HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilinskas)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: anything about DMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:08:17 GMT
Organization: UB

ww1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Spaulding Wood) writes:

>Who knows anything about this stuff?  I've read it described as "like
>stepping on to a moving rollercoaster."
>Yet it can be manufactured in the home?
Someone mentioned something about this awhile back, I think they said there
were some simple instructions in the Anarchist's Cookbook, so although they
might not be correct, I'm curious as to what they are.

DMT is present in a plant called Acacia Maidenii contains 0.4% DMT, which
has to be extracted and purified to be used for any effect.  The effects
when smoked are extremely intense (it was referred to as "the most powerful
of the hallucinogens" in 'Food of the Gods') for 2-5 minutes, followed by
a 1/2 to 1 hour marijuana-like buzz.  The effects when eaten are longer and
less intense, but DMT has to be combined with a MAO-inhibitor to be effective
orally.  That's about all I've heard about it.

____________________________________________________________________________
pck@acsu.buffalo.edu /  "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:34:12 GMT
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

David Vessell writes:
>> Why should we limit inquiry to a particular species?
>
> Because it's foolish to consider passing laws prohibiting rats from
> snorting coke.

Following this logic, let's ignore physics when designing cars; the
vast majority of physics was performed on objects other than cars.

> That's what this whole argument is based in: how all this
> theory, research, and real-life results is going to affect the legal
> treatment of this stuff.

No, that's some argument someone else is having.  I have taken no
position on the matter.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:22:35 GMT

In <1992Jul29.212555.3513@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>Pete Hartman writes:
>>>> most animals will not overdose unless their environment is negative.
>>> An interesting theory.  Where's your data?  How was environment varied?
>> a study that found that "monkeys allowed to smoke crack limited their
>> intake".
>OK, how did their intake vary as a function of environment?

1) I didn't say that that particular study talked about variance with
environment.  In fact, I felt it was clear that the one I cited did NOT
discuss variance with environment.

2) I did say that I had read something ELSE that I unfortunately don't
RECALL that implied a variance with environment.  Alas, poor me, I don't
have photographic memory to just flip back and reference it.

3) In ANY case, I'm afraid I do not have your wealth of resources
to investigate all these findings for myself, so I have to rely on
references to journal publications.



So you've said "there are substances that will addict all organisms
with exposure".  You have not said what you mean by "addict" or "addiction",
nor have you said what constitutes "exposure".  You cited cocaine as
one such substance.  If you have any content to your statements, please
define these issues--if generalities are not possible, the with respect
to the particular drug you've mentioned, cocaine.  And please don't
tell me that the burden of proof lies on my shoulders "because I can
do it myself".  You are the one claiming this data, give me references
to publications that contain this data.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
             Admittedly he was listening to a _Best of Queen_ tape,
  but no conclusions should be drawn from this because all tapes left in a car
    for more than about a fortnight metamorphose into _Best of Queen_ albums
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:25:55 GMT

Pete Hartman writes:
>>> most animals will not overdose unless their environment is negative.
>> An interesting theory.  Where's your data?  How was environment varied?
> a study that found that "monkeys allowed to smoke crack limited their
> intake".

OK, how did their intake vary as a function of environment?

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13832 sci.med:14873
From: pnh@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Paul N Hengen)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med
Subject: Re: Risk of Cigar Smoking?
Keywords: Smoking, Tobacco, Cigars, Health
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:57:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <#dmmv2h.masimo@netcom.com> masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas) writes:

>Does anyone know of any studies that define the risk of smoking cigars?
>
>One would expect it to be somewhat lower than cigarettes if one does not
>inhale the smoke.

>
>Mike Maas

Mike: I don't have any numbers on this, but I think the incidence
of oral cancer is _much_ higher for cigar smokers.

Paul N. Hengen
National Cancer Institute
Frederick, Maryland
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 08:46:51 GMT

In <1992Jul30.052248.4213@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>> Withdrawal is poorly defined in this discussion, and you've not
>> defined this term at all.
>It's well understood.  I see no need to tutor anyone in it.

If it is well understood, then why does the APA's own definition
of "cocaine dependence" rely on a redefinition of the term, and
even include a disclaimer to the effect that therapy based on the
assumption that "cocaine dependence" includes *traditional* withdrawal
syndromes would not be correct?

>> my point has been that you haven't given your proof that the results
>> reproduce.  So why should we give a damn about what you say?
>Doesn't matter whether you do or don't.  The facts are utterly
>indifferent to whether you believe them.  Did you suppose Nature
>needed you to believe in order for phenomenon to continue?

Except that I contend, and Dave contends, and a few others as well,
that you are not stating facts.  If you believe they are facts,
does that make it so?  No.  If they are indeed facts, then you can
cite the sources that reproduce them.  If they are not, you can
go on for days about how they are "reproduceable" but your say so does
not mean that they are.

Again--I cited studies that indicate that there is NOT any addiction
to cocaine in humans, despite the fact that you have asserted that
there is addiction to cocaine across all species.  If you can refute
the citations with counter citations of your own, feel free to.

To quote Dave:  put up or shut up.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
        People say that I'm out of touch with reality.  That I'm insane.
    Sometimes I forget things.  Who I am.  Where I am.  Unimportant things.
                       But I'm not insane.  I am a tick.
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13727 sci.psychology:3303 talk.politics.drugs:5429
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:49:31 GMT
	<1992Jul27.160010.7599@bradley.bradley.edu>
	<1992Jul29.004255.7398@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:

   There is a class of substances whose mere exposure leads to addiction.

Am I misreading this, or are you saying that for some drugs
administering the drug to somebody without their consent would cause
them to be addicted?

If this is what you're saying, can you cite some evidence to back it
up?

If not, can you please clarify?

	-- Bill
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: basher@ces.cwru.edu (Tim Basher)
Subject: Re: Liver Function Test
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:08:17 GMT

In article <BrrE7B.IyM@world.std.com> erb@world.std.com (ed r baker) writes:
>Does anyone know how "they" do a liver function test?  I'm concerned that
>my years of drinking may have damaged my liver enough for me to consider
>cutting down.  Just wondering.

Which liver function test?

Liver function tests are generally only given if preliminary blood and urine
samples show symptoms of a problem.  The tests normally applied to blood and
urine to check for possible liver problems check the levels of certain enzymes.
These include Serum bilirubin, Serum SGOT, Serum SGPT, Serum LDH, Serum
alkaline phosphatase, Serum ICD, Serum 5-nucleotidase, Urine bile,
Urobilinogen.

If the original blood/urine tests show a need a liver function test may be
indicated.  There are more than one available.  They include:
	Bromsulphalein (BSP) test
	Cephalin-cholesterol flocculation test
	Cholinesterase (pseudocholinesterase)
	Galactose tolerance test (GTT)
	Prothrombin time
	Thymol turbidity
and a Needle Biopsy.

If you have damaged your liver from drinking, I would advise you to do more
than cut down.  IMHO, you should stop altogether.

Tim Basher
Not an MD
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med,talk.politics.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: What is the Health Risk from Smoking MJ?
Keywords: Smoking, Tobacco, Marijuana, Health
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:19:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.013619.11668@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>"Marijuana has never caused a death" is a factoid that I hear quoted
>often.  And I'm not inclined to believe it.  Hasn't even _one_ stoned
>driver ever been involved in a fatal car accident?

THC is one of the most impossible drugs to overdose on.  The gap between
the effective dose and the lethal dose is just so big, it's not a
concern whatsoever.  (Somewhere I recall a study comparing.. uhmm... the
amount of marijuana necessary to overdose to drinking like 150 glasses
of water in 5 minutes or something like that?  anyone got the cite?)  That
rules out overrdose.

Unfiltered marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens than filtered tobacco
smoke, although not one instance of lung cancer has ever been attributed 
solely to marijuana use.  One reason that is often claimed, though, is that
there just hasn't been enough time for anyone to do any real long-term
studies, with good controls (i.e., chucking the people that smoke tobacco.)
Marijuana can cause some pulmonary problems worse than tobacco, but studies
have always assumed the worst case for marijuana (unfiltered -- these studies
ignore the fact that many people smoke through bongs) and the best case
for tobaccco (filtered).

Accidents:  well, I'm sure there have been accidents that could be attributed
to marijuana use.  The famous Am-Trak accident comes to mind, although I 
remember reading somewhere that the conductor later gave sworn testimony,
took a polygraph, etc., saying that he was sober at the time.  Marijuana
is _NOWHERE NEAR_ as dangerous as alcohol when driving.  (citing personal
experience, and a good study in _Marijuana Medical Papers_, which I don't
have handy.)

>Really, now...  Even _water_ has caused deaths.

I'd imagine that far more people have died from water than from marijuana.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu

>==========================================================================
>Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
>Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
>==========================================================================
From: pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: All night dance parties (Zombie Ravers)
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:51:22 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory


>: Ketamine as a rave drug?  What, for zombie ravers?  I can think of
>: anything, short of phenobarb or Thorazine, that would be a worse
>: drug for raving.  Have you really seen ket. used at raves?  Has
>: anybody?
>
>That had to be a slip of the tounge.  Dancing and ketamine are oxymorons.
>
	
	That reminds me of an interview with John Lilly I read in Omni
about five years ago. Lilly claimed that he liked to *ski* under the
effect of Ketamine!

					Pierre St Hilaire
					MIT Media Lab
From: stevea@bullyrag.ugcs.caltech.edu (Steven C. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: LSD - After effects
Keywords: LSD, Acid, flashback, Ren & Stimpy
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:41:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Caltech Undergraduate Computer Science

In article <1992Jul25.232828.12914@aimla.com> mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr) writes:
>
> I propose that flasbacks, as a biochemical result of LSD intake,
> simply do not exist, and are a mis-attribution of normal psychological
> events to prior LSD taking.  I believe the biochemistry shows that
> there is no possiblity of significant amounts of LSD staying around
> in the system, for the periods of time that people claim to have
> flashbacks for.
>
>Comments?

The flashbacks are certainly not due to residual LSD, but there is good
reason to believe that they are residual psychological effects of the drug.
They are normal psychological events that happen, in some cases, because of
the drug.  (In others, for other reasons.)
There is little reason to believe they are harmful, except insofar as they
are like acid trips.  (Distracting, for example.)
They tend to be weaker and shorter than trips.
A good source for this information is Grinspoon's _Psychedelics Reconsidered_,
available at reputable libraries everywhere.

-stevea@ugcs.caltech.edu	Steven C. Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr)
Subject: Re: LSD - After effects
Keywords: LSD, Acid, flashback, Ren & Stimpy
Organization: Philips Interactive Media
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:28:28 GMT


I propose that flasbacks, as a biochemical result of LSD intake, simply do not exist, and are a mis-attribution of normal psychological events to prior LSD taking.  I believe the biochemistry shows that there is no possiblity of significant amounts of LSD staying around in the system, for the periods of time that people claim to have flashbacks for.

Comments?
From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Helicopter nuisance flights (WAS: WoD not to everyone's...
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:13:23 GMT

Noisy copper choppers are a constant problem here (MI) inside or outside
of a city. There is LITERALLY ALWAYS at least one of these damn things
flapping around with some bozo looking for Duh-rugs (Egad!!). Most
people here find them objectionable, but there hasn't been much
organized opposition to them... yet. There are various new anti-noise
ordnances, etc., being passed which will have some effect on them.
Farmers don't like having their livestock scared, and they have enough
sympathetic ears in government to give the WoD a lot of static. There
are a LOT of elected officials who would like to divert some of the WoD/DEA
funding to patronage projects for their own districts. All they need is a
bit of ammo, a whiff of mismanagement, scandal, corruption, etc., is the
WoD/DEA forces to use as an excuse to cut their funding.

As I have said before, the way to halt the WoD is not to oppose them
directly; that gives them the moral high ground with the average guy.
Instead, deny them their privacy-invading, rights-truncating, high-tech toys
and they will eventually become as effective as a f*rt in a hurricane.
For example, whenever you see a low-flying helo, VIDEOTAPE IT AND FILE A
COMPLAINT WITH THE FAA. It doesn't matter how the complaint is eventually
resolved - what counts is a) the number of complaints filed, since that
is what the politicos after the WoD/DEA funding will use to bludgeon 'em
with, and b) they MUST ANSWER EACH AND EVERY COMPLAINT through a long and
expensive process. Eats up time, money, manpower, and generates adverse
publicity for them.
----------------------------sig-----------------------------------------

section 1 of xxencode 5.14 of file sig.fil    by R.E.M.

begin 644 sig.fil
h1EcB0ZQi62gi60V0OKlg8G-5Pr7hMKsU60+UD1AoMKJeBqF+MqppRaoiMrBq
h9aBhOKBc9aJYRHsB0W+U60+U60+U60+U60+U60+U60+U60+UD47eB1YqE2Bg
hNLNZP43iN0t4QaJZPaJo9YJYRHsU9G-EIYJ4FJ7GFIEB0W+U1Ech9Goh9Goh
h9Goh9Goh9JJJFIt1HoF3F0pEFp+UQ5JWP4ZX64hZSG-aPqlgPrRn9Goh9Goh
h9Goh9Goh9Goh1EdnNKBoOKxi612UPqMURLJZPaBjN4IUBGslB0-jNW-aOKlZ
h65RfNqhZSGtkRK6U60+UMbYUIWt39Yoi1EcB0a7ZNqZi61MoB0-rOqRfNLYi
hQ5JW1EdBFXgwM2gjAIoeEmIr8o6V8mh0M2UkFYJACm72E13KLJ6vBWJC80BE
hImoa7IIuEnp2A0MhHHorCIofFWpH1EdBDI7NEngqFIAu6ZZ3CGQoLZR+9Hp-
hDXB07WYzD2wxE3MuEXUdEJx8Lod9H0sw92J+7p+aKYNTJ1RO7odL1EdBDogb
hIYJKC2pAHJYkGWx2DmEsIpxCFIshM4-LJXpBK0EoL3keBXxJEmYbCGEa9ItE
hGnpG72otBa-0GnZL1EdB8oxNJpoZJ1YlHnxD9p7SHZtEFIcV6Hcy6pRHEZxC
hBW7D6mZOB0ZF6GwsI1IYBGZ1HXYZ6JBB6JIzKoYs1EcaHGIkI02kM1AB0a+B
50aJiN+o84Uo8
+
end
sum -r/size 50287/782 section (from "begin" to "end")
sum -r/size 1475/547 entire input file

Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:59:21 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Jul30.222021.25223@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>
>In a previous article, cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) says:
>
>>>>I think the most absurd example of behavior that is termed a 'sickness'
>>>>was when that baseball player Pete Rose tried to excuse his activities by
>>>>claiming to have a gambling addiction.  From what I could tell, he also
>>>>had a lying addiction, an irresponsibility addiction, and was some kind of
>>>>sociopath because he didn't think anybody could see through it all.  I
>>>>think we have made a big mistake claiming 'illness' for controllable
>>>>behavior.  

Notice, Dave, that my statement implies only that I do not view gambling
addiction as an 'illness'.
>
>If you had spent any amount of time with large groups of 
>recovering addicts of all types, you would know that virtually
>ALL lied, acted irresponsibly, exhibited denial, and believed
>their own lies.  The disease typically causes the addict to lose his
>values, along with everything else, including, ultimately, his life.
>i
Your response implies that you are reading something into what I said that
is not what I said.  

>>> How much time have you spent studying addiction
>>> and recovery?  I've been at it for over 6 years.
>i
Irrelevant to this discussion, but I concede to you as the 'authority' on
this.  It seems very important to you.

>
>If the Pete Roses of the world get pushed into Gamblers
>Anonymous, you don't make any money.  You're biased
>against the 12-step programs for this reason.  I'd
>guess you also reject the higher power aspect, since
>many people with advanced degrees are atheists with
>inflated egos.  Likewise, anyone who is cashing in
>on government, whether in the private or public sector,
>will tend to reject any disease-type explanation or
>spiritual solution for our chronic political failures,
>because of the impact on their personal income.
>-- 
>=======================
>"Endeavor to persevere"
>=======================

Really, Dave, These are some rather inflammatory remarks to be making to
someone who simply said they disagreed with something you might feel, -
not exactly conducive to an open exchange of ideas and views, is it?  Get
a grip.

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: drk20509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (mighty odin)
Subject: Re: LSD - After effects
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:48:27 GMT

I have experienced blurry far-vision. THis is only after a recent binge,
which may be god's reprimand for abuse of such powers.


                         disturbance in progress...
                               please do not experiment!!!

	   	        	deadwolfkeiner
	                      deadwolf@uiuc.edu
	       	University of Illinois @ Cham/bana Illinois

                         (A Meta-Theoretical Odinist)
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13675 sci.med:14719
From: bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med
Subject: Re: What is the Health Risk from Smoking MJ?
Keywords: Smoking, Tobacco, Marijuana, Health
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:52:21 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

> "Marijuana has never caused a death" is a factoid that I hear quoted
> often.  And I'm not inclined to believe it.  Hasn't even _one_ stoned
> driver ever been involved in a fatal car accident?
> 
> Really, now...  Even _water_ has caused deaths.

I agree that that above statement is as stupid as it gets and upsets me
since it probably does more harm than good in the process of legalizing
hash.  I do however agree that MJ has caused few deaths due to its toxicity,
which is quite low, even at a dosage that would make one very
uncomfortable.  Certainly smoking it causes cancer, but since it contains
no nicotine, the heart attack risk must be alot lower.  Also as anything
that changes preception, driving or other dangerous work is certainly more
dangerous.  However, except in the extremely rare cases that somebodys body
sees THC as a poison, it is probably safe to say there are FEW deaths directly
related to the toxicity of cannabis alone.

                                                        Bill
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: joelong@romeo.caltech.edu (Long, Joseph Louis)
Subject: Re: What Do YOU Think.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:14:00 GMT

In article <V6igoB3w165w@toz.buffalo.ny.us>, augy@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Jeffrey Ehlinger) writes...
>     If you don't mind my point of view. I think that one of the reasons 
>that humans use drugs is to become "high", by this I mean more god-like. 
>If one looks at drugs used in religious ceremonies, the idea is not so 
>far-fetched.

I agree!  For anyone who thinks the idea is far-fetched read Huxley's
_Heaven and Hell_ he'll probably change your mind.  :-)  There was also
some interesting things that Huxley wrote/said related to this in the
most recent (I think most recent) newsletter of the Hofmann Foundation.

-joe |-)    **I know the answer is something times one plus zero**

Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13501 sci.psychology:3237