HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:50:38 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:

>The thread is turning toward the word adiction again and its definition.
>Worthwhile subject and never ending but I wasn't addressing addiction
>but rather the loss of ones will or the ability to exercise it.  The
>word slavery was used and I think appropriately in so far as it also
>represents a loss of ability to exercise will.  Maybe that's addiction
>but "addiction" seems to have more nuances.

To me that is the definition of addiction....the abdication of
responsibility of one's actions to an inanimate psychoactive substance.
There is no doubt that any psychoactive substance is going to create a
change in sensation and perpective that a person might not be initially
used to, but that doesn't mean that the person's capacity to think is at
the mercy of the drug.


>I don't believe that a dependancy is necessarily wrong at all but when
>something robs "some" people of will and the ability to act on it my
>wrong detector goes off.  Hey, there are a lot more of "some" people
>than seems to want to be acknowledged here.
>
>I don't know why I feel compelled every now and then to shout, "hey, folks
>there's some nasty shit out there."  And I am always amased that I get
>an argument.

The concept of drug addiction is just another in a series of concepts that
has encouraged people to give up responsibility for themselves.  It's
easier to blame a drug for bad judgement than simply admitting bad
judgement.  We have finally been able start counteracting this mindset
concerning alcohol.  Vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of
alcohol is no longer treated as a lesser crime, but not so long ago being
drunk behind the wheel was reason enough to reduce sentences because the
person 'couldn't help it--he was drunk'.  We now pretty much agree that
alcohol can't make a person do something he doesn't want to do.  Other
drugs are no different in this aspect.

You get arguments over your shouts because the 'nasty shit' out there
usually turns out to be not nearly as bad as popular hysteria dictates.  In
fact, lots of illegal drugs aren't nearly so bad as quite a few very common
legal drugs, namely alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.

I should take this moment to reiterate what I normally consider to be a
given, that my arguments are in no way to be interepreted as encouragement
to take any drug.  I only ask that we all respect each others' decisions
concerning drug use.  I take some drugs; that doesn't mean that I want you
to.  Someone else might think drug use to be utterly immoral, but that
doesn't mean that taking away my right to choose is the right thing to do.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5284 alt.drugs:13425
From: tjm8890@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug-Slavery/Addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:06:36 GMT
Reply-To: tjm8890@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

I have a perception regarding the nature of drug abuse vs. drug use.

  It seems that the abusers are basically unhappy with their lives.  
Cocaine/Heroin/etc becomes the 'escape' everyone talks about.

  Those who are REALLY happy, not 'acting' happy have the common
sense to diffrentiate between abuse and use.

  This is the path I'm currently on;  true happiness.

  *SERIOUSLY*
  *JOVIALLY*
  Consider:  Are you REALLY happy?  Do you jump out of bed in the morning,
eager and ready to explore another day?  Or do you just muddle through?

  It's pretty much agreed that it's a FACT of life.  I guess that's
why no one has really given it serious thought.  Most of our country
's problem is related to unhappiness, and the deperate acts we commit
in the hope to gain that 'true happiness'.  (greed for happiness,
drugs for happiness, sex for happiness, etc.)

Tyson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:30:11 GMT

>rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
[...]
>: Some alterants for some people do have the power to subsume their will and
>: I can't distinguish that from enslavement.  The problem as I have argued
>: before is that with some of these things it is a form of Russian roulette
>: because the person cannot know in advance if a particular substance can
>: wield that kind of power over them.  To not see the potential power of

First of all, Bob, let me say that I agree with a lot of what you're saying,
although I really don't have a completely firm opinion on this...  My opinion
has changed on this matter several times over the years, mostly due to close
people I know with addictions.

I agree that some people can get addicted to some substances to the point
of 'enslavement,' and thus I agree with your first sentence above.  But it all
depends on the person, and if they have an addictive personality.  People
like this are able to get addicted to really about anything (smoking, drinking,
speed, maybe even <gasp> smoking pot).  I disagree with your statement that 
some substances have this 'power' over their users to make them continue
use.  If someone finds it really easy to get addicted to things and have 
weak will-power, THEN they should undoubtedly avoid things like cocaine.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5409 alt.drugs:13664
From: will@turbo.bio.net (Will Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:38:43 GMT
Organization: GenBank Online Service

My newsreader used to include the text of articles that are to
be followed up on, but it doesn't anymore. Oh well, I am taking
this one line out of context, and the author was quoting someone else:

>[Marijuana does not produce tolerance or physical withdrawal symptoms]

This is simply not true. There is little tolerance to marijuana's
conjunctival injection and tachycardia, but there is tolerance
to just about all other measures of marijuana's effects, including
the euphoria. The physical withdrawal symptoms are mild compared
to those of other drugs, and vary with the level of drug consumption,
but the loss of appetite, REM rebound, and anxiety
(including drug seeking behavior) are well documented.
-- 
Will Nelson
Systems Programmer, IntelliGenetics, Inc.
will@presto.ig.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Drug-Slavery/Addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:37:18 GMT

pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares) writes:
: >
: >Sorry, Bob. I agree with David. As he says - no drug has the capablility of
: >enslaving a person. If it did, then some people would be physically addicted
: >the first time they took a drug.
: 
: 	And some people (Bob for one) seem to think this _does_ happen. I have
: yet to be presented with conclusive proof one way or the other. My best guess
: is that anyone who is relatively stable psychologically can handle taking any
: drug. But the fact is there are tons of people out there who _aren't_ (at
: least not all the time) and for them, something akin to instant addiction may
: be possible. It may be psychological at heart, but if they can't get off of a
: drug on their own, no matter how strong their will to do so, what's the
: effective difference?

The difference is - in one case, the case I disagree with, the drug enslaves
the person through physical addiction - this does not happen.  In the other
case, the person is enslaving themselves to the drug, through a mental 
weakness - this can happen with one dose, and probably sometimes does. The
difference here is that the drug is probably non-specific. In other words,
they would keep using ANY drug that made them feel better.

I hope this is a little more clear.

: 	However, I do think it's important to realize that the addiction
: isn't some inherent property of the drug, but rather a combination of the
: drug and an unhappy or "unstable" person. I'm absolutely positive of my own
: ability to control my drug use, but I have no idea what it is like for others,
: and I don't want to assume too quickly that anyone can get off any drug just
: by deciding to do so when there are so many people telling me otherwise.

I cannot totally agree with this statement either. It is possible for a
relatively well balanced and happy person to become addicted to a drug.
However, this is usually a physical addiction due to continued use, rather
than a psychological addiction. 

: >In most cases, it is not the power of a drug,
: >it is the lack of willpower that is the problem - in other words, the body
: >is strong, but the mind is weak.
: 
: 	I think you're on the right track, but searching too much for
: absolutes...both the mind and the drug play a role in addiction.

Sorry, my statement wasn't very clear. I was talking about someone who became
addicted to a drug after one or two usages.

: But ... I could be wrong :) ... If you think I am, please tell me why--I just
: might buy it ;)

I don't think we really disagree. I think we are wrangling more over definition
than anything else.

Bill
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 21 Jul 1992 21:44:45 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject:     CONSPIRACY: Police Vs Organized Militia (?)


 This is addressed primarily towards readers in Europe, or those knowledgeable
 in the history of recent western civilization, mainly of the Americas, in-
 cluding the United States.

 We omit the summary of events leading to the present;  but are interested
 in similarities between events in both communist/socialist countries as well
 as those practicing dictatorships and some form of free enterprise which seem
 to parallel events in the United States.

 The focal point rests in the disarmament of the state organized militia
 (California National Guard) by their officers during the recent Los Angeles
 riots.  Please ignore the actions of the unorganized militia.

 Can anyone remember when a "state" organized militia has been disarmed by
 leader/officers, during a crisis in which they were supposed to help
 the "state" police, yet in which the police were NOT disrarmed.

 Please cite motives for this preferencial treatment, even if the motives
 are "possibilities", or suspicions.  Try to state BOTH sides of the
 situation.  Relate this to the country or state's Constitution, if applic-
 able.

 Did/does this disarmament indicate/precede a "policy" shift by the federal
 government.  What are/were the consequences of this action and policy shift;
 as far as the nation/state was concerned, and as far as the President/Dicta-  /
 tor/etc. was concerned ?

 Thank you.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Instant addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:48:06 GMT

In article <DEEB.92Jul21130537@splinter.splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> deeb@splinter.splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stephen Humble) writes:
>> 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.

You're wrong.  There is a risk of adrenal insufficiency (NOT kidney failure)
after long-term corticosteroid use.  This is not be expected after 3 days
time.

>On the other hand, Prednisone is an anti-inflammatory steroid and has
>no recreational use.

Right.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 10:40:51 GMT


In <1992Jul24.201449.1798@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> basher@ces.cwru.edu (Tim Basher) writes:
>>No one is a slave to their urges.
>No one may be a "slave to their urges" but that does not mean that all people
>can solve their own problems [by "force of will"] without outside assistance.
>The unconscious mind can be just as strong as the conscious mind.

I think if you read dave's post again, it's pretty clear that his
advocacy of "cognitive THERAPY" (emphasis mine) means he expects
outside assistance to be necessary in at least some cases.

The point is, "outside assistance" that just reinforces the idea that
they are slave to their genetics (or whathaveyou) is not much assistance
at all.  Therapy to help them realize the power of the mind (both conscious
and unconscious) to overcome whatever it is that "enslaves" them (be it
addiction or anxiety attacks) is much more beneficial.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
         Her voice sounded like something that lurks in the long grass,
                   visible only by the twitching of its ears,
                  until something young and tender wobbles by.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:50:55 GMT

In <1992Jul21.052839.28725@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>Well, I think it is just a matter of definition....
>I agree that a lot of this is a matter of semantics....
>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.

Someone else already pointed out the lie to this--experience with tainted
food can condition in one sitting.  I could also point out cases where
I've seen this in real life (a certain gremlin we know can't stand oreos
anymore because of a particular experience with smoke and oreos--that was
only once; I thought long and hard after my first trip about how *good*
that felt and how easy it would be to just buy and buy and buy and trip
my mind away for a period of time).
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                                Ma gavte la nata
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5271 alt.drugs:13377
From: pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Subject: Drug-Slavery/Addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:15:29 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>: : 
>: : [...] No drug has the power to enslave a person.  It's a personal choice
>: : and it always has been. To assert otherwise is insulting and dehumanizing
>: : and is not borne out in scientific data anyway.
>: 
>: [...] I take issue with this particular rebutal. I've spent enough time in
>: N.A. meetings to believe that for at least a signifigant subset of people
>: some drugs do in fact have that power.  I have seen it many, many times
>: with specifically cocaine.
>
>Sorry, Bob. I agree with David. As he says - no drug has the capablility of
>enslaving a person. If it did, then some people would be physically addicted
>the first time they took a drug.

	And some people (Bob for one) seem to think this _does_ happen. I have
yet to be presented with conclusive proof one way or the other. My best guess
is that anyone who is relatively stable psychologically can handle taking any
drug. But the fact is there are tons of people out there who _aren't_ (at
least not all the time) and for them, something akin to instant addiction may
be possible. It may be psychological at heart, but if they can't get off of a
drug on their own, no matter how strong their will to do so, what's the
effective difference?

	However, I do think it's important to realize that the addiction
isn't some inherent property of the drug, but rather a combination of the
drug and an unhappy or "unstable" person. I'm absolutely positive of my own
ability to control my drug use, but I have no idea what it is like for others,
and I don't want to assume too quickly that anyone can get off any drug just
by deciding to do so when there are so many people telling me otherwise.

>In most cases, it is not the power of a drug,
>it is the lack of willpower that is the problem - in other words, the body
>is strong, but the mind is weak.

	I think you're on the right track, but searching too much for
absolutes...both the mind and the drug play a role in addiction.

But ... I could be wrong :) ... If you think I am, please tell me why--I just
might buy it ;)

-Peter

pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)


Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5292 alt.drugs:13440
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:05:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: oucsace.1992Jul24.030554.24279
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <1992Jul23.195648.9362@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>In any case, I don't think the fact that some people have addictive
>personalities is a legitimate excuse for throwing people into jail for
>possessing and/or using drugs.

I think that this points up one of the major reasons for misunderstandings 
on this newsgroup. There are a lot of people who believe that the governments 
'job' is to ban things that are harmful. That's why any statements about
a drug causing harm get an immediate load of bullshit dumped on them.
There are those of us who believe that the government has no business
protecting us from ourselves but do feel inclined to freely discuss the
good and bad affects of different drugs so that people can make their
own decisions.


-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5410 alt.drugs:13671
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:13:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

will@turbo.bio.net (Will Nelson) writes:
: 
: >[Marijuana does not produce tolerance or physical withdrawal symptoms]
: 
: This is simply not true. There is little tolerance to marijuana's
: conjunctival injection and tachycardia, but there is tolerance
: to just about all other measures of marijuana's effects, including
: the euphoria. The physical withdrawal symptoms are mild compared
: to those of other drugs, and vary with the level of drug consumption,
: but the loss of appetite, REM rebound, and anxiety
: (including drug seeking behavior) are well documented.

The question is - are these actually physical symptoms, or are they
psychological?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:00:00 GMT

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

>lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>
>: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>: >We're not talking about some hypothetical brain malady that absolutely
>: >requires a physiological cure.  We're talking about 'drug addiction', which
>: >is a complicated and tangled web of physiological and psychological
>: >elements.  Let's try to keep that in mind, shall we?
>: 
>: Yes.  Lets also try to keep in mind that the psychological and physiological
>: elements most likely form a complete spectrum.  There may very well be
>: those who are utter psychological fuck-ups.  The addictive personalities
>: who really just have weak minds, and fit perfectly what some people have
>:.............
>
>I think the disagreement is whether this is a physical addiction or not.
>The point being, if that were the case, then the person is addicted to the
>drug, before ever taking it. 

Not from where I'm arguing from.  The disagreement in my eyes has nothing
to do with 'physical addiction' (resonance), since it's already more or less
shown that such a thing doesn't happen.  The quarrel is whether or not
'psychological addiction', which is much more likely to happen in one or
two usages, is strictly a psychological phenomenon; or to what degree
heredity and physiology influences the psychology involved.  Lamont seems
to be arguing that heredity and physiology so influence behaviour and
psychology that conscious efforts can't control it.  I disagree vehemently.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5294 alt.drugs:13443
From: s7356911@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (DYLYN)
Subject: Re: Psychological Addiction
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  oy, vey
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:05:00 GMT

	Lotta good points made about people seeming to get psychologically
addicted to substances; especially using the phrase to exlain why someone
would return to substance abuse after being clean.  However, I still think
the term itself is bogus, mainly because it can be applied to everything 
that someone enjoys, and because it puts the responsibility for its 
abuse on the substance itself.  This reinforces the idea that some
substances are inherently evil and need to be kept from everyone, not just
those that abuse them.
	I think it is more useful and to the point to speak of ``addictive
personalities'';  it treats the problem as a behavioral one that can be
treated.  I've known a few addictive personalities -- one that comes to
mind is a musician who was addicted to cocaine.  She and another friend
used to live with a major coke dealer in Miami.  They had near constant
access to the stuff;  she got addicted heavily, and my other friend didn't.
I don't think the problem was the cocaine by itself.
	Just my two bytes worth.
				dylyn

	"Knuckle down, drink your death's head soup."--Slab

	"I hear they're dismembering people down the street--
		Those Joneses!  Ya gotta love `em!
	 Various disguises are regrettable but necessary,
		if you want to make it  through the day"
			--NoMeansNo, "Everyday I Start to Ooze"
 dylyn (aka, d prosser) == S7356911@UCSVAX.UCS.umass.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs