HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tt@romulus.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:58:12 GMT
	<1992Apr4.171207.11954@eskimo.celestial.com>
	<bjpjm0b.feustel@netcom.com> <1992Apr7.222859.7451@nntp.hut.fi>
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Originator: tt@romulus.jyu.fi

In article <1992Apr7.222859.7451@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>In article <bjpjm0b.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom (David Feustel) writes:
>>The Supreme Court has already ruled that civil forfeiture is
>>constitutional. I propose another amendment that specifically abolishes
>>the practice.

>Methinks you're in a need of a change of the Court, then.  It doesn't
>seem that an amendement would help
[...]
>There's a need to use one or another of those checks and balances
>designed into the system.  What of those are best applied as tools to
>use against a corrupted Supreme Court?

Just elect a Congress that agrees with you and impeach the entire
Supreme Court, or at least those judges who support civil forfeiture,
and if necessary the President as well.  All it takes is convincing
the majority of voters -- just like an amendment would.

Actually, if you can do that it probably wouldn't be necessary to
change the judges after all.  They're sensitive to the public opinion
too, and so is the Congress ... all you need is convincing a majority
(or sufficiently big and noisy minority) of the population that current
civil forfeiture laws and practices are BAD, and all else follows.

--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Perot
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:35:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.023035.21080@news.cs.indiana.edu> hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>Right you are -- H. Ross is a consumate drug warrior.
>[...] Perot's task force
>called for stiffer sentences and manditory minimums.  The
>result, according to Mason, is that the Texas prison population
>exploded, there is now a multi-billion dollar bond issue for
>building more prisons, and the "drug problem" is, if anything,
>even worse than it was before.

AAAAaaaarrrgggghhhh!

Damn, and I thought there was finally a candidate I could vote for.

I'm still leaning toward Perot because the deficit problem is such
a big one -- and he may be the only candidate willing to do something
about it.  But if he's that much of a drug warrior, it will pain my
conscience mightily to do so.

I guess I'm back to voting for Marrou, even though I don't think he
has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.  Or maybe Jerry Brown if
he makes the nomination.

I really, really want Bush to be President for another four years.  NOT!

But who can I vote for that both has a chance of winning AND will support
ending selective drug prohibition?

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

	First secure an independent income, then 
	practice virtue.

					- Greek saying
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3363 talk.politics.misc:17714 talk.politics.drugs:2830
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:08:59 GMT

The recent letter quoting from "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" brought
to mind a related situation involving political coersion that we see
today in the USA.

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.
Notables in this category include Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Reubins and most
recently rocker Billy Idol. 

Is it proper for our government to coerce persons into publicly 
endorsing ANY political policy or philosophy ? While it is permitted
that the government may regulate the overt *actions* of individuals,
their political speech, their thoughts, their personal convictions are 
not permissible targets for court action. No difference exists in principal
to threatening increased sentences to traffic offenders if they refuse to
endorse a particular candidate for office or a specified political
opinion on any subject. 

Coerced political statements are the very meat and potatoes of
totalitarianism. Any undesired movement can be discredited, any
person can be smeared, any truth can be blurred once a government
is allowed to coerce speech in their favor. Too many people will
take the easier path and simply yeild to the threats - honor and
truth be damned. This injures not only these people but the 
effects of their speech and the toleration of the methods that
yeilded it are greatly injurious to us all. 

Does the first Amendment also guarentee the right to withold speech ?

-- Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:45:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr7.092221.17235@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>Stuart Krone is doing a better job than I could defending the LP (I'm new
>to the LP, but learning), though he forgot to use the phrases "personal
>responsability" and "compassion" ;-)

Thank You. It is always good to hear people agree with you. It lets me 
know that I'm on track.  I didn't mention compassion or personal 
responsibility for a reason.  I didn't want to be accused of 
setting up a straw man argument. By assuming the
worst possible society and showing how it would STILL be in 
their interest to show compassion I can destroy my oponents argument 
without exposing any weak spots in my theory.

You are of course correct though, in any human society there is compassion
and personal responsibility.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: DEA Quiz
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:22:52 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting


Subject: DEA Quiz (OK, DEA Jokes)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
 
Is there anything worse than a slimey UZI-armed disease-infested
pushing-drugs-on-children drug dealer?
ANS: Yes: the typical DEA agent.
 
Is there anything slimier than a typical DEA agent?
ANS: Yes, the DEA agent's confidential informer(CI).
 
Could there be anyting at all higher on the slime scale than a CI?
ANS: Yes, DEA management. (Phitoohey!)
 
See "Year of the Rat" in the May 1992 issue of Reason Magazine for
evidence of just how appropriate is the appellation "Criminal" when
applied to our Justice System (as if you needed any more).

-- 
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 =
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3243 misc.legal:8864 talk.politics.drugs:2702
From: bgg@pta.pyramid.com.au (Ben Golding)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Drug Reform in Australia
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:36:22 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Sydney

In article <1992Apr1.234059.4804@cs.uow.edu.au> ph@cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Phil Herring, DD (Ret.)) writes:
>doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>>Explain how much better peace works in the Netherlands, and how
>>Germany and Australia are moving towards the "damage reduction" model.
>
>Uh, well, the mention of Australia here is wrong, methinks. In this
>country we're tending towards the US model. The state of NSW has
>civil forfeiture laws modelled loosely on RICO, and they have been 
>recently applied for the first time in my home town (I'm sad to say).

I think NSW is somewhat at odds with the directions being taken by the
rest of the country.  This is largely due to the very right wing
Greiner government that is currently censoring books for schoolchildren
about sex amongst other things.

In Victoria, SA, and the ACT (at least) you can grow up to six cannabis
plants and it is considered to be "personal consumption".  The ACT has
recently allowed physicians to prescribe heroin for addicts and so on.

The recent conference on Harm Minimisation in Health was held in
Australia because of our broad-minded attitude to issues like needle
exchanges and sex education.  The level of AIDS infection in IV drug
users in Australia is under 2% and stable; in New York, it's over 50%
and rising.  The US government still has the bald faced contempt to say
that needle exchange programs aren't proven to work.

>This country is also steadily stiffening penalties for drug use, possession
>and sale. A few states have had very soft laws on marijuana possession
>for a long time, but that's about all.

I disagree.  The RICO laws came into effect some years (while Reagan
was president in the US -- no coincidence I believe) and haven't been
used much at all.  At worst, the drug penalties are staying the same
and I believe that in the future they will be lessened.

There is a quiet but constant questioning of the effectiveness of the
current drug laws by such "reactionary" (NOT) papers such as the Sydney
Morning Herald where they ask the hard questions about what results the
current drug policy is having.

I find this very reassuring.

	Ben.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3300 misc.legal:9009 talk.politics.drugs:2777
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: Bush Addicted to Invasions of Foreign Countries
Keywords: Costa Rica, secret U.S. military operations
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:36:29 GMT

In <kgzjd_m.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>The militarisation of Costa Rica shows that Bush is getting ready to
>conduct another STORM operation on one or more South American
>Countries.

$10 on Peru.  Bet cancelled if STORM operation doesn't happen.
Any takers? :-)
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3395 talk.politics.misc:17917 talk.politics.drugs:2859
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:47:02 GMT

In article 21899@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>"Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
>Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others, so
>in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try to
>deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."
>
>Bleah.
>
We MUST use caution when depriving people of their rights.  If it is acceptable for us
to take away one persons freedoms, then it is acceptable for someone to then take
ours.  We should not deny anyone the Freedom of Speech, but we SHOULD exercise
OUR freedom to "Find something more constructive to listen to."
Whenever Hate groups speak, we generally find "something better to do."  Then, we
listen to what they've said after they are gone and educate people as to the reality
of the situation and try to clear up the misconseptions that the hate-spokesperson
deliberately instilled in the audience.

Trying to deny their freedoms is nearly as bad an idea as throwing rocks at them.
It only gives them power makes them look like the "Good Guys."

---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: The Founders and Private Property
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:37:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

Many who participate in this group like to quote the various Founders
about the virtue of minimalist government.  The quote about government
which governs the least, governs the best comes to mind.  These atitudes
didn't come from an examination of European government of the day, however.
It came from an examintation of Native American societies, most specifically
the Iroquois League.  And with this study, they also came to admire the
Indian atitude towards private property.  Some quotes:

	All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow,
	his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely
	necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of
	public Convention.  Hence, the public has the rights of
	regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property,
	and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it.  All the
	property that is necessary to man is his natural Right, which
	none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous
	to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their
	Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.

	Benjamin Franklin

	
	While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind
	of property is derived from Nature at all . . . it is considered
	by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no
	one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land
	. . . [which] . . . is the property for the moment of him who
	occupies it, but when he relinquishes that occupation, the
	property goes with it.  Stable ownership is the gift of social
	law, and is given late in the progress of society.

	Thomas Jefferson


	Whenerver ther is, in any country, uncultivated lands and
	unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property
	have been so extended as to violate natural right.

	Thomas Jefferson


	Private property . . . is a Creature of Society, and is subject
	to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall
	require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore
	to the public Exingencies are not to be considered a Benefit on
	the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of
	Honor and Power, but as Return of an Obligation previously
	received, or as payment for a just Debt.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Need Libertarian contact in MD
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:01:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: esd.1992Apr16.180126.20228
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support

From article <1992Apr11.041800.15843@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, by doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey):
> In article <357@sousa.ltn.dec.com> wyoung@wdcis.enet.dec.com (Warren Ray Young) writes:
>>
>>Hi. Could someone please email me the name, address, etc. of a Libertarian 
>>party contact in this area? I'm interested in doing some work for them, if 
>>they're accepting volunteers. 
> 
> Why don't you call the National party and pose this question?  When I joined,
> they sent me this info for my area, but it was a looooong time in coming.
> If you explain that you want to find the local contacts NOW, I'm sure they'd
> accomodate you.  For a good time, call :-) 800 682-1776.
> 
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick

When you call 1-800-682-1776, also ask them the phone number of the
local/state Libertarian Party.

Check the white pages under Libertarian.

Check the yellow pages under Political Parties.

If you still need help, send me e-mail and I will look up the phone number
at my house and send it back to you.



---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 12:53:32 -0500

ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:

>In article <bjpjm0b.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>The Supreme Court has already ruled that civil forfeiture is
>>constitutional. I propose another amendment that specifically abolishes
>>the practice.
>>-- 

>I dont think so.  Citations, please.

You might start with "Caught in the Crossfire" by Alice M. O'Brien
in the _St Johns Law Review_ 521 (1991).  It gives a good background
on civil forfeiture law and the innocent owner defense.  See also,
"RICO Forfeitures as 'Excessive Fines' or 'Cruel and Unusual
Punishments'", 35 Villanova Law Review 905 (1990) by Kathleen
Brickey.

I don't favor a Constitutional amendment -- I think amending 
the Constitution in general is a very dangerous practice and
we shouldn't muck around with it unless there is a very good
reason.  The problem is not the Constitution, it is 12 years
of Reagan-Bush appointees, 12 years of hysteria about drugs, and
12 years of Congressional sloth and me-tooism.  The best way
to correct the problem is to dispell the hysteria, elect
responsible public officials, replace judges as they retire --
if possible impeach the more fascistic ones.  It will take
at least a few years to reverse the current trend.  There is
evidence, however, that a reaction to the trend has been under
way for a couple of years.  It seems to be mainly hitting in
the Conservative political sphere -- the Liberals seem to be
totally at sea on this one.  Sooner or later, a critical mass
will be reached and prominent commentators will begin stating
sound bites like, "prohibition causes crime", "kids as mulls
is caused by prohibition", "prohibition funds organized crime",
"prohibition leads to government corruption", etc.  Eventually,
the sound bites will be repeated enough that they will become
"true" and swamp the current WoD sound bites.  (Besides, there 
really is a truth that underlies the anti-WoD sound bites in 
contrast with the current pro-WoD ones.)  When this happens, 
the end of prohibition will be at hand.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:16:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr7.131614.27649
    <WEYAND.92Apr6225322@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 1833

In article <WEYAND.92Apr6225322@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu>, weyand@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand) writes:
|I believe the Hippocratic oath is an oath of ethics not of law (incorrect?).
|Your confusion is a common misunderstanding among those so critical of
|libertarian ideas.  Namely, that if something is not strictly illegal then it
|is condoned.  That is an absurd notion.  As someone else mentioned I really
|don't think we'd have to worry about doctor's not helping out in emergencies
|if laws requiring such action were abolished.  It would take a near evil
|doctor to not offer assistance in cases for which personal risk was low.  And
|the public pressure on such doctors (if discovered) would be so intense that
|I doubt they could continue such behavior.

Unfortunately, "personal risk" for doctors currently includes the risk
of being sued for every penny you have and more, a risk that seems to
be increasing steadily as people get more litigious and juries make
higher and higher awards.

Some states have so-called "Good Samaritan" laws that protect a doctor
from being sued for offering assistance in emergencies.  In states
without these laws, a layman is substantially safer in offering his
clumsy and ill-informed assistance than is a doctor offering expert
assistance, since the layman can't be sued for malpractice.

I fail to see how the Libertarian agenda will correct this problem, so
I presume that doctors under a Libertarian regime will be even less
likely to offer emergency assistance.  [BTW, I don't believe doctors
should be forced by law to offer assistance.  I merely question your
assertion that doctors would of course leap to offer their assistance
in emergencies.]

-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Need Libertarian contact in MD
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:18:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <357@sousa.ltn.dec.com> wyoung@wdcis.enet.dec.com (Warren Ray Young) writes:
>
>Hi. Could someone please email me the name, address, etc. of a Libertarian 
>party contact in this area? I'm interested in doing some work for them, if 
>they're accepting volunteers. 

Why don't you call the National party and pose this question?  When I joined,
they sent me this info for my area, but it was a looooong time in coming.
If you explain that you want to find the local contacts NOW, I'm sure they'd
accomodate you.  For a good time, call :-) 800 682-1776.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza)
Subject: Re: Lunar colony: why?
Summary: Priorities
Keywords: moon colonies gene-mapping
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: USA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:56:10 GMT
Expires: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 04:00:00 GMT

...Moving off-earth reduces the chances of our species being eliminated by
any one disaster (asteroid impact, atomic war, biological war, nanomachine
war, unspecified new technology war).

War being the most likely event to eliminate this species at this point
perhaps the most useful application of resources is to complete the 
gene sequencing project asap and then figure out what each gene does.
There is unquestionably a genetic component to our behaviors, which has
had adaptive value in the past but becomes counterproductive given our
present destructive capabilities.  Appropriate modification of our 
propensity to kill each other over metaphysical distinctions, racial
distinctions and even legitimate differences of opinion about the 
control of economic activity is more likely to reduce the immediate and
interim-term risks (next thousand years, say) to our species than
moon colony or asteroid-deflection projects.

Not that I am against interplanetary expansion.  That is a good outlet
for our inquisitive and expansionist impulses, at least until it 
encounters other intelligent life-forms who may have similar inclin-
ations.  Given our present inclinations to kill each other over 
differences in skin pigmentation and religion, the prognosis for 
coping peacefully with large intelliigent insects, for example, is
not good.
From: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Idealism vs. realism?
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:41:51 GMT
Reply-To: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: finess.corp.sun.com

In article 2928@vax.muskingum.edu, sh_strawn@vax.muskingum.edu () writes:
 > i still think that the only real reason for space exploration (and progress in
> general, i suppose) is our race's desire to continue manifest destiny 
Different people have different reasons. Actually, I think the idea that all space
programs have to be national and international efforts is a myth. There are _lots_
of folks who have been willing to invest they _personal_ fortunes into space
explorations and there would be a lot more were it not for SEC regulations and the
_extreme_ efforts on the part of NASA to keep its present monopoly on space.

> let's see
> cooperation towards the exploration of space, and it can be carried out as
> ideally as we envision it.
Well, my answer to folks who think they can't afford space exploration, don't spend
your money there-leave it up to the folks who do feel there is value in space 
exploration.