extremes of heat and cold.”[96] Instead, cocaine use quickly acquired a reputation as dangerous and in 1897, the first state bill of control for cocaine sales came from a mining county in Colorado.[98] Laborers from other races used cocaine, such as in northern cities, where cocaine was often cheaper than alcohol.[97] In the Northeast in particular, cocaine became popular amongst workers in factories, textile mills and on rail roads.[99] In some instances, cocaine use supplemented or replaced caffeine as the drug-of-choice to keep workers awake and working overtime.[99]</p><p>Extravagant claims of its curative powers increased cocaine’s popularity; by the early 1900s, it was the main active ingredient in a wide range of patent medicines, tonics, elixirs, and fluid extracts. It is believed that the original formula of Coca-Cola® that was developed in 1886 by Georgia pharmacist John Pemberton contained approximately 2.5 mg of cocaine per 100 mL of fluid (Coca-Cola Bottling of Shreveport, Inc., et al., vs. The Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation, 769 F.Supp.671). This formula was sold as a headache cure and stimulant. Another pharmacist bought the rights and founded the Coca-Cola Company in 1892.</p><p>Hyperbolic reports of the effect of cocaine on African Americans went hand-in-hand with this hysteria. In 1901, the Atlanta Constitution reported that “Use of the drug [cocaine] among negroes is growing to an alarming extent.”[103] The <em>New York Times</em> reported that under the influence of cocaine, “sexual desires are increased and perverted … peaceful negroes become quarrelsome, and timid negroes develop a degree of 'Dutch courage' that is sometimes almost incredible.”[104] A medical doctor even wrote “cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the negroes.”[104] To complete the characterization, a judge in Mississippi declared that supplying a “negro” with cocaine was more dangerous than injecting a dog with rabies.[105]</p><p>These attitudes not only influenced drug law and policy but also led to increased violence against African Americans. In 1906, a major race riot led by whites erupted; it was sparked by reports of crimes committed by black ‘cocaine fiends.’[103] Indeed, white-led, race riots spawning from reports of blacks under the influence of cocaine were not uncommon.[106] Police in the South widely adopted the use of a heavier caliber handguns so as to better stop a cocaine-crazed black person – believed to be empowered with super-human strength. [107] Another dangerous myth perpetuated amongst police was that cocaine imbued African Americans with tremendous accuracy with firearms and therefore police were better advised to shoot first in questionable circumstances.[108] Ultimately public opinion rested against the cocaine user. Criminality was commonly believed to be a natural result of cocaine use.[109] Much of the influence for these kind of perceptions came from the widespread publicity given to notorious cases.[95] While the historical reality of cocaine’s effect on violence and crime is difficult to disentangle from inflamed perceptions, it does appear that public opinion was swayed by the image of the violent, cocaine-crazed fiend and pushed over the edge by a few violent episodes.[109] It was an image of the cocaine-user that carried acute racial overtones.[95]</p><p>Before any substantive federal regulation of cocaine, state and local municipalities evoked their own means to regulate cocaine. Because of the initial lack of targeted legislation, on both federal and state level, the most typical strategy by law enforcement was the application of nuisance laws pertaining to vagrancy and disturbing the peace.[110] Subsequent legislative actions aimed at controlling the distribution of cocaine rather than its manufacture.[111] Reformers took this approach in part because of legal precedents which made it easier to control distributors such as pharmacies; state and local boards of health or boards of pharmacy often took the place of regulatory bodies for controlling the distribution of cocaine.[111] Some states took the position of outright banning of all forms of cocaine sale; Georgia was the first to do this in 1902.[112] A New Orleans ordinance banned cocaine sales as well but left an ill-defined exception for therapeutic uses.[111] A more common requirement was to restrict the sale of cocaine or impose labeling requirements. A 1907 California law limiting sale of cocaine to only those with a physician’s prescription resulted in the arrest of over 50 store owners and clerks in the first year.[111] A 1913 New York state law limited druggists’ cocaine stocks to under 5 ounces. Labeling requirements initially operated on a state level with some states even going so far as to require that cocaine and cocaine-containing products be labeled as poison.[113]</p><p>Eventually the federal government stepped in and instituted a national labeling requirement for cocaine and cocaine-containing products through the Food and Drug Act of 1906.[113] The next important federal regulation was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. While this act is often seen as the start of prohibition, the act itself was not actually a prohibition on cocaine, but instead set up a regulatory and licensing regime</p><p>he Harrison Act left manufacturers of cocaine untouched so long as they met certain purity and labeling standards. [115] Despite that cocaine was typically illegal to sell and legal outlets were more rare, the quantities of legal cocaine produced declined very little.[115] Legal cocaine quantities did not decrease until the Jones-Miller Act of 1922 put serious restrictions on cocaine manufactures.</p><p>By the early 1900s, public health officials were becoming alarmed by the medical, psychiatric, and social problems associated with excessive cocaine use. These concerns from health officials and legal authorities played a major role in initiating and supporting the effort to pass the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. This Federal legislation severely restricted the legal uses for cocaine and, for all practical purposes, ended the extensive use and abuse of cocaine in the early part of the 20th century. Interestingly, cocaine hit a low during the 1930s when the advent of amphetamine almost eradicated demand.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>The <strong>Great Depression</strong> was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations, but in most countries it started in 1930 and lasted until the late 1930s or middle 1940s.[1] It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century.[2]</p><p>The Great Depression had devastating effects in countries rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%.[3]</p><p>Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming communities and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.[4][5][6] Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as mining and logging suffered the most.[7]</p><p>Some economies started to recover by the mid-1930s. In many countries, the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until after the end of World War II.[8]</p><p>***not a single mention in the wikipedia page fer great depression bout cocaine!</p><p><br></p><p><strong>Popularization</strong></p><p><br></p><p><br></ p><p>Pope Leo XIII purportedly carried a hipflask of the coca-treated Vin Mariani with him, and awarded a Vatican gold medal to Angelo Mariani.[90]</p><p>In 1859, an Italian doctor, Paolo Mantegazza, returned from Peru, where he had witnessed first-hand the use of coca by the local indigenous peoples. He proceeded to experiment on himself and upon his return to Milan he wrote a paper in which he described the effects. In this paper he declared coca and cocaine (at the time they were assumed to be the same) as being useful medicinally, in the treatment of "a furred tongue in the morning, flatulence, and whitening of the teeth."</p><p>A chemist named Angelo Mariani who read Mantegazza's paper became immediately intrigued with coca and its economic potential. In 1863, Mariani started marketing a wine called Vin Mariani, which had been treated with coca leaves, to become cocawine. The ethanol in wine acted as a solvent and extracted the cocaine from the coca leaves, altering the drink's effect. It contained 6 mg cocaine per ounce of wine, but Vin Mariani which was to be exported contained 7.2 mg per ounce, to compete with the higher cocaine content of similar drinks in the United States. A "pinch of coca leaves" was included in John Styth Pemberton's original 1886 recipe for Coca-Cola, though the company began using decocainized leaves in 1906 when the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed. The actual amount of cocaine that Coca-Cola contained during the first 20 years of its production is practically impossible to determine.[<em>citation needed</em>]</p><p>In 1879 cocaine began to be used to treat morphine addiction. Cocaine was introduced into clinical use as a local anesthetic in Germany in 1884, about the same time as Sigmund Freud published his work <em>Über Coca</em>, in which he wrote that cocaine causes:[<em>citation needed</em>]</p><blockquote><p>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 alcoholic beverages. No craving for the further use of cocaine appears after the first, or even after repeated taking of the drug.</p></blockquote><p>In 1885 the U.S. manufacturer Parke-Davis sold cocaine in various forms, including cigarettes, powder, and even a cocaine mixture that could be injected directly into the user's veins with the included needle. The company promised that its cocaine products would "supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent and render the sufferer insensitive to pain."</p><p>By the late Victorian era cocaine use had appeared as a vice in literature. For example, it was injected by Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional Sherlock Holmes, generally to offset the boredom he felt when he was not working on a case.</p><p>In early 20th-century Memphis, Tennessee, cocaine was sold in neighborhood drugstores on Beale Street, costing five or ten cents for a small boxful. Stevedores along the Mississippi River used the drug as a stimulant, and white employers encouraged its use by black laborers.[91]</p><p>In 1909, Ernest Shackleton took "Forced March" brand cocaine tablets to Antarctica, as did Captain Scott a year later on his ill-fated journey to the South Pole.[92]</p><p>During the mid-1940s, amidst WWII, cocaine was considered for inclusion as an ingredient of a future generation of 'pep pills' for the German military code named D-IX.[93]</p><p><br></p><p>The properties of cocaine to cause vasoconstriction of the arterial vasculature have been well documented [5]. However there have been a number of case reports and series where cocaine has been implicated as the causal agent in arterial thrombosis. There are case reports of thrombosis in the renal artery [6], pulmonary artery [7], aorta [8], and coronary arteries. In some of these case reports myocardial infarction has occurred where there is no evidence of atherocsclerosis [9]. This state is often referred to in the literature as "myocardial infarction with normal coronary arteries". [10] The postulated mechanism of action is adrenergically mediated increases in myocardial oxygen consumption, vasoconstriction of large epicardial arteries or small coronary resistance vessels leading to coronary thrombosis [10]. However it has also been postulated that such infarctions could be due to a state of blood hypercoagulability leading to arterial thrombosis [10]. Hypercoagulability occurs with low plasma tissue plasminogen activator activity, high tissue plasminogen activator inhibitor activity, factor XII deficiency or abnormal platelet aggregation [10]. This raises the hypothesis as to whether in addition to properties of vasospasm cocaine is a pro-thrombotic agent.</p><p>Cocaine has also been implicated in cases of cerebral thrombosis [11] but also in cases of <em>haemorrhagic </em>cerebrovascular accidents [11]. It has been postulated that haemorrhagic cerebral infarcts in cocaine use are due to episodic hypertension due to the vasoconstricting properties of cocaine [12].</p><p>As well as being implicated as the causal agent in the process of arterial thrombosis, cocaine has also been implicated as the causal agent in venous thrombosis as it has been associated with case reports of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis [13].</p><p>The evidence from in-vitro studies is conflicting with some results showing an increase in platelet activation following cocaine administration [14] and other results showing cocaine to be an inhibitory factor in platelet coagulation (and hence thrombus formation) [15,16]. However biochemical mediators can act differently in-vitro to the human in-vivo setting. Similarly the results of animal studies have shown conflicting reports on the ability of cocaine to induce platelet formation [17,18]. Therefore this research sought to undertake a systematic review of human in-vivo studies, and studies with a clinical endpoint studying the effect of cocaine on either the arterial or venous clotting mechanisms.</p><p><br></p><p>coca-cola</p><p>sometimes during one of the many reversal of fortune so characteristic for the North African theater of war, German troops on the offensive stumbled across a cache of Coca-Cola left behind by retreating Allied troops. But the welcome find came with a snag and thirsty throats stayed dry despite the heat: The enemy had forgotten to leave some ice as well, and since every German soldier knew that a bottle of Coca-Cola had to be consumed eiskalt, the booty remained worthless unless somebody came up with another method of refrigeration under the scorching African sun.</p><p>Luftwaffe- pilots stationed nearby eventually provided an ingenious answer to this let-down by wrapping wet towels around the bottles and tying them to the wings of their Messerschmidts 109F before take off. Once the fighters were airborne, evaporation and the lower temperature of higher altitudes cooled the precious load down. The subsequent scene upon the pilots' return to base must have been irresistible: The pilots hopped out of their planes, plucked ice- cold Coca-Colas from the wings, opened them and then let the brown juice run down their throats to celebrate the thirsty return from another successful mission.</p><p>So much for the commercial potential of this image. Once the vision wears off, however, another question demands an answer. Would anybody have suspected that this harmless war-anecdote exemplifies the Coca-Cola Company's dual roles during the Second World War? Leaving aside the accidental aspect of this incident in the North African desert, it is still a fact that the soft drinks giant from Atlanta, Georgia collaborated with the Nazi-regime throughout its reign from 1933 to 1945 and sold countless millions of bottled beverages to Hitler's Germany.</p><p>Unfortunately, this in itself seems neither surprising nor exciting. Cooperation if not outright collaboration with the Nazis was the rule for many transnational corporations with a stake in Germany and has been the subject of extensive research. Next to Standard Oil and I.G. Farben, for instance, Coke's story of peddling soda to opposing trenches appears tame. The immorality of bottling Coca-Cola for the Nazis stands in no relation to STP's selling of aviation fuel to the German war machine, nor can it overshadow the oil- producer's cozy wartime relationship with Germany's chemical giant I.G. Farben. Simply put, Coca-Cola's infamous deeds were not the Second World War's only ones, nor were they particularly sinister. After all, Coke cannot be used to fly airplanes or make bombs.</p><p>The Coca-Cola Company's tale of questionable wartime conduct would thus be comparatively insignificant and not worth the effort of dwelling upon, were it not for the fact that its product, namely Coca-Cola, was and is a luxuary item whose commercial success is inseparably tied to a public image created through advertising. Like all other companies in the business of selling goods nobody really needs, the Coca-Cola Company's advertisements must reflect the desires of the times in order to defend its share of the mass-market. How Coca- Cola chose to define itself through advertising was crucial to its success during the war years in the United States and is the story of the previous chapter. Thanks to a relentless barrage of war-supportive advertising built upon the Company's credo that "It isn't what a product is, but what it does that interests us," Coca-Cola after December 1941 convinced Americans at the front and at home that drinking Coca-Cola was somehow synonimous with fighting against the enemies of freedom and democracy. Coke wanted to be understood as a morale- booster for the American effort.</p><p>There was a moral price attached to this sort of advertising, because Coca-Cola's managers failed to couple the new patriotic image with a correspondent curbing of its contradictory activities in Germany, the company's second biggest market. While Coke-drinking GI's and other U.S. citizens had their carbonated soft-drink sweetened with patriotic statements like the 1943 slogan "Universal Symbol of the American way of Life," German Coca-Cola men had been busy quenching the thirst of the Third Reich and its conquered territories for years. To say the least, catchwords like Universal and American Way of Life were at odds with the Nazis' pursuit of their own "universalist" goals.</p><p>However, for the Coca-Cola GmbH (Inc.) odds existed in order to be overcome. While establishing itself in Germany, a politically difficult, but potentially rewarding market of seventy million people, the company solved an overwhelming number of problems: In defiance of strong anti-American sentiments within the turbulent Weimar Republic, Coca-Cola entered the country at the onset of the Great Depresion in 1929. Despite the bad timing for launching a consumer product, Coca-Cola overcame the intense competition of Germany's breweries and cola-imitators, learned to combine its interests with those of Germany's Nazi- rulers after 1933 in an overall harmonic symbiosis and thus even managed the seemingly impossible task of surviving the war intact as an American-owned company.</p><p>What saved the Coca-Cola GmbH from being crushed by Germany's fascist rulers was that its corporate structure and advertising philosophy came naturally close to the Nazis' totalitarian ideas of a brave new world. The case of Coca-Cola thus goes beyond mere collaboration: before Hitler decreed the Principle of Leadership (Fuehreprinzip) in industry, which replaced collective bargaining by handing dictatorial powers to company directors, the Coca-Cola GmbH was already dominated by its own authoritarian leader. Company and government interests subsequently overlapped: the Nazis regarded mass-production and mass-consumption as crucial building blocks of their new society. Coca-Cola's modern means of producing a uniform product could have only impressed them. Similar things can be said about Coke's advertising strategy, which again reflected values central to the National-Socialist society. Through the same modern channels that the Nazis used for propaganda; namely film, radio, mass- publications, and sports events, Coca- Cola appealed, among others, to workers, soldiers, and automobilists, target groups that are significant insofar as they epitomized the Nazis' idea of modernity.</p><p>7X and Merchandise #5 aside, these were the true secret ingredients for Coca-Cola's German success, fully confirmed by the company's sales figures: In the ten year period spanning 1929 and 1939, the company's annual sales of cases of beverage soared from zero to a staggering four million. Even during the war's difficult late stages the company didn't falter; in 1944 the company still produced a respectable two million cases of bottled beverages, selling them to a country that was being rapidly reduced to rubble.</p><p>Back in 1929, these achievements seemed all but impossible. Germany between the wars was a humiliated and revanchist country. Public sentiments for the World War I victor nation USA were ambiguous at best as Dan Diner's excellent essay on the history of anti- Americanism in Germany points out. Despite an undeniable trend toward the "`Americanization' of the economy, technology and culture," Germany was still seething with increasingly entrenched anti- American sentiments," a situation not conducive to the high profile marketing of American brands.</p><p>Fears of U.S. economic domination, a country perceived as both ultra-capitalist and culturally inferior, encompassed the whole of the political spectrum. Indeed, next to the desire to tear down the embattled republic, virulent anti-Americanism may have been the only characteristic shared by the many political extremists. Communist Reichstag member Clara Zetkin's ad hoc rejection of the Dawes Plan in 1923 provides an illustrative example for the enthusiastic response to anti- American rhetoric, for it was met by the unusual sound of standing ovations from the gentlemen ideologically most opposed to Communism, the National-Socialists. Zetkin began her impromptu speech by claiming that America was bent upon turning Germany into "a colonized country." "The United States," she continued, "represents sharp-eyed and reckless capitalists without any of the old traditions that still sometimes constrain capitalism in Europe, so that they would be the last to trip over the thin thread of moral qualms. No, [the U.S. wants] to capture the German labor force with American capital, [make] cheap labor [out of them] and to thus turn Germany into a colony of the United States. No illusions about this fact!"</p><p>Since such rhetoric met with the approval of politicians of all colors, it seems not too far-fetched to argue that the general public cannot have been too warm about the United States either. Quite to the contrary: America, as David Large sums it up, became the object of a revival of "a set of deprecatory images [...] because doing so afforded [Germans] a measure of self-respect at a time of great inner doubt." Large argues that, true to a tradition that continues to this day "America [became] a kind of composite symbol for all the things that Germans [found] unpalatable in their own country, which [was], after all, the most Americanized in Europe."</p><p>Given such hostile circumstances, the Company had no illusions that it had to distance Coca-Cola from its American roots, were the Coca- Colonization of Germany to be successful. One cannot help but note that this initial strategy departed radically from the marketing ploys of the years after 1945, when, as Ralph Willett points out "Coca-Cola [came] to symbolize America and American culture: [...] the identification was already so strong by 1948 that when non- Americans thought of democracy, it was claimed, they instantly called to mind Coca-Cola."</p><p>The post-war Americanized image stands in complete contrast to the pre-war situation, a factor which helps account for the inability of Germans to recall Coke's presence prior to the war. Indeed, Coca-Cola's original German marketing strategy so successfully disassociated the drink from its Atlanta roots that Hans Dieter Schaefer felt compelled to note six decades later "It is characteristic for the state of our mind that we associate Coca-Cola only with the years of the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle)."</p><p>But the failure to remember once the clock struck "Stunde Null" (zero hour) cannot alter the facts of history. Coke's German business began with Ray Rivington Powers in 1929. The expatriate American set up shop in the City of Essen in the Ruhrgebiet, Germany's industrial heartland "where the thirst of workers would need quenching." He had a difficult stand there: Not only did Powers face the powerful competition of cola-imitators Sinalco and Afri-Cola, he also had to convince Germans that Coca-Cola was a tasty alternative to their beer-drinking habits. This meant hard work. Hubert Strauf, an advertising man in the service of Powers, described how this eccentric six and a half feet tall man who had allegedly once claimed to "have done everything in the world but murder," "filled the first bottles himself with the help of just one worker. With him he then drove to the Ruhr to peddle the first bottles of Coca- Cola in Germany himself - the American with his beautiful Marengo topcoat and stiff hat, a hulking fellow who called out with a thick Southern accent: `Drinken Coca- Cola, kostlich und erfrescht.'(which approximately means: `Drink Coca-Cola, delicious and refreshing')"</p><p>To properly introduce Coca-Cola in grammatically correct German, Powers printed up leaflets titled "Was ist Coca-Cola?" and had them distributed at sporting events and on the tables of restaurants in and around Essen. "When distraught proprietors threw them out, the Coke men doggedly replaced them," reports Mark Pendergrast and continues that "Many who picked up the folder expected to find an analysis of the ingredients and were angered when it simply said that Coke was a refreshing drink, but the endless repetition of the product name had its intended effect." The effect was that an increasing number of retailers carried Coca-Cola, most of them stashed beneath beer bottles so as not to anger the breweries that owned most restaurants and did not like potential competitors like Coca-Cola.</p><p>Thanks to the vigorous targeting of industrial workers with Hubert Strauf's slogan to "Mach doch mal Pause" (Come on, take a break) apparently derived from its U.S. pendant "The pause that refreshes" and a lot of hard work to open new outlets, Coca-Cola's annual sales rose to 111.000 cases four years later (see appendix). The Company had gained a small, but respectable foothold by the time the crucial year of 1933 came around.</p><p>It cannot be overemphasized, however, that a big portion of this success must be attributed to what the Coca- Cola ads failed to mention: Coke's U.S. roots. The Company had successfully established itself as a German brand in the unconscious mind of the soda-drinking public. The following anecdote shows just how successful the Company was in this respect: When a group of German prisoners of war debarked in Hoboken, New Jersey, in early 1945, one of the first things that caught their eyes was a large Coca-Cola sign. This prompted excitement among the Germans and when one of the guards demanded an explanation for their behaviour, he received the answer: "We are surprised that you have Coca- Cola here too."</p><p>The twelve years separating 1933 from the end of the war provide an explanation for Coca- Cola's boom. One year after 1933, Coke's output had already more than doubled to 234,000 cases. This was no coincidence. There were striking parallels between the Coca-Cola GmbH and the nation at large. Firstly, the business of Coca-Cola and the Reich was guided by similar-minded (and similar-looking) people: In Coke's case, the name of the man now in charge was Max Keith (pronounced Kite). According to the testimony of former employees, Keith's charisma and uncompromising nature invited more than one analogy to the Adolf Hitler. "He was a born leader and very charismatic," claims one. "You liked to work for him although he was almost a slave driver . . . . Oh, yes, I was scared of him. We all were, even aides who were older." Still, so the witness concludes, most of his followers "would have died for this man." Keith's own words definitely betray the fanatic in him: "I was full of activity and enthusiasm," he reported in 1963, "and the thing which then took possesion of all that was in me and which . . . has never lost its hold on me, was Coca-Cola. From then on and to all eternity, I was tied to this product for better and for worse."</p><p>It was mostly for the better that Keith was tied to Coke, because, as he himself recognized, "time marched with us." To quote Felix Gilbert, "At the time the Nazis took over, recovery from the recession was beginning" and Germany was economically prospering. The Nazis, through a massive public works system, which included "the construction of the systems of Autobahns, and . . . providing industry with armament contracts," were determined to keep the upward swing going and Germans content.</p><p>Economic prosperity, however, as catchwords like public works and infrastructure programs reveal, also meant the continued Americanization of Germany's economy under Hitler. Indeed, the dictator himself seems to have welcomed America's efficient methods of production. Hitler was, for instance, a proponent of mass-consumption, as shown by his statement from September 1941: "Frugality is the enemy of progress. Therein we we are similar to the Americans, that we are fastidious." Detlev Peukert underlines Hitler's pro- American stance, arguing that, not unlike the U.S., the Third Reich consciously aimed to represent "the dawning of the new achievement-orientated consumer society based on the nuclear family, upward mobility, mass media, leisure and an interventionist welfare state [. . .]."</p><p>The Nazis were thus not anti- modernists, but, according to Peukert, "Agrarian romanticism notwithstanding, [. . .] fostered enthusiasm for modern technology, not only because it needed it as part of its armoury for conquering Lebensraum, but also because the toughness, frictionless functionality and efficiency of the machine matched the ideal of the fighter and the soldier, the man hard as Krupp steel." Interestingly, Peukert assumes that the man "hard as Krupp steel" liked to quench his thirst with Coca- Cola, for in the same paragraph he mentions that "Even Coca-Cola consumption rose significantly in Germany in the thirties."</p><p>In other words, that Coca-Cola had tied its fortunes to the thirst of industrial workers paid out now, for the increasingly busy workers needed the pause that refreshed more than ever. The destruction of the trade unions resulted in longer working hours and Coke's chairman Max Keith himself recognized that "The requirements of the people were much higher than in the past . . . . They had to work harder, had to work faster, the technical equipment they had to handle required soberness." What soda could do a better job than a deliciously refreshing Coca-Cola?</p><p>Beside its industrial connection, modernization and newfound wealth opened additional avenues for Coke: refrigeration steadily invaded German households throughout the thirties which made home-consumption possible, whereas the massive infrastructure programs and the ensuing infatuation with the automobile allowed Coke to sell its products along Germany's vast network of new highways (see appendix). With the Company's dependency on restaurants removed, expansion proved limitless.</p><p>Coca-Cola's success was thus based on the needs of a modernizing and economically prospering totalitarian state. It was a stroke of luck that for strategy-purposes the company could consult with the Atlanta headquarters and imitate some of the New Deal ad campaigns pertinent to the German experience. This, however, is where the analogies with the United States must end, for it should be emphasized that neither Germany nor the Coca-Cola GmbH in Essen were turning distincly American under the Nazis. Far from it, Nazi- ideology thrived on a xenophobia that did not spare the U.S. and while Hitler might have been jealous of the efficieny of the U.S. economy, he was nevertheless rabidly anti-American in all other respects. He openly described the United States as a "deeply lazy country full of racial problems and social inequities. . .", stating that his</p><blockquote>"feelings for America are full of hatred and antipathy; half Jewish, half negro and everything based on the dollar . . . Americans have the brain of a chicken. This land is a house of cards with an unequal standard of living. Americans live like swines, even if in a very luxurious pigsty."</blockquote><blockquote>During the 21 years of its existence in Germany, the producers of Coca-Cola could have easily constructed a mammouth concern. . . . with its own bottling plants, packaging, ice box producers, its own storage spaces, advertising companies and printing presses. They didn't do so but instead passed all contracts along to independent industries.</blockquote><p>But Coke was not above moving behind the scenes and handing out bribes when their policy of limited greed failed to calm down xenophobic nazi-officials. Thus was the case when Hermann Goering in 1936 introduced a Four-Year Plan, which restricted imports to a bare minimum in order to make Germany self-sufficient and ready for war. When Coke's main lawyer could not convince the authorities that Coca-Cola was a German business which deserved government support, the company announced that it would from now on produce all of the concentrate's elements, with the exception of Merchandise No.5 and 7X, within Germany. When even this show of goodwill did not suffice to sway the government into granting an import exemption, the company turned to a frantic pulling of strings behind the scenes, which seems to have included a bribe for Goering. Coca-Cola gained the needed import license and saved itself from impending doom.</p><p>Coke's readiness to strike deals points to the second pillar of Coke's survival strategy which had a lot to do with the leadership of Max Keith, "the quintessential Coca-Cola man and Nazi-collaborator." Simply put, his strategy was to please the Nazis whenever possible and through whatever means necessary.</p><p>An abundance of examples shows how Coke's advertising supported the Third Reich. Hans Dieter Schaefer reports, for instance, that after the aggressive news broadcast by the Reichsrundfunk, silly advertising jingles propagating the evangelium of refreshment were next. Coke ads deliberately sought the close contact to the men in power. This meant that when the cover of a magazine sported a picture of the Fuehrer, chances were good that a Coke advertisement would grace the back of that cover. Even when visitors streamed into the Sportpalast to listen to one of Dr. Goebbels' infamous speeches, they had to pass by a large billboard urging them to drink "Coca-Cola eiskalt."</p><p>Max Keith left out no opportunity to ingratiate himself with Germany's leaders. Coca-Cola was one of the three official beverage sponsors with a Getraenkedienst (beverage service) at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, and thus participated in an event the Nazis deliberately exploited to celebrate Germany's return to power and status. Moreover, to quote Ralph Willett, "By servicing the Olympices, Coca-Cola associated itself with the modernity of media technology, in the form of microphones, transmitter vans, and cameras for (respectively) radio broadcasts [. . .]. It was true that "the emphasis on sport [. . .] was in line with curent cultural ideology epitomized by the Berlin Olympics." Athletic competition was a Nazi ideal and the Coca-Cola GmbH cashed in heavily on this infatuation by becoming one of the biggest sponsors of sports events, most notably the annual Deutschlandrundfahrt (National Bycicle Championships) and the Soccer Cup.</p><p>In 1937, Keith succeeded in taking Coca-Cola literally into the heart of nazism. The occasion was the Reichsausstellung Schaffendes Volk, or Reich "A Working People" Exhibit. In this industrial exhibition reserved to the companies most loyal to the new order, the Coca-Cola GmbH, according to Mark Pendergrast, set up a functioning bottling plant, with a "miniature train carting Kinder beneath it, [. . .] at the very center of the fair, adjacent to the Propaganda Office."</p><p>The strategy of direct association with Nazi-leaders or of lending support to events propagandized by nazi-ideology sent a powerful subliminal message to both consumers and government by signaling that Coca-Cola was on Germany's side. Sometimes, however, it took a little more than that and it is interesting to note the circumstances under which Coca- Cola transgressed the boundaries of political neutrality in a more open show of support of the Nazis.</p><p>A flagrant example for such a transgression can be found in the October 1938 issue of the army-magazine Die Wehrmacht printed up to celebrate the annexation of the Sudetenland. In this (unfortunately unavailable) ad, Hans- Dieter Schaefer reports that a hand holds out a Coke bottle in front of a world map underlined by the caption Ja, Coca-Cola hat Weltruf (Yes, Coca-Cola enjoys international reputation) that goes on stating that `of the forty million automobilists from all over the world increasing attention is demanded,' which is the reason why they 'like to take advantage of the "pause that refreshes."' Schaefer quite correctly remarks that "this ad aimed at German soldiers and mixed a global point of view with a technologic-athletic perspective", but fails to point out the cynical effect of such a global point of view in a magazine dedicated to the glorification of Germany's recent annexations.</p><p>That such aggressive advertisements had become necessary was in part the result of the slanderous activities of Karl Flach, the boss of Afri-Cola. Intent on driving out the foreign competitor, Flach in 1936 began circulating flyers depicting Coca-Cola bottle caps from the U.S. with Hebrew inscriptions. Although the inscriptions were nothing but an indication that Coke was kosher, the flyers claimed to prove that Coca-Cola was a Jewish company. The damage was terrific and never quite contained as both the flyers and the rumor of Coke's Jewish owners continued to circulate over the years. However, sales figures prove that most of the impact was only temporary and due to the bad publicity generated when, as Mark Pendergrast rightly asserts, "Nazi Party Headquarters hastily canceled their orders."</p><p>Pendergrast seems to be wrong, however, when he claims that "the entire business was in jeopardy" because the Atlanta headquarters had forbidden Keith "to print defensive literature." If Keith had been given such an order, he disregarded it, for he knew just like Coke's company lawyer Walter Oppenhof that nobody outside Germany "could have any conception" of the scope of the problem. Coca-Cola thus did attempt to regain status in the eyes of Germany's rulers by placing several ads denouncing the anti- semitic accusations in the Stuermer, the official Nazi publication renowned for its vicious attacks against Jews. These ads did not go unnoticed in the United States and produced angry headlines claiming that "Coca-Cola Finances Hitler."</p><p>It seems as if the only principle that the Coca-Cola GmbH never betrayed in its history of wheeling and dealing under the Nazis was the product itself. The company fought the Nazi-bureaucracy tooth and nail to keep Coca-Cola unchanged after the Ministry of Economics in 1939 passed out rules demanding that bottles conform to a metric standard based on decimals. Since the Coke bottle contained 180 cubic centimeters instead of 200, the Nazis promptly halted the production of new bottles, showing little understanding for the argument that the production of different-sized bottles would constitute an unacceptable drain on Germany's scarce glas resources.</p><p>Not surprisingly, the company found an ingenious and unscrupulous solution. With the help of Reinhard Spitzy, a well-connected former high official in the German Foreign Office, Coca-Cola manouvred to take advantage of the situation in the recently annexed Sudetenland, where German laws, including the packaging regulations, did not fully apply yet. Spitzy recounts that when he asked the Gauleiter (District Leader) how the local glas industry was coping with the international embargo imposed on all German products after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, he received the answer: "My dear Party Comrade Spitzy, the situation of the glas industry is absolutely shitty, the machines run only a few hours a day." When Spitzy told him how unfortunate this was given that "the international company Coca-Cola urgently needs millions and millions of new bottles," the Gauleiter reacted predictably by engineering an import exemption for Coca-Cola bottles manufactured in the Sudetenland.</p><p>While this exemption could be regarded as the result of a successful act of opposition against the Nazi bureaucracy, one should not exaggerate the heroism in Coke's stand: by helping the Sudetendeutsche industries back on its feet, the Coca-Cola GmbH supported the Nazi- government in circumventing an international embargo designed to cripple its rule.</p><p>Stories like these illustrate how Coca-Cola achieved its success under the Nazis. Simply put, the Coca-Cola GmbH and the Nazis needed one another. The former took advantage of the latter's economic and territorial expansionism, while the latter needed modern companies like Coca-Cola as role-models for mass- production. Underlying these overlapping interests was an undeniable ideological affinity that kept the relationship strong. The tale of the March 1938 concessionaire convention sums up best what is meant here. While Max Keith presided over the 1,500 people in attendance, German soldiers stormed across the Austrian border to execute the Anschluss. Mark Pendergrast's description of the event leaves no doubt that the swastika and the Coca-Cola logo rested next to each other comfortably.</p><p>Behind the main table, a huge banner proclaimed, in German, `Coca-Cola is the world-famous trademark for the unique product of the Coca-Cola GmbH.' Directly below, three gigantic swastikas stood out, black on red. At the main table, Max Keith sat surrounded by his deputies, another swastika draped in front of him.</p><p>Although acknowledging glorious past efforts, Keith urged his workers to forge onward into the future, never to be content until every citizen was a Coke consumer. "We know we will reach our goal only if we muster all our power in a total effort," he said. "Our marvelous drink has the power of endurance to continue this march to success." [. . .] The meeting closed with a "ceremonial pledge" to Coca-Cola and a ringing, three-fold "Sieg- Heil" to Hitler. Coca-Cola ber alles.</p><p>Given this overtly enthusiastic embrace of the Nazis, the fact that the Coca-Cola GmbH survived the oncoming war seems more a logical conclusion to this paper than a surprise in need of an explanation. Despite all the difficulties inherent in Coke's rise, by the time war broke out, Coke's situation was so secure that Max Keith could get himself "appointed to the Office of Enemy Property to supervise all soft drink plants, both in Germany and the captured teritory. As German troops overran Europe, Keith and Oppenhof followed, assisting and taking over the Coca-Cola businesses in Italy, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway." Even that the war had cut off the supply of 7X and Merchandise #5 proved unimportant. Keith and his men countered by inventing Fanta to see them through the war, and thus created a success that still reverberates throughout the corners of the world where local bottling companies fill Fanta bottles.</p><p>Although it must be noted in all fairness that the Coca- Cola GmbH only in rare instances directly endorsed the Nazis, it is still a fact that the Coca-Cola GmbH went beyond mere opportunism to stay alive. Coca-Cola was part of the Nazi state. Should this paper have proven inadequate in pointing this out, plenty of other sources can. The survivors of the forced labourers kidnapped from the conquered territories will testify to that. Some of them were sent to work for Max Keith's Coca-Cola GmbH.</p><br>
Death by 1000 Lawsuits: The Public Litigation in Response To The Opioid Crisis Will Mirror The Global Tobacco Settlement of The 1990s by Paul L. Keenan