HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strat@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: New PDFA Commercial
Date: 14 Apr 1992 22:27:22 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu

mea@cbnewse.cb.att.com (mark.e.anderson) writes:

>I just saw a new PDFA commercial linking the spread of Aids
>with drug use.  The commercial shows a guy and girl getting
>hot and heavy in passion.  It then tries to link the passion
>generated to have unprotected sex with drug use.

There's been another one like this floating around the various
divisions of TCI for over a year.  I don't know if this is the same
one you're talking about, however.

>  I didn't
>tape it so I'm kind of relying on memory but it struck me
>as *the* dumbest commercial I have ever seen.

Well, 3 out of my top five are PFDA advertisements.  I don't do any of
the "illegal" drugs, and only drink alcohol on occasion... but I am
usually offended by PFDA advertisements.  They are a waste of air time
and are never accurate.

>Just guessing here but I think this one will backfire big time
>on PDFA. 

I suspect that you are talking about an advertisment that I have
already seen a hundred times.  It is one of those tapes that is on a
"bicycle tour" around the country, landing in different geological
regions of the country at different times.  It didn't backfire for the
PFDA... not that the PFDA has much standing with people I associate
with!  :-)

> I suspect that the dumbest WOD supporter will see
>through this smokescreen.

Smokescreen.  Dumb WoD supporter.  Suspect.  Three strong images.  

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
   ******* Don't laugh, my other BBS is an information service... *******  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: vwelch@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Von Welch)
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:47:19 GMT

In article <wb9omc.703207402@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>, wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
|> 
|> 	Interesting thing about it, in this country we often watch
|> our neighbors and/or their homes and report to the police any
|> suspicious activity.  We are often then considered good citizens.  Seems
|> like a pretty fine line between what is a reasonable level of
|> neighborly concern and blatant interference.......
|> 
|> Duane

 I have always been scared by similarities between what I see on TV shows
like "America's Most Wanted" and what I've read in books like 1984. "Good
citizens of the United States, John Doe has committed acts against the state.
If you have seen him please please report in immediately at 1-800-whatever."

I hope this is highly paranoid but if a government wanted to find somebody
for whatever reason put a crime reenactment on the show and get all the TV-
watching public help you capture them.

-- 
Von Welch
vwelch@ncsa.uiuc.edu
- I speak only for myself and those who think exactly like me -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: RFC on what-to-say-to-the-cops article (LONG)
Organization: Chaos
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:04:31 GMT


With the following exceptions, all the information I read in the
aforementioned article seemed to be correct.

DON'T get out of the car, unless they tell you to.

People in NY and IL (at least) get pistols pointed at them and even
occaisionally shot from jumping out of the car when pulled over.

Stay in the car unless they tell you to get out.  Roll down your window.
Turn on the dome light if it's nighttime.  Keep your hands relaxed on the
wheel.  Do not duck down, do not look nervous, and do not look like you're
searching for a weapon.  You could get shot.

If they ask if they may search your car, tell them: "Under the
Constitution, I am to remain secure in my property from search and seizure.
You may not search my car without a warrant.  I won't stop you if you do,
but I will file Federal criminal charges against you for violating my civil
rights under the color of law.  I think that's Title X."  Say it and mean
it.  If they ask if you have something to hide, say, "No.  I do not consent
to any search."  Obey all orders.  Tell them immediately if you have a
firearm.  "Officer, I have a loaded pistol in my glove compartment.  What
would you like me to do?"  (This is assuming that you're legal to carry the
pistol.) 

Above all: REMAIN CALM.  Above even that: DO NOT OFFER ANY RESISTANCE.
And never cuss at a New York cop.

Unfortunately, I've never heard of a search of a car not being upheld.  The
lesson here: carry nothing incriminating in your car.


Finally: I am not a lawyer.  I will not be held responsible for any of my
advice, ever.  BTW, if I'm wrong about something, I want to know.


Mike
-- 
Michael A. Atkinson | "Why change Bush in the middle of a screw? 
asbestos@nwu.edu    |  Vote for George in '92!"

      A Libertarian, an NRA member, and a firearms owner.
From: nate@anasaz.UUCP (Nathan Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: RFC on what-to-say-to-the-cops article (LONG)
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:56:03 GMT
Reply-To: nate@anasazi.com (Nathan Holtz)
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.230431.5475@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
>DON'T get out of the car, unless they tell you to.

I prefer to get out of the car.  That way, they don't have an excuse to look
inside (not that they need one)

>People in NY and IL (at least) get pistols pointed at them and even
>occaisionally shot from jumping out of the car when pulled over.

Don't jump out of the car, get out in a calm and reasonable manner.  Don't
give them an excuse to do anything.

>If they ask if they may search your car, tell them: "Under the

Unfortunately, they can do a "pat down" of your car and you if they have a
"reasonable suspicion" that you may be armed.  This includes the entire
driver's compartment, glove box, and underneath the seats.  Also, the friendly
officer can ask you to get out of the car.  I don't know if this means force
you to get out of the car, but why piss him/her off?

>Above all: REMAIN CALM.  Above even that: DO NOT OFFER ANY RESISTANCE.
>And never cuss at a New York cop.

Certainly, remain calm.  If you affer resistance, then they might shoot you.
If you cuss them out, they may have grounds for assault charges.  Fighting
words are not protected speech under the 1st Amendment.  

>Unfortunately, I've never heard of a search of a car not being upheld.  The
>lesson here: carry nothing incriminating in your car.

>Finally: I am not a lawyer.  I will not be held responsible for any of my
>advice, ever.  BTW, if I'm wrong about something, I want to know.

Ditto

>Michael A. Atkinson | "Why change Bush in the middle of a screw? 
>asbestos@nwu.edu    |  Vote for George in '92!"
>      A Libertarian, an NRA member, and a firearms owner.

--
| ANASAZI,Inc. (Don't blame them)* Internet: nate@anasazi.com      or        |
| 7500 N. Dreamy Draw Dr. #120   *   nate%anasaz.uucp@asuvax.eas.asu.edu     |
| Phoenix, Az  85020             * UUCP: asuvax!anasaz.uucp!nate     or      |
| (602)861-7627 (4pm-Mid,M-F)    *   asuvax.eas.asu.edu!anasaz.uucp!nate     |
 @->---  @->---  Goin Where the Wind Don't Blow So Strange...  ---<-@  ---<-@  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: WILL GVT RESORT TO ELECTRONIC IMPLANTS?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:02:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

In article <9204150010.AA14580@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>  
lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
[material deleted] 
> These have the effect of gun control activists masquerating as  
"concerned
> citizens" passing Bill of Right Free Zones i.e. Gun Free School Zones
[etc.]

I'll keep this brief because it is off the topic for this group; but Gun  
Free School Zones are already federal law.  They were passed by Congress  
on November 29, 1990 as part of the Crime Control Act of 1990 and signed  
into law by Pres. Bush on Jan 29, 1991.

This is Public Law 101-647 Sec. 1702   (104 Stat. 4844)
and amends Sections 921, 922 and 924 of Title 18 USC

Full text and discussion are available in news.group  talk.politics.guns

Robert I. Kesten
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2835 alt.drugs:7446
From: drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: TCI ---  Their reply to my letter
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:31:56 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

       Here's the reply my letter got from TCI.

>Dear Mr. Drumm:
>
>Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding one of TCI's affiliate's refusal
>to sell advertising time which would have been used to promote the 
>legalization of marijuana.  TCI promotes a drug-free workplace.  We felt it
>was inconsistent with that posture to sell commercial time to promote this
>cause.
>
>Further, the cable systems owned and operated by affiliates of TCI are
>no more and no less First Amendment speakers than are Newspapers, radio
>TV, etc, etc, etc...[first amendment excuse deleted]  We have exercised 
>that same constitutionally protected right.
>
>Thank You [ & fuck off etc.]




                                            Daniel Drumm
                                            Systems Manager
                                            University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
                                            Eau Claire WI 54701

       Mr. Barry P. Marshall
       Chief Operating Officer
       TCI
       P.O. Box 5630
       Denver CO 80217


       Dear Mr. Marshall:


       Thank you for your letter of April 6 regarding TCI's refusal to air
       facts about marijuana.  In your letter, you justified your position
       as being consistent with TCI's promotion of a drug free workplace.

       Because TCI promotes a drug free work place, and because TCI feels
       that drug promotion is inconsistent with this posture, TCI should
       also restrict the air time sold for alcohol promotion.

       Does TCI have plans to restrict sales to these drug vendors?  How
       consistent is TCI with regard to it's drug free work place?

       Regarding a similar matter, I was disappointed that you did not
       address my concerns about the propaganda aired by the Partnership
       for a Drug Free America.

       This group has consistently shown disregard for reason and truth. 
       Many PFDA advertizements were recalled after experts have clearly
       shown them to be out right lies.  These advertisements were not
       recalled because of their misrepresentation of the facts, but to
       salvage the authors image.  Lately, the PFDA has shied away from
       blatent lies and exaggerated statistics in favor of powerful, "say
       nothing" images which are just as misleading, but not nearly as self
       damming.  

       Will you please consider removing these dangerous lies from the
       viewers sight.  TCI has this power, and with this power comes
       responsibility.


                                                Sincerely,


                                                Daniel Drumm
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: I am beginning my group
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:18:52 GMT


	I am now beginning my high school group.  Tomorrow I will go
advertise the first meeting in the school.  The Partnership for a Free
America has begun.

	Wish me luck.
-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: 60 MINUTES
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:47:03 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Civil Seizure has been ruled constitutional. That's why I call for a
constitutional amendment abolishing it.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: lorimor@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Lorimor)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:26:22 GMT
Subject: 60 MINUTES
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs



         Did anyone catch 60 minutes Sunday?  It had a story about
     Forfeiture of cash when traveling by air.  I was disappointed
     when 60 minutes went to the trouble of stinging the local
     police by sending a black staff member to buy a ticket with cash.
     I was expecting 60 minutes to let the police take their money,
     and then investigate the uncontitutional aspects of trying to 
     get it back. To me, it looked like 60 mintues wimped out when
     the staff member was close to having to turn over his cash, he
     disclosed he was with 60 minutes.  I would have like to see them
     carry thru and ask the HARD questions!  I would have liked the
     staff member to refuse to hand over his money and be arrested.
     I would have liked to see what it would be like for a KNOWN
     INNOCENT person to try to get back his unconstitutionally seized
     money.  


                                Bill `Boy this stuff makes me sick` Lorimor
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2813 alt.drugs:7414 misc.legal:9084 alt.society.civil-liberty:3341 alt.activism:7471
From: Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: The Peru Coup -- it can't happen here
Date: 11 Apr 92 10:36:34 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

With popular and military support, the president disbands a corrupt congress
that he says stands in the way of his economic reforms and drug policies ...
nah, it can't happen here.

Reprinted without permission from The Associated Press.

----- cut here -----
4/6/92 12:29 Inches: 04.6 URGENT PM-US-Peru,0180
 
White House Decries Action in Peru
	WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House today decried Peruvian 
President Alberto Fujimori's suspension of the constitution as "a 
regrettable step backwards" for democracy and said U.S. aid to Peru was 
under review.
	President Bush, returning this morning from Camp David, Md., 
said only that he was "a little concerned" about the events in Lima.
	But a short time later, the White House press office issued a written 
statement.
	"The president was very disappointed to learn of the action taken by 
President Fujimori in suspending the Peruvian constitution and 
dissolving 
the Congress and the judiciary," the statement said.
	"This is a regrettable step backwards for the cause of democracy in 
the hemisphere," it said. "We will be consulting with other countries in 
the 
hemisphere and are currently reviewing our assistance programs to 
Peru. 
We urge a rapid return to constitutional rule."
	Bush last met Fujimori at the San Antonio drug summit Feb. 27, 
where the Peruvian leader complained about the inadequacy of U.S. aid 
for 
the drug war.
	 AP-NC-04-06-92 1221EDT
 
 

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

FYI, later AP stories said the US is withholding the $45 million (of a total
$237 million) in aid to Peru that has not already been disbursed.

--
Scott Maxwell (CSMAXWEL@ECUVM1.BITNET or Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)

Everything below this line is a vicious lie.


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: The true motives behind the legalization of drugs
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:54:07 GMT

In article <urobucsb.702895749@mcl> urobucsb@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Rob Heinisch) writes:
>The motive behind the legalization of drugs, in my opinion, would not be in the best interests of drug cartels and dealers.
>
>se who sell drugs to make a profit.  How then, can this legislature remain blocked for such a duration when it could only benefit society?
>
>My explanation is that there is a PAC of "criminals and smugglers" who probably donate large sums of money to campaign contribuations.
>
>Hell, write your congressman today and demand a change.  
>Hell, write me at urobucsb@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu and ask for changes about anything.   I'm the new Pat Buchanan who tries to appeal to ALL voters, give me a chance.
>


	I disagree partly.  I don't think there is a PAC of "criminals and
smugglers."  There is a PAC of alcohol/tobacco producers, which are against
legalization, because it will reduce their market share.  In addition, it is
not in the bests interests of the congresspeople to stop the WoD because it
takes power away from them, and only whacko politicians (like the
Libertarians--no offense, I'd vote Libertarian if I were 18) want less power
for themselves.
-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: euclid@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Elizabeth Kupfer)
Subject: Re: WILL GVT RESORT TO ELECTRONIC IMPLANTS?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:05:40 GMT

Just as an aside:  Isn't there something in the Bible (book of Revelation, i
believe) about there coming a day when everyone alive shall be required to 
carry a certain mark on them?     
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
    <1992Apr3.184759.13634@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
    <1992Apr8.110423.1840@newstand.syr.edu>
    <1992Apr14.190948.29880@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.190948.29880@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson) writes:
>Well my friend's coked-up sister run off with 3 of his guns.  She was almost
>in the pawn-shop door when he threatened to call the cops if she wouldn't
>return everything....  There were, of course, plenty of other contributing
>factors, but I think her cocaine addiction is pretty significant.

This is a common occurrance.  Somebody, for some reason, gets into this
"fuck everybody" mentality and pawns of their loved ones' belongings.  Why
do they do this?  There are multiple schools of thought:

1.  They do it because they are soooooo addicted to cocaine (or gambling, or
whatever expensive vice they happen to spend the money on).  We need to
increase penalties for cocaine (or gambling), thereby increasing the price
and decreasing the availablility.

2.  They do it because they soooooo addicted and the habit is expensive.  We
need to medicalize/decriminalize it to decrease the price and increase
availability.

3.  They do it because they are assholes.  We need to give them a good swift
kick in the head.  "Addiction" is no excuse for otherwise immoral behavior,
such as stealing.  The legal status of different vices will not affect their
behavior.  There will always be another expensive vice available.

Guess which one is me?

p.s.  I know one person who went through this.  He did kick the coke habit,
but never the financial irresponsibility habit. 

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: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:01:19 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

>This is interesting.  523 people were killed in order to bring to trial a man
>who is not even facing the death penalty himself.
>
>Isn't this patently absurd ?

I guess it's one of the steps towards the New World Order.

//Jyrki
From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Clinton's Marijuana Use
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:10:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr9.031010.9812
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

Actually, I believe Clinton.  I figure he was a nerdy sort who
wanted to find out what the big deal about pot was and tried to
take a hit but had no idea what he was doing.  I knew a few
such people way back when and I observed exactly that sort of
thing.

Of course, as I suggested in an earlier post, Clinton may have
been "faking" smoking pot in order to appear to fit it with a
particular group.  Clinton might well be a control freak who
wasn't honest enough with his friends to just say that he didn't
want to try pot.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
From: stevec@orodruin.tivoli.com (Steve the not-so-foolhardy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Medical MJ Citations needed
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:04:54 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems Inc


I have recently been challenged by a state legislator in the following
manner:

	"I will be glad to consider this issue of medical use of
	 marijuana; if you will send documentation for the case you
	 make.  I must have the true facts, in order for my research
	 in this matter to be complete and valid."


Yes, I have already contacted the Drug Policy Foundation and The
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics for information, and I have some
good stuff on hand.  However, I will now make a general plea to the
net for information.  Any facts, figures, studys, articles, citations,
court decisions, and so on that you know of or have access to would be
appreciated.  I'd like to put together a general packet of the best
information/articles that I can send out to all of my legislators and
to newspaper columnists, editors, Ann Landers, etc.

And when I'm done I promise to report back on what transpires.

(Actually, I hope that this is a good sign, since I've corresponded
with this particular legislator before and never gotten much more
than, "thanks for your letter, but marijuana is destroying our cities,
our youth, our way of life...")

thanks,

steve




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| steve cochran			|	stevec@orodruin.tivoli.com	|
| tivoli systems		|	(512) 794-9071			|
| 6034 west courtyard drive	|	(512) 794-0623 fax		|
| suite 210			|					|
| austin, tx 78730		|					|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: madigan@mathq.albany.edu (Kevin Madigan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: question about mj study
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:07:23 GMT
Reply-To: madigan@mathq.albany.edu (Kevin Madigan)
Distribution: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Dept of Math & Stat, SUNYA, Albany, NY

A few weeks ago I was digging around in a library and saw a journal
called "Addiction". In the Jan or Feb 1991 issue there was an article
claiming that MJ smoking was hazardous to long term health. I beleive
that the study claimed chromosome damage. Anyway, I didn't get a chance
to read the article, I skimmed it. Besides, dammit, Jim, I'm a 
mathematician, not a lab scientist, I wouldn't have understood the 
jargon. 

Does anyone have any info on this piece of work and if this journal
is reputable?
Thanks,
Kevin Madigan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs