NP Re: propaganda [was Re: Vineland]

[davemarc]

> From: MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu
> 
> Yes, good point re O'Neill, davemarc.  Still, that *Little* and
*Helper*--those seem a bit 
> sinister, though as you say, not in today's league.

Shucks.  Might as well take this opportunity to change the anesthesia
pioneering date from c. 1864 to 1840-64.

> ******************
> davemarc writes:
> >
> >19th century medications are a story in themselves.  I don't think
they're
> >simply a matter of marketing.  I know I've been harping on O'Neill
> >recently, so I'll stay on the subject a little longer to point out that
> >Eugene's mom became addicted to morphine after being treated with it
> >following a painful birth experience in the late part of the century. 
The
> >doctor wasn't great, but I don't think he was a complete incompetent
> >either; such usages were as common as they were regrettable. 
Considering
> >that the "safe" anesthesia pioneered c.1864 wasn't all that safe (and
still
> >isn't, in some ways), and that addictive substances like alcohol and
> >codeine are still in cough medicines, the origins of "Mother's Little
> >Helper" might have been less sinister, and more primitive and desperate,
> >than suggested.  Now if we're gonna talk about modern-day cigarettes and
> >heroin and cocaine....
>