HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: spelling this stuff out clearly
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:59:41 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <9210021838.AA02339@helium>, dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>You have that handle by the wrong end, a frequent problem in this
                             ^^^^^^^^^
>discussion. We aren't "starting" with the illegal substances. We're
>"starting" with the base of knowledge of what affects the currently
>_legal_ recreational drugs have had on our society and the health and
>well being of its citizens, and preventing the _addition_ of _more_,
>potentially similarly harmful substances, to those currently causing us
>grief. Had we known at the beginning what we know now, alcohol,
>tobacco, and caffeine would never have been legalized in the first
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^
>place.

Caffeine and tobacco legalized??  It never happened, Kent.  (Sheesh!  Talk
about having a handle by the wrong end!)  You see, tobacco and caffeine have
never been illegal (in the US, at least).  In fact, tobacco was a major
reason for colonization of North Americe, and it has been big (legitimate)
business ever since.

And when alcohol prohibition was repealed, we already knew about its
negative effects.  (not every single last detail, but we knew).

>Propose to me a likely 50% increase in my taxes to provide lifetime
>support to the drug impaired, or the more likely eventuality that my

Drug legalization would lead to tax savings.  Think of all the money spent
on law enforcement and foreign aid!

>job will disappear in the wash of lost productivity after drugs are
>legalized, so that a bunch of self indulgent brats can toke up on nose
>candy, and I prefer a government that looks out for the best interests
>of its _productive_, social contract participative citizens, however
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>much that displeases those contemptable fools who can't cope with
>reality without recreational drug support, thank you very much anyway.

If participation in a social contract is mandatory, you are a slave.

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: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.activism
Subject: Re: the eugenic approach
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 00:27:16 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep27.060234.17190@cbnewse.cb.att.com>

In article <9209252225.AA00544@helium>, dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan)
 writes:
[stuff deleted]
> 
> Until the eugenic approach is combined, legally and enforceably, with
> the denial of government largesse approach, I'm promoting the current
> situation as far CHEAPER and much LESS DISRUPTIVE of "personal
> liberties: than letting 25% of society toke themselves unemployable and
> non-functional with free or cheap access to drugs in bulk, and then the
> rest of us being indentured for life to pay their upkeep until old age
> carries them off.

In so doing, he performs a valuable public service.  How?  By demonstrating
that the War on Some Drugs is a logical outcome of the moral premises of
the "progressive movement".

Readers of alt.activism (to which this message is cross-posted, from
talk.politics.drugs) surely know by now that "every person has the Right
to have his/her health maintained by society".  This premise appears
in Mr. Dolan's posting in the form of what I call the
take-good-care-of-yourself-you-belong-to-me school of State paternalism.
Since Citizen Dolan gets a share of the tab when someone with a drug
problem turns to the welfare state, rather like a parent getting stuck
with the cost of his child's mistakes, he asserts (through the democratic
process of electing pro-WoSD officeholders) his parental authority to
set rules and give spankings for violations.

If "progressives" object that Citizen Dolan exaggerates the relationship
between the legal availability of drugs and a catastrophic explosion in the
number of people in need of welfare state entitlements (due to loss of
the ability to hold a job), he is merely following another "progressive"
premise.  I refer to the enviro-apocalyptic "trump card" argument that
gets whipped out whenever the shaky scientific bases of doomsday
projections (like global warming and ozone depletion) are challenged--
What if we really are at risk after all?  If we don't erect a massive
prior-restraint police state now, just to be on the *safe side*, don't
you know, it will be too late when we find out.

And so we see that Mr. Dolan is using no more than the "progressives"
to justify Big Brother: the "right" to health care, and the
give-prior-restraint-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-just-to-be-on-the-safe-side
mantra of the environmentalists.

And that is how America gets twisted totally out of shape on the
ProgressiVoid/prohibitioNazi axis.

A plague on both their houses.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Calif. Forfeiture laws
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:31:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Oct1.005032.9570@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

[...]
>	The reason I ask is that I'm an intern at a local 
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>newspaper and I have a chance to right up a story about it.
 ^^^^^^^^^                        ^^^^^

Based on my own experience working for a newspaper ... I'm surprised you're
not an editor.

:-), of course.

[...]

>-garrett 

--
Scott Maxwell (maxwell@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: HEMPing CLINTON/GORE in Madison
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:02:36 GMT
Reply-To: murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1484000056@igc.apc.org> bmasel@igc.apc.org (Ben Masel) writes:
<
<I had a tangle
<with Secret Service agents who told me i could'nt stand by
<enterance to one of the press busses handing out leaflets. He said
<"We own the streets." "I pay taxes here. I'm exercising my First
<Amendment Rights!" His partner grabbed my ponytail, tried to throw
<me to the ground. Shook him off. Madison police intervened, let me
<continue leafleting til bus left.  Whew.

Just in case it needs to be spelled out for anyone, this is why we DO NOT
need a "National Police Force" of 100,000 federal agents. If clinton-gore
ever gets their mail server working, this is one plank I plan to voice my
strong opposition to. (Yes, yes, I'll send them hardcopy if necessary)

-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions mine. Brainless, knee-jerk reactions are your problem.
John R. Murray murray@vs6.scri.fsu.edu  | Hello, I am a damaged .signature
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst| virus. Copy me into yours, and
Moderator comp.graphics.research        | join in the !rm -rf un *;A#$!&zQ *^P%o
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: fasano@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (Matthew John Fasano)
Subject: Re: Another Bloomington HT editorial
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: fasano@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: IUCF
Distribution:  usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:49:47 GMT

In article <BvCKD6.8sp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico) writes...
>Well the Herald Times has managed to run another partial condemnation of
>the WoD.
> 
>Quoted without permission.
> 
>A travesty of justice is being inflicted in Indiana in the name of the
>war on drugs.
> 
>Under a new state law that took effect July 1, anyone in posession of
>illegal drugs, including marijuana, must go to the Indiana Department of
>Revenue anonymously and pay an excise tax on it.
> 
>On the surface, this sounds as stupid as the state firworks law, which
>requires anyone buying fireworks in-state to use them only out of state.
>Who expects anyone with illegal drugs to declare them to the state and
>pay an excise tax on it?
> 
>But that is the whole point of this law. The assumption is that people
>with illegal drugs _won't_ pay the tax. And that is just what the state
>wants.
> 
>Why? Because if people with illegal drugs don't pay the tax and are
>arrested possessing, producing or dealing them, they are legally liable
>to a warrent by the Department of Revenue for the tax and a 100 percent
>penalty, plus daily interest.
> 
>Now it sounds like a brutally effective way to sting drug dealers,
>right?
> 
>Right. And in cases of big-time dealers of hard drugs it ought to be
>used. But not in marijuana cases.
> 
>Let it be said that we in no way support marijuana dealing or use. But
>when it comes to prosecution there is such a thing as proportionality.
>The punishment should fit the crime, not become a crime itself. But thus
>it is with this law.
> 
>- end quoted material -
> 
>Apparently some attitudes have been changing here in Bloomington. I
>doubt that the HT would have written this editorial in previous years.
>Of course they do have an easy target: this law is indeed an
>abomination. And they still haven't realized that there is no rational
>reason for marijuana prohibition to continue. We've got to keep
>hammering on that point - eventually the truth will win out, and it'll
>be legal.
> 
>--
>bill d'Amico                  | You've got to have a Cause to make
>damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu | an Effect.  -- Dill Danno

One thing about this law the editorial didn't mention is that 10% of the
tax goes to the informant leading to the arrest.  If you wanted to screw your
favorite lawyer or politician and get paid to do it,  Just plat som weed in 
their yard and inform the police when it gets big.  Another source of comerce
from our friend the hemp plant.

					Hemp for Victory
		
					matt fasano
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: An ex-President's thoughts on prohibiting a drug
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:00:42 GMT

With Democrats (especially Sen Joe Biden) trying to out drug war Bush and
his cronies Bennett and Martinez, it is easy to forget that some key
Democrats were much more libertarian on the subject as recently as 1976.

Most of today's politicaians, including Bush, Perot, and Clinton want to
raise the per capita prision population (the US already has the world's
highest) and do so by prohibiting even more activities and natural
substances by their "Anti crime" bills. 

Here were the thoughts of the last winning Democratic Presidential
candidate as printed in Playboy magazine in November 1976 and reprinted in
1992's book _The Playboy Interview: The Best of Three Decades 1962-1992_:

"You can't legislate morality. We tried to outlaw comsumption of alcoholic
beverages. We found that violation of the law led to bigger crimes and
bred disrespect for the law."  Jimmy Carter, 1976.

The current Democratic nominee says he smoked marijuana in college, but
did not inhale. One of my favorite commedians says he drank beer in
college, but never swallowed. 

If you liked Jimmy Carter's ideas, then call 1-800-682-1776 and ask for
information on Rep. Andre Marrou and Dr. Nancy Lord, the only 1992 ticket
that agrees with President Carter's 1976 statement.




Distribution:
  talk-politics-drugs internet:talk-politics-drugs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
From: hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: drugs
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:40:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

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

>In article <1992Sep25.223732.13087@bradley.bradley.edu>, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>> My point in quoting them was to refute a point that K*nt attempted to
>> make about how people would inevitably slide into decay and idiocy by
>> using drugs.  I pointed out that 75% of heroin users in a 1919 study
>> *were gainfully employed*, despite Heroin's horror reputation.  That
>> does not mean that the other 25% were unemployed BECAUSE of the drug,
>> and it does not have any relevance to OTHER drugs, but he seems incapable
>> of any real logic, so I dropped it.

>	Quite. What was the proportion at that time of unemployed people? 
>As I recall, the US was in a recession around the beginnings of the 1920s. 
>In addition, were the users, given socioeconomic status _before_ using the 
>drug, more or less tending to be employed than others of that same status, 
>education, etc.?
>	-Allen

	I'm not sure about the state of the economy in 1919, although in
any immediate post-war period, there is usually a recession as the
economy shifts from military production to peacetime commercial 
production.  However, I would observe that a large proportion of the
heroin users were female -- this at a time when women tended not to
work outside the home.  Given other material in Miller's book, I
would conclude that the opiate users were not outwardly distinguishable
from non-users.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6503 talk.politics.misc:48546 misc.legal:17845
From: paradis@sousa.ltn.dec.com (Jim Paradis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Baldur von Shirach, call home
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:36:50 GMT
Reply-To: paradis@sousa.ltn.dec.com (Jim Paradis)
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[about a munchkin who rats on his parents...]

Interesting... I remember when I was a schoolkid in the '60s... back
when "Red China" was the Second Evil Empire.  I remember being told
that one of the many horrors perpetrated by Mao's regime was to encourage
children to turn in their parents for crimes against the Party.

Can't happen here.  Nope.  No way, no how.  Uh-uh.  We're the Land of
the Free.

Not.

--
Jim Paradis (paradis@tallis.enet.dec.com) 
Working for DEC, speaking for myself.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: PCP laced joints
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:07:26 GMT

In article <9209251943.AA00362@helium> dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>Naturally, since it is utter nonsense.  Smokers, whether of
>cigarettes or of marijuana, share smokes with one another;
>it's part of the substance abuse culture.  The legality of
>the substance has no interesting effect on this.  Cigarette
>smokers don't tend to lace cigarettes with PCP before they

I missed the beginning of this thread -- are you saying that
a "friend" surreptitously laced the joint with PCP?  Some
friend... 

>give them to friends -- cigarettes cause lots of problems,
>but not loss of ability to distinguish right from wrong.

Hmm, must also have missed your post with the citation for
marijuana's causing lesions in the Moral Decisions Center of the
brain.

>obvious that increasing the ease of access will increase the
>level of use and worsten the problems, over time.

"Obvious".  Perhaps that's the problem.  It's so "obvious" that
consideration of counterexamples seems pointless.  Well, if
you waver, you might consider the Netherlands experience with
de facto decriminalization, Alaska's with actual decriminalization
and current de facto continuation thereof, or our own country's
with the criminalization of alcohol.  

You might even look at whether our War On Drug Users is a success.
What is your goal in prohibiting drugs?  Has it been achieved?
And what costs have been incurred?

>Kent, the man from xanth.

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 00:08:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <67139@cup.portal.com> <1992Oct4.203928.11368@netcom.com>

>	George Bush and Ronald Reagan (who have been choreographing our
>flight from freedom for the past 12 years) are members of the "progressive
>movement?" 

They tried it, but they didn't inhale.

No, but seriously, folks...the federal marijuana prohibition law was
passed at the height of the New Deal in 1937.

>	The only politicians with any hope of election who have advocated
>any sort of reduction in the drug war or restoration of rights have been
>"knee jerk" liberals such as Jerry Brown!
>
>>VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!

>	Sure. Throw away a few percent of the votes on Marrou (who, despite
>excellent qualifications has no chance whatever of winning), throw a few
>more percent of the votes on Parot and his fascist VP, and pretty soon the
>Bush opposition will be so splintered that he'll be re-elected by a
>minority!
>
>	Clinton is =far= from a treasure, but he's a mile ahead of Bush. Why
>not use your vote to get Bush out of office instead of wasting it. Vote for
>minority party candidates of other offices - but if you don't want Bush
>re-elected then vote Clinton for president.

There is probably an anti-tax or pro-second Amendment activist right now
saying "Sure.  Throw away a few percent of the votes on Marrou (who, despite
excellent qualifications has no chance whatever of winning)...Bush is =far=
from a treasure, but he's a mile ahead of Clinton."

Your votes cancel.

And the winner is....THE STATUS QUO.   :-(

>          Rick Adams -=*=- adamsr@ais.org -=*=- adamsr@norwich.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:39:28 GMT

Thus spake atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman): 

>Don't expect this situation to change any time soon.  Along with the
>knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of ending rent control,
>viz., "How can you *advocate* throwing people out into the street", the
>knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of charitizing welfare,
>viz. "How can you *advocate* letting people starve to death?", and the
>knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of ending the War on
>Some Politically Incorrect Drugs, viz. "How can you *advocate* hard-drug
>addiction?", the "progressive movement" has ingrained in the populace the
>knee-jerk conditioned response to any suggestion of replacing the FDA
>with a pro-choice system, viz., "How can you *advocate* Thalidomide babies?"
>
	George Bush and Ronald Reagan (who have been choreographing our
flight from freedom for the past 12 years) are members of the "progressive
movement?" 

	The only politicians with any hope of election who have advocated
any sort of reduction in the drug war or restoration of rights have been
"knee jerk" liberals such as Jerry Brown!

>VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!

	Sure. Throw away a few percent of the votes on Marrou (who, despite
excellent qualifications has no chance whatever of winning), throw a few
more percent of the votes on Parot and his fascist VP, and pretty soon the
Bush opposition will be so splintered that he'll be re-elected by a
minority!

	Clinton is =far= from a treasure, but he's a mile ahead of Bush. Why
not use your vote to get Bush out of office instead of wasting it. Vote for
minority party candidates of other offices - but if you don't want Bush
re-elected then vote Clinton for president.


-- 

                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
            The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
      over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
      prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
      not a sufficient warrant.                         John Stuart Mill
                       -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
          Rick Adams -=*=- adamsr@ais.org -=*=- adamsr@norwich.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed DEATH SQUADS in GLASGOW
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
    <1992Sep26.191133.10792@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:12:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.191133.10792@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.004410.15593@credence.com> jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:
>>>"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street
>>>with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US
>>>murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"  
>>>-  Andrew Ford
>>
>>The ones who don't realize "the other half of the country" has 80% of the
>>population.
>>Not literally true, but close enough to expose the trick.
>
>Not literally true?  You mean that the other half of the country has
>less than 80% of the population, that the other half has a
>disproportionate number of murders?
>
>Some trick.  At best, the restrictions provide no benefit....

At best, Mr. Ford is using correllational data to imply causality.  The
comparison is good for a chuckle, but it's useless for making meaningful
decisions.

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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed DEATH SQUADS in GLASGOW
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:11:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.004410.15593@credence.com> jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:
>>"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street
>>with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US
>>murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"  
>>-  Andrew Ford
>
>The ones who don't realize "the other half of the country" has 80% of the
>population.
>
>Not literally true, but close enough to expose the trick.

Not literally true?  You mean that the other half of the country has
less than 80% of the population, that the other half has a
disproportionate number of murders?

Some trick.  At best, the restrictions provide no benefit....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu