HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bagg@ellis.uchicago.edu (matthew john baggott)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug users defy stereotypes
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:17:44 GMT
Reply-To: bagg@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan19.143047.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>From the "New Internationalist" December 1992

>Most startling is the relationship between drugs and wages. Young cocaine
>and marijuana users actually earn higher salaries than non-users, according to
>a long-term study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in
>New York. The drug-use habits of 5000 young adults were compared across the 
>US. The survey was first done in 1984 and repeated in 1989 to the same group 
>of people, with an average age of 24 and then 27. It shows drug users do not 
>drop out of the workforce quicker than drug-free employees. In fact they are 
>often the most inquisitive and talented people at the workplace.
>				(from the Pacific News Service,August 1992

I haven't personally seen the article, but I think a reference for this is
"Employment and Earnings Effects of Drug Use: Two Studies" in _Industrial
and Labor Relations Review 45(3): 419-448 (discussion: 449-451), 1992.
From the abstract I read, this sounds like the same research.
I may have the title slightly wrong since I scribbled this down when going
through _Sociological Abstracts_ during a recent foray into the literature
on genetics and alcoholism.  

Immediately after leaving the library, I came home to find my housemate 
watching a PDFA ad on television.  PDFA was asking employers if they could 
afford to have unproductive drug users in their employ in today's competitive 
market.   

>-- 
>
>Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
>                  New Zealand
>

   --M@
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8239 talk.politics.medicine:680 sci.med:24418
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:13:43 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan23.093125.10868@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1jpea4INNeh0@duca.hi.com> wright@duca.hi.com (David Wright) writes:
>}There's nothing in the material you've included in Huben's post that
>}recommends that we "prohibit vice".  Indeed, from the tone of the
>}thing, I can't tell whether he's agreeing with you, disagreeing with
>}you, or just making a side point.
>
>You don't know him like I do, then.

Please be gracious enough to allow me to besmirch my own name.  Your
persistant misunderstanding of what I say in other newsgroups gives you no
valid basis to claim you "know me" and can represent what I mean.

Mike Huben

"People always HAVE eaten people; people always WILL eat people.  You can't
change human nature!"  (From "The Reluctant Cannibal" on the Flanders and
Swann album "At The Drop Of A Hat".)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8268 talk.politics.medicine:737 sci.med:24536
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:19:48 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


In article <1993Jan22.094510.14223@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.020022.911160@locus.com> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:
> }And beta-blockers are just one category of drug!
> 
> Yep.  I posted an article about the Fascist Death Authority's censorship on
> notification of results of aspirin studies on heart disease from the Orange
> County Register.  The suppliers of aspirin are banned from telling anyone
> on their labels that their risk of death could be decrease by 40% if they took
> some each day.  This adds about 20 grand more deaths to their body count.

No, their risk of death from heart disease could be reduced by 40%. Their 
risk of death overall would not be decreased at all.

The original figures were very impressive if you care a lot about dying 
of heart disease but don't mind dying as long as it's of something else.
I can't imagine who this would apply to, though. The hoopla about the 
results of that study seemed highly misplaced to me, considering that 
the overall death rate was not at all improved among the aspirin-takers. 

If you can read all of the original literature yourself and make
intelligent conclusions, then it's true that the FDA is no use to you. 
Your statements make it obvious, however, this is not the case.

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:28:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.071536.28598@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.184700.2541@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> franceeg@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
>}	Please list the articles or written information that proves that
>}the approval of treatments denied by the FDA would have saved these 20,000
>}people.

(I may have screwed up an attribution -- Minsky)

>The FDA's death penalty, by Alan Bock, senior columnist, Orange County
>Register
>
>What would you think if an external enemy bombed an American city of 100,000
>each and every year, killing all the inhabitants?  That's about twice as
>many Ameicans as were killed in the Vietnam war, a bit more than were killed
>by the atomic bomb at Nagasaki.  Would such wholesale slaughter make you
>angry?

etc.

I found the article pretty convincing.

The article did not mention another important issue here: There is (I
estimate) a Billion Dollar industry in promoting the Anacin-type
drugs.  Their advertisements often boast about being Aspirin Free, but
do not say that they lack some of the anti-inflammatory and
anti-clotting effects of aspirin.)  It is presumably the latter that
save cardiac lives.  

Now why would one prefer the phenacetins to the aspirins?  The
commercial reason is obvious: the aspirin patent ran out decades ago.
Also, there are some people who get gastric irritation from aspirin
(and I've been told that almost everyone gets a small amount of
gastric bleeding from it).  However, if you're not aspirin-intolerant,
then the benefits appear to be enormously in favor of aspirin.  And
I've also been told that there are also comparably serious side
effects from the anacin-type drugs, only they don't manifest
themselves with such evident gastric irritation symptoms.

Finally, I get very annoyed with the FDA permitting all that "maximum
strength" stuff, considering that two "max" anacins cost much more
than three non-max ones, and the same for aspirin.

Final question: is it true that aspirin retards the destructive
effects of chronic arthritis, whereas anacin merely hides the pain?

Yes, so far as I can see, this policy is indeed costing millions of
man-years (or person-years for you PC-ers) per year.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: brianm@cc.gatech.edu (Brian N. Miller)
Subject: Re: The War on Drugs is Perfectly NORML
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:38:11 GMT

> _High Times_ now "hates heroin, alcohol, speed and cocaine" according to
> _USA Today_.

Now that's my kind of rag.  Big juicy buds and tasty twat stradling phototrons!


> Before it's completely illegal, I would like to remind everyone that...

Who's the bleating sheep now, putz.


> Throw pot seeds on a politician's lawn.

My mom tought me that one.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8238 talk.politics.medicine:679 sci.med:24414
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:56:10 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan21.095319.28095@muddcs.claremont.edu> ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt) writes:
>In article <1jkjl4INN3qu@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Imagine if everybody was free to market any drug they wanted any way they
>>wanted.  How high would the death toll rise?
>
>No need to imagine it -- study pre-FDA history.  "Elixir of
>Sulfanilamide" killed 73; lack of beta-blockers killed a good
>fraction of a million.  Sale of lethal products is self-limiting,
>while bureaucratic stupidity is self-replicating.

Self-limiting at what level?  Tobacco shows no signs of being self-limiting
because of death of its users at the current level of almost a half million
a year in the US alone.  Remove limitations on advertising, remove
epidemological studies that show the clear connection, remove programs that
educate about the hazards, and I suspect that an addictive drug such as
tobacco could double or triple its toll.

Innumerable other drugs are addictive as well.  Addiction itself is harmless
(except for the cost): it is the toxicity of the drug that is at issue.

What is self-replicating (or even spontaneously generating) is the willingness
to convince people to poison themselves rapidly or slowly to make a buck.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
From: ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: drug-free schools
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:38:49 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

Here's a letter that I wrote to the local paper a couple of
years ago. They printed it. It's my plan to achieve "drug
free schools".

					Ed Stokes
					December 11, 1990
	
	Editors
	The Daily Gazette
	Schenectady, NY
	
	Sirs:
	
		Like all parents of young children, I worry about the
	presence and availability of illegal drugs in the public schools. 
	We all share this concern, yet the problem remains. No approach
	has yet been tried which has successfully rid the public schools
	of the presence of illegal drugs. I am writing to propose a
	fresh approach, based on my own personal experience.
	
		When I attended public high school in North Carolina in
	the mid 1970's, there were many students who used illegal drugs,
	mostly marijuana. Everyone knew who they were, and everyone knew
	who to approach to buy some. The people who sold marijuana did
	so because they could make extra spending money by doing so. Other
	drugs were occasionally observed to be sold on school property,
	with two notable exceptions: alcohol and tobacco.
	
		I can honestly say that I NEVER observed anyone selling,
	or even using, alcohol on school property ! Tobacco was used
	in designated "smoking areas", but was NEVER sold. It doesn't
	require a rocket scientist to figure out why this was the case.
	
		No one sold alcohol or tobacco at school because there
	was no money to be made. Kids who wanted tobacco bought it at
	the store. Kids who wanted alcohol had to get some older friend
	or sibling to buy it for them. But neither of these two legal
	drugs was ever bought or sold at school, because the motivation
	for selling drugs at school is the same as the motivation for
	selling anything anywhere: cash profit.
	
		Can we learn a lesson from this ? I believe that we can.
	I am convinced that the best way to rid our schools of illegal
	drugs in one fell swoop is to make them legally available for
	adults in stores, just as alcohol is legally available for adults
	in stores. Yes, kids who want them will still get them...
	
		But they won't get them at school ! Isn't that what we
	want to achieve ?
	
					Sincerely,
					Ed Stokes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: chao6@husc11.harvard.edu (James Chao)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Model UN Conference in Prague
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:54:12 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

(If possible, please print out and post for people who might be
interested)

To all those interested in international relations, politics, and the
United Nations -- WorldMUN is a great forum for the discussion of 
current issues being debated by the United Nations today: 

Harvard World Model United Nations (WorldMUN) is an international
conference that brings together university students and young
professionals from around the globe to siimulate the workings of the
United Nations.  The second annual WorldMUN conference will be held from
March 28, 1993, through March 31, 1993, at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  

Ten committees, representing the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, will discuss
issues from the actual UN agenda.  In addition to the formal debate of
resolutions, committee sessions will be augmented by presentations from
politicians, businessmen, scholars, and activists who have helped shape
the dramatic world events of recent years.

In this era of momentous political change, WorldMUN seeks to assess the
role of the United Nations in a new world order.  WorldMUN marks the first
truly international simulated United Nations where participants play the
roles of their own nation's ambassadors.  WorldMUN strives to teach
tomorrow's leaders about the United Nations and its methods of conflict
resolution.  It aims to foster skills in negotiation and debate, in order
that delegates may formulate resolutions on topics currently discussed in
the real United Nations.  These resolutions will be sent to the actual
United Nations committees.

WorldMUN 1993 will take place at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  The Hotel Diplomat is Prague's most modern conference
center.  Prague is both one of the most beautiful metropoles of Europe and
an ideal location for debating current world politics and the changing
role of the United Nations.

The Hotel diplomat is a luxury resort that offers restaurants, shops, a
night club, and fitness and spa equipment.  Delegates will stay at the
Hotel Diplomat for the reduced rate of 130DM/day double occupancy, which
includes two meals a day.

Delegate registration is $US60 per delegate.  For more information, please
reply to this e-mail address or write/fax:
Joshua A. Salomon, Secretary-General
Harvard World Model United Nations 1993
Suite 23, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-3810
UNITED STATES

Telephone:  001-617-493-6995
Fax:  001-617-493-6995

James Chao
chao6@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: gun@wariat.org (Greg Narezny)
Subject: Free-Base Cocaine
Organization: warrior
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:33:57 GMT

High, does anyone know the toxicology of smoking free base cocaine?

JANE'S ADDICTION:
  Calling most illegal drug substances "addictive" is almost always heresay,
and good propaganda for police departments and several government organ-
izations, but F.B.C., aka crack, does compel repeated use. However, I believe
that it's habit-forming properties are psychological. One does get a sickly
feeling that fortunately goes away after a fairly short period, but the desire
to use it seems to be due to the novelty affect. Note that some people can't
get enough of this affect. The studies with monkeys that take coke until they
die are a little biased - the monkeys didn't know that coke can be harmful,
so they have no sense of when to stop, and unless you're Richard Pryor,
having an unlimited supply is quite unrealistic.

UPSIDE - SEX:
CRACK:
  Who made up this name? DEA? NBC? Is there any difference between crack
and free-base? Or is it the old scare tactic: "A powerful new narcotic
called ___ is taking over the country"..

  What they don't tell you is that it's a POWERFUL APHRODISIAC.
Unfortunately, it's mental stimulation only, and it shuts you down down
there (for boys & girls). Don't fall into the trap of you and partner
trying again and again to get off (and if you find the combination, let
me know). It probably may be good as an instant get-to-know-you drug;
it basically converts many people to horny, primal sex fiends. No Joke.

DOWNSIDE:
  What worries me is the after-effects, or side-effects.  The higher the
dosage, the hornier you get - leading to maximum ecstacy being at near
lethal dosages. I did see a girl go into a seizure once (I think she did
a big hit); I thought she was going to die, but she recovered without
incident. Seizures are rarely fatal, but it's not a pretty sight. Another
danger is the increased pulmonary level. A paramedic told me that at
excessive levels your heart can literally explode.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS:
- Black soot in your lungs. A water pipe is supposed to solve this problem.
The 'soot' is apparently from the flame source (butane, candle, etc), and
I would think is relatively harmless. Is it so that an inert substance
hanging out in the lungs could lead to lung cancer eventually?

- Brain damage? You instantly blast your brain with a large dose of a
chemical that makes you temporarily paranoid and horny, blurs your vision,
and you get real stupid. How many brain cells die?

- Weakens your cardio-pulmonary and muscular strength. I've noticed a
perceptible decline in strength and muscle size..

- Central nervous system damage? Beyond short-term shakes, isn't Richard
Pryor (a good case example of massive overuse) currently suffering from
a couple of nervous disorders?


Any enlightend replies welcome.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8227 talk.politics.medicine:669 sci.med:24352
From: franceeg@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:46:59 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <1993Jan23.092438.10614@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> In article <1993Jan23.042628.16301@netcom.com> cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
> }Tim Starr (starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu) wrote:
> 
> My argument is that censorship, even in the name of consumer protection, is
> criminally destructive.  In this case, it destroys 20,000 lives/year.
> 
	
	I think a number of persons, including myself, would be interested in
specific proof in how the FDA's "censorship" kills 20,000 people a year.  I am
not interested in another nebulous statement of dogma, but actual proof.

	Please list the articles or written information that proves that
the approval of treatments denied by the FDA would have saved these 20,000
people.

	Saying "it's all a conspiracy" and that the government has "covered it
all up" isn't good enough.  There are plenty of independent watchdog agencies
who contradict government agencies all the time.

	One more thing.  When citing evidence, make sure it is scientific
evidence that proves that these people would not have died.  Saying "Dr.
So-and-So estimates. . ." is just somebody's opinion, not proof. 

	Once again, please be specific in citing proving documents.


Ed Francell
Univ. of Cincinnati


Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:22:46 GMT

In article <1k2nifINNkc6@beethoven.cs.unc.edu> bell@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
>The real question regarding tobacco would be "what
>effect would outlawing tobacco have?"  Perhaps because cigarettes have
>relatively weak psychoactive effects, tobacco prohibition would be more
>productive than alcohol Prohibition was.  But there is an alternative
>I'll mention later, without the harmful side effects of Prohibition.

I doubt highly that tobacco prohibition would be more productive than
alcohol prohibition was.  We have recent examples of what the response
of tobacco addicts is when their supply is removed.  There have been
very violent riots in parts of the former Soviet Union when cigarette
rations have been cut.  In Italy during the tobacco workers strike, there
were numerous reports of violence (robberies, truck hi-jacking, etc...)
as well as astronomical prices commanded for tobacco.  Closer to home,
two weeks ago a waiter in a Sacramento, Ca. restaraunt was stabbed to death
after he informed a patron that it was illegal to smoke in the restaraunt
(Sacramento has a no-smoking ordinance for all restaraunts).  Tobacco is
an addictive drug, and like any other addictive drug, making it illegal
is going to cause serious crime problems.  The problems with tobacco would 
of course be particularly acute because we have a large population of
addicts accustomed to a readily available, cheap supply.

>Early
>20th century physicians treated alcoholics by making them morphine
>addicts, believing it to be a less harmful addiction.  (With a safe
>supply of legal morphine, this is probably true...)

Its not probably true, its definitely true.  Morphine is much more
readily tolerated by the body than alcohol is.

Guido


Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8272 talk.politics.medicine:760 sci.med:24588
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:06:26 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1k6n8kINN18k@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan22.094510.14223@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan19.020022.911160@locus.com> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:
>> }And beta-blockers are just one category of drug!

>> Yep.  I posted an article about the Fascist Death Authority's censorship on
>> notification of results of aspirin studies on heart disease from the Orange
>> County Register.  The suppliers of aspirin are banned from telling anyone
>> on their labels that their risk of death could be decrease by 40% if they took
>> some each day.  This adds about 20 grand more deaths to their body count.

>No, their risk of death from heart disease could be reduced by 40%. Their 
>risk of death overall would not be decreased at all.

From that standpoint, none of medicine is useful.  The question is about
the increased length and quality of life.  The aspirin studies make the
dose for reducing the death rate from heart disease at 1/2 tablet a day,
which is very cheap.  There have now been other studies published which
confirm the claims that 800 mg of Vitamin E/day, which the FDA classes
as a huge megadose, is also effective.  The cost of these two treatments
together is less than the cost of one visit to the doctor per year.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:54:27 GMT

In article <1k2nifINNkc6@beethoven.cs.unc.edu> bell@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
>Early 20th century physicians treated alcoholics by making them morphine
>addicts, believing it to be a less harmful addiction.  (With a safe supply
>of legal morphine, this is probably true...)

It is ABSOLUTELY true.

   Thanks awfully,
              Patrick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med