HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203244.19773@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
}In article <1992Oct4.203928.11368@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
}> Thus spake atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman): 
}>>VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
}> 
}> 	Sure. Throw away a few percent of the votes on Marrou (who, despite
}> excellent qualifications has no chance whatever of winning), throw a few
}> more percent of the votes on Parot and his fascist VP, and pretty soon the
}> Bush opposition will be so splintered that he'll be re-elected by a
}> minority!
}> 
}> 	Clinton is =far= from a treasure, but he's a mile ahead of Bush. Why
}> not use your vote to get Bush out of office instead of wasting it. Vote for
}> minority party candidates of other offices - but if you don't want Bush
}> re-elected then vote Clinton for president.
}> 
}	As has been pointed out before, this attitude is one major reason 
}the LP _doesn't_ have a real chance of winning this year. If you want the 
}evil choice (whether it be the lesser or the greater of two evils), then 
}vote for it. If you want something better, vote Marrou/Lord.
}	-Allen

Actually, you're both missing the essentials of this election.  Clinton is
a shoo-in.  Ever since the Democratic Convention, he's been leading by at
least 10 points in the polls, and the GOP convention only helped him out.

Clinton has really done his homework.  He isn't ruining his chances of
getting the votes of the Reagan Democrats by talking redistribution, but
he's talking economic dynamism, growth, evolution, progress.  He's taking
the black vote and the women's vote for granted, concentrating on getting
out the vote in those areas, and focusing on appeals to middle-class
suburban white males.

Polls are showing that the free-market Republicans aren't going to vote at
all.  They're angry enough with Bush to let him take the fall.  The rhetoric
of "Entrepreneurial Capitalism" is too little, too late, and everyone knows
it.

At the LP convention a year ago August, we thought we'd get lots of votes
because Bush would be such a shoo-in that people wouldn't think they could
make a difference by voting for or against him.  Now it's the opposite.
Clinton's campaign appears well-nigh unstoppable.  It's time to start
preparing for socialized medicine, double-digit inflation, environmental
regulations killing the economy like Bush never dreamed of, industrial
policy, etc.

Buy gold, vote Libertarian, and find a free country to flee to!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: An ex-President's thoughts on prohibiting a drug
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:39:23 GMT
Reply-To: murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct2.172336.15052@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak") writes:
>
>>The current Democratic nominee says he smoked marijuana in college, but
>>did not inhale. One of my favorite commedians says he drank beer in
>>college, but never swallowed. 
>
>I shot heroin in prison, but I never untied my arm.

I did acid when I was a teenager, but I never opened my mind.

Hey, maybe *that's* what has happened to today's crop of 'electable' candidates!
-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions mine. Brainless, knee-jerk reactions are your problem.
John R. Murray murray@vs6.scri.fsu.edu  | Hello, I am a damaged .signature
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst| virus. Copy me into yours, and
Moderator comp.graphics.research        | join in the !rm -rf un *;A#$!&zQ *^P%o
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: lordnose@well.sf.ca.us (Lord Nose!)
Subject: Xochi Stack 1.0 (MDMA/LSD/XOCHIPILLI)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:53:42 GMT

Xochi Stack 1.0 (TALK.POLITICS.DRUGS ANNOUNCEMENT)
---------------

Xochi Stack 1.0 is a HyperCard stack on the psychedelics that runs 
on the Macintosh computer. Profiled in this educational stack are 
MDMA and LSD, as well as an Aztec deity devoted to traditional 
sacred plants of Mexico.  You can find a copy of the stack, in five 
pieces, in <comp.binaries.mac>. Feel free to copy the software for 
friends, put on FTP sites, BBSs, et cetera, but you do not have the 
right to sell copies of this copyrighted material. If you can help 
put the stack out there, on FTP sites or whatever, please contact us!
A version for Windows is in the works...

Xochi Stack 1.0 is a public service message from LordNose!, and 
(c) 1992 LordNose! Donations of 400K diskettes greatly appreciated.

We're not advocating illegal drug use, just giving some factual
grounding to the population that already uses these compounds and
to counter some of the poisonous propaganda out there.  Most of the
information circulating is erroneous, emphasizing either the simple
hedonistic aspects of particular substances, or warning of the 
ominous consequences of their use.

	lordnose@well.sf.ca.us

"THE ADVANCEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE IS THE ONLY 
 GUARDIAN OF TRUE LIBERTY." -- James Madison, 4th US President
From: rah@rampart.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Ventura Co. Raid?
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:48:38 GMT
Reply-To: rah@rampart.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

Anyone with an LA Times able to verify this story?
/*-------------------------------------------------------+
 | Robert Holt - Digital Equipment Corp - Palo Alto, CA. |
 | Internet: rah@rampart.pa.dec.com                      |
 | UUCP:     ...!decwrl!rah                              |
 | DECnet:   TENAYA::RAH                                 |
 |                                                       |
 | "Conquer Tyrants. Fight Devils."                      |
 |                                                       |
 | Standard Disclaimers Apply...                         |
 +-------------------------------------------------------*/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: some notes on the presidential debate
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:24:43 GMT

tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:

>     Did anyone else notice Bush scratch his nose just as he mentioned
>cocaine? I found it hilarious, myself.

YES !!  There were about 8 of us watching the debate in my livingroom, and
as soon as that happened, all of us exploded in hoots and laughter.  It was
the most amazing thing.  I wonder if anyone's going to play that up.  
Letterman?  Probably not.  SatNiteLive?  Maybe.  

						-- dave

>Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6716 alt.drugs:16941 talk.bizarre:33746
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: some notes on the presidential debate
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 12 Oct 1992 08:54:28 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
app45293@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ZUSS) writes:
|   I like the fact that the moderator mentioned Will Buckley and 
|Milton Freedman when he asked the question.  The answers were of
|course an exercise in masturbation.  I think if Buckley, Freidman,
|or anyone who supports legalization had been participating in the
|debate for that question, it might have actually been interesting.

Bush said he couldn't support the legalization of "narcotics".
I'd like to cheerfully conclude that he supports legalization
of drugs which are not narcotics... like marijuana, hallucinogens,
stimulants, any non-soporific, anything, in fact, that isn't an 
opium derivative.

But nooooooo.  More likely he just doesn't know what "narcotic"
means.  Or even more likely, he tars with one big brush.

This discussion, much as I love it, doesn't belong in talk.bizarre.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 
"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging 
to an individual that the use of the drug itself." 
                               -- President Jimmy Carter (8/2/77)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 08:09:00 EST
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Subject: ON NOVEMBER 3 GET OFF THE NET AND VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10b S/N 145921

VOTE NOVEMEBER 3.
   THANKS
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: CNBC says new Nobel Gary Becker favors marijuana re-legalization
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:26:41 GMT

Saw a short blurb on CNBC about the new Nobel Prize for Economics 
winner from the University of Chicago. It included an interesting piece
of data that the print media did not see fit to print:

Dr. Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize winner, supports the re-legalization of
marijuana. No data on his position on the re-legalization of other drugs.

***
Rep Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord agree with Gary Becker. Vote Libertarian.
1-800-682-1776.
***





Distribution:
  talk-politics-drugs internet:talk-politics-drugs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
  alt-activism internet:alt-activism@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
From: Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:38:34 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Oct4.203928.11368@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>	Sure. Throw away a few percent of the votes on Marrou (who, despite
>excellent qualifications has no chance whatever of winning) [ ... ]
>
>	Clinton is =far= from a treasure, but he's a mile ahead of Bush. Why
>not use your vote to get Bush out of office instead of wasting it. Vote for
>minority party candidates of other offices - but if you don't want Bush
>re-elected then vote Clinton for president.

I'll let Eugene V. Debs respond to this one:

     "It is better to vote for something you want and lose, than to vote
for something you don't want and win."

Time to change the "Subject:" line ....

--
Scott Maxwell (maxwell@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: reading cj's posts
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:23:30 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <9210091639.AA00256@helium> dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>[Someone else]
>>    - announcing that you won't be doing any research of your own

>Yep, as above, I don't need "research" to tell me the sky is blue when
>I am solemnly quoted a vast literature telling me that it is green

More like
      "You know there's a hurricane in Florida?"
K*nt: "That's a lie! Look, not a cloud in the sky here!"

You're too irrational for words, K*nt; I wonder if it was the caffeine
abuse or is it innate?

Enough of this idiocy.  Stop wasting time on K*nt, folks, we've got
real work to do.

>Besides, its lots of fun.

Clowns generally do have fun.

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
From: rajat@watson.ibm.com (Rajat Datta)
Subject: Re: War on drunk driving fails
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:20:43 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct15.084752.43867@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>From NEWSWEEK: October 19, 1992 pg. 8.  Printed without permission.
>
>Still Drinking, Still Driving
>
>	When it comes to drunken driving, some people never learn.
>The latest statistics available from the Justice Department show that
>the number of driving-while-intoxicated arrests rose 22 percent in the
>1980s.  Just as alarming is the fact that more than half of the 1.7
>million Americans arrested for drunken driving in 1989 had already
>done jail or prison time for DWI.  One third of those arrested for
>drunken driving had been in the slammer for DWI three or more times.
>Sixty-one percent reported drinking only beer prior to their arrest
>and only 17 percent were drinking alone.
>				-30-


Couldn't this mean that in fact anti-DWI education *is* working, and
that the incidents are now being caused by the same group of hard-core
drinkers?  I think the number of actual DWI-caused accidents have gone
down.  I can certainly verify that in my own circle of friends
including myself, who used to go to bars almost every night after work
and drive home intoxicated in the early 80s have completely stopped
doing this.

>
>What?  You mean jail won't cure an alcoholic?  Better start
>confiscating those cars and houses!  We do know how to turn a drunken 
>bum into a homeless drunken bum.
>

My sister-in-law was killed by a drunk on a motorcycle who had already
killed in a DWI incident before (this was in Sweden) and had been
arrested for DWI incidents multiple times before that.  He got away
free after killing my sister-in-law too.  While I don't advocate
confiscating cars and houses, surely we have to penalize these people
somehow.  They might be victims of alcoholism, but they're taking the
lives of innocent people too.
-- 
rajat (rajat@watson.ibm.com)
From: dave@irv.icl.com ( Dave Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: BUTANE - WHAT THE HECK?
Summary: nononono
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:45:12 GMT
Organization: ccicpg

In article <1b4htlINN1ij@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

Ceej, I hate to have to be the one to point this out
but you're trying to have a rational discourse with K*nt.

You should have just left it at:

> Kent, you ignoramus

and been done with it.


	Dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6786 alt.drugs:17046 rec.backcountry:8173 talk.politics.misc:51710 misc.test:11798 alt.society.civil-liberty:6270 talk.politics.guns:22131
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,rec.backcountry,talk.politics.misc,misc.test,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed DEATH SQUADS in GLASGOW
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:08:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.231435.23628@Cadence.COM>, bruceg@Cadence.COM (Bruce Gustifson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.150645.29998@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep22.000217.28221@nevada.edu>, crail@nevada.edu (DONNA CRAIL-RUGOTZKE) writes:
> >> Recently I applied for a job at a local casino (I live in Las Vegas) and they
> >> had a large sign over one of the windows saying that all employees would have
> >> to submit to a "hair test" in order to be tested for drugs.  Can anyone tell
> >> me what a hair test is and how accurate it is?  Also would certain brands of
> >> soap or shampoo give a false positive?  Thanks in advance.
> 
>   Does this mean that if you're bald that you must be straight?

"Dope check!  Put your hands in the air!"

"Now hold them there for about 30 seconds while we..."
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Voting against prohibition
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:59:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.132728.26835@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>Should I vote my gut, or my conscience?
>
>Split the ticket -- vote for the top of the Democratic ticket,
>Clinton/Gore -- and Libertarians for all other positions.  Here

Great advice, Paul!  That's exactly what I'm doing: Clinton/Gore for national,
Genis and Boddie for the two open Senate seats.  If I'm *sure* Clinton will
win in California, though, I'll probably cast my vote for Marrou/Lord to
increase the L count.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to
 correlate all its contents."
					-H. P. Lovecraft
From: dolan@XENON.BERKELEY.EDU (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: inelastic demand for drugs
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:20:27 GMT

CJ sez:

> Kent, you ignoramous, why don't you go look up "elastic
> demand" and "inelastic demand".  Hint: demand for some
> drugs is inelastic, and hence price insensitive. Come
> back when you've actually done some reading about the
> concepts.  You'll look like less of a fool.

Sigh. Notice that nice little weasel word "some"? As I recently posted,
a study one can trust -- no self reporting, no self selection of study
participants -- shows that the demand for cocaine, explicitly, is quite
dollar price sensitive, even when the larger social costs to military drug
users are are prohibitive beyond the drug effects.

What does that say about the likely effect, in the USA, of making
cocaine cheaper by legalizing street drugs?

CJ, I got my "A" in Economics 101, out of Paul Samuelson's text,
roughly the time you cut your first molar.

Next fool?

Kent, the man from xanth.
"The Birthright of humankind is the stars!"
--
Ignore the header, and don't expect me to see a news reply.  We don't get news.
Use email to: <dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil> or <dolan@192.138.87.240>
From: nlns@igc.apc.org (New Liberation News Service)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Quayle, pot, and the media /ww
Date: 10 Oct 1992 23:45:03 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

/* Written  9:41 am  Oct 10, 1992 by nyt@nyxfer in cdp:media.issues */
/* ---------- "Quayle, pot, and the media /ww" ---------- */
Subject: Quayle, pot, and the media /ww
From: nyxfer!nyt (NY Transfer News)

 Quayle, pot and the media

After years of treating him as a "non-person," the news media,
Congress and the courts are suddenly paying a lot of attention to
Brett Kimberlin, a federal prisoner who claims he sold drugs to
Dan Quayle in the 1970s. This new-found show of truth, justice,
and press independence just happens to coincide with a shift by
influential representatives of the big-money power elite,
including John Sculley, CEO of Apple Computer and John Young, CEO
of Hewlett Packard, into the Clinton camp. Bush appears to be
losing ground with his usual ruling class backers. Speaking about
the economy on Oct. 4, Bush said, "Yes, things have been tough,
but they haven't been that tough." At Pamela Harriman'
fund-raiser for Clinton in Middleberg, Va., invitations went for
$10,000 a plate.

For three straight months the Democratic Party has taken in more
money than the traditionally wealthier Republicans. Through June,
Republicans had raised $95 million more than the Democrats. But
since then, the Democratic National Committee has hauled in about
$43 million, compared with $26 million for Bush and Quayle.

The big media had all this information about Quayle four years
ago. But then they just sat on it. They also knew about Bush's
connections with Contragate, but they kept that story quiet, too.
Big money, and the media it controls, was solidly behind the
Republicans. Now, it seems like every day there's a new
revelation or a new scandal.

If big money still backed Bush and Quayle, no one would be
reading about Brett Kimberlin and that day an Indiana rich kid
asked him, "Hey, do you have any of this for sale?"

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted
if source is cited. For more info contact Workers World,46 W. 21
St., New York, NY 10010; "workers@mcimail.com".)

    The N.Y. Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683
 nyxfer@panix.com * All the news that doesn't fit * nytransfer@igc.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Boot camp?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:19:58 GMT


In article <JASON.92Oct14124556@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, 
Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> said:

> A ``boot'' is a slang term for a new military recruit, and boot camp
> is slang for military basic training.  Governor Clinton used boot
> camp to mean a military training style training to rehabilitate drug
> users.

[ * * * ]

> It's only required to those that join the military,

And, apparently, those who commit certain political crimes...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6756 alt.politics.elections:16399
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debaters on drugs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 22:00:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Quotes from the debate, in response to a question on
>"...If not what's advocated by William F. Buckley Jr. and Milton
>Friedman -- legalization, somewhere between there and where we are
>now?"
>
>Perot:
>"Just look at those little children and if anybody can even think
>about legalizing drugs, they've lost me."
>
>Bush:
>"I think legalization of narcotics or something of that nature in
>the face of the medical evidence would be totally counterproductive.
>And I oppose it..."
>
>Clinton:
>"I am adamantly opposed to legalizing drugs. ... we ought to have
>boot camp for first time non-violent offenders..."
>
>[...]
>
>   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

Precisely as I expected: not a debate, but a circle-jerk.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6802 talk.politics.misc:51993 alt.drugs:17087
From: dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
Subject: War on drunk driving fails
Date: 15 Oct 92 08:47:52 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

From NEWSWEEK: October 19, 1992 pg. 8.  Printed without permission.

Still Drinking, Still Driving

	When it comes to drunken driving, some people never learn.
The latest statistics available from the Justice Department show that
the number of driving-while-intoxicated arrests rose 22 percent in the
1980s.  Just as alarming is the fact that more than half of the 1.7
million Americans arrested for drunken driving in 1989 had already
done jail or prison time for DWI.  One third of those arrested for
drunken driving had been in the slammer for DWI three or more times.
Sixty-one percent reported drinking only beer prior to their arrest
and only 17 percent were drinking alone.
				-30-

What?  You mean jail won't cure an alcoholic?  Better start
confiscating those cars and houses!  We do know how to turn a drunken 
bum into a homeless drunken bum.

-- 
***************************************************************
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
					(x-?)Pres. George Bush