HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 07 Apr 92 22:58 PDT
Subject: MESSAGE TO CLINTON
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1484000044:000:978
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Apr  7 22:58:00 1992


IT'S OK, I DIDN'T INHALE

I 've just returned from the Clinton victory party here in
Madison.

Arrived sort of late, missed the TV crews, but the stunt was still
interesting. Lit up a joint and all the suits fled the room.
Couple of the younger Clinton fans and the volunteer coordinator
stuck around to hear a message I hope will be delivered. Told them
unless Bill admits he enjoyed the pot he didn't inhale, we will
collect the 2,000 signatures to put Jack Herer on the Wisconsin
Ballot as a Grassroots Party candidate for President in November.
Reminded them I had recieved 13,000 votes in my Republican primary
race for Governor in 1990, and that those 13,000 could be their
margin of victory or defeat in this state in November.

This stunt is repeatable. Show up at his HQ or a local function
carrying only 1 joint. Fire it up, blow some smoke around the
room. Say "It's OK, I didn't inhale." Leave a printed message.
Post an account to talk.pol.drugs.

Enjoy, Ben Masel

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Drug Czar's PR director
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:44:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs

In article <vjqjq3p.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> The big danger in letting people stop reading about the WoD is that
> they may start getting curious about the S&L, Banking and Insurance
> industry scandals again.
> -- 

We will feel the effects of these problems more and more AFter the
elections. Right now it wouldn't be prudent for our president's
re-election prospects:~)(crumpled smiley).

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: manning@cco.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning)
Subject: Re: My conversation with Bill Bailey
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:05:23 GMT

>In article <1992Apr6.155555.6999@news.cs.indiana.edu>  
>hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>> Netters may recall that I posted a quote from Bill Bailey,
>> an I.U. instructor for a drug use in society course, to
>> the effect that marijuana had never been a legal drug.
>> Bailey stood by his statement and tried to weasel out
>> by an amazing piece of sophistry: not being "illegal"
>> was not the same as being "legal".  I'd say that this
>> was a distinction without a difference.

uk09365@nx13.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>   He is saying that nothing is legal unless there is a statute which  
>specifically says it is OK.  By this measure, owning a house is not legal  
>(albeit not illegal, either) unless there is a law passed which says that  
>you may own a house.  I smell bullshit.

This reminds me of recent discussion in alt.english.usage about the
phrase "the exception that proves the rule".  The bottom line was
that it was a translation of an old (latin?) legal phrase which
meant that a law stating an exception to a right indirectly
recognized that right.

So a law taxing homeownership would imply that a right to own a home
exists.  And a law taxing marijuana would imply that marijuana use
is permissible.

I doubt that this legal principal is part of our current legal
system, if only because there are laws on the books taxing drugs.

<<<<<<<<<< Evan M. Manning ======= manning@alumni.caltech.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous)
Subject: Noriega Convicted
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:23:19 GMT

Well, it looks as if Operation Just (Be)Cause is a success.  Yesterday
(April 9), Manuel Noriega was convicted on eight of the ten drug and
racketeering charges brought against him.

Oh I just love this!  200 Panamanian citizens, 300 Panamanian soldiers and
23 US servicemen were killed.  Why?  So that some pathetic little dictator
could be dragged through a farce of a trial where he was illegally arrested,
where all of his assets were frozen making defense lawyers shy away from him,
where his supposedly priveledged communications with defense council were
listened in on by the prosecution, where convicted scum of the earth coke
thugs, enticed by the possibility of lighter sentences, were prosecution
key witnesses, and where key defense documents were ruled inadmissable for
national security reasons.  National security reasons, Hmmm...  Wonder if
that has anything to do with Mr.  Bush's dirty little meddlings in Central
America while he was the big enchilada in the CIA?

Perhaps this is an attempt by the current administration to "send the right
message" to the rulers of tiny third world nations.  The message being "Do
what we say or we will use the full furor of our military machine to pluck yo
out of your country and dispense summary justice at what is effectively a
drumhead trial".  It is interesting that the government chose drug peddling
as the justification for this fiasco.  Perhaps they are also trying to
simultaneously "send the right message" to the US citizenry with respect to
there extraordinarily successful (successful at terrorizing the average US
citizen, at least) War On Drugs .  This message being "We busted Noriega's
ass and it was tough.  Think about how easy it will be for us to mess with
you if we get the itch."

From what I hear, Noriega is a ruthless asshole.  If this is true then
perhaps he deserves some sort of punishment.  I don't think it is right to
once again trash the US constitution while doing this.  I don't think that
it is any of the US's goddamned business in the first place.  Noriega was
stupid to get Bush and his posse pissed.  I really doubt that what he did
to anger them had anything to do with the cocaine trade.  Then again, maybe
Noriega wanted a piece of the action (cocaine trade) that US backed
governments and insurgency groups seem to have cornered.  But we'll never
know, because of "national security" reasons.  Doesn't it seem that in the
context of this trial that the "national" in "national security" is
synonymous with "George Herbert Walker Bush"?

Excuse me while I go puke.

Mike Watrous

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,ca.politics
From: oliver@oak.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver)
Subject: Right, left and uppercut
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 19:09:10 GMT

In article <rlkc7INN176@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> kkruse@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Korey J. Kruse) writes:

>The meanings of right-wing, left-wing, etc...are probably debated very
>much, but for your sake I will give you my own definitions of them.

>right-wing : the conservative or reactionary element in an organization.
>left-wing  : the liberal or radical element in an organization.

These usages, though widely accepted, are simply gibberish.

A 'conservative' is someone who opposes political change or desires that
it should proceed slowly.  A 'liberal' is someone who espouses the philosophy
of individual liberties and limits on state power as elucidated by John
Locke, John Stuart Mill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, etc.  These are not
necessarily opposed; if you live in a liberal society (and we do, though
not liberal enough), then to be liberal is to be conservative.

The proper antonym for 'conservative' is not 'liberal' but 'progressive';
the correct antonym for 'liberal' is not 'conservative' but 'authoritarian.'
And the watered-down socialism that went by the name 'liberalism' in the
1940's through '70s in this country is not really very liberal at all;
for example, for the state to decide for me which products are too dangerous
for me to purchase strikes me as quite authoritarian.

>If you go to
>the extreme right wing you will find such groups as Nazi's & Fascists.
>The extreme left wing form of government would be Communism.   Most
>people in America fit somewhere in between these extremes.

Oh, great.  What I understand from this is that most people in America
support total state power and the absence of any individual rights whatsoever,
but that their rationale for this is "somewhere between" promoting the
ascendency of the Aryan race and serving the interests of the proletariat.

I don't have enormous faith in the politics of the average American, but
it's not quite as bad as that.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Oliver 
UUCP:...!{ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!oliver
ARPA: oliver@math.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:23:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.202319.4395@udel.edu> watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous) writes:
>Oh I just love this!  200 Panamanian citizens, 300 Panamanian soldiers and
>23 US servicemen were killed.  Why?  So that some pathetic little dictator

Oh God!  I hadn't thought about this.  Thanks for posting the numbers,
that's good for shocking people into realizing how outrageous this stupid
war is becoming (something I'm doing at every chance these days).

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2917 alt.drugs:7642
From: uk09365@nx13.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: My conversation with Bill Bailey
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:17:30 GMT
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr6.155555.6999@news.cs.indiana.edu>  
hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
> Netters may recall that I posted a quote from Bill Bailey,
> an I.U. instructor for a drug use in society course, to
> the effect that marijuana had never been a legal drug.
> Bailey stood by his statement and tried to weasel out
> by an amazing piece of sophistry: not being "illegal"
> was not the same as being "legal".  I'd say that this
> was a distinction without a difference.
   He is saying that nothing is legal unless there is a statute which  
specifically says it is OK.  By this measure, owning a house is not legal  
(albeit not illegal, either) unless there is a law passed which says that  
you may own a house.  I smell bullshit.

> . . . . He is an ardent prohibitionist -- of
> everything (alcohol, tobacco, etc.).  He does not have
> tenure.
     At least he's consistent; unlike some of the PDFA types.
> 
> I think that Bailey should be made to defend his
> statement and I intend to put him in the position of having to
> do so.
      (Despite what I commented about consistency) I think you could try  
to paint him as the extremist he seems to be.
> -- 
> paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
     I don't know anything about this man or your campus; but I get the  
impression that he is probably funded by State or Federal Anti-Drug  
organizations rather than (or in addition to) a regular faculty salary.???

RIK
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2772 alt.drugs:7322
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:57:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr7.235729.16809
 <1992Apr1.152447.4981@newstand.syr.edu> <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.152447.4981@newstand.syr.edu> mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu writes:
> [...]
> I think that all of today's so-called "drug-rehab" centers are bullshit.  
> Through my high-school years, I have known 8-10 people who were forced by
> their parents into these programs -- all of them continue to do the same
> drugs as before.  NO-ONE can seize their addiction without the serious 
> willpower to quit.  NO-ONE should be 'forced' into rehab by anyone else.

	Although ones based on methadone treatment (when they aren't 
closed down by idiotic WOD (sorry for the redundancy) types), from what I 
know, have a reasonably good success rate. I am not speaking of the 
involuntary ones, BTW. But methadone has the nice effects of 1: satisfying 
the addiction; 2: making using further narcotics non-pleasurable.
> 
>>Also there seems to be a double standard that use of pot and acid
>>is OK and creative (but aren't regular users addicted?) but other drugs
>>(coke, smack,speed) are bad (because they are so good???  DOes that
>>mean the people are using drugs they don't like so that they won't
>>get addicted???  I mean, isn't that like saying I don't want to
>>have fun becuase if its too much fun I'll want to do it more?)
> 
> I've met very few people who use pot/acid on a super-regular basis (ie.,
> every day.)  Of these people, I don't think anyone wouldn't be able to handle
> a few weeks or even a few months without a toke/trip -- I can't recall the
> last time I heard of someone steeling his parents stereo system to support
> a 'weed addiction' or 'acid addiction'.  After a long day of being stoned or
> tripping, the user doesn't feel the urge to immediatly drop more acid or smoke
> more pot (at least in my experience).  On the other hand, after a super-
> orgasmic coke rush, a user might want to do another line, etc. -- until its
> all gone.
> 
	Unsurprising, given the crash (lack of whichever neurotransmitter 
(I don't have a textbook handy) it is of which it causes non-recycling).
	-Allen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:56:52 GMT

allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:

>	Although ones based on methadone treatment (when they aren't 
>closed down by idiotic WOD (sorry for the redundancy) types), from what I 
>know, have a reasonably good success rate. I am not speaking of the 
>involuntary ones, BTW. But methadone has the nice effects of 1: satisfying 
>the addiction; 2: making using further narcotics non-pleasurable.

Methadone is similar to morphine in its effects, except that it is effecive
oraly and has a longer half life.  The 2nd part is not really accurate.
Methadone produces a narcotic high of its own, and methadone use is in no
way incompatable with concurent heroin, morphine or cocaine use, and it
actualy potentiates the effects of marihuana.

The idea that methadone somehow 'blocks' a heroin high may stem from
the effects of very high dose methadone maintenance.   An addict may be
maintained at such a high dose of methadone that he is tolerant to
all but prodigious doses of narcotics.    An addict on a 10-40 mg/day
scedule of methadone would not only have no trouble getting high on
smack, but he might get even more high because of the additive narcotic
effect of the methadone.

Like all narcotics, methadone will alleviate narcotic withdrawl, but as
an addiction 'cure' for people who like to get high on heroin, methadone 
substitution is useless.   They invariably switch back to (or continue to
use) heroin simply because heroin is better.

Methadone withdrawl, where the user is put on a diminishing schedule of 
methadone, is still an approved method of alleviating withdrawl discomfort.

Methadone maintance programs, where the user is given a steady daily dose 
of methadone as a substitue for heroin, were I believe, criticized because
they merely got the addict hooked on a different narcotic.  I think they
were percieved as being against the party line of the War on Dangerous
Drugs of the 1960s and 70s.
 
It's a shame, I think.   There are plenty of junkies who would be fine
if they didn't have to hustle for dope all the time.   I would have 
methadone maintance as something that any doctor could perscribe at his
own discretion.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: news from the front
Summary: near beer and crack babies
Keywords: hypocrisy
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:39:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: seqp4.1235
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.


Two items caught my attention this week.

1) Newsweek ran a small article on the "crack baby"
myth - basically a report on a study of babies born
to cocaine addicted mothers.

The conclusion of the study was that cocaine by itself
does not pose a serious risk to newborn babies.
The study was not complete - premature babies were not
studied, and the effects of cocaine combined with other
drugs i.e. the effects of a drug abuse life style on
pregnancy were also not examined.

However, the drug warrior myth of urban hospitals crowded with
screaming writhing cocaine addicted babies, is just that,
a myth.

2) Near Beer is going to be banned for sale to minors in a
Massachusetts town (Quincy I think.) Despite the fact that
non-alchoholic beer is not a controlled substance, the good
citizens of this town, through their city councillors, intend
to prevent young people from drinking something that even looks
like beer. Presumably root beer will also be banned, along with
chocolate cigarettes. 

This is all really a bad dream isn't it?


-- 
-Mark Roddy
Sequoia Systems, Inc.          (508) 480-0800 x1284
markr@seqp4.sequoia.com        m2c!seqp4!markr
From: mike@PENGUIN.GATECH.EDU (Mike Gourlay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Atlanta Hemp Rally
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:33:58 GMT

There's going to be a hemp rally at Peidmont Park in Atlanta this weekend,
April 11-12.  I just found out about it, and I don't know anything else.
As a matter of fact, what I just typed might not be totally true (meaning
it might start on the 10th, today.)

I live in Atlanta very very near Peidmont Park.  If anyone plans to be there,
and you want to say hello to me, send me some mail and we'll make plans.

-Mike
------- -- -------
Michael J. Gourlay                                mike@penguin.gatech.edu
                "It's me; I've been ionized...." - Buckaroo Banzai
Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Physics, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
From: stewart@aeras.uucp (StewArt AnewForm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: parents reaction
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:32:17 GMT
Reply-To: stewart@aeras.UUCP (StewArt AnewForm)
Organization: Arix Corporation, San Jose, CA.

In article <1992Apr3.205924.5083@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> app45293@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ZUSS) writes:

>   I was thinking, Bill "short of breath" Clinton's admission was quite like
>the admission my friend gave to his parents when they found out through 
>relatives that he'd smoked pot:  "Well, er...yeah I tried it...once, but
>I didn't like it."  This is the same as Ginsberg and Thomas's reaction.
>---Is this some kind of instinctive alibi for when the keepers find out you've
>   tried drugs?

when i actually mentioned to my parents that i had
been smoking pot for several months, they were really
curious about it and wanted to try some.

cool

me

next time i go home, i'm taking some with me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Subject: The Libertarian Party and the space program
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:33:52 GMT

I came across an FTP site that contained some documents related to the 
Libertarian Party ('America's third largest party and the fastest growing',
they claim...).  One of these was the 1992 party platform, which included
a small plank on the space program.  Here's what it says:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. SPACE EXPLORATION
 
We oppose all  government restrictions upon  voluntary peaceful use of
outer space.  We  condemn all international  attempts  to  prevent  or
limit private exploration,  industrialization, and colonization of the
moon, planets, asteroids, satellite orbits, Lagrange libration points,
or any other  extra-terrestrial resources.  We  specifically call  for
the repudiation of  the U.N. Moon Treaty.  We support the abolition of
the  National   Aeronautics   and   Space   Administration   and   the
privatization of all artificial satellites.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not suprising, considering this is the Libertarian Party...

(Incidentally, this plank was at the tail end of the platform...For the
full platform, as well as other Lib. Party documents, check out the
anonymous ftp site at think.com, in the directory /pub/libernet)


-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
  "American catfish are not good at earthquake predicting.  They're only good
    for eating." - Yasuo Baba, Tokyo Metropolitan Marine Experiment Station
From: jremer@ub.d.umn.edu (Jeremy C. Remer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party and the space program
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:19:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth. Information Services.

In article <mikew.702929479@kpc.com> mikew@kpc.com writes:
>mickey@chopin.udel.edu (Mickey McCarter) writes:
>>Interestingly, the Liberterian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Dr.
>>Nancy Lord, just gave a speech here (at the University of Delaware)
>>two weeks ago.  She mentioned that she and her running mate endorse
>>S.D.I., which seems strange for a party that wants to abolish most
>>federal agencie (including NASA eventually).

I thought SDI was a government project THROUGH NASA.  Why would they want to
eliminate NASA?  That would sound like quite a loss.  What companies would
then operate SDI?

What federal agencies are we talking about?


-- 
University of Minnesota, Duluth.
Jeremy Remer
E-mail  jremer@ub.d.umn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Buying "Soviet" technology?
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:34:38 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Apr7.143743.1@woods.ulowell.edu> murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>This may be an old question, but...

>Has anyone come up with a good reason why this country CAN'T / SHOULDN'T buy
>the Energia Heavy Booster?  I am a college student, very into space
>and politics, and I am baffled by this concept of not getting what's best for
>the country, and our space program.

Well, it depends on whether it is actually good for our space program or not.
If we start a U.S. manufacturing plant for Energia boosters, it's a not-
unreasonable idea, but if we just want to buy them from the CIS, then we're 
asking for trouble.  Besides, they can't make them any more, since the 
plant making the Zenit boosters (which are part of Energia) got shut down 
and converted to something like toaster-ovens.

-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "Being next to Dorsai is a slow form of
Georgia Institute of Technology      the 'dissolve' command..."
Office of Information Technology    
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu                  - Banzai, Merc V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space