HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kpc@pluto.arc.nasa.gov (k p c)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Reply-To: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center AI Research Branch; Sterling.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:14:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.020620.29669@netcom.com> mesm@netcom.com (Mary E.
S. Morris) writes, of slow drug procedures (typo fixed):

   I personally would like to look at the facts and decide
   for myself whether to take the risk. I am an adult. I don't need
   a parent babysitting me.

this also applies to the state-backed monopoly that doctors have over
prescribing drugs.

what's next?  if we can vote, if we can ride motorcycles, if we can
bear children, then shouldn't we be able to get whatever medicine we
like as long as we are competent, informed, and accept the risk?
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:43:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.053135.13139@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>"The judicial power" does not explicitly include the power to make final
>and binding interpertations of the Constitution.

Well, the executive and legislative branches are given *no power at all*
to make *any* interpretations of the Constitution. So, by your own
reasoning, the interpretive power lies in the judicial branch.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.012514.17647@leland.Stanford.EDU> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.210123.7055@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> So, if "trial" comes to mean combat, it just has to be in public....
>
>Either that, or pass an amendment that changes "public trial" to "public court
>proceding".  But I don't want to fight over this... :-)
>
>> If world, or even word meaning, changes interfere with the
>> meaningfulness of the document, we can change the document.  If we
>> don't, why should it change anyway?
>
>Let's just say what we mean, even if that means changing the document.

Which is it?  Does the meaning change if the language changes and the
document doesn't?

Note that an "update to reflect current language" can be held up in
the amendment process by people who want to change something else.
Should this result in a change in the meaning of the document?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: inheritance
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:39:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep24.085600.24414@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> >     Why in the world would you think that property rights should not
> >extend to inheritance?
> 
> Why should they?  What kind of rights do dead people have?  I don't
> think the right to property is one.  

> The same way when someone dies I think he at most has rights to the
> plot of land he's buried under.

To be completely consistent, then, I hope you also espouse that a
person's debts should die with him.  Naturally, since he has no
property after he dies, he has no wherewithal to pay them.  You
should consider yourself lucky that you went into engineering, and
not into medicine.

> There are also practical reasons why property rights extending to
> inhertiance are not a good idea.  Inheritance gives a big disadvantage
> to people who happened to not have someone to inherit.

So does being born in India instead of Germany; or being born to
grow to 5'2" instead of 6'6".  You can't level everybody's playing field.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.raves,misc.fitness
From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: Harkin Amendment
Organization: Me
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:40:07 GMT


 
 
                                                  09/30/92 02:57am
 
     Dear Senator Harkin,
 
     I urge you to resist as strongly as humanly possible any efforts to
remove your Alternative Health Care amendment from the Labor
Appropriations bill, along with the Hatch moratorium amendment on
dietary supplements.
 
     I understand the need to have health care in the hands of competent
professionals.  However we must avoid at all costs the danger of our
health care system being monopolized by entrenched vested interests and
a limited one track view of the causes and cures of human suffering.
 
     To allow one group, with one philosophy, total control over our
health, disease prevention and disease cure, is to invite disaster as it
limits us to the narrow vision of a few, disbarring the research and
genius of others who do not tread the beaten path.
 
     Personally I would be dead if it were not for the free availability
of Niacin, B complex, and Minerals.  My needs were special, but
completely unrecognized by the medical establishment at large, and if I
had followed their recommendations I would probably be permanently
damaged by their invasive surgical techniques.
 
     I can not stress strongly enough how important it is that vitamins,
Niacin, minerals, and alternative health care including the use of mind
devices and biofeed back machines, remain generally available to the
public and those doing serious alternative research into human health
and well being.
 
     Thank you for devoting your time to this matter.
 
     Homer Wilson Smith
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 03:39:39 GMT

rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:

| The FDA has
| been quite consciously set up to protect the income of physicians.

I condemn the death-causing FDA regularly, but the bit about physician
income is a load of crap.

When you talk to physicians in a not-so-public forum, an awful lot of
them are no fans of the FDA.

FDA'ers genuinely believe that what they do is "for your own good",
whether you're a grownup or not.  The fundamental issue is political
freedom, not the protection of physician's income.  Like the Religious
Right, they want to take away your freedom for your own good.

| The fact that its own internal studies show that the FDA's regulations kill
| more patients than they save has been well-known for 20 years. These latest
| attempts of the FDA to control the free flow of information are a linear
| extension of their control of the use of drugs. At worst, a bureaucracy
| gone awry.

Far worse than a "bureaucracy gone awry", the FDA raids doctors' offices
with armed goon squads.

Best Wishes

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


The difference between the Bushes and the Clintons is that with the
Clintons, it's the wife who dyes her hair to look younger.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6116 alt.politics.usa.constitution:482
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 2 Oct 92 06:47:54 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Oct1.012050.16690@leland.Stanford.EDU> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
>|> Just as a corporation is not a party to its own articles of
>|> incorporation, the U.S. government is not a party to the Constitution.
>|> Both can be parties to contracts, but only after their incorporation.

>There are specific parts of the constitution that "create" the US government,
>but that is not the bulk of the constitution.  Most of it deals with how
>government is to operate and what the governmental powers and limitations are.

I'd have to disagree: The Constitution is a agreement between the people,
to create the described form of government. The government did not 
exist at the time, and had no say what so ever in these terms. Further
(and more importantly) the federal government has no existance outside
of these terms (legally and morally, not in practice), nor is the
government a party to this contract: This would imply the government has
rights under the Constitution and that the people can treat it "unfairly."
Instead (as the writings of the framers show) the government is a 
purely a creation of the people, "drawing [its] just power from the consent
of the governed." Outside of this consent (given by ratification of the
Constitution and altered by the formal amendment process), the governemnt
does not (rightfully) exist.

>Clearly, the constitution lays out rights and obligations for governments in
>the US.

Look more closely: The Constitution _never_ mentions rights, except those
of individuals. The Constitution lays out the powers and responsibilities
of the federal government, but the government has no rights.

>It is the written form of an agreement between the government and the
>people.  We made this agreement with our government and I would like for that
>government to stick to the agreement.  I consider the government to be a party
>to that agreement.

My view is even harsher in this respect: If the government is not acting
within its charter, it has no reason or excuse to exist at all. Any
unconstitutional acts by the government are not contractual violations
by one party, but criminal acts (as anyother use of force would be by 
anyone outside the scope of government.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:36:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.185621.18336@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>I wouldn't be that confident about them getting caught with that,
>however.  Lawyers apparently are taught that Supreme Court has a
>monopoly on interpreting the Constitution - though the Constituion
>mentions nothing about such a monopoly.  Further, people who know
>about jury nullification are apparently often excluded from the jury.
><text deleted>
>Lawyers probably will correct me on this if I'm wrong (added
>misc.legal to the groups)

Lawyers aren't taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
interpreting the Constitution. Lawyers (and everyone else who studies
Constitutional law) are taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
*final* interpretations of the Constitution.

This is a rather different proposition.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6162 alt.politics.usa.constitution:547 alt.drugs:16741 talk.politics.drugs:6638 alt.psychoactives:1324 misc.legal:18178
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:04:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.042419.1992@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>That is not what we are taught.  We are taught that since Marbury v.
>>>Madison, the other two branches have grudgingly accepted the role
>>>of the judiciary as reviewer of constitutionalily.  

>Note, by the way, that this grudging acceptance is largely due to political,
>not legal issues: The people _expect_ it, and fighting a Court ruling
>would probably result in loosing an election.

Not so.  Consider the immediate response by Congress to the SC's
flag-burning decision.  They wrote a new federal law that was clearly
aimed at the court, adversarially.  Of course, popular expectation might
still be relevant, when a constitution (as ours is) is itself popularly
empowered.

>However, the Court's
>power of judicial review is only as strong as public confidince in the
>Supreme Court. _This_ has been a factor in several recent rulings, and
>is a reason the Court is unwilling to overturn earlier decisions
>at the risk of being seen as biased and political, instead of impartial...

Maybe they were simply following the doctrine of stare decisis?  In such
cases, legislative reaction, via the political process, is the proper
road to change, and not at all what the SC should be expected to do.

>John Marshall was _extremely_ familiar with this context (since he was
>_part_ of it, to a limited extent.) In writing the Marbury v. Madison
>ruling, he tried to put judicial review on the strongest foundations
>possible...

Marshall was a bit power-hungry, it seems.  I have often wondered if he
deliberately neglected to deliver Marbury's commission, just to 
synthesize this case.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.053135.13139@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that the Constitution mentions
>>nothing as to its interpretation, when Article III explicitly vests
>>the judicial power in the Supreme Court.
>
>"The judicial power" does not explicitly include the power to make final
>and binding interpertations of the Constitution.

Disclaimer: these are only questions and guesses.

Hmm, how about this:

"     [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make."

What does "appellate Jurisdiction" mean?  Webster's says:

ap.pel.late \*-'pel-*t\ aj [L appellatus, pp. of appellare] : of, relating
   to, or taking cognizance of appeals; specif : having the power to review
   the judgment of another tribunal

which to a layman's and non-native speaker's eyes could mean that it
overrides the other courts.

What exceptions are there?  (not overturning a jury trial is in the
Bill of Rights)

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:37:25 GMT

In article <BvIv9A.5n0@acsu.buffalo.edu> v129nlgw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PAUL HOWARD) writes:
>>chemotherapy patients.  The spokesperson for the fda told the world
>>that aids sufferers were going to contract salmonella from pot
>>brownies, that pot was an untested drug, that since the FDA didn't
>>fully UNDERSTAND the effects of THC on the brain and body, it could not
>>release the drug.  Ive never heard such
>They don't even know how aspirin works.

Well, "they" do.  Not that this has much to do with whether a drug
is used clinically or not.  I suspect that either words are being
put into the mouth of this FDA guy OR he got flummoxed and spoke
nonsense.  In either case, such comments do not reflect the position
of the FDA when deciding to approve a drug.  Anyway, I hardly think
the FDA has anything to do with this, unless Hostess (tm) was going
to make a special pot brownie.  The FDA only controls the behavior of
drug manufacturers who make and sell drugs.  A manufacturer would have
to apply for the use of a marijuana preparation in a particular syndrome
for the FDA to be involved at all.

The DEA, a division of the Department of Justice, controls access to
Schedule I controlled substances, such as marijuana, and a licence
for such use is a prerequisite for any experiments with these substances.
Have you all filled in the forms yet? :-)  It would undoubtedly be the
DEA which is getting mixed up in this business.

>By the way, it's illegal to practice herbalism in nearly all the states.

Thank God for that, if it's true.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 04:48:40 GMT

Slight correction after the fact:

| Incidentally, thalidomide was kept out of the US by co-incidence.  An
| FDA staffer thought that there was some rat brain damage in a study
| and her efforts kept the drug from being approved in this country.

...kept it from being approved in this country for some time.
-- 


"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that
one word is 'to be prepared.'" -America's own Danny "Mr. Potatoe Head" Quayl
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6085 talk.politics.drugs:6513
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journal
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:11:34 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <s-+pjvh.rlglende@netcom.com>, rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
> I am amazed that anyone on this forum would question the FDA! The FDA has
> been quite consciously set up to protect the income of physicians.

	Although its prescription aspects are certainly beneficial for 
physicans, physicans often disagree with the FDA over its policies. For 
instance, my father (a physician for some 20+ years now) fully realizes 
that the FDA was idiotic in its decision on the smokeless cigarrette and 
is being idiotic in its current attempted policy change to limit how much 
nutritional supplements are allowed non-prescription. I might also point out
that the loss of knowledge generated by the FDA hurts physicians also. The 
FDA's unneccessary and harmful policies can certainly not be blamed on 
physicians alone.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:01:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.063352.25629@leland.Stanford.EDU> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
>Yes, the original intent would be fine if our world would stand still for it. 
>However, for the document to be meaningful in today's society, it has to be
>judged on its current meaning, not the meaning it had up to two hundred years
>ago when the words were first written.

So, if "trial" comes to mean combat, it just has to be in public....

If world, or even word meaning, changes interfere with the
meaningfulness of the document, we can change the document.  If we
don't, why should it change anyway?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.d
From: aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 04:57:09 GMT



 I hope I only have to say this once: KEEP POLITICS OUT OF
alt.psychoactives!!! The whole purpose of the group was to get away from
that so that those interested more in pharmacology wouldn't have to wade
through so much stuff they didn't want.
Thank you.

St. Anthony


--
        CH3  O            CH(CH3)2        |      dadaMatrix
           >-P-S-CH2CH2-N<            VX  |                       
    CH3CH2O               CH(CH3)2        |     aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu
                                          | A kinder gentler lobotomy...
Xref: sparky alt.society.futures:276 alt.society.sovereign:18 alt.war:2034 soc.college:4077
From: F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures,alt.society.sovereign,alt.war,soc.college
Subject: Model UN Newsgroup
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:57:01 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


        Hello - I am looking to start a Model UN newsgroup.  I have posted
        already in news.announce.newgroups.  I would like to call
         the group talk.politics.model un.  This will facilitate
        info exchange between Model UN groups around the world.
        If in favor of this, please post to news.announce.newgroups
        so that we can gauge what kind of response to this there
        is.  We will be going for the worldwide net, not alt.
         Peace  _ Matt
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances
Reply-To: tuff@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:05:55 GMT

It's interesting to note that Esperanto was deliberately designed to be able
to evolve - i.e., it is not straightjacketed in its grammatical structure.
In fact, Esperanto has evolved quite a bit since its conception, surprisingly
for a deliberately designed language.

For the curious, the way it achieves this is through the extremely extensive
uses of suffixes and prefixes, which, it turns out, in actual practice does
work in enabling a language to evolve while still maintaining its basic
grammatical structure (which, in the case of Esperanto, is very loose to begin
with.)

As to whether a second "Trade Language", such as Esperanto is aspiring to do,
can actually succeed I strongly suspect is more a matter of do people believe
it can work. The problem is not technical - Esperanto in 100-some years of
actual practice has proved itself technically to survive linguistic evolution
and to serve as a very versatile and expressive (not to mention, easy to
learn,) language. The problem is, IMHO, a human problem. Whether _this_ can
be overcome is up for grabs. Convincing any number of people to learn another
language for non-economic reasons, to name one strong motivator, has in
historical perspective proved to be more than a little difficult.

	Geoff Tuffli
	The Green Griffin