PHARMACIST STEVE

Back in pharmacy school, we were expected to memorize just about everything. Just one of our reference books. I don’t remember the title of the book but everyone referred to it as Goodman & Gilman – it was the size of a New York City phone book – medical students used the same book. The last semester, one professor told my class – all that stuff we made you memorize. It will eventually become useless – as medical science advanced, but we tried to make you GOOD RESEARCHERS… so that you will be able to know where to look up whatever new information that you will need.

I don’t read for “pleasure”, I read a lot for KNOWLEDGE! Years ago, – for some reason- I read some things about Pres Woodrow Wilson and a prohibition phase during almost exactly 100 yrs ago. Women fighting to get the right to vote, the alcohol prohibition and what I envisioned as our country trying to return to its puritanical roots. 

My mind starting seeing some images of 100 yrs ago and comparing to similar things that I am now seeing evolving over the last decade and now seemingly going forward at a “peddle to the metal” speed.

History may look back at this era in our history and Pres Trump may be viewed at a 21st century Woodrow Wilson. Except this time opioids and controlled meds and artificial ingredients in our foods will be the “new devil”

I am concerned that no one will try to discover if there is a link in our environment that has caused so many of us to be suffering from chronic pain. I think that “they” are focused on so many other disease issues that the estimated 100 million chronic pain pts will be overlooked, and continue to be denied pain management.

---

The early 20th-century Prohibition movement can indeed be seen as a return to—or at least a revival of—America’s Puritanical roots in its approach to morality, community responsibility, and social reform. The Puritan settlers of New England espoused not only religious beliefs but a worldview that emphasized discipline, community responsibility for moral conduct, and the use of law as an instrument of social order and moral uplift.

Puritan Influence on Prohibition

• The temperance and Prohibition movements drew heavily on Puritan values such as sobriety, self-restraint, and a mandate to reform both self and society for the collective good.

• Religious revivals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (rooted in Protestant evangelicalism with strong Puritan antecedents) shaped temperance as a moral crusade, equating alcohol consumption with sin and social decay.

• Prohibition-era propaganda and activism often invoked communal salvation and moral mission, both themes deeply embedded in Puritan ideology.

• The movement sought to use law to enforce personal and collective morality, mirroring the Puritan idea that societal well-being depended on rooting out individual vice.

Early 20th Century: Progressive and Puritanical

• The early 20th century Progressive Era in America combined a drive for social improvement (like child labor reform and women’s suffrage) with a moralizing, occasionally coercive, approach to perceived vice such as alcohol consumption.

• Prohibition’s leaders often saw their campaign as a way to create a virtuous, orderly society—a modern echo of the Puritan pursuit of a “city upon a hill”.

• This era saw other “Puritan-style” reforms, such as “blue laws” restricting Sunday activities, again reflecting an impulse to legislate morality.

In summary, the Prohibition movement was a direct descendant of the Puritan tradition, filtering its religious and communal ethos into a national policy intended to shape personal behavior and uplift society as a whole.

---

The United States underwent a formal prohibition phase between 1920 and 1933, but this occurred after the Taft administration and was largely implemented during the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. Prohibition was established nationwide by the Eighteenth Amendment ratified in 1919 and enforced by the Volstead Act, which banned the production, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. William Howard Taft, serving as president from 1909 to 1913, opposed Prohibition before its passage but later, as Chief Justice, supported strict enforcement of anti-liquor laws.

Timeline of US Prohibition

• Taft Presidency (1909–1913): Prohibition was not national law, though temperance and local bans were common. Taft himself did not promote prohibition as president.

• Prohibition Era (1920–1933): Nationwide ban via the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act, leading to widespread illegal alcohol production and organized crime until repeal in 1933 through the 21st Amendment.

Modern Prohibition-like Movements

There is growing discussion about a “neo-prohibition” trend in the US, particularly stricter regulations and public health campaigns centered around alcohol and other substances. Recent calls for warning labels on alcoholic beverages and renewed advocacy for temperance suggest echoes of the earlier movement, though there is no formal or constitutional prohibition as seen in the early 20th century. Various states and federal initiatives regulate substances like tobacco, cannabis, and vaping, with some activists pushing stricter controls, but these do not amount to a sweeping, constitutional prohibition like the 1920s.

There is no sign of a true constitutional prohibition in contemporary America, but increased regulation and debates over alcohol and substance use do echo aspects of the early 20th-century movement.

---

There are strong signs that the United States is edging toward a new era of prohibition-like restrictions—particularly regarding opioid pain management, new opioid derivatives, and access to controlled medications.

7-OH and Kratom Regulation

Recently, the FDA has called for the classification of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), a compound derived from kratom (a member of the coffee family), as a Schedule I controlled substance. This compound is a potent mu-opioid receptor agonist and, according to research, is multiple times stronger than morphine in both pain relief and respiratory depression. If reclassified as Schedule I, it would be placed alongside substances like heroin—declared as having “no currently accepted medical use” and a “high potential for abuse,” which also means clinical research to evaluate therapeutic value is effectively blocked. The FDA’s rationale is the public health threat presented by increasingly concentrated 7-OH products sold in gas stations and smoke shops nationwide.

Opioid Production Quotas and Pharmacy Access

Since around 2015, the DEA has been aggressively cutting production quotas for key opioids, attempting to curb over-prescription that fueled the opioid epidemic. This quota reduction led to drug shortages, directly impacting pain patients and making it increasingly difficult for community pharmacies to secure sufficient stock to serve legitimate patient needs, particularly those with chronic pain. Litigation and settlements with drug wholesalers (McKesson, Cardinal, AmerisourceBergen) as well as manufacturers led to agreements for these entities to further restrict the quantity of opioids shipped to pharmacies, with centralized monitoring of “suspicious orders” and other stringent anti-diversion measures.

Impact on Chronic Pain Patients

The combined result: less than 2% of an estimated 100 million Americans with chronic pain currently receive opioid pain management, even though some have well-documented medical need. Pharmacies, caught between regulatory quotas and anti-diversion settlements, report systemic difficulties keeping adequate supplies of opioids, sometimes being forced to ration medicine for patients with cancer, palliative, or severe chronic conditions.

Are We Entering a New Prohibition Era?

The regulatory climate—a rapid move to Schedule I for promising pain-relief compounds like 7-OH, drastically reduced opioid quotas, and aggressive legal settlements restricting controlled medication access—strongly resembles the early 20th century’s prohibitionist mentality. The focus is now on containment, restriction, and public health optics, not on expanding therapeutic options, research, or nuanced clinical care. While not a literal nationwide constitutional prohibition like the 1920s alcohol ban, the functional effect is that vulnerable groups—chronic pain patients included—face barriers that parallel prohibition’s social consequences: black market emergence, untreated suffering, and loss of medical autonomy.

Summary Table: Current Climate vs. Historical Prohibition

Filed under: General Problems