HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Rehabilitation Question
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:35:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

ibarrett@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (I G Barrett) writes:
: I am wondering whether controlled, reduced usage is an accepted way to treat 
: abuse of a drug? e.g. drinking more moderate amounts of alcohol rather than
: abstaining completely.  I would think this would be a better way of dealing
: with the problem because you would then perhaps be less likely to go on a binge
: since you are not attempting to deny yourself, something which often seems to 
: lead to binges whether its alcohol or ice cream. 

Sigh, one of the symptoms of the problem is the inability to stop drinking
until drunk.  I can't explain it, just report it.  Moderation and alcoholism
are oxymorons.

: Is it really necessary for us to get the person to stop using a drug?  Surely
: the main aim should be to help them reach a balanced state, something which theythemselves are happy with?  i.e. using drugs does not interfere with other 
: things in their lives which they consider important (things like work, hobbies,
: relationships etc.) - we each have things which we consider important.

That should be the aim and would be really nice if it were possible but
I don't think many addicts would disagree that it's all or nothing when
you get to that level.

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

Stomp out intolerance!

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Subject: Re: Advertisement in the UK Times..
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 04:47:13 GMT


bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church), writes:
>In article <70429@apple.Apple.COM> morley@Apple.COM (John
>Morley) writes:
>>ignorance in the UK.  I'm delighted to see the quote from
>>Jimmy Carter.  After 12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayle, its damn
>>refreshing to think back to happier days when politics didn't
>>always have to mean maximum hypocrisy.
>
>You seem to have a strange definition of hypocrisy. 
>Bush/Reagan think drugs are evil and will have you locked up
>for selling them. Carter says they're ok but still locks you
>up. Which is the most hypocritical?
 
Bush/Reagan are hypocritical because they consider all drugs 
except those with powerful lobbies as evil; hypocrisy is when 
you call drugs evil, but allow alcohol, tobacco, synthetic THC,
caffeine (coffee) to be "good".  Carter just wanted to have
them all regulated equally, and recognized that the journey to
total legalization needed to be taken in small steps of
decriminalization.
 
Bush/Reagan are both hypocritical and stupid.  Carter was 
smart and not hypocritical (attempting to jump straight to 
legalization is stupid, because the past 50 years of drug 
criminalization has produced enough social inertia to block 
any jumps straight to legalization).
 
-- 
______________________________________________________________
\ bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)                 \
 \ Pro-Choice, Anti-Censorship \ My reality check just bounced.\
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: WANTED:CANNABUS Seeds
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:56:15 GMT

In article <lamontg.711857873@milton> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>I just wondered if you realized that what you just did was kinda like
>walking into the computer room at the NSA and FBI while shouting
>"DAMMIT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY KILLER BUDS ON 'EM?!?!?!?!!"

Lamont,

It may be a good idea for you and others to remind yourselves that not
everyone posting to alt.drugs (or other newsgroups) lives in the same
country you do.

Note that the person you are lambasting is posting from Europe and stated
he lived in the Netherlands.  His posting site is "tu-berlin.de".  He is
not from the US and could care less what the NSA and FBI think.  Of course,
if he ever tries to emigrate he might have problems.  But I doubt it.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"A straight line may be the shortest way between two points but it is by no
 means the most interesting."
					-The Doctor
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: bz206@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph Hack)
Subject: Re: Freebase=Crack
Reply-To: bz206@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph Hack)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 06:32:25 GMT


In a previous article, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) says:

>rfrazier%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Robert Frazier) writes:
>
>>	This has been a question of major debate between my friends.
>>Is crack the same thing as the freebase people make from cocaine?
>
>>	If so, why is crack so much cheaper.  I have seen tv show busts where
>>10 or 15 dollar bag of crack looks a lot bigger than the expensive powder
>>cocaine.  
>
>They are the same thing, "crack" is freebase with all sorts of crap
>(baking soda, sugar, etc), in it to bulk it up.

One wonders why people get so many crazy ideas about drugs.  This sort of
shit is why!  Has anyone ever found SUGAR in their crack?  I think not.
If you are going to spread bullshit to the net, James, at least make up
some phony references to back it up like everyone else.

The part about baking soda is true, however, but it is not added to
"bulk it up".  The baking soda is used to remove the HCL ion from the
the cocaine, and as with most street drugs, it is a dirty synthesis,
so lots of baking soda ends up in the final product.

>The crap does nothing but add weight and/or allow you the pleasure of
>sucking burning crap smoke into your lungs.   It is simple to purify it,
>and then you have freebase.

Yes, but even if you don't purify it, you still have freebase.  Just an
impure freebase.

>>	I believe they are the same thing.  I have never tried them to know
>>if they produce the same effects.  I have heard that crack is a rawer form
>>than processed cocaine, and so it is cheaper.  And that you can turn cocaine
>>back into the crack, but you are starting from the more expensive processed
>>form.
>
>base + crap = crack.   Crack - crap = base.   Cocaine powder + baking soda
>turns into crack, and then is purified into base.

Yes.  Purified with ether, usually.

>>	Oh and by the way what is "ice"?
>
>	A fantasy.  Or, according to _Time_, "an epidemic that
>	is sweeping the country".

Since Jim has never seen it, it is a fantasy.  I wouldn't say it is an
epidemic, but various drugs are being sold on the street at "ice",
In these parts, many things pass for "ice" even though nobody knows
what "ice" is supposed to be or do for you.  Usually, what people
call ice is actually Intellex/Aminorex.  I suspect the "ice" in other
areas is something else altogether.  Thats what we have to put up with
as long as drugs are illegal.

Joe
From: honig@siam.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Subject: Re: lsd baseball rumor
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Reply-To: honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Organization: UC Disneyland, Dept. of Info. & Comp. Sci.
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:33:46 GMT

 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.223145.29992@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>> I'm writing another paper for my psychology class on LSD, and was wondering
>> if anyone has a reference to that claim that some baseball dude pitched
>> a no-hitter on acid, or whatever.  (If no reference, at least a name to the
>> baseball dude what be appreciated.)
>
>You're probably thinking of Dock Ellis (Pirates 68-75, Yankees 76,
>traveled extensively 77-79), although my memory is a littly hazy
>on the circumstances.  Bill Lee (Boston 69-78, Montreal 79-82)
>had some involvements with altered states, of course.
>Dates from the MacMillan _Baseball Encyclopedia_, which sadly
>doesn't have a "Stoned Register."
>
>Christopher Gunn	Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab
>SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN	Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall
>913-864-4428 or -4495	University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS  66045

Article 15938 of alt.drugs:
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: carcinogenicity of mj smoke com
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:30:21 GMT

mbcamps@hubcap.clemson.edu (Matt Campbell) writes:
>My roomate and I are having a battle over what is the primary carcinogen
>in cigarettes/MJ.  I beleive that the group of chemicals termed as "tar"
>is the primary carcinogen in cigarettes, my roommate charges that Nicotene
>is the primary carcinogen (thus low MJ cancer risk).  Who's right?

Nicotine isn't.  Benzopyrine is the "primary" carcinogen or at least its
considered the marker chemical for all the rest of them.  You are more
correct that he is.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
From: mmadsen@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Subject: Sci-Fi Drugs
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Reply-To: mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 26 Jul 92 02:34:17 GMT
Distribution: usa

Science fiction novels often have "military drugs" designed to make soldiers
faster, cooler under fire, more aggressive, etc.  What current drugs could
conceivably have these effects?  (Is there anything that would increase your
reflex speed?)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Psychological Addiction
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:50:46 GMT

mhergert@esk (Mark Ivan Hergert) writes:
: >
: 	I'd just like to make a point about Pyschological addiction to
: Marijuana.  I am speaking from personal experience ,from friends in
: the same situation and from information i obtained ( That was put 
: out by an anti-drug movement but was what i considered an un-biased
: report by someone who had studied drugs for many years, yes i will
: get the reference if i have to).  There is more to Marijuana than
: one thinks and most of the bad effects start when you actually stop
: using it for about a week.  Now i'm talking about moderate to heavy
: use here.  I don't consider once a week use to be harmfull at all.
: In fact i don't even consider heavy use to be actually harmfull,
: but when you have been smoking almost every day for weeks on end,
: you eventually gain a tolerance to it.  You don't get High any more
: you just get stoned. Now when you stop smoking it for whatever 
: reason, that tolerance you have developed has to abate itself and
: is characterised by th 'ol hooner blues that many people suffer
: when they stop using it.  The point i'm getting at is that a 
: lot of people don't need much nudging to realise that by
: continuing the use they will avoid the awfull down depression
: that often persists for weeks after discontinuing use.

Hm. Then there are those that need less to get stoned/high after
they have been smoking for a while. And there are those that do
not get high at all. 

: Therfore, it is not just a matter of a pyschological addiction
: ,but a physiological component does play a great part as well.

Your conclusion does not follow from the data - nor does it follow
from the medical research, which show that any addiction that develops
is psychological.

You can be depressed for months or years if your spouse/lover leaves
you. Does that mean you are physically addicted to that person? Hardly.

Bill
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: LSD->Insanity (ooh, scary!)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:24:57 GMT

mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones) writes:
: 
: A short while ago someone brought up the old "take <n> hits of LSD
: and you're legally insane" story, but I don't recall any conclusions
: being reached.  Well, that old chestnut came up again during a
: conversation, and I thought I'd try again.
: 
: First off, is there any such statute sitting around in some state's
: lawbooks (probably CA's)?

From the searches that have been done - no one has found any such statute.

: If so, can anyone dig it up?  Or is there some other similar idea which
: might have been mutated into the above story?  Or, is it pure bullshit
: which has spread out of control?
: 
: Friends of ours from all over the country all have heard the same
: story, though the number <n> changes from person to person.  If it's
: bullshit, it sure has spread well.

I think your answer is in the stories. Ever heard of an urban legend?

Bill
From: remke@cs.tu-berlin.de (Jan K. Remke)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Natural vs syntesized.
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:42:33 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany

I wrote against chem drugs because of baaaad experiences with LSD.
(Side effects, unnatural behaviour, a messed up brain 4 hours...)
If there are chemicals WITHOUT that feeling of loosing the ground
under your feet, than tell me, but with L. I'm finished...

Yours:
Jan.

-- 
Jan K. Remke, Postfach 304041, W-1000 Berlin 30, Tel. auf Anfrage...
remke@cs.tu-berlin.de / remke@nostromo.sub.org (Planet Earth sytems)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus loves you - Problems remaining: Worldwide Terrorism on Earth !
From: ww1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Spaulding Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: anything about DMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:36:24 GMT
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

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?
FAQ-sheet anybody? 
Adversities anybody?

    ~wig, curiosity killed the cat, maybe I'm next
From: mhergert@esk (Mark Ivan Hergert)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: THC
Keywords: THC
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:26:05 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston

In article <2fgmcmg@lynx.unm.edu>, balzebub@lacerta.unm.edu (Mike Decker) writes:
>
>
>I am curious about THC... Is it indeed released by heat?  How is it
>absorbed by the body?  Is it separable from the smoke?  
>
>I am quite disturbed by the amount of black resin which accumulates 
>in paraphnelia... what must the lungs look like?  :(
>
>Is it possible to filter out some of the black -stuff- without also 
>filtering THC?  If THC is a gas, it seems possible to both inhale THC
>and filter goo with the simple addition of a wet cloth over a mouth-
>piece.  
>
>Just curious.

When THC is burnt some of it is converted into Cannabidiol (CBD), which
is yet another principapl canabinoid out of the estimated 2000 different
ones contained in Marijuana.  Delta 9, TetraHydraCannabinol (THC) is of
course the pricipal alkaloid and like most alkaloids when sythesised
comes out as a beuatiful pure white powder.  THC is absorbed into the
body through all the common mechanisms.  Through the blood vessels in
your lungs(smoking it) , through the stomach (eating it), i suppose
you could inject THC Intraveneously, although i wouldn't have a clue
as to the dosages needed.  Also another titalating tit-bit of   
this-is-only-off-the-top-of-my-head-and-may-be-wrong information is
that only 1% of the Canabinoids actually passes through the blood 
brain barrier into the Cerebral Cortex and all the other parts
that rythme with Hippoputumus. Anyway, must stop dribbling, i
have a life to get on with. Bye!

P.S. Have you tried the tissue of the bong trick to see how much
	shit you actually breath in.  Do it. If you want better
	lungs, smoke joints.  You won't get such a great hit,
	but it may be worth it.

*_-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_*####################################
:                                         :                                   #
: "When logic and proportion have fallen  : AARNET:                           #
:  far be dead, and the White Knight is   : mhergert@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au #
:  talking backwards and the Red Queen's  :                                   #
:  off her head...Remember what the       :     Psuedo Intellectual Hippie    #
:  doormouse said: Feed your head,        : of Radical and Chaotic Persuasion #
:                  Feed your head..."     :                                   #
:                                         :       UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA      #
:          - Jefferson Airplane           :           - Launceston -          #
:                                         :                                   #
*_-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_._-=-_*####################################
From: joelong@romeo.caltech.edu (Long, Joseph Louis)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: LA Times : "Long LSD Prison Terms--It's all in the packaging"
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:41:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>Excerpts from the LA Times Front page article, 7/27/92:
>"Long LSD Prison Terms--It's All in the Packaging"
>Today, Dunmont is serving a 15 year, 8 month sentence at the Federal
>Correctional Institution in Sheridan, Ore.
>Five years are for the three grams of LSD; the rest, more than a decade,
>is for the 440 grams of paper on which the drug was carried.

I saw this piece in the news paper Monday and wanted to post about it, 
but found that I couldn't even think about it without becoming totally 
PISSED OFF!  This whole thing is SO unfair it's incredible... I can't
believe that this could happen in the United States!  WHAT A CROCK OF
SHIT!  Next someone is going to get a speeding ticket for driving 10000
MPH because they had to take the spin of the Earth into account!

>LSD is like do it yourself brain surgery...
What an asshole!  GET A FUCKING CLUE!  This guy needs some brain
surgery, but I don't know that he should do it himself.  :-)

l8er,
joe
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: What is the Health Risk from Smoking MJ?
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.092348.23625@newshost.anu.edu.au> (David Tomlinson) writes:
}... legalisation/criminalisation based on health issues is
}fraudulent as the only consideration on the part of the
}goverment body is whether they can gain revenue from the
}legalisation/criminalisation of something.
}
}Does this make sense?

No.  Every time we pass a law banning something we give the criminals a
new source of tax-free income.  If the government were concerned only with
revenue most drugs now illegal would be legal and heavily taxed (as they
should be, IMHO).

Government is concerned only with obtaining, maintaining and wielding
power.  To the individual politico, this translates to getting elected and
staying elected.  If that means appeasing the voters with ill-considered,
but popular, legislation, so be it.

(Followups to alt.drugs -- which I don't follow).

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: joelong@romeo.caltech.edu (Long, Joseph Louis)
Subject: Blotter art / Paper question
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:28:00 GMT

To whoever posted the blotter art GIFs:  Those are pretty cool, thanks!

While I was lookin' at those I remembered a question that I was gonna
ask a while back and forgot.  I was curious about where blotter paper
comes from.  Does the dude who dips the sheets go down to his local
printer and say "look I need some really absorbant paper, perforated 
into 'bite size' squares.... oh and while you're at it print some 
cartoon characters, flowers or cocks on them or something!"  I was just
wondering how they come out lookin' so professional, but I guess if
there are companies that mass produce bongs there are blotter paper
makers too, eh?  If so it would be interesting to get from them
statistics on how many they sell in a year... I bet it's a lot more
than most would think.  |-)

-joe            "It was tough living with my parents.  No wonder
                 I was always comin' home high on pot and LSD."
                                                 -Howard Stern
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: mbcamps@hubcap.clemson.edu (Matt Campbell)
Subject: Re: Bob's death
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:17:01 GMT

It doesn't seem ABSOLOUTELY INCREDIBLE that Bob just happened to injure
a toe THAT WOULDN'T HEAL (?!?!) ... PLAYING SOCCER (?!?!) ... and just
HAPPENED TO HAVE CANCER OF THE FOOT (what the HELL is that!??!) all at the
same time?   Something is fishy.  I'm not saying anyone's wrong, but this
is ridiculous!

Matt
mbcamps@hubcap.clemson.edu

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: 30 Jul 92 01:59:08 GMT

David Vessell writes:
>>> exposure to a substance does not guarantee addiction.
>> Depends on the substance and the exposure.
>> Which is all I said.
> What you said is that there is a class of substances where 'mere
> exposure' causes addiction.  So which is it?

Both.  I take it you think there's some conflict here?

Let S be the class of substances where mere exposure causes
addiction.  I assert that P is not the empty set.  I assert
that S is a proper subset of A, the set of all substances.

If you would like to discover whether a given substance s1
is a member of P, well understood procedures are available.

> I stand by my statement that no substance can cause 'instant addiction'

You're welcome to.  At no point have I said anything to the contrary.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Home production of Methanphetamines
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:10:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.014726.24149@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au> mhergert@esk (Mark Ivan Hergert) writes:
>>>It is true that you can use one of the ingredients in nasal inhalers
>>>(pseudoephedrine) as a starting material for meth,

As has been pointed out before, this is not an ingredient of nasal inhalers.
It's levo-desoxyephedrine, AKA levo-methamphetamine.  There's no way to
get this to isomerize.

>	Not that it really matters if it's not Crystal Meth, as long as
>it's relatively safe and it gives you a good high it's worth it.  

No, and no, and no.

>	There is also 60mg Psuedoephedrine HCl contained in your regular
>old cold tablets.  I was wondering if it would be possible to use this 
>instead of the Vicks Nasal Inhalers and what extra process would you
>have to go through to extract it?

Dextro-pseudoephedrine (the ingredient of Sudafed) isn't a potent
stimulant in itself.  Reducing this would produce one of the two
isomers of methamphetamine, but the details here are beyond my
interest and knowledge.  It doesn't strike me as straightforward,
and the typical reducing agents (such as LiAlH4) are both dangerous
and are watched chemicals.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs