HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Clinton Challenge -- I gave it a shot
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:34:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University


	I made an attempt to contact the Clinton people directly.
Perhaps because it is Labor Day, it proved to be a fruitless
attempt.  In any case, I ended up talking to two people before 
being cut off.   I was on hold for "Jason" when the line went 
dead but my guess is that Jason is "JPG" on Compuserve and that
I would have come full circle, back to my original source.

	If anyone else out there is interested in pursuing this --
in trying to get Clinton spokespeople to debate drug policy on
Usenet -- I herewith append the list of addresses I got from JPG
on Compuserve.

--------------------------cut here-----------------------------
From 75300.3115@compuserve.com Fri Sep  4 16:42:29 1992
Received: from ihb.compuserve.com by moose.cs.indiana.edu
	(5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA18692; Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:42:27 -0500
Received: by ihb.compuserve.com (5.65/5.910516)
	id AA25042; Fri, 4 Sep 92 17:42:24 -0400
Date: 04 Sep 92 17:26:48 EDT
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@CompuServe.COM>
To: "\"Paul Hager\"" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: 800-for-bill
Message-Id: <920904212648_75300.3115_CHE62-2@CompuServe.COM>
Status: RO

Paul,

These are the only addresses I have at the moment:

Please send campaign contributions to:

        Mark Middleton
        Clinton for President
        P.O. Box 615
        Little Rock,   AR   72203

For general correspondence, please send your mail to:

        Clinton for President
        P.O. Box 615
        Little Rock,   AR   72203

To reach HQ toll free, please call:

        1-800-FOR-BILL

** To order T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Buttons,  etc. Please call: **

        The Clinton/Gore Store  (800) 428-8600

To send a FAX, please use this number:

        (501) 372-2292

To call the BBS at Clinton/Gore HQ:

	(501) 399-3877		9600 baud, 8-N-1

To call the campaign HQ:

        (501) 372-1992

Online addresses (forums on both services):

        Compuserve      Clinton for President   75300,3115

        America Online  Clinton Pz


Regards,
JPG
Clinton/Gore HQ





-- 
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:6165 alt.drugs:15413
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:28:37 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <18c57aINNleu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>
>In a previous article, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) says:
>
>>Just because you have a chip on your shoulder with respect to researchers
>>and would like to discount their work with any convenient excuse
>>DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
>
>I have serious doubts about ANY research done with government funding.

Luckily, all of your Avid Readers here seem to be fast developing serious
doubts about the value of your keyboard-droppings...

>=======================
>"Endeavor to persevere"
>=======================

"Do, or do not.  There is no 'try'."

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	 tls@panix.COM

"Better be careful there.  John might decide to start taking legal action
against people who refuse to buy stuff from him."  --Kevin McBride
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Civil Forfeiture -- A letter to the local paper
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 12:58:18 GMT

In <135429@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) writes:
>I have been reading "Drug Legalization:  For and Against," and one of the
>arguments advanced in many of the articles against legalization is the
>likelihood of an increase of drug use.  Specifically, it is often argued
>that a drug with strong potential for abuse, such as cocaine, if made 
>easily available for low cost with known purity, would result in an increase
>of users.  The position taken is that keeping such drugs illegal provides
>enough disincentive to most people that they will not risk trying the drug.
>Removing that disincentive would result in many (one can only speculate on
>how many) more new users, some portion of which would likely suffer the
>consequences of drug abuse.

The fallacy in this is that the people who *will* risk trying the drug are
the ones most likely to have problems--they are pushed to a point (in some
manner) where the risk is worth it.  This is not true of all users of
cocaine, but I think it's true of enough to skew the data about addiction.

>I will personally admit to having some gut feeling that if cocaine were
>legalized, and one only need wander down to their local pharmacy to pick some 
>up, use of cocaine would go up.

I believe that Amsterdam's experience with legalization was that use
went up marginally at first and then levelled off or declined.

>					This is perhaps the one point the
>prohibitionists have made for which I am unable to find a rebuttal.  However,
>the conclusions they draw from an increase in drug use (societal depravity)
>are different from those I draw.

You can't really base societal behaviour on "gut feelings" very reliably,
especially when there are data that contradict those feelings.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
         Her voice sounded like something that lurks in the long grass,
                   visible only by the twitching of its ears,
                  until something young and tender wobbles by.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Far Right version of Bill of Rights
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:21:26 GMT

Wish I could laugh at this...

gak

---
I don't know what system you use,  you might try vodka in Evian bottles.   Some
people like  cream in  their morning coffee,  I spike  mine with  a little  JD.
Mickey's Big Mouths are an excellent choice, you can use the empty bottles as a
desktop vase.                               -Hoodlum Empire "Get Drunk At Work"
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6241 alt.drugs:15617
From: bell@bodie.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Quote from MJ Recons.
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:20:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Sep10.083238.29448@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> gaspar@inf.ethz.ch (gaspo) writes:
>Alcohol is a
>toxin to our bodies.  MJ (except for the smoke carcinogens) isn't.  Just
>because the social acceptance is non-reflective of this, doesn't mean we
>all have to be lemmings.  

Read Ann Landers's column, September 10, 1992.  To paraphrase, she says
she now believes alcohol to be the most dangerous drug of all, and the
answer to handling it is not Prohibition but education.

Clip it out.  Show it to pro-WOD types.  Maybe that will work where your
nice reasoned arguments won't.

   -Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Analysis of LP results in Compuserve poll
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:18:10 GMT

Poll 8 with 2858 Compuserve members responding shows:

	43% Bush supporters,     43% IDing selves as Republicans

	42% Clinton supporter,   36% IDing selves as Democrats

	05% Marrou supporters,   11% IDing selves as Libertarians


Analysis:

Possibilities: 

	1. MOST Libertarians do not think Mr. Marrou represents 
the LP as well as Mr. Clinton does (unlikely).

	2. MOST Libertarians incorrectly think they live in a state in
which the race is too close to call and their single vote will decide 
the race between the front-runners (more likely).

	3. MOST Libertarians have not thought about possibility 2 above
and think that a close national race is the same as a close state race.
(most likely).

Any comments, please send them to Libernet. Any recommendations on
strategies could be suitable for LPUS.

****
Perott was fighting a jungle war to rid the country of Bush's current
shining path to growing deficits matched only in third world
dictatorships. 



Distribution:
  LPUS Internet:LPUS.Echo@dehnbase.fidonet.org
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
  talk-politics-drugs internet:talk-politics-drugs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico)
Subject: Re: Plea for Money: Rehauling anti-WoD list
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:16:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.070805.7439@muddcs.claremont.edu> cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier) writes:
>
>Sorry, this is NOT a money-making scheme.

Any one in the us that may be concerned about this could just send
postage stamps. Organizations wishing to be listed could send a SASE.
Good luck!

--
bill d'Amico                  | You've got to have a Cause to make
damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu | an Effect.  -- Dill Danno
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 20:02:25 EDT

In article <1992Sep9.060939.18993@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}Color me baffled!!  What has this got to do with my comments about a
>}midnight basketball league??!!
>
>The point is that whatever the virtues of midnight basketball leagues, they're
>not the way to keep kids from misusing drugs.

I disagree.  Why aren't they *one* way?

I agree with the general principle that drugs should be legalized--but I also
agree that virtually all drugs have some bad effects, and some present rather
serious potential health problems.  So I don't have a problem with the
government (or anyone else) making efforts to *convince* (rather than compel)
individuals to avoid drugs, or use care with them.

As a general principle, I'd say it's rather detrimental to have people (and
kids in particular) using drugs simply because they lack anything else
to do--and the basic premise of midnight basketball programs, etc. is that
if you give kids something to do that they like, they will, to some extent,
avoid other (potentially destructive) behavior that they would have done for
lack of anything better to do.

In any case, the drug question had absolutely nothing to do with my comments
about midnight basketball leagues.  I see from Paul Hager's follow-up that
the original clinton interview talked about these leagues in some context of a
question about the WoD, so I can see where there may have some confusion.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Plea for Money: Rehauling anti-WoD list
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:33:58 GMT

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

>This is an unashamed plea for money.  I've been talking with Aldis Ozols,
>who keeps the anti-WoD groups list about totally cleaning it up by sending
>the groups listed a copy of the list and a correction card to send back.  We
>think its a good idea, but (being a poor college boy) I lack the estimated
>$75 to send out around 200 letters.  
>
>Now, if you think that this is a worthwhile project (compiling an accurate
>and large) list of groups dedicated to changing the current drug policies in
>the world, please take the time to send me a small donation of a couple
>bucks.  My address is:
>
> [ Chris' address ]
>
>If you have any questions, send me mail.
>
>Thanks!
>
>-- Chris

good luck on your money-making scheme, Chris.  when i found an error in
the address of an organization to which i belong, i sent E-mail to Aldis 
and he made the correction.  the cool thing is that it was TOTALLY FREE!!

						-- dave


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: _Crackhouse_ and _Cocaine Kids_
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:36:49 GMT

Two books that demystify the social effects of cocaine:

(I'm listening the author on the radio. I encourage someone to read
and review these books for the net.)


     Williams Terry M. (Terry Moses), 1948-
     Crackhouse : notes from the end of the line / Terry Williams.
Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., c1992.
     156 p. ; 22 cm.
     ISBN  0201567598 : $$17.95 ($$22.95 Can.)
       1. Cocaine habit--New York (N.Y.)--Case studies.   2. Narcotic
addicts--New York (N.Y.)--Case studies.   3. Crack (Drug)--New York
(N.Y.)--Case studies.  I. Title. 
     ocm24-792556 


     Williams, Terry M. (Terry Moses), 1948- 
     The cocaine kids : the inside story of a teenage drug ring / by
Terry Williams. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., c1989. 
     xiii, 140 p. ; 22 cm. 
     Includes index. 
     ISBN  020109360X $$16.95 
       1. Cocaine industry--New York (N.Y.)--Case studies.   2. 
Narcotics dealers--New York (N.Y.)--Case studies.   3. Narcotics and
youth--New York (N.Y.)--Case studies.  I. Title.  
     ocm19-455307  
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson)
Subject: Quoting Steven Wisotsky
Originator: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:26:45 GMT

I also just finished reading "Drug Legalization: For and Against",
which I recommend.  I found most of the anti-legalization arguments
stupid and misleading, but a few were well thought-out.  One section
written by Steven Wisotsky contained the following view, which I
thought was a very strong argument that most sane people (obviously
not the drug warriors, though) would find convincing.  I'll just give
you his words.  He has already described the massive effort we're
putting into suppressing illegal drug use, and how much could be saved
by laying off.

    "Because we live in a world of limited resources, it is not
possible to do everything.  It is therefore both logical and necessary
to make distinctions among things that are more or less important.  I
have in mind at least five basic dichotomies: 1. drug use by children
(top priority) versus drug use by adults (low priority); 2. marijuana
smoking (low priority) versus use of harder drugs (higher priority);
3. public use of drugs (high priority) versus private use of drugs at
home (low priority); 4. drug consumption (no priority) versus drug
impairment (high priority); 5. occasional use (low priority) versus
chronic or dependent use (higher priority).
     From these general criteria for drug policy, I would commend to
the National Commission five specific goals for an effective,
principled drug policy:
     1.  Protect the Children  ...
     2.  Get Tough on the Legal Drugs [get rid of vending machines, etc]...
     3.  Public Safety and Order [dui, get drug sales off the streets, etc]...
     4.  Protect Public Health [emphasis on treatment, use by pregnant
		women, IV users spreading AIDS]
     5.  Respect the Value of Individual Liberty and Responsibility
		[respect decisions made by adult citizens]
"

I thought the idea of ordering goals by priority is a good one, and
the resulting dichotomies make a good argument.  Often the first thing
out of a warrior's mouth resembles "So you want children to shoot up?"
The above dichotomies may help some people see how less emphasis on
drug USE can allow more resources to be put on drug ABUSE.

Of course, I'm going to get flamed by the Libertarians for promoting
government paternalism in the form of publicly-financed treatment, but
hey, that's a risk I'll take.  :-)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6154 alt.drugs:15391
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 6 Sep 1992 05:33:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


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

>Just because you have a chip on your shoulder with respect to researchers
>and would like to discount their work with any convenient excuse
>DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

I have serious doubts about ANY research done with government funding.

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: diviney@milton.u.washington.edu (Pat Diviney)
Subject: Re: THE HIDDEN STORY OF THE L.A. REBELLION
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:29:41 GMT

I second Kyler's call for sources.  I have downloaded the original artical
and intend to make as many copies as possible for distribution in my area.
Before I do that however, I want to be sure that the information it contains
is accurate.  Thanks.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Subject: Re: THE HIDDEN STORY OF THE L.A. REBELLION
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:20:49 GMT

blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:


>		THE HIDDEN STORY OF THE LOS ANGELES REBELLION: 
>		    DOMESTIC POLITICS IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER

>	By the Los Angeles Rebellion Support Project of Refuse & Resist!

[much deleted]

As I read this, I kept wondering about its accuracy.  The view of L.A.
from Indiana isn't so clear, so I figured this could be true.  Still,
I kept watch for something to be written that I could more than suspect.

I found it...

>While Blacks
>seen in the street with guns were likely to be immediately fired on, Koreans
>were pictured in the media shooting down the street at looters and carrying
>automatic weapons with no interference from police.

Unless you mean "automatic" as in "automatic (auto-loading) pistol", I
suspect that you have absolutely no evidence of this.  Was there really
full-auto/burst shooting from Koreans on TV?  This is a serious charge,
and I would like to know your source.

Still...anyone "shooting down the street" is without justification in
my mind.

--kyler
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: diviney@milton.u.washington.edu (Pat Diviney)
Subject: Re: Anti-WoD Lecture at MIT 9/20/92
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:19:01 GMT

For those of us unable to travel to Mass., would someone out there who 
will attend the lecture be willing to post a transcript or at least some
detailed notes?
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Far Right version of Bill of Rights
Date: Sun,  6 Sep 92 04:08:57 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Ever notice, when you argue with a prohibitioNazi, that they *always*
have the same knee-jerk line: "How can you ADVOCATE drug use?  How
can you ADVOCATE crack babies?  How can you ADVOCATE people should
squirt heroin into their arms?"

It never seems to do any good to explain that you are only advocating
tolerance--live and let live; it never seems to do any good to explain
that people deserve to be trusted to use drugs, and that drug ABUSE is
a problem, but it is sheer misanthropic bigotry to PRESUME that anyone
who uses drugs will ABUSE them.

But they just ignore you: "You want to make drug use MANDATORY!  You
want to amend the Constitution to require people to take drugs until
they strangle someone while strung out on PCP, or cause a catastrophe
on the freeway under the influence of pot!"  etc. etc. etc.

Don't you just HATE people whose minds are that narrow?

Well, get a load of this:

>     From rec.humor.funny:
>
>maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach) writes:
>|>
>|> 
>|>            Far Right's Proposed New "Bill of Rights"...
>|>                                
>|>                          Amendment 2
>|>A well-regulated militia being superfluous to the issue, the
>|>people shall be compelled to bear arms and kill each other.

How about that.  Someone protesting the "far right" uses the same
bogus "logic" as the "far right"--and in so doing, gives me this
opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the "left".

Now *that's* funny.  :-)


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.activism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: NORML Conf random input
Keywords: NORML, ACT UP, Dennis Peron, Brownie Mary
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:46:25 GMT

The good news is that Cowan, NORML's new executive director, is a libertarian
Texas oilman who's a bit more coherent than that last message, and probably
a bit less naive than to believe that Clinton's our Savior.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire