HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: The Clinton Challenge -- a brief fantasy ...
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 00:56:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

          [From the San Jose Mercury News, October 9, 1992]

                     [Reprinted without permission]


          CLINTON SACKS STAFFER, REAFFIRMS DRUG STANCE


Washington, DC (UPI)  Presidential contender William Clinton dismissed
campaign staff worker Joe Clueless today after a series of computer
"bulletin board" system exchanges on the drug issue.  When confronted
by advocates of drug legalization, Clueless allegedly backed down and
conceded the rightness of the pro-drug viewpoint. 

In a statement issued today, Clinton denied that Clueless represented
the views of the Clinton camp.  "I'm cutting George Bush off at the
pass on this one.  No one hates the drug menace more than me.  I can
read public opinion polls like anyone else, and there are a lot more
Archie Bunkers out there than drug-sotted members of the computerized
technological elite.  America wants a boot camp president, and that's
what I'm going to be.  If Mr. Clueless can't do his job of communicating
to the American people how I represent them, he'll just have to find
other employment.  I hired him and I can fire him.  Of course, I support
legislation requiring six months' notice for plant closing layoffs, but
nothing that would apply to me."

When asked whether he would still vote for Clinton in the upcoming
election, Clueless replied, "Since Bush is even worse, and there are
only two choices, I guess I'll have to."


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov
Subject: Source: Daedalus summer 92 issue.
Organization: What does *this* button do!?
Summary: Political Pharmacology: Thinking About Drugs
Keywords: Reference, WOD, Daedalus
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:59:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnala.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

_Daedalus_ is the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I ran
across their summer '92 issue at Border's bookstore in Chicagoland. Here is the 
table of contents (looks pretty juicy):

v    Preface

     Mathea Falco
1    Foreign Drugs, Foreign Wars

     Peter Reuter
15   Hawks Ascendant: The Punitive Trend of American Drug
     Policy

     Mark A. R. Kleiman 
53   Neither Prohibition Nor Legalization: Grudging Toleration
     in Drug Control Policy
    
     Ethan A. Nadelmann
85   Thinking Seriously About Alternatives to Drug Prohibition

     Jerome H. Skolnick
133  Rethinking the Drug Problem

     Thomas  Szasz
161  The Fatal Temptation: Drug Prohibition and the Fear of 
     Autonomy

     David C. Lewis
165  Medical and Health Perspectives on a Failing US Drug Policy

     Mark Schlesinger and Robert A. Dowart
195  Falling Between The Cracks: Failing National Strategies for the 
     Treatment of Substance Abuse

     Patricia G. Erickson
239  Recent Trends in Canadian Drug Policy: The Decline and
     Resurgence of Prohibitionism

     Dwight B. Heath
269  US Drug Control Policy: A Cultural Perspective

     Jerri A. Husch
293  Culture and US Drug Policy: Toward A New Conceptual 
     Framework

From the copyright page:
 All subscription orders, single-copy orders and change of address information
 must be sent *in writing* to the  _Daedalus_ business office, 136 Irving
 Street, suite 100, Cambridge, Ma. 02138 USA  (tel 617-491-2600)

This issue cost $6.95.
Available at snootier bookstores.

Aslo: a public thank you to Doctor1 for putting up the Sassy magazine pointer.

Hoping to see some t.p.d'ers in San Francisco this weekend--(look me up in the
Westin)


Max Monningh
From: hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: LECTURE ON LEGALIZATION
Date: 3 Sep 92 05:01:34 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

Perhaps the poster could find out if the lecture will be
videotaped?

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

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6055 talk.politics.guns:20418 alt.society.civil-liberty:5626
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:31:25 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>
>As long as they believe that the only choices are Bush and Clinton,
>and anyone else is "wasting your vote"...

I've often heard Libertarians lament the fact that many people will
vote for a candidate from a major party in order to help ensure the
defeat of the candidate from the other major party, when they would
in principle rather vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Why don't the Libertarians, then, institute a voter-matching service
that links like-minded Democratic voters with like-minded Republican
voters.  Each pair makes a pact, between the two of them, to both vote
Libertarian, and their joint action has no effect on the relative
numbers of votes between the major-party candidates.

-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:09:51 GMT
Organization: Your typical phone company involved in your typical daydream

In article <1847flINNkqt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
] People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.

Oh, nonsense - I've spent most of the last 5 years addicted to caffeine, 
but occasionally I quit, without help from any treatment programs, AA, etc.
I've even known people to quit smoking tobacco, like my mother-in-law
who averaged about 3 packs/day for 50 years, and quit by herself.

Were we addicts?  You betcha - try quitting and you get a pile of
physical symptoms, because you're body has been convinced to want the stuff, 
as well as the psychological associations with both the flavor and the
stimulant effects.
-- 

				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced ...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 16:41:44 GMT

In <1847flINNkqt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>In a previous article, carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) says:
>>Assuming for the sake of argument that the numerous studies from
>>different research groups in the US and UK (at least) that have
>>consistently found that a large proportion of addicted people outgrow
>>their problem without treatment were all mostly government-funded, I'm
>>still trying to figure out what government funding has to do with this
>>conclusion.
>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.
>The common sense conclusions drawn from the "research" you cited
>are pure A.A., minus the higher power.
>So "science" first tells a lie to discredit the self-help programs,
>and then tries to claim credit for what has already been discovered.
>The scientific bureaucracy is just as abusive and full of egotistical
>pork-barrelers as any of the other bureaucracies.  When are you going
>to get honest???

I think the question would best be turned around on yourself Dave.

You seem so ready to defend your stance that you have to redefine everything
so that "science lies".

If someone who seriously abuses a substance isn't an addict, what are they?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
      The small hours of the morning found them naked on the kitchen floor
 after Travis had played a rampaging Godzilla to Jennifer's unsuspecting Tokyo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Socialist Worker's Party: Drug Policy
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:58:29 -0500

lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:

>Monday night (Aug. 31) I attended a talk given by Estelle Debates, 
>the Vice Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Worker's Party.
>The talk was mainly about Bush's most recent policy toward's Iraq,
>ie. the no-fly zone, etc. There was only a small group of people
>attending the talk, so afterward I was able to talk one-on-one
>with her. I started by saying that I had noticed in her talk that
>she had twice referred to a "war on our rights". I said that it
>seemed to me that the current War on Drugs seemed like an excuse
>to take away more and more of our rights. She absolutely agreed
>with me, so I asked what her party's alternative would be. She
>told me they basically believed in legalization of marijuana, and
>decriminalization of small amounts of other drugs. Also an emphasis
>more on treatment (let anyone who wants it be able to get it free)
>and less on enforcement. In a somewhat related note, the party
>also believes in legalizing prostitution. Anyway, their ideas seem
>to based on the Amsterdam model, though I wasn't able to confirm
>this because other people wanted to talk to her.

>Anyway, I thought there ideas weren't so bad, but I still haven't
>found a political party that I'm totally enthusiastic about. I
>looked into the Libertarians (I know a lot of the people on this
>board are), but I don't like the free-market economics. I also
>don't like total socialism. Does anyone know of a party that is
>libertarian on social issues, but believe in a mixed economy?

If I did, I'd be in it.  You have articulated the problem very
well.  I know a large number of Democrats, and a tiny number
of Republicans, who are very dissatisfied with their respective
parties and who would like there to be one that represented
their views.  Which is to say, our views, because, within my
circle of friends, we have broadly the same basic philosophical
outlook.  I'm not a social Darwinist, which is the reason that
I eventually left the Libertarian Party.  (Yes, I am an ex-Libertarian.)

I've threatened to start a new party -- but that has only been during
my fulminations.  Practically speaking, it's not something that I'm
equipped to do at this point in time.  Frankly, I'm more an anti-Republican
than a Democrat, and once Clinton gets elected, I won't even have that.
So, I'm in a quandary.  Either I stick with the Democrats and try to
tie in to the reformers, or I pitch the whole thing and look for other
alternatives.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:39:06 GMT

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:

>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.  

By whose definition?  Smokers are commonly considered to be addicted,
and it is a matter of everyday experience that people kick the butts
on their own.

>The common sense conclusions drawn from the "research" you cited are
>pure A.A., minus the higher power.  So "science" first tells a lie to
>discredit the self-help programs, and then tries to claim credit for
>what has already been discovered.  The scientific bureaucracy is just
>as abusive and full of egotistical pork-barrelers as any of the other
>bureaucracies.  When are you going to get honest???

I have cited published, peer-reviewed research in support of my
claims, while your response has been to accuse the researchers of bias
and dishonesty without giving us any reason to believe that they are
biased or dishonest other than your disagreement with their
conclusions.  If this is all that you have to offer by way of
rebuttal, your postings don't require any further response from me.

Richard Carnes
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6074 alt.society.civil-liberty:5630
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:39:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep2.113236.2261@linus.mitre.org>, lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
> Are you saying you would be arrested for making negative statements about
> the president?  That is a very serious allegation -- if true, Freedom of
> Speech is history.  I say we challenge it right now.

Well, there's at least one man who claims that he was moved from a normal
prison cell into solitary for making negative statements about the VICE
president...
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:37:57 GMT

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
: 
: >>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.  
: >
: >By whose definition?  Smokers are commonly considered to be addicted,
: >and it is a matter of everyday experience that people kick the butts
: >on their own.
: 
: You're confusing a habit with an addiction.  Addiction presupposes
: trouble.  If a person doesn't get into any trouble, or is able to
: quit readily at the sign of trouble, then he's not an addict.
: It's those who consistently get into trouble, deny any connection
: between the trouble and their particular indulgence, and plow on
: resolutely in spite of the protestations of their families, etc.,
: who are the REAL addicts.

Bullshit. Addiction does not presuppose trouble - at least, not in any
commonly accepted definition. 

I don't think anyone has said that it is easy to readily stop an addictive
habit. That does not mean that a person cannot  immediately stop - if they
have the will power. 

People such as you describe generally have problems greater than their
addiction. The addiction is a symptom, not the cause of their problems.

: >I have cited published, peer-reviewed research in support of my
: >claims, while your response has been to accuse the researchers of bias
: >and dishonesty without giving us any reason to believe that they are
: >biased or dishonest other than your disagreement with their
: >conclusions. 
: 
: The top priority of any bureaucracy is to keep the money flowing.
: But the bureaucrats face no real competition to keep them honest.
: Bureaucracies are INHERENTLY OUT OF CONTROL.

The only out of control behaviour I have seen is your unsupported postings.
Could it be that you are addicted to AA? Think about it a bit.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:30:55 GMT

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:

: >I've heard a lot of definitions of addict, but this isn't one of them.
: 
: My definition:
: 
:    An addict is someone who keeps getting into the same kinds
:    of trouble, over and over again, even though he doesn't 
:    want to.....but STILL thinks he's in control!

Great. You have just described all the juvenile delinquents in the
world. To what are they addicted.

Sorry, as others have said - your definition stinks. Maybe it would help
your argument if you use accepted defintions, instead of those that are
just convenient to you?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: Fwd from CLINTON list: position on crime & drugs
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 04:24:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.145113.24775@muddcs.claremont.edu>
	cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier) writes:
>                       CLINTON  GORE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
 
    [must have a plan; you may not like his plan but at least he's got one]

>Make neighborhoods safe again
 
    [100,000 more police; militarize police force; boot camps to
    create "decent citizens"]
 
>Expand federal crime assistance
 
    [spend more money the federal gov't doesn't have;
    spend more money on treatment; money for drug "education" programs]

>Keep guns out of the hands of criminals

    [infringe 2nd amendment rights some more]

>Empower public housing residents

    [no 2nd amendment rights if you live in public housing]

>Take back our schools

    [more money spent on metal detectors and "security personnel" (aka
    guards) for schools]

    [...]

>Fighting Drugs

    [increased penalties; reduced threshold requirements;
    "prevention" programs for workplace (Adult just say no
    propoganda); boot camps; state-sponsored murder; more cops;
    marijuana eradication]

>Protecting Victims' Rights

    [victim present for all phases of court procedure; more money to
    victims; inmate eduction]

What does inmate education have to do with victims?

Overall, what I see is a refusal to acknowledge that humans seek
altered states of consciousness and will continue to do so regardless
of the law.  A refusal to treat substance dependency as a medical, not
a criminal, issue.  Most of all, it calls for "upping the ante" in the
failed drug war by calling for more soldiers and more money.

						-- Rich
-- 
	Repeal the personal income tax; vote Libertarian in 1992.
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
From: michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: LEGALIZATION LECTURE (TEL# CORRECTION)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:17:54 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Boston University


1) The phone number has been corrected.
2) I thought I had limited the Distribution to New England- I'm sorry
   if you're not in the region and therefore can't make it.
3) To respond to a prior posting- there are, unfortunately, 
   no plans to tape the lecture. 

                            Jeffery A. Miron
                         Professor, Dept. of Economics
                              Boston University

                               will lecture on

                  The Pro's and Con's of Drug Legalization: 
                            An Economic Analysis


The use of illegal drugs is widely viewed as one of the most
important social problems of modern societies. Contmeporary
observers often claim that the use of illegal drugs promotes crime,
increases the spread of AIDS, corrupts law enforcement officials and
politicians, produces or exacerbates poverty, and erodes the moral
fabric of society.

This lecture will present an economic analysis of drug legalization.
It will suggest that most of the social problems commonly attributed
to the use of illegal drugs result instead from government prohibition
of these drugs, and it will argue that the problems created by drug
prohibition reflect the nature of goverment prohibitions rather than
the nature of illegal drugs. The implication is that drug legalization
may be a far more attarctive policy option than is generally believed.


Date: Thursday, September 17th, 1992
Time: 7:00p.m. to 9:00p.m.
Place: The Tsai Perfromance Center, 685 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass.
       

Question and Answer session follows lecture

Sponsored by the Dean, College of Liberal Arts, 
and Dept. of Economics, Boston University

Lecture is open to public and admission is free.

For additional information, please call:
(617) 353-4623 or                          <-this no. is now correct
(617) 353-4396


Chaplin.
--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
From: hackhead@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: 800 number for PFDFA
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:20:18 GMT

That bunch of liars, the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America," now has
an 800 number for information:  800 624-0100.

I hope that readers of this forum will spread this number far and wide,
and use it creatively and often.

"Hackhead"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6122 alt.drugs:15330
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 4 Sep 1992 05:29:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) says:

>>People who can quit on their own are not addicts, by definition.  
>
>By whose definition?  Smokers are commonly considered to be addicted,
>and it is a matter of everyday experience that people kick the butts
>on their own.

You're confusing a habit with an addiction.  Addiction presupposes
trouble.  If a person doesn't get into any trouble, or is able to
quit readily at the sign of trouble, then he's not an addict.
It's those who consistently get into trouble, deny any connection
between the trouble and their particular indulgence, and plow on
resolutely in spite of the protestations of their families, etc.,
who are the REAL addicts.
 

>I have cited published, peer-reviewed research in support of my
>claims, while your response has been to accuse the researchers of bias
>and dishonesty without giving us any reason to believe that they are
>biased or dishonest other than your disagreement with their
>conclusions. 

The top priority of any bureaucracy is to keep the money flowing.
But the bureaucrats face no real competition to keep them honest.
Bureaucracies are INHERENTLY OUT OF CONTROL.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: 800 number for PFDFA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:46:35 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <23046@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> <1992Aug27.141857.10592@news.eng.convex.com>

>
>>Mike Meyer				meyer@tcville.HAC.COM
>>Image and Signal Processing Lab		
>>Hughes Aircraft EDSG, El Segundo CA
>>"Shit happens, but it doesn't *just* happen." -- The Karma Police
>	Aren't you a little worried about what will happen to people like
>	you when the inevitable happens and all that high tech weaponry 
>	your company makes is turned on the people who payed for it 
>	(now that the Soviets are no longer a target) . . .  
>	After all the WOD is becoming a major pretext to use high-tech 
>	military gear on domestic targets.  Later on, after the WOD has 
>	created sufficient jail space and diverted sufficient resources
>	to police to make the American Gulag possible the government
>	won't need the pretext.  They'll just make their move.
>	Where will that leave you? . . .
>
>
>
>						smg

Can you say, "Andrei Sakharov"?


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty