Should a Law from 17th century Turkey be reenacted? And the Criminals be put to Death!

Part 1:

Lets go back to 17th century Turkey, shall we?

Click the picture for source article.

It seems I found a law dating back to the 1600's in Turkey, enforced by Sultan Murad IV, one that would have profound effects were it to be enforced today.

I think it's important for us to look back at history, and realize some of the things our forefathers had perfected or perhaps blundered when it comes to law and order.

In this case, maybe I've found an old law that should be reinstated. I don't know about the death penalty for it, I mean, I'm kind of against capital punishment. Perhaps just life sentences instead??

Most folks who resolved to cut down on coffee this year are driven by the simple desire for self-improvement.

But for coffee drinkers in 17th-century Turkey, there was a much more concrete motivating force: a big guy with a sword.

Sultan Murad IV, a ruler of the Ottoman Empire, would not have been a fan of Starbucks. Under his rule, the consumption of coffee was a capital offense.

The sultan was so intent on eradicating coffee that he would disguise himself as a commoner and stalk the streets of Istanbul with a hundred-pound broadsword. Unfortunate coffee drinkers were decapitated as they sipped.

Murad IV's successor was more lenient. The punishment for a first offense was a light cudgeling. Caught with coffee a second time, the perpetrator was sewn into a leather bag and tossed in the river.

But people still drank coffee. Even with the sultan at the front door with a sword and the executioner at the back door with a sewing kit, they still wanted their daily cup of joe. And that's the history of coffee in a bean skin: Old habits die hard.

Sultan Murad IV's successor, was much more lenient. The first offence being a old fashioned cudgelling and the second, being tied up into a large sac, then thrown into the river.

I had no idea what cudgelling meant so I thought I ought to look it up for the vocabulary-challenged people such as myself.

cudgel [ˈkʌdʒəl]
n
1. (Military / Arms & Armour (excluding Firearms)) a short stout stick used as a weapon
take up the cudgels (often foll by for or on behalf of) to join in a dispute, esp to defend oneself or another
vb -els, -elling, -elled US, -els -eling, -eled
1. (tr) to strike with a cudgel or similar weapon
cudgel one's brains to think hard about a problem
[Old English cycgel; related to Middle Dutch koghele stick with knob]

thefreedictionary.com

Sounds Fun!

So on second thought, maybe cutting peoples' heads off for drinking coffee was a tad excessive. It might have been the dumbest law ever enforced worldwide, throughout the ages of history.

In fact, it could be the clearest example of how morality being dictated by government, or a ruling crown, or any type of state head, is completely absurd, detrimental to the populace, and inherently wrong on a few different levels.

Part 2:

Today I'm going to apply/compare the coffee laws of old to a relatively new invention, the e-cigarette. I recently took up e-smoking *, before I was a pack - pack and a half/day smoker of traditional cigarettes. They have caused me great grief, mainly with lady friends I enjoy the company of. You see, traditional cigarettes among other negatives, make you smell like a dirty ashtray. You might as well roll around in a pile of garbage before going on a date if you're a smoker and the girl you're meeting up with isn't. It smells that bad! Not only that, but smoking indoors in your house causes your entire house, your clothes, everything to retain that god awful smell, and, stains everything in its path yellow.

[size=-3](I know some of you would like to consider another angle with this thread and its topic, but I ask you, please do not direct this topic into something that violates t and c. I simply want to discuss this old law in relation to esmokes, and not somewhat parallel arguments that could be easily made regarding other restricted substances.)





Smoking is disgusting.





No matter that it's disgusting I still feel people have a right to choose to, if they feel so inclined. However, once I tried esmokes I made the switch immediately and have never looked back at regular smokes. I know the tobacco companies are not happy, nor the government. In my area, cigarettes cost about $10-15/pack depending on the brand. That's around $15-20/day that the tobacco companies and government (via taxes) are not seeing hit their pockets now that I made the switch. The actual manufacturing cost of cigarettes is low. When I started, they cost only $3/pack. It wasn't until they started jamming "sin tax" onto them the prices soared. As far as how much actually is hitting government coffers, or tobacco companies profit piles, of course it is not exactly the full price of cigarettes, but it's pretty damn high. From the information I found, most of it is taxes, and it's the government getting the most out of it.

In Canada, recently the provinces (states) have sued tobacco companies to the tune of 50 Billion dollars for the added health care costs. It seems the federal government excises the taxes on tobacco products at retail locations (source), and the provincial governments are looking to counter balance the added costs to the healthcare system (which they claim.)

Provinces are suing tobacco companies.

Now, some might argue that lung cancer, is not even directly tied to tobacco smoking. That the number of lung cancer rates increased after nuclear weapons testing in North America, and in other parts of the world by Russia, and that the rates cannot solely be attributed to smoking only.

This is not something I want to debate in this thread, I thought I would point it out because it is interesting however. And some of the statistics are a little wonky.

Link. These stats seem to back up that smoking is causing lung cancer, but also raises many questions as to why there is so much lung cancer in some countries as opposed to others. (Some claim smoking is the only cause of lung cancer?)

Greece is facing an epidemic according to this article, and they are very liberal with smoking.

Enough about that though... I think the interesting points I've covered in this section is how the Canadian gov, is charing tax at the federal level, and the provinces (states) are trying to cash grab at the state level. What a racket this is!

Part 3:

Follow the money!

E-cigarettes unfortunately, have not proven to be safe. Mostly due to a patent holder and inventor in China (I believe) that did not bring his product to market in the most business savvy fashion. The tobacco companies are trembling because they don't have patents or exclusivity when it comes to ecigs. The government is trembling because it is poised to lose some of the billions it collects via sin tax.

Now, if the ecig was patented worldwide, and the patent holder sold reasonable priced licenses to tobacco companies, you might have seen them come to market in a much different way.

I was well aware of the old day's views of coffee. It's something I bring up now and then in social settings when people are ignorant to spout the daily rhetoric heard on MSM which has no scientific backing. (In select cases I'm referring to.) I'm sure you know what I'm talking about... You might be at a dinner party, a get-together, or some type of outing, and your Aunt Rita heard a story on the news how ecigarettes might start killing everyone because "The government doesn't know if they are safe!"

Esmokes contain two FDA approved food additives and pharm grade nicotine, which, in the proper dosages is not much different than caffeine. For those that would argue nicotine a "dangerous chemical", consider that China has an outright ban on caffeine and it's trading is illegal. Link While it still exports caffeine for a food additive to North America, it's containers are marked with skull and cross bones. Also, caffeine is under restriction in AUS and NZ.

The FDA can't outright ban esmokes, because it's approved all the chemicals therein. And frankly, they just aint that bad.

New Zealand seems to be the only place with any studies relating to esmokes. I find it funny that the focus of the study, in the conclusions, seemed to highlight economic factors more so than health factors:

www.healthnz.co.nz...

Patent law enforcement necessary
for registration as a medicine
• Ruyan holds world patent applications for atomiser.
• Sales going to copycat companies, undercutting Ruyan’s price.
• World sales were estimated at US100 million annually in 2008.
• Low cigarette prices in China make sales economic only in West.
• Ruyan has prosecuted several rivals successfully under IP law.
• Cigarette companies have the resources to improve reliability and
nicotine delivery of the product, but cannot sell without a patent.
• No e-cigarette has been approved as a medicine by any regulator.
• Without enforcement of IP law by the patent holder in China and
importing countries, even the patent holder cannot afford to register
any e-cigarette as a medicine.
• No registration as a medicine expected for Australia and NZ for 3
years. Meantime personal-use imports permitted into NZ

Ah, but this study was done by Ruyan® e-cigarette it seems. So, people out there who are against esmokes will simply cite this clearly as a study done without being impartial. (Even if it was done by a third party research group.)

Not even sure if that's the case, but who's to blame after what the tobacco companies did in the 80s with all their so-called "scientific" studies. The tobacco lobby of course, would do just about anything to get their products with rubber stamped approvals from a doctor.

Not surprising given the amount of money in the industry.

Health Canada's misguided approach to esmokes.

Canada has chosen to ban the import of e-cigarettes. And while there is no direct law prohibiting their sale, they've managed to block the import of esmokes that contain nicotine, citing that they don't know if they're safe, so in effect they're protecting the people.

?? huh ??

Consumers
The sale of these electronic smoking products is not authorized in Canada. The products may pose health risks and have not been fully evaluated by Health Canada.
For further information see Health Canada Advises Canadians Not to Use Electronic Cigarettes

www.health.gov.bc.ca...

I can't find the original warning on the Health Canada website, but the above pretty much sums it up.

If they don't know, why aren't they doing the testing to find out. How can they limit or stop something they have no proof of is harmful??

Part 4:

Conclusion

Let's head back to the days of old again. Forget the Sultan who was eager to cleaver off a commoner's head for drinking coffee. Instead, let's head over to England and see what the famous tea drinkers of yesteryear had to say about coffee... The most competitive drink to their national wonder of ____ and biscuits.

Perhaps the bawdiest argument against coffee was "The Womens [sic] Petition Against Coffee," published in England in 1674. Brimming with innuendos that would make Shakespeare blush, the six-page manifesto blamed coffee for every type of impotence.

One of the more repeatable passages:

... the Excessive use of that Newfangled, Abominable, Heathenish Liquor called COFFEE, which Riffling Nature of her Choicest Treasures, and Drying up the Radical Moisture, has so Eunucht our Husbands that they are become as unfruitful as those Desarts whence that unhappy Berry is said to be brought.

Monarchs and tyrants publicly argued that coffee was poison for the bodies and souls of their subjects, but Mark Pendergrast — author of Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World — says their real concern was political.

"Coffee has a tendency to loosen people's imaginations ... and mouths," he tells The Salt.

And inventive, chatty citizens scare dictators.

According to one story, an Ottoman Grand Vizier secretly visited a coffeehouse in Istanbul.

"He observed that the people drinking alcohol would just get drunk and sing and be jolly, whereas the people drinking coffee remained sober and plotted against the government," says Allen.

Essentially, and I'm not sure if this source covers it entirely, coffee was banned in England briefly and there was outrage from women's groups who believed coffee made their husbands impotent.

Wiki source for the English coffee debacle.

What was really going on, was that "coffee houses" were only open for men to attend. And while they had coffee in the main floor, and the idea was to join together for a drink, the man wandered up to the top floor of these houses where they proceeded to have sex with whores.

The women's groups believed coffee was the culprit.

Essentially, their men were too worn out from extramarital affairs after they returned from the coffee houses, they couldn't please what they had at home. And scorn and outrage ensued from womminz everywhere.

Now, this and the other instances of coffee bans I see as a great mirrored wisdom to today and the ban (or upcoming ban) on esmokes.

It is very likely that esmokes will be met with the same taxation and regulation that regular tobacco has now.

This to me is wholly irresponsible; it's implementation will be done out of fear and prejudice.

In 2009, New Jersey voted to treat the electronic cigarette in the same category as tobacco products by including under the New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act. Assemblywoman Connie Wagner sponsored the legislation arguing that they "looked like the real thing"; she also objected to the potential appeal of flavored electric cigarettes to children.[74]

So far, actual laws have been put into place because "It looked like the real thing".... !!!

You have to be kidding me. Are we that ignorant, naive and just plain stupid to formulate our laws because something, "looks like the real thing".

When will our laws be based of actual facts, science or just plain ol' reality.


And ex smoker will tell you (one that's switched to esmokes), that the difference is apparent in the first few days. That a new lease on life is given when you make a switch from regular cigarettes to esmokes.

People come on this forum often and complain about money, lobbyists and plain old corruption dictating national and state laws. They get mad when there is minor evidence of suppression, or of laws being enacted out of plain ignorance.

You have all this when it comes to esmokes. Clear and evident signs of money and corruption dictating state policy. And people should be outraged, even if they are non-smokers. Instead of getting outraged when you see someone blowing out vapour (and you are under the impression it's smoke), you should be outraged at your government for confusing the two! Whether or not you are a smoke. Educate yourself, and demand your government educate themselves as well, when signing idiotic ramblings into law.

-B

Ummm,.
as to your OP question?
Yes

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Ummm,.
as to your OP question?
Yes

Oh well obviously... I am amazed not only that you read the OP so quickly, but that you could weigh the consequences of such action and reply so quickly with such a well thought out/formulated opinion.

You are very impressive sir.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Ummm,.
as to your OP question?
Yes

Oh well obviously... I am amazed not only that you read the OP so quickly, but that you could weigh the consequences of such action and reply so quickly with such a well thought out/formulated opinion.

You are very impressive sir.

Looks like Li'l drummer doesn't like coffee. Maybe he'she is a tea partier!
The simple rationale is that we don't really know what additives there are in tobacco cigarettes and well, put it this way, somebody does.

But people still drank coffee. Even with the sultan at the front door with a sword and the executioner at the back door with a sewing kit, they still wanted their daily cup of joe. And that's the history of coffee in a bean skin: Old habits die hard.

This statement here explains, ultimately the futility of such laws. People will do it anyway, it is no deterrent, and being that the case, why murder people over it?. State executions are pretty barbaric not many civilized nations really bother with it anymore.

Also, coffees good for you, so you know.

Originally posted by Tuttle

But people still drank coffee. Even with the sultan at the front door with a sword and the executioner at the back door with a sewing kit, they still wanted their daily cup of joe. And that's the history of coffee in a bean skin: Old habits die hard.

This statement here explains, ultimately the futility of such laws. People will do it anyway, it is no deterrent, and being that the case, why murder people over it?. State executions are pretty barbaric not many civilized nations really bother with it anymore.

Also, coffees good for you, so you know.

edit on 26-5-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)

Yes well even back then people were running in circles yelling "They 404'd my papyrus scroll!!! Those bastards!!" for hinting at having some arabica relief in the afternoon. Dark as hell, sweet as heaven... Ooohh..

Ironically it's Turkey. Again. Same thing, I saw they've just banned smoking hookahs in public. I mean, you know those dudes that sit around with the hookah hanging out of their mouth 36 hours a day on the hubbly bubbly.. Illegal.

Don't give them any more ideas Boncho. The world... It's mad!!!

Oo

Great post! I was unaware of the old world coffee ban...today I learned...
On the subject of e-cigarettes, I am also an ex-cigarette, current e-cig user. I agree that the difference is amazing in terms of how much better I can breathe, etc... I am currently 'stepping down' my nicotine intake due to the fact that I have recently taken up martial arts, and I want to maximize my lung capacity...but I had tried to quit cigarettes several times before and was never able to...then I found the e-cigarette. And I have a friend who likes to quote "studies that link e-cigarettes to various medical conditions", but never says WHAT illnesses they cause... I also think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it is the government that stands to lose the most if a majority of cigarette smokers were to switch (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Loss of money terrifies the government, as loss of money could equal loss of power.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Ummm,.
as to your OP question?
Yes

Oh well obviously... I am amazed not only that you read the OP so quickly, but that you could weigh the consequences of such action and reply so quickly with such a well thought out/formulated opinion.

You are very impressive sir.

Looks like Li'l drummer doesn't like coffee. Maybe he'she is a tea partier!
The simple rationale is that we don't really know what additives there are in tobacco cigarettes and well, put it this way, somebody does.

E-cigs contain:
Vegetable Glycerin,
Propylene Glycol,
nicotine.

As someone mentioned, the only studies done are proponents, which found negligible levels of anything harmful... 100 and/or 1000 times lower than a regular cigarette. But that won't be acceptable because it's from people that have a monetary stake, I imagine. Similar to the tobacco companies doing "studies" back in the day. Paying doctors under the table to recommend them.

The only difference here, is that e-cigs contain 2 ingredients approved by the FDA. Things that are are allowable and found in many common foods. And of course nicotine.


When flavoured versions are being considered, it would be the same flavourings used in the food industry. Now you are dealing with esters et al.

If anything negative is going to come out of testing, it will be from flavourings (I surmise) simply because some are already questionable that are being used in the food industry.

Some more info about Murad the 4th .


He was as powerfull as an Ox .

Physical power [edit]

Murad IV was the last Warrior Sultan who led campaigns in front of his army and fought on the battlefield. His physical strength was phenomenal, which is described in detail on the books of Evliya Çelebi.
He was especially known for his exceptional strength in wrestling - capable of fighting several opponents at the same time.
His favorite weapon was a huge mace, weighing 60 kilograms (132 lbs), which he wielded effortlessly with a single hand.[8]
Among his other favourite weapons are a longbow and a large two-handed broadsword weighing more than 50 kilograms (110 lbs).
His weapons are today displayed at the Topkapı Palace Museum in Istanbul, intact and well preserved.

He dies rather early and unexpectedly .

Death [edit]

Murad IV died in İstanbul at the age of 27 in 1640. There are two separate claims on the cause of death. Western sources claim Murad IV, who had outlawed alcohol, died from cirrhosis of the liver. Ottoman sources claim that he died of gout.[citation needed]
On his deathbed, Murad IV ordered the execution of his mentally disabled brother, Ibrahim I (reigned 1640–48), which would have meant the end of the Ottoman line; but the order was not carried out

He was only 11 years old when he took the throne and worse still , he had a Greek mother who really influenced him .

Murad IV Ghazi (Ottoman Turkish: مراد رابع Murād-ı rābi‘) (July 26/27, 1612 – February 9, 1640) was the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1623 to 1640, known both for restoring the authority of the state and for the brutality of his methods. Murad IV was born in Constantinople, the son of Sultan Ahmed I (1603–17) and the ethnic Greek[1][2][3] Valide Kösem Sultan (also known as Mahpeyker). Brought to power by a palace conspiracy in 1623, he succeeded his uncle Mustafa I (1617–18, 1622–23). He was only 11 when he took the throne

Today Turks remember him with his murderous and hopeless policy of banning alcohol and tabacco .

reply to post by 23432

He dies rather early and unexpectedly .

It seems his rule was hypocrisy at its finest:

Murad IV tried to quell the corruption that had grown during the reigns of previous Sultans, and that had not been checked while his mother was ruling through proxy. He addressed this corruption with several policy changes, such as limiting wasteful spending.

Murad IV also banned alcohol, tobacco, and coffee in Constantinople.[4] He ordered execution for breaking this ban. He would patrol the streets and taverns of Constantinople in civilian clothes at night, policing the enforcement of his command. By prohibiting tobacco he assimilated the idles gathering in the taverns.

He restored the judicial regulations by very strict punishments, including execution. Halil İnalcık reports that even though he was a ruthless supporter of alcohol prohibition, Murat IV was a habitual drinker.[5]

Especially if he died of liver failure.

Jesus, he was only in his mid 20s, most people I know, even though they drink like fish, never had problems that young. Although, god knows what their distillation techniques were like back then, and how many impurities they had in their brew.

King County in Washington, I believe has regulated e-cigarettes:

"To protect our youth, and to avoid confusion, we're going to treat them like regular tobacco products," Nicola said.

That confusion happens, according to Nicola, when someone lights up an e-smoke in a public place.

"People smoke them in establishments, and other patrons think they're smoking. That makes it much more likely others will think it's okay and start smoking themselves," Nicola said.

Nicola said he expects the new rules to pass.

mynorthwest.com...

Funny, the justification is:

Someone smoking esmokes, will confuse some other person, who might think it's okay to smoke. So instead of educating people on esmokes, which shouldn't be that hard to do, they will just put down an esmoke ban.

That makes perfect sense?

Coffee as you know, encourages people to overthrow their government.

Coffee they're talking about isnt the stuff from Starbucks and people didn't drink for the same reason.

It was a super brewed, thick, resinous black oil that certain Muslim sects used (and still use) to get all amped up and pray.

The sultan (seems like a swell fella) wasn't really banning coffee. He was banning a religion. Which is probably why he was such a zealot about beheading these people. They were his religious opponents.

I'm a snooty tea drinker myself .

Originally posted by doctornamtab
Coffee they're talking about isnt the stuff from Starbucks and people didn't drink for the same reason.

It was a super brewed, thick, resinous black oil that certain Muslim sects used (and still use) to get all amped up and pray.

The sultan (seems like a swell fella) wasn't really banning coffee. He was banning a religion. Which is probably why he was such a zealot about beheading these people. They were his religious opponents.

Whether or not they were his opponents or that coffee was associated with a certain act or behaviour, it's nonetheless semantics you're arguing and he did in fact ban coffee.

As far as it being different than Starbucks, so too are the multiple varieties of coffee available these days. None however will simply give you the urge to overthrow your government, whether it be black sludge or not.

I have to say no simply because I am a coffee drinker. Not excessive but I like my cup o coffee in the morning.

About the E-cig thing, I dont buy those....I dont judge anyone who use them or other products to quit like gum or patches but how do you eliminate a toxin (nicotine) from your body if you keep giving it to him???

I quit on Jan 4th of his year....cold turkey! and my wife also quit, but used the patch. Well it was harder for her to stop than me. But now we are both completely smoke free!

Great coffee history lesson there OP! Thanks for sharing

S&F

reply to post by boncho


Nobody could carry around "a 100 pound broadsword" much less decapitate someone with it.

Originally posted by Kody27
reply to post by boncho

 

Nobody could carry around "a 100 pound broadsword" much less decapitate someone with it.

Well, if you got the 100 lb broad sword above your head, gravity and its weight is going to do all the work decapitating the person on the way down. You just need them to be nice enough to offer their neck.

I looked into it. I found a picture of the Sultan's weapons, but they all look average in shape, design and weight. I found it's pretty common for captains of war from yesteryear to have been exaggerated in size and strength. Apparently this happened with ancient Chinese warriors of fame as well... claiming they wielded weapons of 100lbs+.

Perhaps they did have some ceremonial weapons of that size, but it seems they are greatly exaggerated for the most part. Even in proper historical texts. Not surprising when it could probably get you killed writing ill of someone back then... Surprised it hasn't been revised or at least annotated in later years however.

reply to post by Teye22

About the E-cig thing, I dont buy those....I dont judge anyone who use them or other products to quit like gum or patches but how do you eliminate a toxin (nicotine) from your body if you keep giving it to him???

I quit on Jan 4th of his year....cold turkey! and my wife also quit, but used the patch. Well it was harder for her to stop than me. But now we are both completely smoke free!

In my case I really didn't want to quit smoking, I enjoy it, however, I was suffering badly from health problems from it. I switched to ecigs and the health problems disappeared instantly. Hopefully cancer risks as well. But who knows? (Knock on wood.) I think the misconception here or with the general public, is that ecigs are a consumer product, not a supposed health product like tobacco and pharm companies are trying to market patches, et al.

I like my ecigs, and my coffee. And I feel people should be able to consume both in peace. Without heads being chopped off.

Thanks for your input.

The coffee thing kills me in the case of England and how it was mislabeled and mishandled. I bring it up with my girlfriend and have some running jokes with that one.