HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 901371d@aucs.acadiau.ca (Di Dio)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cannabis smoke (THC solubility)
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:43:26 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

honig@thalia.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig) writes:

> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>>bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>>:
>>: Do you really think generations of heads would use bongs if they
>>: eliminated some of the happy juice?  No.  THC is not water soluble
>>: so it goes right through the water (mostly) and into your lungs.
>>: Then the fun begins.
>>
>>It is not a matter of solubility.  It is condensation from the gaseous
>>state induced by the heat back to the natural state (liquid I believe)
>>of THC.  It would appear in the gunk that accumulates.  The fact that
>>you can catch a buzz from the gunk implies that this is occuring.
>>
>>Bob

>I dunno Bob, what about double-blind controls?
>And where do you get placebo gunk?
>:-)


I think it has everything to do with the solubility(miscuity) of the
smoke as it travels threw the water.Sorry Cain,but there is heat give
off when the gas returns to its liquid state,but the smoke only cools
mildly as it travels threw the pipe,and goes threw condesation
as it enters you body's system and into your blood stream.
 And you mentioned earilier that THC is not soluable in water in
that great article about extracting .
But of course it's a guess on the subject,could be wrong,but really
could care less.
Later
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: dmr@apmaths.uwo.ca (Daniel M. Racicot)
Subject: Re: RFC on what-to-say-to-the-cops article (LONG)
Organization: next test news reader
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:03:04 GMT

In article <loydb.2901@fnordbox.UUCP> loydb@fnordbox.UUCP (Loyd Blankenship) writes:

>On the "what to say to cops" article from NORML:

>You should add a mention to the "worst case" scenario re: warrants. The
>warrant they show you does *not* have to be signed. If you try and pull
>a Jubal Harshaw and evict them for having an unsigned warrant, they'll
>shoot you.

>Background: On March 1, 1990, 8 U.S. Secret Service agents (along with
>various local police lackeys) burst in to my apartment at 6:00 a.m., guns
>drawn (for more about this, contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation).
>The warrant they showed me wasn't signed. When I protested, they stated
>that "the signed copy was on file." According to lawyers I've talked to,
>they can actually do this.

>Yet another area where the Bill of Rights is eroding . . .

>Loyd

>***************************************************************************
>* loydb@fnordbox.UUCP       Once you pull the pin,  *  Loyd Blankenship  *
>* GEnie: SJGAMES           Mr. Grenade is no longer *  PO Box 18957      *
>* Compu$erve: [73407,515]       your friend!        *  Austin, TX 78760  *
>* cs.utexas.edu!dogface!fnordbox!loydb              *  512/447-7866      *
>***************************************************************************

Could someone please email me or repost the articles on this thread and make 
sure the distribution is "world".  This is the first article I've seen here 
(Can)

-Dan
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Letter responding to Bill Bailey's statement ...
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 01:32:40 -0500

Following is a letter that I am sending to the IDS.  It is
a response to Bailey's outrageous statement that cannabis had
never been legal in the U.S.

I have decided NOT to do pamphlets about Bailey.  I think
our resources are better spent in other areas -- we have
to keep the big picture in mind at all times.  However,
I will be getting a chance to do some speaking over the
next few weeks and I'm sure that I can find a way to work
Bailey into my speeches.

-------------------------------cut here-------------------------------

                          8-April-1992

                                        Paul Hager
                                        4475 N. Benton Ct.
                                        Bloomington, IN 47408
                                        tel: (812) 333-1384

Indiana Daily Student
Jordan River Forum
Ernie Pyle Hall
Room 120
Bloomington, IN 47405

To the editor:

     William J. Bailey, an I.U. instructor who teaches a course on
drug use in society, is quoted in the April 3rd issue of the IDS as
saying that cannabis was never recognized as a legal drug.  Mr.
Bailey was taking exception to the name of the Hoosier Cannabis Re-
legalization Coalition -- a Bloomington-based drug policy advocacy
group to which I belong.

     I called Mr. Bailey before writing this letter to verify the
quote and see if he would retract it.  Not only did he stand by it,
he presented the most astonishing piece of sophistry in defense of
the statement I've ever heard.  It amounted to:  just because
something is not illegal does not make it legal.

     Irrespective of one's views on cannabis prohibition, any
competent historian will stipulate to the fact that cannabis was a
legal drug in the United States.  It was a recognized part of the
United States Pharmacopeia until 1941.  Legal hashish was sold at
the 1876 Centennial Exposition and, by the end of the 1920s, over
1000 legal hashish parlors were located in New York City alone
(Brecher, Licit and Illicit Drugs).  Dr. David Musto, Dr. Lester
Grinspoon, and Jerome Himmelstein have all written about the
progress of cannabis from legal to illegal drug.  

     I have come to expect wild hysteria and attempts to stifle
free speech from prohibitionists.  But to have a putative academic
on the faculty of a major university actually try to rewrite
history is positively Orwellian.

                                        Paul Hager
                                        HCRC

-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: jtucker@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Joe T. Ucker       )
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: questions from NY
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:03:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	Albert Hoffmann in his "The Chemistry of LSD" that LSD
	is very reactive with air and light.  It seems that some
	sort of vacuum-packed method would work best.  Of course
	if your packaging was black plastic and it was stored 
	in the freezer, you'd be doing about the best you could.

................................................................................
.    jtucker@sdcc13.ucsd.edu			Joseph A. Tucker
.    "I'd like to talk to you.   You're very special to me."
................................................................................
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski)
Subject: Re: All Drugs WILL Be Legalized!!!
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:18:08 GMT

pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>In <1992Apr13.171817.12178@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>>I'm surprised the racists haven't decided to jump on the bandwagon.  Here
>>in Peoria, the area is swarming with jacked up Cadillacs and Lincoln Town
>>Cars with tinted windows, gold trim, gold wire wheels, wide tires, and huge
>>hood ornaments.  There's no way, considering Peoria's present economy, that
>>these people (mostly young black males) could have that kind of money from
>>legitimate sources.  Hell, if drugs were legal, they'd have to actually
>>work for a living, and their profits would be next to nothing compared to
>>what they're getting now.  Legalization would put blacks back on the bottom
>>rung of the income ladder.

>Considering that you have not gone out and done any kind of survey,
>this gross generalization is racist in and of itself.

That statement is racist and true at the same time.  While saying that 
black males are the biggest drug dealers is racist (and probably false anyway)
It is true that making drugs legal would take a lot of money from 
the illegal sale of them.  Competition would force them to lower their 
prices, and therefore their profits.  Look at prohibition.  During that
time you had many people who illegally sold alcohol and could sell it
at whatever price they wanted, giving them a *large* profit.  When it 
ended, everyone was selling alcohol based on the supply/demand scale.
These people had to lower their prices and all their profits went down
the tubes.
Keep in mind that this is *not* a reason for drugs to be legalized.  I'm
just trying to make a point about economics. :)

-Mark

--
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Robitussin question
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:16:06 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>Thanks, ROB.  I've heard two negative things about it. a) you get real
>sick

Maybe.

>and b) there is a two day hangover.

Maybe.  Probably depends on your metabolism.  Me & My brother split a
bottle of the Vicks preparation with DM in it -- I was still tripping the
next day, he was down and recovered by midafternoon.

>I've also been told that the sick is from Robitussen xx and if you use
>pure robo there is no problem.  Any comment?

Getting pure DM is definitely better than getting shit with guafenasin or
pseudoephedrine in them, the former will definitely aggrevate stomach 
upset if anything, and I can't imagine that the latter would help any.
Also, chug it in divided doses -- go easy on your stomach.
 
>Is the hangover debilitating like alcohol with headache and toxic feelings
>or just washed out like LSD or MDA?

LSD/MDA-like

>I kind of enjoy the latter actually.
>Extreme relaxation.  Would you do it if you had to work or take an exam
>the next day? (Assuming you were otherwise prepared for either.)

I did take an exam the next day -- I wont do it again.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.4497@layout.berkeley.edu)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: milton.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Who to Vote For????
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:23:40 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

In article <1992Apr13.213910.19003@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
|>In article <1992Apr8.223637.16838@yang.earlham.edu> alexc@yang.earlham.edu (Sperminator) writes:
|>
|>}this sounds very nice, but what is the entire libertarian platform?  just 
|>}a number or address wherre i can get this info is all for which i am 
|>}asking (e-mail alexc@yang.earlham.edu).  I agree with this point but i 
|>}cannot vote for them unless i know better the entire platform.
|>
|>i love this attitude! does anyone know where i can get a copy of the
|>Republican & Democratic platforms. just a number or address where i can
|>get this info is all for which i am asking (e-mail tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu).
|>i agree with both of them on one or two issues, but i can't consider
|>voting for them without knowing more about their entire platform.

     I'd guess the platforms won't be set till after the conventions.
I'd think you could write or phone the national committies of the
respective parties for info on their platforms...

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
         "While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their
          correctness never does."
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cannabis smoke
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:50:04 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr6.015628.19651@news.cs.indiana.edu>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
> 
> 	The solution to the smoking problem is to legalize
> MJ, end the drug war, and either break up or otherwise gut
> the tobacco industry.  Following this, make the RJR "smokeless
> cigarette" drug delivery system available for nicotine and the
> cannabinoids.  In principle, such a drug delivery system should
> greatly reduce carcinogens mixed with the desired drugs.
> 
	Does the drug delivery system in question give the same initial 
rush of nicotine that the cigarette/whatever normally does? That rush is 
one of the reasons that nicotine delivery systems (gum, patch, etc.) often 
fail to break the habit in someone (or at least transfer it to a 
less-dangerous form). When did RJR patent this system? Even if they're 
holding onto it now (since I haven't heard much about it before, I assume 
they aren't marketing it), once the patent runs out it'll be possible for 
someone else to put it out on the market.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: app45293@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ZUSS)
Subject: Re: marijuana, alcohol and driving
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:47:39 GMT

backpack@access.digex.com (Stuart Reges) writes:

>I'm sorry to say that I can't claim my thought experiments generated many
>converts, although I believe it helped plant a useful seed of doubt.  I found
>that the prejudices were just too strong.  When I'd ask someone whose only
>knowledge of cocaine came from "drug education" to describe the drug they would
>invariably say something like this: "It brings about loss of judgement, causing
>you to make choices that you wouldn't normally, many of them unwise and unsafe
>choices, and it impairs perception and coordination, making it difficult for
>you to perform as well as you would normally."  The uninitiated believe this is
>true of all drugs.  When I asked them how they thought this compared to
>alcohol, they tended to say it was probably 2 or 3 times worse than being
>drunk.  When I would then describe to them the actual effects of cocaine as I
>experienced them, they didn't believe me.  And when I said that of all the
>drugs I have used, the one that most fits the description they are giving is
>alcohol, they again didn't believe me.  I tried to point out to them that they
>make a false distinction between drugs, which they believe are dangerous and
>harm the body, alcohol, which they feel needs to be used carefully but is
>basically a source of fun, and medicine, which they believe are substances that
>heal the body.  These are all drugs, I would say, but with little effect.

   This is so true!  I believe people's perception of how drugs affect the
user, esp. when in the abscence of actual observation or experience, are based
on extrapolations from the effects of alcohol.  The effects of alcohol are well
known to most everyone, and the dangerous/antisocial side of it as well.  The
logic is that since other intoxicants are illegal, they must be even worse
than alcohol.

**************************************************************************
Would you mind if we balanced this glass of milk where your visiting friend
accidentally was killed? Would it be OK with you if we wrote a reminder of 
things we'll forget to do today otherwise with this green magic marker, if  
it's all right, on the back of your head? --TMBG
  ******** Tony Pulokas ****** U of Illinois / Urbana-Champaign *********#
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Tig Stone)
Subject: Re: alt.head?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
	<1992Apr12.104946.22227@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:31:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.104946.22227@muddcs.claremont.edu> ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt) writes:

>In article <9=pjn6=.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>
>>BTW I don' really like alt.heads but that's just a matter of taste. I'd
>>prefer something like alt.altered or alt.perception or some such that
>>won't drive away the more conservative folks who might drop in and find
>>an interest.
>
>While this is a nice possibility, group-naming etiquette is that the
>name should be remotely comprehensible to J. Random flipping through
>his newsrc.  "alt.head" isn't, I don't think.  


	I would have to agree.  I once was looking at alt.test, and
although I don't know much of its history, I was looking around and
found a FAQ floating among the "test", "just a test", and "ignore
this, it's a test"s.  It had said something to the effect that
alt.test was for discussion of testing, not for test posting.  I
didn't know that.  Neither do the thousands (a guess) of people who
post test-posts on alt.test.  Now, if the group had been better named,
people wouldn't have overrun it with test posts.  I don't even think
anyone posts NON-test-posts there anymore.  But then again, maybe that
FAQ was just a test post!  Hmmmm...


>                                               Given my understanding
>of the proposed group, I'd have to argue for alt.drugs.head; if it
>would include discussion of non-chemical techniques we could move it
>elsewhere.

	My personal inclinations would be to say NO (just say no...)
to splitting the group.  Although the postings about trippy music and
other things are sometimes annoying, I think that if you split the
group, you will have people who WON'T be reading the alt.drugs stuff
anymore, because they were just looking for the head stuff.  Or vice
versa.  I think that you can get valuable information in this group,
be it pertaining to your rights, you capabilities, or your supplies.

>
>>Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
>
>   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
>

--
T. Stone 
(s8759859@titan.ucc.umass.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Kesey's back!
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:39:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Yeah, I was recalling the Stanford scene from ancient reading.  I thought
for certain that Kerouac showed up there but...  No, I'm real sure it was
mentioned in one of Kesey's recent books. The strange one with the red
cover. You are right about Ginsberg.  There was a famous Ralph that was
part of the scene though I think. Anybody remember what Ralph that might be?

According to Wolfe, Neal died of a heart attack from speed while counting
railroad ties.  Fiction?
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
Xref: sparky alt.drugs:7214 talk.politics.drugs:2709
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: just a question
Date: 31 Mar 92 16:48:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Mar31.164801.3664
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Mar29.010213.11909@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>The exact opposite took effect when Colorado was blackmailed into the 21
>drinking age (those damn federal highway funds).  Underage drinking is
>significantly higher now than before the drinking age was raised to 21.
>And it has not made any significant change in the number of DUIs (the
>original intention.)

Could you clarify this a bit?  Has the number of under-18 drinkers gone up
or is the increase due to re-categorizing the drinkers who are 18-20 from 
"of age" to "underage"?

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
Darryl Gates, George Bush's "ideal police officer", thinks Clarence Thomas, 
a former casual drug user, should have been shot long ago.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cannabis smoke (THC solubility)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:53:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
: 
: Do you really think generations of heads would use bongs if they
: eliminated some of the happy juice?  No.  THC is not water soluble
: so it goes right through the water (mostly) and into your lungs.
: Then the fun begins.

It is not a matter of solubility.  It is condensation from the gaseous
state induced by the heat back to the natural state (liquid I believe)
of THC.  It would appear in the gunk that accumulates.  The fact that
you can catch a buzz from the gunk implies that this is occuring.

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cannabis smoke (THC solubility)
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:02:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.!xqj68d.bprofane
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr7.212115.25673@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> app45293@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ZUSS) writes:
>
>   The question must be adressed whether that is a real gain, though, since
>some of the particulates with the active ingredient are also being removed
>in this process. e.g. If a bong removes 50% of the toluene and 80% of the THC,
>you'd be better off smoking a non-water pipe.  I don't know the answer; I 
>greatly prefer a bong because I'm not fond of burning my thoat.

Do you really think generations of heads would use bongs if they
eliminated some of the happy juice?  No.  THC is not water soluble
so it goes right through the water (mostly) and into your lungs.
Then the fun begins.
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: All Drugs WILL Be Legalized!!!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:11:46 GMT


In article <=kwjw1r.feustel@netcom.com>, 
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) said:

> Currently illegal Drugs *will* be legalized. It will happen when
> the government, having buried itself in deficits, realizes that
> its cash flow position will improve if they start taxing drug
> sales and stop pouring money down a rathole prosecuting and
> imprisoning people who engage in drug use.

I have to disagree.  I see nothing to stop the government from
continuing its current trend of making a profit on the War on Drugs
through civil forfeiture.  And considering that they're on the verge
of seizing Manuel Noriega's _foreign_ (non-U.S., non-Panamanian)
assets, it looks as though they'll be able to feed long and deep at
this trough.  ("I am pleased to announce that Operation Righteous
Stuff is now a complete success.  Twenty thousand American troops
now have complete control of the formerly evil nation of
Fillintheblank, having successfully liberated it from the evil drug
terrorists who formerly ran it.  The National Treasury was seized
intact, as were all the major local banks, and the forfeited assets
are being transfereed to the United States even as I speak.  Truly,
this is a great and historic day for the nation and for the entire
right-thinking, drug-hating free world.  God bless America.")

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

  Astronomers announced today that they have calculated that the light
  leaving a clue today will reach George Bush in precisely 3.19 years...
From: euclid@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Elizabeth Kupfer)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: You All Suck
Keywords: Penis, phallus
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:43:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr15.174350.18774
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Natural selection works.
e.k.
--
elizabeth kupfer, euclid@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (preferred)
standard disclaimers apply
Those who do not trust enough are not trusted --Tao Te Ching