HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Drug Legalization: a reliable reference
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 22:40:46 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>
>>Tangent on the issue.  Increased usage effects of legalization for 
>>alcohol and drugs will not be similar at all.  Drugs (except pot) 
>>are *extremely* addictive.  So addictive, in fact, that a
>>one-time experiment can lead to a life-time addiction.  That cannot
>>be said for alcohol and that is why they are different.  
>  
>We have a winner!  Truth by Blatant Assertion Award for the day!
>
>*Some* drugs MAY be addictive.  *Some* are NOT.  There are *NO* drugs
>that anyone is aware of in which one use leads to addiction in all people.
>According to some, there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, in which
>one drink CAN lead to alcoholism.  Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
>
>The fact is, addiction is a poorly defined term and should not be used
>in a debate about drugs.  According to some, "Gambling" is an addiction.
>Now it is obvious that there is nothing chemical about gambling that
>would make it more addictive than marijuana.   Why is it so obvious that 
>'drugs' (as if there WERE any such thing; 'drugs' is a generic term used
>to refer to 'chemicals the government doesn't like.') would be this way?

The single best reference I have been able to find on the subject of drug
legalization is _The_Case_For_Legalizing_Drugs_ by Richard Lawrence Miller,
a historian and a former NPR producer.  He is not a druggie fiend (which
seems to be the label plastered on anyone who dares to question the
illegality of drugs).  In fact, as he explains in the preface of the book,
he started his research on the book as a concerned parent asking simple
questions.  He admits to being doubtful at first, but as the facts became
known, there seemed little rational reason to keep drugs illegal.  The book
is exhaustively referenced, and the references are from such notorious
underground publications as the New England Journal of Medicine, Science,
the British Journal of Addiction, and the Journal of the American
Psychiatric Association, as well as many research studies performed and
sponsored by the U.S. Government itself.

I strongly urge anyone who is doubtful about drug legalization to find this
book and decide for yourself where the country should go.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
As you're cleaning the orange carpet, you will hear a voice that says, "Fetch 
my cigarettes."  Another voice will say, "THEY'RE ON TOP OF THE REFRIGERATOR."
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:26:19 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr7.220342.28177@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>
>... But it's not in the best interests of the law enforcement groups to 
>let a case get to the Supreme Court. They will try to settle any dispute
>that looks like its headed there. Is there any way to get the Court to
>decide on a case that's been settled in a lower court?

Yes, it's called appeal.
-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                 "Tomorrow I might go as far as suicide,
Bob Kirkpatrick                        But I'm not gonna let it bother me
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA       tonight."                       --ars
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18538 misc.legal:9398 alt.censorship:3375
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Thinking like a lawyer :-)
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:51:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr4.225818.9539@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:

> The obvious solution is to add poison to the bottle contents so that
> the label is accurate.

And then make sure that the lawyers get the first taste.  [NO smiley!]
-- 
   Theodore A. Kaldis
   {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
   kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:15:34 GMT

In article <LABACH.92Apr4102634@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.180530.15781@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes: 
>> You seem to prefer politicians who lie.  Who is really selling the
>> snake-oil...the Reform Party or the Liberal Party...(or the NDP)?
> 
>The Reform Party.
>
>"...steps can be taken to remove them from positions of influence within
> the party in Manitoba."
> - Preston Manning on 'dissidents' in the Reform Party in a letter sent
>   to Manitoba members
>

Yeah...the membership in Manitoba voted to remove them...you can't have
it both ways...complain that the Reform Party attracts an undesirable
element, and then complain when they take action to remove the
undesirable elements from the party.

What the Reform Party did in the Manitoba case is probably a lot more
democratic than the NDP, which requires members take certain ideological
stands on particular issues regardless of conscience...the NDP is the
only party which won't let an elected member vote their conscience on
abortion, or capital punishment, or on a variety of other issues...

>"Of course, all sectors of the party have the right to express their
> views."
> - Preston Manning, in his book on the Reform Party, The New Canada
>
>Preston "the Messiah" Manning talks the democratic talk, but he doesn't
>walk the walk.
>

He walks it as well or better than the big 3 parties do.

Gerald
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18477 alt.drugs:7778 misc.legal:9372
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: KIDSCAN (April Foolz! - NOT !
Date: 5 Apr 92 20:51:09 -0500

In article <01GIDEWBI9PC000D4E@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
> Jim Mason (jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu, 1 Apr) jests:
> | (in subject: KIDSCAN - Electronic Big Brother)
> |
> |Chanced upon an episode of that Australian TV show "Beyond 2000" last night
> |on TDC. I arrived at the tail end of a story about a device called
> |"KIDSCAN". This appears to be an adaptation of a lab-animal ID tag ...
> 
> I knew there'd be some April Fool's posts, and I enjoyed seeing a few 
> folks taken in. ;-)
> 
> If you want to track the kiddoes though, there's an easier way (without
> beaming electrical power to surgically embedded transmitters, and setting
> up a telemetry system.) Cheaper too -- just plastic...
> 
> Give each of the kids his own *credit card*!! Then all ya need is
> a computer search to see where the last transaction is: McDonald's,
> 7-11, the Virtual-Reality arcade, etc. .... hmmmm...
> 

	Errr ... Mr. Tice ... While I do indeed go "fishing" by email
	from time to time, the aforementioned TV episode did, in fact,
	air on TDC and the KidScan system was actually discussed as
	a viable child-tracking method. Call that network and ask. 

	Now you have me worried ... when reality gets so strange that
	people assume it's fiction ... things do not bode well.
	Be assured that we *will* be seeing this sort of technology creeping
	in upon us more and more. KidScan would be much cheaper to
	do as an unremovable bracelet-sized item - longer range = less
	transeiver stations. They got 'em for felons and use them already
	in several counties near me. The kiddies are next. 

	Of course, credit-card tracking is a seperate threat to our
	freedom. There is considerable interest in replacing cash with
	'smart cards' that, coincidently, will record the whats and 
	wheres of every transaction you make. Abuse of such info is
	inevitible and indeed irrestible to the BB mentality. 

-- Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:53:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>I don't like the idea of Joe Camel and Spuds McKenzie selling 
>crack to our kids (I think drugs should be legalised and regulated
>like alcohal and cigarettes), but it sure sounds safer than the
>open warfare resulting from drug prohibition.

Exactly like what happened with alcohol prohibition...

Damn...I agreed with Russ...now what? :-)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18433 alt.politics.elections:990
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who is H. Ross Perot? - The Perot Amendment
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:39:10 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>	Of course, for the previous two months, whent he primaries where
>hot and heavy, there was no Perot on the "Road to the White House" and
>many hours of Brown.
>	As far as the press being uncritical of Perot, you should be watching
>"This Week With David Brinkley". The section where they have the round table
>discussion with all the reporters (George Will, Sam Donaldson, Ms. Roberts,
>etc) have twice so far turned into a Perot Flame-Fest. 

  Yeah, I saw it last weekend.  They seemed more concerned with which
party Perot would take votes away from if he was a candidate than about
the man himself.

>> Of course, the only *real* difference Perot can make is to hand the
>> election to Bush and the Republicans, just like Wallace and Anderson
>> did.  The only question... is that the *real* purpose of his candidacy?
>>
>	Of course, two weeks ago, the pundits were saying the only
>*real* difference Perot could make it to take away Bush support. 
>Hopefully, even if he doesn't get elected, the *real* difference
>he will make is to get more people to vote.

   Ahh, I see some light shining through... :-)

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17272 ca.politics:3362 ba.politics:2603 soc.motss:19525
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:54:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <4wpj3va.onr@netcom.com>, onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> In article <XcLViB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> >manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:
# ## I think we should have djk frozen in a block of Lucite, and placed on
# ## permanent exhibition. Idiocy on this scale really deserves publicity. 
# ## \    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca#      "There is no law that vulgarity and
# 
# #Why are antagonistic points of view always reported as 'stupid'?
# 
# Stop whining.
# its seems to be a human trait, along with fucking anything that moves.

No, that's a trait of people intent on dying of AIDS.  Most humans
are a little more self-restrained than that.

# #--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
# D. Owen Rowley .. Note this acct is not my primary USENET access
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace
of God." -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17217 alt.society.civil-liberty:3282 talk.politics.drugs:2760 misc.legal:8963 alt.drugs:7298
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:13:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr6.074041.7105@eskimo.celestial.com>, delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
> 

[Note: not that followup is ncessary, but line is set to t.p.d]
>     -----
> YOU CAN HELP! just phone or write Don Doig or Larry Dodge 
> at FIJA National HQ, P.O. Box 59, Helmville, MT 59843; 
> (406)-793-5550. Or contact your local FIJA-supportive organization.
> For a breif recorded message on FIJA, plus an opportunity to tell us
> who and where you are, so we can mail you more information, call the 
> FIJA toll-free hotline: 1-800-444-FIJA! If You're already so supportive
> our goal that you want to make a contribution, phone our special fund
> rasing number : 1-900-678-FIJA! Many thanks for either or both calls!
> 

I appreciate all the FIJA postings on this network. T.P.D. is the
first place I ever heard of FIJA. I plan to call the 900 number.
Thanks again.

barry--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18226 ca.politics:3477 ba.politics:2661 alt.politics.homosexuality:2128
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:44:01 GMT
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <41F9iB6w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>
>Actually, that example was the most vivid of several such parents 
>I have encountered..

so now you claim to have encountered "several".  and are basing 
your judgement on that.  

well, that's very interesting.  i have encountered more that 
"several" young black mothers treating their children in a way
i consider inappropriate, even abusive.  do i know decide that 
poor single moms are bad parents?  should not have kids?  harrass
them?  

no.  i know a lot fo mothers in that position who are *excellent*
and conscientious parents.  i know that an unhealthy family can 
exist in any race, creed, economic class, sexual orientation.  i
have seen it and experienced it for myself.  i know how seriously
stress can affect family relationships and behaviors.  

i would support any family that was healthy or working towards 
health no matter who the parents are.  because that's what kids 
deserve- good healthy loving families.  period.  

peg
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17937 alt.activism:7603 alt.news-media:213
From: eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: THE MEDIA AND JERRY BROWN
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:57:26 GMT

In <9204110810.AA06337@poly.math.cornell.edu> Harel Barzilai wrote:
>         But in our collective cuckoo's nest, best not be caught
> mumbling "distributive justice."

Right, because most people have figured out that "distributive justice"
means "more theft from the honest and productive to subsidize parasites
and bureaucrats".  We won't vote for it.  And if you shove it down
our throats, we'll eventually get fed up enough to revolt and kill you.
Haven't you learned *anything* from the communist collapse?
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com  (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: ACLU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:53:20 GMT

In article <ART.92Apr8004815@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.002940.23633@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>
>   In article <ART.92Apr7113917@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>   >In article <1992Apr7.023024.1152@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>   >
>   >   In article <rqo3nINN6sl@agate.berkeley.edu> mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl) writes:
>   >   >Sorry to break the news, but communities DON'T have rights.  Read the
>   >   >Bill of Rights and I don't think it talks about groups but instead
>   >   >defines rights for individuals.
>   >
>   >   Read the whole Constitution.  Its principle purpose is to grant certain
>   >   rights to the federal government: the right to declare war, the right
>   >   to regulate interstate trade, the right to collect taxes, etc.  If you
>   >   don't want to use the word "rights" for the government's prerogatives,
>   >   that is fine -- but juggling definitions isn't going to make your
>   >   argument any stronger.
>   >
>   >I suggest you take your own advice and read the whole constitution.  It
>   >refers to POWERS granted to the gov't, not to rights.  There is a big
>   >difference here....
>
>   Sorry, this difference escapes me and is in any case irrelevant to the
>   issue under discussion, namely a library's right/power/privilege/prerogative
>   to exclude the noisome.
>
>Sorry, but again, I suggest you try reading.  The library issue is
>irrelevant, in the light of your quasi semantic quibblings.  You raise
>the point of the statements in the constitution, misquote them and then
>don't like having your error called to attention.  Sorry, you're wrong.

Sorry, I didn't make any error, and you are the one is quibbling.
My original point stands.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,soc.history,soc.culture.filipino
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:02:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.181603.14849@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Well, there is something more than numbers involved.  The US conquest
>of the Philippines is something more comparable to Hitler's invasion
>of France, Poland and Russia, or the USSR's invasion of Poland and
>Eastern Europe, or the carve-up of Africa by European powers.  All of
>those caused vast numbers of casualties and are deplorable, yes.  But
>just as we distinguish between theft and murder, and between different
>degrees of murder, there is a difference between a war of conquest,
>however brutal and unjustified, and the systematic extermination of
>people inhabiting one's own country with whom one is not at war.

	Much deleted

	A very minor nitpick, but I thought the deathrate for Jews
was higher in the Nazi-conquered nations than for Jews within 
Germany itself. Is this simply because the German Jews were shipped to 
non-German deathcamps?

						James Nicoll		
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: aap@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:56:39 GMT

In article <11073@autodesk.COM> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob  
Jellinghaus) writes:
> In article <o5DaJB8w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> big.ot (big'et) n. A person who is intolerant, esp. in matters of
> religion, race, or politics.  (OED fr.) -- big'oted adj. big'otry n.
> 

So, is homosexuality a religion, a race or politics???

> You're intolerant of homosexuals, djk.  You're a bigot.  And what's
> more, you're proud of it.  We're not calling you names; we're
> calling a spade a spade.
> 
> --
> Rob Jellinghaus                | "Next time you see a lie being spread  
or
> Autodesk, Inc.                 |  a bad decision being made out of sheer
> Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM |  ignorance, pause, and think of  
hypertext."
> AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS             |    -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of  
Creation_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17692 alt.society.civil-liberty:3358 alt.individualism:2379 misc.taxes:2202 alt.politics.elections:708
From: wirthc@portnoy.sdsc.edu (Colleen Wirth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:46:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD

In article <1992Apr10.152445.8551@m.cs.uiuc.edu> (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>Should it be legal or illegal for an employer to fire an employee because ...
>   the employee won't have sex with his or her boss?
>   the employee is African-American?
>   the employee is female?
>   the employee is Jewish?
>   the employee advocates a union?
>   the employee belongs to a union?
>   the employee smokes tobacco off the job 
>                      (and pays for his or her own insurance)?
>   the employee was put on a blacklist by another employer?
>   the employee is a registered Republican?
>   the employee writes a personal letter-to-the-editor 
>                      criticizing the President of the U.S.?

I think an employer should be able to hire/fire anyone he/she pleases. If
the hypothetical employer you describe above chooses not to hire a person
on any or all of these grounds, he is restricting his pool of applicants, 
and a competing employer, who chooses not to discriminate, will have a 
broader range of skills and expertise to choose from.

Also, a company which chooses to employ only white anglo-saxon protestant
heterosexual non-smoking non-drinking males, is going to turn off a lot of 
people--including those who meet the criteria. Would you want to work for a 
company like that?

>If I understand the position of the LP (I'm sure someone will correct
>me if I'm wrong), because an employee and employer are free agents,
>none of these actions should be illegal. If an employee doesn't like
>an employer's work conditions, he or she is free to find work elsewhere.

In my opinion, this is correct. Also, I feel that despite all of the laws
and regulations which abound today, this is what goes on in reality.

Colleen


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politic.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: 44% slaves
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support Division
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:42:23 GMT

From article <1992Apr9.211816.6115@cs.ucla.edu>, by frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier):

> Mugging?  No, taxes.  You don't like taxes - tough nookies.

You don't like being a slave?  Tough.

Many Blacks were 100% slaves in 1860.

We are 44% slaves.

Medievel serfs were only 33% slaves.


> I have little respect for libertarians who make tax elimination
> their top priority.  Work for personal freedom, a more just
> society, etc. - leave the tax elimination for the last step
> in the evolution.


The government uses the money it collects from taxpayers to abridge
personal freedoms.  Protecting personal freedom is important.

That's a good reason to reduce taxes - so they can abridge fewer freedoms.


---------------------------------------------------------
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
From: ktaylor@umiacs.umd.edu (Kenneth Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Any news?
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:17:33 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.misc
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

I, for one, would appreciate any early news tidbits about the 
New York Primary.  For example, has anyone heard any word about
turnout or any interesting tidbits from the exit polls?


Ken Taylor