HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@resonex.com (Dan Kell)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.privacy,alt.society.revolution,soc.culture.usa,alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Please Feed the Spooks
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:48:41 GMT
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Jul23.192150.8185@ampex.com> russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) writes:
>In article <cass8806.99@elan.glassboro.edu> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.063823.22045@Princeton.EDU> spencer@burn.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
>>
>>>Use alt.cascade, please, that's what it's there for.
>>
>>what exactly is a "spook" and why is it always so hungry? and is there 
>>really an alt.cascade?
>
>SPOOK - generic term for an employee of one of
>        those "black" organizations such as
>        Secret Service, CIA, NIA, NSA, etc...


Also used as a reference to people who work for Defense contractors in 
classified positions that don't allow them to talk about their work. At all.
Like "I'd tell you what time I get to work, but I'd have to kill you."


>
>SUPER SPOOK - refers to someone specifically in
>              the NSA: the ones who gather information
>              about everything but share it with no one.
>
>-steve

And don't forget: CLUELESS SPOOKS



aka Dan Qualye and George Bush.


-- 
Dan Kell                  
email to dan@resonex.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."   A. Einstein
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Pot group can adopt highway (AP article)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:45:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) writes:
: 
: From a short AP article (26 JUL 92)...
: 
: State highway officials who barred the Ku Klux Klan from
: a highway cleanup program said a group seeking to legalize
: marijuana can participate.  The Arkansas chapter of the
: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or
: NORML, meets state criteria for the Adopt-a-Highway program.
: 

Hey, in Arkansas too.  Hmmm, perhaps a good omen.  I want to see these
two guys have a shot at it before I abandon hope.  Sorry for the
political message but these two are the first to emerge from my, the
Woodstock, generation and I'm damn curious to see how we handle power.
Sure there are a lot of us in congress but only now are we really
coming to power.  I'm hoping for good things.

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

Stomp out intolerance!
From: mdr@ocf.berkeley.edu (Mike Rogoff)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Ecstasy
Summary: Lookin' for info
Keywords: sorry
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:30:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu


   I'm sorry to waste a post with this, but I'm looking for 
information about ecstasy....I couldn't find a FAQ for this
newsgroup (where is it?) and was hoping somebody could
direct me to a good book about it.  I'm interested mostly
in effects (short term, long term, side effects, etc).  Also,
if someone has a good article handy why not stick it in the mail?
Thanks a lot.....

Mike

mdr@ocf.berkeley.edu
From: ppennane@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Petrus Pennanen)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cultivating T. Peruvianus
Date: 19 Jul 92 11:06:20 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <njamac-.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>They aren't suppoed to be placed beneath the soil I believe. 

That's right.

>Off the subject, the 8" T. pachanoi I bought spurted about a half inch
>on planting and have only gained about another half in the two months
>I've had them. 

Well, have you given it enough nutrients? What about pH?

From Natural Highs FAQ:

MESCALINE-BEARING CACTI

Cultivation: (from seed) Sow the seeds an inch apart on the surface of 
sterilized, moist, sifted cactus mix. The pH should be 4.5-6.5. Cover 
the tray or pot with an airtight plastic bag. Place in bright but indirect
light for 12 hours a day at less than 30 degrees centigrade. Don't let the
temperature get too high, and check to make sure the soil surface is moist,
but not too wet. A fungicide may be needed.

Cactus seeds will generally germinate in 1-3 weeks. When the seedlings
are about 2 cm tall (60-90 days for fast-growing species) transplant
them to individual pots. Handle them very cautiously and use moist soil
with pH 4.5-6.5 in the new pot. A good soil mix is 1/3 normal flower soil,
1/3 peat and 1/3 coarse sand or gravel. If you're growing a Trichocereus,
water once a week with a concentration of a flower fertilizer normally 
used for flowering plants. Don't use standard plant fertilizers, as they 
contain too much nitrogen.  Bright light is needed 12-18 hours a day, and
the temperature should be 25-35 'C.

The easiest way of propagation is taking cuttings. Cut the mother plant
with a clean and sharp knife leaving 5-10 cm of it above ground. Cut
back slightly the edges of the cut to ensure that the new roots grow
downward. Place the cutting in vertical position to dry for 2 weeks to a
month depending on the size of the cutting. The compost where they are
placed after this should be very slightly moist, not wet.

For more information about growing cacti read e.g. Cullman, B|tz &
Gr|ner 1984: Encyclopedia of Cacti, Alphabooks A&C Black, ISBN 0-906670-37-3.
--
Petrus.Pennanen@helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: What Do YOU Think.
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:33:43 GMT

chrisb@wixer.cactus.org (Chris Blandy) writes:
>As far as I'm concerned, there are two distinct types of drug users, those
>who enjoy the mind-altering effects of drugs (the "buzz") and those who take
>drugs to medicate an illness.  Note that illness should not be considered
>just the traditional "sicknesses."  An illness treated by alcohol, for
>example, is alcoholism.  As far as risk-taking is concerned, if that is the
>basis for drug use, then it is _not_ a psychological problem (although
>conservative traditions may say so.)  There are, as far as risk-taking is
>concerned, two basic personality types: Type A, who do things for 'thrills'
>and Type B, who do not 'thrillseek'.  Drug use would most likely fit the Type
>A personality, and being a thrillseeker (ie jumping out of airplanes, etc.)
>is _not_ a psychological problem, rather a profile...

I'd love to know where I fit in.  I'm a predominantly Type B that takes drugs
for various reasons.  I'll take lots of shit just to experiement with my
neurochemistry and neuropsychology.  For example, I was trying to get ahold of
some crystal meth last year just to experiment with the effect of massive
dopamine release on my brain -- I'd also like to experience the kind of
euphoric pleasure associated with large doses of it, in order to test if it
is truely *that* addictive or if I've been fed a line of bullshit.  LSD I
would use under semi-controlled conditions as a tool to knock down and
expose psychological walls in my mind, or in order to get different and
extraordinarly lucid perspectives on various parts of the world.  MDMA I would
take for both recreational purposes and to fascilitate communication between
someone I knew.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: sorgatz@avatar.tti.com (sorgatz)
Subject: Re: ketamine hydrochloride
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:38:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.213636.25649@unixg.ubc.ca> pdivine@unixg.ubc.ca (Patrick Devine) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.164356.24731@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>
>>"Shrooms" and "Ganja" are also chemicals.   If you
>>take drugs, you are taking chemicals.
>>
>
>If you BREATHE or EAT or DRINK or LIVE, you are consuming chemicals.  The
>entire world is made out of a delicate chemical balance.
>
 Yeah, and remember what DuPont always says: "Without chemicals...duuuude!..
..life would be a DRAG!" ;-)



-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA  90405     +-------------------------+
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,rutgers}!ttidca!sorgatz (or sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Subject: LSD Contains Strychnine!  No, Really!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 04:12:03 GMT


Of course I'm kidding!  Blotter Acid is way too small to fit 
anything other than LSD on the tab!
 
But what if this kind of post was made a monthly visitor to 
alt.drugs?  People would read the messages, remember the rumor 
they heard last week, see this post, and fail to crowd the net 
with their mindless garbage.
 
I've seen other "automated monthly postings", and the fact 
that there's a LSD FAQ doesn't seem to faze the "strychnine in 
LSD" rumor, so if something informative like this was posted 
monthly, I'm sure the "strychnine noise" would at least 
diminish.
 
-- 
Never do this at home.  Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\  ___/\  ___/\  _____________________________________________
  \/     \/     \/  bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
From: 76130.2114@CompuServe.COM (jim hogshire)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: birdseed
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:44:15 GMT


This is my first post (trying it out the lamont way) so mainly I want to see if
it works.  Otherwise, is it true you can mj sterilized hemp seeds for use as
bird food?  I hear they're nutitious and birds really like 'em.  If it's true,
I have a whole aviary full of birds.  Anybody know where to order some?

jim hogshire
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:40:04 -0400 
From: "Alan S. Ferrency" <af1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: birth control pills

>In article <geR2w1S00WB24FMH9u@andrew.cmu.edu> "Alan S. Ferrency" ><af1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Hello.  Does anyone know of any drugs that have bad effects when used when
>>someone is on birth control pills?  I kind of think there's not much danger,
>>but I was told to ask, so I will...
>>
>>-me
>>
>>"Drugnet:  'The FAQs, man, where's the FAQs?"
>
> the only danger of the pill that I know of is speed. they tell you not to do
> any forms of speed or you will spot. the only time I spotted was when I used
> LSD. all the other forms of speed I did did not harm me in any way.

What exactly is "spotting?"  Has anyone else had this problem before?  Does this
affect the effectiveness of the pill at all?  My SO is taking it for flow regulation as well as contraceptive reasons.

-me again
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.med
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Risk of Cigar Smoking?
Keywords: Smoking, Tobacco, Cigars, Health
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:27:17 GMT

In article <#dmmv2h.masimo@netcom.com> masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas) writes:
>Does anyone know of any studies that define the risk of smoking cigars?

Cigars have a lower risk of lung cancer due to the fact that cigar smokers
tend not to inhale.  But there is a higher incidence of mouth and lip cancers
because the tobacco contacts the lips directly, and the smoke held in the
mouth is more concentrated than tobacco smoke.

Also, I believe most cigar smokers are not chain smokers (but I could be
wrong on that).

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Professor Gorden Newell threw another shutout in last week's Chem.
Eng.  130 midterm.  Once again a student did not receive a single point
on his exam.  Newell has now tossed 5 shutouts this quarter.  Newell's
earned exam average has now dropped to a phenomenal 30%
From: u8951608@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Home production of Methanphetamines
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:04:10 GMT
Organization: University of New South Wales

In article <1992Jul29.051058.27984@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> 
> Dextro-pseudoephedrine (the ingredient of Sudafed) isn't a potent
> stimulant in itself.  Reducing this would produce one of the two
> isomers of methamphetamine, but the details here are beyond my
> interest and knowledge.  It doesn't strike me as straightforward,
> and the typical reducing agents (such as LiAlH4) are both dangerous
> and are watched chemicals.
> 
Good article Steve. Not only is LiAlH4 dangerous and watched,
it doesn't to my knowledge reduce alcohols. To perform this
reaction cleanly one needs even more esoteric bits and pieces,
a tri-butyl tin derrivative springs to mind. Someone let me
know if there is another method for removing the oxygen:
inquiring minds want to know. Also, I think that removing
the oxygen gives amphetamine not methamphetamine, so one
would have to specifically mono-methylate which is also
a bit tricky. Any comments?

> -- 
> Steve Dyer
> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

Jeremy
mail to: jeremy@rsc3.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:26:43 GMT

Pete Hartman writes:
> Define "addiction"

Apparently you joined this thread late.  I defined it to include

	chemical and/or physiological change of system from resting state
	withdrawal
	tolerance
	behavior seeking the substance

> How can you compare the psychology of rats, cats, dogs, and monkeys
> to that of humans?

I don't.  I'm interested in behavior, not behaviors of a particular
species.  Similarly here the subject is addiction, not addictions of a
particular species.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13462 sci.psychology:3228
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: instant addiction?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:34:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>
>The currently accepted definition of addiction is that it means being
>willing to do things that are damaging to oneself and to others in
>order to obtain a substance.  By this definition most of the people
>you describe are addicted the whole time.

     By this definition, red meat is addictive. (Heart disease, colon cancer,
etc.) 

>The presence of a "withdrawal syndrome" was once considered a
>necessary part of the definition of addiction, but no longer.  

     Presumably because the Drug Warriors found that the drugs they were
calling addictive didn't induce withdrawal. When all else fails, change
your definition. (Hey, it's how Thatcher reduced unemployment in the U.K.)


===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
     "Ho!  Ha-ha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!  Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
      --Daffy Duck
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:24:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
: Pete Hartman writes:
: > Would a "normal, happy, well-adjusted individual" (if such existed :-)
: > be addicted to a drug just because of itself?  I maintain not.
: 
: You're welcome to, but the facts are against you.
: 
: One of the advantages of using non-human subjects is we can control
: their backgrounds, pick any subjects we like, and see if the results
: replicate across individuals.  Science of this sort has had no trouble
: arranging circumstances that lead to addiction across organisms.
: 
: There is a class of substances whose mere exposure leads to addiction.
: 
: -- Jon

Now that we have settled, what say ye of the "it's the person" persuasion?

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

I love the Olympics!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: dem@cs.princeton.edu (Doron Meyer)
Subject: Re: Home Appliances which get you...
Originator: dem@atomic
Organization: Princeton University Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:52:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.142723.22341@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ckt4x@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Curt Tsui) writes:

>Don't forget inhaling airplane glue or liquid paper/white-out.
>Watch out with the Scotch gard 3M stuff, even tho one type
>fucks you up, there's another one that doesn't.  In fact
>it's possible that the good stuff doesn't even exist anymore
>(they might've found out about these alternative uses and
>changed the formula to another one that can't
>get you high).

This is probably similar to what some of my friends do.. they get
Glade(TM) Potpourri in spray can form, put a doubly-folded towel
over the nozzle to catch the liquid, put the towel up against their
mouth, and hold down the nozzle while inhaling.

>Curt Tsui            
>ckt4x@Virginia.EDU   
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13738 sci.psychology:3307 talk.politics.drugs:5434
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:50:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:

>I wrote:
>> There is a class of substances whose mere exposure leads to addiction.
>
>David Vessell inquires:
>> so WHAT IS IT
>
>Pretty much what you'd guess.  For example, cocaine.  Surprise.
>There's also an interesting subclass: substances that the organism
>self administers.  This subclass is also pretty much what you'd guess,
>e.g. cocaine also makes this list.  Anyone surprised?

AAAAUUUUUGGGGHH!!!  What have we been arguing about all this time?!?  
I'm surprised that all of the arguments against this have been ignored.
I'm surprised that you can make statements about substances 'whose mere
exposure leads to addiction' without any proof except for the tired old
argument about cocaine, on which there is a mountain of research dating
back to the turn of the century indicating otherwise.


>The complement to this subclass is also interesting: substances whose
>exposure leads to addiction but the organism doesn't self administer.
>
>All relevant to evaluating potential for abuse.

Well, I think you have it backwards.  Maybe there are some substances that
have a high potential for abuse (or will affect a large proportion of the
population in that manner), and it is this potential for abuse that should
be studied.  But I'll say it again....exposure to a substance does not
guarantee addiction.

The reason all this is relevant because if we're going to divvy up the drug
playground by 'potential for abuse' then we have to realize and accept the
fact that not all drugs behave the same way.  Cocaine's potential for abuse
is high, but lower than caffeine and nicotine.  The potential for abuse of
marijuana and LSD are practically nothing, much much lower than alcohol or
(get a load of this) chocolate.

And not everyone reacts to cocaine in the same way either.  And cocaine is
not capable of producing resonance, which means that any 'addiction' is
psychological and should be treated as such.  No drug is magic.  Cocaine
may weaken wills but it doesn't wipe out rational thought.  Same with any
other 'addiction'. 
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.privacy,alt.society.revolution,soc.culture.usa,alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: Please Feed the Spooks
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:41:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.063823.22045@Princeton.EDU> spencer@burn.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

>Use alt.cascade, please, that's what it's there for.

what exactly is a "spook" and why is it always so hungry? and is there 
really an alt.cascade?
From: jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Canned shrooms?
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:07:09 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <1992Jul29.142719.12309@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:

>My guess would be that heat from canning breaks the psychoactive componants
>down even more rapidly.  Fresh mushrooms should be kept in the refrigerator
>in a ventillated container.  Dried ones can be frozen.

In some places in Mexico they sell them in the markets packed in honey, 
which not only is supposed to preserve them, but also gives them a 
sweet taste.
-- 
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: LSD after-effects
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:45:31 GMT

"Paul Hager" <hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>	As I'm in a sort of free-associative mood, I'll relate
>one other item from Sack's book.  A patient of Sacks'
>described to him how, after having used amphetamines throughout
>his time in med school awoke one morning to find that his
>olfactory system had suddenly increased in sensitivity.  This
>occurred after one extended period of use.  The phenomenon
>lasted for some time and it was almost as though he had 
>discovered a new sense.  By "some time", I mean an extended
>period -- about 3 weeks.  The chapter this case is in is 
>called "The Dog Beneath the Skin".

When I took Prozac I went from having no depth perception (the
world seemed really 2-dimentional even though I never realized it since I
didn't know the difference) to suddenly being able to see all three
dimentions.  After just a few weeks on Prozac the effect "stuck" and 
I can still see like that.  Trees are really cool to look at now.  
Particularly Deciduous (sp?) trees in the wintertime with their branches
that are *very* 3-D and tend to wind and interlock.  And particularly at
night with a streetlight shining on them.  

At the same time I got "tracers" (like little tiny ones) identical to
LSD.  Those have also "stuck" and I can see them all the time -- particularly
in the morning.  Therefore, I tend to relate all the stories currently being
posted about LSD after-effects as being extremely benign.

According to one poster in sci.med though, taking neuroleptics will "cure"
you of the permanent tracer after-effects of LSD.  My guess is that the LSD
is just knocking the homeostatis of your neurotranmitters and receptors in
one direction in a typically benign fashion.  The neuroleptics just knock 
it the other way.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:13722 sci.psychology:3302 talk.politics.drugs:5426