From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Junkies/crack addicts don't try to share the fun?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:11:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.184928.23092@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.194145.7491@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>>>I beleive that the Surgeon General's report on both cocaine and lsd will show
>>>the contrary.  Cocaine IS PHYSICALLY addicting because it releases endorohines
>>><sp> in the brain that produce pleasure and other various effects.  The brain
>
>I've been told that cocaine causes the release of the neurotransmitter
>dopamine.  This may be in dispute among the experts, though.
>
>>you are confusing cocaine with heroin -- heroin releases endorphins.. as far
>>as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), cocaine does not, and has a different
>>course of action.
>
>Actually, heroin mimics endorphins.  The name "endorphin" comes from
>morphine because researchers who discovered them found they had the
>same effect.
>
>>Oh really?  I've used LSD and don't consider myself psychologically addicted
>>to it.  People are addictable -- drugs are not addictive.
>
>The concept of addictive drugs exists; you can't just semanticize it away. 
>I would define it as a substance which causes a significant number of users
>to seek it.
>
>_Licit and Illicit Drugs_ cites a study of people who were introduced to LSD
>in an experiment, then their recreational use of the drug was tracked over
>the next ten or twenty years.  Nearly all of them gradually stopped using
>it.  That's pretty convincing evidence that LSD is not addictive in the long
>term, although many novice users become obsessed with the drug for a short
>period of time.
>
>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.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll -- final results
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Princeton University
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov6.234636.5475@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.194009.1842@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>In <1992Nov6.110837.5445@desire.wright.edu>  (Stupendous Man) writes:

>>>	Just wanted to make an observation here.  Does anyone remember what
>>>happened on 10/30?  The press pulled their own "October Surprise" and trumped

>>      No, the Press just reported it. Do you mean the Press should not have   

>	No, they didn't "just report" it.  They used words like "smoking gun"
>and "direct link" to imply that Bush was now irrevocably linked to Iran-Contra.
>	But later analysis proved that Casper's notes were nothing new, and
>nothing concrete.

Yes, this was the Bush defense, too.  "Nothing new?"  I don't understand
the comment.  "Hey George, you're lying about Iran-contra."  "Yeah,
well, that's nothing new."

What does *that* have to do with anything?  Of course they weren't new.
We've known for years that Bush was lying when he claimed to be
out-of-the-loop.  This just made it abundantly clear.

As for "nothing concrete," I beg to differ.  Bush claimed that he wasn't
at the meeting in which Schultz/Weinberger argued against the deal.
(Well, first he claimed he wasn't at any meeting and knew nothing about
it and had never even heard of Iran.  But that was proved wrong by many
people.)  This provides *EVIDENCE* that he was at these meetings.  It
certainly doesn't prove that he wasn't dozing off or sexually harassing
Millie or something while Schultz and Weinberger were talking, but it
proves he was at the meeting.

(Unless you're going to argue that Weinberger was lying, in notes he
took in 1986, in order to sabotage Bush's reelection effort in 1992.)

>> reported that ?   I don't seem to remember you said anything against the
>> press when they reported Wenberger was aquitted early this year. It's the
>> press's job to report this kind of news that concern the public. 

>	I don't remember you asking me my opinion :).

Side note: Weinberger was *not* acquitted.  If he had been, he couldn't
be tried again.  The charges were dismissed.  Now, worded differently, 
they're being brought again.

-- 
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: alt.drugs