HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan)
Subject: civil disobedienc (was: All Drugs WILL Be Legalized!!!)
Reply-To: tjj@thumper.UUCP (J Tim Jordan)
Organization: BCR
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 18:22:01 GMT

In article <2wwjr!c.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
*joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller) writes:
*: Unfortunately, I see a period of effective fascism before this happens
*: (and possibly a revolution).
*: 
*: josh
*
*Josh, How's about some good old fashioned civil disobedience.  It's worked
*before.  We aren't still in Viet Nam any more. There do be a price though.
*Do be, DO BE, doobie.

 How's about some good old fashioned civil disobedience? This should only 
 be done when the "system" no longer works. 
	Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: euclid@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Elizabeth Kupfer)
Subject: Re: Hair testing article in C&EN
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:36:43 GMT

How would the metabolites be affected by fairly strong reduction/oxidation
reactions?  That is how the permanent wave works; you twist the hair around
something, add the first solution, which breaks sulfide bonds in the hair, then
add the neutralizing solution which causes new sulfide bonds to form, but now
the hair is curled as the new bonds formed while the hair was still wrapped
around a curler.  Wouldn't this alter metabolites in the hair as well?

e.k.
--
elizabeth kupfer, euclid@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (preferred)
standard disclaimers apply
Those who do not trust enough are not trusted --Tao Te Ching
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: RFC on what-to-say-to-the-cops article (LONG)
Summary: another suggestion
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:46:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T



Great article! It is always good to know your rights.

Keep a small tape recorder handy in home and in the car. Be sure
to turn it on so they can see it, and tell them you are recording
the conversation. 

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: The Last Smoke (Economist article)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.180652.14674@udel.edu>, watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous) writes:
> Taken from the March 28 -- April # 1992 "The Economist" without permission.
> 
> signal to send during a "war on drugs".  Recently James Masin, head of the
> PHS said he feared that AIDS patients, crazed on marijuana, would be more
> likely to practise unsafe sex.
> 

Aaaagh...heh heh heh...gasp...garfle...gleeb...ackk, hrmm. I'm ok
now. God, one could die just reading some of these gems. Armies
of AIDS patients crazed on MJ, I can see it now. 

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:24:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Summary: the crime of being

[note: followup to t.p.d]


i have been driving regularly since 1970. For ten years I used
to practically live in my car I liked driving so much. I am
usually impaired, especially on weekends from imbibing in beers.
I have been involved in two accidents in all this time, both
caused by two extremely pickled drivers. I still do not like
the tough drunk driving laws! Accidents occur because people
drive cars! You drives, you takes your chances! No road is safe
except maybe the road from your garage to the street.
I have had plenty of close calls that I avoided from family
type mothers with kids in the car which i was able to avoid 
because i drive with intuition always trying to determine
what the next person's move will be. Many times I am right, and
am able to avoid a bad situation.

What about laws stating "we will never get involved in a foreign
war"! Gosh, why aren't these mad mothers against drivers pushing
for laws like this! Maybe because they are selfish? How many really
cared about anything pertaining to driving before they lost a loved
one? All of a sudden they are so emotionally angry, they are
going to go to Congress to get laws passed against everybody!

But, if we lose a loved one from dying in a stupid, meaningless
foreign war, well that's patriotic. I think the propaganda machine
has once again shown how effective it is.

Ok, blast away, I have a new flameproof terminal.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: 60 Minutes story 04/05/92
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:54:53 GMT


What do you think of the lead story?  I plan to obtain copies
of both the 60 minutes story and the Pittsburgh press series
and send them to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee as well as my own senator.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Clinton
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:03:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.030116.29262@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>	He says, "He tried pot and didn't inhale and didn't like it."  From
>this, it seems that he didn't want to try it to begin with, because he
>didn't inhale, and others coerced him into doing this.  I don't mind if a
>President has used marijuana or not, but somone who was willing to be
>coerced?  I don't think someone that weak should be President..
>	Rebuttals?

I think you're being too kind to Governor Clinton.  

First, you make the assumption that he is telling the truth.  As others have
pointed out, he can't say he tried it or he didn't like it if he didn't
inhale.

Second, you ignore his hypocrisy.  It was OK to smoke pot in England with
his friends, but we need to wage a War on Some Drugs here in the US.  If
pot really was highly addictive (like the drug warriors would have us
believe), Bill Clinton would have "liked it" and done it again.  His
personal experience tells us that pot is not dangerous, yet he supports the
prohibition thereof.

>___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
>Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I think I've lost my -- ummmmm --
                                  Train of thought?
                                                     Yeah!  That's it!
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: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:18:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.214301.15730@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>
>Methodone is a synthetic narcotic with action similar to heroin, but acting
>over 24 hours rather than 12 hours.  It no more decreases the pleasure of
>other narcotics than does heroin.
>
>The high is very similar to heroin.  I know this from experience (no, I was
>never on methodone maintenance -- but in my early adulthood I experimented
>with many drugs and have injected heroin on a few occasions and have injected
>methodone once).  

According to _Licit_and_Illicit_Drugs_ (published in 1972, but this
information shouldn't go out of date, should it?), methadone has
almost no pleasurable high when taken orally.  This is why it's
distributed mixed in an orange drink: to make injection impossible.
They also say that the action of narcotics is not additive; in other
words, after taking a dose of morphine, you have to take more than the
equivalent amount of heroin to get any effect from it.  This is where
the heroin-blocking effect of methadone comes from.  Since methadone
is a narcotic, it blocks the equivalent amount of other narcotics.

Do more recent references disagree with this?

Randy
From: gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM (Richard Stueven)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: HCRC Commercials
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gakbox.corp.sun.com

I received a copy of the HCRC "What if people had to tell the truth"
commercials yesterday...they're great!  The guy playing the cop looks
just like Josef Goebbels.

If you haven't done so already, you should contact Paul Hager and get
yourself a copy.  Maybe (with Paul's permission) we all can take copies
to local TV stations and try to get some air time.  If we're
successful, we'll be getting our message out, and if we're not, we can
turn the TCI thing into a national issue.

It just occurred to me that the commercials work almost as well without
a picture...maybe we can get radio stations to air the audio track.

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| Affix the screen to your nipple
Internet:       gak@Corp.Sun.COM |----GO----| instead of your elbow.
ATTMAIL:         ...!attmail!gak |---SHARX--|                    - CR Saikley
Cow Palace: Sec 107 Row F Seat 9 |----------| 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Organization: New York University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:23:39 GMT

asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
>I've never lost anyone close to me from a drunk driver.  I'm also a
>Libertarian; I don't believe in punishing victimless "crimes".  Driving
>impaired is demonstrably *not* a victimless crime: you *vastly* increase
>the possibility that you'll hurt or kill another person.  As far as I'm
>concerned, what you do to yourself is up to you.

Until you hit someone, driving drunk *is* a victimless crime.  
In your devotion to libertarian ideology, please don't confuse
prevention  with might-have-been-a-victim so there really is one.
You are calling for preventative regulation, and that would seem to
place you in a civil libertarian mode.  You are essentially calling
for a balancing test.


>I'd love to see some logic from the people that think drunk driving should
>be legal.

I think that driving while impaired should be illegal, but I can point out
the basic logic of the opposition:  drunk drivers pose a relatively small
risk.  Put 100 drunks on the road and see how many accidents result.  Very 
few.  (They do account for a large % of the accidents, though.)  The same 
sort of logic informs opposition to various preventative regulations:  the 
chicken factory that burned down in the Carolinas is one example.  How many 
factories have a major fire every year?  Very few.  Yet owners are required 
to have (fire) exits to let people out.  Until a fire actually happens, the 
"crime" of the owner is victimless.  The business that are most likely to 
ignore potential liabilities are those on the verge of bankruptcy, or in
highly competative, capital intensive industries.  Of course regulations 
sink these businesses, but they force them to close before they cut safety 
expenses.  Is the alternative any better?  

Regarding drunk driving:  we could sit back, keep the government out, and 
let people make their own conclusions about the safety of driving and whether 
it is worth it.  Actual victims (or their heirs) could sue for damages.
I don't think this alternative is very attractive, though some very
ideological people would disagree.  (And, of course, highways would
be private and would likely test every driver on the road if that
would improve business, etc.)


david
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:43:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.235729.16809@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:

>BTW. But methadone has the nice effects of 1: satisfying 
>the addiction; 2: making using further narcotics non-pleasurable.

Number 1 is correct, number 2 is absolutely not true.

Methodone is a synthetic narcotic with action similar to heroin, but acting
over 24 hours rather than 12 hours.  It no more decreases the pleasure of
other narcotics than does heroin.

The high is very similar to heroin.  I know this from experience (no, I was
never on methodone maintenance -- but in my early adulthood I experimented
with many drugs and have injected heroin on a few occasions and have injected
methodone once).  Please don't try this at home, though, or anywhere else.
Especially if you don't have access to clean needles.  Hepatitis isn't fun (I
also know this from experience), and I imagine AIDS is much less fun.

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

Santa Claus wears a Red Suit,
	He must be a communist.
And a beard and long hair,
	Must be a pacifist.

	What's in that pipe that he's smoking?
		-- Arlo Guthrie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:37:24 GMT
Summary: kids encouraged to turn in parents?

In article <1992Apr14.004719.24748@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vwelch@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Von Welch) writes:
> In article <wb9omc.703207402@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>, wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
> |> 
> |> 	Interesting thing about it, in this country we often watch
> |> our neighbors and/or their homes and report to the police any
> |> suspicious activity.  We are often then considered good citizens.  Seems
> |> like a pretty fine line between what is a reasonable level of
> |> neighborly concern and blatant interference.......
> |> 
> |> Duane
> 
>  I have always been scared by similarities between what I see on TV shows
> like "America's Most Wanted" and what I've read in books like 1984. "Good
> citizens of the United States, John Doe has committed acts against the state.
> If you have seen him please please report in immediately at 1-800-whatever."
> 
> I hope this is highly paranoid but if a government wanted to find somebody
> for whatever reason put a crime reenactment on the show and get all the TV-
> watching public help you capture them.
> 
I have seen commercials to the effect that children are encouraged
to call a 1-800 number to report their parents use of drugs or abuse
of alcohol. I don't know if this is encouraged in schools. Seems to
me that a child isn't perceptive enough to know all the angles, and
may call to ask an innocent question, and maybe get pushed into letting
out other tidbits of info. The line is indeed fine.

barry--
From: drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Clinton's Marijuana Use
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:46:46 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Apr7.031703.8720@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

> How low can we go? Why is it necessary for a political runner to
> lie and conceal his/her past to get elected? I would have more
> respect for the man if he said, "Sure, I smoked some pot when
> I was in england and I liked it". Huge gasps and wisps of methane
> fill the air from the crowd. Then he says, "prove to me that pot
> is as evil as the PDFA or some politicans would have us believe".
> Well, the cat is out of the bag, studies will be gone over, and
> Clinton would look even better for standing up for his beliefs.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                             
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.

-- Danny

=================================================================
! With a better selection of shows, I could even see it being   !
! very good. As it stands today [TV] is one of the most biased  !
! and worst forms of communication known.                       !
!                          --  alexc@yang.earlham.edu           !
=================================================================
From: gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM (Richard Stueven)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:29:43 GMT
Reply-To: gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gakbox.corp.sun.com

In article 994@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu () writes:
>Of late, we see an increasing number of so-called 'celebrities' convicted
>of minor crimes being sentenced to creating pro-"War-on-Drugs" TV spots.

I believe their sentences give them a choice:  either spread the
government propaganda or do time.  I can't think of anyone who has not
taken the first choice...I wonder someone "out there" can come up with
some examples.

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| 
Internet:       gak@Corp.Sun.COM |----GO----| Disclaimer:  I'm not allowed
ATTMAIL:         ...!attmail!gak |---SHARX--|              to have opinions.
Cow Palace: Sec 107 Row F Seat 9 |----------|
From: urobucsb@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Rob Heinisch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: The true motives behind the legalization of drugs
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:49:09 GMT

The motive behind the legalization of drugs, in my opinion, would not be in the best interests of drug cartels and dealers.

se who sell drugs to make a profit.  How then, can this legislature remain blocked for such a duration when it could only benefit society?

My explanation is that there is a PAC of "criminals and smugglers" who probably donate large sums of money to campaign contribuations.

Hell, write your congressman today and demand a change.  
Hell, write me at urobucsb@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu and ask for changes about anything.   I'm the new Pat Buchanan who tries to appeal to ALL voters, give me a chance.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: I need Pittsburgh Press articles.
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 07:57:24 GMT

I'd like a (email) copy of the Pittsburgh Press series of articles on civil
forfeiture. I hope some kind soul will reply...

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
-------
Ask me about Marrou/Lord bumperstickers!
From: bell@cassatt.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Pres. for DRUGS
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:17:02 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <mah2.702281256@Isis.MsState.Edu> mah2@ra.msstate.edu (Michael Andrew Hodges) writes:
>Since all the presidents are BULLSHIT this time anyway, I would like to
>know which one is least for the STUPID drug war that is going on now!!!!!

Andre Marrou,  Libertarian candidate and on the ballot in all 50 states.
The Libertarian party platform is available on-line;  if you want a copy,
look for libertarians in talk.politics.theory,  alt.individualism,  or
talk.politics.misc;  one of them will probably be able to send you the
platform or tell you where to FTP it from.

   -Andrew "Ending a sentence with a preposition.  Nyah!" Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: nuke@reed.edu (Bill Newcomb)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.214301.15730@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.235729.16809@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>
>>BTW. But methadone has the nice effects of 1: satisfying 
>>the addiction; 2: making using further narcotics non-pleasurable.
>
>Number 1 is correct, number 2 is absolutely not true.
>

Methadone exhibits both opiate agonist and antagonist properties, which
means in addition to producing the opiate high it blocks the action of other
opiates adminstered afterwards. The effect lasts long enough that someone on
daily Methadone therapy will essentially be unable to catch a buzz off of
the normal dose of street narcotics. Morphine and heroin produce very little
antagonism, while Naloxone is almost a pure antagonist, and is used to
reverse the effects of an overdose of, say, heroin.

nuke
From: lorimor@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Lorimor)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:42:51 GMT
Subject: Re: 60 MINUTES
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs



       An afterthought!

     I would like to see a commercial with Karl Malden following a
    couple traveling with cash and being "ROBBED" at
    the airport by the police.  And of course the final kicker would be,
    "Don't let this happen to you!
    When on vacation, don't carry cash, carry American Express
    Travelers Checks".

                                           Bill Lorimor.

    P.S.  Couldn't decide if I should put humor marks at the end.
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Pres. for DRUGS
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:27:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr12.172727.16890
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <mah2.702281256@Isis.MsState.Edu>, mah2@ra.msstate.edu (Michael Andrew Hodges) writes:
> Since all the presidents are BULLSHIT this time anyway, I would like to
> know which one is least for the STUPID drug war that is going on now!!!!!
> 
> The drug war is stupid and costing taxpayers TONS of money that could be spent
> somewhere else like EDUCATION!!!! or at least NOT on congressmen and the
> damn president's tour of Europe!!!
> 
> What I would like to know is, WHAT CANDIDATE WILL REALIZE DRUGS AS A PERCEPTION
> INSTEAD AS A ILLEGAL DEMISE????
> 
> I have heard Brown is pretty good on Drugs, but since Clinton has tried drugs
> would he be a good candidate to legalize MJ?????????
> 
> Thanks in advance.....from Mike(vote for who?)

	If one counts all the candidates, then the Libertarian candidates 
(Andre Marrou, VP Nancy Lord) are the only ones who are truly 
pro-legalization. I don't know who'd be best to be for in the primaries, 
other than not Bush or Buchannan (i.e., not Republicans).
	-Allen
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: My conversation with Bill Bailey
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:21:11 GMT
  <1992Apr7.31731.23674@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


 >> Bailey stood by his statement and tried to weasel out
 >> by an amazing piece of sophistry: not being "illegal"
 >> was not the same as being "legal".  I'd say that this
 >> was a distinction without a difference.
 >   He is saying that nothing is legal unless there is a statute which  
 >specifically says it is OK.

There is a book whose English translation came out recently, titled
_Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich_ by Ingo Moller
(copyright 1989, 1990, or 1991).  The parallels with the WoD are
quite striking; have a spare set of undies handy while you read it.

The Nazis did purge the legal elite (judges, lawyers, and law faculties)
but those purged were replaced by other members of that same elite--
NOT by SA goons or NSDAP toadies--who put their full powers of
creativity into justifying the Cult of the Omnipotent State.

The book quotes the infamous remark by a Nazi judge that "the doctrine
that 'anything not specifically forbidden is permitted' should be
replaced by 'anything not specifically permitted is forbidden'".

By the way, the Founding Fathers did try to settle this question in
the Ninth Amendment, viz: "The enumeration in the Constitution of
certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."  So remember: the Constitution of the United
States isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.


   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