142 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

On September 21, 2001 Title 29 A M.R.S.A. SS 2079-A was passed. On Oct. 3rd, 2001 Officer Wagnor had a duty to enforce this Statute because that's his job. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Taub have a duty to argue their case for the State, because argument is their profession, and arguments are the guns and bullets by which both sides have to continue the war between power and liberty. Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson had a duty to argue, So did James Madison.

And I have a duty to argue because I love every concept that the Bill of Rights stands for, that individual liberty is held above the objectives of government. I am inspired by this most noble document ever written to define the limits that government must obey.

I especially love the concepts of free speech and freedom of expression embodied in our traditions and our Constitution.

And this case confronts you with the duty our system places on this Court to say where individual freedom ends and the State’s power begins. Choice on that border, now as always is very delicate, and perhaps even more so where the usual presumption supporting legislation is balanced by the preferred place given in our scheme to the great and indispensable Individual freedoms secured by the First Amendment.... That priority gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.

America’s Founding Fathers believed so strongly in the right to free speech that they codified it in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

But the Constitution, valued as highly as it is, is only a piece of paper. It does nothing by itself. The Bill of Rights declares what our civil liberties are. But it does not carry out its commands. It's not enough to declare fundamental rights and limits in a constitution. We also have to have the machinery to enforce such provisions.

This court is the only safeguard against laws that go beyond the government’s limited authority, and this Court , has the right, indeed has the duty to apply to ever changing conditions the never changing principles of freedom,”

Your Honor, it is the character of the right, and not of the limitation, which should determine what standard governs the choice that you must make today. This Court can not examine this legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, It must examine it in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

Or as stated in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 97 S Ct. 2691, 2707 (1977). the possible harm to society from allowing unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech will be muted.”

The defendant asserts that this statute is in violation of the First Amendments right to free speech and expression and some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have ever have dreamed of , and these provisions severely compromise the civil liberties of everyone in this State. The First Amendment does not speak unequivocably. The First Amendment is clear enough that people on opposite sides of this case can agree on what it commands. This statute finds no support in the words of the Constitution, in fact This is not what the First Amendment requires; it is what the First Amendment forbids. The choice between the dangers of suppressing speech and the dangers arising from its free flow was seen as precisely the choice that the First Amendment makes for us.

Now, the State is asking this court to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can abridge freedom of speech and expression.

But there are no contrary implications in any part of the history of the period in which the First Amendment was framed and adopted. No purpose in ratifying the Bill of Rights was clearer than that of securing for the people of the United States freedom of speech. The only conclusion supported by history is that the unqualified prohibitions laid down by the framers were intended to give these liberties to the people, and keep the Government out of them.

Yet the State has argued, and we hope that the Court does not agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine of no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood:

"Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech . ."

Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that speech must be left free and not limited, censored, or subject to prior restraints. To find that the State has "inherent power" to limit speech would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was statutes like this that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

This Statute, while perhaps crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements, and it should find no Support from this Court, for if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, surely it is the principle of free speech and expression.

Now before I address the issue of unconstitutionally Vauge, I woud like to address the States comment from their "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss."

" The State assumes that Mr. O’Rights has standing to make this argument even though there is no evidence that he was attempting to express himself with his loud music or that he was attempting in anyway to communicate with others.

Your honor, some activities standing alone are deviod of expressive purpose and have to be justified if it's a novel mode of communication. Take the activity of standing and sitting for example. Of and by themselves, standing and sitting are not automatically considered Constitutionally protected expressions, Sitting or standing in a library for instance is a commonplace activity necessary to facilitate ends usually having nothing to do with making a statement. Moreover, sitting or standing is not conduct that an observer would normally construe as expressive conduct. However, for 30 African Americans to stand or sit in a "whites only" library in Louisiana in 1965 was powerfully expressive; in that particular context, those acts became "monuments of protest" against segregation.

Music on the other hand, as Reeves, 631 F.2d at 388. points out. Music, be it singing, from the radio, played on a phonograph, etc., falls within these protected freedoms.

Music itself is a form of "Speech and expression". It is by nature, an expressive activity. Music itself enjoys the same protection as "Pure Speech." As stated in KOVACS V. COOPER , 336 U.S. 77, The scope of the protection
afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment, for the right of a citizen to play music and express his views on matters which he considers to be of interest to himself and others on a public street through sound amplification devices mounted on vehicles, must be considered, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and freedom to communicate information and opinions to others.

Even if this Court were to find that the Defendant was not excercising a Constitutional Right, as 45 L Ed 2d 725 points
out, a litigant assailing legislation on the ground of overbreadth has standing, even though his own conduct could have been regulated by a statute, and the litigant is permitted to raise the question of overbreath of the legislation as applied to persons in situations not before the Court
Now the State Contends that the Statute Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague.

As the State points out in its motion, (A statute “is improperly vague ‘when its language either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of common intelligence must guess at its meaning.”’ )

The statute says (A person may not operate a sound system in a vehicle on a public way at a volume that is audible at a distance of greater than 25 feet and that exceeds 85 decibles).

Your honor this statute does not clearly state where the 85 decible limit should not exceed. Your honor, we assert that this portion of the law is not clearly defined. You have to codifying and articulate specific decibel levels (which the state has done) and the locations from where the decible level is not to exceed (which the state has not done). One could easily conclude that the 85 decibles should not be exceeded at the source, another may think that its at the 25 foot mark. The defense asserts that this lack of a precise definition is just one of the things that makes this law unclear, vague, uncertain and questionable.

For purposes of comparison in United States v. Doe, 968 F.2d 86 (D.C.Cir. 1992), you will find Title(36 C.F.R. § 2.12(a)(1)(i) (1991)) a federal regulation that contains a section in which does not suffer from the same constitutional infirmities as the Maine noise law does. This Section which prohibits "operating . . . an audio device, such as a . . . musical instrument, in a manner that exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet." This standard provides an objectively verifiable measure of conduct. ." Citizens, police officers, and judges can equally measure any conduct allegedly proscribed by this section -- the issue before all of those persons would be whether "the noise exceeds 60 decibles at 50 feet.

The State contends that "Because it is not always easy for legislatures to describe the conduct they seek to prohibit, precise definitions are not necessary. And they site See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 (“Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.”). But Grayned goes on to say

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.

Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 U.S. 109] basic policy matters to policemen judges and juries, and for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.

Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms." Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to "`steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked."

Your honor, Explicit laws by definition are laws that are fully and clearly defined and formulated, leaving nothing implied.
This law fails that test.

Now, your Honor, even if this law clearly specified that the 85 dB limit was not to be exceeded at 25 feet, or specified that the limit could not be exceeded in the vehicle or at the source, the law would still be unconstitutionaly vague, because of the next provision (or that is greater than is reasonable with due regard to the location of the vehicle and the effect on persons in proximity to the vehicle.) Here, the way the law is written, it provides another vague and uncertain standard, one almost totally deviod of any real distinction. Based upon the holdings in Grayned, we must answer the question of whether (or that is greater than reasonable with due regard to the location of the vehicle and the effects on persons in proximity to the vehicle.) give fair warning to individuals potentially subject to its proscriptions?

In Gonzalo Luna v. City of Ulysses, a niose ordinance was found to lack objective standards providing fair warning to an individual as to the conduct proscribed, and also found that the ordinance permitted the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of noisy speech. The Court held that the loaded phrases and words "unnecessarily loud," "excessive," and "disturbing" did not provide fair warning. We believe that the loaded phrase, (or that is greater than is reasonable) likewise does not provide fair warning. We would ask this Court to take Judicial Notice that what is considered a reasonable volume will be viewed much differently from an 18 year old, than it will be for someone who is in their 80's.

Also, the statute contains the word "effect". "Effect is defined as influence, or something that produces a specific impression, or a paticular impression. Sounds that people find annoying or objectional can produce impressions even if they are less than 85 decibles so the Statute prohibits noise on several alternative yet equally subjective grounds: the noise is, "greater than reasonable", or the noise is "objectional" or "annoying". " The United States Supreme Court has already declared all of these so-called standards unconstitutionally vague. As the Supreme Court explained in Coates, 402 U.S. at 614 "Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others."

None of these putative standards passes constitutional muster. For no one can ascertain what conduct they do or do not in fact proscribe and Because a violation depends on the subjective opinion of the investigator, the speaker has no protection
against arbitrary enforcement of the ordinance.

Your honor, in our motion to dismiss, we have listed several court decisions that have struck down similar laws, like Phillips v. Borough of Folcroft, Pennsylvania, 305 F. Supp. 766 (E.D. Pa. 1969) (found unconstitutionally vague a law that based civil liability on "disturbance of the peace and good order" including by "the making of loud excessive and/or unnecessary noise")

And in a case not cited in my motion, EASY WAY OF LEE CO., INC. v. LEE CO., 674 So.2d 863 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Similarly, in the case before us, the Lee County ordinance does not define its crucial terms "plainly audible" so as to secure against arbitrary enforcement. We find a portion of that ordinance to be unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. In subjecting the ordinance to strict scrutiny, we hold that section 20-79 of the City of St. Petersburg Code is unconstitutionally overbroad and infringes on Ledford's free speech rights in a manner more intrusive than is necessary. We embrace the holding in CCB that the aim of protecting citizens from annoyance is not a "compelling" reason to restrict speech in a traditionally public forum.

The State claims that, "noise ordinances - like the one at issue here - pose “special problems of draftsmanship and enforcement” because the “nature of sound makes resort to broadly stated definitions and prohibitions not only common but difficult to avoid.”

We disagree, A decibel meter, by definition, is content neutral. It merely measures the volume of noise, not content. So by codifying and articulating specific decibel levels and the locations from where to take these measurements, the noise ordinance in no way would allow for arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. And I would submit Your Honor, that you don't have to be an extreme libertarian to worry about how the law will be enforced - especially in cases when a police officer does not have a sound meter and must rely on his or her subjective judgment.

The State cites "People v. New York Trap Rock Corp" But in People v. New York Trap Rock Corp., the noise ordinance was held to be unconstitutionally vague because it allowed convictions for noise which annoys another person.

What distinguishes our case from Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates is that the Statute involved before the court today, abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,"

As the State noted in it's motion, “the degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates” varies depending on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, there is “greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe, on the other hand, a statute that interferes with the right of free speech requires “a more stringent vagueness test.”

...and indeed your honor, it does. As West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 , 1186, 147 A.L.R. 674: Points out, 'The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears [336 U.S. 77 , 94] when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard.

I cite REEVES v. McCONN, 631 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1980)
This standard is applied even more strictly to statutes that inhibit free speech because of the value our society places on the free dissemination of ideas.

And from Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959) In the words of arguably one of the last centries greatest Supreme Court Justice, Justice Hugo Black said "... it would be unthinkable to convict a man for violating a law he could not understand. This Court has recognized that the stricter standard is as much required....For a statute broad enough to support infringement of speech, writings, thoughts and public assemblies against the unequivocal command of the First Amendment necessarily leaves all persons to guess just what the law really means to cover, and fear of a wrong guess inevitably leads people to forego the very rights the Constitution sought to protect above all others. Vagueness becomes even more intolerable in this area if one accepts, as the Court today does, a balancing test to decide if First Amendment rights shall be protected.

One can hardly read Justice Blacks opinions without seeing honor and courage written down on every page.

We simply don't think that the cases that the State contends are relevant, and arguably controlling, namely Town of Baldwin v. Carter, Tri -State Rubbish, Inc. v. Town of New Gloucester, State v. Singer, or State v. Taylor are very persuasive authorities in this instance, since all these civil cases involed barking dogs and animal noises. Since animal speech rights are not included in the First Amendment, those cases do not touch upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," The standard of vaugnes in these cases are not nearly as strict. For the reason I just stated, I don't think State v. Sylvain, St. Louis County v. McClune, People v. Byron, State v. Olsson, County of Jefferson v. Renz, or Meisner v. State is very persuasive either, as those cases primarily deal with vehicle exhaust noise.

Before I deal with such issues of reasonable time place manner, and narrowly tailered and ample alternative channels for communication


I would like to point out that, Recognizing that freedom is the rule and restraint the exception, the Supreme Court has constructed a framework with a built-in bias against governmental interference, In each of the following cases the Court assumed that the governmental action at issue was invalid. The stand of the Court, in each case, compelled the States or their agents to attempt to prove that the exercise of liberty did in fact present a “clear and present danger.”

Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516. Provided a rigorous three-pronged test to evaluate whether governmental action was, in any given instance, violative of these specially regarded liberties:

(1) where legislation on its face abridged a preferred freedom, the presumption would be with unconstitutionality, the burden lying with the Government to convincingly demonstrate the contrary.

(2) the Government would have to prove that the exercise of freedom in this context presented a clear and imminent danger.

(3) the Government would have to show that the remedy espoused was confined to the eradication of the immediate evil and was not some scatter-gun approach which imperiled additional liberties by its overbreadth.


We submit, your Honor, that showing has not been made here.

RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. , 521 U.S. at 879 (restriction of speech imposes an especially heavy burden on the Government to explain why a less restrictive provision would not be as effective. . . .");

Greater NewOrleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 183; and Cf. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 year (2000) Indeed, were we to give the Government the benefit of the doubt when it attempted to restrict speech, we would risk leaving regulations in place that sought to shape our unique personalities or to silence dissenting ideas. When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of nonpersuasion, operative in all trials, must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.

Your honor, these should be the rules if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.

The State calls to the Courts attention through Ward v. Rock Against Racism and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, that To pass muster, the statute must 1) “be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech;” 2) “be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest;” and, 3) “leave open ample alternative channels for communication of information, and “government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of engaging in protected speech.”

While the defendant finds it unfortunate that the State wields the categories of Ward and Clark so that what were once rules to protect speech now become rules to restrict it we will address each of these issues, but first there are a few relevant quotes from Clark that this Court should be aware of.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293
The First Amendment requires the Government to justify every instance of abridgment. That requirement stems from our oft-stated recognition that the First Amendment was designed to secure "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources," and "to assure unfettered interchange of ideas...

And also from Clark, If the Government cannot adequately justify abridgment of protected expression, there is no reason why citizens should be prevented from exercising the first of the rights safeguarded by our Bill of Rights.

With respect to Content

Your Honor, we do not dispute that the Statute is content neutral on it's face, but as Clark noted "content-neutral restrictions are also capable of unnecessarily restricting protected expressive activity."

on significant governmental interest

The State set's forth in it's "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Case", that the "The rather sparse legislative history suggests that the statute was enacted to prevent persons from being subjected to unwelcome noise and to improve the ability of drivers to hear approaching emergency vehicles."

We will not take this occasion to argue that the legislature does not have a valid interest in preventing persons from being subjected to excessive noise, nor will we insult the Court by prentending that loud car stereos do not exist, even though there has been no factual showing. We do argue that the First Amendment requires a more careful assessment and characterization of an evil in order to justify a regulation as sweeping as this. The Government has failed to establish a pervasive, Statewide problem justifying its statewide 24 hour 7 day a week 365 days a year speech and expression prohibition. This court should also not assume that a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective.

We will take issue with the speculation that this Statute will improve the ability of drivers to hear approaching emergency vehicles." The flaw in this contention is that it is not supported by a factual showing that problem is real, as opposed to a merely speculative, problem.

The only mention of this problem in the legislatures report was one comment by Representative COLLINS: who said
" I think we have all heard the cars with the deep base on the radios. They are noise polluters. You wonder sometimes how the operator of that vehicle can hear emergency sirens coming up behind him to move out of the way."

Let's reflect upon her comment for a moment.

"You wonder sometimes how the operator of that vehicle can hear emergency sirens coming up behind him to move out of the way."

Representative COLLINS mere apprehension of difficulties, without any offer of evidence should not be enough to overcome the right to free expression. We should do more than wonder about something before we codify it into law, this contention is not supported by a factual showing that problem is real, as opposed to a merely speculative, problem. . This Court should be unwilling to assume that any conjectured benefits outweigh the cost of abridging the speech covered by the statue. I cite Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 392 (2000). And as to those who might be affected by it, "[w]e have never accepted mere conjecture as adequate to carry a First Amendment burden,"

In fact your honor, if this is a common problem, this legislation may worsen the problem, as citizens in warm weather who would normally have their windows down while playing music, may roll then up to aviod law enforcement from giving them a summons, and in doing so, they will contains the sounds in the car, while at the same time reducing the ability of sounds outside the car to enter.

In a simular case, City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410
... motivated by its interest in the safety and attractive appearance of its streets and sidewalks, the city limited publications through freestanding newsracks located on public property. The City claimed that the newsracks might create a distraction to people driving by. The question presented was whether this refusal was consistent with the First Amendment. In agreement with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, The Supreme Court held that it was not. It explained it was unreasonable "because they affected public safety in only a minimal way.- that it achieved only a "marginal degree of protection," ibid., for that interest -- the Cort held that the prohibition was invalid."

On the issue of Narrowly tailored

It's the States contention that this statute, "essentially prohibits persons from playing their car stereos at unreasonable volumes while on public roads." Certainly, from reading the legislatures record on this matter, that is clearly what they were intending to do. The only sound that is discussed, is car stereoes, and there are only 3 referrences to this sound.

Representative COLLINS: I think we have all heard the cars with the deep base on the radios.

Representative FISHER: This bill is considerably narrower than the gentleman from Aroostook would like it to be. It specifically aims itself at the boom box heavy base songs emanating from vehicles today.

Senator LEMONT: I would like to speak today on this simple bill that addresses a serious problem. What is that serious problem? We have cars that have large systems that are making an incredible amount of noise in our communities.

So clearly the "Evil" that the State wants to address, is deep loud bass sounds from cars. However, the Statute is by no means that "narrowly tailered." The Statute prohibits the use of "sound systems". It does not define "sound systems" so we must use its common usage. "Sound systems" as defined by Dictionary.com is; a system of electronic equipment for recording or reproducing sound. That definition certainly includes car stereos, but under this definition, it also includes P.A systems, it includes the reproduction of music from an ice cream truck, it certainly includes a bull horn. In fact, under this definition, even an ambulance, Fire Truck and police siren would clearly be considered a sound system, since they are electronic equipment and they obviously reproduce sound.

Now with respect to sounds, Frisby v. Schultz held that a statute is narrowly tailored only "if it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the `evil' it seeks to remedy."

Frisby goes on to say that a ban can be narrowly tailored, "but only if each activity within the proscription's scope is an appropriately targeted evil". The Statute in question clearly encompasses far more in its scope than people playing loud stereos.

[thefirstimmortal]

Overbreadth

Also in Ward the court added the condition that the method and extent of such regulation must be reasonable, that is, it must be the least intrusive upon the freedom of expression as is necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose of the regulation.
(distinguish ward) place, sheepscot meadow retirement community, bandshell, 10 oclock curfew, and the state owned and operated it's equipment.

Ward also added that The requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied only if ....."the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve that interest. "

REEVES v. McCONN, 631 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1980) With respect to Overbreadth If, at the expense of First Amendment freedoms, a statute reaches more broadly than is necessary to protect legitimate state interests, a court may forbid its enforcement.

The Supreme Court in Saia invalidated the city ordinance " ...because such an ordinance could be used to suppress First Amendment rights far more severely than could be justified by the city's narrow interest in preserving the tranquility of the community against excessive noise."

In EASY WAY OF LEE CO., INC. v. LEE CO., 674 So.2d 863 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1996) The Court found the ordinance to be unconstitutionally overbroad. In subjecting the ordinance to strict scrutiny, The Court held that section 20-79 of the City of St. Petersburg Code "...is unconstitutionally overbroad and infringes on Ledford's free speech rights in a manner more intrusive than is necessary." The Court embrace the holding in CCB, 458 So.2d at 50 that the aim of protecting citizens from annoyance is not a "compelling" reason to restrict speech in a traditionally public forum.

Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 147-148 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 162 (1939). also held that the Court has interpreted the narrow tailoring requirement to mandate an examination of alternative methods of serving the asserted governmental interest and a determination whether the greater efficacy of the challenged regulation outweighs the increased burden it places on protected speech. we submit that that has not been shown here.

With respect to reasonable restrictions on time, place,

The Statute is not a reasonable restriction on time place or manner.

As stated in REEVES v. McCONN, 631 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1980)
The city may tailor its ordinance to reach those activities that actually cause, or immediately threaten to cause, the consequences it fears.

As the Court stated in Grayned, "the nature of a place, `the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable.' . . . The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time." Grayned, Further states. By this standard, there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified free speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district. "[S]treets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly."

REEVES goes on to say, that "The interest of a citizen in his privacy and tranquility, which the City of Houston seeks to protect in subparagraph 2, is therefore tied to certain locations and spaces. We repeat that "the crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time." The city thus must make some effort to tailor its ordinance in relation to place as well as time. Sound amplification might well be incompatible with the normal activity of a purely residential area at 9:00 p. m. or on Sunday morning, but it is quite compatible with the normal activity of a night club district at 9:00 p. m. or a public park on Sunday morning.

Section 2079-A, Covers every public way in the entire State, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. We submit your honor that Living in a metropolitan area is attended with certain well-known inconveniences and discomforts. The peace and quiet of a rural estate or the sylvan silence of a mountain lodge cannot be expected in such a place."

The State protects the "location" without regard to the time or normal activity of an area. For instance, there can be no valid state interest in prohibiting sound amplification above 85 decibles at even 25 feet if a residence or street is located in an area characterized by noise and activity at a certain hour, amplified free speech may participate in that noise and cannot be limited to a lesser degree than the surrounding comotion There is no valid state interest in prohibiting amplified sound that does not actually cause, or imminently threatens to cause, material disruption at these locations.

The State asserts two justifications for the restrictions contained in Section 2079-A. To prevent unwelcome noise and to prevent distractions of drivers whose full attention is needed elsewhere. The ends which the State seeks to protect may be proper, but the blanket prohibition by which it seeks to achieve those ends is far too broad. Not every amplified sound at 25 feet and 85 decibles at whatever point, will disrupt the normal business or residential activity of the downtown district, or a sparsly populated country road. Nor will this sounds make the streets unsafe. Precisely because the downtown district is already a busy and noisy place, reasonably amplified free speech is guaranteed a broad right to equal participation in these aspects of modern urban life.

When First Amendment freedoms are involved, the State may protect its legitimate interests only with precision. Rather than restricting the use of sound equipment to certain periods of the day, Section 2079-A restrains such use at any time. Rather than regulating the use of sound amplification devices by distinguishing the nature of the place of use, the ordinance prohibits the use of such devices on a public way. In sum, "The statute is not narrowly drawn to regulate the hours or places of use of sounds systems.

As for Reasonable sounds

Saia v. New York points out that "Freedom to be heard is as vital to freedom of speech as is freedom to circulate to freedom of press". Section 2079-A effectively bars any sound louder than the capable range of human voice. Everyone in this room is capable of speaking at a level that can be heard at over 25 feet, and reach 85 decibles. In U.S. LABOR PARTY v. POMERLEAU, 557 (F.2d) 410 (4th Cir.) An ordinance prohibited amplification that created no more noise than a person speaking slightly louder than normal. The Court found that The city had no legitimate interest in banning amplified political messages which do not exceed the sounds encountered daily in the most tranquil community. The Court held that the ordinance, as applied to the amplification of political speech in the public streets, was overbroad and in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.

The State cites Kovacus (“In his home or on the street he is practically helpless to escape this interference with his privacy by loud speakers except through the protection of the municipality.”). The State asserts that the interest of regulating sounds is “at its greatest” when the government seeks to protect the tranquility of the home but also extends to protecting “traditional public forums as city streets and parks from excessive noise.” Id. at 796; see also Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 87 (1949)

Your Honor it is true that when a citizen is within the privacy of his home, the state has broad powers to safeguard his "very basic right to be free from sights, sounds, and tangible matter" he does not want. That legitimate interest of the state is greatly diminished, however, when the citizen is outside his home. As REEVES v. McCONN, 631 F.2d 377 points out, In the public spaces of a city one is often required to divert his attention or his path rather than ask the state to silence objectionable speech or amplified speech.

REEVES further notes that "because amplified speech also intrudes into the home, and because Pacifica does not draw a rigid line at the front door of the home. When an unwilling listener faces an amplified and offensive speaker, the judicial task in allocating rights between the two is one of balance, and although the threshold of the listener's home is an important line, it is not absolute. For example, we said in Reeves that even in the privacy of his home a citizen has no right to be protected from amplified speech that does not rise above the level of noise generally characteristic of a given area. Certain traffic noises frequently intrude into private homes during normal daytime activity, and, therefore, amplified speech could also. Thus amplified speech may intrude into the home of an unwilling listener.

Your honor, most citizens desire protection from unreasonable or disruptive levels of noise on the streets and from uninvited noise within the privacy of their homes. We say nothing today that prevents the State from granting that protection. When the State fears disruption, it may prohibit conduct that actually causes, or imminently threatens to cause, material and substantial disruption of the community or invasion of the rights of others. Or the State may reasonably prohibit kinds or degrees of sound amplification that are clearly incompatible with the normal activity of certain locations at certain times. But the State may not broadly prohibit reasonably amplified speech merely because of an undifferentiated fear that disruption might sometimes result.


The goal of regulating unreasonable sound may be a matter within the States province. However, that goal, no matter how laudable, cannot be achieved by the overbroad regulation of activities protected by the First Amendment. As currently written, the States ordinance can be used to suppress First Amendment rights far more severely than can be justified by the States interest in regulating sound.

Indeed your Honor, it's hard to imagine a more restrictive time, place and manner Statute. Section 2079-A cannot be viewed by any streach of the imagination as "narrowly tailored to further the State's legitimate interest, accordingly, this Statute should be void as an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of activities protected by the First Amendment.

Your Honor, the case we cited earlier, United States v. Doe, 968 F.2d 86 (D.C.Cir. 1992), Is very simular to the case before you today. Diane Nomad violated "a federal regulation which prohibits playing a musical instrument at a higher than prescribed decibel level in a national park

The United States responded as the State has here that the challenged regulation was constitutional based on a substantial interest in maintaining "a peaceful setting".

The United States as the State does here, also contended that its judgment on its application was reasonable.

Section 2.12 of the national park regulation, was on its face content neutral, just as the Statute before this Court is. Section 2.12 prohibited the playing of all musical instruments above the prescribed level for whatever purpose or cause.

In support of its position, the United States there, as the State does here, cited Kovacs v. Cooper and Ward.

In applying the "narrow tailoring" test in that case, the appeals court indicated it would "first determine the extent of the government's asserted interest." Further, the appeals court noted that "Lafayette Park is 'quintessential public forum,' and accordingly, the government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct there is very limited

The Court noted that "excessive" noise by definition means something above and beyond the ordinary noises associated with the appropriate and customary uses of the park. Any regulation imposing noise limits on expressive conduct in a public forum must be "narrowly tailored" to the government's interest in preventing excessive noise. What is excessive must take into account the nature and purposes of the setting, along with its ambient characteristics.

The Court noted that, Nothing remotely suggests the existence of any generalized government interest in maintaining the same level of quiet in all public spaces. Indeed, the very concept of a situs being designated as a "public forum" for First Amendment purposes presupposes that the situs has "been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions."

The Court noted that, the speaking voice of a single person during questioning in the courtroom - exceeded 60 decibels.

Furthermore, Nomad presented evidence that the manufacturer's own instruction manual for the measuring meters used by the Park Police describes a 60-decibel sound as equivalent to "background music." The Court said, While by no means conclusive, these particles of evidence certainly raise doubts as to whether the 60-decibel regulation prohibits only speech activity that is excessive or disturbing. In any event, it is the government's case to prove and it has failed to do so...

The record before us is barren as to support for the government's position that the decibel limit imposed on musical instruments is a reasonable one; what evidence there is suggests the contrary, that given the amount of ambient noise generally present in Lafayette Park, the decibel level may be unreasonably low... [T]here is zero in the record to support the government's choice of the 60-decibel limit; no evidence indicating how disturbing or "excessive" a noise (by any standard) 60 decibels at 50 feet is. The government feebly suggests that because the Park Service is better suited than we to decide noise limits, its choice of this particular limit must be a reasonable one... Where constitutionally protected activity is implicated, we cannot simply defer to the Park Service's unexplained judgment.

I would submit your Honor, that this case as in Doe, the record before us is barren as to support for the government's position that the decibel limit imposed on sound is a reasonable one, and given the amount of ambient noise generally present in the center of our towns and cities and alongside major highways, the decibel level may be unreasonably low. There is zero in the record to support the States choice of an 85 decibel limit whether that limit is affixed to the source of the sound or at 25 feet, and no evidence indicating how disturbing or "excessive" a noise (by any standard) 85 decibels is at either location.
Where constitutionally protected activity is implicated, we cannot simply defer to the States unexplained judgement.

The Court held in Doe, as it should here also, that In a First Amendment challenge, the government bears the burden of showing that its restriction of speech is justified.

As stated in Doe, The appeals court, therefore, concluded that "[o]n the record before us, it is impossible not to conclude that "the means chosen are substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest." For all we know, the regulation might ban any noise that could be heard above passing traffic, which of course would frustrate the main purpose of a demonstration, to attract the attention of passersby.

With respect to Alternative channels of communication

The State claims that "Mr. O'Rights has made no showing that other methods of communication are inadequate, Nor can he make such a showing."

I disagree.

First of all, inhibition as well as prohibition against the exercise of precious First Amendment rights is a power denied to government. And I cite Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51; Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513

And Your Honor, Expressing one's self from one's own vehicle carries a message quite distinct from every other method that has been layed out before the court as an alternate channel of communication. Limiting an entire media may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination, but such measures can suppress too much speech by limiting a common means of speaking or expressing that cannot be effectively duplicated. By way of example, I don't think for instance, that you can duplicate the same expressions of a Parade Float by way of leaflets, or using place cards, or using media such as the newspaper or radio.

For the same reasons laid out in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994), this Court should flatly reject the States Claim.

Ladue's attempt to justify its an ordinance as a "time, place, or manner" restriction failed because alternatives such as handbills and newspaper advertisements were inadequate substitutes for the important medium that Ladue had limited. The Court found that displaying a sign from ones' own residence carries a message quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means, for it provided information about the speaker's identity, an important component of many attempts to persuade. Residential signs are also an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Furthermore, the audience intended to be reached by a residential sign -- neighbors -- could not be reached nearly as well by other means.

The State contends that Section 2079-A does not prevent persons from making amplified (or unamplified) broadcasts outside of their cars, such as on street corners, in parks, or in other public forums.

I cite Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 163
But one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may
be exercised in some other place.”

And also from Schneider, Restricting the abridgment to the use of sound devices may not be justified on the ground that the right of free speech without such auxiliary remains unimpaired.

The State says that it does not prohibit persons from handing out leaflets or attempting to engage passers-by in one-on-one discussions. It does not restrict the use of visual messages, such as placecards.

I cite Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424 (1988).
But Our foundational First Amendment cases are based on the recognition that citizens must be able to discuss issues and express themselves through the means of expression they deem best suited to their purpose. It is for the speaker, not the government, to choose the best means of expressing a message. “The First Amendment,” “protects [citizens’] right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for so doing.”

The State says, It does not restrict the use of such mass media forums as newspapers, television, and radio advertisements.

I cite LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. v. WILLINGBORO, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
The ordinance cannot be sustained on the ground that it restricts only one method of communication while leaving ample alternative communication channels open. The alternatives, (mass media forums as newspapers, television, and radio advertisements) involve more cost and less autonomy ,

The State argues that citizens can communicate with other mediums. While it is true that in this case, the burden on speech is imposed by denying the speaker access to only one method of distribution without interfering with alternative means of access to the audience. That fact does not minimize the significance of the burden: The states argument falls wide of the mark. A prohibition on the use of sound systems throughout the State is a significant restriction of First Amendment rights.

And we submit your honor, that in no other way except public speaking can the desirable objective of widespread public discussion and expressions be absolutely assured. Preference in the dissemination of ideas or expressions should not be given only to those who can obtain the support of newspapers, or those who have money enough to buy advertising from newspapers, TV and radios, or have place cards and leaflets printed up. This Court should no more permit this prohibition against the dissemination of ideas by speaking than it would permit a complete blackout of the press, TV or the radio.

And the right to freedom of expression should be protected for persons without, as for persons with, wealth and power.

At least, such is the theory of our society.

State Case cites

The state notes that "courts in other states have found that similar statutes are constitutional. The State calls to the Courts attention 4 cases.

I would just like to raise one issue that distinguishes our case from People v. Arguello, Davis v. Florida, and City of Tiffin v. McEwen. Arguello prohibit noise at 75 feet, and the other 2 prohibited noise at 100 feet or more as opposed to 25 feet.

The Holland v. City of Tacoma limit was 50 feet, Whether that would have survived a challege on the merits of the case, we will never know, because the case was thrown out of the Appeals Court because the length of the trail brief exceeded the page limit on briefing.

In Closing your Honor, I attend most of the Parades that this town puts on, every year there are vehicles that have sounds systems that often play patriotic music. The music is loud and is intended to be so. Perhaps the State won't issue the drivers of the floats any tickets, but it will have the power to do so. I submit your honor, that it is easy, and rather self-serving, to rally ‘round the flag of the First Amendment on behalf of those whose speech and expressions you admire or enjoy. But the true test of one's committment to these principles comes only when you are prepared to defend the freedom to speak and the freedom of expression of those whom you may even despise-and those who may even make your blood boil.

In the Words of the Great and Honorable Justice Black, "The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud.

All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty and I believe that there are some liberties that will always come at a cost.

Your Honor, history teaches us that the first target of government repression is seldom the last. If the Court does not come to the defense of the free speech rights and expression then no one's liberty will be secure because "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. This was true in the days of Madison, and it is just as true today. We don't pass freedom to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where people were free."

We are asking this Court to remember that we are supposed to be a revolutionary government, one formed out of discontent and rebelion. One spirited by the blood of men who died that we might have our freedoms of speech and expression.
And it is probably no accident that freedom of speech and expression are the first freedoms mentioned. The Constitution’s framers believed as I do that freedom of speech and liberty of expression are the hallmarks of a free society.

Although I'm sure this law was written with well intentions, in the real world that we all live in, I think it's common knowledge that this Statute was enacted for the most part to prevent our youth from playing rap music in public, but the true test of one’s commitment to constitutional principles is the extent to which recognition is given to the rights of those in our midst who are the least affluent, least powerful, and maybe even the least welcome.“

Freedom of speech and expression deserves this court's greatest protection. For our sake and the sake of the next generation that inherits this country we must ensure that speech and expression remain open and free. Your Honor, Let's be ancestors for our children as great as Washington Jefferson and Madison were to us. Let's leave them freedom. They can decide how much of it they're brave enough to keep.

[Limitless]

Thanks for the update, and the great information, Mr. O'rights! .....And good luck with your case!

[thefirstimmortal]

Your Welcome

[thefirstimmortal]

[quote]


FDA Lists 92 Symptoms from Nutrasweet
(Aspartame)
(including Death!)

Please Note: Nutrasweet is in Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi

Article courtesy of: Mark Gold mgold@tiac.net
(researcher for twenty years on such subjects)
This article originally appeared on www.dorway.com

Note: This information required a Freedom Of Information Act request to pry it from the reluctant hands
of the FDA.

Nutrasweet (brand name for Aspartame) was not approved until 1981, in dry foods. For over eight years
the FDA refused to approve it because of the seizures and brain tumors this drug produced in lab
animals. The FDA continued to refuse to approve it until President Reagan took office (a friend of Searle)
and fired the FDA Commissioner who wouldn't approve it. Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed as
commissioner. Even then there was so much opposition to approval that a Board of Inquiry was set up.
The Board said: "Do not approve aspartame". Dr. Hayes OVERRULED his own Board of Inquiry.

Shortly after Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated
beverages, he left for a position with G.D. Searle's Public Relations firm.

Long-Term Damage. It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough to not have
immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it
seems to cause some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term use.

METHANOL (AKA WOOD ALCOHOL/POISON) (10% OF ASPARTAME) Methanol/wood alcohol is a
deadly poison. People may recall that methanol was the poison that has caused some "skid row"
alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl
group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.

The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free
methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would
occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a
"food" product such as Jello).

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly
neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due
to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and
formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic." The recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A
one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy
users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the
EPA limit.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems. Formaldehyde is a known
carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication, and causes birth defects. Due to the
lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol
than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger
for humans. As pointed out by Dr Woodrow C. Monte, Director of the Food Science and Nutrition
Laboratory at Arizona State University, "There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the
possible mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol."

It has been pointed out that fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is
important to remember, that the methanol in natural products never appears alone. In every case, ethanol
is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans.

The troops of Desert Storm were "treated" to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages which
had been heated to over 86 degrees F. in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with
numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by
formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses.
Other breakdown products ofaspartame such as DKP, may also have been a factor.

In a 1993 act that can only be described as "unconscionable", the FDA approved aspartame as an
ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86°degrees F (30°Degrees C).

Much worse, on 27 June 1996, without public notice, the FDA removed all restrictions from aspartame
allowing it to be used in everything, including all heated and baked goods.

The truth about aspartame's toxicity is far different than what the NutraSweet Company would have you
readers believe. In February of 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the
listing of adverse reactions reported to the FDA (DHHS 1994). Aspartame accounted for more than 75%
of all adverse reactions reported to the FDA's Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS). By the FDA's
own admission fewer then ONE PERCENT of those who have problems with something they consume
ever report it to the FDA. This balloons the almost 10,000 complaints they once had to around a million.

However, the FDA has a record keeping problem (they never did respond to the certified letter from the
WEBMASTER of this site a major victim!) and they tend to discourage or even misdirect complaints, at
least on aspartame. The fact remains, though, that MOST victims don't have a clue that aspartame may
be the cause of their many problems! Many reactions to aspartame were very serious including seizures
and death.

Those reactions included:

Abdominal Pain
Anxiety attacks
arthritis
asthma
Asthmatic Reactions
Bloating, Edema (Fluid Retention)
Blood Sugar Control Problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia)
Brain Cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
Breathing difficulties
burning eyes or throat
Burning Urination
can't think straight
Chest Pains
chronic cough
Chronic Fatigue
Confusion
Death
Depression
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Excessive Thirst or Hunger
fatigue
feel unreal
flushing of face
Hair Loss (Baldness) or Thinning of Hair
Headaches/Migraines dizziness
Hearing Loss
Heart palpitations
Hives (Urticaria)
Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
Impotency and Sexual Problems
inability to concentrate
Infection Susceptibility
Insomnia
Irritability
Itching
Joint Pains
laryngitis
"like thinking in a fog"
Marked Personality Changes
Memory loss
Menstrual Problems or Changes
Migraines and Severe Headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
Muscle spasms
Nausea or Vomiting
Numbness or Tingling of Extremities
Other Allergic-Like Reactions
Panic Attacks
Phobias
poor memory
Rapid Heart Beat
Rashes
Seizures and Convulsions
Slurring of Speech
Swallowing Pain
Tachycardia
Tremors
Tinnitus
Vertigo
Vision Loss
Weight gain

Aspartame Disease Mimics Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases

Alzheimer's Disease
Arthritis
Birth Defects
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Diabetes and Diabetic Complications
Epilepsy
Fibromyalgia
Lupus
Lyme Disease
Lymphoma
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson's Disease

[thefirstimmortal]

Methanol, from aspartame, is released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame
encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin (Stegink 1984, page 143). Free methanol begins to form in liquid
aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F. also within the human body.

The methanol is then converted to formaldehyde. The formaldehyde converts to formic acid - ant sting
poison. Toxic formic acid is used as an activator to strip epoxy and urethane coatings. Imagine what it
does to your tissues! (Note from Stephanie Relfe - Even the Australian Cancer Council says that there
are NO safe levels of formaldehyde).

Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, 90% of aspartame, are amino acids normally used in synthesis of
protoplasm when supplied by the foods we eat. But when unaccompanied by other amino acids we use
[there are 20], they are neurotoxic.

That is why a warning for Phenylketonurics is found on EQUAL and other aspartame products.
Phenylketenurics are 2% of the population with extreme sensitivity to this chemical unless it's present in
food. It gets you too, causing brain disorders and birth defects! Finally, the phenyalanine breaks down into
DKP, a brain tumor agent.

In other words: Aspartame converts to dangerous by-products that have no natural countermeasures. A
dieter's empty stomach accelerates these conversions and amplifies the damage. Components of
aspartame go straight to the brain, damage that causes headaches, mental confusion, seizures and faulty
balance. Lab rats and other test animals died of brain tumors.

Despite the claims of Monsanto and bedfellows:

1. Methanol from alcohol and juices does not get converted to formaldehyde to any significant extent.
There is very strong evidence to confirm this fact for alcoholic beverages and fairly strong evidence for
juices.

2. Formaldehyde obtained from methanol is very toxic in *very small* doses as seen by recent research.

3. Aspartame causes chronic toxicity reactions/damage due to the methanol to formaldehyde and other
break down products despite what is claimed otherwise by the very short, industry-funded experiments
using a test substance that is chemically different and absorbed differently than what is available to the
general public. "Strangely enough", almost all independent studies show that aspartame can cause health
problems.

4. A common ploy from Monsanto is to claim that aspartame is "safe" yet a few select people may have
"allergic" reactions to it. This is typical Monsanto nonsense, of course. Their own research shows that it
does not cause "allergic" reactions. It is there way of trying to minimize and hide the huge numbers of
toxicity reactions and damage that people are experiencing from the long-term use of aspartame.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.fortuneci...e/1135/id31.htm

More on Aspartame Dangers (excerpts)

The Dangers of Aspartame

by David Rietz


There are over 200 million unsuspecting victims in over 100 countries ingesting any number of over 5000 products containing aspartame (a.k.a. Equal©, NutraSweet©, Spoonful©, Equal Measure©, etc.). The FDA "daily limit" was set before it was approved for use in beverages, and since June of 1996 it has been approved for use just like sugar, even in heated and baked goods where it breaks down much more rapidly into a toxic brew of poisons and tumor agents.

All consumers using aspartame acquire damage with each and every use, and that damage is cumulative. Some people have almost immediate reactions, but most people take years to develop incapacitating arthritis-like pains and other major problems.

Why should users who don't believe they have a problem with aspartame worry about it? For starters, there are three main components to
L-Aspartyl-l-phenylalanine methyl ester, 98% (aspartame, C14H18N2O5):


10% Methanol (when in solutions such as Kool Aid©, coffee, tea, pop, etc.).
40% Aspartic Acid (an isolated amino acid not found solo in nature).
50% Phenylalanine (another isolated amino acid in an abnormally high concentration, and the reason for the warning label "Phenylketonurics: Contains phenylalanine").

Facts to bear in mind are that aspartic acid and phenylalanine do occur in nature, but in combination with other naturally occurring substances in a natural balance. In aspartame, these items are unnaturally isolated, and in larger quantities.

All packaged beverages using aspartame have an approximate 270 day shelf life if they are stored at or below 85 degrees F (because additional heat accelerates its decomposition). This is because the 10% methanol converts to formaldehyde (yes, embalming fluid) in the original unopened container.

Those are two toxic poisons that nobody needs in their body. However, any free methanol from fresh beverages (with no inhibiting Ethanol such as exists in fruit) will be converted by the liver, and then the body has a significant problem on how to eliminate the formaldehyde. Some of it is combined with water and stored in the fat (termed "weight gain"), and some of it is further converted to formic acid (the poison found in ant stings).

The aspartic acid is known to play a role in triggering seizures (by as little as one stick of sugar-free gum in some people). The phenylalanine readily converts to diketopiperazine (DKP), which is a known tumor agent, and this was perhaps the primary suspect in 12 of the 320 animal test subjects who developed brain tumors. The FDA's "Bressler" report

(http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt)

confirms the brain tumors, and added mammary, ovarian and uterine tumors to the list. So … just those three components readily create three poisons (formaldehyde and formic acid cause cumulative damage and are known carcinogens) along with at least one seizure agent and one tumor agent.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.naturodoc...n/aspartame.htm

Aspartame

A Bitter Sweetener (excerpts)

From Complementary Health


Aspartame, known to the public as NutraSweet, Equal, and Spoonful, has been the subject of controversy since it first became an ingredient in food products in 1981. In 1985, Americans used 800 million pounds of Aspartame, with an average intake of 5.8 pounds per person. They consumed more than 20 billion cans of aspartame-sweetened soft drinks in 1985 alone. A study of available literature on the subject reveals that over the years more and more indications have arisen that suggest that the public is at great risk through its repeated use. Serious consideration should be given to discontinuing the ingestion of aspartame until the safety or lack thereof is firmly established.

For this article, the Complementary Medicine Association interviewed authorities George Schwartz, M.D. and Mary Nash Stoddard. Dr. Schwartz is a trauma surgeon and the author of In Bad Taste: the MSG Syndrome. Ms. Stoddard, editor of The Deadly Deception, founded the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and the worldwide Pilot's Hotline for reporting adverse reactions to aspartame. We will also refer to a comprehensive text entitled Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills by Russell L. Blaylock, MD. We are grateful to these individuals for their support.

What does aspartame do?

First, aspartame releases aspartate during digestion. Aspartate is a neurotransmitter used by the neurons in the brain. It is a type of excitatory amino acid. Excitatory amino acids are normal and necessary brain chemicals, and as such, they are allowed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Aspartate, the principal chemical component of aspartame, is a neurotransmitter and a type of excitatory amino acid. It is a natural and necessary body chemical. Neurotransmitters cross the blood-brain barrier.

The blood-brain barrier is designed to protect the brain from the invasion of harmful chemicals. When normal neurotransmitters such as aspartate and glutamate cross this barrier in excess, they will cause poisoning and lead to the death of the nerve cells within the brain and spinal cord. The blood-brain barrier cannot discern the amount that is needed from too much. So these neurotransmitters can build up undetected until a toxic level is reached. This accumulation seems to be particularly insidious in its effect on the developing brains and nervous systems of children.

"The nervous system is designed to control the concentration of excitatory amino acids in the fluid surrounding the neurons, the extracellular space. The main ones concerning us are glutamate and aspartate. The nervous system does this by pumping the excess back into glial cells which surround the neurons and supply them with energy. While this pumping system is very efficient, it uses enormous amounts of ATP, a high-energy compound that all cells in the body use for energy.

"If energy production is reduced in the brain, the protective pumps begin to fail and glutamate begins to accumulate in the space around the neuron, including the area of the synapse. If the energy is not restored the neurons will burn up; they are literally excited to death."1

What are the risks to children who consume excess aspartame?
The protective enzymes in a baby's brain are still immature, and therefore are unable to effectively detoxify the excitotoxins that enter its brain. This would mean that in the case of a pregnant woman eating meals high in excitotoxin taste enhancers, the baby could be exposed to these high glutamate levels for many hours. It is not unreasonable to assume that mothers will eat several meals and snacks containing various forms of excitotoxins such as MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and aspartame. This could produce a high concentration of glutamate exposure in the baby's brain several times a day. Also significant is the fact that the immature brain is four times more sensitive to the damaging effects of excitotoxins than the adult brain. Thus, following a dose of MSG, the baby's blood level of glutamate may remain high for many hours. Since no experimental work can be done on pregnant women or children, we must look to animal research studies for some clues.

"In a study with mice and rats Toth and Lajtha found that, when giving aspartame and glutamate either as single amino acids or as liquid diets over a prolonged time (several hours to days), they could significantly elevate brain levels of these supposedly excluded excitotoxins. Brain tissue levels of aspartic acid rose as high as 61% and glutamate levels rose 35% in brain tissue over prolonged feeding... Humans are exposed to high concentrations of excitatory food additives throughout the day by consuming a variety of processed foods and diet drinks."2

Plasticity of the brain is important in the learning process. Even when the baby is in the womb, the brain of the infant is being stimulated by sounds, touch, and even light, causing changes in the brain's structure in important ways. Babies move and play with their toes, suck their thumbs, and react to noises and music after only six weeks in the womb. All of this stimulation causes the pathways in the brain to change and develop.

At birth the baby's brain chemistry functions homogeneously -- the biochemical reactions occur evenly throughout the brain. But soon after birth, the brain undergoes a rapid acceleration in growth and function. During this period the level of glutamine, the precursor of glutamate, rises very rapidly in some of the areas of the brain. Glutamate helps to regulate the development of the wiring of nerves in the new brain. As the child grows, even beyond teen years, these developing connections grow as well.

This process of molding the brain continues throughout life, but the majority of growth takes place within 0-7 years of life. During these critical years, if unborn and young children are fed drinks or food containing aspartame, over-stimulation can occur.

It is important to appreciate that many of the toxic effects of excitatory amino acids occur at a time when no outward symptoms develop. The child does not become sick or throw up, or have any behavior that would alert the parents that something is wrong.3

How was aspartame approved?

Dr. Schwartz was asked to elaborate on a statement attributed to former Senator Metzenbaum, now of the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, DC who said, "The approval process of aspartame has had a questionable history."

Dr. Schwartz: "When aspartame was first introduced for approval by the FDA, it was considered to be a sweetener, not an additive or a drug, and with a great deal of lobbying, the discussions were propelled through the approval proceedings, and the numerous case reports from individuals with adverse reactions were ignored."

From Dr. Blaylock's book we learn that, "In 1975 the drug enforcement division of the Bureau of Foods investigated the G. D. Searle company as part of an investigation of "apparent irregularities in data collection and reporting practices." The director of the FDA at that time stated that they found "sloppy" laboratory techniques and "clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting the drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling, and a variety of other errors, (which) even if innocent, all conspire to obscure positive findings and produce falsely negative results."

"The drug enforcement division carried out a study under the care of agent Jerome Bressler concerning Searle's laboratory practices and data manipulation. This important report was buried in a file cabinet, never to be acted on by the FDA.

"Although aspartame-produced tumors in rats do not equal tumors in humans, after aspartame consumption began, there have been more brain tumors. In the years 1973 to 1990, the number of brain tumors in people over sixty five has increased by 67 percent (National Cancer Institute SEER Program Data)."4

Is it proven that people drinking, or eating artificial sweeteners don't lose weight?

Mary Stoddard says, "It's well documented that excitotoxins like aspartame have the reverse affect on weight. People drinking diet drinks and eating diet food will get more hungry. The FDA no longer allows manufacturers of diet supplement drinks and foods containing aspartame to label them as weight reduction products, but requires that they be labeled as diet drink or diet food. A study of 80,000 women who use sweeteners were evaluated through the Centers for Disease Control. It was found that they gained rather than lost weight using artificial sweeteners."

Why do pilots need to avoid aspartame?

Mary Stoddard explains, "In a letter to the editor and in one article published in the United States Air Force AirMen's News, it was noted that aspartame ingestion causes elevated spiking on the EEG, resulting in grand mal seizures and blackout episodes in the cockpit. Dozens have lost their jobs due to aspartame-related medical problems."

How does aspartame affect vision?

Dr. Schwartz states, "Diet drinks with aspartame release small amounts of methanol when the aspartame is broken down through digestion in the small intestine. It is well documented that methanol interrupts the retina and optic nerve transmissions and causes visual problems. Even though the FDA has thousands of cases of visual disturbances on record from individuals drinking too many diet drinks with aspartame, there have been no formal, unbiased, scientific studies done. Vision studies need to be done."

Is there a known connection between increasing consumption of diet drinks and headaches?

In the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Donald R. Johns reported what appeared to be a connection between a case of migraine and the consumption of large amounts of a beverage containing NutraSweet™. A thirty-one-year-old woman with a known history of well-controlled migraine headaches began drinking six to eight 12-ounce cans of diet cola sweetened with NutraSweet, 15 tablets of aspartame, and other foods containing aspartame (approximately 100 to 1500 mg) daily. About two hours after ingesting the drinks, she noticed stomach upset and a throbbing headache. When taken off aspartame, she noticed steady improvement and eventually the headaches disappeared altogether.

In the May 1988 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, two letters appeared from the following physicians regarding headaches and aspartame. In the first, Dr. Richard B. Lipton and coworkers at the Montefiore Headache Unit reported that, in their studies using 171 patients, 8.2 percent of the patients who had headaches were sensitive to aspartame. They found that stress and tension also trigger migraines and other headaches. Dr. Lipton concluded that "sufferers of migraines or other vascular headaches should be warned to avoid NutraSweet." If you are a person who suffers headaches from low blood sugar levels, you also should avoid excitotoxins, including aspartame, because they aggravate hypoglycemia."5

A group of headache sufferers who have identified aspartame as the trigger setting off their headaches where given 30 mg/kg/day to study their aspartame sensitivity under double-blind controlled conditions. Of a total of 32 subjects, randomized to receive aspartame and a placebo in a two-treatment, four-period crossover design, "18 completed the full protocol, and 7 completed part of the protocol before withdrawing due to adverse effects. Three withdrew for other reasons. Two were lost to follow-up; one was withdrawn due to noncompliance, and one withdrew and gave no reason. Each experimental period lasted 7 days. Individuals receiving aspartame reported having headaches on 33 percent of the days as compared with 24 percent for the placebo treatment group (p = 0.04)."6

Individual subjective evaluation of aspartame versus placebo was shown to be statistically significant. It appears that some people are particularly susceptible to headaches caused by aspartame and may want to limit their consumption."6

Is there an aspartame connection to other health conditions?

In treating stroke victims, researcher Roger Simon has shown that energy-starved neurons are infinitely more vulnerable to excitotoxin damage. There are a growing number of conditions affecting the nervous system that are related to accumulations of excitotoxins. Excess excitotoxins can have a devastating effect on the nervous system.

Dr. Blaylock states that a primary concern is the possible effect of these powerful brain cell stimulants on the adult's brain, especially related to the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's dementia, Huntington's disease and ALS. The brain uses excitatory amino acids as normal neurotransmitters, but there exists a delicate balance of excitatory and inhibitory chemicals in the brain. When this balance is upset, serious disorders of the nervous system can result.7

"Those who suffer mood disorders seem to be very vulnerable to the effects of aspartame. A study required that 40 patients with unipolar depression and a similar number of individuals with a psychiatric history receive 39 mg/kg/day or placebo for 7 days. The project was halted by the Institutional Review Board of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine after 13 of 40 individuals with a history of depression experienced severe reactions. There was a significant difference between patients taking aspartame and those taking the placebo in the number and severity of symptoms that these patients with depression reported. Individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to aspartame, and its use should be discouraged."

Three cases are reported from patients who had episodic movement disorders triggered by foods or other components of their diets. One of those cases told of rhythmic contractions of the arms and legs that were triggered by aspartame.

Can seizures be triggered by aspartame?

In 1985, Dr. Richard Wurtman reported several cases of seizures brought on by drinking too many diet drinks. The first case involved a woman with no previous seizure activity who developed seizures after drinking seven liters of NutraSweet-containing beverages per day.

In the second case, a woman 27 years old had a grand mal seizure after drinking 4 to 5 glasses of Crystal Light™ containing NutraSweet. This patient experienced twitching, trembling, jerking, and hyperventilation.

The last case was a 36-year-old male professor who drank one liter of ice tea sweetened with NutraSweet every day and developed grand mal seizures after several days. He had no previous history of seizures nor of aspartame consumption."10

Who else should avoid aspartame?

"Diabetics, people with hypoglycemia, people prone to confusion or memory loss, pregnant women, the elderly, infants, children, patients with epilepsy, liver, kidney disease, and eating disorders, the relatives of those individuals who are sensitive to aspartame, diabetics, and patients with phenylketonuria (PKU)."11

During digestion, aspartame is broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Those with PKU must restrict their intake of phenylalanine.

Where do we go from here?

Considering what is now known about brain chemistry, as well as the now numerous documented reports of adverse reactions to aspartame, it would be prudent to eliminate aspartame from the diet.

Reading labels on food items is important but not sufficient. Labeling regulations make it possible to conceal from the public information needed to make good decisions about diet. For example, there are some circumstances in which a substance like aspartame or glutamate does not have to be shown on the label. Often it is included under another term like "enhanced flavors or spices." The public needs to be aware of these problems and demand more information.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.sweetpoison.com/




Aspartame Dangers Revealed!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal Message
Welcome to sweetpoison.com. I'm Dr. Janet Starr Hull, and I have something to share with you that may save your life or the life of someone you love.

In 1991, I was diagnosed with an ‘incurable’ case of Grave's Disease, a fatal thyroid disorder, I never really had Grave's Disease but my doctors were convinced I did. I had aspartame poisoning with symptoms of 'textbook‘ Grave's Disease caused by aspartame saturating my foods. Modern medicine kept me alive temporarily, but I ‘cured’ my disease using The Aspartame Detoxification Program©. Modern medicine has led us to the "take a pill or cut it out mentality" for almost every modern health symptom, but this approach alone cannot cure disease as more and more people are personally discovering. Using the detoxification program I designed at the time of my 'disease', I restored my health within 30 days. If you use sugar-free products with aspartame and suffer with health symptoms your medical doctor cannot 'cure', more than likely you have aspartame poisoning.

The Dangers of Aspartame Poisoning

The dangers of aspartame poisoning have been a well guarded secret since the 1980s. The research and history of aspartame is conclusive as a cause of illness and toxic reactions in the human body. Aspartame is a dangerous chemical food additive, and its use during pregnancy and by children is one of the greatest modern tragedies of all.

Why haven't you heard about this before? Partly because the diet industry is worth trillions of American dollars to corporations, and they want to protect their profits by keeping the truth behind aspartame's dangers hidden from the public. When NutraSweet® was introduced for the 'second' time in 1981, a diet craze revolutionized America's eating protocols and a well-oiled money machine was set into motion changing modern lifestyles. After more than twenty years of aspartame use, the number of its victims is rapidly piling up, and people are figuring out for themselves that aspartame is at the root of their health problems. Patients are teaching their doctors about this nutritional peril, and they are healing themselves with little to no support from traditional medicine.

Aspartame Effects

Aspartame is the common denominator for over 92 different health symptoms at the root of modern disease. The Aspartame Detoxification Program demonstrates the most effective way to reverse disease symptoms is removing the underlying cause - aspartame.

I counsel aspartame victims worldwide and have witnessed nine out of 10 clients restore their health by following the Aspartame Detoxification Program. Begin with detoxifying your body of all residual chemical toxins from aspartame's chemical make up of phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol and their toxic by-products, and see if any adverse health symptoms remain.Try the Aspartame Detoxification Program, and within 30 days your symptoms should disappear.

Steps:

1. Remove all sugar-free products with aspartame from your diet.
2. Learn to 'read' your body. Begin recording any health changes.
3. Get a hair analysis.
4. Be happy with yourself.
5. Detoxify.
6. Restore depleted nutrients.
7. Exercise and get plenty of rest.
8. Eat 75% raw foods at every meal.
9. Drink water, water, water.
10. Get control of your life.

I designed this Ten Step Program to help protect your health and the health of those you love from being seduced by the sugar-free diet craze. Wishing you good health.

© Copyright 2002. SweetPoison.com

[thefirstimmortal]

Hayashim, T. “Effects of Sodium Glutamate on the Nervous System.” K.eioj Med.(1954): 183- 192.

[thefirstimmortal]

Van Harreveld, A. and Mendclson, M. “Glutamate-Induced Contractions in Crustacean Musclc.”J. Cell Comp. Phys. 54 (1959): 85-94.

[thefirstimmortal]

Reynolds, W. A., et al. “Hypothalamic Morphology Following Ingestion of Aspartame or MSG in Neonatal Rndent and Primate: A Preliminary Rcport.”j Toxi­cology Environmental Health 2 (1976): 471 -480.

[thefirstimmortal]

Coyle, J.T., et al. “Excitatory Amino Neurotoxins: Selectivity, Specificity, and Mechanism of Action.” Neurosci. Res. Program Bulletin 19(1981): 4

[thefirstimmortal]

Bradford, H.F., Bennet, G.W., and Thomas, A.J. “Depolarizating Stimuli and the Release of Physiologically Active Amino Acids from Suspension of Mammalian Synaptosomes.”j Neurochem. 21(1973): 495-505.

[thefirstimmortal]

For a more in-depth understanding of receptors I would recommend the book Basic Neurochemistiy, edited by G. Siegel, et al., New York:Raven Press, 1989. Also, Stanislav Reinis’ and Jerome M. Goldman’s book, The Chemistry of Behavior: A Molecu­lar Approach to Neural Plasticity. New York:Plenum Press, 1982. See also the study by Siesjo, B.K., Bengtsson, F., et al. “Calcium, Excitotoxins, and Neuronal Death in the Brain.’ Ann. NYAcad. Sct. 568(1989). 234-251.

[thefirstimmortal]

Monaghan, D.T., Bridges, R.J., and Cotman, C.W. “The Excitatory Amino Acid Receptors: Their Classes, Pharmacology, and Distinct Properties in the Function of the Central Nervous System.” Ann. Rev. Pharm. & Toxic. 29 (1989): 365-402. Actually, there are many subclasses of glutamate receptors. In fact, there is more than one type of NMDA receptor and this helps explain why different diseases are produced by expo­sure to a single-compound glutamate.

[thefirstimmortal]

Watkins, J.C. and Evans, RH. “Excitatory Amino Acid Transmitters.” Ann. Rev. Pharm. Toxic. 21(1981): 165-204.

[thefirstimmortal]

Coyle, Joseph I, et al. “Excitatory Amino Acid Neurotoxins: Selectivity, Speci­ficity, and Mechanism of Action.” Neumsci. Res. Piyg. Bull. 19(1981): 347-349. For an excellent review of ion channels and their regulation see Lewis, D.L., Lechleiter, J.D., et al. “Intracellular Regulation of Ion Channels in Cell Membranes.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 65(1990): 1127-1143.

[thefirstimmortal]

Choi, D.W., “Glutamate Neurotoxicity, Calcium and Zinc.” Ann. NYAcad. Sd. 568(1989): 219-224.

[thefirstimmortal]

Kleckner, NW. and Dingledine, B.. “Requirement for Glycine in Activation of NMDA Receptors Expressed in Xenopus Oocytes.” Sci. 241(1988): 835-837. In this study, it was shown that glycine appears to induce a conformational change in the recep­tor complex that is essential for opening of the channel or binding of glutamate to its receptor. Glycine is absolutely necessary for the action, including toxicity, of glutamate and aspartate.

[thefirstimmortal]

Shwartz, GB.. In Bad Taste: TheMSGS. Santa Fe:Health Press, 1988. This is thebook that discusses this most important syndrome. Dr. Schwartz has obtained the history of the development of MSG through the translation of original Japanese sources.

[thefirstimmortal]

. “Significance of Glutamic Acid for the Metabolism of Nervous Tissue.” Phys. Rev. 30(1950): 549-568. At this time, glutamate was not considered a neurotransmitter, but rather a metabolite. Even today other workers are experiment­ing with glutamic acid as a method of restoring memory and alterness in those suffer­ing from Alzheimer’s disease. Many health food stores sell concoctions containing glutamic acid and herbs, advertised as “mental alerters” and “brain boosters.”

[thefirstimmortal]

Lucas, D.R. and Newhouse, J.P. “The Toxic Effect of Sodium L-Glutamate on the Inner Layers of the Retina.” Arch. Opthalmology 58(1957): 193-201.

[thefirstimmortal]

Olney, J.W “Brain Lesions, Obesity, and Other Disturbances in Mice ~freated with Monosodium Glutamate.” Sci. 165(1969): 719-271. Humans also lack a blood-brain barrier in the hypothalamus, even as adults. It is for this reason that Dr. Olney and other neuroscientists are so concerned about the widespread and heavy use of excitotoxins, such as MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and cysteine, as food additives. In his experiments Dr. Olney found that high-dose exposure to MSG caused hypoplasia of the adenohypophysis of the pituitary and of the gonads, in conjunction with low hypothalamic, pituitary, and plasma levels of LH, growth hormone, and prolactin. When doses below toxic levels for hypothalamic cells were used, he found a rapid ele­vation of LH and a depression of the pulsatile output of growth hormone. In essence, these excitotoxins can cause severe pathophysiological changes in the central endocrine control system. Many of these dysfunctional changes can occur with subtoxic doses of MSG. One can speculate that chronic exposure to these neurotoxins could cause significant alterations in the function of the hypothalamus, including its non-endocrine portions.

[thefirstimmortal]

Olney, JW. “Toxic Effects of Glutamate and Related Amino Acids on the Develop­ing Central Nervous System.” In Heritable Disorders ofAmino Acid Metabolism, edited by W.N. Nylan. New York:John Wiley, 1974.

[thefirstimmortal]

Toth, L., Karascu, S., et al. “Neurotoxicity of Monosodium L-Glutamatc in Preg­nant and Fetal Rats.” Act. Neurcyath. (Berl) 75(1987): 16-22. In this study, they found that a single dose of MSG when given to pregnant rats could cause acute necrosis of the area postrema in the fetuses. While the neuronal swelling was less pronounced in the embryos, the degeneration of the neurons was much more rapid than in adults. The area postrema has been shown to contain numerous glutamatergic neurons.

[thefirstimmortal]

Olney, J.W. “Glutamate, A Neurotoxic Transmitter.” J. Child Neuro. 4(1989):
218-226.

[thefirstimmortal]

Brain Res. 18(1988): 283-294. Dr. Olney found that human children are often exposed to acute MSG intakes in the range of 100 to 150 mg/kg just by eating prepared (manu­factured) foods. In humans, this amount causes a twenty-fold elevation in their plasma glutamate levels. In comparison, mice develop only a four-fold increase in glutamate levels after a comparable dose. Remember, most of the initial research that has shown glutamate to be destructive of the brain was done using mice. Critics ignore this impor­tant fact.

[thefirstimmortal]

Choi, D.W. “Glutamate Neurotoxicity: A three-stage process.” In Neurotoxicuty of Excitatory Amino Acids. Research Foundation Symposium Series, Vol.4, edited by A. Guidotti, 235-242. New York:Raven Press, 1990.

[thefirstimmortal]

Coyle, J.T., et al. “Excitatory Amino Acid Neurotoxins: Selectivity, Specificity, and Mechanisms of Action.” Neurosci. Res. Prog. Bull. 19(1981): 4.