HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.200840.25025@csc.ti.com> jdailey@dadd.ti.com writes:
>Damnit, Patrick!!  I almost blew some cerebral arteries reading this, till I
>reached the "punch line."

Uh, does that mean I done good?  ;-)

Seriously, I hope a few lurkers see themselves, and more than a few see their
government, reflected in what I said.  

Yea, I knew I was pushing it a bit.

>You better start using a SARCASM ON disclaimer or I may be forced to find a
>pinko ACLU lawyer who will help me sue you for mental anguish from reading
>your posts.

If my rhetoric is so powerful, then I suggest you be carefull about who you
threaten.

            F A M I L Y   V A L U E S
            T A K E   B A C K   "O U R"   C O U N T R Y 

Had enough?  See?  You DON'T want to get me mad.   ;-)

   Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:10:18 GMT

In article <p2ski3o@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I think it's pretty cowardly of you to attack my credibility in a newsgroup
>> that I read only sporadically.  If you have anything to say about my
>> posts on abortion, then I suggest you make them public in talk.abortion.

> Now, don't be disingenuous, Doug.  We talk.abortion readers
> already know all about your penchant for doctoring some quotes,
> taking others out of context, and lying in general.  Pete is
> just making sure that readers of *.drugs know about your
> well-established t.a reputuation.

I've read and contributed to these newsgroups sporadically for several 
years now, and I've had a few insults thrown my way. but I've never
been accused of doctoring quotes or "lying in general".  The people
here on t.p.d are far more willing to listen to differing opinions
than talk.abortion readers.  I think that's why I've never heard
those accusations on t.p.d. 

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:58:21 GMT

In article 92Aug26113526@ulysses.mr.ams.com, ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder) writes:
>Oh, great.  So now the landlords get to choose between being fined a
>lot of money or being killed by angry drug-dealing tenants that don't
>want to be convicted.  Great idea :(

Alan, this is a WAR we're talking about!

The fact that landlords will be killed is unfortunate, but our leaders
have accounted for them under "Collateral Damage".

---
gak			Der Herr Buergermeister gibt bekannt, dass ab
gak@wrs.com		Donnerstag Bier gebraut wird und deshalb ab
attmail!gakhaus!gak	Mittwoch nicht mehr in den Bach geschissen
107/H/3&4		werden darf.
From: loader@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Mushrooms and the Law in UK
Date: 28 Aug 92 07:24:45 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

I'm posting this message for a friend of mine; It'd probably be
more appropiate on alt.drugs but this site doesn't carry it.
--
Does anyone know the exact legal status of magic mushrooms in England?
Neither of us have been in this country long, so we're not sure.
We _think_ that it may be legal to pick small quantities and consume them,
but illegal to cultivate and/or sell them.
Can someone confirm or correct this?

Please reply by e-mail; I'll post a summary of replies if people are
interested.

Thanx
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: The Drug War Tar Baby
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.190119.10625@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
>                      Escaping the Drug War Tar Baby
>
>                              by Dave Gross
>
[ Wonderful essay deleted ]

Bravo Dave! Well stated!

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: The Health Freedom Act of 1992
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:47:57 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <1992Sep2.195640.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

>In my opinion, one of the worst bureaucratic nightmare agencies of the
>US government, besides the DEA, CIA, IRS, and others, is the FDA.
>I believe you should abolish the FDA, for various reasons, which could
>be discussed later in life, but right now what you have to worry about

Not necessarily abolish it.  The FDA _CAN_ serve a useful purpose.
Certainly drugs and foods should be tested for safety.  The problem
is not with the existence of an administration do call for such
testing, nor even with the existence of 'standards' of safety.  The
problem lies in the FDA's _regulatory_ power.  People should have
the right to buy whatever drugs they want.  Those who don't 
trust the retailers and manufacturers might be sensible enough
to buy only "FDA Approved" drugs.  Those who CHOOSE to take a risk
can go out and buy drugs from Ralph's drug mart.

The first step in all of this is to abolish a whole slew of laws.
Then, sell off the FDA.  Make it a private testing agency.  Kinda
like consumer reports.

>is the upcoming  tightening of the powers of the FDA. Remember that 
>thread a while back about the attack on a health clinic in Tacoma?

They couldn't pull off that kind of unconstitutional crap if they
had no regulatory power, and especially if they were private.

>Two bills designed to greatly increase the enforcement powers of the 
>FDA have passed committee this summer and are awaiting approval by the 
>full Senate and House of Representatives. S.2135 and HR.3642 would
>both allow the FDA to make search and seizure raids on health food 
>companies, without requiring the agency to first obtain a search 

Well of course.  Civil forfeiture is making so much money for the
police forces and the DEA, that the FDA wants a piece of the action.
There is no source of funds as great as that which is comprised of
the government stealing from its citizens.

>For more information on what you can do to ensure the passage of the
>Health Freedom Act, you can order a Health Freedom Kit by calling
>1-800-226-4NHA . Each kit contains valuable information explaining
>the Health Freedom Act and steps you can take to convince your 
>representative it is a bill they can support.

(This sounds good.  Lets now see if it is a bill that *I* can support.)

Just like a government to propose laws which cancel each other out
at the same time... (the ones which expand the FDA's power and this
one which reduces it).

--David
-- 
|--------   David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)   ----------------|
|  I used to believe that two hearts, two hearts could beat as one      |
|  Now I know that one heart, one heart will always beat on the         |
|       other one.                            -Big Fish Ensemble        |
From: meyer@brahma.edsg.hac.com (Mike Meyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: 800 number for PFDFA
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:31:34 GMT
Reply-To: meyer@tcville.HAC.COM (Mike Meyer)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA


Somebody wrote:
>>That bunch of liars, the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America," now has
>>an 800 number for information:  800 624-0100.
>>
>>I hope that readers of this forum will spread this number far and wide,
>>and use it creatively and often.
>>
>
>It better be from payphones.  Be advised that "800" number customers
>have the option of getting a list of numbers from which the number was
>called (as they have had for years, long before "caller ID" was proposed
>for ordinary subscribers).
>
>These days it is impossible to tell where PFADFA ends and the State
>begins.  With caller ID and a modest amount of hardware and software,
>they can have a system of identifying "troublemakers" that Adolf Hitler,
>back in the days of the Partnership for a Jew-Free Germany, could not
>even dream of.

On the other hand, a few people making calls from the offices or homes of 
others (as well as their own homes and workplaces) could bloat this list 
to amazing proportions.  It would be useful to
see the stigma of being a "troublemaker" or "tolerent of drug use" spread
around to those who still think that rights need only protect "good people."

For example, the brother-in-law who's a cop, or Aunt Minnie, or the assistant
district attorney you know who is bragging about the number of forfeiture 
cases they've won.  Or the Faceless Corporation (tm) whose policies include
drug testing and whose phone system will let you make such calls.  Jesse Helms.
The Republican Party headquarters during fund-raising time.  Imagine the fun
a 'volunteer' could have with the Repubs phone line while ostensibly soliciting
contributions...

This sort of action, and the activities of the legendary "Johnny Hempseed,"
would dramatically change public perception about the value, the effectiveness,
and the dangers of the WoD.  

Or at least make the WoD a bit less one-sided, if not downright amusing.
 
I'm ready to make my call, if only to get a firsthand look at the trash they're sending
out, on their dime.

If it's really, really bad, you could call back and have them send you large amounts of
brochures, etc. to, um, distribute to um, YOUTH GROUPS!  Yeah, that's it...
(More like Recycling youth groups, but, hey...)

Mike



Mike Meyer				meyer@tcville.HAC.COM
Image and Signal Processing Lab		
Hughes Aircraft EDSG, El Segundo CA
"Shit happens, but it doesn't *just* happen." -- The Karma Police
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier)
Subject: Letter to editor: Religious Liberty
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:06:35 GMT


From _The Milwaukee Journal_ (Tuesday, August 25, 1992):

"Act seeks to restore delicate balance"

In the remaining days of the 102nd Congress, our senators and
representatives have an opportunity to shore up a fundamentally important
American value:  religious liberty.  It may come as a surprise, but
religious liberty is in danger following a divided US Supreme Court decision
in 1990.

In the Smith case the court held that the State of Oregon could deny
unemployment compensation to two drug counselors fired for their sacramental
use of peyote in Native American religious ceremonies.  The court,
unfortunately, used the case to throw out the traditional balancing test
between the free exercise of religion and governmental interests.  The court
said the government no longer needed a "compelling" interest to interfere.

Americans from across the political spectrum, pro-life and pro-choice, and
from nearly all religious denominations are asking Congress to restore the
standard for deciding religious liberty cases to its pre-Smith decision
status.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been introduced into the
House and Senate.  Senator Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy are its principal
Senate sponsors.  Representative Stephen Solarz (D-NY) introduced the bill
in the House where it now has more than 190 co-sponsors.

The act simply reinstates the standard for resolving conflicts between
governmental authority and the free exercise of religion.  It does not
ensure favorable consideration for any specific religious claim, including
peyote use, tax exemptions, or landmarks preservation.

The bill is also neutral on abortion.  As 10 leading pro-life groups wrote
to Congress: "We would never support legislation which could be successfully
used to secure a broad new right to abortion."  No amendment to the act is
necessary on this issue.

We call upon the Wisconsin congressional delegation to act now in support of
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

BONNIE VOSS (Associate Director for Social Ministry, Wisconsin Conference of
Churchs, Madison)

STEPHEN ISAACSON (president, American Jewish Committee, Milwaukee Chapter)

CHRISTOPHER AHMUTY (Executie Director, American Civil Liberties Union of
Wisconsin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 12:24:30 GMT

In article <1847flINNkqt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:

>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.

Bullxxxx.  Maybe by you're definition, and you're entitled to your own reality.
I've heard a lot of definitions of addict, but this isn't one of them.

-- 
Mike Axman  

DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't responsible for my postings.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 16:46:01 GMT

In <186s7fINNd7q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>In a previous article, carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) says:
>>>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.  
>>By whose definition?  Smokers are commonly considered to be addicted,
>>and it is a matter of everyday experience that people kick the butts
>>on their own.
>You're confusing a habit with an addiction.  Addiction presupposes
>trouble.  If a person doesn't get into any trouble, or is able to
>quit readily at the sign of trouble, then he's not an addict.
>It's those who consistently get into trouble, deny any connection
>between the trouble and their particular indulgence, and plow on
>resolutely in spite of the protestations of their families, etc.,
>who are the REAL addicts.

And you contend that these people are INCAPABLE of maturing enough
to recognize the problem without Divine Guidance Or Something Damn
Close.  This is sheer BS.

>>I have cited published, peer-reviewed research in support of my
>>claims, while your response has been to accuse the researchers of bias
>>and dishonesty without giving us any reason to believe that they are
>>biased or dishonest other than your disagreement with their
>>conclusions. 
>The top priority of any bureaucracy is to keep the money flowing.
>But the bureaucrats face no real competition to keep them honest.
>Bureaucracies are INHERENTLY OUT OF CONTROL.

You have done nothing to "prove" or even "demonstrate significant evidence"
that all research is done "by bureaucracies".
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
        People say that I'm out of touch with reality.  That I'm insane.
    Sometimes I forget things.  Who I am.  Where I am.  Unimportant things.
                       But I'm not insane.  I am a tick.
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep2.113236.2261@linus.mitre.org> <6104@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:03:35 GMT

In article <6104@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

   In article <1992Sep2.113236.2261@linus.mitre.org>, lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
   > Are you saying you would be arrested for making negative statements about
   > the president?  That is a very serious allegation -- if true, Freedom of
   > Speech is history.  I say we challenge it right now.

   Well, there's at least one man who claims that he was moved from a normal
   prison cell into solitary for making negative statements about the VICE
   president...

Not true.  The person in question, a convicted felon serving a long
stretch in a Federal prison, accused the Vice President of buying dope
from him during his college days.  These accusations were made not much
more than two weeks before the election.  There would have been no time
to prove or refute the charges.  That the concept of innocent until
proven guilty needed to be included in the Constitution is proof of the
human propensity to assume guilt before innocence.  The inmate did in
fact get his charges out.  The complaints started when he was denied the
opportunity to hold a press conference.  Of course no convict has the
"right" to call a press conference, especially one whose purpose it is to
level unfounded charges and thereby influence the election of a President
of the United States.  A convicted felon mind you doing hard time in a
federal hotel.  In many societies he'd of had his chopped of for less.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.fan.dave_barry
From: jpd4680@rigel.tamu.edu (DESHAZO, JON PATRICK)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:03:00 GMT

In article <BtpGHq.3tJ@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com writes...
>David A. Butterfield's .sig says:
>>                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
> 
>Now, wait a minute...Dave Barry has selected Quayle to be his running
>mate.  His reason:  he can't afford to give up such a great source of
>material!

According to his first column in support of his candidacy, he said he would
keep Quayle for his personal protection.  Hey, it worked for Bush.
Jon DeShazo
Texas A&M
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: 800 number for PFDFA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 13:04:14 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>That bunch of liars, the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America," now has
>an 800 number for information:  800 624-0100.
>
>I hope that readers of this forum will spread this number far and wide,
>and use it creatively and often.
>
>"Hackhead"

It better be from payphones.  Be advised that "800" number customers
have the option of getting a list of numbers from which the number was
called (as they have had for years, long before "caller ID" was proposed
for ordinary subscribers).

These days it is impossible to tell where PFADFA ends and the State
begins.  With caller ID and a modest amount of hardware and software,
they can have a system of identifying "troublemakers" that Adolf Hitler,
back in the days of the Partnership for a Jew-Free Germany, could not
even dream of.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: dmeyers@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: The Clinton Challenge -- a brief fantasy ...
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:01:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <1992Sep1.195536.2798@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:

>In article <65048@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:

>>          [From the San Jose Mercury News, October 9, 1992]
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This looks fake.. maybe it was a joke and I'm just "clueless" myself.
>Can anyone offer any further information on this?

I wouldn't say clueless, just perhaps not paying close attention at the
moment.  Alan certainly made his "report" look genuine. 

--d
-- 
|--------   David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)   ----------------|
|  I used to believe that two hearts, two hearts could beat as one      |
|  Now I know that one heart, one heart will always beat on the         |
|       other one.                            -Big Fish Ensemble        |
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Date: 28 Aug 1992 17:15:57 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones) writes:
>Each voter interested in such a pact is uniquely qualified to
>find a suitable counterpart All By Himself or Herself.
>
>The only thing we need to do is get the word out about this idea.

You're thinking like a Libertarian.  The people you're trying to
reach aren't quite there yet, though they have promise.  You can
reach more of them faster if you make it easy for them.

-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: 800 number for PFDFA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:18:57 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <23046@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> meyer@tcville.HAC.COM (Mike Meyer) writes:
>On the other hand, a few people making calls from the offices or homes of 
>others (as well as their own homes and workplaces) could bloat this list 
>to amazing proportions.
	[ . . . lots of interesting ideas deleted for brevity. . .]
>The Republican Party headquarters during fund-raising time.  Imagine the fun
>a 'volunteer' could have with the Repubs phone line while ostensibly 
>soliciting contributions...
	Sounds good but I'm not sure of the effectiveness once the 
	bad guys caught on to the tactics.  Furthermore you would want
	to make sure you were untraceable to the Republinazis when you
	volunteered.  You also would want to make sure you could
	stand scrutiny (e.g. no dope plants in the bathroom) when the
	SS comes banging through the doors if they id you.
	

>Mike Meyer				meyer@tcville.HAC.COM
>Image and Signal Processing Lab		
>Hughes Aircraft EDSG, El Segundo CA
>"Shit happens, but it doesn't *just* happen." -- The Karma Police
	Aren't you a little worried about what will happen to people like you
	when the inevitable happens and all that high tech weaponry 
	your company makes is turned on the people who payed for it 
	(now that the Soviets are no longer a target) . . .  
	After all the WOD is becoming a major pretext to use high-tech 
	military gear on domestic targets.  Later on, after the WOD has 
	created sufficient jail space and diverted sufficient resources
	to police to make the American Gulag possible the government
	won't need the pretext.  They'll just make their move.
	Where will that leave you? . . .



						smg