HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Good News: Great Anti-WoD article in a teen magazine!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:24:16 GMT

In article <la4tt3INN31i@boogie.cs.utexas.edu> swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
>Sassy is building a reputation for levelling with teens, even if "grown-ups"
>don't like it.  I remember hearing some time ago that some cosmetics
>companies like Maybelline had pulled their ads because they thought Sassy
>was giving too-explicit sex advice.

Oooh, and now they'll be taking heat from warriors, too.  I repeat my call
for a show of support.  Buy the magazine, and/or write to them:
  Jane Pratt, Editor-In-Chief, Sassy, Sassy Publishers Inc, 230 Park Avenue,
  New York, NY, 10169.

Thanks for the info, Janet.  If someone can be more definate about the 
companies that have pulled out of Sassy advertising, some of us may find
that information usefull.

  Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.185336.27994@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
>of Clinton ....  aarrgh.  I'd almost rather have Richard Nixon back -
>at least you could call him what he was, in public, without being
>tossed in jail.... 

Are you saying you would be arrested for making negative statements about
the president?  That is a very serious allegation -- if true, Freedom of
Speech is history.  I say we challenge it right now.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey,JDLY,)
Subject: Re: Fort Wayne: Landlords Must Evict Drug-
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:08:40 GMT

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
>>What happens if the eviction proceedings drag out for longer than 30
>>days?  Have eviction proceedings *EVER* been completed within 30 days,
>>ANYWHERE?
>
>If eviction proceedings for people known to be evil drug users or sellers
>"drag out" for more than an hour or two, it will be the fault of bleeding
>heart liberal judges and leftist loony lawyers from pinko outfits like the
>ACLU.  When this is revealed, the public will demand tougher laws, so judges
>can no longer continue to force decent, honest landlords to house evil
>druggies.  A good approach might be to send the police over to empty the
>apartment immediately and forcefully, before the bleeding hearts get a
>chance to cry for these scum.
>
>>What happens when a competing landlord installs his mother in my
>>building as a tenant, and her job is to suspect and report any and
>>all tenants or prospective tenants except herself of dealing drugs,
>>so his building will be full and mine will be empty?
>
>What happens?  Why, they seize your building, of course.  After all, you keep 
>renting to druggies.
>
>>Not to mention such things as tenants "considered innocent until proven
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>guilty", "due process" and things like that.
>
>NOW you've got it.  You're not to mention things like that.  Only guilty 
>people are concerned about that crap.  If you're innocent, you have nothing 
>to worry about.  They're doing this to protect decent people like us.  Oh,
>yes: and our children too.
>
>If you have any more questions, just let me know.  I think I'm getting
>this new world order thing figured out pretty well.
>
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick

Damnit, Patrick!!  I almost blew some cerebral arteries reading this, till I
reached the "punch line."  You better start using a SARCASM ON disclaimer or
I may be forced to find a pinko ACLU lawyer who will help me sue you for
mental anguish from reading your posts.  After all, based on your previous
postings, I was totally unprepared for the words I was reading! :-)
---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com
   TI pays absolutely no attention to me or my opinions; therefore,
   the foregoing posting cannot possibly represent TI's viewpoint.
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Smoking as a Drug Delivery System
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:14:27 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

It occurred to me yesterday that smoking is a drug delivery system
where nicotine is the drug and smoke is the trransfer agent. It is my
impression that most health hazards associated  with cigarrettes come
from the tars in the smoke. I read once that one drop of nicotine
applied to the skin of a rabbit would kill it. What are the long term
health hazards of nicotine (as opposed to cigarrete smoke) injestion?
Thanks.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6015 talk.politics.guns:20300
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Clinton/Gore Haven't Responded to This...
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:18:46 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting


To the CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM

========================================================================





                  Response to the CLINTON/GORE Position

			ON CRIME AND DRUGS





Despite the radical differences between the Republican and Democratic

platforms, both parties still agree on taking ever more drastic measures

to fight crime. Neither party will admit the truth: that the War on Drugs is

in fact the major cause of crime in the U.S. Today.



While I am no fan of drugs of any kind, I and many others (Milton,

Friedman, William Buckley, The Economist Magazine, etc.) think that the

War on Drugs is more damaging to society than the effects of legalizing

drugs would be.



Consider what legalizing drugs would do:



Strip gangs of the ability to make money (to buy guns) from drug

sales.



Eliminate the shootings occurring during currently illegal drug sales.



Reduce deaths from comsumption of impure or adulterated drugs.



Make drug sales tax revenue available to fund drug treatment programs for

people with drug dependencies.



Get rid of civil seizure and noknock searches.



Eliminate the violence inflicted on innocent citizens by Out-of Control

Swat Teams.



Provide major relief to court systems and prisons currently completely

clogged by drug-crime cases.



In general, make America a much less violent country, as did the

elimination of Prohibition in the 30s.



The major premise that drugs are dangerous to society is propaganda,

not fact. The relatively benign effects of currently illegal drugs is

thoroughly documented from mostly government sources in Richard

Miller's book "The Case for Legalizing Drugs" (Praeger,1991).






-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:50:59 GMT

In article <17j3hdINNnt9@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>>
>>As long as they believe that the only choices are Bush and Clinton,
>>and anyone else is "wasting your vote"...
>
>I've often heard Libertarians lament the fact that many people will
>vote for a candidate from a major party in order to help ensure the
>defeat of the candidate from the other major party, when they would
>in principle rather vote for the Libertarian candidate.
>
>Why don't the Libertarians, then, institute a voter-matching service
>that links like-minded Democratic voters with like-minded Republican
>voters.  Each pair makes a pact, between the two of them, to both vote
>Libertarian, and their joint action has no effect on the relative
>numbers of votes between the major-party candidates.
>
I've been kicking this idea around for a while.  We do *not* need some
centralized bureaucracy to get this done.
The people that are paired up should be from the same state and should trust
each other.  Each voter interested in such a pact is uniquely qualified to
find a suitable counterpart All By Himself or Herself.

The only thing we need to do is get the word out about this idea.

-Mark

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
   control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things
   that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
   principles upon which our government was founded.
                                        -- Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: LECTURE ON LEGALIZATION
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:59:33 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Boston University


                              Jeffery A. Miron
                         Professor, Dept. of Economics
                              Boston University

                               will lecture on

                  The Pro's and Con's of Drug Legalization: 
                            An Economic Analysis


The use of illegal drugs is widely viewed as one of the most
important social problems of modern societies. Contmeporary
observers often claim that the use of illegal drugs promotes crime,
increases the spread of AIDS, corrupts law enforcement officials and
politicians, produces or exacerbates poverty, and erodes the moral
fabric of society.

This lecture will present an economic analysis of drug legalization.
It will suggest that most of the social problems commonly attributed
to the use of illegal drugs result instead from government prohibition
of these drugs, and it will argue that the problems created by drug
prohibition reflect the nature of goverment prohibitions rather than
the nature of illegal drugs. The implication is that drug legalization
may be a far more attarctive policy option than is generally believed.


Date: Thursday, September 17th, 1992
Time: 7:00p.m. to 9:00p.m.
Place: The Tsai Perfromance Center, 685 Commonwealth Ave., Boston
       

Question and Answer session follows lecture

Sponsored by the Dean, College of Liberal Arts, 
and Dept. of Economics, Boston University

Lecture is open to public and admission is free.

For additional information, please call:
(617) 353-4263 or
(617) 353-4396



Don't respond to me, I just thought someone might be interested.
Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6041 alt.fan.dave_barry:616
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.fan.dave_barry
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:00:18 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <BtpGHq.3tJ@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>David A. Butterfield's .sig says:
>>                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
>
>Now, wait a minute...Dave Barry has selected Quayle to be his running
>mate.  His reason:  he can't afford to give up such a great source of
>material!

You left out the campaign slogan:

	Just what America needs: two middle-aged white guys.


Dave (no relation)
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
The heart and the mind on a parallel course, never the two shall meet.
						-E. Saliers
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6127 alt.drugs:15342
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:47:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
: 
:  wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) says:
: 
: >] People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.
: >
: >Oh, nonsense - I've spent most of the last 5 years addicted to caffeine, 
: >but occasionally I quit, without help from any treatment programs, AA, etc.
: 
: Any alcoholic can quit drinking.  They just can't STAY quit.

Bullshit. This is one of the AA generalizations that get in the way of a
person being able to recover.

My father was an alcoholic. One day, he decided he had had enough and just
quit. He never had a drink for the rest of his life. In other words, he quit
for over 40 years - without any 'help' from AA where people would tell him
that he would not be able to stay sober.

So, your statement is disproven by example. I am sure there are many others.
Of course, you can always say that my father was not an alcoholic. I am sure
you know better than the doctors.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6121 alt.drugs:15328
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 4 Sep 1992 05:10:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman) says:

>>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.
>
>Bullxxxx.  Maybe by you're definition, and you're entitled to your own reality.
>I've heard a lot of definitions of addict, but this isn't one of them.

My definition:

   An addict is someone who keeps getting into the same kinds
   of trouble, over and over again, even though he doesn't 
   want to.....but STILL thinks he's in control!

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.fan.dave_barry
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:56:13 GMT

David A. Butterfield's .sig says:
>                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!

Now, wait a minute...Dave Barry has selected Quayle to be his running
mate.  His reason:  he can't afford to give up such a great source of
material!

---
gak			Vote Barry/Quayle in '92!
gak@wrs.com		
attmail!gakhaus!gak	
107/H/3&4		(I am _not_ making this up!)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6109 talk.politics.misc:43532
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NHRA announces Piss Testing
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:19:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Distribution: na
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>
>Keep in mind that NHRA is marketed as a family sport and looks to uphold a 
>family image.

     Pissing in a bottle - what could _possibly_ be more pro-family?

>In response to (2), if there is some type of drug which _improves_ neuro-
>muscular reaction time, it's news to me.

     News Flash: There exist drugs called "stimulants" which improve
response time.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
      "There are some microorganisms that exhibit characteristics of
       both plants and animals.  When exposed to light, they undergo
       photosynthesis and when the lights go out, they turn into
       animals.  But then again, don't we all?"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6100 alt.drugs:15294
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 3 Sep 1992 05:23:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) says:

>Assuming for the sake of argument that the numerous studies from
>different research groups in the US and UK (at least) that have
>consistently found that a large proportion of addicted people outgrow
>their problem without treatment were all mostly government-funded, I'm
>still trying to figure out what government funding has to do with this
>conclusion.

People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.
The common sense conclusions drawn from the "research" you cited
are pure A.A., minus the higher power.
So "science" first tells a lie to discredit the self-help programs,
and then tries to claim credit for what has already been discovered.
The scientific bureaucracy is just as abusive and full of egotistical
pork-barrelers as any of the other bureaucracies.  When are you going
to get honest???




-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6038 alt.society.civil-liberty:5620
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Good News: Great Anti-WoD article in a teen magazine!
Date: 31 Aug 1992 14:48:51 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: boogie.cs.utexas.edu

In article <H42ZPB8w165w@korova.uucp> system@korova.uucp (razorback) writes:
>doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>> A hard-hitting slam of the drug war appears in this month's (get this!)
>> "Sassy" magazine, a life-style magazine aimed at, I gather, 7th through 10th
>> grade girls!

>i have found that you can lead a bowhead to knowledge, but you cant make 
>them think.

>hell, i would have read it...if i read anything fluffy like that...

If you read it, you'd realize it isn't so fluffy.  Sassy is building a
reputation for levelling with teens, even if "grown-ups" don't like
it.  I remember hearing some time ago that some cosmetics companies
like Maybelline had pulled their ads because they thought Sassy was
giving too-explicit sex advice.
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Satanic Crime units?? Re: WoD: Frontline Report
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:39:32 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>	The US Supreme Court...has...ruled
>	that those provision of the Constitution which
>	use the term "people" apply only to members of the
>	American national community...

Well, shucks...maybe the Nazis weren't violating the rights of "people"
when they butchered the POLISH Jews...imagine my surprise...


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson)
Subject: Medical MJ in CA?
Originator: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:57:55 GMT

I recently heard a snippet on NPR, which unfortunately I wasn't
listening to carefully at the start, and then was so surprised that I
missed most of the rest of it.  I thought I heard something like:

	The Santa Cruz board of supervisors has voted unanimously to
	legalize marijuana for medical use.  They have declared that
	residents will not be arrested for marijuana possession if
	they have a written prescription from their doctor for an
	existing medical condition.  The new law only applies to San
	Francisco residents.

Obviously I mis-heard either the "Santa Cruz" or the "San Francisco"
part of the message, but can anyone fill me in on the rest?  Which
city was it, and how much can they actually do, given that most of the
laws are state and federal?  Can they legally keep city police
officers from enforcing particular state laws that they disagree with?

Randy
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Socialist Worker's Party: Drug Policy
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:13:38 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>
>Anyway, I thought there ideas weren't so bad, but I still haven't
>found a political party that I'm totally enthusiastic about. I
>looked into the Libertarians (I know a lot of the people on this
>board are), but I don't like the free-market economics. I also
>don't like total socialism. Does anyone know of a party that is
>libertarian on social issues, but believe in a mixed economy?

     I wish I did. If you find one, let me know. If I had time and money,
maybe I'd try to start one...there seem to be quite a few people who
are looking for a party with a strong civil liberties stance and a more
reasonable economic theory than the Socialists ("Let the govenment control
everything, and life will magically be beautiful") or the Libretarians
("Let an unregulated free market control everyting, and life will magically
be beautiful"). 

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
      "There are some microorganisms that exhibit characteristics of
       both plants and animals.  When exposed to light, they undergo
       photosynthesis and when the lights go out, they turn into
       animals.  But then again, don't we all?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random ReOrganization Generator
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:53:36 GMT

In article <n6bn+vk@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
]hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
]>So, go to it, netters.  Let's give the Clinton people something to
]>think about.
]My note to him is simple.  The only imaginable thing worse than a second
]Bush administration is a Clinton one.

Pretty scary, eh?  If I weren't voting Libertarian, I'd be busy
wondering whether it was worth voting for Bush, simply because we can
only have four more years of him, while we could get eight more years
of Clinton ....  aarrgh.  I'd almost rather have Richard Nixon back -
at least you could call him what he was, in public, without being
tossed in jail.... 
-- 

				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced ...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs