HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Organization: Skypod Communications Inc., Toronto, Ontario
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 10:34:28 GMT

In article <10384@inews.intel.com> bverreau@mipos2.intel.com (stargazer) writes:
>Let me begin by saying that I favor the use of impairment testing
>in place of blood/urine/hair/whatever sampling for determining an
>individual's ability to perform in some capacity, such as driving
>a car.  I don't think testing is the only issue that needs to be
>addressed, though.  A thornier problem is how to deal with someone
>who fails an impairment test.
>
>Now with the prospect of impairment testing - and I'll stick with
>the DUI example, although it applies elsewhere - the police may have
>to start arresting people for a variety of "impairment" crimes.  If
>a nervous motorist can't score high enough on some reaction time and
>coordination tester, he is subject to all these draconian measures

Failed the test... shouldn't be on the road

>we've enacted to curb drunk driving.  Conversely, a skilled test taker
>may be able to meet the standards even with a .2 BAC.  In any case,
>it's going to be tough to devise a test that correlates so well with
>driving ability that it separates the guilty from the innocent.

Passed the test...  ok to be on the road

>This brings us back to the problem of how do we achieve the stated
>objective of making the highways safer by reducing the number of
>impaired drivers?  Impairment testing makes it easier to identify
>such people, regardless of how they got that way, but it raises
>some new issues.  Should the law be concerned with the cause as
>well as the fact of impairment?  Should differential punishment be
>meted out according to the cause?  Should penalties actually be
>reduced in recognition of the more general enforcement?  Not easy
>questions to answer, but we should consider them before giving
>impairment testing our unqualified endorsement.

If you are impaired for any reason, you shouldn't be on the road.  If
drinking makes you impaired, then don't drive.  For most people, 
this is the case.  However, if you aren't impaired, it should be
ok to drive.  Perhaps having impairment test stations around cities
where you can pull up to one, pop in a quarter and test yourself to
see if you are ok is a good idea.

I have friends who can drive better after 8-10 beers than other friends
who don't drink at all.  I would sooner be in the car with the
drunk friend than the ones who are nervous drivers.

scott

-- 
Scott J.M. Campbell            The truth hurts... Oh sure, maybe not as much as
Skypod Communications Inc.      jumping onto a bicycle with the seat missing...
Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059                            ..but it hurts. 
  scott@skypod.guild.org   scott@skypod.gts.org  ..uunorth!problem!skypod!scott
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Clinton's Marijuana Use
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:30:12 GMT
  <42539@teda.Teradyne.COM> <1992Apr4.070034.7081@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
  <1992Apr7.031703.8720@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
  <1992Apr7.164646.263@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Sorry, not a chance.  Clinton would be roasted alive.  All kinds of
>*political* groups would be interviewed on TV saying that marijuana 
>causes brain damage, birth defects, etc. and they would have the 
>references to prove it. (the references would be 15 years old, but
>who is going to look them up?)
>
>Not one researcher who values her income would stand up for the truth.
>They have to feed their families like everyone else.

And a hearty "Thank You!" to all the "progressives" who made research
funding of every sort primarily a State undertaking.


   Alan T. Furman           |       Vote Libertarian--Marrou/Lord in '92
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------
   atfurman@cup.portal.com  |  Stamp out signature viruses!  Pass it on!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:09:48 GMT

I tried to post this yesterday..

In article <1992Apr8.110423.1840@newstand.syr.edu> mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
[...]
>Remember that sex can kill you!!  I keep hearing people talk about all of
>the money spent.  Does a drug become less addictive if its cheaper??

Not less addictive, but that person doesn't need to spend as much money to 
support their addiction.  (prices will drop significantly)

[...]

>>I've met very few people who use pot/acid on a super-regular basis (ie.,
>>every day.)  Of these people, I don't think anyone wouldn't be able to handle
>>a few weeks or even a few months without a toke/trip -- I can't recall the
>
>I find this hard to beleive!  Most of the pot heads I know smoke every day,
>several times a day.   They get real upset when they can't get more, too!!

Well I guess we're different people then...  If I had pot all the time, I'd
probably be smoking it more frequently, I guess, but I certainly can deal with
dry spells.

>>last time I heard of someone steeling his parents stereo system to support
>>a 'weed addiction' or 'acid addiction'.  After a long day of being stoned or
>
>Me neither, but I don't know anyone who's stolen anything from his parents to support a crack or coke habit either...
>Sounds like you've been listening to the WoD propaganda!!

Well my friend's coked-up sister run off with 3 of his guns.  She was almost
in the pawn-shop door when he threatened to call the cops if she wouldn't
return everything....  There were, of course, plenty of other contributing
factors, but I think her cocaine addiction is pretty significant.

I guess ancedotal evidence is pretty useless, though.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu

>--
>=====================================================================
>=          H A V E   A   D A Y             :|                       =
>=====================================================================





Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2939 alt.drugs:7684
From: cannabis@west.darkside.com (Cannabis Kid)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Hair testing article in C&EN
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:16:39 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

> Only stuff that is on the surface of the hair. Any metabolites that are
> bound to the protein in the hair will not be removed. You can forget
> about washing out any metabolites.
 
What about hair dyes???, they do a good job coating the hair, and don't 
come out in a good washing, or becomming a bleach blonde???
 
----
my .signature was eaten be my dog
Cannabis@wast.darkside.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:20:35 GMT

> >
> >I'd love to see some logic from the people that think drunk driving should
> >be legal.
> 
> No logic, just pragmatics-- laws against drunk driving per se cannot
> be enforced without intrusive mechanisms such as roadblocks.  These
> things are definitely bad.
> 
> I think drunk driving laws should be written in such a way that
> drunken driving can only be used as evidence of reckless or negligent
> driving, not as a crime in itself.

Good answer. Stop the government from grabbing more power. Their
repressive laws have not made highways safer. 
What many want, and unwhittingly I might add, is a totalitarian
state that makes everything safe? Bad trade-off.


barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.censorship
From: shea@ntmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Drug Free Workplace
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:39:38 GMT


I need the text of Reagan's "Drug Free Workplace" executive order,
as research materials to use to try to fight Northern's new 
drug testing program.

Was there also a "Drug Free Workplace" act passed by Congress?  If so,
I need that too.  If not, then can someone fill me in on which federal
laws/regulations mandate, or suggest, drug testing of employees who 
work for companies with government contracts?

I also understand that in many states, drug addiction is legally considered
a handicap.  Does anyone know if California is one of these states, and
if so, what are the relevant federal and state statutes?


I'm tempted to just quit and go to law school.

Thanks,

Ray


-------
Ray Shea			A squid eating dough in a polyethelene
DoD #0372, '88 Hawk NT650	bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
(415)940-2527			
ntmtv!shea@ames.arc.nasa.gov	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:39:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.203915.15015@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.190948.29880@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>>Well my friend's coked-up sister run off with 3 of his guns.  She was almost
>>in the pawn-shop door when he threatened to call the cops if she wouldn't
>>return everything....  There were, of course, plenty of other contributing
>>factors, but I think her cocaine addiction is pretty significant.

First of all -- remember... I'm on your side.  I don't think that this is a 
reasonable justification for cocaine being illegal.  It's just absurd how 
people on here are following the line that cocaine _abuse_ isn't a problem
and doesn't exist.

>This is a common occurrance.  Somebody, for some reason, gets into this
>"fuck everybody" mentality and pawns of their loved ones' belongings.  Why
>do they do this?  There are multiple schools of thought:
>
>1.  They do it because they are soooooo addicted to cocaine (or gambling, or
>whatever expensive vice they happen to spend the money on).  We need to
>increase penalties for cocaine (or gambling), thereby increasing the price
>and decreasing the availablility.
>
>2.  They do it because they soooooo addicted and the habit is expensive.  We
>need to medicalize/decriminalize it to decrease the price and increase
>availability.
>
>3.  They do it because they are assholes.  We need to give them a good swift
>kick in the head.  "Addiction" is no excuse for otherwise immoral behavior,
>such as stealing.  The legal status of different vices will not affect their
>behavior.  There will always be another expensive vice available.

For the situation I described I think it's a cross between 2 and 3.  She's
to the point where a lot of the time, it's hard to hold a rational conversation
with her.  Her family may be partially at fault (although she's 22 and should
be able to live independently), but yeah -- I think the 'boot to the head'
method may be the most effective way to deal with this.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu

>Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
>Darryl Gates, George Bush's "ideal police officer", thinks Clarence Thomas, 
>a former casual drug user, should have been shot long ago.
>The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson)
Subject: Drug Czar's PR director
Originator: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:39:51 GMT

I found the following article in the San Jose Mercury News, 4/7/92,
page 5A.  It's nice to know that they're admitting that PR is a big
part of the WoSD.  I'm especially interested in all the congressional
critics who seem to be angry because he's not yelling loud enough to
keep the War on Some Drugs up as a public issue that they can easily
get elected on.  It's not important to fight the war; the important
thing seems to be to make a lot of noise about it.  Damn I wish the
public would vote for these people based on results.

Reproduced without permission.

Randy
-------------------

	Drug Czar's PR Director Among Highest-paid Officials
	----------------------------------------------------

	WASHINGTON (Orlando Sentinel) -- Drug csar Bob Martinez's
recently hired director of public affairs -- aka "spin control" -- is
paid the same government salary as the director of NASA's Johnson
Space Center -- aka "mission control."
	Elaine Crispen, who was former first lady Nancy Reagan's press
secretary, is paid $112,100 a year, according to a list released last
week by Martinez's office.
	Crispen was hired in mid-January to help shore up the flagging
public image of Martinez, who has been criticized in Congress and the
media for letting the once-ballybooed war on drugs fade from view.
	Crispen's salary ties her for the title of highest-paid staff
member in the 132-person Office of National Drug Control Policy.  It
also puts her on par with career federal officials such as Aaron
Cohen, who heads the huge NASA complex in Houston from which moon
landings were directed and where $500 million space shuttle missions
are now managed.
	...
	In contrast to Crispen, the director of public affairs for the
U.S. Justice Dept. earns $66,374.  That 92,752-employee agency
encompasses not only the US Attorney General's office, but the FBI,
the DEA, and the Bureau of Prisons.
	"Martinez has a terrible public image -- and she (Crispen) was
the person who fixed Nancy Reagan's public image," said a former staff
member who insisted on anonymity.  "We thought that (hiring Crispen)
was one of the most important priorities because his influence in the
bureaucracy diminished as his public image diminished."
	Martinez's predecessor, William Bennett, apparently had no
need for a high-powered image doctor.  Bennett, outspoken and brash,
cut a wide swath in official Washington and, if anything, drew fire
for hyping his role too much.
	Martinez, known for his low-key public persona and wooden
speaking style, has been called the "stealth drug czar" by
congressional critics who say he lacks influence with President Bush
and the more than 30 anti-drug agencies he coordinates.

-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:08:26 GMT

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.202319.4395@udel.edu> watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous) writes:
>>Oh I just love this!  200 Panamanian citizens, 300 Panamanian soldiers and
>>23 US servicemen were killed.  Why?  So that some pathetic little dictator
>
>Oh God!  I hadn't thought about this.  Thanks for posting the numbers,
>that's good for shocking people into realizing how outrageous this stupid
>war is becoming (something I'm doing at every chance these days).

200 Panamanian citizens is the U.S. Govt estimate, however, which is the
lowest figure I've seen.  The highest is 3,000.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.4497@layout.berkeley.edu)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: milton.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2765 alt.drugs:7304
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug Czar's PR director
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:02:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Apr8.030223.12804
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr7.223951.20959@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson) writes:
> 

[...]
> 	Elaine Crispen, who was former first lady Nancy Reagan's press
> secretary, is paid $112,100 a year, according to a list released last
> week by Martinez's office.

Oh no, another case of government waste spending.

[...]
> 	Martinez, known for his low-key public persona and wooden
> speaking style, has been called the "stealth drug czar" by
> congressional critics who say he lacks influence with President Bush
> and the more than 30 anti-drug agencies he coordinates.

Maybe they should check him for drug abuse. Sounds like his life
is falling apart, it must be drugs!                           :-)

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: question about mj study
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: talk.politics.drugs
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:15:44 GMT

In article <891034d.46.703465253@ace.acadiau.ca> 891034d@ace.acadiau.ca (PETER F. DEARMAN) writes:
> The chromosome damage study is crap.  Check the FAQ post for more on this.  

You might also mention that this group does not have a FAQ.  alt.drugs does.

(Just spouting about a pet peeve.  No offense meant.)

Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Marijuana addiction
Keywords: marijuana addiction
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:34:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Apr7.033450.9013
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr4.171628.1031@cs.dal.ca>, craig@ug.cs.dal.ca (Ryan Craig) writes:

[I took a.d and m.l out of the newgroups line]

> 
> I have a new thread to start here.  My question is:  Is it possible to become
> addicted to marijuana?

There is no proof of physical addiction, only mental as in any
habit or routine. But as there are exceptions to almost everything
under the sun, there may be some who have physical dependencies
but I doubt it. You probably experienced the habit of lighting
up because that's what you always did before?

barry--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2828 alt.drugs:7439
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: parents reaction
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:55:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr9.233217.3782@aeras.uucp> stewart@aeras.UUCP (StewArt AnewForm) writes:
>when i actually mentioned to my parents that i had been smoking pot for several
>months, they were really curious about it and wanted to try some.
>next time i go home, i'm taking some with me.

Remember to tell 'em that most people don't get off the first couple of times.
Once they do get high, remember to tell them what this stupid War on Some Drugs
is all about.

Educate.  Educate.  Educate.

   Thanks awfully,
               Patrick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:45:13 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Apr16.014242.7882@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
>
>I'd love to see some logic from the people that think drunk driving should
>be legal.

No logic, just pragmatics-- laws against drunk driving per se cannot
be enforced without intrusive mechanisms such as roadblocks.  These
things are definitely bad.

I think drunk driving laws should be written in such a way that
drunken driving can only be used as evidence of reckless or negligent
driving, not as a crime in itself.



-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: RFC on what-to-say-to-the-cops article (LONG)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:04:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

This is a fascinating and careful article, but it seems to blur the
very important distinction between what is illegal and what is merely
unsafe.  It states in reference to home searches by police:

  You can refuse to consent to a search (4th
  Amendment), but you can't physically stop them.

There are several other instanced of "you can't physically..." in
similar contexts.

Now, I can understand that meeting trespass with deadly force may be
illegal, but how can meeting trespass with hog-tying and running the
errant cops off your property on a rail (gently, of course) be anything
but asserting your property rights?

Could someone more experienced in the law please comment?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2762 alt.drugs:7302
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug Czar's PR director
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:49:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.vjqjq3p.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The big danger in letting people stop reading about the WoD is that
they may start getting curious about the S&L, Banking and Insurance
industry scandals again.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: scottk@fluffy.cs.wisc.edu (Scott Kempf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: New PDFA Commercial
Keywords: pdfa
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:37:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Apr15.014131.13417@cbnewse.cb.att.com> mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson) writes:
>I just saw a new PDFA commercial linking the spread of Aids
>with drug use.  The commercial shows a guy and girl getting
>hot and heavy in passion.  It then tries to link the passion
>generated to have unprotected sex with drug use.  I didn't
>tape it so I'm kind of relying on memory but it struck me
>as *the* dumbest commercial I have ever seen.  This one even
>tops the commercial featuring the 14 year old boy in a coma.
>
>Just guessing here but I think this one will backfire big time
>on PDFA.  I suspect that the dumbest WOD supporter will see
>through this smokescreen.
>
>Mark
>mea@ihlpl.att.com

This one has be out for a while.

When watching PDFA commercials, it is important to realize
who their target audience is: parents.  Most PDFA commercials
are on during the day and during the programs most often watched
by "housewives".  The commercial described above would never
scare a teenager, but I'm sure some of their parents find it
very frightening.

I'm still not sure what PDFA's goal is.  It seems to want
to increase the public's call for the WoD, rather than try
to convince people not to use drugs.

				Scott
				(scottk@cs.wisc.edu)

.signature not found