HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: question regarding job application
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:56:56 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Dec14.201820.1414@sarah.albany.edu> km9985@sarah.albany.edu (MADIGAN KEVIN M) writes:
>This has me steamed! Is this constitutional? If I write them and tell them
>how I feel about this, do I end up on some "subversives" list?
	Don't be afraid of ending up on a subversives list. Be proud. I don't 
	feel you can claim to be a good american without being considered
	a subversive by the national-security state.  Remember, they are
	out to take away what our forefathers fought and died to give us.
	We have a responsibility as americans to defend our constitution
	from all threats, even the domestic threats.  I hope I am on every 
	subversive list those flag-wrapped pseudo-americans keep.  The 
	national-security state is not a legitimate democratic government no 
	matter what you may have been told.  No keeper of secret lists of 
	"subversives" can claim to be a defender of the constitution. 
	No government that believes in lists of people who hold 
	"subversive ideas" can claim to be a democracy.  Thomas Jefferson 
	would never have countenanced it. Why should we?


>What is the deal with this? It seems rather intrusive. The loyalty oath bit
>seems rather unamaerican.
	Ironic isn't.  I like to think of it as the Tao of americanism.
	The act of requiring a loyalty pledge is itself disloyal to the
	philosophy of the constitution.


						smg
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Health (Choices) Freedom Act(s) of 1992
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:56:40 GMT

In article <dmeyers.724380986@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
}
}Hey, everybody.
}
}I came across a suggestion to write to my congressperson(s) to
}tell them to support the Health Freedom Acts of 1992 (S. 2835)
}and the Health Choices Freedom Act of 1992 (HR 5746).
}
}Apparently, these acts oppose some of the new powers that
}the FDA is trying to get.
}
}Before I put pen to paper and make such a suggestion, I'd
}like to know more about these bills.

What I've heard from people like the Life Extension Foundation about these
is all good.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Health (Choices) Freedom Act(s) of 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:56:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab


Hey, everybody.

I came across a suggestion to write to my congressperson(s) to
tell them to support the Health Freedom Acts of 1992 (S. 2835)
and the Health Choices Freedom Act of 1992 (HR 5746).

Apparently, these acts oppose some of the new powers that
the FDA is trying to get.

Before I put pen to paper and make such a suggestion, I'd
like to know more about these bills.

Anyone know where I can get copies of them, and/or summaries
of them, prefereably online?

(And, for future reference, where I can find this sort of
information...)?

Thanks.

--David

-- 
-- David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)
From: Institute for Hemp <insthemp@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:52 PST
Subject: Surgeon Gen Backs Med MJ
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1484000079:000:472
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!insthemp    Dec 20 08:52:00 1992



****FLASH********FLASH*********FLASH********


****  NEW SURGEON GENERAL BACKS  ****
****     MEDICAL MARIJUANA       ****

DEC 20,1992


CNN Headline News reported today that Clinton's Surgeon General appointee
has stated that she will back the use of marijuana as a medicine.

In a televised quote the New S.G. stated that marijuana was benifical to 
thse who suffer from glaucoma, aids, and Cancer treatments.




VICTORY IS LCLOSE....
NOSW LETS WORK ON HHS DIRECTOR
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Alaska MJ laws
Date: 13 Dec 92 08:01:52 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Dec9.131810.12720@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1484000071@igc.apc.org>, esterling@igc.apc.org (Eric Sterling) writes:
>>It is a falsehood that the Alaska "experiment" with legalized marijuana
>>failed.  The repeal of the Alaska decriminalization law was organized,
>>and bought and paid for by the William Bennett drug czar operation.
>
>This I believe.
>
>>Keeping Marijuana legal lost a vote -- but legal marijuana got MORE 
>>votes than the sucessful candidate for governor!
>
>Could somebody explain this, please?  Were the two votes on different days? 
>Or was there a strong third party gubernatorial candidate?

Yes, a three way race for governor, and a close count on the MJ issue.
I don't recall the exact figures, but it was something like the gov
got 41% and the NO vote for MJ re-crim got 45%.

In both cases it seems we bought a loser...  IMHO.

Floyd
-- 
floyd@ims.alaska.edu        A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska              system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
From: nick@gepard.msk.su (Ovcharenko Nickolay Yurievich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: BEE VEDOM: Where to use? Information needed.
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:07:19 GMT
Reply-To: nick@gepard.msk.su
Organization: GEPARD, Ltd

Dear gentlemen!
Here in Russia we are going to produce bee vedom. Would you help us in finding
medical or pharmacological centers interested in long-time cooperation. If
scientists or other specialists will contact with us, it will be great.
     Sincerely  Nickolay Ovcharenko
     nick@gepard.msk.su
     fax (095)-135-70-30
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (NORML California)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Alaska MJ laws
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:10:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec7.225337.4780@unlv.edu:-263142406:cdp:1484000076:000:719
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!canorml    Dec 15 22:10:00 1992


  A curious thing about the Alaskan recriminalization measure (which
passed in Nov., 1990), is that it has not yet been tested in court.  There
is good reason to think that it would be held unconstitutional, since
the Alaska court ruled that personal cultivation of marijuana was protected
under the state's constitutional right to privacy in the famous 1974
Raven decision.  As soon as the recrim law took effect in 1991, a group
of Alaskans tried to get themselves arrested so they could challenge it -
but the police refused to come arrest them.  To our knowledge, no one
has yet been busted at home under the new Alaskan law - the police are 
waiting in the hopes that there will be a more conservative court soon.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Frying one's brain / DMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:23:48 GMT

bagg@ellis.uchicago.edu (matthew john baggott) writes:
: 
: >I would also like to know (and again, don't bother posting if you can't
: >attribute; there are too many ULs as is) whether it is true that lysergic
: >drugs (ie manufactured LSD, shrooms, MG seeds) have a permanent (which is
: >not to say negative) effect on brain activity, and whether the chemical
: >remains in one's system or is eventually dispelled
: 
: Mushrooms (exluding fly agaric) are not lysergic drugs, their active 
: components are tryptamines.  The only permanent effects of LSD and its close

Unless if misremember, the drugs in A. Muscaria (fly agaric) are not lysergic
compounds either.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8019 alt.drugs:20060 alt.individualism:6126 alt.society.civil-liberty:6999
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: "U.S. Drug Laws Clash With Somali Tradition"
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:33:37 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL


	I guess this means that the US has unofficially annexed Somalia into
the United States, forcing it to abide by all of its laws, and not giving it
the "benefits" of being a state. I had thought the US decided a long time
ago not to acquire additional territory-- wasn't that decision made back
after WWI? Ah, regression.

-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Sun Dec 20 11:17:35 1992 US Debt: $4,176,992,167,590 Per capita: $16,317
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Re: A Congress In Favor of Hemp
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:01:13 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec12.192005.7698@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
> muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney) writes:
>>decriminalizing marijuana... She DOES FAVOR decriminalizing MJ for small
>>qtys and medical use.. She has been on the record as saying that.... She
> 
>>political reasons... She is not exactly an outspoken advocate on the
>>subject, however she is definatly an enlightend individual and will make a
>>wonderful Senator...
> 
> 	If you dig socialism and gun bans, then yes, she will make a 
> 	wonderful Senator.
> 
> 	She also was involved in some welfare fraud, which indicates she
> 	may have the aptitude to do well in the Senate enviornment.

grrrrrr jd. grrrrrr.

In the War on the Wo(s)D we have damn few allies. It could be worse-- she could
be for socialism, gun bans *and* for locking up hempsters and throwing away the
keys.  

I suspect that Braun's low key approach to the drug war issue was calculated. 
I think she's *much* more anti-wo(s)d than her campaign portrayed.  I think she
was advised to keep it quiet so she could get elected.  Fine with me, as I'm
interested in *results*. 

Now for a minor prediction: Carol Moseley Braun will take the lead in
dismantling the Wo(s)D.   Remember who said it first.

Howsabout this scenario JD: We win the Anti-Wo(s)D, pot becomes legal again, 
and hysteria over Xochi's revenge (coke) lessens.  Narcocracy violence
declines, anti-RKBA initiatives die on their accursed vines. [some steps
omitted for brevity]
 
Now, a minor plug for IMI: One of our guys took the photo on page 19 of the 
Jan. '93 issue of _High Times_.  Good job, Dave! (and thanxameg.Ben!)

happy solstice.max
mmonningh@igc.org
IMI
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:59:37 GMT

In article <Bz7yy3.GA8@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>}Point taken.  I am not a Marxist mind you (I find the theory quite inadequate),
}>}but I do think that when there is a limited amount of stuff to go around, some
}>}people having tons measn others have less.  I dunno.
}
}>I wouldn't have accused you of being a Marxist at all.
}
}>It's worth noting that while there is always scarcity of wealth, that this
}>doesn't imply that the quantity of it is fixed.  Given a sufficiently free
}>market, economies grow.  This constitutes peaceful redistribution to those
}>who produce.
}
}Well, I agree with you up until that last line.  It has not been shown to me 
}that the peaceful redistribution really happens.
}
}Still, your point is understandable and potentially valid.

One way to check this is to check out wealth concentration internationally.
I believe you'll find that the USA has the least concentration of wealth
of any other country.  So, if the USA is the most capitalist, then this would
be evidence of this redistribution.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: Jim Rosenfield <jnr@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:57 PST
Subject: Re: LA Times article on Hashish/Amsterd
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec10.221708.24392@muddcs.cl:-673738917:cdp:1484000081:000:1465
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jnr    Dec 20 15:57:00 1992


December 20, 1992

Los Angeles Times
Times-Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA   90053

Attn: Letters to the Editor

Thanks for running the story about the coffee houses in Holland
back on December 10.  I was particularly glad that you dealt
evenhandedly with the fact that marijuana users are not
persecuted by that society.  There is no hysterical war on drugs. 

You could have taken the opportunity to join the chorus of self-
serving voices who demonize this mild, ancient form of non-
addicting relaxant, such as has been the fashion for some twelve
years now.  But you didn't and I thank you for treating the issue
of marijuana use in such an honest way.  

The war on drugs may have had a couple of sane, decent-hearted
motives, but the effects have played into the hands of organized
crime, creating a huge lucrative, big-money, deadly drug trade. 
In addition it has bloated our law-enforcement bureaucracy who
are "cracking down" on victimless marijuana users whose actions
should not be a crime.  Finally, it has glutted our prisons and
our courts with criminal prosecutions of productive and
benevolent citizens who are harming no one.

We should follow Holland's example or even do better.  Over
twenty years ago, Californians voted to make marijuana use a
simple misdemeanor.  Let end this destructive campaign against
marijuana and decriminalize its use entirely.  This would be a
good way to kick organized crime in the guts.

Jim Rosenfield
Culver City

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson)
Subject: Re: Politics & $traight Per$on$
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:25:29 GMT

 
>		 Page 1 of the flyer follows:

>		      ATTENTION TAXPAYERS:
>	   LOOKING FOR A WAY TO KEEP YOUR TAXES DOWN?
 
>	   DO YOU KNOW ANY ADULTS WHO SMOKE MARIJUANA?
>	     MAKE THEM PAY TAXES FOR THE PRIVILEGE!

They are already paying for the "privilege."  It's called RICO.

Beware of this tack because it could backfire.


Mark
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8014 alt.drugs:20037
From: drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Danny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Attack on Deadheads is no hallucination
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:49:50 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



I logged on today expecting to spend a good hour reading the reviews 
of the USA Today article about LSD and deadheads targets.  It must be 
finals week again.

The article is:      "Attack on Deadheads is no hallucination"
                        USA Today, Thursday Dec 17 1992.


Included was a box titled "Comparing times for crimes" (federal)
(no parole is available on any sentence)

CRIME                           MINIMUM MAXIMUM
-----------------------------------------------
LSD possession ($1,500 worth)   10.1    13.9
Attempted murder with harm       6.5     8.1
Rape                             5.8     7.2
Armed robbery (gun)              4.7     5.9
Kidnapping                       4.2     5.2
Theft of $80 million or more     4.2     5.2
Extortion                        2.2     2.7
Burglary (carrying a gun)        2.0     2.5
Taking a bribe                    .5     1.0
Blackmail                         .3      .8

(Source: U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual; DEA)


-- Danny

        =================================================
        !  This is all really a bad dream isn't it?     !
        !       -Mark Roddy  (markr@seqp4.sequoia.com)  !
        =================================================
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Washington Post on Qat
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Dec18.133535.18489@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>I'd hate to think this guy was commanding troops in the field.  Taking
>adversaries' drug habits into account goes back at least to the American
>Revolution, when George Washington attacked the British the day after
>Christmas because he knew the hessians would be hung over from drinking the
>previous day.
 
 
Check how Odysseus slew the suitors.  


	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: "Drugs" threaten democracy in former Soviet Union
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:05:35 GMT

In article <kosinov.723968967@ceg.uiuc.edu> kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky) writes:
>Come on man!!! Stop whatching documentaries produced by Oliver Stone's
>friends. No Historian outside of the insane ward has ever suggested that
>Nixon or LBJ had Mafia ties, while it is fairly standard knowledge that
>JFK had dealings in those circles, which may not have been illegal, but
>were almost certainly enough to bring down a Presidancy in today's world
>(especially if it were Republican, which, of course, it weren't).
>				       Greg.

Oh ?  Any historian worth a plug nickel would have to say that
Mafia money has influenced most American elections.  The Teamsters did
support Nixon you know.  But of course, the mafia has NOTHING to do with
the Teamsters - right ?

When the police want to solve a crime - the first thing they do is reduce
the list of possible suspects by scrutinizing those individuals with a 
MOTIVE.  In the case of keeping drugs illegal, the people who have the
greatest motive for maintaining the status quo are those who PROFIT from
drug prohibition.  Ironically, the two groups who profit the most from
this arrangement are those who sell drugs, and those who try to prevent
people from selling drugs.  I have no doubt that the "Mafia" and any
other organized crime organizations would take whatever steps they deemed
necessary to protect their income from the traffic in illegal drugs.

Any political attempt to legalize drugs would of course threaten this
income stream.

Guido
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:02:51 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}Well, I agree with you up until that last line.  It has not been shown to me 
>}that the peaceful redistribution really happens.
>}Still, your point is understandable and potentially valid.
>One way to check this is to check out wealth concentration internationally.
>I believe you'll find that the USA has the least concentration of wealth
>of any other country.  So, if the USA is the most capitalist, then this would
>be evidence of this redistribution.
Well, that is not the case.  We have a higher concentration than such countries
as Sweden, but admitedly a lower concentration than France.  Both of the nations
used for comparison are often called socialist or pseudo-socialist.  
We best the Third World out in concentration of wealth, but that is not saying 
much.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Teacher says no to legalization
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:13:25 GMT

In article <Bz09ot.Lvs@wrs.com>, gak@wrs (Richard Stueven) writes:
>Or do it right and mention RE-legalization.

I think "end the prohibition" or "repeal the prohibition" is better.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7959 talk.politics.misc:64243
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:46:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <Bz7yy3.GA8@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

>>It's worth noting that while there is always scarcity of wealth, that this
>>doesn't imply that the quantity of it is fixed.  Given a sufficiently free
>>market, economies grow.  This constitutes peaceful redistribution to those
>>who produce.

>Well, I agree with you up until that last line.  It has not been shown to me 
>that the peaceful redistribution really happens.

What exactly do you think rich people use their money for?
I think it was Dave Barry who joked that he wondered what
the government thought people would do with their money if
the government didn't decide for them, and suggested that
they bake it in pies or some other nonsense.

Fact is, people buy stuff.  When a rich person buys things,
s/he buys it FROM SOMEONE.  Even if that seller is also
rich, one way or another, that money gets around, and most
of the rich people pay people to do stuff, whether it be
mow their lawns or fix their ferraris.  Keep the rich people
from their own money, and you keep the working people from
their jobs.  Which then becomes an argument to take even
more from the rich people to give to the people who no
longer have jobs.  It sure seems to me that it would be
much easier to let the rich people give the others jobs
and money in compensation for work.

It just doesn't make any sense to make money and keep it
locked away.  It tends to go down in value that way.

--D

-- 
-- David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Frying one's brain / DMT
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:54:07 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec15.185650.1256@burrhus.harvard.edu> glazier@isr.harvard.edu (Andrew Baker Glazier) writes:
>Personally,  I'd never heard of DMT before reading about it here, but it's
>getting to be really annoying. Every post on it contradicts the one before
>it, especially on the issue of its legality. I would appreciate some
>attribution of sources for this info.

    DMT and its ethyl homolog are Schedule I.  Look in a recent catalog
from Sigma Chemical Co. for verification.  Sigma lists many controlled
substances, and cites the CSA schedule for each.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs