HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: dwharper@c00083-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:26:14 GMT


The concept is fine -- I don't think that's the issue.  It is obvious that 
political and monetary interests have permeated what was intended to be a 
scientific process; ask anyone who subcontracts to the fda on drug research:
the amount of graft and corruption involved is stupendous.  Someone with
a need to be a journalist should work on it a little to give the people that 
like to put all manner of drugs in their body to cure their various problems
a measure of truth in the FDA matter.  The cost of health care itself should
 people in on the amount of money to be made in the western health industry;
the only real worry I see is ORRIN HATCH and his friends (pharmecuets) getting 
their grubby hands on vitamin companies.
	Oh.  I just remembererd-  If anyone cares to see the state of the FDA
all they need do is get hold of the CNN debate over the use of THC in Aids and
chemotherapy patients.  The spokesperson for the fda told the world that
aids sufferers were going to contract salmonella from pot brownies, that pot was
an untested drug, that since the FDA didn't fully UNDERSTAND the effects of THC
on the brain and body, it could not release the drug.  Ive never heard such
silly bullshit in my life; no one understands the full effects of many of the 
more complex perscription drugs, that's why they're perscription-only!  The IDEA
was to use good, empirical science to ok drugs for the layman public;  not 
be a research unit to understand the biochemical makeup of the human body.  The
other things I listed don't deserve response, although I should add that cannubis
sativa has been used medicinally for several thousand years without huge die-offs
from salmonella.  What a disgusting nation of idiots we have; it's our fault
that we take this CNN TIme NEWSWEEK pap as truth; much less the helpless "medical
industry".  What a frigging oxymoron.
-- 
+][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][+

"Did it seem that long ago?                           Dante W Harper
It was when you still thought                         dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu
you thought, and still believed                       429-a S Boylan Ave
that part of you still managed                        Raleigh, NC 27603
to believe."  -bright                                 919 856 9250

      (in hopes that some sharp might get a laugh out of my credit history)

+][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][++++[]++++][+
   
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:06:20 GMT

: 	increased regulation increases physicians income.
: 	
: So, no criminality, but we only lost about 500(?) people in the Thalidomide
: disaster. We undoubtedly lose 1000s per year as a result of drugs being
: released slower. Anybody want to guess how many AIDS patients have already
: died as a result of the very-fast-for-the-FDA pace of drugs released?

I personally  would like to look at the facts and decide
for myself wether to take the risk. I am an adult. I don't need
a parent babysitting me.

: 
: So, regulators have political costs of political events. Thalidomide is a
: political event. Slow release of new drugs, and higher death rate resulting

: is not a political event.
It was a political event. The FDA started allowing mail-order drugs
after the public outcry oveer the  lack of Aids drugs.
They didn't do this to be nice, they were pressured into it.

--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6146 alt.politics.usa.constitution:515 alt.news-media:1445 alt.politics.usa.misc:82
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [sci.crypt] Re: Public Key for the Rest Of Us
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:32:40 GMT

(the posters are parodying U.S. patent laws, patent secrecy orders and
export control laws.  Or that's what I _think_ they doing, on second
thoughts one never knows with these things whether it's serious)

A repost from sci.crypt:

From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Public Key for the Rest Of Us
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:27:02 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>Sorry. Patent for this one is pending. I have written a program that simulates
>the friction of two sticks together and a temperature result. This prgram is
>used to drive one stick turning inside a small hole of another one (so there
>is hardware involved) to the point there is a fire. I am expecting royalties
>from every use of fire in a couple of months.

Sir:  You are hereby notified that a Patent Secrecy Order has been
placed on your invention of fire.  You are not to discuss this 
invention with anyone.  Any further use of fire by you or anyone
else will result in prosecution.  Conviction may result in the
testing of a new invention, "burning at the stake", but you may
not discuss that, either.

It is further ordered that sticks and stones are now export-controlled
munitions.  You may export them, to certain countries only, provided
you have obtained an export license for each individual stick and stone.

	Gordon "I'm the Government and You're Not, So There" Burditt
	Department of Nuisance Regulations
	Untied States Patent Office


					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAiq3d7sAAAEEAMt1BATZFylyyFebt7i61Znl3UG6czff9X+IwIAiSnF9DNgZ
Vpag1Ez13Ey2xqP/CWT33YYg8AhUYL6FPPj56kHh0c2ZynVnCVx3US9OiFJ9uHxw
7JRiDWkBuXLx2UKDxkvuN9KWqk5Yw5MqWbhGRtWqB8vI4Os9UHayoOeLg4idAAUR
tC5Hb3Jkb24gTC4gQnVyZGl0dCA8Z29yZG9uQHNuZWFreS5sb25lc3Rhci5vcmc+
=oEJL
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:31:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.170504.18278@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>...taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
>>*final* interpretations of the Constitution.

>Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that the Constitution mentions
>nothing as to its interpretation, when Article III explicitly vests
>the judicial power in the Supreme Court.

"The judicial power" does not explicitly include the power to make final
and binding interpertations of the Constitution. When this issue
was seriously debated (1788 to, say, 1840) I don't think anyone suggested
"judicial power" automatically had this meaning. In fact, the central
case on the subject, Marbury v. Madison, make absolutely no arguments
to support the Court's (or John Marshall's) claim to final authority over
questions of interpertation. The ruling simply claims that the Court
has this power. Certainly, President's have challenged this power and
"won". Jackson did so on several occasions, for example. 

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder


From: Cliff.Fleming@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Cliff Fleming)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Politically correct!
Date: 03 Oct 92  00:03:00 EST

    This conference seems to be a little dull. Maybe a few partisan statements will liven it up a bit.

     Politically Correct Is Constitionally Incorrect!!!!!! God-Dammit. I'm am sick and fucking tired of America's Offensitivity!!! Minority grievances have become absurd!
    Fo example, the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, and Cleveland Indian may all have to chose some other mascott. Apparently descendants of those ignorant savages that were killed for the most part killed off by European settlers, take "offense" that representatives of their ancestorswere chosen to represent the strongest, most skilled, most respected athletes of a nationThe idea that the symbols might be construed as a compliment to their forerunners has yet to sink in to their minds. And one wonder
s how they were able to inhabit the continent as long as they did...
    What's fucking next?! Is the A.L.F. or any other group of "animal rights" nuts going to protest the symbolic use of Dolphins for Miami's football team? Or perhaps modern smugglers and pirates will protest the use of the Buccaneer as the mascott for Tampa's football team.
    One might concede that the use of language that is deliberately derogatory is not the most appropiate choice as a mascott. For example, a team named the Birmingham Niggers, or perhaps or perhaps the San Francisco Sodomites might well be an investment in trouble. But the line must be drawn somewhere. The currently fashionable crusade against offense is a double edged sword. By eliminating all choices that could be conceivay construed as offensive, the diversity of our language and culture is bound to su
ffer as well. In the end, a generic, flavorless language and culture would be all that remained. How much passion or interest could one have for a football league in which each team was reprewsented by a randomly assigned number? Would you pay money to go and watch the Atlanta 271's run for the pennant? Would the experience be the same?
     For that matter, where in the constitution does it grant any ethnic or cultural minority the right to govern any or all representations of itself by others?! Should only native americans be allowed to depict or display anything which represents native americans?  Maybe they should trademark or copyright themselves and their ancestors so that any team that wishes to use their names or depictions of them must seek permission and pay royalties? Wow! That opens a world of business
     Never mind all of the above. I've got to make d] ffffffffffff `_Q
                                           cliff flemingzaracliffflemingziggyziggy starduststardustNietzschetank188302/09/69stardustNietzscheziggyziggy stardustcliffflemingzaracliff fleming

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 08:29:08 GMT

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

| nonsense.  In either case, such comments do not reflect the position
| of the FDA when deciding to approve a drug.  Anyway, I hardly think
| the FDA has anything to do with this, unless Hostess (tm) was going
| to make a special pot brownie.

FDA'ers and other government bio-med types have been involved in the
"Marijuana Mary" controversy only on the talk show circuit.  They spout
the usual "Well somebody has to make sure it's safe and effective first"
crap, as if a 70-year old grandmother couldn't tell she was making things
better for "her boys" by enabling them to keep food down.  They really
come off like pathetic, heartless bureaucracy-obsessed rule mongerers.

An annoyed Marijuana Mary retorts "What is wrong with you people?  Will
you please wake up and smell the coffee!"

Apparently, audiences like her.

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.
        -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Conspiracy theory, JFK murder
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:34:10 GMT

METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze) writes:

[...]

>I think it is almost obviously a Mafia hit.

>JFK was killed in Dallas, one of the few cities that one could
>have accomplished the act.

What makes Dallas so special about mafia hits?

>Whether he was killed by a lone gunman or not doesn't matter.
>Who paid the gunman (or brainwashed him, as Bobby Kennedy's
>killer was) is what is important.

>The reason I think it is so clear that it was a mafia hit is
>that Oswald was killed.  I don't understand why more is not
>made of that.

>After all is said and done, what happened was that someone
>with an inside track (known to some of the people in the 
>police department) SOMEHOW got into the area where Oswald
>was being moved and simply shot him.  As I recall that guy
>was then shot.

If I recall correctly, Jack Ruby (the dude who shot Oswald) was either
an officer himself or was a retired officer.  What's wrong with
going back to the place where he worked every now and then?  At least
it explains why (or how) he was there.

He got tried for killing Oswald and was sent to prison and was either
killed there or given the chair.  I forget which.

-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Credo quia absurdum est - "I believe because it is absurd"

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6086 talk.politics.drugs:6514
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Most Corrupt Federal Law Enforcement Agency?
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:14:42 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Sep29.145037.29568@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
> 
> What is your definition of "corrupt"?  Do you mean they don't follow
> their own rules?  Or do you mean simply *evil* from the word Go?
> 
> Which one(s) (if any) *never* initiate the use of force?  They aren't
> evil.  Which one(s) (all?) do?  They *are* evil.
> The I.R.S. is an organization _solely_ dedicated to the initiatory use
> of force for purposes of extorting money from those who *earned* it (by
> producing product(s) or providing service(s) of value to a _willing_
> consumer population).  As such, it is thoroughly Evil, though it may not
> necessarily be corrupt.
> Most of the other agencies at least in part concern themselves with
> protecting people's rights.  The I.R.S. can make no such claim, because no
> one is entitled, by right, to the fruits of the labors of another.
> If you kill an I.R.S. agent, you are performing a public service, are not
> a threat to society, and if I'm on your jury at the [unnecessary] murder
> trial which would follow, you'll walk, with my thanks.
> 
	Although the IRS is irritating, it does enable the government to 
(insofar as it does so) maintain its only justifiable purpose (unless one 
is an anarchist; my view of human nature is not that optimistic): 
maintenence of civil liberties. My personal nominee would be the DEA. I'd 
agree with you on the public service part for killing DEA narcs. I am 
normally against the death penalty due to the chance of killing an 
innocent, but I tend to make an exception for government officials abusing 
their power.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:25:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.210123.7055@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> So, if "trial" comes to mean combat, it just has to be in public....

Either that, or pass an amendment that changes "public trial" to "public court
proceding".  But I don't want to fight over this... :-)

|> If world, or even word meaning, changes interfere with the
|> meaningfulness of the document, we can change the document.  If we
|> don't, why should it change anyway?

Let's just say what we mean, even if that means changing the document.


--Rich Wingerter
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:05:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.153637.4560@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.185621.18336@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>I wouldn't be that confident about them getting caught with that,
>>however.  Lawyers apparently are taught that Supreme Court has a
>>monopoly on interpreting the Constitution - though the Constituion
>>mentions nothing about such a monopoly.  Further, people who know
>>about jury nullification are apparently often excluded from the jury.
>><text deleted>
>
>Lawyers aren't taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
>interpreting the Constitution. Lawyers (and everyone else who studies
>Constitutional law) are taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
>*final* interpretations of the Constitution.
>
>This is a rather different proposition.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that the Constitution mentions
nothing as to its interpretation, when Article III explicitly vests
the judicial power in the Supreme Court.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:14:44 GMT

RE: Is the Constitution a contract between the government and the people
or just a contract among the people?

richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:

[...]
>In this sense, I don't see any difference between a government and a
>corporation.  If a corporation can be a party to a contract, then it seems the
>government can be, too.
[...]

Just as a corporation is not a party to its own articles of
incorporation, the U.S. government is not a party to the Constitution.
Both can be parties to contracts, but only after their incorporation.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Health care, my final words
Date: 28 Sep 92 07:47:22 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <JGJ.92Sep17104440@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com>, jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:

> As it is, the company I work for has complete control over my health
> care.  They restrict me to a subset of incompetant doctors who agree
> to take the small fees my company is willing to pay and presribe only
> those tests, drugs and treatments my company will permit.  I have no
> ability to object, and no capacity to force change.  At least with
> Nation Health Insurance, *all* doctors are forced to participate and I
> do have a vote (however insignificant that may be) to influence to
> program and my job is not threatened by being vocal about my
> complaints.

Do you honestly believe that your one vote out of, what, 100 million will be as
efficacious in improving your health care as changing jobs would be?

Can trying to _force_ change, in health care or any other sphere, possibly be
consistent with striving for peace and civility?  How about the possibility of
_voluntary_ relations among people?  If you don't like the terms of relation A,
seek an alternative relation, B.  But if you insist on trying to seize control
of your nation's nukes so you can wave them at those who don't do your bidding,
you shouldn't be surprised if they strenuously defend themselves.

        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |
   It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6110 talk.politics.drugs:6538
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:41:36 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris) writes:
>>: So, no criminality, but we only lost about 500(?) people in the Thalidomide
>>: disaster. We undoubtedly lose 1000s per year as a result of drugs being
>>: released slower. Anybody want to guess how many AIDS patients have already
>>: died as a result of the very-fast-for-the-FDA pace of drugs released?
>>
>>I personally  would like to look at the facts and decide
>>for myself wether to take the risk. I am an adult. I don't need
>>a parent babysitting me.
> 
> In the case of Thalidomide that's a particularly ironic view. The basic idea
> behind the FDA is valid and important. This doesn't mean that they always 
> do the job correctly but to go into a marketplace where we rely on the 
> manufacturers is pretty scary. In fact, it's my opinion that if the FDA
> has fallen down it's where its findings were watered down by the drug
> manufacturers. How can the individual know what the long term or even
> short term affects of a drug will be without some sort of organized help?
> In countries where Thalidomide was marketed (because the manufacturer said
> it was safe) the first signs of problems were deformed children.
> 
	As I recall, that was the first sign of problems period. So 
instead of deformed children in the US, we got deformed children 
elsewhere. Real ethical to use the rest of the world as a testing ground, 
isn't it.
	The FDA, in its anti-fraud measures, is perfectly unobjectionable 
(except when they get ridiculous, as government agencies tend to do). When 
it starts telling people that they can't have a given drug, or can't have 
it without a prescription, then it is overstepping its bounds. The only 
class of drugs I can see limiting to prescription only is that of 
antibiotics- since that's the one that can directly harm others without 
being modulated by the behavior (other than taking the drug) of the 
drug-taker. I can also see limiting what a minor (17- or 20-, depending on 
the drug) can take w/out a prescription. Other than that, companies should 
certainly be required to tell everyone what is in a food or drug, and how 
much testing has been done. The business of the FDA is to increase the 
ability to make a choice, not limit it.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives