HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug Use Costs US $76 Billion per Year (collective insanity)
Date: 27 Jul 1992 09:21:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

->>A study out today shows drug abuse cost the U-S economy 76-BILLION
->>dollars last year. 

The surrealistic absurdity of such a precise figure boggles the
mind. One of the first things a mathematician should learn is
not to make his results more precise than his data. There are
so many difficult problems involved in determining how drug use
effects the economy that I'm inclined to doubt the intelligence
and honesty of researchers who come up with such precise answers.

Really, I think the root problem is that human society is in
the grip of some kind of collective hallucination, imagining
the existence of demons that have no objective basis. Reason
isn't really that useful in the day to day business of human
survival, hence human stupidity hasn't been weeded out by
the competitive forces of evolution. All I can see as far as
a possible solution is for those who have awakened to the light of 
reason to prey on the ignorant masses until the stupid have fallen
by the wayside in the struggle for survival.

My personal opinion is that if drugs were legalized there would
be no harm at all to the economy. With surplus labor available,
any lost labor due to drug use should be negligible, and would
probably be balanced out by increased (temporarily) productivity
of workers using stimulants, and by the greater likelihood that
some oddball idea dreamed up by the creatively intoxicated would
turn out to be profitable.

As for myself, I'm sitting out this "war on drugs" (who needs
illegal substances with Columbian coffee and Northern California
wine available at most any food store :-) No use trying to turn
back the tide of human stupidity, best to just get out of the way
until the tide turns.

-- 
"An army is composed of idle and inactive men. Unless the general has a constant
eye on them this artificial machine will fall to pieces. If my soldiers began to
think, not one would remain. All that can be done is give them 'esprit de corps'
and keep them more afraid of their officers than the enemy" -Frederick the Great
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5433 alt.drugs:13737 sci.psychology:3306
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:43:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <Bs5wMp.DHI@acsu.buffalo.edu> pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilinskas) writes:
>pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>>First off, let me make it clear that I don't see any reason why the
>>hypothetical happy etc. person wouldn't USE any given drug--there are
>>lots of reasons for drug use, and they don't preclude happy users.
>How about self-exploration and discovery of one's own mind?

I said "wouldn't use", not "would use".  I agree with you.  I suppose
my sentence was a bit too convoluted.

>                 People who are catalysts for growth and change are often
>people who are "unhappy" with things the way they are.

But people who are happy/adjusted with themselves are more capable of
effecting that change.

>>My own experiences with alcohol abuse (I don't think I ever "qualified"
>>as an alcoholic, my abuse wasn't exceptionally severe) and first reactions
>>to a couple other drugs form a large part of my perceptions here, as
>>do experience watching friends who have had one level of problem or
>>another, including people who had to have that daily toke or constant
>>drink.  I honestly *haven't* had much direct experience with people
>>that I knew were abusing harder drugs.  But the little exposure I
>>have had seems to indicate that they aren't that much different except
>>in their intensity.
>Psychedelics are anything BUT addictive.  Ask anyone with an LSD "habit" how
>often they trip.

You could even ask me. :-)

Again:  I agree with everything you said; I guess my manner wasn't clear.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                         You go Yahweh, I'll go my way
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:31:29 GMT

morley@Apple.COM (John Morley) writes:

>rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Bob
>
>WRONG!  The alcoholic's main problem is not alcohol, it is the alcoholic.  The
>.....
>fear when you are in the presence of it.  A much happier state of being IMHO.
>
>I fully expect to get flamed severely by people that will insist that there
>are physical/psychological/hereditary/etc. causes for a disease called
>alcoholism, and to them I say that even if this were true, everyone carries
>with them the antidiote to that disease, the power to change your beliefs and
>consequently your behavior.  I personally know people that have been or are
>addicted to alcohol, crack, gambling, overeating, to name just a few of the
>more popular human obsessions.  The ones that I have seen get over their
>addictions are the ones that stopped giving importance to the beliefs that
>motivate that behavior.  The ones that I see fight endlessly with their
>compulsions are the ones that glorify the problem and try to interpret all of
>life through those puke-green colored glasses.

I agree completely with you.  Hereditary influences are no guarantee of any
behaviour (or any psychological trait for that matter).  What you describe
above bears many important similarities to the cognitive therapy treatment
for depression, that the way we think profoundly influences the way we act
and feel.  

-- 
=========*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
From: ibarrett@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (I G Barrett)
Subject: Re: Drug Use Costs US $76 Billion per Year!
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:05:53 GMT


Your article/letter follows:
In <machman.712195642@milton> machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
>cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier) writes:

>>Reposted for your enjoyment from biz.clarinet.sample (I'd love to see this
>>study!):
>>
>>said drug abuse, compounded by AIDS... skyrocketing health care prices
>>and a jammed judicial system are all draining the U-S economy. In fact,

>too bad they didn't determine what portion of that $76 billion is due
>to the illegality of some drugs versus what portion is actually due to
>the drugs themselves.  i'd bet all my civilly-forfeitable possessions
>that the former far outweighs the latter.

>-- 
> /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
> c-OO                                                                      
>    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"

Of course the jammed judicial system is their own fault.  I seem to remember 
someone saying that the aim was to put all (illegal) drug producers, sellers
and users into prison  and that they would build more prisons if necessary.
Does anyone know if 'drugs' included alcohol, nicotine and caffeine since these
drugs surely cost the country more in terms of health care costs than all other
(i.e. illegal) drugs together.
I believe that in Britain the cost to the country due to these legal drugs is 
balanced against the money gained through taxation etc. and they come out way
ahead so it is considered acceptable (tacitly, of course, since no politician
would come out and say it is OK if a few people die because we still make a
profit).

Comments, opinions?

Swan
brrian04@uctvax.uct.ac.za

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 23:42:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
: 
: It's the same with drug addiction.  Suppose the folks in Canada are
: successful in developing a drug that suppresses the compulsion to use that
: plagues smokers, alcoholics, cokeheads, etc.  This drug could give them the
: break they need to get out of the vicious circle, but unless they confront
: why they abuse drugs in the first place, they'll never make any progress.
: They'll relapse the minute they stop drug treatment, and that will
: reinforce their feelings of helplessness because they'll basically be
: choosing between two drugs which they'll be addicted to.  Since one give
: them a buzz and the other doesn't, it's not hard to see what they will
: choose.

"Confront why they abuse drugs."  I maintain that for some people and some
drugs the why *is* the drug.  Simple as that. For those people the best
confrontation is just that, confronting the drug and the drug alone, not
any deep seated problems or joining will power gyms.  Someone said that
these people were pre-addicted and I believe in that phenomenon.

My original point is that there are some alterants which are predisposed
to this as well as there are people predisposed and that we must recognize
that and urge special caution with these alterants.

Yeah, cocaine may be great and harmless for many people.  But for many
people it is an accident waiting to happen.  I think we should care about
those people and not have this psychological Darwinist attitude about the
losers in the little game of Russian Roulette that is alterant experimentation.

I don't expect to see any generic de-addictor.  I wonder if it would be 
effective for internet addiction.  The true test.

Bob

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

Stomp out intolerance!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5487 alt.drugs:13835
From: brrian04@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Psychological Addiction
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:02:43 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <ceRI7K200WBOA1G4cS@andrew.cmu.edu>, William Spaulding Wood <ww1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> Brian Lintz has this to say (RE: Psychological Addiction):
> Yes, psychological addiction is real, but the way it is used by the drug
> warriors is misleading. Psychological addiction is not a property of the
> drug, but rather of the individual. To say, "marijuana is psychologically
> addictive" is false. Saying, "marijuana can be psychologically addictive"
> is better, but still misleading. A better way of putting it is, "it is
> possible for a person to become psychologically addicted to marijuana,
> depending on the psychological makeup of the person." 
> 
> Agreed.  I believe the best way to word it, however is "Abuse Potential."
> See how much easier that rolls of the tongue than "it is possible for a
> person to become ....?"
> 
>     ~wig, just my too sense

My main problem with "Abuse Potential" is that anti-drug capaigners use these
words to imply that everyone who uses the drug will abuse it.  I know that 
everyone I've ever met who thinks drugs are evil takes those words that way! 
The previous statement may be a bit of a tongue twister, but it makes things
very clear!

Swan Meix			I turned silences and nights into words.
				What was unutterable, I wrote down.
brrian04@uctvax.uct.ac.za	I made the whirling world stand still.
ibarrett@zaphod.cs.uct.ac.za		- Arthur Rimbaud
						A Season in Hell

				Swans fly silently to the burning sky.
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: possible source for strychnine rumours
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:03:23 GMT
Organization: SYS, Univ. of E. Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1

I missed the beginning of this thread.  What is the "Strychnine Universe"?

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Today's LA Times
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 21:39:02 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <BD.92Jul29032147@julius.c3consult.comm.se>

>In article <36213@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> alehecka@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (MERLIN ) writes:
>>
>>  [stuff deleted]
>>
>>CARRIER		WEIGHT OF 100 DOSES	GUIDELINE RANGE
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>Pure LSD	5 milligrams		10 - 16 months
>>Gelatin capsule 	225 mg.		2.25-2.75 yr.
>>Blotter paper		1.4 grams	5.25 - 6.5 yr.
>>Sugar cube		227 grams	15.5 - 19.5 yr.
>>								"
>>			(LA Times, Monday, July 27, 1992)
>>
>
>The War On Truth was bad enough. The War On Logic and Sanity is worse!
>This kind of "justice" is pure evil. I hope it never catches on here in
>Sweden. And I hope it never gets applied to testosterone, which is
>classified as an illegal drug here since July 1 this year...
>--
>Bjorn Danielsson                | If Shakespeare had Hamlet say "I think,
>bd@c3consult.comm.se            | therefore I am", would that prove to us
>Communicator C3Consult AB       | that Hamlet exists?
>Uppsala, Sweden                 |                        -- Robert Nozick

A few of the more extreme feminazis (one in the USA, and one in Germany)
have proposed higher tax rates for men, on the grounds that more crimes
are committed by men.  Better watch out they don't count the weight of
your scrotum when it comes to testosterone...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:10:38 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: Drugs affect different people differently. For some people a given drug will
>: have a mildly amusing affect, others will find it obnoxious and a few will
>: find it so great that it's hard to live without. 
>
>Certainly - how does that change anything that I said? There are people who
>need a crutch of some sort. Some find it in religion, some find it in drugs,
>some find it in a person who makes all their decisions for them.  All of
>these tend to be due to an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility
>for our own actions.

But what about someone who has a biochemical anxiety disorder?  For them
religion, other people, etc will not help.  Alcohol however will.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Philips Interactive Media
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:24:05 GMT

Regarding the "addictive personality"...

A former girlfriend of mine had had a long history of problems before I ever met her (i.e. cocaine addiction, panic attacks, hypochondria, etc...)  About a year after we broke up, I had a conversation in which she basically blamed me for all of her problems.   I'm not sure if she went through any AA / NA meetings or what...


Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Marijuana Laws declared unconstitutional in early 70's?
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:41:16 GMT
Organization: Bradley University



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
                                        
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Reply-To: tjj@thumper.UUCP (J Tim Jordan)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:51:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.230158.8148@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>: In article <1992Jul22.164302.9250@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> 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.
>: 
>: Drugs affect different people differently. For some people a given drug will
>: have a mildly amusing affect, others will find it obnoxious and a few will
>: find it so great that it's hard to live without. 
>
>Certainly - how does that change anything that I said? There are people who
>need a crutch of some sort. Some find it in religion, some find it in drugs,
>some find it in a person who makes all their decisions for them.  All of
>these tend to be due to an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility
>for our own actions.

More over, when a person wants laws to take the posture that people should not
be trusted, this is probably because that person himself doesn't want 
to take responsibility for all his actions. This may be due to the stresses 
of real life or what not but to ask "all" people to accept having their
"Mommy", if you will, around telling them what they can do and what they
can't do is intollerable, and rather insulting to "some" people and I
include myself in that catagory. 

Tim

(P.S. If drugs are legalized maybe those who choose not to use them should 
      wear a pacifier around their necks. That way everyone will know not
      to offer them any.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5302 alt.drugs:13454
From: morley@Apple.COM (John Morley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:37:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul23.213645.8993@walter.bellcore.com>, tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan) writes:
> -- stuff deleted --
> on how to do this and it goes like this. Have it so that a person needs 
> a license to ingest a recreational drug. Make the laws such that the person
> has to renew his license yearly or something like that and have it that
> inorder to renew you have to fast from the drug for a period of one month 
> or so. If you caught ingesting a drug with out a license or if you can't
> go the month without ingesting then you go see a shrink. 

I could support this IF you also applied the same guidelines to things like
alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, chocolate, video games, television, etc., etc.

When will people finally get it that it's none of society's goddamm
business what people do for their personal enjoyment as long as they are
respectful of the rights of others to be unmolested by that behavior.  It's
not the notion of a license per se that I find offensive, it is the idea that
I have to submit to the opinions of some asshole in Washington DC that knows
how much of what behavior is suitable for ignorant peasants that obviously
don't have their shit together enough to decide for themselves :-{

Remember the words of the only great Republican president this country has
seen:

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control
 a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not
 crimes.  A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which
 our government was founded."
                                                    - Honest Abe Lincoln

Whether its for 1 month out of the year or 12 months out of the year, it's
still an invasion of privacy by a government that's out of control.

- John


*******************************************************************************
* Std Disclaimer:   My opinions are mine.        |  Billboard seen next to a  *
*                   Apple's opinions are Apple's.|  cemetary said:            *
*                   Sometimes they are similar.  |  "If you were dead,        *
*                   Sometimes they are not.      |   you'd be home by now."   *
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5254 alt.drugs:13318
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:17:32 -0400 
From: "Stephen P. Marting" <sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: LSD after-effects

Excerpts from alt.drugs: 23-Jul-92 LSD after-effects by "Lamont
Granquist"@milton.u.washington.edu
> At the same time I got "tracers" (like little tiny ones) identical to
> LSD.  Those have also "stuck" and I can see them all the time -- particularly
> in the morning.  Therefore, I tend to relate all the stories currently being
> posted about LSD after-effects as being extremely benign.

Although it's entirely possible to get "tracers" in the morning WITHOUT
ever ingesting LSD or other hallucinogens.  I am one of those cases.

Not sure why I'm posting this, I suppose just so people don't think this
is some evil physical change in the eye or brain caused by LSD.  It's a
perfectly benign, if odd, *natural* thing.

--
Spam is:               | This statement needs no qualifiers.
Steve Marting          | Most people never call me this.
spam+@cmu.edu          | A cute address that wastes computing resources.
sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu   | Above and below are forwarded here.
R746SM6H@CMCCVB.bitnet | Extra storage space.
"Is 'Spam' a word?" - Parker Lewis Can't Lose
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: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:17:55 GMT

lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
: 
: Right, they're psychologically addicted.  The root cause, however, is a
: biochemical abnormality in their brain and the effect of the drug.  The
: cure for this kind of addiction would most likely not be standard 
: psychological treatment, but pharmacotherapy with anti-depressants or
: similar drugs.  While I wouldn't call it "physical addiction", and technically
: its "psychological addiction", we're dealing heavily with biochemistry.  IMHO
: "psychological addiction" is somewhat of a misnomer in this case.  A
: "neurochemical addiction" might be a better term which embodied the mind/brain
: concept a little better.

Thanks - you stated it much more clearly than I did. That was basically my
point in my postings.

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