HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Seizure laws
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:32:54 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <DLB.92Nov10120533@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>}This is purely my subjective summary, based upon conversations and
>}newspaper reading.  I would welcome amplification or correction upon
>}any of this.

>You appear correct.  I've just read an analysis of this horrifying policy
>published by the Cato institute in Washington, DC, which I reccomend to all
>highly.  It's truly horrifying.  The effect of the personification of the
>property is to place the burden of proof upon its owner, reversing the
>presumption of innocence so well-established a principle of justice in our
>traditional law.


I especially like the part where the government claims the right to
seize property bought by people who didn't know that the property was
used illegally 20 years ago by the owner before the seller.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
If convicted felons can't own firearms, then why in Hell
do we let GE make nuclear weapons?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use [was Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT]
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:18:06 GMT

In article <BxBLAL.83o@unix.amherst.edu> pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
}>Read my lips: less taxes, period.
}
}	I don't agree. Although the government has absolutely no legitimate
}authority to prohibit drug use, that doesn't necessarily mean that it
}shouldn't try to offset some of its negative consequences.

And where does this power derive from?  Certainly not from the Constitution or
the common law.

}	I expect you diagree on Libertarian principles which I understand
}but do not wholly subscribe to. I don't think taxation for the purposes of
}education, quality & quantity regulation, and rehabilitation poses any
}threat to people's freedom, and I think such programs do an enourmous
}amount of good.

That's precisely how we got into this mess.  The premise that the goverment
has the just power to regulate quality, quantity, potency, and to indoctrinate
is the top of a slippery slope.  Read the history of the first drug prohi-
bitions: one of the first was a purity and quality act passed in order to
bring the USA into compliance with an international treaty which was interpre-
ted by the bureaucracy assigned to enforce it (the Treasury Department, I
believe) as a prohibition.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.  That's how hemp was banned, via
a prohibitive tax, in 1937.

How do you know a restaurant has good quality food?  You hear about it from
those who've tested it, either direct acquaintances, or professional
reviewers, food critics.  There's no reason to abrogate the free market in
either regard.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7328 alt.drugs:17918
From: andru@concerto.lcs.mit.edu (Andrew Myers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: How does nitrous oxide work?
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:27:26 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


An acquaintance of mine claimed that it had an effect solely because it
"killed brain cells." This is clearly ludicrous, but can someone fill
me in on the actual mechanism?

Andrew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: What ever happened to Amy Young?
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:47:46 -0500

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

>Well, I think her name was Young.  She used to be very active here.  She
>posted from a university in Indiana - same place Paul Hager's account is
>from, I think.  Did I miss a 'goodbye' post from her?

>Sorry about the bandwidth, but she never calls, she never writes...

>  Thanks awfully,
>            Patrick

Good question.  Amy got married and is now Amy Young Leith.  None
of us have seen much of her the past couple of months.  Some of this
is no doubt attributable to the Peace and Justice Center's closure 
which means that we have to find a new meeting site.  Also, the political
season has resulted in several of us being involved in political things.
I'm assuming that normality will reassert itself in the next couple of
weeks.  For my part, I'm off to the Drug Conference.  Back next week.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:29:14 GMT

In article <BxHwJv.9CE@unix.amherst.edu> pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
}	I simply think that the free market _combined with_ government
}help would be better then either alone. I understand your reservations about
}including the government in any kind of drug education, but I think that
}with careful planning, keeping in mind who has what to gain by saying what
}when (how's that for a phrase? :), abuses of power can be avoided, and more
}people can be helped.

I don't think you really do understand my reservations, although you seem to
sympathize.  The point is that statist intervention necessarily distorts the
information.  This is done by by cutting relations between customers and
producers.  What accountability do tax-financed indoctrinators have to their
finaciers to be truthful?  Far less than those who rely on finance from
consenting participants.  There really is a necessary conflict here.

}>People self-educate themselves right now about "smart" drugs and nutrients,
}>cars, sex, and all sorts of things, often with opposition by the state.  If
}>there's a demand for this information, it will tend to be supplied.
}
}	Sure. But surely not _everyone_ will be educated by means of the free
}market; and maybe those people can be helped by government programs. Then
}again, maybe not--but don't write it off so quickly with a simple "any and
}all government is bad". The government can be denied the opportunity to abuse
}its power in the first place by supplying incentive rather than the actual
}education.

But it's my considered opinion that any and all government IS bad :-).  It's
not a caprice.  The only way I know of to deny opportunity for the abuse of
power is not to centralize it, not to let it be usurped in the first place.
It's unclear what you mean about supplying incentive, but I'm firmly convinced
of Lord Acton's claim: "Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to
corrupt absolutely."


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: cweyand@boi.hp.com (Chris Weyand)
Subject: Pittsburgh Press Article
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:28:31 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: HP Boise Printer Division R&D Lab

Could someone post or mail me information on how to get a reprint of the
Pittsburgh Press article regarding Civil Forfeiture from a year ago or so.

Thanks

--
Chris Weyand
Hewlett-Packard Company
cweyand@mail.boi.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:22:53 GMT

>In article <BxBLAL.83o@unix.amherst.edu> pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
>
>}	I expect you diagree on Libertarian principles which I understand
>}but do not wholly subscribe to. I don't think taxation for the purposes of
>}education, quality & quantity regulation, and rehabilitation poses any
>}threat to people's freedom, and I think such programs do an enourmous
>}amount of good.

Here's a point that I think a lot of people miss when they consider
Libertarian principles.  With a Libertarian government, you will not
be prohibited from VOLUNTARILY supporting education systems,
rehabilitation programs, etc.  In fact, you will be free to use your
resources to support the things that you think will do the most good.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
	Did William Faulkner have little creatures on his old typewriter?
	If so, they were the product of whiskey, which addles the brain less
	than cartoon creatures and menus and buttons that send messages to
	the screen demanding: "Abort? Quit? Try Again? Drop Dead? Exit? Go To
	Hell You Schnook?" - Mike Royko

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: Amherst College
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:19:38 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
>>
>>> Read my lips: less taxes, period.
>>
>>	I don't agree. Although the government has absolutely no legitimate
>>authority to prohibit drug use, that doesn't necessarily mean that it
>>shouldn't try to offset some of its negative consequences.
>
>And where does this power derive from?  Certainly not from the Constitution or
>the common law.

	Oh give me a break. First of all, while the Consitution nowhere
guarentees your right to drug purity, accurate labelling, or whatnot, it
certaintly doesn't forbid it either.

>>I don't think taxation for the purposes of
>>education, quality & quantity regulation, and rehabilitation poses any
>>threat to people's freedom, and I think such programs do an enourmous
>>amount of good.
>
>That's precisely how we got into this mess.  The premise that the goverment
>has the just power to regulate quality, quantity, potency, and to indoctrinate
>is the top of a slippery slope.

	Slippery slope arguments are easily abused, Tim. I don't buy that by
doing _anything_ you're risking doing something bad, so therefore you should
do nothing. Slippery slope arguments are effective when people claim that,
"doing something a _little_ wrong is worth it because of all the good that
will come from it". Censoring pornography is often defended this way with
the argument that "porn is such a bad thing that censoring it is well worth
any petty infringement on our rights". But my claim that the government
should regulate quality and quantity is of a very different sort. There is
nothing unconstitutional about taxing drugs to pay for accurate labelling
of their contents, and I never set my foot on a wet slope to begin with.

	Food (meat in particular) has been regulated for quality for decades,
and I don't see any imminent danger of beef becoming illegal. Speaking of
food...

>How do you know a restaurant has good quality food?  You hear about it from
>those who've tested it, either direct acquaintances, or professional
>reviewers, food critics.  There's no reason to abrogate the free market in
>either regard.

	I trust they have good quality food because they'd be shut down if
they didn't, especially when I'm traveling and don't know the area. You're
giving the free market credit for something the government has had quite a
large part in -- in fact, you've given a prime example of effective
government policy. Especially in cities, where there's an eternal supply of
new, locally clueless people, a restaurant could easily serve unhealthy food
and stay in business if it weren't for health inspectors.

-Peter

pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Boot camp?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:01:08 GMT

In <23789@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@vishnu.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct18.172249.7934@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.143411.158985@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:

>>>It comes from a kind of drug-treatment program that has supposedly had
>>>a fairly high success rate.  Young offenders had been offered a chance
>>>to do boot camp for a short period, or to spend longer prison sentances.

>>This is getting dangerously close to the sort of "political re-education
>>camps" popular in China during the Cultural Revolution or in other
>>extremely repressive countries. The only difference is the details of

>Sooner or later the length of sentence will depend on proper self-criticism
>and there will be a parole period during which the self-criticism must be
>reinforced. 

Don't laugh.  A case currently before the Supreme Court (actually, it
was just dismissed, for technical reasons) involves a guy who was
convicted of child molestation.

His sentence was to undergo therapy as part of a court-ordered rehab
program.  One of the requirements of the therapist was that he admit his
wrongdoing and acknowledge that he had a problem.  (Standard psychology
mumbo-jumbo.)  However, he denied that he was guilty, and refused to
"admit" his guilt.  

The Montana Supreme Court ruled in his favor, finding that the 5th
Amendment protection against self-incrimination applied here, but
Montana was appealing.  And who knows what the Rehnquist court will
allow?  

Oftentimes the sentences for crimes such as drinking and driving 
involve rehab programs like AA, and I'm sure the same thing happens there.

>             Turning in friends always helps, of course.  And then there
>is the obvious conclusion that since it is so cheap and applicable to so many
>it should be a universal community service.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Seizure laws
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:16:41 GMT

	Does anybody have a quick run-down of the state-by-state
seizure laws? Which states have them? And what is the federal policy?

Thanks in advance.

Garrett@Ingres.com 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Seizure laws
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:32:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.001641.11839@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM
(It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

	   Does anybody have a quick run-down of the state-by-state
   seizure laws? Which states have them? And what is the federal policy?

Well, I don't have such a list, but I suggest that it is irrelevant to
any decision concerning where you want to live or travel.

In most cases, the state laws are not MORE draconian than the federal
laws.  It is common practice for a state agency to transfer a seizure
case to the federal domain, and split the profits.  This is done in
states that have laws against seizure and the like.

A more relevant question is local policy on such seizures.  This tends
to change with a change at the top, and may change without any notice
at all.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: What ever happened to Amy Young?
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:09:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

Well, I think her name was Young.  She used to be very active here.  She
posted from a university in Indiana - same place Paul Hager's account is
from, I think.  Did I miss a 'goodbye' post from her?

Sorry about the bandwidth, but she never calls, she never writes...

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:54:32 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

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

Could it be that many people who normally vote for the Libertarian
candidate do so primarily as protest against the establishment
DemoRepubs, rather than any hope or wish that Libertarians might
actually run the country?  If so, then in this election perhaps
many of those people decided Perot was a more viable vehicle for
sending that protest message.
-- 
	Truth is an evaluation of a statement within a context.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico)
Subject: Re: total votes for all candidates
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:32:26 GMT

Does anyone have vote totals for various Libertarian candidates for
other races besides President? Could these results be posted prior to LP
news arriving at my mailbox (which I expect will be sometime in
December).

Thanks.

--
bill d'Amico                           Strange women, lying in ponds,
damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu          distributing swords is no basis
                                       for a system of government.
                                       -- Monty Python
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Comedy Central Election results Re: Clinton's Brother: our problem?
Keywords: Clinton's brother, Comedy Central, Buck Henry
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 21:49:06 GMT

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

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Seizure laws
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:22:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.001641.11839@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
}
}	Does anybody have a quick run-down of the state-by-state
}seizure laws? Which states have them? And what is the federal policy?
}
}Thanks in advance.
}
}Garrett@Ingres.com 

I don't know about many states, but here in CA, one of our Republican Assembly-
men, that curst conservative Ross Johnson, is busy trying to pass them.

The Federal policy is to enlist the locals and split the proceeds.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: Amherst College
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:45:37 GMT

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
>>
>>I don't think taxation for the purposes of education, quality & quantity
>>regulation, and rehabilitation poses any threat to people's freedom,
>
>If you had left education off the list, you wouldn't have said anything I
>disagree with enough to bother responding.  But government involvement in
>education is a huge threat to our freedom.  Come on, Peter, you've been
>around here a long time.  You experienced first hand the garbage they fill
>people's minds with.

	Yeah, I have. But legalization without a fully informed public would
be a bad thing. It wouldn't warrant re-criminalization by any means, but it
would nonetheless be a bad thing. I'd like to think that there is some way
the government could encourage self-education effectively. Without some sort
of education, a lot of people will abuse drugs out of sheer ignorance of
their effects (kind of like now, huh?). And that's their right, but it would
be a nice thing to try and help them avoid.

>>> [...] The vast majority of drug users find drugs a boon, not a bane.
>>
>>	I wouldn't say the _vast_ majority. It really depends on where and at
>>whom you look. In middle class areas, you'll find much healthier, happier
>>drug use than you will in lower class areas. I have lots of compelling
>>reasons to use drugs responsibly, but many others do not. In a situation of
>>economic and social stability, people don't tend to abuse drugs as much as
>>they do in situations of economic and social despair.
>
>But the "middle class" ARE the vast majority of drug users.

	I honestly didn't know that; I assumed drug use was approximately
equal among all economic classes. I'd like to see some data on this
before I'm convinced if you have it...

>[...] The vast majority of drug users have no drug problems.
>Period.  Perpetuating the myth that they do is not going to help the cause.

	If your claim about the class proportions of drug use holds true,
you may be right. But if drug use is relatively equal between classes, then
I think you're making a true statement about drug use in ideal circumstances,
not drug use in general. And I hope you know me better than to think I'm
trying to perpetuate any myths. I'm trying to get at the truth.

Thanks,

-Peter

pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: donnell@manowar.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan)
Subject: Re: Forfeiture unconstitutional in KS (was: Forfiture ... )
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:42:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.063050.11269@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) writes:
>alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves) writes:
>
>>It has been claimed here several times that forfeiture laws have been
>>declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. I have never, however, seen
>>a reference to a specific case or decision. Can someone quote a U.S.
>>Supreme Court decision that has tested the constitutionality of civil
>>forfeiture, preferably with specific reference to current drug laws?
>
>There haven't been any -US- Supreme Court decisions on this yet;
>the US Supreme Court has only recently decided they would -review-
>several cases involving property seizures (assumed `drug' cases).
>
>--
>Ron Carter \ Director \ Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
> CSCI \ Denver, CO USA \ "A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never
>  rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu \ go back to its original dimensions."  -Holmes

the worst of it is, this kind of shit is specifically forbidden in 
the Constitution. Yu cannot hold property responsible for a crime
committed by the owner, nor can you seize it.
But since when have the Government been to concerned about the
Constitution?

					--Judex--