HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: total votes for all candidates
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:43:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

I saw on CNN that the final tally for Marrou/Lord was ~280K, and
and a 4th place finish.  I remember that Marrou wanted to better
the 1980 showing of > 1 million.  Perhaps the presence of Perot
drew off potential support.

-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:30:46 GMT

In article <BxExK3.E0o@unix.amherst.edu> 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.

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.

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.

>>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...

>And I hope you know me better than to think I'm trying to perpetuate
>any myths. I'm trying to get at the truth.

Oh, dear me.  I guess I was a little thoughtless in my phrasing.  Don't
doubt my respect for you for a moment, Peter.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: diviney@milton.u.washington.edu (Pat Diviney)
Subject: Re: Comedy Central Election results Re: Clinton's Brother: our problem?
Keywords: Clinton's brother, Comedy Central, Buck Henry
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:31:20 GMT

I am not at all sure that Clinton's family experience will make him an
implacable enemy of marijuana legalization.  Of course my experience is
that of a former pot smoker.  In my family there has been alcoholism and
cocaine usage.  Does this color my view of drugs?  Assuredly it does. 
Does it lead me to believe that prohibition and the draconian measures
needed to enforce it are the answer?  Certainly not!

I have watched members of my family nearly destroy themselves through
the use of cocaine.  It was, however, their own folly and if cocaine
had not been available it would have been some other form of poison.

So you see, I have some faith that Clinton's experiences notwithstanding,
he will still be amenable to reasonable arguments in favor of marijuana
decriminalization if not legalization.  If not now, than in the not too
distant future.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7359 alt.drugs:17960
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: How does nitrous oxide work?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:04:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: sabotage.berkeley.edu

Basically, N2O, like most inhalation anesthetics, is fat-soluble and works
by dissolving in nerve membranes.  The more fat-soluble, the stronger
the anesthetic action.

According to _Introduction to Anesthesia_, Dripps, Eckenhoff, Vandam,
the action of inhalation anesthetics is still not totally understood, but
there are several theories and possible explanations:

"The basic principle that lipid solubility of anesthetics governs anesthetic
action remains viable.  Specifically, the narcotic action of a drug
correlates strongly with its solubility in biologic membranes.  Interactions
of anesthetics with biologic membranes cause expansion of the membrane.  
Membrane expansion by a critical volume of 0.4 per cent results in
anesthesia.  Evidence is available to show that anesthetics selectively
combine with hydrophobic groups in biologic proteins, whether purified or
membrane-associated.  Perhaps these alterations in membrane strucutre affect
synaptic transmission in the brain, giving rise to anesthesia."
Another possible methods are changes in membrane protein structure altering
ion flow.  Action on membranes in mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum
might also be responsible.
The primary anesthetic action seems to be the synapse.  Anesthetics may
alter the binding of neurotransmitter to specific receptor proteins.
The section concludes that the mechanisms are not necessarily exclusive of
one another.  Multiple mechanisms may be responsible for anesthesia.

Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Seizure laws
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Nov9.211525.8323@pony.Ingres.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:05:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.211525.8323@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM
(It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

   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.

Again, to my understanding:

I would prefer to leave the actual discussion of the laws to a lawyer.
My own personal summary:  property may be seized upon probable cause,
about equal to what would justify a search.  The seizure is defended
in a CIVIL proceeding.  This is important because a) the government
has no obligation to provide an attorney, as it does in criminal
cases, and b) the standard of proof for the government is MUCH less,
amounting to only a "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a
reasonable doubt".

Also, in a strange twist, the suit is not against the person (on the
government's side), but against the property itself.  This means that
you need not be guilty of ANY crime, even according to a
"preponderance of evidence", if your property is involved in drug use.
Supposedly this is not to be abused; I guess we all know how much to
believe there.

Transfer is a purely internal proceeding between the local police and
the DEA.  The case is brought in federal court, and the federal
attorneys prosecute, but the local police does all the legwork.  The
proceeds are split.  There is no law about this; the only thing that
prevents it is local policy, either on a community or on a stae level.
Remember, the seizure is done by federal authoritities under federal
law; the fact that a state has no seizure statutes makes no difference
whatever.  If it does not happen in California, then local police
policy must work against such transfers.

This is purely my subjective summary, based upon conversations and
newspaper reading.  I would welcome amplification or correction upon
any of this.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
From: tkirby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Kirby)
Subject: Re: Forfiture unconstitutional in KS
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 07:39:51 GMT

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?


>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: brianm@cc.gatech.edu (Brian N. Miller)
Subject: Re: Forfeiture unconstitutional in KS (was: Forfiture ... )
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:01:06 GMT

Due process includes the right of a trial by jury for criminal charges.

For civil charges we step into a world of police rulership.

It is interesting that no when has challenged a drug-related civil suit all the
way to the US Supreme Court on the point previously made.

How a cop can sleep at night after confiscating property is beyond me.
Kind of like a thousand points of (blinding) light, or something.

If Clinton/Gore do not personally attack the abuse of civil forfeiture, then

I will never vote for another demopublican again.
I'll be left with only the Libertarian and Socialist candidates for the rest of
my patriotic life  ;-)

-- 
Dean
From: tucker@vishnu.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Keywords: lame birds, Election, deliverance.
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:01:55 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@vishnu.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <Bx8s7q.1Cw@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>We are really screwed with Clinton.  
>
>His home state is on the bottom of the pile for average salary,
>education, teachers salary, insurance claims, lawsuits, etc.

People from rich states have a divine right to rule?

Four years from now Arkansas will have a lot of government contracts.

In California the Libertarian Party get 2% of the votes for other offices,
but 0% for Marrou for President.  What's with you guys?  Clinton was the
obvious winner for months whereas some of the other races were tight.  
Clinton is not much different from Bush, whereas some of the others had
real choices.  A vote for Clinton/Bush/Perot was a complete waste.
Are Libertarian voters totally irrational?

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	"Innocence is irrelevant."
		Select two:	The Borg
				US Judicial System
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous)
Subject: Wish It Was a Lethal dose 50
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:21:56 GMT

Several people have asked what the LD50 for LSD is.  I don't know 
that, but I can put the WIWLD50 (Wish It Was a Lethal Dose 50%) 
at around 300\mu g. ;*)

Michael Watrous
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: deeb@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stephen Humble)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
	<1992Nov5.221627.24180@dbsun.uucp>
	<1992Nov6.052126.29814@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
	<rabjab.228.721028709@golem.ucsd.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:55:50 GMT

rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) sez:
> If you told your prospective health insurance provider you were a
> dope addict, would they give you nice low rates? ---- no way!!!

If the much-trumpeted virtues of Capitalism are worth anything, I
might expect exactly that, at least for some types of "dope".

If I tell my health insurance provider I'm a heavy tobacco smoker, I
could reasonably expect higher rates because of the well-documented
risks of heavy tobacco use.  If I switch to smoking marijuana, my risk
of heart disease and emphysema drops, so I would expect my rates to
drop too.  If my insurance provider fails to pass on the expected
savings to me while a competitor does pass on those savings, guess
which one gets my business.  As it stands now, if I smoke marijuana, I
run a high risk of being shot by some rabid drug warrior - a very
unhealthy experience.

Similarly, if I tell my provider I've given up the heavy drinking
in favor of eating large amounts of opium, I'd expect my rates to
drop.  Long-term heavy use of opium is reported to be safer than
long-term heavy use of alcohol.  Again, if the insurance company fails
to pass on the savings, I look to the competitors.

On the other hand, if I tell my insurer that I'm a speed freak, then I
agree that my rates should rise since amphetamines are fairly toxic as
recreational drugs go.

Alas, my favorite drug is chocolate, my teeth are bad, and my dental
insurance is inadequate. :-~

Stephen (I think I'll go get a Dove bar now.)
From: serickso@ub.d.umn.edu (Scott Erickson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Help with civil forfeiture
Keywords: drugs civil forfeiture
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:29:33 GMT
Reply-To: serickso@ub.d.umn.edu
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Conformity
NNTP-Posting-Host: ub.d.umn.edu

Hello:

   I need your help.  Today, a friend and I were discussing drug laws, when I
mentioned the abuse of civil forfeiture in drug-related cases.  My friend did
not believe what I told him and he wanted proof.  Since this is a reasonable
request, I need to find information on civil forfeiture.  My understanding is
that not all states have such laws, but that some do.  What states have civil
forfeiture for drug-related cases?  Also, what are the federal laws in regard
to this?

  Here is what is I need:

1)  Either the text of the law, the laws title, or pointers as to where I
    should look.

2)  Examples of the law enforcement agencies using such laws.  Examples can
    include newspaper articles, court cases, etc.  Pointers as to where I
    can find the text for these examples will also be appreciated.  I would
    appreciate it if the examples are supportable, I don't want hearsay,
    because I can not easily confirm hearsay.

3)  Any other information about civil forfeiture and drug laws that you feel
    is pertinent.


  Please reply to my email box.  If there is sufficient net interest, I will
summarize to the net.


-- 
serickso@ub.d.umn.edu                                         Scott Erickson

"Government regulation of personal morals is wrong.
				Keep the government out of the bedroom. "
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Comedy Central Election results Re: Clinton's Brother: our problem?
Keywords: oopsie, Roger Clinton, BCS (Billy Carter Syndrome (tm))
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:01:44 GMT
Summary: Correcting an error in my earlier assertion
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

 labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes:
> I watched and taped the Comedy Central coverage and was 
> fairly entertained.  I've not seen the whole thing but
> when I get home today I'm going to look for the interview
> with Clinton's little brother.  If he's been anywhere near
> believing in the 12 step approach I don't think he'll be
> swayed to the legalization approach on any drug,  but like
> most presidents who don't want anarchy I think alcohol and
> tobacco will stay legal. 

I reviewed the tape last night, and want to correct myself. I wrote:

 He was sooo disconnected that Buck Henry, Al Franken and two other stand up
 comedians in the studio were *nonplussed*.  I suggest that it takes a lot to
 leave 4 professional comedians speechless.

In fact, only Henry was taken aback- the people in the studio pretty much gave
it a pass, but they weren't speechless.  I was projecting the sentiment of all
the people who were watching the tape w/ me.  (minor flame insurance)

You gotta see it to believe it.  

regards.max
IMI=(708)859-0499
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:04:17 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
)
)I call your attention to the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the USA,
)which states that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved
)to the states or to the people.  We're not talking about rights, we're talking
)about powers, and the power to regulate drug quality, purity, etc. is in
)violation of the US Constitution.

     Two words: interstate trade. Unless our hypothetical drug company
is only peddling its wares in one state, the feds have legitamate
Constituional authority to regulate their product. Also, there's nothing
to prevent individual states from regulating drug quality.

)Have you ever worked in the restaurant industry?  I have.  Even assuming
)that the regulations were for the proper levels of safety, their application
)and enforcement leaves much to be desired.  This goes beyond restaurants.  I
)had a friend who worked for the UA movie theater in Berkeley, who told me that
)they "recycled" used popcorn and drink cups in order to save money.  No,
)they didn't have them chewed up and processed into new cups, they just
)collected them off the floor of the theaters after showings and stacked them
)at the condiments counter.

     What? And the Holy Free Market didn't prevent it? B-)

     A spot inspection by a health inspector could easily find abuses like
that. Ho would the free market eliminate them? The only way consumers would
fiund out about it would be by rumor - not a reliable source.

)Because of incentive traps, public health and safety inspectors tend to
)over-regulate and under-enforce, often because it's better for their private
)interests to collect bribes not to bear down on those under their bureaucratic
)thumbs. Then there's the anti-competitive nature of many of these regulations,
)a topic I shouldn't even have to go into.

     I agree that health regulations are usually needlessly complex and
poorly enforced. But, IMHO, they should be fixed, not eliminated.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
                     Keep your values off my family.
Van Roy's Law:
      An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier)
Subject: Gov't subisdies (was Re: Boot camp?)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:08:28 GMT

Foxvog Douglas (dfo@tko.vtt.fi) wrote:
: 
: I am curious as to which products, if any fall into this category.  The
: only things i have found less expensive in Finland are a few species of
: fish (e.g. salmon).  Could you list a few products which are more
: expensive in the US (IYO) and possibly give their prices?  

This whole discussion is ridiculous.  How on earth is anybody going
to know off-hand how much a subsidized item costs?  For example,
beef - in the grocery store, between $2 and $5 per pound, depending
on the cut.  Add in the gov't subsidies, and it is at least $25/lb,
I have no faith in that figure, and I doubt that you can come
up with a similar figure for Finland.  The idea is that, w/out gov't
subsidies, the supermarket price will reflect the real cost of the
beef, and supply-and-demand will drop the price to a more realistic
level (with the added benefit that we would all eat less beef, but
that's an entirely different axe to grind).

--
"They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true
freak cannot be made.  A true freak must be born." - Geek Love

Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Boot camp?
Organization: VTT
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.161752.23457@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.071535.25184@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov1.091317.28347@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>>>...5) Stop all farm programs, whose very purpose is to make Americans pay the
>>>highest food prices in the world 
>>Food prices in Europe are far higher than in the US.  Come to Finland
>>...

>Yes, I made a horrible mistake.  Definately went off the deep end.  So sorry.

>In fact, many, MANY products cost more in the US than anywhere else on earth,
>all due to government intervention in the markets.

I would have thought that you knew it, but governments all over the
world intervene in the markets.

I am curious as to which products, if any fall into this category.  The
only things i have found less expensive in Finland are a few species of
fish (e.g. salmon).  Could you list a few products which are more
expensive in the US (IYO) and possibly give their prices?  

>But we do NOT pay the highest food prices in the world.

Nope, one of the lowest for industrialized countries.

>   Mea culpa,
>         Patrick


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan)
Subject: total votes for all candidates
Reply-To: tjj@thumper.UUCP (J Tim Jordan)
Organization: MRE
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 01:22:41 GMT

u p BC-US-Pres-SumAll     11-04 0158
^BC-US-Pres-SumAll,100<
^11-04-92 05:11,<
^By The Associated Press=
           Here are the latest nationwide vote totals for all candidates on
the ballot in the race for president with 95 percent of the
nation's precincts reporting.<
           Bill Clinton, Dem 41,364,481 - 43 percent
           George Bush, GOP (i) 36,268,903 - 38 percent
           Ross Perot, Ind 18,153,296 - 19 percent
           Andrew Marrou, Oth 64,328 - 0 percent
           Ron Daniels, Oth 16,086 - 0 percent
           Howard Phillips, Oth 11,475 - 0 percent
           Lenora Fulani, Oth 8,446 - 0 percent
           Bo Gritz, Oth 6,813 - 0 percent
           John Hagelin, Oth 3,154 - 0 percent
           None of These, Oth 2,193 - 0 percent
           Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 1,679 - 0 percent
           Honest Jim Boren, Oth 923 - 0 percent
           James Mac Warren, Oth 848 - 0 percent
           John Yiamouyiannis, Oth 507 - 0 percent
           Earl Dodge, Oth 466 - 0 percent
           Isabell Masters, Oth 375 - 0 percent
           J. Quinn Brisben, Oth 185 - 0 percent

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs