HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Charges dismissed against Dr. Alvarez Machain
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:03:07 GMT


Of possible interest to talk.politics.drugs readers:

>    LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- A federal judge dismissed charges Monday
> [Dec. 14, 1992] against a Mexican doctor who was kidnapped by U.S.
> agents to face trial in the 1985 torture-slaying of U.S. drug agent
> Enrique Camarena.
> 
>    U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie in Los Angeles said
> prosecutors failed to prove that Humberto Alvarez Machain, 44,
> was involved in the killing of Camarena.  Alvarez Machain had
> faced a possible life sentence on murder and conspiracy charges.
> 
>    "There is no evidence that he participated in the kidnapping
> of Camarena and that he even knew about it," Rafeedie said in a
> hearing outside the presence of the jury.

[Remainder of article deleted in the interests of placating the
ClariNet people.]

As far as I can tell from the news reports, the 5th Amendment's ban on
double jeopardy ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb") _is_ implicated here,
since Alvarez Machain's criminal trial had begun and jeopardy had thus
attached itself to him... in other words, "That's it, man, game over."
At least with regard to criminal charges in the U.S.  judicial system.
I have no idea whether Mexco could legally -- where "legally" means
"under Mexican law" -- try to nail him on Camarena-related charges.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:39:24 GMT

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.

Matt I.
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7995 alt.society.civil-liberty:6961 alt.politics.libertarian:2776
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Khat
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:54:00 GMT

In article <1484000074@igc.apc.org>, insthemp@igc.apc.org (Institute for Hemp) writes:
>I think the drug is spelled QUAT can anyone verify this from the media
>or better yet an accurate source...??????????
                                                                     _
My _Webster's_ dictionary lists it under "kat" and "khat".  Arabic "qat".  
My guess is that it'll be like "Khadaffi" -- the media will eventually
settle on kh-.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (NORML California)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: LA Times article on Hashish/Amsterd
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:14:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec10.221708.24392@muddcs.cl:-673738917:cdp:1484000077:000:296
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!canorml    Dec 15 22:14:00 1992


  A couple of nights ago, comedian Bill Maher appeared on an HBO show,
and asked whether anyone in the audience thought marijuana was more
harmful than bacon.  NO ONE spoke up to say yes, and Maher wound up
joking that he didn't mean to offend the bacon industy.

  THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Drug story in Sunday's Sun Times.
Keywords: _Chicago Sun Times_, drug policy, 
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:55:02 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

For all you policy wonx out there:


This Sunday's (12-20-92)issue of the _Chicago Sun Times_ will be running a
special article on ... drugs.  From the teaser in friday's _CST_:

           Coming Sunday
     Consider it a business bigger than Walgreen Co.,
     Spiegel Inc., or Fruit of the Loom. It's Drugs Inc., a
     $7 billion industry right here in Chicago.

happy solstice.max
mmonningh@igc.org

p.s. followups set to talk.politics.drugs  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: louis@aie.nl (Louis Kossen)
Subject: Dutch drugs policy. (Re: LA Times article on Hashish/Amsterdam)
Organization: AI Engineering BV, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.221708.24392@muddcs.claremont.edu> cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (me) writes:
>
>Today's (December 10, 1992) LA Times had a good article on page one of their
>View section entitled "The Corner Hashish Joint", describing the
>coffee-cannabis shops in Amsterdam.  Its a good read, with a few nice
>photos.
>
>What amazed me, was that the article was definitely not anti-drugs, even
>bordering on pro-pot decriminalization!  It mentioned that you'd be hard
>pressed to find an opponent of the effective decriminalization in Amsterdam.

Maybe it's interesting to write down some things about drugs in Holland which
happened lately.

First of all, the government wants to pay more attention to farmers growing 
weed. A lot of weed is grwon by Dutch farmers and a great part of this is
meant for the foreign market. I think in perspective of the European Cooperation
the netherlands wants to avoid any conflict with its neighbours. I can't have
any problem with this as it appears the weed trade is contolled by criminal
individuals.

Last weeks there was an article in the papers about an owner of a number of
coffeeshops who wants to have a trade mark for coffeeshops , the so called
'Softshop'. There are abvious a number of coffeeshops which don't only 
sell soft-drugs  but which are also involved into hard drugs. He wants to
take out the coffeshops from the criminal atmosphere buy introducing this
trade mark. 

Another nice article I read was about some sort of government sponsored 
organisation on drugs. (prevention??). Nevertheless this organisation took
care of controling the quality of Drugs used at rave parties. People could
test the quality of the drugs they purchased. So, on the other hand the police
who takes a lot of actions against labrotaries making these drugs and on the
other hand a goverment organisation testing the quality of these drugs.

Louis Kossen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton)
Subject: Re: LSD an UV light
Organization: t.b, t.p.d, & a.d
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:54:50 GMT

Danny (drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu) wrote:
: I remember reading about a way to verify LSD blotter.
: The post said something about LSD glows (floresses) under UV light.
: While this may be true, so does most of the white paper I can
: find around my office. (I borrowed a UV light from the tech's)
: 
: There is no practical way to use this procedure to procure a real sample.

The post you referred to must have been incomplete.  The bleaches and
whiteners used in ordinary white paper should glow a sort of purple-shaded
deep blue color, right?  The same way white clothes glow under a blacklight
from the brighteners in the detergent.

LSD fluoresces with more of a bright sky-blue color.  I only saw it a few
times about 12 years ago, but it's very distinctive.  One LSD synthesis
I have seen uses chromatography under UV light to sort out the LSD from
other components in the final stage of the synthesis.

If you have some handy, put it side by side with the plain paper, and you
should see the difference in color you are looking for.

  -- Clifton

--
cliftonr@netcom.com     Home: +1 808 521 9073  Work: +1 808 625 3234
Clifton Royston, Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
"Have a revelation, the first one's free/Soon to be addicted to eternity" - HMR
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney)
Subject: Re: A Congress In Favor of Hemp
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:22:45 GMT

kunorml@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>Senator-elect Carol Mosley Braun ran on a platform consisting of the 
>decriminalization of marijuana...and won!
>Is this the first time this has happened?  What other senators or 
>congressmen/women are in favor of relegalization?  I know Henry 
>Waxman D-CA is in favor of medical cannabis.  Who else?

This is a little streach, I did alot of work for the Democratic party over
this election, including helping to arrange a Rally at our school where
carol Moseley Braun spoke.... She did NOT run on a platform of
decriminalizing marijuana... She DOES FAVOR decriminalizing MJ for small
qtys and medical use.. She has been on the record as saying that.... She
tryed to keep that as low key as possible durring the election, for
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...


-- 
*William Taney                *   Lobotomy's for Republicans
*muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu        *         it's the Law
*Western Illinois University  *            DV '92
*I saw you, With a ticket stub in your Hand - Phish
From: drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Danny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: LSD an UV light
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:55:10 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



I remember reading about a way to verify LSD blotter.
(being that some people get ripped off a lot.)

The post said something about LSD glows (floresses) under UV light.
While this may be true, so does most of the white paper I can
find around my office. (I borrowed a UV light from the tech's)

There is no practical way to use this procedure to procure a real sample.


I guess I really don't have a question, 
I just wanted to say "So what?"


-- Danny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico)
Subject: Re: On PBS: "Brainstorm: The Truth about Your Brain on Drugs"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:52:16 GMT

In article <Bz9IHD.L22@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Tonight, my local PBS station is broadcasting:
>
>"A 3-2-1 Contact Extra
> Brainstorm: The Truth About Your Brain on Drugs.
> The facts about the effects of substances like alcohal, nicotine, and
> concaine and other drugs on the brain and the body are examined."

I watched most of this show. It was definitely anti-drug, but not
overtly pro-WoSD. They gave the mortality rates for various drugs, and
pointed out that alcohol and tobacco are the biggest killers. But they
also did not cut a teenager making anecdotal remarks about pot - "This
pot is killing some brain cells", and then her commenting that she never
stopped to think about it. I'd have liked it if they would have
indicated that pot doesn't kill brain cells, but they missed it. They
had a fairly extensive part of the program dedicated to an overview of
how neurotransmitters work, and how pain killers mimic endorphins. They
then went on to talk about morphine, and how it is useful when used
under medical supervision. Then they cut to showing samples of baby powder,
morphine, and "street heroin". They did chromatography on the morphine
and heroin, and commented on the numerous adultrants in the heroin. No
one pointed out the if use/sale were legal, controls on purity could be
instituted.  No sources were given for any of the material, but what do
you expect from TV. If it repeats I'd like to tape a copy of it, and
then write to the producers regarding errors.

--
bill d'Amico                           "goats love to play with it"
damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu          -- Peter Tosh "Legalize It"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: A Congress In Favor of Hemp
Organization: UIUC College of Agriculture
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:20:32 GMT

kunorml@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>Senator-elect Carol Mosley Braun ran on a platform consisting of the 
>decriminalization of marijuana...and won!

This is pure BS!  While I have no doubt that she does, in some way, support
decriminalization, she went out of her way to camoflage this line of thinking.
In the debates with the Republican Williamson, he came off as a rabid drug
warrior.  (He is.)  She put forth the 'redirecting police resources to serious
crimes' theme, and yet totally skirted the issue of drug decrim.

She avoided it as an issue, instead running on her gender, bringing more
federal money back to IL, (*PORK*) and a rabid anti-gun platform.  Beside that,
she won because Williamson was an ass, and Spiegel (Lib.) was a flake.
The only thing that kept it close was her perception as a crook.

Don
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Don Meyer     Network Manager, UIUC College of Ag Microcomputer Facility
internet:     dlmeyer@uiuc.edu		
member:       NRA, ISSC, IL Farm Bureau	 "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!"
					    Nancy Lord in '96!

"Clinton/Gore -- The American people deserve what they voted for!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Licensing, Prescriptions for chemicals
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:34:52 GMT


In article <ok2HVB4w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, 
tomh@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Holroyd) said:

> Make LSD a prescription drug.  Alcohol too.  Get permission to use
> it, follow the instructions, no problem.  "Look Ma, I passed the
> psylocybin license exam!  I can eat mushrooms now!"  After all, we
> license people who want to operate deadly weapons, like cars.
>
> What objections to this are there?

Two points:

(1) "We" license people who want to operate motor vehicles _on public
    ways_.  You can drive whatever you want however you want on your
    own property, without benefit of license.

    Under your licensing scheme, would people have the same right to
    use whatever drugs they wanted to, in private, without a license?

(2) An automobile, operated negligently, recklessly or maliciously,
    can very well be a deadly waepon.  Is this necessarily true of all
    recreational drugs?  Of some recreational drugs?  Which ones?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

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: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:45:09 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Actually, if you drop the marxist argument about capitalists exploiting
>labor and taking away their surplus labor that usually is relied upon to
>support this position, you can also support it from a libertarian one: 
>many of the rich use force and fraud to exploit those of us who actually
>produce value.  The advantage of this is that it can be proven.

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.

Matt I.
  
>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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.individualism,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors (was Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:28:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec19.203626.15126@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>Breeder reactors exist today.  The technology for reprocessing
>>nuclear fuel exists.  Better, cheaper technologies for this are
>>in the works (the pyroprocess being developed at ANL, for example).
>>They are not moving faster because we have such an embarrassing
>>glut of energy.
>
>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>them?

Limited demand (as Paul said) and massive political problems.  The choice
of the fast breeder may also have been a poor one; there are alternatives.
(The whole US nuclear-power enterprise has suffered from early decisions,
arguably premature, to concentrate on one or two reactor types and give
little or no attention to others.)
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Tampa Meeting Dec 11
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 22:28:14 GMT

	I attended the meeting yesterday afternoon, and spoke for the
alloted 2 minutes before my mike got cut off (as Golden was
answering).

	He, and Col. Charles Bolden, who was the moderator of the
panel which took comments and questions from the audience for the last
nearly two hours, came away from the meeting with the sentiment that
many of us gave that the primary mission of NASA should be to
establish off planet habitats that are self sufficient. Others called
it space colonization. 

	Golden defended the criticisms I leveled at the Space Station
by saying that we either need to do it, or cancel it, not continue to
debate the issue as he has a thousand people working on it.

	In a later private discussion with one of the NASA panel
members he allowed that he and many in NASA agreed with the assessment
of the lack of utility of the Space Station compared to its cost.
However, the decision to go ahead with what was left of it was based
on the fear that if it is cancelled there is no reason for the
Shuttle, and the end of the manned space program. 

	One point Golden made was that the NASA budget is only $14
billion compared with "Defense/International" which comes in at $333
billion, or only 0.9% of the federal budget total. Thus one cannot
help the deficit a lot by whacking out NASA expenses.

	Those of you interested and sufficiently near Seattle should
go to the Dec 16 meeting, and take along some text you can lay out in
120 seconds.

	The person accepting suggestions on NASA goals is:

Douglas Isbell
NASA Code AC
Washington DC 20546

FAX: 202-426-9401

Doug was the young kid on the front row who was responsible to take
all the questions and somehow field answers, and is the channel for
such to NASA as they develop their program.

	My perception is that one of Goldin's motivations in holding
the meeting is to keep his job. He seemed to be doing a good job at
it.

Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Lunar science bill
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:40:08 GMT

In article <n120ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org  
writes:
>  
> The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act would authorize the U.S. 
> government to purchase lunar science data from private vendors, 
> selected on the basis of competitive bidding. For more information
> on the Act, please send E-Mail, or call 714/524-1674.
> 
> --- Maximus 2.00

No, not competitive bidding! No, no!
Someone will come in and low-ball the bid, snowing the contract
personnel with reems of proposal data.  After the contract is 
well under way, they will come back and expalin about all the
difficulties and why there is are cost overruns etc. etc.  The
government will be locked into this contractor by then and have
little choice, either ante up more money or kill the project.
Business as ususal.

Do something different.  Figure out what it would reasonably cost
to fly such a mission.  Then offer to buy the data for that much
plus a reasonable fee and put the money in escrow or something so
potential contractors know you are serious.  The escrow would 
reduce the need for deficit borrowing while the mission is mounted 
and flown.

Two things would happen.  1) No one would respond and the money would
sit there - might be a good thing with our deficit - or, 
2) a consortium would be gotten together to mount the mission - 
no one would risk it in competition since the looser would be out
a lot of money - but the consortium would carry out the mission
with very sharp pencils, and an eye to quality, success and cost
savings.  
This would be a better way to do things.  No?

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Building coalitions for space projects
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:58:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1992Dec10.105552.1@fnalnd.fnal.gov>,
higgins@fnalnd.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: 
> The Hubble Space Telescope is another example:  it was so expensive
> that it needed to be the number one priority for U.S. astronomy in the
> Seventies.

HST is actually quite an interesting case.  If memory serves, it fell
"between the cracks" of the various decade committees and was never
reviewed competitively with other projects throughout all branches of
astronomy.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Lunar science bill
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  20:52:22

As part of the process of developing the Lunar Resources Data 
Purchase Act (the "Back to the Moon" bill), it will be necessary to
explain, in the introduction of the Act, the rationale for
establishing an immediate national requirement for lunar science data.
Congresspersons generally don't like to throw away money outside
their own districts without a good reason, so we need to explain,
in a compelling manner, why we need to go back to the Moon in
the 1990's to obtain a complete chemical map.
 
Why can't we wait for this information until the year 2000, or 2010,
or beyond? Why is it in the national interest to send probes *now* 
back to the Moon?
 
If you can develop a convincing rationale for an immediate exploration
of the Moon by a lunar polar orbiter, please forward me the Reader's
Digest version - the winner of this informal  contest gets their
verbage in the Back to the Moon bill, which is to be introduced in
the 103rd Congress.
 
The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act would authorize the U.S. 
government to purchase lunar science data from private vendors, 
selected on the basis of competitive bidding. For more information
on the Act, please send E-Mail, or call 714/524-1674.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space