HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:33:59 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Sep15.030425.4936@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
>I was alone.  It was at the entrance to a National Recreation Area,
>the day of a Desert Storm Victory Rally, and I was a safe and sane
>distance away from the main crowd (because I'm no fool :-)
>They *had* invited everybody, after all...
>The cops first told me to leave, and then started coming up with park
>rules I was supposedly violating, like erecting signs on park property
>(I was holding it in my hands), and they made it real clear that if I
>didn't leave they would keep escalating the process.  I moved about 50
>feet outside the front gate, so I was out of their jurisdiction.
>But it was clearly content-based censorship.

It does sound like their intent was to violate your right to free speech. 
If you (or anybody) ever do this again anywhere near Washington, DC, I will
be there as a witness.  I don't own a video camera (yet), but I'll see if I
can borrow one. 

Realistically, the worst thing they can do to you is lock you up for the
night.  Then you can file a civil suit for false arrest.  If you dread
spending the night in jail, I'll carry the sign, but only if I agree with
what it says.

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,alt.drugs
From: gaspar@inf.ethz.ch (gaspo)
Subject: Re: Quote from MJ Recons.
Organization: Twilight-Zone-Algorithms-Incorporated
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.180609.24943@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson) writes:
>I just got done reading "Marijuana Reconsidered", and I found this
>[..]
>To paraphrase, "marijuana is for smart people, alcohol is for
>conformists."  Okay, that's reading a little into it....

No, I don't think you're reading anything thats not there.  Alcohol is a
toxin to our bodies.  MJ (except for the smoke carcinogens) isn't.  Just
because the social acceptance is non-reflective of this, doesn't mean we
all have to be lemmings.  

If we were all conformists, we'd all be dead.

--gaspo.

- Scott "gaspo" Gasparian / Dept. Informatik -    |    - Umwelt    -
- Stabstelle Software / System Administrator -  \ | /  -  Schutzen,-
- ETH-Zentrum,  CH-8092 Zurich,  Switzerland -  _\|/_  - Rad       -
- gaspar@inf.ethz.ch     /   +41'01'254'7205 -   '|`   -  Benutzen.-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 10:46:41 EDT

In article <1992Sep2.234829.25589@news.cs.indiana.edu> hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:

>>Clinton: I don't have the same view of the crime issues as you have. I
>>came here from across the river in North Little Rock, talking to a
>>couple hundred kids -- and their parents -- who participated in a
>>midnight basketball league the mayor started and we helped him with.
>>It's one of the reasons we've had a significant decline in crime on
>>that side of the river this summer as compared with last.
>
>What???  Two hundred kids are the source of the crime problem?  This
>is the looniest thing I've ever heard in my life.  Isn't that the
>only conclusion one can draw from this statement, that the decline
>in crime came about because 200 kids started playing night little
>league?

You can't draw the conclusion that they are the source of all crime--but
there is much truth in the old proverb about idle hands.

This is the basic idea behind programs like the Boy's Club, etc.

The fact of the matter is that programs like that do work, in the short term,
to reduce some crime (and midnight basketball leagues have apparently been
successful in a number of places) and, perhaps, have long-term effects
also.


>>Almost all of them I was talking are black almost all of them are
>>middle- or low-income people. Crime's a real big deal to them. They
>>feel very threatened, and they were very pleased about this 'cause
>>they thought it gave their kids a chance to do something good and to
>>be part of something good.
>
>So 200 kids and their parents felt good and crime miraculously fell.
>Even if there was some kind of a decline, there can't be any correlation
>at all.

This does not particularly follow.  The "feel good" is related to the
presumed long-term effect of such programs.  The Boys' Club hopes that
by funneling kids' energy into constructive things, there will be a long
term benefit for those kids (and society).

But there is also a definite short-term effect, due to the fact that some of
those kids might, otherwise, get involved in destructive things.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: "Crime File" - Forfeiture Laws
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:18:00 GMT

In article 3L4@wrs.com, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
>If I find out where to get transcripts of the show, I'll post a followup.

I called the show's distributor, and they gave me an address for the
production company:

	CF Productions, Inc.
	2233 Wisconsin Street NW
	Suite 310
	Washington DC 20007

I called 202-555-1212, but they didn't have a listing.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
          To sight it must ring clear as a bell, it must snap
          in the ear, feel pleasantly sticky between the fingers,
          smell fresh and tempting and taste heavenly.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6179 alt.drugs:15456
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:05:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
: 
: In a previous article, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) says:
: 
: >Just because you have a chip on your shoulder with respect to researchers
: >and would like to discount their work with any convenient excuse
: >DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
: 
: I have serious doubts about ANY research done with government funding.

Instead, you would rather rely on the little bit of research that has been
done by the group when it studies itself. Talk about a propensity for bias.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 13:07:05 GMT


In <189hdlINNbff@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>Sixty years ago, the consensus of the medical community was that
>alcoholics were hopeless.  They didn't mean the ones who could
>quit on their own.  Then along came A.A. to blow the doors off
>that "hopeless" bullshit, and the professionals have resented it
>ever since.  Especially the atheists.  I can't for the life of me
>understand why the question of the existence of God is such a
>hot issue with some people.  I always thought eliminating the
>threat of nuclear war was WAY more important than that.  Must
>be an ego thing.

Why don't you look in a mirror or something.  "Especially the athiests",
indeed.  Sounds like you are in serious need of someone to feel superior
to.


You don't seem to get something here:  No One is saying that A.A. isn't
a good thing in some cases.  They are saying that you ranting about how
EVERYONE who "really" is an alcoholic is INCAPABLE of any cure except
A.A. is ridiculous, and completely without solid evidence.  Just
because you have a chip on your shoulder with respect to researchers and
would like to discount their work with any convenient excuse DOES NOT MAKE
IT SO.

The FACTS of the matter are that many people CAN and DO kick addictions
without outside help--it's a matter of finding something more important
for their life.  That something may be church involvement, it may be A.A.
or it may simply be an appreciation for what life CAN be.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
        People say that I'm out of touch with reality.  That I'm insane.
    Sometimes I forget things.  Who I am.  Where I am.  Unimportant things.
                       But I'm not insane.  I am a tick.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6180 alt.drugs:15457
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:02:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
: 
: In a previous article, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) says:
: 
: >Bullshit. Addiction does not presuppose trouble - at least, not in any
: >commonly accepted definition. 
: 
: If a person doesn't get into any trouble---legal trouble, job trouble,
: family trouble, financial trouble, physical trouble, mental trouble,
: ANY kind of trouble---then no one will accuse him of having a problem,
: so he's NOT an addict.  No one EVER goes to treatment or A.A. unless
: he's in SOME kind of trouble.

Dave - your greatest problem is that you live in another universe from
the rest of us. Your definitions are not accepted by the medical community
or the government. I doubt if they are even accepted by AA.

One thing to get through your head.  Listen carefully please - it has been
said many times before, but you appear to refuse to listen. At least, you
have never refuted the statement. Ready?

Use does not equal addiction does not equal abuse.

To complex? I will break it down.

Use does not equal addiction.
Use does not equal abuse.
Adduction does not equal abuse.
Abuse does not equal addiction.

: Trouble is the ONLY reason why I accuse politicians of having an
: addictive-type problem.  If we didn't keep getting into trouble
: (war, debt, economic foobars, etc.), I would have no objections at all.

See above.

: >People such as you describe generally have problems greater than their
: >addiction. The addiction is a symptom, not the cause of their problems.
: 
: True.  The real problem is self-will run riot//fear (lack of faith)//
: lack of humility//lack of self-awareness//lack of honesty.  It's
: basically a deficiency disease.

Among others.

Bill
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: The Health Freedom Act of 1992
Date: 7 Sep 92 05:34:26 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

> In my opinion, one of the worst bureaucratic nightmare agencies of the
> US government, besides the DEA, CIA, IRS, and others, is the FDA.
> I believe you should abolish the FDA, for various reasons, which could
> be discussed later in life,

It's worth being a little more fine-grained here.  The FDA is indeed going
overboard prohibiting drugs (even vitamins!), but it also does some real
good things with food inspections and keeping drug companies honest.  I'd
like to keep around some agency that:

- Can inspect food to make sure it isn't diseased or full of toxic
  chemicals, and bring criminal charges against anyone selling anything
  dangerous.  It's the reduction in the FDA's ability to inspect chicken
  meat and eggs, that's responsible for the HUGE increase in salmonella
  cases over the last decade.  Bringing criminal charges is an essential
  part of this - a civilian organization just can't cut it.

- Can block drug companies from making false claims about their products.
  If you read Consumer Reports, it's clear that drug companies will take
  any opportunity to make fraudulent claims about the drugs they sell, and
  it's damn near impossible to get correct information out at a saturation
  level that matches labels and drug ads.  Again, the agency needs the
  ability to bring criminal charges against companies that persist in lying.

I'd draw the line here.  *Preventing* drugs or vitamins from getting to
market doesn't make anyone safer, it's just paternalism at work.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Civil Forfeiture -- A letter to the local paper
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:41:50 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <135429@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) writes:
>I have been reading "Drug Legalization:  For and Against," and one of the
>arguments advanced in many of the articles against legalization is the
>likelihood of an increase of drug use.  Specifically, it is often argued
>that a drug with strong potential for abuse, such as cocaine, if made 
>easily available for low cost with known purity, would result in an increase
>of users.  The position taken is that keeping such drugs illegal provides
>enough disincentive to most people that they will not risk trying the drug.
>Removing that disincentive would result in many (one can only speculate on
>how many) more new users, some portion of which would likely suffer the
>consequences of drug abuse.
>
>I will personally admit to having some gut feeling that if cocaine were
>legalized, and one only need wander down to their local pharmacy to pick some 
>up, use of cocaine would go up.  This is perhaps the one point the
>prohibitionists have made for which I am unable to find a rebuttal.  However,
>the conclusions they draw from an increase in drug use (societal depravity)
>are different from those I draw.

It is indeed difficult to predict what would happen if cocaine were
legalized in this country but we can try to make some educated guesses
based on past and present experience.

Let us just assume right now that legalizing cocaine will increase
both the casual use of the drug and the abuse of the drug. I would
argue that increasing casual use will have little, if any, negative
effect on our society. Today, for example, it has not been shown that
the casual use of illict drugs effects job performance. Increasing the
number of casual drug users is not going to plunge our country into
economic despair. Increasing the number of abusers, on the other hand,
will cause a negative drag on our society by increasing the burden on
our social care services and our health care services. Whether or not
this added burden is offset by the freeing up of tremendous amounts of
resources now spent on trying to enforce our drug laws is debatable,
but I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives.

So in the worse case scenario, you have to ask yourself if freeing up
over 15 billion a year that is spent on fighting the WoD (some of
which could potentially be used to help those who need it), unclogging
our judicial system, restoring our rights, etc., etc., offsets the
negatives that increased abuse will bring, and to a much smaller
extent increased casual use will bring.

If you believe the positives outweigh the negatives, then even if
legalization increases usage, legalization overall will still be a
good thing.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: dhollind@leo.ece.uc.edu (David Y Hollinden)
Subject: Request for info
Originator: dhollind@leo.ece.uc.edu
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:50:45 GMT


I seem to remember seeing a U.S. Surgeon General's report that
ranked legal and illegal drugs according to levels of physical
addictivity.  Can anyone give me a pointer to this report -- 
the year it was issued, or the location of an on-line copy or
summary?

Thanks.
-- 
David Hollinden             |  The only organized political party with a
dhollind@thor.ece.uc.edu    |  Christian vision of morality is the 
Repeal the 16th Amendment!  |  Libertarian Party.   --  Walter E. Williams
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:10:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.104642.10053@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
}there is much truth in the old proverb about idle hands.
}
}This is the basic idea behind programs like the Boy's Club, etc.
}
}The fact of the matter is that programs like that do work, in the short term,
}to reduce some crime (and midnight basketball leagues have apparently been
}successful in a number of places) and, perhaps, have long-term effects
}also.

Yes, but when was the last time you saw a bootlegger pushing bathtub gin at
a playground?  Prescription cocaine costs about $7/oz.  When I ran the numbers,
the street price of cocaine was $15k per kilo, according to a cousin of mine
who's a New York State Trooper.  I don't know what the price is now, but at
that price, the black market price is about 400 times that of prescription.
This provides an enormous incentive to market the product aggressively, and
since willingness to break the law is at a premium on the black market, this
aggression makes no distinction between consensual and coercive distribution.

Furthermore, since minors receive preferential treatment from law-enforcement,
there's heavy incentive to recruit minors into the business.

Before 1914, all drugs were safe and legal.  Alcohol prohibition made a drug
unsafe and illegal, as has drug prohibition.  Prohibition always has three
effects: it raises the price and the potency, and decreases the quality of
the product.  Alcohol prohibition gave us bathtub gin and shoot-outs between
rival bootlegger gangs or between the bootleggers and the cops, with heavy
casualties on both sides and innocent bystanders.  Drug prohibition has given
us crack and shoot-outs between crack gangs, cops, with heavy casualties on
both sides and innocent bystanders.

If you want to maximize the lives of kids, we must repeal drug prohibition
now!


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: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:35:31 GMT

In article 26987@henson.cc.wwu.edu, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>I have yet to see any evidence that automatic weapons are commonly
>used by gang-bangers.

Anecdotal evidence:  I live very near Oakland, and it's not uncommon to
hear automatic weapons file on many nights.  Whether they're being
fired by gangs or cops or somebody else, I don't know, but the sound is
unmistakable.

gak

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
          To sight it must ring clear as a bell, it must snap
          in the ear, feel pleasantly sticky between the fingers,
          smell fresh and tempting and taste heavenly.

*"Gang-bangers".  Feh.  Who the hell thought that one up?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6166 alt.drugs:15415
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:33:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <18c57aINNleu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>In a previous article, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) says:
>>Just because you have a chip on your shoulder with respect to researchers
>>and would like to discount their work with any convenient excuse
>>DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
>I have serious doubts about ANY research done with government funding.

You seem to miss two things here as well:

1) Not all research is government funded.
2) 90% of government funded research that is dishonest wrt drugs is
finding them harmful and impossible to kick.  That's the line the
government wants to push, since it furthers the drug war.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                      I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:52:01 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette

In article <1600000010@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>You may presume this to be true, but you certainly do not _know_
>it.  Judging by their statements, precisely the opposite is true.
>You would be hard pressed to find a stronger or more knowledgable
>supporter in Congress of research and technology development than
>Al Gore.

	Senator Gore is not running for President.
	Bill Clinton is.

	The vice president rarely has any important duties
	and is unlikely to influence national priorities.

	Please remember that Gore was specifically selected
	to lend needed credibility to Clinton's candidacy.

	Do not presume that he will be allowed to do anything more
	simply because you admire his policies.
							Gerard Vignes
	
-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Keywords: Shuttle
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:23:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.020949.12286@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>Then, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) replied:
>
>>As it currently stands Shuttle and Freedom together spend all the money
>>which could go toward a Shuttle replacement. NASA therefore intends
>>to use the Shuttle forever.
>
>Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least"
>until 2005, but not much beyond that.  12 years != forever.
>
>No word on where a Shuttle replacement might come from, or how it
>would be funded.

I, personally, believe a Delta Clipper, HL-20, or NASP-derived vehicle will
be funded very shortly after PMC (well, probably EMCC).

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton