HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Pres. for DRUGS
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:53:54 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

>	If one counts all the candidates, then the Libertarian candidates 
>(Andre Marrou, VP Nancy Lord) are the only ones who are truly 
>pro-legalization. I don't know who'd be best to be for in the primaries, 
>other than not Bush or Buchannan (i.e., not Republicans).

What's Larry Agran's position?  He seems to have different views from
others, and even though he is running in the lines of the Party
(Demopublican), he's been arrested for wanting to speaking in
conventions (of the Demo-wing) and the party doesn't seem to like him
much, so it's probably a plus.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Marijuana Use
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:38:30 GMT

hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:

>Actually, I believe Clinton.  I figure he was a nerdy sort who
>wanted to find out what the big deal about pot was and tried to
>take a hit but had no idea what he was doing.  I knew a few
>such people way back when and I observed exactly that sort of
>thing.
[...]

From rec.humor.funny:

================================================
From: apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: Bill Clinton
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:20:07 GMT

Well, Bill Clinton finally admitted that he'd tried pot, but he
didn't inhale.  I guess next we'll learn that he did date
Gennifer Flowers after all, but he didn't come.

				-- Allan Pratt, atari!apratt
=================================================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Fortenberry)
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO CLINTON
Reply-To: kenf@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:29:54 GMT

In article <1484000044@igc.org> bmasel@igc.org (Ben Masel) writes:
> 
> Arrived sort of late, missed the TV crews, but the stunt was still
> interesting. Lit up a joint and all the suits fled the room.
> Couple of the younger Clinton fans and the volunteer coordinator
> stuck around to hear a message I hope will be delivered. Told them
> unless Bill admits he enjoyed the pot he didn't inhale, we will
> collect the 2,000 signatures to put Jack Herer on the Wisconsin
> Ballot as a Grassroots Party candidate for President in November.
> Reminded them I had recieved 13,000 votes in my Republican primary
> race for Governor in 1990, and that those 13,000 could be their
> margin of victory or defeat in this state in November.
> 
> This stunt is repeatable. Show up at his HQ or a local function
> carrying only 1 joint. Fire it up, blow some smoke around the
> room. Say "It's OK, I didn't inhale." Leave a printed message.
> Post an account to talk.pol.drugs.
> 
> Enjoy, Ben Masel

Ben,
    If I understand this correctly you are encouraging people to
pressure Bill Clinton into admitting that he enjoyed smoking pot.

    What good purpose would be served if Clinton were to admit that
he enjoyed pot ? Would you please elaborate on how this "stunt"
would benefit the Hemp Re-Legalization Movement.

--
Ken Fortenberry ------------ kenf@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Computing & Communications Services Office
1304 W. Springfield Ave.  Urbana, IL 61801
From: 891034d@ace.acadiau.ca (PETER F. DEARMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: question about mj study
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:00:53 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Acadia University

In article <1992Apr15.190723.14519@sarah.albany.edu> madigan@mathq.albany.edu (Kevin Madigan) writes:
>From: madigan@mathq.albany.edu (Kevin Madigan)
>Subject: question about mj study
>Date: 15 Apr 92 19:07:23 GMT

>A few weeks ago I was digging around in a library and saw a journal
>called "Addiction". In the Jan or Feb 1991 issue there was an article
>claiming that MJ smoking was hazardous to long term health. I beleive
>that the study claimed chromosome damage. Anyway, I didn't get a chance
>to read the article, I skimmed it. Besides, dammit, Jim, I'm a 
>mathematician, not a lab scientist, I wouldn't have understood the 
>jargon. 

>Does anyone have any info on this piece of work and if this journal
>is reputable?
>Thanks,
>Kevin Madigan

The chromosome damage study is crap.  Check the FAQ post for more on this.  
I heard that when some researchers tried to repeat the expt, they got higher 
mutation rates for sucrose.  The original research didn't use proper 
controls.  Of course it was widely cited as "proof" by the hallowed idiots 
we all know too well.

As for long term health, I've heard smoking MJ actually lengthens your life 
expectancy.  Not surprising to me.  I'd say stress is about as life 
shortening as most things in this world, and I believe pot reduces stress.  
Escapism?  Yep.  Sounds healthy to me.  Of course there are other 
explanations, such as that the type of person who will toke is also likely 
to live longer, possibly due to lower stress levels again.

It's wrong to assume that since tobacco is hazardous, so is pot.  Tobacco 
contains nicotine, which deactivates the cillia (tiny hairs that sweep 
mucous out of your lungs, up your trachea, and over the top and into your 
esophagus - yes we all eat snot) in your lungs for about an hour.  Otherwise 
smoke is much less harmful because the carcinogens don't get to lay around 
on you cells causing DNA damage.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: uk09365@nx23.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:19:18 GMT
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr8.122017.14745@news.cs.indiana.edu>  
hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
> I'm not a lawyer but I'm married to one ...
> 
> Jurors can be rejected "for cause" during the voir dire procedure
> (questioning jurors to determine their fitness to serve).  An
> example of this would be a capital case where a prosecutor's
> _pro forma_ question of a prospective juror would be whether (s)he
> had a problem with rendering a death penalty verdict.  A "yes"
> answer would indicate bias and the juror would be excused.
> The defense can also ferret out bias in the same way.
> 
> There are also preemptory challenges which allow the prosecution
> and defense to excuse jurors for any reason at all -- blue eyes,
> for instance.  These challenges, however, are limited in number.
> 
> It is a bad idea to lie during voir dire.  However, creative
> truth telling may get you by the process.  
> -- 
> paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

I served as a juror in Fayette Circuit Court last August.  This Court has  
original jurisdiction in felonies and is the court of first appeal for  
misdemeanors.  I was not on the jury for any actual case (most people do  
not hear a case) but was involved in the selection process for two:  A DUI  
/ Manslaughter case, and a drug possession with intent to distribute case.  

Almost all of the voir dire was conducted en masse with the prosecutor and  
the defense taking turns asking questions of the entire jury pool and  
recording the ID numbers of people who answered a certain way.  It was (if  
one were so inclined) an easy matter to simply keep quiet and not answer  
the questions.  A few people asked (or were "invited") to go up before the  
bench for private consultation with the attorneys and the judge regarding  
their personal beliefs.

The drug case was plea bargained at the last minute (the state dropped a  
Persistent Felony Offender charge and recommended 7 years of a possible 10  
on the drug charge).  The manslaughter case was interesting because -  
despite a wide range of answers in voir dire - not a single juror was  
challenged or dismissed.  We answered questions for hours - and some  
jurors were ones I thought would surely be kicked off by either the  
prosecution, the defense, or the judge - but in the end they picked the  
jury (including at least one blind alternate) from a box...  
(The defendant had been DUI in a car wreck where 2 people were killed.  He  
was convicted and sentenced to two concurrent 5 year terms.  He was  
released from prison on probation after serving 60 days.)
From: lorimor@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Lorimor)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:35:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs



      I also understand that the US caused over 1 Billion dollars in
     damage to Panama, and that it cost approx. 250 million to
     prosecute Noriega.

                                         Bill L.
From: gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM (Richard Stueven)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:16:59 GMT
Reply-To: gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gakbox.corp.sun.com

I guess I missed the part where our kinder gentler government explained
how they have jurisdiction over so-called crimes committed by non-US
citizens on non-US soil.

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| 
Internet:       gak@Corp.Sun.COM |----GO----| The act of observing
ATTMAIL:         ...!attmail!gak |---SHARX--| disturbs the observed.
Cow Palace: Sec 107 Row F Seat 9 |----------|
From: mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Atlanta Hemp Rally
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:56:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article  mike@PENGUIN.GATECH.EDU (Mike Gourlay) writes:

>There's going to be a hemp rally at Peidmont Park in Atlanta this weekend,
>April 11-12.  I just found out about it, and I don't know anything else.
>As a matter of fact, what I just typed might not be totally true (meaning
>it might start on the 10th, today.)

Congratulations.  I heard about it on the news last night here in
Chicago.  Apparently, there was quite a crowd and the news people
even announced that the rally's message was that marijauna should
be legal because it is no more dangerous than alcohol.

I was impressed.

Mark
mea@ihlpl.att.com
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Marijuana addiction
Keywords: marijuana addiction
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:12:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Apr7.041241.9878
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr6.014501.18996@news.cs.indiana.edu>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
> 
[I edited the newgroups line--don't get those here]

[much deleted, but I agree]

> the typical American couch potatoe.  However, one notable heavy
> user (addict??) was Louis Armstrong, jazz trumpeter par excellance,
> who toked up before every performance.  May have helped him ...

Wow, is that why his cheeks blew out like balloons when he played?
I mean from the relaxed muscles and all.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Hair testing article in C&EN
Organization: Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:41:55 GMT

>: won't be hanging around in the air.  Also, it seems like a very
>: important area of research for them would be the possibility of
>: washing the contaminants out of the hair; someone on this forum had
>: mentioned an alcohol-based shampoo that would probably give you ugly
>: split ends and frizzies, but would also wash certain metabolites out.

Only stuff that is on the surface of the hair. Any metabolites that are
bound to the protein in the hair will not be removed. You can forget
about washing out any metabolites.

:     Drug testing methods are especially important, Cone notes, because
: false positives can have drastic consequences for testees.  One
: problem with hair in this respect is its exposure to external
: contaminants.  Investigators must learn, for example, whether hair
: absorbs cocaine or marijuana smoke or traces of drugs on money.  They
: must also devise ways to clean the surface of hair efficiently.

Yep, could be a problem. Maybe there would be a market for a gunk that
made the hair extremely difficult to clean. 

:     Still, Cone believes, hair testing has a promising future.  Hair,
: he points out, is an unusual matrix "that may be able to provide a
: historical record of drug use, which is something no other available
: test can do."

If they started doing that, I could see "bald is beautiful" becoming
fashionable very rapidly.

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: amy young <alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Clinton's Marijuana Use
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:37:11 -0500

In article <1992Apr7.164646.263@cnsvax.uwec.edu> drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.031703.8720@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

>> Clinton would look even better for standing up for his beliefs.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                             
>Sorry, not a chance.  Clinton would be roasted alive.  All kinds of
>*political* groups would be interviewed on TV saying that marijuana 
>causes brain damage, birth defects, etc. and they would have the 
>references to prove it. (the references would be 15 years old, but
>who is going to look them up?)

This is one of the problems.  Those who want to know the true facts
should be looking them up.  The problem is, either everyone believes
everything they are told on the television, and/or they care more
about their own material gain than seeing truth overcome. 

>Not one researcher who values her income would stand up for the truth.
>They have to feed their families like everyone else.

And this is another problem.  [I know I'm going to be roasted alive
for saying these things, however, I'll just don the asbestos.]  People
who are in the position, like myself, must make the decision to
sacrifice themselves.  I'd much rather see some changes in government
come around because of people standing up for what they believe in
than to buy that new BMW or move out of my apartment into a house.  I
can understand when you've got children, a mortgage, two cars bought
on credit... but my point is, WHY GET YOURSELF INTO THIS POSITION IN
THE FIRST PLACE??  You've got to put effort into thinking about the
ramifications of your actions in the long run... but most people don't
think about the payments they'll have, they just think about the shiny
new toy they'll get to park in the garage. 

I don't want to have children.  Well, rephrase that, I would like to
have children someday, however I would not allow myself to be lied to
and forced to play good-little-employee because I "had" to keep that
job so I could keep children in the overmaterialized world everyone
will come to expect of them.  It's a price.  But I'm thinking long
term here. 

I think we are sort of a generation behind... we've got the ideas,
now we just need the army of people who can impliment these ideas and
not be devistated by the backlash they will create. 

amy
-- 
******************************************************************************
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
	       		Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
              						--Neil Peart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Subject: Request for PfaDFA info
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:40:30 GMT

  Today's issue of The Justice, the student newspaper here at Brandeis
University, printed a full-page (and typically content free) ad by the
Partnership for a Drug Free America.  In response, I plan to write a
letter for the opinions section in the next issue, exposing the
Partnership for what it really is.  But, I would like more information
than I currently have.
  For example, I have figures on how much money was contributed to the
PDFA by various tobacco and liquor companies (figures which I cannot
find right now *grrr*), but have no idea what percentage of their
total funding this was.  Also, I have examples of three instances
where PDFA ads fabricated 'facts' from thin air, such as the infamous
EEG ad.  But more examples would be useful.
  Also, a lot of the information I have lacks references.  If you have
references to definitive sources regarding PDFA information, that
would be greatly appreciated.
  Since the news expire time here is short, and my free time even
shorter, I may not be able to keep up with this newsgroup and see all
followups.  Please email me at the address below.  Thank you!

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
 "Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
  control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things
  that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
  principles upon which our government was founded."
     -- Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:3020 misc.jobs.misc:3544
From: kalin@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (andrew.j.kalinowitsch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,misc.jobs.misc
Subject: AT&T to begin random drug testing of emps with security clearances
Keywords: DOD, experiences
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:43:37 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: AT&T



According to Corporate Security, AT&T plans to begin random drug testing
of employees holding security clearances, per the recently-finalized
Department of Defense regulations.  The DOD has apparently been pushing
this issue since the mid-80's.  

At this time, it is unclear how non-cleared employees will be affected.
Based on what I've heard, though, the DOD's ideal scenario would be for 
anyone whose job function intersects with a federal contract project to be
subject to random "human quality" testing (e.g., an accountant who keeps
the books on a federal project, a system administrator who administrates
machines containing classified information, etc.).

Has anybody out in net.land had personal experience with random drug
testing, either taking the tests or refusing to take them?  Please 
email me; I'll post a summary if there's enough interest.

Also, does anybody know the current legal status of random testing WRT 
invasion of privacy and the 4th amendment?

Thanks in advance,

Andy

[followups directed to poster]
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: question about mj study
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:37:18 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

In article <1992Apr17.031544.20729@cs.brown.edu> ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
>In article <891034d.46.703465253@ace.acadiau.ca> 891034d@ace.acadiau.ca (PETER F. DEARMAN) writes:
>> The chromosome damage study is crap.  Check the FAQ post for more on this.  
>
>You might also mention that this group does not have a FAQ.  alt.drugs does.
>
>(Just spouting about a pet peeve.  No offense meant.)


     Does anybody thing we should? Maybe put in stuff like "When were
the first drug prohibition laws passed?", "Who sponsors the PDFA?", "What
is civil forfiture?"

     This would be very distinct from the alt.drugs FAQs, which are (as
one might expect) mostly about the effects of drugs. 

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
   "Thus the metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you
    count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
    -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial(repost from t.p.m)
Keywords: thought you'd all like to read this
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 22:19:38 GMT


	I suggest that Mexico invade the US and kidnap our leader George
Bush on the drug offenses he has been involved with with the CIA...
-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: app45293@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ZUSS)
Subject: Re: TCI --- Their reply to my letter
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:24:00 GMT

   Just after I read this, I opened my mail and found I had received the
exact same letter.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: 60 Minutes on Civil Forfeiture
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:16:01 GMT

Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes piece last night on Civil Forfeiture?
(I'm sure many of you probably did!)

I thought it was a good piece, but the time allotment for a 60 Minutes
piece (<20 minutes) simply isn't enough time to fully cover the situation.

For example, the producer who was being used as a decoy should have never
told them he was with 60 Minutes. He should have acted just like the
landscaper and said, "It's none of your business why I am flying to
Houston". And they should have brought out just WHY they used a black
producer for the decoy. They obviously know about the "profile", but
didn't mention it specifically.

They ended up by mentioning that a Senate committee (Judiciary?) is
scheduled to hold hearings on the fairness of the Civil Forfeiture
laws later this spring. I can't wait for those!

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
csc450zcs@vxc.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
From: civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:20:49 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1992Apr11.032321.14543@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.202319.4395@udel.edu> watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous) writes:
>>Oh I just love this! 200 Panamanian citizens, 300 Panamanian soldiers and
>>23 US servicemen were killed.  Why?  So that some pathetic little dictator
> 
> Oh God!  I hadn't thought about this.  Thanks for posting the numbers,
> that's good for shocking people into realizing how outrageous this stupid
> war is becoming (something I'm doing at every chance these days).
> 
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick
> 

200 citizens? 
You mean, that was in one mass grave.
The overall total was about 4000. Correct me if I'm wrong?


Brandon Hutchison,New Zealand
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Clinton
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:01:16 GMT


	This is my opinion about Clinton, (I think I got it from you
net-folk...) and why I don't think he should be president.

	He says, "He tried pot and didn't inhale and didn't like it."  From
this, it seems that he didn't want to try it to begin with, because he
didn't inhale, and others coerced him into doing this.  I don't mind if a
President has used marijuana or not, but somone who was willing to be
coerced?  I don't think someone that weak should be President..
	Rebuttals?
	
-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992