HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:41:32 GMT

In article <BxExK3.E0o@unix.amherst.edu> pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
}	Yeah, I have. But legalization without a fully informed public would
}be a bad thing. It wouldn't warrant re-criminalization by any means, but it
}would nonetheless be a bad thing. I'd like to think that there is some way
}the government could encourage self-education effectively. Without some sort
}of education, a lot of people will abuse drugs out of sheer ignorance of
}their effects (kind of like now, huh?). And that's their right, but it would
}be a nice thing to try and help them avoid.

We have a classic end-state/process confusion here.  You envison a desirable
end-state: a public fully informed about unprohibited drugs.  How should we
proceed towards this?  By means of the state, or the free market?  You seem
to admit that there are strong reasons to minimize state involvement in this
area, but don't seem to give full credit to the free market for what it does
best, transmit information.

People self-educate themselves right now about "smart" drugs and nutrients,
cars, sex, and all sorts of things, often with opposition by the state.  If
there's a demand for this information, it will tend to be supplied.


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." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7298 misc.legal:19576 alt.drugs:17875
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Forfiture unconstitutional in KS
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:08:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

tkirby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Kirby) writes:
>     Might I suggest that laws be passed to penalize departments and
>individual officers who take such cases to the feds?

The same legislatures that would have to pass these laws are the legislatures
that pass the laws allowing forfiture.  If they are going to have a change
of heart about forfiture, they would just get rid of it.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: Amherst College
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:37:48 GMT

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
>>
>>I'd like to think that there is some way the government could encourage
>>self-education effectively
>
>Peter, you simply must cultivate a sense of mistrust bordering on being
>scared to death.

	I have a perfectly adequate mistrust of government; but rather
than work myself up into hysterical fear over it, I stay rational and
keep an open mind. One can be very distrustful of government while still
acknowledging that it can do good. It's definitely better to have an
irrational fear of government than an irrational trust in it, but preferable
to either is to simply _be rational_.

>Sorry, no flame intended, just wanted to tell you what first popped into my
>head.  It's a noble goal (and you're talking about a necessary service),
>but I think turning to the government for almost anything is (usually)
>misguided.  Perhaps that's my loss.

	I think so. Turning to the government for a lot of things is
misguided. Turning to the government for a lot of things is intelligent.

	But this is degenerating into a vauge disagreement over general
principles, I'd much rather argue over specifics since neither of us is
going to change the other's philosophy any time soon :)

>An interesting and perhaps related point: It is the Netherlands' *policy*
>that drug education always be part of a general curriculum about healthy
>living, and never be held up as anything seperate or particularly special.

	Sounds great to me! I never implied that drug education should be
a separate or "special" topic, just that it should be present. Far better
drug education be integrated into general health education.

>>>But the "middle class" ARE the vast majority of drug users.
>>
>>  I honestly didn't know that; I assumed drug use was approximately
>>equal among all economic classes. I'd like to see some data on this
>>before I'm convinced if you have it...
>
>You know, I'm sure I could prove this without a lot of fresh research.
>I'm just so used to seeing it stated as fact.  It's common, for example,
>for the cops to set up roadblocks around some poor neighborhoods in Chicago,
>and they state flat out it's to put a dent in the drug trade by stopping
>the inflow of suburbanites.  (Just read it again in the paper last weekend, 
>as a matter of fact.) I'm hoping someone else will address this with some good
>data, one way or the other...

	So am I. I've read the same stories you mention above, but that
hardly indicates to me that there are more middle class drug users than there
are lower class drug users. There could be a million reasons why the cops set
up some roadbloacks to catch suburbanites... (I'm honestly not trying to give
you a hard time, I just really need to see some proof of your claim before I
believe it.)

-Peter

pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Re: Seizure laws
Summary: More info  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:15:25 GMT

In article <DLB.92Nov9123241@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)                    writes...
>In article <1992Nov7.001641.11839@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM
>>(It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
> 
>>	   Does anybody have a quick run-down of the state-by-state
>>   seizure laws? Which states have them? And what is the federal policy?
> 
>In most cases, the state laws are not MORE draconian than the federal
>laws.  It is common practice for a state agency to transfer a seizure
>case to the federal domain, and split the profits.  This is done in
>states that have laws against seizure and the like.
> 
Fair 'nuff. But what are the federal seizure laws? Also, how is this
transfer done (I would add 'legally' but that would be an oxymoron)?
Finally, why doesn't this happen more often in states like Calif. which
doesn't have seizure laws? I know this is a lot to ask, but there might
be enough people in this group who know bits to put this together.

>					Dave Barton
>					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Garrett@Ingres.com
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Seizure laws
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:57:57 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <DLB.92Nov10120533@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
}This is purely my subjective summary, based upon conversations and
}newspaper reading.  I would welcome amplification or correction upon
}any of this.

You appear correct.  I've just read an analysis of this horrifying policy
published by the Cato institute in Washington, DC, which I reccomend to all
highly.  It's truly horrifying.  The effect of the personification of the
property is to place the burden of proof upon its owner, reversing the
presumption of innocence so well-established a principle of justice in our
traditional law.


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." - Voltaire
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Forfiture unconstitutional in KS
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:41:27 CST
Organization: Data Ressearch Associates, Inc.

In article <1992Nov5.073951.14125@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tkirby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Kirby) writes:
> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
> 
> 
>>The Missouri Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that Missouri's
>>forfeiture laws were unconsititional under the Missouri Consititution.
>>The reaction of Missouri police was to allow a Federal agency to "adopt"
>>a forfeiture proceeding (taking it out of the Missouri court system,
>>and the jurisdiction of the Missouri Supreme Court), and then split
>>the proceeds from the sale of the forfeited property with the Federal ag
> ncy.
> 
>>-- 
>      Might I suggest that laws be passed to penalize departments and
> individual officers who take such cases to the feds?


What was really great about the case was the reason why the Missouri
Supreme Court ruled the law unconsititional.  The Missouri consititution
requires fines to be turned over to the school district, not the police
department.  All the Missouri police departments had to do to make
the forfeitures legal was to give the money to the public school.  Since
the court handed down this ruling there have been almost no forfeitures
under the Missouri law.  Almost all forfeitures in Missouri are now
"adopted" by a federal agency.  Under federal law, the money is split
with the local police department, not the school district.

IMHO this is the best evidence that the police are using forfeiture as
a method of raising money for their department, not just fighting crime.
If catching criminals was the primary motivation, why would they object
to the money going to the school district?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had a series of articles on the various
abuses of forfeiture in Missouri last spring.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Status of Santa Cruz Hemp Initiative?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:26:07 GMT

In article 1dk14qINN54n@darkstar.UCSC.EDU, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>
>I think the important thing to remember about the medical marijuana
>initiatives passing is that they are clearly labeled "when prescribed
>by a doctor".  There is a point of view that says if doctors can
>prescribe cocaine, morphine, and zillions of other drugs, they should
>be able to prescribe marijuana too.  That's a big difference than
>saying marijuana should be available in the corner grocery store along
>with tobacco.

The journey of a thousand miles etc...

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

        I'm always more outspoken after a few pints of Guinness.
                - Mrs. E. Slocombe

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: Amherst College
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:16:41 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
>>
>> [...] But legalization without a fully informed public would
>>be a bad thing. It wouldn't warrant re-criminalization by any means, but it
>>would nonetheless be a bad thing. I'd like to think that there is some way
>>the government could encourage self-education effectively. Without some sort
>>of education, a lot of people will abuse drugs out of sheer ignorance of
>>their effects (kind of like now, huh?). And that's their right, but it would
>>be a nice thing to try and help them avoid.
>
>We have a classic end-state/process confusion here.  You envison a desirable
>end-state: a public fully informed about unprohibited drugs.  How should we
>proceed towards this?  By means of the state, or the free market?  You seem
>to admit that there are strong reasons to minimize state involvement in this
>area, but don't seem to give full credit to the free market for what it does
>best, transmit information.

	I simply think that the free market _combined with_ government
help would be better then either alone. I understand your reservations about
including the government in any kind of drug education, but I think that
with careful planning, keeping in mind who has what to gain by saying what
when (how's that for a phrase? :), abuses of power can be avoided, and more
people can be helped.

>People self-educate themselves right now about "smart" drugs and nutrients,
>cars, sex, and all sorts of things, often with opposition by the state.  If
>there's a demand for this information, it will tend to be supplied.

	Sure. But surely not _everyone_ will be educated by means of the free
market; and maybe those people can be helped by government programs. Then
again, maybe not--but don't write it off so quickly with a simple "any and
all government is bad". The government can be denied the opportunity to abuse
its power in the first place by supplying incentive rather than the actual
education.

-Peter

pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Fort Wayne Drug Den Ordinance Passes
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:27:30 GMT

The Fort Wayne Drug Den Ordinance passed yesterday. I will post it to
the net tomorrow when I can get a copy.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
If convicted felons can't own firearms, then why in Hell
do we let GE make nuclear weapons?
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Halloween "poisonings"
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:53:00 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <24092@alice.att.com> garry@alice.UUCP () writes:
>I'm not disputing this claim, but I'm curious.  How much cocaine
>would be needed to taint bubblegum to the extent that hospitalization
>would be required?

I believe that the LD50 dose for cocaine for an adult male is 1 gram.

In response to another posting, the LD50 value for LSD is unknown.
Intake of up to a million times the normal dosage has not been found to
cause physical damage.  However, I suppose the hallucinations could scare
someone with a weak heart into a heart attack.

  -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
From: ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Halloween "poisonings"
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:33:25 GMT
	<1992Nov4.221642.28259@linus.mitre.org>
Organization: American Math. Society

In article <1992Nov4.221642.28259@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:

I would think that the bitter taste of cocaine (I've heard it said
;-)) would make the kid want to spit the bubblegum out before he could
swallow much.



-Alan Harder
 
These opinions are mine.  You can't have them.  Stop, thief!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7341 alt.drugs:17935
From: dfl@strident.think.com (David Lively)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Massive LSD dose causes heart attack?
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:53:12
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu's message of Wed, 04 Nov 1992 23:20:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov04.232004.30156@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

   In article <Bx7MqC.Hs6@apollo.hp.com> heff@apollo.hp.com (Jeff Oesterle) writes:
   >
   >Is the heart attack a possible pharmacological effect of a massive dose 
   >of LSD, or a possible side effect of an old man with heart trouble having
   >unexpected hallucinations?

       The LD50 of LSD is so high that even a "massive" dose slipped to
   someone is very unlikely to have caused a physiological effect profound
   enough to kill them.  I think your latter idea is right on target.

   -- 
      ******************************************************************
	Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
	Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 

Must've been the strychnine.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Forfeiture unconstitutional in KS (was: Forfiture ... )
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:03:52 GMT

kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
>The constitution says '... cannot be denied life, liberty or property
>without due process of law'.

However, it does not say *WHAT* due process is.  In particular, it does
not say that due process is the same for life, liberty, or property
denial.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7407 misc.legal:19708 alt.drugs:18060
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Forfiture unconstitutional in KS
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:11:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov5.184128.18@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>The Missouri consititution
>requires fines to be turned over to the school district, not the police
>department.  All the Missouri police departments had to do to make
>the forfeitures legal was to give the money to the public school.  Since
>the court handed down this ruling there have been almost no forfeitures
>under the Missouri law.

Can anyone get their hands on the Missouri constitution, and print the
relevant clause in their constitution?  It would be nice to have a
copy.

This sounds like a possible back door way to fight some of the atrocities
in the War on Drugs (where's Amnesty International when you need them?)
is for legalization/decriminalization advocates to write state and federal
congresscritters urging them to change their constitutions/laws to require
that the forfeiture proceeds go to the schools.  Trying to eliminate it
directly seems difficult because anti-drug fervor can be directed against
us.

People in Georgia especially should write to whoever ends up winning the
senate race that required a run-off because the Libertarian candidate kept
either candidate from getting 50% of the vote, which due to a Georgia law
passed to keep "uppity blacks" from winning on pluralities meant that
the two leaders had to have a run-off.  If you can tell the winner you
voted Libertarian and intended to do so again unless he/she made pro-civil
rights noises, you might be able to get his/her attention...

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Did Rep. George Brown (D-CA) get re-elected? (Was Upcoming Space Event)
Keywords: George Brown, Congress
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.201238.3149@news.duc.auburn.edu> gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu writes:

>Did Congressman George Brown win re-election to the House, and in either
>case, what were the election results for this House race?

Yes George Brown did win re-election to the house. Equally good, Bill
Green (R-NY) *LOST* his bid for re-election.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------169 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Did Rep. George Brown (D-CA) get re-elected? (Was Upcoming
Date: 7 Nov 1992 14:42 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <n0dcbt@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes...
>I would like to confirm the role of the CalTech SEDS students in getting
>George Brown re-elected: they turned out every Saturday for months for George 
>Brown's campaign; they had much more of an impact on the race than the older
>NSS members in the area who talked a good game, but really didn't contribute
>as much (I was one of the NSS members who talked a good game, but only showed 
>up twice for the campaign).
> 
Dave,
	We appreciate your vote of support for us here, however, we are trying
to downplay the involvement of "SEDS" in this campaign b/c of non-profit
status concerns.  While indeed those students who participated were, by-and-
large, SEDS members of one of our local chapters (not just Caltech, but also
Occidental College, UCLA and Claremont Colleges), we would prefer to be called
"Student Space Action" (sort of like the distinction between NSS and 
Spacecause :-).  Just for the record, there were no funds allocated to SEDS
that were used for the purpose of working on the campaign of Congressman
Brown.  (Indeed, other than our own out-of-pocket expenses, there were no
funds used by us...period :-).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Launch Disasters
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:30:01 GMT

In article <n0d9ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>The possibility of the US attempting to exact revenge on the USSR by
>destroying a "rocket fuel" plant in the USSR is diminished by the fact that
>the majority of Soviet space payloads in 1986 were launched by rockets using
>kerosene as fuel.
>
Is this connected with the rumors that circulated in January 1986 about
possible Soviet sabotage of the Challenger?  In "Challenger: A Major
Malfunction", it was mentioned that Sen. Jesse Helms had actually called
for an investigation of possible sabotage, but I don't know if it was ever
pursued or even taken seriously.  IMHO, I doubt any sabotage could have occured
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space