HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:05:26 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>Well yes now that you mention it.  And it seems that treating it in that
>fashion has proven to be the single most effective method of achieving
>recovery.  Coincidence?

Here I think you may be mistaken.  According to what I've read its actually
the worst.  RP and pharmacotherapy being much better.

The thing is that controlled use is actually the best, which supports your
point much better than NA/AA examples actually.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: possible source for strychnine rumours
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:27:58 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <1992Jul30.081402.15552@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>
>According to Leary in _Flashbacks_, a friend of his (John Grigs)
>died of strychnine poisoning from some bad Psilocybin.  This
>was around the time of his legal troubles, and Nixon was just
>coming into power, and rumors abounded about the Feds distributing
>poisoned drugs....
>
>Any bets on this being close to the source of the Strychnine Universe?

	Yeah. That's probably when the rift between ours and the strychnine
universe appeared. Considering that fact and the fact that LSD and
psilocybin are perception-of-reality-altering drugs, I think that's a very
valid theory for when the strychnine universe people gained a foothold into
communications here. . .(compounded, of course, with the virtual nature of
the usenet.)

-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Thu Jul 30 04:17:00 1992 US Debt: $4,001,970,000,331 Per capita: $15,688
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:34:47 GMT

In <lamontg.712113385@milton> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>                                               It just seems to me that
>you and most others on this thread are placing psychology first, and resisting
>admitting that pharmacotherapy may be more effective for certain patients.

I think you are just projecting what you want to see.  No one has said
"pharmacotherapy is stupid/useless" in this discussion.  The closest I
can see for myself in this is that I feel that *ultimately* it is *much*
more beneficial for the patient to be weaned from dependance on ANY drug,
whether it be the additive one or a "medicine".  However I, and I presume
Dave, and probably most of the others here, are realistic enough to realize
that this is not *100%* possible, and I never meant to imply otherwise.

Just like some psych patients have to have lithium forever because their
condition is at least party biochemical in nature, I can see your point.
But in attempting to respond to your perception of extremity on our
parts, you pushed yourself out into the other extremity--in an argument
that just polarizes the issues, rather than leading to any mutual
understanding.

>My point is that for *some* patients pharmacotherapy may be useless, while
>for *others* psychotherapy may be useless (and then there are all the
>others in between...).  Essentially I think that they are completely 
>equal, and that statements about how addicts are all mentally fucked are
>really about the most ignorant things I've ever heard -- in fact that any
>blanket statement about addiction & psychology is probably really damn ignorant.

I don't recall anyone saying "addicts are all mentally fucked".  Really.

And I could only see anything being interpreted that way if you think
that "psychological problems" are inherently viewed as bad and the
fault of the victim.  They *aren't*.  That doesn't mitigate that the
victim is still responsible for his/herself.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
     Buy you books, and buy you books, and all you do is eat the covers...
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: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:01:58 GMT

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.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:00:10 GMT

In <f!lmx6p.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>"Confront why they abuse drugs."  I maintain that for some people and some
>drugs the why *is* the drug.

Why?

Would a "normal, happy, well-adjusted individual" (if such existed :-)
be addicted to a drug just because of itself?  I maintain not.  In
that case, the difference between the hypothetical and the actual is
either brain chemistry (hi Lamont) or psychology.  In which case
the reason for the addiction is not the drug, it is the state of the
person taking the drug.

>				Simple as that. For those people the best
>confrontation is just that, confronting the drug and the drug alone, not
>any deep seated problems or joining will power gyms.  Someone said that
>these people were pre-addicted and I believe in that phenomenon.

Belief does not make it so.  Even the fact that belief can act to
help in some cases does not make it so--belief in God can be beneficial
as well, but the existence of said God is not required for those
benefits to exist.

>Yeah, cocaine may be great and harmless for many people.  But for many
>people it is an accident waiting to happen.  I think we should care about
>those people and not have this psychological Darwinist attitude about the
>losers in the little game of Russian Roulette that is alterant experimentation.

You seem to take others attitudes to an extreme that isn't intended.
I never said, and I have not seen anyone else say "let them die"
or anything similarly Darwinist.  The point *I'm* trying to make is
that the individual is *ultimately* the only one who can do anything
about it.  Even if it means taking drugs to clear a brain chemistry
problem, the individual still has to be responsible enough to take the
beneficial drugs.  By all means, help those who need help!  But don't
give them an excuse to go crying about how it wasn't really their fault.
Don't tell them "it's the drug" because it isn't that simple.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
          The poster of this article is a genuine and authorized POPE
                          so *please* treat him right.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Quibbles, hypocrisy, etc.
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:05:14 GMT
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes:
>The current National Drug Control Strategy is not based on the premise that
>drug use poses a health threat to society or the individual. It is based on a
>legalist approach that views the problem as a large number of people willfully
>and repeatedly breaking laws when they use recreational drugs.

	...and this pretty much describes the difference between the European
(or at least "Germanic") and American approaches.  In the mainstream debates
here (the tabloids are something different,) the focus constantly comes back
to "what is the problem?  too many addicts, hiv infection, costs to the
system?  ok, how do we reduce the damage?"  They are still fighting a "war
on drugs" here, but it is more sincerely a "war on abuse" and it has
increasingly taken on strategies of decriminalization as a means of winning
this differently-defined "war."  That is not to say that legalization is
winning, but it is being *discussed* rationally, and not only that but also
experimented with (Zurich, Copenhagen, Bremen, Netherlands, etc.)  Which
is not about to happen in America because of the the problem has been
defined as a spiritual crisis which We cannot turn our backs on lest Our
cities sink into the ground. 
	
>...
>A sane response to this view of 'the drug problem' would be to change the 
>laws, but for those that drafted the laws that would be admitting a mistake.

	Then I'm willing to admit that electing them was a mistake.  Still
I think we're better off with people like Clinton and Boxer who don't
seem to have thought about the WoD one way or another than with people
like Bush or Perto who have made it into an approval gravy train or a
personal obsession.

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:53:57 GMT

In article 17606@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>: I don't know why I feel compelled every now and then to shout, "hey, folks
>: there's some nasty shit out there."
>
>Most of the "nasty shit" is in people's heads.

Instead, you should shout "hey folks, there's some *powerful* shit out there."

---
gak
107/H/3&4

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5295 alt.drugs:13444
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:04:13 GMT
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan) writes:
>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.

And I'd take it during that month simply because its a stupid law and
I'd want to break it.  The only way we have to do it now is to wait until
someone comes down with a substance abuse disorder, *and* *decides* *they'd*
*like* *to* *stop*.

Hopefully in the future, we'll be able to run a battery of tests which
will determine your psychological and *biochemical* profile before you 
experiment with drugs, but right now we're stuck with trying to fix
the damage after it happens.
 
-- 
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:5374 alt.drugs:13591
From: RR04@bunny.gte.com (Rob Robertson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:00:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Distribution: usa
Organization: GTE Laboratories


In article <1992Jul27.152637.6475@bradley.bradley.edu> 
pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

> An addict is *still* responsible for his/her actions--the drug is not
> (In my opinion).  Many times, people arguing the brain side or the
> "instant addiction" side seem to be advocating the idea that the drug
> is somehow responsible, and the user is not entirely to blame for
> his/her condition.  I just don't see it.  Even though Lamont's examples
> have some validity, the user is *still* in control, and should seek
> less destructive solutions to whatever the problem is (assuming that 
their
> drug use *is* indeed destructive.  If it isn't, the point is moot).
> -- 
> Pete Hartman                   Bradley University

Hi Pete,
  Excuse me for intruding here - all this mind/brain duality, free will, 
addiction stuff is going way over my head (perhaps I choose it to be over 
my head?), but I had a thought on this that may or may not tie in to all 
this.
  
I was thinking, do you remember that guy who climbed the UT tower in 
Austin,TX back in...'69 or so and started shooting up the place with a 
high-powered hunting rifle? He killed a few, wounded a few and I believe 
he was finally killed by the police in the end. The story I read about 
that was that he had seen a therapist of some sort and related some very 
bizarre, violent tales of wanting to kill friends, relatives, even 
complete strangers. Up to this point he had been a pretty decent guy, very 
bright, friendly, etc... and now he was plagued with thoughts of murder 
and mayhem. Obviously therapy didn't work out for him but in personal 
correspondence he stated that if he were to lose control of these urges 
and put himself in a position where the police or someone had to kill him, 
he wanted an autopsy performed on him to see if there was a physiological 
root to his problem. Well, he went on a spree, they shot him down, and 
when they cut him up they found a tumor the size of a small orange in his 
head.

 Sorry if the story seems a little fast and loose, but this is all from 
memory, and my memory is a thing of the past  %^ ]  

Personnally, I think there are chemical constraints on what we can think, 
feel, and know, and on that note I think I'll go whip me up a nice 
serotonin frappe.

Rob

  

Rob Robertson
GTE Laboratories          (617)466-4144 vox
40 Sylvan Rd.                (617)890-9320 fax
Waltham, Mass. 02254
"There is nothing new under the sun..."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: ibarrett@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (I G Barrett)
Subject: Re: Does Lyndon LaRouche own ABC now?
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:48:34 GMT

In <1992Jul22.134715.16166@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:

>heinous by todays standards, and every day there are DRUG DEALERS being let
>out on the street.  So we should shorten the sentences of these aging
>murderers and rapists to make room.

Well of course it is their opinion that selling illegal drugs is a heinous crimemuch worse than anything else!  The worst that the average seller is guilty of 
is probably overcharging and lying about the quality/purity of the product whichhe is selling.

Swan
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: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:26:26 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
: 
: I don't believe that a dependancy is necessarily wrong at all but when
: something robs "some" people of will and the ability to act on it my
: wrong detector goes off.  Hey, there are a lot more of "some" people
: than seems to want to be acknowledged here.

And that is precisely what I are disagreeing with. No voluntarily taken 
drug "robs" people of their will. The will did not exist in the first place,
or they would not have troubles until they had taken the drug for quite some
time. This is not taking into account the rare "conditioned response" type
of effect. These tend to be negative, rather than positive, reinforcements
anyway.

: I don't know why I feel compelled every now and then to shout, "hey, folks
: there's some nasty shit out there."  And I am always amased that I get
: an argument.

Most of the "nasty shit" is in people's heads. Some people should not be
taking recreational drugs, for one reason or another. However, it is not
the drugs that are the problem, it is some of the people who consume them.

The only argument is where you put the blame. It belongs on the person using
the drug. People need to be willing to accept the consequences for their own
actions, not blame a convenient scapegoat - that is a cop-out.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jf@decuk.uvo.dec.com (Jason Flowers)
Subject: Re: Chapel Hill, NC Press
Reply-To: jf@decuk.uvo.dec.com (Jason Flowers)
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd. CSC/UK
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:57:36 GMT




>Must be nice...  In Canada, although things are not completely bad, first
>offence simple possession of small amounts gets you arrested, finger printed,
>and a day in court, where you can plead guilty and walk away with a (approx.)
>$100 fine, AND A CRIMINAL RECORD.  The criminal record part is what really
>sucks, of course.


	We don't seem to be doing too bad in the UK, from what has happened with
	a few friends of mine who have been caught carrying small amounts of 
	cannabis, they have been taken to the Police station, had their names
	and addresses checked to make sure they are who they say they are, 
	they've had their cannabis confiscated and let go...no charge, no fine
	...just a 'naughty boy don't do it again' message....

	Thank god we have some sane coppers in this country, take the Glastonbury
	festival for instance, the only people I saw getting arrested were some 
	people who had been stealing from other peoples tents, they seemed to
	more or less turn a blind eye to the other stuff going down, touch wood
	they seem to be turning back into a Police *service* as opposed to the
	old Police *force*.....


	J
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jason Flowers             | jf@decuk.uvo.dec.com                            |
| Digital Equipment Co.     | jf@decuk.enet.dec.com                           |
| Customer Support Centre   |                                                 |
| Jays Close,               | All opinions expressed are my own...            |
| Basingstoke, Hampshire,   |                                                 |
| England.                  | "Life's too short for all that shit." D.Gilmour |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5298 alt.drugs:13449
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:04:27 GMT
    <1992Jul20.191221.14423@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
    <1992Jul23.195648.9362@Cadence.COM>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Jul23.195648.9362@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>I am also familiar with people with addictive personalities (and am fortunate
>not to be included in that group).
>
>What happens with NA and AA is the addiction to the particular drug is replaced
>by an addiction to the NA or AA support group.  I agree that this addiction is
>probably healthier for the person involved, but it is an addiction nonetheless.
>
>I'm not sure an addictive personality can be cured.  The best remedy seems
>to be to recognize that the person has an addictive personality and to
>channel the addiction to activities that are nondebilitating.  I had one friend
>who replaced a cocaine/marijuana addiction with an addiction to bicycling and
>triathalons.  Unfortunately, he overdid this and hurt himself and is now, I
>believe, addicted to religion.  I do believe the religion addiction is much
>healthier for him than the drug addiction.

This has gone too far.  You are grossly misusing the word "addiction." 
(Vocabulary abuse!  Have him arrested!)  What you are talking about would be
better represented by the word "obsession."  There are quite a few obsessive
people out there.   Me?  I'm obsessed with freedom.  

>In any case, I don't think the fact that some people have addictive
or obsessive
>personalities is a legitimate excuse for throwing people into jail for
>possessing and/or using drugs.

Now I agree.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my corrected PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5329 alt.drugs:13519 sci.psychology:3241
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Marijuana Laws declared unconstitutional in early 70's?
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:19:58 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

remke@cs.tu-berlin.de (Jan K. Remke) writes:
>pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
> [legalization in the US?]

>In Germany such a thing is happening right now:
>The BTMG (Drug Law) of the FRG is declared NOT to be conform to the
>German's Basic Law (FRG. Bill Of Rights...) by a high court.
>It's now goin' to the supreme court, and if the suprem court agrees,
>MJ WILL BE LEGAL IN GERMANY (I hope so...).

	In some parts, it has already been effectively decriminalized, in
the same way prostitution is.  Bremen is fighting a half-hearted war
against cocaine and heroin dealers, but it has just about given up on
hashish:  a police spokesperson said, to the city's main newspaper,
the Weser-Kourier, that if they find someone with less than 10 grams
of cannabis products, they just let them go (and they can keep their 
stuff.)  I've seen people roll stuff into their tabak in plain sight
of the police.  And the city has not sunken into the Weser as a result... 

	I don't know about Berlin, but people in the South are still
very paranoid about it, probably with good reason.  

>Greetings:
>Jan

	What's a good translation for BtMG?  "defeaninggrocerieslaw"?  ;-)
Maybe "Controlled Substances Act."

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5227 alt.drugs:13240