HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:03:43 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:

>lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>: 
>: Here I think you may be mistaken.  According to what I've read its actually
>: the worst.  RP and pharmacotherapy being much better.
>
>What's RP and what pharmacotherapy?

Relapse prevention.  And the pharmacotherapy I am familiar with is
using desipramine or other antidepressants in addition to precursor loading
and non-euphoric dopamine agonists to treat cocaine addiction.

Also, controlled use and medicalization has the "best" record of all in
terms of getting peoples lives under control (of course its inherantly
the worst in terms of getting them off of drugs).

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5304 alt.drugs:13458
From: morley@Apple.COM (John Morley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:23:32 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <lamontg.711961532@milton>, lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
> 
> -- stuff deleted --
>
> Bullshit.  I've gotten chemically induced anxiety attacks from drugs
> before.  They certainly can be entirely a physical condition.  You don't
> have a clue about what you're talking about that.

I think that you're still suffering from a drug induced anxiety attack. Maybe
it's from too much strychnine in the acid you've been dropping :-}

> -- stuff deleted --
> 
> Sorry, I prefer Diet Pepsi.  

Ah, so that's the culprit.  I propose Diet Pepsi be made a Schedule I drug
because it has obviously caused severely anti-social desires in one of its
regular users -- you. (see below)
>
> -- stuff deleted --
> 
> And I'd like to inject you with HIV and see if you become the antidote.
> Likewise, I'd like to give you a neurochemical disorder and let you see
> how much fun it is to overcome it (depression, anxiety or a neurochemically
> motivated addiction).

Your kindness and compassion for all of humanity really shows through in that
last comment.  People like you give drugs a bad name.

> 
> -- 
> Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
> University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Heroine/Ex-girlfriend
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:03:19 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

batboy@milton.u.washington.edu (Thomas Radke) writes:
>I just found out that an ex-girlfriend (with whom I'm still very much
>in love) is using heroin on a regular basis.  While I am a "use drugs
>as you see fit" type, should I ask her to stop?  Should I yell and
>scream?  Should I cry?  What is your opinion?

Is she using clean needles?  Does she have a clean source?  Ever ask her
what it's like or why she does it?

People are a bit more responsive to inquiries that show some kind of 
solidarity, rather than frontal assaults on their decisions (particularly
assaults from people not in their "scene.")

Anyway the addiction risk is a rather low and long-term one, while the 
risk of getting an interesting infection from a dirty needle or fix is 
very immediate.

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:09:17 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:

>mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr) writes:
>: Regarding the "addictive personality"...
>: 
>: A former girlfriend of mine had had a long history of problems before I 
>: ever met her (i.e. cocaine addiction, panic attacks, hypochondria, etc...) 
>: About a year after we broke up, I had a conversation in which she basically
>: blamed me for all of her problems.   I'm not sure if she went through any
>: AA / NA meetings or what...  : 
>: 
>I doubt strongly that that was the source of her angst.  What is taught there
>is in fact responsibility.  One of the steps is to, as so far as it would
>not compromise them, to make retribution to each and every one harmed by your
>drinking.  It by no means takes you off the hook.  Blame in never shifted
>to other people, the exact opposite.  The blame is shifted to the alcohol
>but the consequences left with the alcoholic.

This is what I disagree with.  The blame should stay on the alcoholic.  The
alcoholic committed the acts, and responsibility suggests acceptance of
blame.  Why be responsible for something that wasn't your fault?  Do you
see why I disagree with this?

Any shift of blame is irresponsible in the long run.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5259 alt.drugs:13350
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:31:14 GMT
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <1992Jul22.230158.8148@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>: In article <1992Jul22.164302.9250@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: 
>: >I believe the saying is wrong - it should be "The alcoholic's main problem
>: >is lack of will power". But then, the pseudo-religion of the AA and NA would
>: >not work then would it? Imagine taking responsibility for our successes and
>: >failures - rather than blaming it on some non-living organic substance.
>: 
>: Drugs affect different people differently. For some people a given drug will
>: have a mildly amusing affect, others will find it obnoxious and a few will
>: find it so great that it's hard to live without. 
>
>Certainly - how does that change anything that I said? There are people who
>need a crutch of some sort. Some find it in religion, some find it in drugs,
>some find it in a person who makes all their decisions for them.  All of
>these tend to be due to an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility
>for our own actions.

But in some people certain drugs cause so much euphoria that it's hard to
do without the drug. That's not to say that a lot of things aren't crutches.
A lot of substance abuse is from people looking for a crutch or horseshit
ways to blame something besides themselves. I'm just pointing up another
aspect though. I do not drink alchohol. This doesn't mean that I have 
more willpower than an alchoholic though because alchohol makes me sick
as soon as I drink it (an allergic reaction). If I had to deepend on will
power alone I'd be in trouble. Still in all though, I agree that we can't
use substance abuse as an excuse for our actions. That may not always be 
"fair" but then life usually isn't.



-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5468 alt.drugs:13791
From: zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:26:58 CDT
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL

        Interesting tidbit I noticed while reading this thread and 
reading _Politics of Ecstasy_.  Leary says that Bill Winters, founder of 
AA said that LSD is a very useful cure for alcoholism.  I don't really 
know much about AA and how that appies, but it just a tidbit I read 
lately.

---
Sameer Parekh   zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM      zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: LSD after-effects
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:39:31 GMT

"Stephen P. Marting" <sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from alt.drugs: 23-Jul-92 LSD after-effects by "Lamont
>Granquist"@milton.u.washington.edu
>> At the same time I got "tracers" (like little tiny ones) identical to
>> LSD.  Those have also "stuck" and I can see them all the time -- particularly
>> in the morning.  Therefore, I tend to relate all the stories currently being
>> posted about LSD after-effects as being extremely benign.
>
>Although it's entirely possible to get "tracers" in the morning WITHOUT
>ever ingesting LSD or other hallucinogens.  I am one of those cases.

Yup.  Actually so is my father -- probably there is some kinda genetic
suceptibility to these little suckers.

>Not sure why I'm posting this, I suppose just so people don't think this
>is some evil physical change in the eye or brain caused by LSD.  It's a
>perfectly benign, if odd, *natural* thing.

yeah, thats kinda the point I've been trying to make.  Unless it gets
really pathological to the point where you're getting full visuals, or
just that the visuals are annoying -- then you probably need a neuroleptic.

And I doubt the little tweaks would ever progress to something pathological
like this.  All the stories I've heard have been of people who got
pathological effects after only a few times.  
 
-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5390 alt.drugs:13616 sci.psychology:3281
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:37:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
: 
: Here I think you may be mistaken.  According to what I've read its actually
: the worst.  RP and pharmacotherapy being much better.

What's RP and what pharmacotherapy?

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

Stomp out intolerance!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier)
Subject: Drug Use Costs US $76 Billion per Year!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:56:55 GMT

Reposted for your enjoyment from biz.clarinet.sample (I'd love to see this
study!):

	A study out today shows drug abuse cost the U-S economy 76-BILLION
dollars last year. The report by the University of Southern California
said drug abuse, compounded by AIDS... skyrocketing health care prices
and a jammed judicial system are all draining the U-S economy. In fact,
the study says the cost those factors have on the economy has nearly
doubled since 1985. The report says the economic burden from AIDS-
infected drug users alone has gone up more than 1-THOUSAND percent since
the last study in 1985.

-- Chris
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5257 alt.drugs:13340
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:31:15 GMT
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <1992Jul22.164302.9250@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>I believe the saying is wrong - it should be "The alcoholic's main problem
>is lack of will power". But then, the pseudo-religion of the AA and NA would
>not work then would it? Imagine taking responsibility for our successes and
>failures - rather than blaming it on some non-living organic substance.

Drugs affect different people differently. For some people a given drug will
have a mildly amusing affect, others will find it obnoxious and a few will
find it so great that it's hard to live without. 



-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Reply-To: tjj@thumper.UUCP (J Tim Jordan)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:36:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.193115.15556@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.164302.9250@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>
>>I believe the saying is wrong - it should be "The alcoholic's main problem
>>is lack of will power". But then, the pseudo-religion of the AA and NA would
>>not work then would it? Imagine taking responsibility for our successes and
>>failures - rather than blaming it on some non-living organic substance.
>
>Drugs affect different people differently. For some people a given drug will
>have a mildly amusing affect, others will find it obnoxious and a few will
>find it so great that it's hard to live without. 

It would be helpful to society to find these people and intervene. I have an
on how to do this and it goes like this. Have it so that a person needs 
a license to ingest a recreational drug. Make the laws such that the person
has to renew his license yearly or something like that and have it that
inorder to renew you have to fast from the drug for a period of one month 
or so. If you caught ingesting a drug with out a license or if you can't
go the month without ingesting then you go see a shrink. 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5503 alt.drugs:13864
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:54:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

zane@infopls.chi.il.us (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>
>        Interesting tidbit I noticed while reading this thread and 
>reading _Politics of Ecstasy_.  Leary says that Bill Winters, founder of 
>AA said that LSD is a very useful cure for alcoholism.  I don't really 
>know much about AA and how that appies, but it just a tidbit I read 
>lately.

     Sure is. Peyote also has a good track record, and is used by the
Native American Church for that purpose. Also, one of the most promising
treatments for addiction to heroin and cocaine (ok, dependance, if cocaine
isn't addictive - I haven't been following that thread too closely) is
the psychedellic ibogaine.

     As for AA (or Narcotic Anonymous) - substitutes religious
addiction for drug addiction.  Over half of the 12 steps mention God -
that triggers my "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!" circuit. 

===============================================================================
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!
    "An independant reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be
     ascribed to the phenomenon nor to the agencies of observation."
     -- Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:06:48 GMT

mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr) writes:

Bunch of stuff deleted ...

: Sorry to jump in, but I think you are both missing the point.  Basically, you are arguing as to whether the human condition is psychological or biological.  I have several things to say about that:
: 

No, Lamont and I both realize that addictions can be either, or a combination
of both. I think that we were mostly disagreeing about what constitutes a
physical addiction.

... deleted ...

: 3) What is the point?
:   It seems to me that the basic item that you are both arguing about, without admitting it, is morality.  Should the addict feel bad?  Is addiction a problem of will (your fault) or biology (not your fault.)  How should we think of it?   This all sounds very religious to me... try replacing /alcohol/ with /sex/ in your messages, and see how it reads...

I have never been concerned with morality. I don't believe that anyone else
has the right to decide what is moral or immoral for me. I expect that Lamont
feels the same.

I personally do not feel that addiction is necessarily bad. I do feel that
abuse of a drug is not good - however, I also feel that a person has a right
to abuse drugs - as long as they are not endangering others by doing so.

So, no - my arguments are not from a morality standpoint.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Drug Use Costs US $76 Billion per Year!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:07:22 GMT

cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier) writes:

>Reposted for your enjoyment from biz.clarinet.sample (I'd love to see this
>study!):
>
>	A study out today shows drug abuse cost the U-S economy 76-BILLION
>dollars last year. The report by the University of Southern California
>said drug abuse, compounded by AIDS... skyrocketing health care prices
>and a jammed judicial system are all draining the U-S economy. In fact,
>the study says the cost those factors have on the economy has nearly
>doubled since 1985. The report says the economic burden from AIDS-
>infected drug users alone has gone up more than 1-THOUSAND percent since
>the last study in 1985.

too bad they didn't determine what portion of that $76 billion is due
to the illegality of some drugs versus what portion is actually due to
the drugs themselves.  i'd bet all my civilly-forfeitable possessions
that the former far outweighs the latter.

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: basher@ces.cwru.edu (Tim Basher)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:00:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.195038.4320@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>To me that is the definition of addiction....the abdication of
>responsibility of one's actions to an inanimate psychoactive substance.

Wow!  That is the most bizarre definition of addiction I have seen.

First of all a "definition" for "addiction":

  Addiction is characterized by psychological symptoms such as craving and
a compulsion to take the drug on a continuous periodic basis, and physical
effects developing when the drug is withheld or is unavailable.
  Many drugs do not induce the symptoms of physical dependance associated
with abrupt discontinuance, and it is their psychological effects which are
the main driving forces behind their continued use.

Second of all the term "addiction" is not used by the medical profession
anymore.  Since a WHO report in 1970, the words "drug dependance" have
been used instead of "addiction".

As the DSM-III states:
  Substance Dependence generally is a more severe form of Substance Use
  Disorder than Substance Abuse and requires physiological dependence,
  evidenced by either tolerance or withdrawal.
[capitalization as found in DSM-III]

The DSM-III does make an exception for Cannabis which requires evidence
of social or occupational impairment from use of the substance or a pattern
of pathological substance use.
[Marijuana does not produce tolerance or physical withdrawal symptoms]

While it is true that there is frequently "a pattern of pathological use
that causes impairment in social or occupational function", this is not
always the case; observe nicotine and [some] heroin users.

Tim Basher
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5431 alt.drugs:13731 sci.psychology:3305
From: pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilinskas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:59:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

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

>First off, let me make it clear that I don't see any reason why the
>hypothetical happy etc. person wouldn't USE any given drug--there are
>lots of reasons for drug use, and they don't preclude happy users.

How about self-exploration and discovery of one's own mind?  While I personally
don't see much point in "rush" drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc..., I think
psychedelics are excellent tools for exploring oneself.  Rather than something
we should condemn, I believe this to be quite noble.  I'm also not sure as to
exactly what you mean by a "happy" person, and if this is something we should
all want to be.  People who are catalysts for growth and change are often
people who are "unhappy" with things the way they are.

>My hypothetical "happy, well adjusted person" would be open to most
>experiences and not so especially focussed on something to the exclusion
>of concerns about destructive behaviour or other relatively important
>external events/things.  Such a person may well have their own 
>preferences, but they aren't particularly blindered by them.

Again, I don't think chemical use necessarily has to "exclude" you from the
concerns of reality, although they can and certainly are abused in this way.
At their best, they can give you a new perspective on reality, and be a true
learning experience in how you relate to it.

>My own experiences with alcohol abuse (I don't think I ever "qualified"
>as an alcoholic, my abuse wasn't exceptionally severe) and first reactions
>to a couple other drugs form a large part of my perceptions here, as
>do experience watching friends who have had one level of problem or
>another, including people who had to have that daily toke or constant
>drink.  I honestly *haven't* had much direct experience with people
>that I knew were abusing harder drugs.  But the little exposure I
>have had seems to indicate that they aren't that much different except
>in their intensity.

Psychedelics are anything BUT addictive.  Ask anyone with an LSD "habit" how
often they trip.

Phil
____________________________________________________________________________
pck@acsu.buffalo.edu /  "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs