HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: cars seized in oakland
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:16:12 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth Dougm concerning CARS SEIZED IN OAKLAND on 08-15-92:

D >Oakland drug users now have something to worry about besides prison,
D >overdoses and track marks.  Local police, acting in coordination with
D >the FBI, are seizing the cars of suspected drug buyers in an attempt
D >to curb crime in the drug-plagued California city.

It's happening now in Washington Heights, Manhattan, now too.

Dinkins was bragging about seizing all these NJ cars Thursday night.


---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  Ninety per cent of everything is crap. - T. Sturgeon
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Cars seized in Oakland
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:18:15 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

From Newsweek Aug. 17,1992, p. 6.

Car Crackdown

Oakland drug users now have something to worry about besides prison,
overdoses and track marks.  Local police, acting in coordination with
the FBI, are seizing the cars of suspected drug buyers in an attempt
to curb crime in the drug-plagued California city.  The new offensive,
mounted by Mayor Elihu Harris, is an extreme application of a federal
law that allows authorities to confiscate property used in the drug
trade.  During the first weekend this month, police seized 43 cars in
one neighborhood.  The ACLU is looking into the program's legality.

-- 
***************************************************************
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
					Pres. George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller)
Subject: A distinction between Soft and Hard drugs
Organization: University of Nijmegen
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:33:28 GMT


In article 713691879@camms1.caos.kun.nl, tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:
>>If you believe that marijuana should be legal in the US because it doesn't
>>belong in the same class as other illicit drugs (as it now stands in the
>>law) then why haven't you suggested that it be discussed in a different 
>>newsgroup than these other drugs?

And Richard Stueven replies:

>That's not the reason.  I believe that marijuana should be legal in the
>US because the government has no business telling me what I can and
>cannot put in my body, and that goes for ALL of the illicit drugs as
>well.

I have no quarrel with individuals who feel the way you do, but we must
examine the facts.  I don't know how much you realize it but there is 
a possibility that if LSD were legal someone could put some in your
drink without you knowing it.  In fact this has happened to me twice in
my lifetime that I'm aware of (after the fact of course) while it has been
illegal.  True, someone can poison you too, but LSD has quite a different
result.  You must see that the controlled substances acts are there to 
protect you from other people, and not necessarily to protect you from
yourself.  And not only that alone, they are also there to protect other
people from you.  You might think a little acid trip is no big deal but
others might (and apparently do) think that it is quite a big deal.
How would you remedy such an occurance (someone drugging someone else without
their knowledge or approval) if all drugs were legal?

At the same time I agree with you your opinion in that we as human
beings have natural rights, not bestowed on us by the government, to
the wonders of nature.  But in a practical sense aren't the current laws
the best way leave that decision in the hands of each individual by
requiring a substantial body of knowledge be accumulated in order to
acquire these substances?  Why should anyone be able to purchase all
the drugs they want without going through a reasonable amount of study
concerning the substance in question?  Do you deny that "hard" drugs
do require some sort of preparation before injestion or do you suggest
that someone just drop those tabs of acid and see what happens?

I'm all for legalizing things but I would like to see the plan and the
expected behavior patterns explained first.  Perhaps if you had just come
off of a three day acid trip which you never expected to take you would feel 
differently.  It is hardly the same as smelling marijuana in the air, thus
the distinction between Hard and Soft drugs.


						Yours,

						Todd M. Miller

--

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder)
Subject: Re: Cannabis/Cannabalism
Organization: American Math. Society
	<1455@seqp4.sequoia.com> <1992Aug19.152907.21430@sci.kun.nl>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:39:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.152907.21430@sci.kun.nl> tmiller@sci.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:

   >>Oh come off it. Everyone knows that if you smoke pot you'll start
   >>eating people. Or maybe if you eat a person you'll start smoking
   >>pot. That must be it. We really ought to ban cannibalism because it
   >>obviously leads directly to cannabisism. 

   >I can no longer wait for someone to make the following analogy: that 
   >the 'drug warriors' are "eating you alive" with forfeiture laws, and 
   >that their actions are those of a modern, mechanized, and war-like people.
   >So war like, in fact, that if there is no external enemy they have a
   >war on themselves (i.e.: The war on people involved in drugs).  

Oh, I get it.  The WoD (Waste of Dollars) is really a front for a
secret canna-ballistic society that eats your money through forfeiture
laws.  They go out on raids, bring back their victims, and have a huge
celebration.  They even divvy up the victims depending on rank in the
secret society.  Boy, I can't wait for the twentieth century to
arrive.  Maybe then they'll finally start upholding the constitution.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pat@fitz.uucp (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: more drug war nonsense
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: talk
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:53:29 GMT


[copied without permission from "The Huntsville Times", August 14, 1992]
				     
		      SCOTTSBORO SUED OVER DRUG RAIDS
			Times Jackson County Bureau

SCOTTSBORO [AL] --- A local couple, charging the city of Scottsboro tried to
put them out of business by conducting drug raids at their used car lot,
have filed a $1 million claim against the city.

Chris Jones and his wife, Gayle, allege that the city through Police Chief
Keith Smith damaged their reputations by having the police raid their
business and strip search them and some of their customers and vendors.

Jones and Smith came to their business, The Car Connection, on July 31 and
had officers search their business and persons for drugs.  The business is
at the intersection of Broad Street and Park Avenue.

The claim says Smith conducted "an unreasonable search" of Jones' home and
of him on Aug. 7.

The claim also says the city through Smith tried to close Jones' former
business, The Riverboat Club, in 1990 by "contriving alleged claims and
complaints of loud noise against (the) business and by staging an alleged
bomb scare."

Jones said Smith and his officers arrived at his business during a New
Year's Eve party after the Police Department reportedly received a phone
call that a bomb had been placed inside.

"I was just doing my job," Smith said in response to the allegations made
by the Joneses.

Smith said he and his officers were only acting on information they had
received when they searched Jones' business and home.  However, he said no
drugs were found in any search.

Jones and his wife said they offered to take a drug test and/or a polygraph
test, but that Smith declined the offer.

--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com
  / ___  )  |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| (205) 730-3741
 / __)/ /__ |o| Intergraph Corporation |o| Mailstop GD3002
(_/it(_____)|o| TIM Documentation      |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
-- 
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com
  / ___  )  |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| (205) 730-3741
 / __)/ /__ |o| Intergraph Corporation |o| Mailstop GD3002
(_/it(_____)|o| TIM Documentation      |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: jah@mits.mdata.fi (Jani A. Heinonen)
Subject: Re: New Book on Legalization
Organization: Microdata International Telecomm Service, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:04:57 GMT

() writes:

>Ordered the book today, they were very nice, but the ISBN you have is wrong.
>Paperback is 0-8126-9184-9 $14.95  Cloth: 0-8126-9183-0 $32.95
>They do charge for shipping.

   Can the book be ordered abroad?
-- 
Jani Heinonen                  "The worm is not psychoactive."
jah@mits.mdata.fi                 --David A. Honig

section 1 of uuencode 2.13 of file janikey.pub    by R.E.M.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: tmiller@sci.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller)
Subject: Re: Cannabis/Cannabalism
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:11:36 GMT

In <tmiller.714143057@camms1.caos.kun.nl> tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:

>lee@muppet.bt.co.uk (Lee Sanders) writes:

>>I don't wish to seem picky but where one inaccuracy lurks ...

>>In article 713793006@camms1.caos.kun.nl, tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:
>>[stuff deleted]
>>>"Early Diffusion and Folk Uses of Hemp" by Sula Benet contained
>>>in the book Cannabis and Culture; Rubin, Vera ed., Aldine, Chicago, 1975
>>>ISBN 90-279-7669-4 (Mouton publishers).  
>>[more stuff deleted]
>>>	Herodotus, in the fifth century B.C., observed that the Scythians 
>>>	used the plant to purge themselves after funerals by throwing hemp 
>>>	seeds on heated stones to create a thick vapor, inhaling the smoke 
>>>	and becoming intoxicated.  "The Scythians howl with joy for the 
>>>	vapour bath" (Herodutos,IV:142).  To the western world, Herodotus' 
>>>	account is the earliest source of knowledge of the ritual use of 
>>>	cannabis".

>>No, I'm sorry but hemp/cannabis seeds contain NONE of the active ingredients
>>THC,CBD,CBN. I can assure you that many an attempt has been made to get high
>>by using seeds and it absolutely, definitely does nothing.

Sorry, I've got the reference now too.  Plutarch (46-127 A.D) mentions that
the people of Thrace used a herb similiar to oregano, the tops of which
they threw into the fire after meals and, inhaling the smoke, became
drunk and fell into sleep. (Same reference as previous posts. pages 305 &
306).   Although this is several hundreds of years after Herodutus.

In addition and in response to some other posts:

The word cannibal was deemed to come from the Caribs who named another
tribe cannibals when they met Columbus during the discovery of the Americas.
The carribean indians did not use cannabis, they used tabacco.  Cannabis
was brought to the new world by the Europeans.  Therefore, if you want 
to say that cannibals didn't exist until Columbus named them then you 
have to associate tabacco and not cannabis with cannibals.  

Why mention cannibalism?  Because there is a war on drugs and it reminds
me of some ancient wars where cannabis and cannibals were mentioned.  
I had hoped that I might find someone here who would explain more about
Scythians and Cannabis but obviously I'm going to have to do that for myself.


						Later,

  						Todd M. Miller

--
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Do Opponents of Drug Prohibition Favor Banning Guns?
Date: 9 Aug 92 11:13:37 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>During the 1980's there was an ACTUAL CASE (true fact, on the level) in
>which a baby girl ate several PCP cigarettes, while the parents were
>taking the drug in the next room, and died of an OD.

>The parents were charged with everything from giving haircuts without a
>license to murder.

I would never allow anyone to cut my hair without a license to murder.

;')

JD
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: tmiller@sci.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller)
Subject: Re: Cannabis/Cannabalism
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:29:07 GMT

In <1455@seqp4.sequoia.com> markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy) writes:

>Oh come off it. Everyone knows that if you smoke pot you'll start
>eating people. Or maybe if you eat a person you'll start smoking
>pot. That must be it. We really ought to ban cannibalism because it
>obviously leads directly to cannabisism. 

I can no longer wait for someone to make the following analogy: that 
the 'drug warriors' are "eating you alive" with forfeiture laws, and 
that their actions are those of a modern, mechanized, and war-like people.
So war like, in fact, that if there is no external enemy they have a
war on themselves (i.e.: The war on people involved in drugs).  

--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: A distinction between Soft and Hard drugs
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 20:50:22 GMT

In <tmiller.713795608@camms1.caos.kun.nl> tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:
>>That's not the reason.  I believe that marijuana should be legal in the
>>US because the government has no business telling me what I can and
>>cannot put in my body, and that goes for ALL of the illicit drugs as
>>well.
>I have no quarrel with individuals who feel the way you do, but we must
>examine the facts.  I don't know how much you realize it but there is 
>a possibility that if LSD were legal someone could put some in your
>drink without you knowing it.  In fact this has happened to me twice in
>my lifetime that I'm aware of (after the fact of course) while it has been
>illegal.  True, someone can poison you too, but LSD has quite a different
>result.  You must see that the controlled substances acts are there to 
>protect you from other people, and not necessarily to protect you from
>yourself.  And not only that alone, they are also there to protect other
>people from you.  You might think a little acid trip is no big deal but
>others might (and apparently do) think that it is quite a big deal.

Indeed, an unprepared acid trip is quite a big deal.

So?  So is an unprepared cyanide "trip".  If you hang out with the type
of people who would dose you without your knowledge, you need to get out
of that circle.

>How would you remedy such an occurance (someone drugging someone else without
>their knowledge or approval) if all drugs were legal?

By making dosing people without their consent illegal, if it isn't already
under some form of assault law.

>At the same time I agree with you your opinion in that we as human
>beings have natural rights, not bestowed on us by the government, to
>the wonders of nature.  But in a practical sense aren't the current laws
>the best way leave that decision in the hands of each individual by
>requiring a substantial body of knowledge be accumulated in order to
>acquire these substances?

No.  People I've known who've acquired these substances don't generally
have a "substantial body of knowledge".  People who do have that knowledge
and acquire them are at substantial risk from the government, since
what they do is illegal and likely to give the govm't excuse to take
everything they own, whether that's "fair" or not.

>			Why should anyone be able to purchase all
>the drugs they want without going through a reasonable amount of study
>concerning the substance in question?  Do you deny that "hard" drugs
>do require some sort of preparation before injestion or do you suggest
>that someone just drop those tabs of acid and see what happens?

Ever hear of Tim Leary's idea of licensing psychoactive drugs?  I don't
see why that approach is necessarily bad.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
 Insofar as the laws of mathematics are certain, they do not refer to reality,
          and insofar as they refer to reality, they are not certain.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: lee@polar.bt.co.uk (Lee Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: A distinction between Soft and Hard dru
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:37:46 GMT
Reply-To: lee@polar.bt.co.uk
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 59682@mimsy.umd.edu, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
>
>     If you want to protect me from others, make very strong laws against
>dosing other people w/out their permission. Drug use is like sex - if
>it's with consent, it's great; if it's without consent, it's a very
>serious and very heinous crime. Should we outlaw sex to stop rape? I
>think not!
>

Applause, calls of 'here, here' etc.

Lee.
lee@muppet.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson)
Subject: Re: New Book on Legalization (correction)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:01:11 GMT

In article <133983@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.184021.25408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson) writes:
>-	"Drug Legalization, For and Against", 
>-	edited by Rod Evans and Irwin Berent,
>-	Toll Free Number for Open Court:  800-435-6850
>-      ISBN 0-8126-9169-5 (paperback)  (0-8126-9168-7 cloth)
>
>I just called and ordered this book.  The ISBN numbers and price are 
>incorrect according to the person who took my order.  Here are the correct
>numbers:
>
>	ISBN 0-8216-9184-9	$14.95	(paper)
>
>	ISBN 0-8126-9183-0	$32.95	(cloth)

Very strange; my copy has the ISBN numbers clearly printed on it, and
my receipt says $12.95.  Your mileage may vary.

I've now read some of the first arguments in the book, and I think
it's very good.  I think it's healthy to see some good
anti-legalization statements, both to learn what the smart opposition
will say, as well as to find out things to be careful about when
designing a legalized system.  I haven't seen anything completely new
to me or convincing, but the arguments are well presented and
intelligent.

Randy

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Re: A distinction between Soft and Hard drugs
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:17:00 GMT

tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:
>
>I have no quarrel with individuals who feel the way you [Richard Stueven]
>do [the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot put in
>my body], but we must examine the facts.  I don't know how much you realize
>it but there is a possibility that if LSD were legal someone could put some
>in your drink without you knowing it.  In fact this has happened to me twice
>in my lifetime that I'm aware of (after the fact of course) while it has been
>illegal.  True, someone can poison you too, but LSD has quite a different
>result.  You must see that the controlled substances acts are there to 
>protect you from other people, and not necessarily to protect you from
>yourself.

These laws don`t seem to have protected you very well.  Laws offer protection
from and only from law-abiding citizens.

>And not only that alone, they are also there to protect other
>people from you.  You might think a little acid trip is no big deal but
>others might (and apparently do) think that it is quite a big deal.
>How would you remedy such an occurance (someone drugging someone else without
>their knowledge or approval) if all drugs were legal?

You can't remedy any damage with laws--you can only list things that will be
punished and the punishment for doing them.  Guns are quite legally possesed
in the U.S., but I don't believe I can shoot people at will because of it!
The fact that drugs might be legally possesed/used, does not mean that they
can be legally inflicted on another person.
---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com
   TI pays absolutely no attention to me or my opinions; therefore,
   the foregoing posting cannot possibly represent TI's viewpoint.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Rational Recovery
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:44:41 GMT

My understanding of Rational Recovery is that it was founded by libertarian
Rational-Emotive psychotherapists in San Francisco.  Apparently they're trying
to get their literature translated into Russian so they can market their
treatment as a way to stop being alcoholic while retaining one's atheism.  They
are rather down on AA.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Marijuana: Don't barbecue your brain
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:59:41 GMT

In article 18453@linus.mitre.org, lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <Bt6v7o.4H@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
>>	joint,_part_of_your_brain_actually_catches_on_
>>	fire_and_burns,_leaving scars that impair
>
>Come on, Gak!  This is too ludicrous even for the PTFA.  Without a
>reference to the actual publication which contained this, I'm going to have
>to file it under "hoax". 

You and your damn references...  :-)

"Too ludicrous for the PTFA" - the "we'll even admit that we think we
have to lie to protect the American people from themselves" people?!?

Anyway, like I said, it's good for a laugh regardless of who wrote
it...I've sent email to the guy who sent it to me, asking if he knows
the source.  He says he has one on the subject of acid, also...

---
gak			Der Herr Buergermeister gibt bekannt, dass ab
gak@wrs.com		Donnerstag Bier gebraut wird und deshalb ab
attmail!gakhaus!gak	Mittwoch micht mehr in den Bach geschissen
107/H/3&4		werden darf.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Subject: Re: AA (Was Re: Definition of an addict.)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:08:37 GMT


In a previous article, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) says:

>...go ahead and repost the (12) steps.

In a nutshell: 1.  Trust God.
               2.  Clean house.
               3.  Help others.


-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico)
Subject: What could a Libertarian president accomplish?
Summary: Pardon perpetrators of victem less crimes
Keywords: Marrou, Libertarian, Marijuana
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:07:41 GMT

I have been actively campaigning for the Libertarian presidential ticket
here in Indiana. In the course of my discussions with people I am
frequently asked what a libertarian president could accomplish, given a
demopublican controlled congress. A simple answer came to me this week:
The president has the power to issue pardons. Remember Carter pardoning
the draft evaders? Well the libertarians see people that have been
convicted of victimless crimes as being the political prisonaers that
they are. Could Marrou in good conscience _not_ pardon these people,
many of whom have had their rights trampled on by the State? Would
Congress attempt to remove Marrou from office if this were to happen?

Just some food for thought.

--
bill d'Amico                   " Freedom of choice - is what you want.
damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu    Freedom from choice - is what you got."
                                 -- Devo

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5847 soc.culture.usa:6625 va.general:73 alt.activism:14963 alt.security:4174