HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:14:59 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <7lama3c.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
}dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
}: 
}: To be perfectly blunt, you're living in a dream world.  No drug has the
}: power to enslave a person.  It's a personal choice and it always has been.
}: To assert otherwise is insulting and dehumanizing and is not borne out in
}: scientific data anyway.
}: 
}
}(For alt.drugs readers I am crossposting this from talk.politics.drugs so
}don't be puzzled by the lack of context)
}
}While I don't agree with Mr. Craig on much of anything I take issue with
}this particular rebutal. I've spent enough time in N.A. meetings to believe
}that for at least a signifigant subset of people some drugs do in fact
}have that power.

Mere anecdotal evidence from a non-represenative sample which conflicts with
other anecdotal and scientific evidence.

I'm reminded of criminals who claim that they couldn't help stealing; this
determinism is nonsense.  Of course they claim they were enslaved; one of the
tenets of the "Anonymous" groups is claiming no power over the substance in
question.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 15:36:35 CDT
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL

        I think when Lamont says "we" will have tests he means the 
general public.  Thus people can be warned that they are predisposed to 
abuse.  I don't think prohibition for people who are predisposed is a 
thing which Lamont is recommending.

---
Sameer Parekh   zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM      zane@infopls.chi.il.us
From: alehecka@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (MERLIN )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Today's LA Times
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:44:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In today's LA TIMES, there is a big article about teenagers 
who got caught with acid (LSD) intended for distribution.
One of the guys caught had about three grams of acid on
him.  He was sentenced to 16 yes! sixteen years in federal
prison. 
	The reason for such a stiff sentence is, that due
to some laws passed in the Congress, the amount of the
drug for the sentencing is based not as an active chemical  itself 
but as a drug , it's adulterants and it's medium i.e. blotter also. 
(the guy had 440 grams of blotter on him)
	The teen was sentenced to a federal institution which means
that there is no parole and he will serve that time.

Several congressman have tried to reverse this law, but due
to the delicate issue involved (drugs) and general cowardice 
of the members of that institution, there is very little 
chance that anything will get changed.
 
It is sad that our 'representratives' turn their back on
the injustice done.  I believe that now is the time to
address the hypocritical WOD. There is enough people in
this group to make a difference in the incomming
presidential elections.  Please vote!

					MERLIN (Libertarian)


"For example, 100 doses of LSD weigh about 5 milligrams, enough to
justify about a year in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
The same amount of LSD, dispersed in sugar cubes, can result in a
sentence of nearly 20 years."
			(LA Times, Monday, July 27, 1992)

TABLE:
"
CARRIER		WEIGHT OF 100 DOSES	GUIDELINE RANGE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pure LSD	5 milligrams		10 - 16 months
Gelatin capsule 	225 mg.		2.25-2.75 yr.
Blotter paper		1.4 grams	5.25 - 6.5 yr.
Sugar cube		227 grams	15.5 - 19.5 yr.
								"
			(LA Times, Monday, July 27, 1992)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5326 alt.drugs:13509
From: nilesd@foxx.ucr.edu (niles rowland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: <None> (time to debunk some myths)
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:48:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Jul11.010532.2774@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
[...]
>The first thing to do is get rid of the laws that outlaw simple possession
>and use of drugs.
>
>Then make laws that make irresponsible use of drugs illegal.

Gosh, what would those of us do without those of you who know the RIGHT
way to live?  Probably something heinous like leave our helmets off to
run to the corner store. (Thanks, Mr. Wilson for setting me straight!)

>You just don't get it, do you?

Pete, I'm afraid that YOU don't get it.  It's not a question of making
laws that judge *nonviolent* behavior, just.  It's just a question
of making laws that judge *nonviolent* behavior...NOT!

(My apologies to everyone out there for using an extremely overused
line from Madison Ave.  I couldn't resist!) 

niles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:27:51 GMT

In article 25405@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>In a previous article, RR04@bunny.gte.com (Rob Robertson) says:
>
>>"There is nothing new under the sun..."
>
>Every day is a new day.

A day without sunshine is like night.

>"Endeavor to persevere"

"Eschew obfuscation"

---
gak
107/H/3&4

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: gaspar@inf.ethz.ch (gaspo)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Twilight-Zone-Algorithms-Incorporated
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:58:47 GMT

In article <Jul.28.15.38.43.1992.15838@turbo.bio.net> will@turbo.bio.net (Will Nelson) writes:
>>[Marijuana does not produce tolerance or physical withdrawal symptoms]
>
>This is simply not true. There is little tolerance to marijuana's
>conjunctival injection and tachycardia, but there is tolerance
>to just about all other measures of marijuana's effects, including
>the euphoria. The physical withdrawal symptoms are mild compared
>to those of other drugs, and vary with the level of drug consumption,
>but the loss of appetite, REM rebound, and anxiety
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^------------------\
>(including drug seeking behavior) are well documented. |
                                                        |
                               /------------------------'
sorry, but could you explain this a little better? I think I know what
you are talking about here, but would like some more info.  Also, loss
of appetite?  Are you saying that if I stop using mj regularly, I can
loose my appetite?  like, the munchies have taken over my entire hunger
reactions? wow.

Seriously, I'd appreciate pointers to the REM "well documented" bit.

--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.-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5310 alt.drugs:13468
From: basher@ces.cwru.edu (Tim Basher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:14:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University

> In <lamontg.711858404@milton> (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>> Thats just really really brilliant.  They don't have any kind of
>> psychological way to change their behavior.  The only way their going
>> to change their behavior is through a chemical mechanism because their
>> problem is entirely 100% chemical.  They're going to be alcoholics.
>> And there is no goddamn way they are going to stop giving importance
>> to the beliefs that motivate that behavior.

In <1992Jul24.172902.17727@bradley.bradley.edu> (David Vessell) writes:
>To be perfectly blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I think that Lamont has a valid point.
[Whether he knows what he is talking about, only he can know]

>Heredity can, at best, provide the body with a strong predisposition
>towards particular behaviour.  A child of an alcoholic may be predisposed
>towards alcoholism.  But it's no guarantee.  A child born to parents who
>are both schizophrenic has only about an 8 percent chance of falling prey to
>schizophrenia.  Compared to the 1 percent of the general population, that's
>a considerable hereditary influence, but hardly a guarantee.

While you are partially correct, you do not give a full picture.

Yes, heredity can provide a strong predisposition.  But genetics can do
more.  It is true that having a predisposition towards anencephy in your
family does not mean all your children will have it [heredity], but it does
mean that if your "child" has the genes for it, they will get it [genetics].

Yes, genetics can provide a strong predisposition.  People can be genetically
predisposed to develop asthma.  But the asthma may not actually become active
without a triggering event (such as a childhood case of bronchitis or
pneumonia).  However, once the trigger has occured, they do have asthma.

Just as physical diseases, such as asthma, can have trigger events, so too
can behavioral or psychological problems.  A person predisposed to be an
alcoholic may never develop alcoholism [an overriding craving for alcohol]
until after their first drinking "binge".

>No one is a slave to their urges.

No one may be a "slave to their urges" but that does not mean that all people
can solve their own problems [by "force of will"] without outside assistance.
The unconscious mind can be just as strong as the conscious mind.

Tim Basher
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Saturn revival
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:55:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <25JUL199222593643@judy.uh.edu> seds%cspar.dnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>A Saturn with five F1A engines and Five STME's in the second stage with and
>STME in the third stage would raise the delivered payload to Lunar Orbit by
>25,000 pounds. The baseline Saturn was 100,000 pounds to Lunar orbit. 

Not quite -- it was 100,000 pounds into lunar trajectory.  The number
changed somewhat (upward) during the course of the Apollo flights, as
the Saturn V design was tuned.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: bauer@shab00.larc.nasa.gov (Steven X.S. Bauer)
Subject: Re: Facility Tours
Reply-To: bauer@shab00.larc.nasa.gov (Steven X.S. Bauer)
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:42:31 GMT

As Mary pointed out, tours are free of charge
(here at Langley), but you do need to coordinate
the tour through the public affairs office at
(804) 864-6124.  Let them know where you 
would be interested in touring and they will
contact the necessary people to arrange a
tour for you.  Or you can come to our open
house in October (we are celebrating Langley's
75th anniversary).

Steven X.S. Bauer                      /bauer@shab00.larc.nasa.gov
NASA-Langley Research Center  /all opinions are my own and do
Hampton,VA 23665                    /not reflect those of NASA
Organization: Masters student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:33:49 -0400 
From: Theodore Wadsworth <tw1t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Space Business?
	<Bru8Ew.MJ3@news.larc.nasa.gov>

I am a Business School student and I trying to figure out what the
market is like for MBA's in the "Space Biz".  I know the comercial and
military players but don't know who hires MBAs, who is doing well now,
and whose future looks bright.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.  I suspect there are
other board readers who are interested.

Thanks :)

            T

p.s. Is there a more appropriate BBoard for this?
From: ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton's daughter pro-space ?
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:18:24 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul29.022201.7742@cco.caltech.edu>, dlp@fido.caltech.edu (Deborah L. Padgett) writes:
> 
>     The July 27 issue of Space News quotes Bill Clinton as saying (p. 18) :
> 
> "I am the grandson of a working woman, the son of a single mother,
> the husband of a working wife who makes a lot more than I do. 
> I am the father of a daughter who wants to build space stations in the sky."
> 
>     
>    Does anyone have further information about his daughter's interests
> or background ?  It would be interesting to know just how much pro-space
> sentiment is in his family.  Anyone on the net know more ?
> 
>                                         Karl Stapelfeldt
>                                         dlp@fido.caltech.edu
-- 

I remember reading in a USA Today (a couple of weeks ago, during the
Democratic Convention) that they said Chelsea Clinton wanted to be a
space scientist. Was the above comment taken from the interview on the
MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour interview?

Clinton has definitely come out for the Space Station program at least
twice now. The first time was on MTV, according to the July 6-19 Space
News Space Shots. (I don't get Space News regularly, so if any of you
folks out there do, please update us on the net about the Clinton space
policy paper! :-)) The second time was on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour,
when he said that he supported the Space Station and the Superconducting
Super Collider, not because he was pandering to the Texas Governor, but
because he supported any technology that would give back more than was 
invested in it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Al Gore's knowledge of space issues was one of
the deciding factors for his selection as Clinton's V.P. candidate. (No
flames, please.)

This week's Aviation Week & Space Technology (July 27) has a page-and-a 
half article on Clinton's space policy, and the possibility of a Gore/Quayle
vice-presidential debate with space as one of the hot topics (finally!).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald G. Marfoe                    |"Mirabile visu. Mirabilia/Et itur ad astra
InterNet: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu    |... Suus cuique mos. Suum cuique.../
          ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu   |Memento, terrigena./Memento, vita brevis."
          ggmar@hoshi.colorado.edu  |- "Afer Ventus", Enya, "Shepherd Moons"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Facility Tours
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:36:00 GMT

On 21 Jul 92 06:24:38 GMT, tw1t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Theodore Wadsworth) said:

T> Does anyone know the charges for tours of the various NASA facilities
T> (Huntsville Space Center, "Space Camp", ...)?

Dryden's tour is free, although a reservation is required.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: cgl5564@tamuts.tamu.edu (Chris G. Larsen)
Subject: Re: Throw Congress out the airlock!
Organization: ~/lib/organization
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:30:10 GMT

In article <l7h8e0INN77m@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>Have to get them up in orbit first.
>
>Now, *that* would take some major heavy-lift capability!

But all the hot air will help a little :)

>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
>                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Chris Larsen
cgl5564@tamuts.tamu.edu
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Throw Congress out the airlock!
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:48:42 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


  IMO, it now appears that the writing is on the wall for not only space
station, but possibly the entire manned program. The Democrats, who control
congress and the NASA purse strings, appear to be increasingly anti-space
as they battle to save their worthless hides from rising anti-washington
sentiments at home. While you can argue that cutting the Space Station, the
NASP, and the SCC, to save throw-away entitlements, will scuttle most of
high tech big science in this country, the political reality is that the
manned program is doomed unless we can prove that this country NEEDS such
a space program.

  The only long term approach that will save and expand the manned space
program is to turn it to the direct benefit of people in our country.
Design and build a space manufacturing system that will give us an industry
that can not be matched by any such plant on earth. The products of such
space industry will benefit our country directly, because the process can
not be packed off to another location where there is cheap, unskilled labor.

  We are already close to having the tools needed to produce such industry.
Gas guns can be used to propel the materials into space at a cost-effective
rate. All we need are the mass-catchers and the orbiting manufacturing plants
to turn the material into finished parts, to be returned to Earth.

  Initially, the industry will have to concentrate on low-yeild, high-return
products. But, as the economics of the industry drive the process, more
space-produced products will be required; competition will drive down the
prices; materials will be gathered from the Moon; and people will need to
remain in space to perform specialized tasks, such as research. Soon enough,
there will be a base on the Moon, and missions to Mars.

 IMHO, NASA has taken the incorrect long-term approach to the space program.
Time and again, grandious projects are planned, only to be repeatedly scaled
back until they provide almost no benefit whatsoever. The only method that
is going work is to get the sweaty palms of government out of space develop-
ment, and turn it over to business. The radical manufacturing environment
of space will provide a sufficient reason to be there once the infrastructure
is in place, and will drive the entire space program. NASA's only role should
be to give industry the tools to get the job done, then get the #$%@&* out of
the way! (Plus sending out the occassional unmanned scientific probe for the
glorious pictures.)

 Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth. Flame away, ye of flatulent disposition.
-- 

  Bob Hall - Systems Analyst, Boeing Computer Services
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1039 sci.space:10755
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Facility Tours
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:19:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <MeP1saa00Uzx81jWZT@andrew.cmu.edu> tw1t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Theodore Wadsworth) writes:
> Does anyone know the charges for tours of the various NASA facilities
> (Huntsville Space Center, "Space Camp", ...)?

While I have yet to tour Huntsville, I have never encountered a charge
for admission to or tours of NASA facilities.  Most NASA sites have a
visitors center with reasonable hours (til 4 or 5 PM) and are usually
open almost every day of the week (except Goddard near Washington DC, which
is closed some days).  Some sites have really nice tours on a regular basis,
like Stennis in Mississippi (right off of I-10).  Others have tours by prior
reservation.  For example, Ames has a visitors center, museum, and gift
shop, but you need to make reservations two weeks in advance to go on the
weekly Friday tour of the facility.  Johnson Space Center has tours of
mission control available, but you need to pick up a free ticket beforehand
at the visitors center.  Go early because the mission control tours sometimes
fill up hours in advance.

For Huntsville info, call 1-800-633-7280 (or 1-800-572-7234 in Alabama).
Attractions include the Space Museum and Rocket Park, Spacedome Omnimax
Theater, and a 2 hour Nasa bus tour.  Plan to spend all day, and aviod
going there on the weekend.  Adults are $11.95, children $7.95 for all
attractions, or $6.95 for the museum only.  They are open every day of the
week until 5PM (6PM in the summer).

For Kennedy Space Center info, call 1-900-321-LIFT (75 cents per call), or
1-800-432-2153 in Florida.  Everything is free at KSC, except for the
IMAX theatre ($2.75 for adults) and the bus tour ($6 adults, $3 children).

For more information, check out the book "Kitty Hawk To Nasa" by Michael
Morlan.  It lists all major aircraft and space museums in the US.

-john-


-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Throw Congress out the airlock!
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:13:20 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

Have to get them up in orbit first.

Now, *that* would take some major heavy-lift capability!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: annis@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (James Annis)
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:00:35 GMT

>
> Clinton, if he wanted to really support space like he says, 
> as the supposed head of the democratic party,
> would ask the congress critters to modify their positions to one 
> that is more in line with the party's election platform.
>
> The democratic party of the White House is seperate from the political 
> party of the democrats in congress and it has been that way since the 
> demise of LBJ.
>
>Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville


	Well, something doesn't parse about that...
If they are effectively separate parties, why would Clinton have
any control over them? 

	Anyway, the real reason that Clinton's space position sounds
so faded is just that George Bush has been extraordinarily good for
both the defense and civilian space program. His administration
keeps putting money and political capital into the programs.

	It is pretty clear. If the sole thing that matters to your
vote is how well funded the space program is going to be,
Bush should get it. Even if Clinton is  better than the
average president when it comes to funding space, he probably won't
put as much into it as Bush.

	It could be worse. Once I had to decide between Mondale and 
Reagan. That was a miserable year. ("well, lets see... should I vote
for the guy who might very well blow up the world, or should I vote
for the guy who vows to dismantle NASA...")
--

James Annis   			annis@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu     

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space