HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 23:59:37 GMT

| starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

| >The suppliers of aspirin are banned from telling anyone
| >on their labels that their risk of death could be decrease by 40% if they
| >took some each day.  This adds about 20 grand more deaths to their body
| >count.

Yup.  Another 20 grand *per year*.

drayer-rebecca@yale.edu (Rebecca Drayer) writes:

| Was there a reason for this action?  I mean, it doesn't seem conceivable
| that they would have done this completely arbitrarily.  I'm not defending
| the FDA, but on the other hand, I don't want to condemn it until I know
| all the facts.

A perfectly reasonable question, Rebecca.

The reason the FDA banned this label claim is that the FDA didn't approve
of it first.  You see, with the FDA, SCIENTIFIC TRUTH IS IRRELEVANT!

It doesn't matter if what you say on your label is true or not -- you can
only say WHAT THEY PREVIOUSLY APPROVE.  It gets worse, too.  There's the
"extension of labelling" stunt: FDA claims that any advertising you do,
newsletters you print, "fact sheets" and even books(!) available at health
food stores, etc. -- all these, they say, constitute "extensions of
labelling".  So they claim the right to censor those too!

It doesn't come easy, this understanding that an agency with such a
noble goal -- guarding the safety of foods and medicines -- can actually
be the CAUSE of so very many deaths, and be engaging in Prior Restraint
censorship of Scientific Truth.

But that's what the FDA does.


I just received a brief synopsis of legal events in the ongoing FDA
vendetta agains the Life Extension Foundation and will post it in
a few days.  Some highlights are: FDA agents engaging in perjury to get
a court to issue a search warrant; FDA agents (again) threatening the
operator of a print shop with arrest and seizure of his presses if he
didn't stop printing the Life Extension Foundation's newsletters; and
courts ordering FDA to pay some legal expenses for the Foundation.

(The latter doesn't happen very often, which points to the egregiousness
of FDA's actions.  More to come later.)

Best Wishes

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


"The times they are a-changing."

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8253 alt.drugs:21428
From: ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: drug-free schools
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:16:23 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In article <1993Jan25.195821.4744@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.163849.8740@crd.ge.com>, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>>		I can honestly say that I NEVER observed anyone selling,
>>	or even using, alcohol on school property ! Tobacco was used
>>	in designated "smoking areas", but was NEVER sold. It doesn't
>>	require a rocket scientist to figure out why this was the case.
>
>I knew people in who used alcohol in high school, but as far as I know, they
>didn't sell it.
>
>Students may not sell cigarettes, they just give them away.  To a parent,
>mooching is just as bad as buying.
>
>Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"

So, let me get this straight. The reason that drugs shouldn't be
legalized is that "some students bum cigarettes, therefore they will
bum joints" ? You actually believe that drugs will be _more_ available
in schools (particularly inner city schools) if they're legalized
than they are now ?

First, I am a parent. Second, I was in high school during the "drug era"
of the late 70's. For me, the main place that I _ever_ saw drugs bought
and sold was the high school parking lot. This would not have been
the case if drugs had been legal for purchase at stores by adults.
This is a fact.

I stick with my original contention. Legalization, accompanied by
alcohol-and-tobacco-like regulation and control, will _eliminate_
drug dealing in America's schools. Teachers can then focus on
teaching.

Notice that I _didn't_ say "eliminate drug using high school students".
I don't believe that there's any way to do that. As I recall, one of
the cornerstones of Nancy Reagan's initial "just say no" campaign
was a "drug free America by 1993". Are we there yet, Nance ?

Ed Stokes
ebstokes@crd.ge.com
From: silly@ugcs.caltech.edu (Brad Threatt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Anti-WOD propaganda
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:47:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: irk.ugcs.caltech.edu

Okay...
So people who deal LSD on sugarcubes and get nailed by the Federales end up
with an ironclad guarantee to spend 20 or so years rotting in a Federal pen.
On the other hand, rapists, murderers, robbers, thugs, and not-nice-people
do far less time and then get out again.  

Has anyone considered the excellent anti-WOD propaganda that could be built 
from this?  Just the facts would probably present a powerful statement in
themselves.

I'd be interested in talking with anyone who's doing work along these lines,
just to see what's going on.

--
Brad Threatt | MISSING! Single white male Jesus look-alike in blue 
             | Members Only jacket.  Answers to the name 'Dave Gillespie'.
Safe sex is  | Last seen with roller-skating couple in Pasadena.  
for wimps.   | If found, please return to the cs10 lab immediately.
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:30:25 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1jkjl4INN3qu@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Tobacco is the one legal drug that, when taken exactly as is prescribed by
>the manufacturer, kills roughly 500,000 people in the US every year.
Tobacco is not manufactured.  It is grown.
 
>Coincidentally, tobacco and alcohol are the two drugs NOT controlled by the
>FDA.
Goldenseal, echinacea, ginseng, comfrey, gotu kola, cinchona, cloves,
etc.  Thousands of them.  Many of them more dangerous than LSD or
marijuana.  All freely available.  The FDA would like to quash them all,
but they can't find enough victims.  

Here are some dangerous drugs the FDA does not even want to regulate:
money, power, TV, video games.  The first two cost many lives each year,
and have been known to endow criminals with superhuman strength.
The third is a soporific with no medical use, turns minds to mush, 
costs billions annually in lost productivity, is a suspected carcinogen,
and has been implicated in violent crime.  The last is highly addictive 
and may be hallucinogenic.

It may not be the FDA, but the government does regulate tobacco and
alcohol.  
 
>Imagine if everybody was free to market any drug they wanted any way they
>wanted.  How high would the death toll rise?  Don't underrate the FDA.
>Without its efforts, the death toll due to drugs wouldn't even be guessable.

You are probably correct to the extent that some regulation is needed.
However, with inhabitants numbering about 250 megapops, I can confidently
guess that the long-term toll would be between 0.5 and 2.0 megapops
per year if your statistic regarding alcohol is correct. Guessability is
therefore proven by example.

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:45:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.020022.911160@locus.com> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:
}And beta-blockers are just one category of drug!

Yep.  I posted an article about the Fascist Death Authority's censorship on
notification of results of aspirin studies on heart disease from the Orange
County Register.  The suppliers of aspirin are banned from telling anyone
on their labels that their risk of death could be decrease by 40% if they took
some each day.  This adds about 20 grand more deaths to their body count.

}But rather than abolishing the FDA, I'd rather see their proclamations
}just become advisory.

Stripping it of the power of prior restraint would be a great improvement,
but I fail to see why money needs to be stolen to finance an agency to
evaluate safety and efficacy of medications.


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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp. (Standard Disclaimer of course)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:40:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.235507.4452@cc.gatech.edu>, bell@cc.gatech.edu (Andrew 
Christopher Bell) writes:

> >When most new drugs are crap, and most are, there is a good deal
> >to be said for caution.
> 
> Caution is one thing.  Holding a gun to people's heads and saying they
> can't use a drug that may save their lives is another.  Why not just
> have the FDA put a seal of acceptance on drugs that pass the test, and
> say that standard medical insurance & Medicare/Medicaid doesn't have to
> pay anything for non-approved drugs nor any ailments caused by the ill
> effects of drugs that turns out to be unsafe?

A couple of possibilities spring to mind:

a) it makes too much sense.

b) the FDA brownshirts are too busy pointing guns at nurses and trying to
ban "sleepy-time tea" to consider any policy changes at the moment.

(BTW, does anybody know the current status of the Hatch Amendment?) 

--- Rick Buchanan (rbuchanan@vitalink.com)

        *** Don't blame me.  I voted Libertarian  ***
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:39:06 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1993Jan19.002508.27390@NOC.Vitalink.COM> rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:

>I've been wondering....   If you hire Kevorkian to help you commit suicide, 
>and you survive, can you sue him for malpractice?
>

It's a good question.  Since he is no longer licensed to practice,
you could probably sue him, but likely not under malpractice.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: bagg@ellis.uchicago.edu (matthew john baggott)
Subject: Cocaine unto Death (was Re: Canadian proof ...)
Reply-To: bagg@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:38:04 GMT

In article <carlp.726982674@frigg> carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis) writes:

>kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes:

>>What is known about drugs like cocaine is that they will cause enormous
>>changes in behavior.  In animal studies, subjects will select cocaine in
>>preference to food until they starve to death.  (Interestingly, they won't
>>do this for heroin.)  I think this adequately demonstrates that a drug can
>>be considered to cause dependence without it having to display gross
>>physiological symptoms.
>
>Which "drugs like cocaine" did you have in mind?  Caffiene?  Khat?
>I'd have to look it up, but I believe that (single) rat study has been
>rather thoroughly discredited.

My memory of this sort of study is that it involves monkeys self-administering
cocaine IV until they convulse and die.  Starvation sounds really
very improbable to me.  


>--
>Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG                | "If we were directed from Washington 
> Olivetti North America / Spokane, WA |  when to sow and when to reap, we would 
> Mail: carlp@mail.spk.olivetti.com    |  soon want for bread."
>   or: ...uunet!oliveb!isc-br!carlp   |     - Thomas Jefferson
From: kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:20:35 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <2430@hsdndev.UUCP> rind@enterprise.bih.harvard.edu (David Rind) writes:
> a drug need not be approved for a given indication to be used
> by physicians.  Doctors in the U.S. may prescribe any approved
> drug for virtually any indication.

Perhaps oxindanac is not approved for anything?  The article definitely
implied that doctors were not allowed to use it.

> I have no idea whether the FDA has approved steroids for use in the
> treatment of meningitis in children, but pediatricians use them all
> the time.

The article said that oxindanac and other NSAIDS were far superior to
steroids.  The graph on page 84 is quite dramatic.

Keith Lynch, kfl@access.digex.com
From: kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug Tests for White House?
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:26:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: questor.sw.stratus.com

In article <1484000093@igc.apc.org> insthemp@igc.apc.org (Institute for Hemp) writes:
>
>DRUG TESTS FOR SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS PUT OFF UNTIL FEBRUARY
>15 WASHINGTON (JAN. 22) UPI - Drug tests for senior White House
>staff members have been put off until Feb. 15 for "administrative
>reasons," President Clinton's spokewoman said Friday.
>

	What a convenient length of time they chose, just about a
	month, about the time it takes for drug matabolites to leave
	the blood.

>Press secretary Dee Dee Myers confirmed The Washington Times
>report that drug testing rules for top ranking White House
>personnel have been waived for a month to permit the aides to get
>settled in their jobs.

	Translation: 

	...waived for a month to permit the aides to get rid of all
	the inaugeration-night reefer-remants in their blood stream.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe he's just a little insane, like painters or composers."
							-Miracle on 34th Street
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: an2531@anon.penet.fi (/dev/high)
Subject: CA bust for sale of ephedrine
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:07:57 GMT


X-Anon-To:talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs

From
clari.local.california (moderated) #5615 (15 more)                         [1]
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)

Was an article about someone busted for selling ephedrine:

        Brad Simas, 37, presently of Medford, Ore., was sentenced by U.S.
District Judge Lawrence Karlton after pleading guilty to two counts of
illegal sales of ephedrine.


How do you illegaly sell ephedrine? The article also states:

The chemical was to be used to make methamphetamine...

Are they going to start cracking down on gas stations and Longs
now?

/dev/high
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8212 talk.politics.medicine:654 sci.med:24303
From: drayer-rebecca@yale.edu (Rebecca Drayer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:08:37 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1993Jan22.094510.14223@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Yep.  I posted an article about the Fascist Death Authority's censorship on
>notification of results of aspirin studies on heart disease from the Orange
>County Register.  The suppliers of aspirin are banned from telling anyone
>on their labels that their risk of death could be decrease by 40% if they took
>some each day.  This adds about 20 grand more deaths to their body count.

Was there a reason for this action?  I mean, it doesn't seem conceivable
that they would have done this completely arbitrarily.  I'm not defending
the FDA, but on the other hand, I don't want to condemn it until I know
all the facts.


-- 
Rebecca A. Drayer, EMT-A            |    drayer@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Neurobiology major                  |    Computing Assistant
                                    |    Silliman College, Yale University
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:49:14 GMT

In article <1jkjl4INN3qu@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1jc3mdINN9mh@mirror.digex.com> kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch) writes:
}>Isn't it time we abolish the FDA?  Maybe some of its managers should do
}>some serious jail time, too.  Oxindanac is not an isolated instance.
}>It sounds like they are responsible for far more misery and death than
}>Dahmer, Bundy, Manson, and Dodd put together.
}
}Tobacco is the one legal drug that, when taken exactly as is prescribed by
}the manufacturer, kills roughly 500,000 people in the US every year.

Yes, that's right: medeivalism lives - rather than inanimate substances,
tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs are homicidal agents unleashed on the
poor, unsuspecting public by the evil, greed of Industry.

Thank you, Huben for informing us of this.  Forget about assumption of risk
by consumers, forget about freedom of choice, just prohibit vice, and it will
go away.


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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: Institute for Hemp <insthemp@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:40 PST
Subject: Drug Tests for White House?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1484000093:000:1321
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!insthemp    Jan 26 19:40:00 1993


DRUG TESTS FOR SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS PUT OFF UNTIL FEBRUARY
15 WASHINGTON (JAN. 22) UPI - Drug tests for senior White House
staff members have been put off until Feb. 15 for "administrative
reasons," President Clinton's spokewoman said Friday.

Press secretary Dee Dee Myers confirmed The Washington Times
report that drug testing rules for top ranking White House
personnel have been waived for a month to permit the aides to get
settled in their jobs.

The waiver was issued by Bruce Lindsey, the White House personnel
director, for new employees during the transition.

The urine tests, ordered first in the Reagan administration and
continued in the Bush White House, were to determine whether there
was any involvement in cocaine, marijuana or other drugs.

Meantime, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, called on Clinton Friday to
direct his senior staff to immediately submit to drug tests "to
clear up the issue."

Barton said it takes a month to clear the blood of drug use.

"If they have nothing to hide it won't matter and if they do, they
shouldn't serve," Barton said.

"The American people must have the confidence that those running
our country have drug free minds, especially when critical
judgment is necessary for important matters of national security,"
Barton said.

Transmitted:  93-01-22 15:10:00 EST

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: ebail@ctp.com (Erik Bailey)
Subject: Re: Cocaine unto Death (was Re: Canadian proof ...)
Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:21:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.233804.10019@midway.uchicago.edu> bagg@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>My memory of this sort of study is that it involves monkeys self-administering
>cocaine IV until they convulse and die.  Starvation sounds really
>very improbable to me.  

A study was done (with mice or rats; don't think any have been done with
monkeys -- the animal rights people would have too much to say about it) in
which the animals self-administered themselves with cocaine. Before I say
those results, let me say how the equivalent experiement done with heroin
went. The first day, it administered it about 3 times an hour, which
slowly climbed up to about 6-7 times an hour over the next couple days. It
leveled off, and stayed at that level, until at the end of the trial (10-14
days).

With cocaine, it was radically different. The rat started with about 15
times an hour, and by the second day was up to about 30x. Then it
plummetted down to zero -- it were so messed up it couldn't press the bar
any more. By the third day, it was up at 30x again, and then back down to
zero. Then once again it shot up, and then it went down permanently -- it
was dead.

Another experiment did a similar thing in a long-term multiple-rat study.
After thirty days, 30% of the heroin rats were dead, compared to 90% of the
cocaine rats.

Draw your own conclusions... (sorry -- don't have the references; this was
from a "Pleasure and Pain" class at Brown) --Erik

-- 
Erik Bailey   | Cambridge Technology Partners      | The usual disclaimer
              | 304 Vassar St., Cambridge MA 02139 | applies: this post is
ebail@ctp.com | (617) 374-8418                     | mine, not my employer's.
      /earth is 98% full; please remove any excess inhabitants.
From: stevec@orodruin.tivoli.com (steve the foolhardy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Bill's Billy, Roger (was Re: Some anonymous posts)
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:56:13 GMT
	<1992Dec31.162617.6213@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
	<1993Jan15.214910.13455@Cadence.COM>
Organization: TIVOLI Systems Inc
In-reply-to: phz@cadence.com's message of 15 Jan 93 21:49:10 GMT


Pete Zakel writes:
>> Sorry to put it so bluntly, but MOST people who do drugs will work for a
>> living if given the chance.

i dare say that most people who do drugs *do* work for a living.  you
can't tell the average drug user from the average citizen.  the cross
section of people who use marijuana or cocaine or lsd or heroin is not
really any different than the cross section of people who drink wine,
drink beer, play bridge, go to church, etc.

you'll find all types of people in any cross section of society: 
losers, freeloaders, workaholics, concerned citizens and so on.  to
pretend that the general class of "drug users" (which usually means
illicit drug users, i.e. not including alcohol consumers or smokers,
or coffee drinkers) has some set of characteristics which distinguish
them from "ordinary citizens" is to buy in to the drug warriors
propaganda.

steve
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| steve cochran			|	stevec@orodruin.tivoli.com	|
| tivoli systems		|	(512) 794-9071			|
| 6034 west courtyard drive	|	(512) 794-0623 fax		|
| suite 210, austin, tx 78730	|	(512) 469-9873 home		|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the cold and religious we were taken in hand,
shown how to feel good and told 
to feel bad
	-roger waters
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med