HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones)
Subject: Re: What Do YOU Think.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:25:14 GMT
Organization: Charnel House Prod.

rlk@cmptrc.lonestar.org (R-L-K) writes:
: 
: In article <lamontg.712103623@milton> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
: >                        ... just to experiment with the effect of massive
: >dopamine release on my brain -- I'd also like to experience the kind of
: 
:Given that you're experimenting on the same brain that you're using to analyze
:the results, this sounds like an exercise in futility.  (Kinda like making mod
:to a scope, then using that scope to check itself.)

It's not exactly possible to analyze someone else's brain after they take
LSD (for example), is it?  I understand what you're trying to say above,
but I think you're wrong.  I agree with Lamont; experiencing something and
then thinking about what happened and the results, if any, is hardly an
exercise in futility.  There is no 'checking itself' involved, really.
There is a 'what happened and what did it mean' going on, which is in
fact quite different.

:What's wrong with just enjoying being fucked up?

Nothing necessarily; what's wrong with experimenting and seeing what
happens?  Passing judgment goes both ways, you know.


  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
             Mason Jones           Charnel House Productions
             P.O. Box 170277, San Francisco 94117-0277 U.S.A.
   ...{uunet,sun}!hoptoad!dante!mason   or   dante!mason@hop.toad.com
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
Subject: Re: Canned shrooms? (Potency of Dried Shrooms)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:59:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul29.005237.21844@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ah589@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Troy Blum) writes:
>
>As many of you know, Psilocybe mushrooms lose much of their potency when
>dried. Does anybody know whether canning the mushrooms would preserve more
>of the psilocybin and psilocin? 

I keep seeing this assertion that dried shrooms lose potency, but
there doesn't seem to be any basis to it.  I checked "Psilocybin:
The Magic Mushroom Growers Guide" and they make no mention of
proper drying reducing potency.  *Proper* drying, mind you, which
is to say gentle dessication, not cooking.  Someone had a pointer
to an Oakland firm that made dessicators ideal for shrooms, but
I've lost the address.  Anyway, if you properly dry shrooms and
then seal them in airtight containers and store them in a dark,
cool place, they should have and maintain virtually all the potency
of the fresh shroom.  Baggies with the air squeezed out should be
fine.
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13311 sci.med:14265
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med
Subject: Re: Ketamine et al.
Keywords: ketamine
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:17:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Jul22.161717.13471
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Jul22.152231.29708@cs.yale.edu> smith-jeff@CS.YALE.EDU (Jeff Smith) writes:
>All the discussion going on recently about ketamine and its
>use/uselessness at raves has made me curious about your experiences
>with other "induction drugs" (drugs that are *medically* used to help
>a patient with the transition into general anesthetic), such as
>thiopental, etomidate, midazolam, methohexital and inhaled halothane.

Ketamine is notable as an unusual "anesthetic" agent which lacks
some of the properties which makes traditional anesthetics quite
dangerous, though it is still potentially a dangerous drug, especially
when administerd parenterally without the supervision of an anesthetist
or anesthesiologist.  Its psychic effects are also unique to this class of
"dissociative anesthetics."

The other drugs you mention are mostly useful only parenterally,
and in this capacity are extremely dangerous, and cannot be used
safely as recreational drugs.

>Has anyone used any of these? They are all available without a
>DEA liscence, but how easy are they to obtain?  Cost? Etc.

Thiopental, methohexital and midazolam are controlled substances.
I don't even know if methohexital is used anymore.  These drugs,
especially the barbiturates, but also the potent benzodiazepine midazolam,
would be expected to cause apnea (respiratory arrest) or laryngospasm
upon injection.  In anesthesia, they're given as induction agents, and
immediately followed by succinylcholine or some other paralysing agent
to facilitate inserting an endotracheal tube for assisted ventilation.
It would be suicide to try to administer any of these without the
supervision of an anesthesiologist, and that's not going to happen
outside of a medical setting.

Etomidate causes adrenal insufficiency if administed for any length
of time, and it shares the same concerns as above.  Halothane is
potentially hepatotoxic, can cause blood pressure and cardiac
irregularities, and is an extremely potent volatile anesthetic which
causes respiratory arrest if a skilled practitioner is not available
and the requisite supportive equipment is not present.

Don't even think of it.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: slr@cco.caltech.edu (Steve L. Rhoades)
Subject: LSD - After effects
Keywords: LSD, Acid, flashback, Ren & Stimpy
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:10:36 GMT

A FOAF has asked that I pose the following question
to the net.community:

He has taken acid about every 2 weeks for the last couple of months.
While he has never had a "flashback", he'll sometimes notice something
moving out of the corner of his eye.  When he looks toward the "moving"
object, everything's normal.

There's no other sensation except for that glimpse out of the corner
of his eye.  This happens about twice a day and seems to lessen as
the length of time since he tripped increases.

Anyone else experience this ?

E-mail & follow-ups will be forwarded.

-- 
Internet: slr@caltech.edu           | Voice: (818) 794-6004
UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca.  91023
"This is the city, Los Angeles, California.  It's a city of sun-baked people 
 with half-baked ideas.  Some of those ideas are illegal.  I work here..."
From: mhergert@esk (Mark Ivan Hergert)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Home production of Methanphetamines
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:47:26 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston

In article <20JUL199219252723@vax.sonoma.edu>, gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu (Mycal) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul20.203708.1929@NOC.Vitalink.COM>, rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes...
>>In article <62325@cup.portal.com>, nathanf@cup.portal.com (nathan benjamin 
>>friedman) writes:
>> 
>>> I was reading through back issues of Phrack and I found the article
>>> "THE TRIED AND TRUE HOME PRODUCTION FOR 'METHAMPHETAMIN'". 
>> 
>>It is true that you can use one of the ingredients in nasal inhalers
>>(pseudoephedrine) as a starting material for meth, but what you've
>>posted is _not_ the way to do it.   For one thing, the prep you
>>quoted is just an extraction and purification.   There isn't even a
>>synthesis taking place -- just some changing from salt to free base.
>> 
	Not that it really matters if it's not Crystal Meth, as long as
it's relatively safe and it gives you a good high it's worth it.  
	There is also 60mg Psuedoephedrine HCl contained in your regular
old cold tablets.  I was wondering if it would be possible to use this 
instead of the Vicks Nasal Inhalers and what extra process would you
have to go through to extract it?

*_-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_*####################################
:                                         :                                   #
: "When logic and proportion have fallen  : AARNET:                           #
:  far be dead, and the White Knight is   : mhergert@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au #
:  talking backwards and the Red Queen's  :                                   #
:  off her head...Remember what the       :     Psuedo Intellectual Hippie    #
:  doormouse said: Feed your head,        : of Radical and Chaotic Persuasion #
:                  Feed your head..."     :                                   #
:                                         :       UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA      #
:          - Jefferson Airplane           :           - Launceston -          #
:                                         :                                   #
*_-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_*####################################
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13903 alt.psychoactives:1069 talk.politics.drugs:5524
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.psychoactives,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: alt.drugs -- the maintenance dose
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:03:21 GMT
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <1992Jul31.094411.6633@alliant.com> eaw@alliant.com (Eric Woudenberg) writes:
>My name is Eric, and I've got a compulsive alt.drugs habit.
>
>I finally admitted to myself that I had a problem the day I told my
>family I'd be coming home late because I had lots of work to do.  It
>was a lie.  In reality I had five days of alt.drugs that I hadn't
>"done" yet, and I was looking forward to a quiet hour or two with the
>group after being without it for so long.
>
>Today, I'm reformed. I don't let alt.drugs interfere with my life
>like before. I don't lie to cover up my compulsive behavior. In short,
>I've cut back. I can usually get my alt.drugs fix in under 20 minutes
>each day. How do I do it? 
>
>In rn, at the article prompt, I type: /Re:/j
>
>It really works, what I'm left with is my alt.drugs maintenance dose.

Hello Eric,
Well, good luck, but I think that you're deceiving yourself. You're not 
cured until you get clear out of rn. After awhile you'll find yourself
peeking into other articles,just "for special occasions" and soon enough
your back to where you started.
The next thing you know you're reading rec.humor just because it's cheap and
plentiful.




-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13629 sci.med:14653
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med
Subject: Re: What is the Health Risk from Smoking MJ?
Keywords: Smoking, Tobacco, Marijuana, Health
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:46:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Jul28.013619.11668@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>"Marijuana has never caused a death" is a factoid that I hear quoted
>often.  And I'm not inclined to believe it.  Hasn't even _one_ stoned

I believe Bob Marley died from smoking so much ganga he got lung
cancer.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
From: carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Adaptive Optics Associates
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:38:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.145826.15707@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>An addict is someone who keeps getting into the same kinds
>of trouble, over and over again, even though he doesn't
>want to....but STILL thinks he's in control!
x
That's it.... I knew I was a usenet addict :=(
Not to mention a Red Sox addict :=( :=(
Seriously, these 2 items don't count unless I get into trouble.  Examples
(which don't apply (yet :=) ) ) might be: reading articles instead
of finishing a lab test, or betting on the Sox no matter what.


-- 
Bobby Newmark, aka  Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
aoa!carl@bbn.com  carl@aoa.utc.com
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
**Just say NO to HMOs**
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: instant addiction?
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:15:49 GMT
	<BILL.92Jul23214741@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <59213@mimsy.umd.edu>
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona


   Bill Skaggs writes:
   >The presence of a "withdrawal syndrome" was once considered a
   >necessary part of the definition of addiction, but no longer.  

   Tom Swiss (*not* Swift) writes:
   >Presumably because the Drug Warriors found that the drugs they
   >were calling addictive didn't induce withdrawal. When all else
   >fails, change your definition. (Hey, it's how Thatcher reduced
   >unemployment in the U.K.) 

I don't think this is quite fair.  The Drug Warriors (politicians,
religious figures, and elements of the news media) have always played
fast and loose with science.  The Drug Warriors would like to say that
marijuana and LSD are addictive, but scientific consensus disagrees.
The Drug Warriors are not particularly happy with the notion that
tobacco is addictive, but again scientific consensus disagrees (*).

The intuitive idea of addiction is that you're addicted if you "just
can't stop" using a substance, in spite of the grief it causes you.
For researchers this creates a problem: how do you tell when a person
(or animal) "just can't stop"?  A more operational definition is
needed.  Most of the early work on addiction was done with opiates, so
an operational definition was created by abstracting from their
properties, which include a withdrawal syndrome.  Eventually it was
realized that cocaine, and some other drugs, fit the intuitive concept
of addiction but do not lead to withdrawal, so the operational
definition was changed.

	-- Bill

(*) -- Of course there are individual scientists who have divergent
opinions, and the Drug Warriors like to quote their views as "the word
of science", but this does not change the fact that there is a broad
consensus opposed to them.
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13764 sci.psychology:3325 talk.politics.drugs:5451
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:28:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <BILL.92Jul29104931@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>
>   There is a class of substances whose mere exposure leads to addiction.
>
>Am I misreading this, or are you saying that for some drugs
>administering the drug to somebody without their consent would cause
>them to be addicted?

What about babies that are born addicted? I know that the 'crack baby problem'
was way over-hyped but I thought that there were babies born addicted to coke
and heroin. This isn't to say that everyone who tries either *will* become 
addicted but it would show the ability for the drug to cause addiction even
if you didn't like it. Were there ever babies born addicted? If so I would
think that this would prove that some drugs can cause addiction at times 
with no psychological influence.

 


-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:04:57 GMT

> I know of no documented cases of a person becoming addicted
> to any drug, even after a number of uses.

Good, then there's no such thing as addiction.  That'll save
some time.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: tcederqu@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Trevor Cederquist)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: What Do YOU Think.
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:34:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	A simple question....

	I was wondering for what reasons do people take drugs?

	There are Seigel's and Weil's ideas that drug-taking
	is just another behavior that alters consciousness,
	which is an innate desire.

	Some believe people take drugs to self-medicate for 
	depression, anxiety, or pain.

	I've also heard that drug-taking is just another risk-
	taking behavior which is an indicator of some underlying
	psychological problem.

	I'm sure there are others...  What do YOU think?



Trevor C. Cederquist
tcederqu@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Freebase=Crack
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:29:53 GMT

bz206@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph Hack) writes:
>Since Jim has never seen it, it is a fantasy.  I wouldn't say it is an
>epidemic, but various drugs are being sold on the street at "ice",
>In these parts, many things pass for "ice" even though nobody knows
>what "ice" is supposed to be or do for you.  Usually, what people
>call ice is actually Intellex/Aminorex.  I suspect the "ice" in other
>areas is something else altogether.  Thats what we have to put up with
>as long as drugs are illegal.

I tried to find references on it.  Most said that "ice" was d-methamphetamine
some said it was 4-methylaminorex.

My guess is that "ice" just means "heavy stimulant" in the same way that
"cross-tops" means "medium stimulant".

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: mbcamps@hubcap.clemson.edu (Matt Campbell)
Subject: Re: What is the Health Risk from Smoking MJ?
Keywords: Smoking, Tobacco, Marijuana, Health
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:29:52 GMT

No, Peter Tosh and several buddies were notably killed by bullet...but
not Bob Marley...

Matt      
***************************************************************************
*         Matt Campbell			"I'm the one that's got to die    *
*         Computer Science	         when it's time for me to die     *
*         Clemson University		 so let me live my life.......    *
*         mbcamps@hubcap.clemson.edu		the way I want to."       *
*            								  *
*						-James Marshall Hendricks *
***************************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Advertisement in the UK Times..
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:06:03 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <1992Jul25.065900.7840@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>
>You seem to have a strange definition of hypocrisy. Bush/Reagan think drugs
>are evil and will have you locked up for selling them. Carter says they're
>ok but still locks you up. Which is the most hypocritical?
>
	The President doesn't make the laws.. Congress and the states make
the laws. (The states make the state laws.) I think under Carter MANY states
decriminalized marijuana.. (I am unsure on this tidbit-- anyone know for
sure?)

-- 
  _Sameer_Parekh_zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM_zane@infopls.chi.il.us__________________
 / STOP The War on Rights          | | Restore liberty in the United States \
 | "Specialization is for Insects" | | Vote Libertarian 1992          ______/
 \________- Robert A. Heinlein_____/ \_ap.2363@cupid.sai.com (anon)__/
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: kaw4t@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Kent A. Watsen)
Subject: Re: Home Appliances which get you...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:36:22 GMT

	Sorry about the repost....but I noticed a spelling error...
I Robo'd last night and am still a bit groggy. :)(: -schizo smiley

	I trying to put together a list of home products which
a person can get high off of.  I will start the list with a couple
of my favorites, but would really appreaciate if others would add
theirs too.  Thanks.

Product			Usage			Comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robotussin DM		drink 4/8/12 oz		like PCP and Heroin
Scotch Guard 3m		inhale deeply		like NO3 - be sure to
						get the right kind!
Nutmeg			Smoke until happy	headache possible
Nutmeg			drink a match box	hallucinations likely
			amount in water	
Banana Peels		Smoke dried until :)	headache possible

	Feel free to add your own...


Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: drk20509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (mighty odin)
Subject: Re: LA Times : "Long LSD Prison Terms--It's all in the packaging"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:21:32 GMT

mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr) writes:
>  "I'm just not troubled by this at all," said Robert C. Bonner, administrator of the
>Drug Enforcement Administration.  "There are some pretty severe penalties for trafficking
>in LSD, but I think that's right.  This is a very dangerous drug.  It once was referred
>to as do-it-yourself brain surgery."

	Isn't there some legal grounds with which somebody could attack this
guy? If not for slander, then how bout for being under-educated for his 
position. If anyone knows of something to do to protest factual distortions
please let me know (post). If you don't know of an organization but do of 
someone to write or otherwise complain to, please let me know that.
-dwk
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: ricegm@ecf.toronto.edu (George Matthew Rice)
Subject: Re: Canned shrooms?
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:51:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.142719.12309@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.005237.21844@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ah589@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Troy Blum) writes:
>>
>>As many of you know, Psilocybe mushrooms lose much of their potency when
>>dried. Does anybody know whether canning the mushrooms would preserve more
>>of the psilocybin and psilocin? 
>
>My guess would be that heat from canning breaks the psychoactive componants
>down even more rapidly.  Fresh mushrooms should be kept in the refrigerator
>in a ventillated container.  Dried ones can be frozen.
>
What about extracting the p &p from the fresh mushroom's?
Is that even an option to the layman ?

Matthew
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs