HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ZHAO%HUXTAL.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject:      CCSA: IMMIGRATION LOBBYING PACKAGE (V)
Reply-To: ZHAO%HUXTAL.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:01:00 EDT

Distribution-File:
        council@math19.gatech.edu
        cnd-us@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
        svc@hal.cwru.EDU
        IFCSS@HAL.CWRU.EDU
        CHINA-NT@UGA.BITNET
        osu.chinese@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
        china-news-post@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
        ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu,
        cgsa@fuzzy.umd.edu,
        cnd-us@library.uta.edu,





*****************************************************************



                CCSA: IMMIGRATION BILL LOBBYING PACKAGE (V)


****************************************************************






                To:    Chinese Students and Scholars Nationwide


                From:  Haiching Zhao


                Date:  July 30, 1992



        Please read the following lobbying package carefully before you
talk/write to congressional offices and other American friends.


***************************************************************




        V.    CHINESE STUDENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1992

      QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR STUDENTS CONCERNING S.1216


Why do you need this legislation?

        We cannot make plans for the future if we do not know what will happen
        to us after 1993.  Our fate after 1993 is in a state of limbo.

                For many of us, there is no assurance that we can stay in
                lawful status after the President's Order expires.

        We are afraid to work openly for democracy in China so long as United
        States immigration law may force us to leave while the repression
        continues.

                Accounts of dissidents who returned and were caught continue.
                Punishment is severe.

                We are not all famous enough to expect worldwide pressure to
                come to our aid.


Wouldn't legislation anger Beijing government?

        Perhaps, but it gives them little choice but to begin proving to
        the world that they are ceasing their human rights abuses.  As long as
        Congress delays definitive action, the hardliners can keep their
        options open, continuing their repression as long as possible.

        The hardliners believe they have until 1994 to begin reacting to calls
        for freedom for the Tiananman victims.  If Congress delays action,
        it will reinforce Beijing's belief that "business as usual" can
        continue for at least another year.


Isn't the President's Executive Order sufficient?

        It is a good start.  The Executive Order took care of short term
        safety concerns.  This legislation complements the Executive Order by
        answering the question of what happens if the Executive Order expires
        and matters in China have not improved -- the protections laid down by
        the President will become permanent unless, before the next two years
        are up, Beijing can convince the President that all Chinese nationals
        may return home in safety.


\end
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ%UFPINE.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject:      Re: Raymond Luh
Reply-To: UFDZ%UFPINE.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:17:00 EDT

Dear Mr. raymond Luh, you still have the obligation to let all netters to
know your background!     Dawei Zhou, Florida
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ Special Report 4023: IFCSS Donation Account
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:31:06 -0400
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, cgsa@fuzzy.umd.edu,
              china-news-post@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu,
              cnd-us@library.uta.edu, council@venus.physics.emory.edu,
              osu.chinese@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu,
              soc-culture-china@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
              soc-rights-human@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters Special Report No. 4023       July 30, 1992
              IFCSS CSS-PROTECTION ACCOUNT
**************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu


              IFCSS CSS-Protection Account
              ============================

Dear IFCSS Members:

     The IFCSS has an account to accept donations to support
the lobby efforts.


     The address:

     IFCSS CSS-Protection Account
     733 15th Street N.W.,
     Suite 440
     The Indepedent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, Inc.
     Washington D.C. 20005

     Make checks payable to " IFCSS CSS-Protection Account."

     IFCSS HQ will ensure that the money will be properly
used and the account properly managed, (to be supervised by
IFCSS Council, HQ, and related agencies.)

     However, IFCSS will not bear any moral or legal responsibility
for money or donations sent to accounts which are not managed,
supervised, or monitored by IFCSS.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:53:00 EDT
From: <OAB1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Call local Republic and Demacratic office.

A lots of call is generated by CSS these days to the congressman's
office. But we seem  neglete another important aspect. Call the
local politician's office. ASK THEM TO PASS YOUR CONCERN TO THE
REPRESENTITIVE IN THE CONGRESS. !!!!!

   Since the congressman is elected by the region, he/she has to
  consider his local coordinator's voice, THIS is a very important
  step when they decided his/her vote.

  So, Please also call your local politician's office (or their
  representitive's office).  Ask them to pass your concern to the
  congressman. You can find their number in the local Yellow book.
  And the local call won't cost you anything.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: boye@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
Subject:      SIGN OFF
Reply-To: boye@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:29:28 CST
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

SIGN OFF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: SWMSTUDY%HKUCC.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject:      Re: Please post
Reply-To: SWMSTUDY%HKUCC.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:51:00 +0800
Comments: To: china-nt@UGA.BITNET, hknet@cs.wisc.edu,
              soc-culture-china@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
              soc-culture-hongkong@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Dear netters,
if any pro-democracy organization (not individuals)
want to buy the '64' Olympic Stamp issued in China
Please ask them to send their order to
Hong Kong Alliance.
Hong Kong Alliance got some limited quantities in stock before the
speculators come into the market.
Price: $2.00 (U.S.) per unit plus postage of  $20 U.S. per order by DHL

The following is the description of the stamp by a Wall Street
Journal Reporter:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BEIJING - Chinese philatelists claim to have spotted a daring political
protest on a stamp issued by China to mark the Summer Olympics in Barcelona.

    The newly minted stamp shot up in value after collectors noted that the
numbers pinned to the shirts of three marathon runners depicted on the stamp
correspond to the date of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, June 4, 1989.  One
athlete is tagged 64, a short-hand used by Chinese to refer to the month and
day when troops and tanks fired on pro-democracy protesters around Beijing's
main square.

    The runner next to him is number 9, and to his left is number 17.  Stamp
dealers note that 1 plus 7 equal 8. By a leap of logic, they say, the numbers
identify the year 1989.  None of the other runners have numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HKA cannot entertain individuals or commercial firms.
They will only take order from pro-democracy groups only.
(Since they got only very limited amount,
 orders are limited to 50 stamps per group, on a first come first
 serve basis. At the same time, order less than 20 units will not
 be entertained)


Address of Hong Kong Alliance
9th Floor, Good Hope Building
618 Nathan Road
Kowloon, Hong Kong.

Fax: 852-7702209

Message can be sent to HKA via this email account
SWMSTUDY@HKUCC.HKU.HK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: sekii@toda.ricoh.co.jp (Shoji Seki)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: test
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:30:10 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: RICOH Toda Technical Center, Kanagawa


This is a test.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: HE%NIEHS.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject:      Bill s1216
Reply-To: HE%NIEHS.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:54:00 EST

I just called the Judiciary Committee chairman Mr. Jack Brooks' office
at 4:20 Eastern Time, and the person answered my call told me that the
Bill S1216 had already been sent to the House Rules Committee. Further
confirm on it may still be necessay. Keep our fingers crossed.


C. He
From: shicheng@WAM.UMD.EDU (Shicheng Jiang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Your names
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:12:58 GMT
Reply-To: Shicheng Jiang <shicheng@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, luh@ame.nas.nasa.gov

Dear Mr. Raymond C. Luh,
   When did you get current name? And when will you change your name back
again to Red Guard of Mao Zedong? Your current name and former name are
all answers of your behavior. Please behave hy heart. You are a human being,
not a dog being! Behave constructively, not destructively. When you want to
destroy others, you have destroyed yourself already. God knows all.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Weimin Shen <SHEN@JUNO.PHYSICS.WISC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Protection Bill and MFN Bill
Reply-To: Weimin Shen <SHEN@JUNO.PHYSICS.WISC.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:34:00 CST
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From:	IN%"deng@BNLUX1.BNL.gov"  "D-P Deng" 28-JUL-1992 20:50:36.32
>Subj:	The Protection Bill and MFN Bill

>I noticed that some IFCSS GaoGan tried hard to manipulate CSS: show your
>support for the MFN bill to your congresspersons, your congresspersons will
>support the protection bill. What a naked show of low life!

>...

Would you please show your proof of above points WITH FACTS?

I have no intention of provoking debates.  I just ask you to clarify something
you said.

Thank you.

W. Shen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
    <+ffms!m.rcain@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:07:35 GMT

In article <+ffms!m.rcain@netcom.com>, rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>: Of course they claim they were enslaved; one of the
>: tenets of the "Anonymous" groups is claiming no power over the substance in
>: question.
>
>Well yes now that you mention it.  And it seems that treating it in that
>fashion has proven to be the single most effective method of achieving
>recovery.  Coincidence?

Not only do they claim that substance X is more powerful then them; they
call on a "Higher Power", which is more powerful than substance X, to help
them stay clean.  ("Higher Power" != laws!)

IMHO, this falls into the category of religion.  And I'm not surprised that
it is effective in keeping people off drugs.  Look what religion has been
effective in doing throughout history:  crusades, martyrdom, terrorism,
pornography censorship, criminal rehabilitation...  What I am saying is that 
dogma is a powerful tool.  

>Stomp out intolerance!

It's quite appropriate for you to include a paradox of dogma in your .sig
during this thread.   :^)

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my corrected PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5316 alt.drugs:13483
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:25:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: I believe the saying is wrong - it should be "The alcoholic's main problem
: is lack of will power". But then, the pseudo-religion of the AA and NA would
: not work then would it? Imagine taking responsibility for our successes and
: failures - rather than blaming it on some non-living organic substance.
: 

Yeah, I can imagine.  I can also imagine laying blame where it lies.  You
won't bait me with the religion part, I've personally never made it quite
through step three.

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

Stomp out intolerance!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Instant addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:41:58 GMT

deeb@splinter.splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stephen Humble) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) sez:
: > There are no drugs which can cause physical addiction from one or
: > two, or even several uses.
: 
: [I hope one of the net.pharmacomavens will correct me if this is wrong.]
: 
: I have been told (by the prescribing physician) that Prednisone
: withdrawal after only 3 daily doses causes an unacceptable risk of
: kidney failure, so the dosage is gradually reduced over the course of
: several days.

I would not call this an addiction. There are many drugs that have a similar
physical effect, although usually not nearly as strong or potentially lethal.
There is no physical desire for these drugs, although the body can be harmed
if they were immediately discontinued.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: possible source for strychnine rumours
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 08:14:02 GMT


According to Leary in _Flashbacks_, a friend of his (John Grigs)
died of strychnine poisoning from some bad Psilocybin.  This
was around the time of his legal troubles, and Nixon was just
coming into power, and rumors abounded about the Feds distributing
poisoned drugs....

Any bets on this being close to the source of the Strychnine Universe?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
   Suppose that you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of congress.
                              But I repeat myself.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: <None> (time to debunk some myths)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:05:40 GMT

In article <5667@ucru2.ucr.edu> nilesd@foxx.ucr.edu (niles rowland) writes:
>In article <1992Jul11.010532.2774@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>>Then make laws that make irresponsible use of drugs illegal.
>
>Gosh, what would those of us do without those of you who know the RIGHT
>way to live?  Probably something heinous like leave our helmets off to
>run to the corner store. (Thanks, Mr. Wilson for setting me straight!)

Partial list of irresponsible use of drugs:

	Driving while sufficiently impaired to be detected using impairment
	testing.

	Furnishing drugs to a minor without the consent and supervision
	of the minor's parent(s) or guardian(s).

	Causing someone to ingest drugs without that person's consent.

	Furnishing drugs fraudulently (such as supplying PCP when claiming
	it to be THC).

>>You just don't get it, do you?
>
>Pete, I'm afraid that YOU don't get it.  It's not a question of making
>laws that judge *nonviolent* behavior, just.  It's just a question
>of making laws that judge *nonviolent* behavior...NOT!

Sorry, certain types of nonviolent behavior SHOULD be legislated.

Partial list of nonviolent behaviors that SHOULD be legislated:

	Defecating within a certain radius of a water supply.

	Defecating on somoene else's property without their permission.

	Stealing.

	Spray painting someone's car without their permission.

An action doesn't have to be violent to be a violation of someone's rights.

Hopefully this supplies a sufficient clue, and it's free!

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

Unquestionably, there is progress.  The average American now pays out
twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.
		-- H. L. Mencken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:28:39 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>Well, I think it is just a matter of definition. I would not describe the
>situation as an immediate physical addiction. There would be a very strong
>psychological urge to use the drug again, so the person could once again
>feel normal. This is the same as a person who took any other drug, to make
>themselves feel "good" - the difference is that the person is only feeling
>normal instead of "high".
>
>I agree that such a person might become psychologically addicted upon the
>first usage and thus be clinically addicted. It is also one of the reasons
>why I have stated, many times, that addiction does not equal abuse. In
>some cases, addiction could actually be better for a person than not taking
>some drug in the first place.

I agree that a lot of this is a matter of semantics.  To me, 'addicted'
implies that certain behaviour is conditioned to the point of compulsion and,
by that definition, it can't happen in one trial.  At the very least, a person
would have to use a drug 3-4 times to set up the compulsion.

I should use terms like conditioning and compulsion with caution, since I'm
not a diehard behaviourist.  The model that I picture is that it would take
a person several trials with the drug to realize that use of the drug would
be a desirable habit to get into for long-term purposes to offset
undesirable 'normal' conditions.  I think there's a certain amount of 
learning involved that can't be affected in one trial.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: remke@cs.tu-berlin.de (Jan K. Remke)
Subject: Re: Marijuana Laws declared unconstitutional in early 70's?
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:13:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.174116.21209@bradley.bradley.edu>, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
> 
> 
> According to Timothy Leary's book _Flashbacks_, his contesting
> his Laredo marijuana conviction led to the Supreme Court "declaring
> the laws unconstitutional".  He was then tried on a technicality
> (transporting rather than posession), and that was what put him in
> jail.
> 
> In any case, I'm curious--what specific law was delcared unconstitutional
> and on what grounds?  Or did this really happen that way?
> 
> Has that ruling been overruled as precedent or is it simply not
> applicable to current marijuana laws?  If not, why isn't it used
> as basis of defense for some of these preposterous pot convictions?
> -- 
> Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
>  For every mad scientist who's had a convenient thunderstorm just on the night
> his Great Work is finished and lying on the slab, there have been dozens who've
>                                         

In Germany such a thing is happening right now:
The BTMG (Drug Law) of the FRG is declared NOT to be conform to the
German's Basic Law (FRG. Bill Of Rights...) by a high court.
It's now goin' to the supreme court, and if the suprem court agrees,
MJ WILL BE LEGAL IN GERMANY (I hope so...).

Greetings:
Jan

-- 
Jan K. Remke, Postfach 304041, W-1000 Berlin 30, Tel. auf Anfrage...
remke@cs.tu-berlin.de / remke@nostromo.sub.org (Planet Earth sytems)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus loves you - Problems remaining: Worldwide Terrorism on Earth !
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:43:02 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
: : 
: : The only argument is where you put the blame. It belongs on the person using
: : the drug. People need to be willing to accept the consequences for their own
: : actions, not blame a convenient scapegoat - that is a cop-out.
: : 
: 
: Just to be redundant I'll say to this also that the AA and NA programs
: achieve modest success using this paradigm.  Modest but better than any
: other.  A saying that I have heard there is "the alcoholic's main problem
: is alcohol."  Nothing helps so much as that realization.

I am glad you said "modest success". The AA and NA programs are not nearly
as successful as the biased statistics used by the promoters would have us
believe. Still, it seems to be more successful than any other program, even
if people seem to have to remain in it to stay clean. I have also seen those
that put their bottle of alcohol on the back porch before attending the  
meeting, and pick it up right afterwards - so the success varies.

I believe the saying is wrong - it should be "The alcoholic's main problem
is lack of will power". But then, the pseudo-religion of the AA and NA would
not work then would it? Imagine taking responsibility for our successes and
failures - rather than blaming it on some non-living organic substance.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs