HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Clifton Royston)
Subject: Re: Socialist Worker's Party: Drug Policy
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 10:00:30 GMT
Organization: t.b, t.p.d, a.d.

lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
: In article <1vqn#0c.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
: >	Brian asks:
: >==>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?
:  Rick asks back:
: >	How about the Greens?
: I know next to nothing about them. If you have any info on them, please
: post or email it to me.

If I may?  I know something about the Greens because my wife has been 
heavily involved with starting the Hawaii Greens Party: they are on the
ballot and will be running 17 candidates in the November election, including
many for local/state offices and one for the Senate (more of a protest 
candidate in that case.)  My wife helped draft the platform, and I put
in some comments on the drug/crime area; the party didn't buy into drug
legalization (though there was a strong faction calling for cannabis 
legalization) but they did call for a program more on the Holland model
of providing treatment and trying to minimize the ill-effects of drug
use.  California, Alaska, and Arizona also have Greens parties now, but
I don't know much about their official platforms or policies.

Because of the general Greens commitment to decentralization, each of the
state parties is relatively independent and has its own organization and
platform.  There are two national movements: Greens USA, and the Green 
Political Network.  The Greens USA seems to be currently dominated by 
more or less traditional socialist/leftist thinkers; the Green Political 
Network is a newer group which is trying to break away from the traditional
left/right dichotomy -- it's not yet clear what that will mean in concrete
terms.

I'm not a member of the Greens Party (yet.)  I have concerns about how well
organized it is, and I can't find the time to put in to make things run
"right" by my standards.  While they all mean well, I also have concerns 
about the extent to which they tend to resort to traditionally "left" 
pro-government, anti-industry solutions.  So maybe it's not
your perfect party, but maybe it's worth your looking into.

I will try to post some more "official" info when I can get a file from
my wife.

  -- Clifton

--
cliftonr@netcom.com -or- clifton_r@verifone.com
Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
donations to:  1524 Pensacola, #005  Honolulu, HI  96822
".sig still boring"  (but net access more consistent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier)
Subject: Anti-WoD Lecture at MIT 9/20/92
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:31:38 GMT

From a mailing list I'm on...

-- Chris

November 20
-----------
DECLARING PEACE:  ENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSAULT OF THE DRUG WAR
Jon Holmes

   Despite the fact that fewer people die each year from illegal drugs
than aspirin, The Drug war continues unabated.  Drug Prohibition is
responsible for the deaths of over 10,000, half the prison population,
the near-collapse of the criminal justice system, and an
unprecendented erosion of civil liberties.  Jon Holmes will address
the impact of the drug war on civil liberties and how it can be
stopped.

   Jon Holmes is the Chairperson of the Massachusetts Civil Liberties
Union Drug Policy Task Force as well as a writer and filmaker.

ALL LECTURES TAKE PLACE ON FRIDAYS AT 8:00PM
MIT ROOM 9-150, 105 MASSACHUSETTS AVE., CAMBRIDGE, MA

FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

FOR INFO, CALL 617-787-6809 (the Peace and Justice Hotline)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil lib
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:08:35 GMT

In article 60134@mimsy.umd.edu, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
>There was no requirement that
>drug-containing substances be so labled, so you ended up with a lot
>of upper-middle class patent-medicine users becoming narcotics addicts.

So how did they obtain the drugs to support their addiction?  Murder,
robbery, lives of crime?  NO!  They went to their local pharmacist and
purchased them with their honest money.

>     The obvious and reasonable response would have been a simple labeling
>requirement, but the government decicded to save us from ourselves...

Of course!  After all, they know best... :-p

---
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

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: Mon, 7 Sep 92 10:18:52 EDT

In article <1992Sep7.041050.1136@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>}there is much truth in the old proverb about idle hands.
>}
>}This is the basic idea behind programs like the Boy's Club, etc.
>}
>}The fact of the matter is that programs like that do work, in the short term,
>}to reduce some crime (and midnight basketball leagues have apparently been
>}successful in a number of places) and, perhaps, have long-term effects
>}also.
>
>Yes, but when was the last time you saw a bootlegger pushing bathtub gin at
>a playground?  Prescription cocaine costs about $7/oz.  When I ran the numbers,
>the street price of cocaine was $15k per kilo, according to a cousin of mine
>who's a New York State Trooper.  I don't know what the price is now, but at
>that price, the black market price is about 400 times that of prescription.
>This provides an enormous incentive to market the product aggressively, and
>since willingness to break the law is at a premium on the black market, this
>aggression makes no distinction between consensual and coercive distribution.

[remainder omitted]

Color me baffled!!  What has this got to do with my comments about a
midnight basketball league??!!


>If you want to maximize the lives of kids, we must repeal drug prohibition
>now!

And it happens that I agree with you, here.  What did I say to make you
think otherwise?


-- 
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: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Quote from MJ Recons.
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:03:56 -0500

bell@bodie.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

>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

My wife, who reads Ann Landers, has written a letter to her pointing
out Landers' contradictory position with regard to MJ.  She really
pillories Landers.  I urge other people to take some time out and
write Ms. Landers and ask her to reconcile prohibition of cannabis
with her statements that prohibition doesn't work.
-- 
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
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Clinton Challenge -- I gave it a shot
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:57:09 -0500

muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney) writes:

>Even on the outside prospect that deep down inside Clinton agrees with
>your agrument on legalization, he could never admit it this close to
>election, the results would be disastrous. Probably removing all chance
>of his prospects of election if he did take that stance on civil
>libertys. So you know well what his responce is going to be
>unfortunatly.
>-- 

I wouldn't expect either Clinton or his surrogate to renounce the
drug war at this juncture.  The point of the exercise -- the challenge --
is to start a dialogue/debate with people who may well be in the next
administration.  Secondarily, there is always the possibility of PR
coming out of such an activity.  The only reason I have abandoned my
efforts is that I've got a full plate right now and I don't think I
can expend a lot of time working my way through the campaign heirarchy.
I do think it could be worthwhile, however, and encourage any other
enterprising netter to pick up where I left off.

One new thought did occur to me -- write Hillary.  I get the impression
that she is the more pragmatic and rational of the two.  I can't
imagine a better lobbyist in a Clinton administration than Hillary so
it would really pay dividend to get her on our side.
-- 
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:6153 alt.drugs:15390
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 6 Sep 1992 05:07:03 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, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) says:

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

If a person doesn't get into any trouble---legal trouble, job trouble,
family trouble, financial trouble, physical trouble, mental trouble,
ANY kind of trouble---then no one will accuse him of having a problem,
so he's NOT an addict.  No one EVER goes to treatment or A.A. unless
he's in SOME kind of trouble.
Trouble is the ONLY reason why I accuse politicians of having an
addictive-type problem.  If we didn't keep getting into trouble
(war, debt, economic foobars, etc.), I would have no objections at all.

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

True.  The real problem is self-will run riot//fear (lack of faith)//
lack of humility//lack of self-awareness//lack of honesty.  It's
basically a deficiency disease.



-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:13:22 GMT

In article <60134@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>
}>Before 1914, all drugs were safe and legal.
}
}     Legal, yes. Safe? Not really. The problem was that many preparations
}containing opiates could be sold _without the consumer knowing he was
}using as potentially addictive drug._ There was no requirement that
}drug-containing substances be so labled, so you ended up with a lot
}of upper-middle class patent-medicine users becoming narcotics addicts.
}(As long as drug addiction was only a problem of the poor or of racial
}minorities, there was of course no reason to make it illegal.)
}
}     The obvious and reasonable response would have been a simple labeling
}requirement, but the government decicded to save us from ourselves...

I don't quite agree.  It's certainly true that many people didn't know that
they were consuming opiates, but it doesn't follow from this that the producers
should have been coerced into labeling their products as such.  Why shouldn't
the consumers educate themselves, perhaps by asking the producers to label
their products voluntarily?


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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:09:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.101852.20890@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) 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.


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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Far Right version of Bill of Rights
Date: 7 Sep 92 01:35:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <65363@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>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.

I know this was just a setup for a different point you wanted to make, but
I have a comment about this.

Often, you can get them to say something like "if we don't continue the
war, this will be a NATION OF DRUG ADDICTS!"  Now you just silently look
around the room, and see how everyone feels about this ass just claiming 
that he, presumably, is the only person he knows who wouldn't sink to
degenerecy if it weren't for fear of the authorities.

If the point still doesn't seem clear, try saying: "Well, I think that up
until this moment, everyone here thought a great deal more of you than you
obviously do of us."  Often, you're treated to the sight of the warrior-type
stammering, trying to explain that he didn't really mean the *whole* nation.

"Well, WHO then?  Everybody in this building EXCEPT those of us who happen
to be in this room?  Who at this [school,company, etc] do you think would
opt out of normal life to become a heroin addict?  No one?  Well then, who?
Your mom?  Your [wife, husband]?  Oh, I see... *NO ONE* you know, huh?
Who then?  Just [black people, white people, jews]?"  Just people who
practice a different religion than you?  Who??!!"

Continue until you think you might get poked in the eye...

It's worked for me a few times.

  Thanks awfully,
           Patrick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Socialist Worker's Party: Drug Policy
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:21:38 GMT

In article <1vqn#0c.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>
>	Brian asks:
>
>==>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?
>
>	How about the Greens?

I know next to nothing about them. If you have any info on them, please
post or email it to me.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Randy Wilson)
Subject: Quote from MJ Recons.
Originator: rwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:06:09 GMT

I just got done reading "Marijuana Reconsidered", and I found this
quote amusing and interesting, so I thought I'd share it with you all.
I know, I know, the book came out in 1971, so I'm a little behind on
my reading, that's all.  Anyway:

"K. Keniston points out that the correlation between the "intellectual
climate" of a college and the rate of drug use on its campus is very
close.  The highest rates are found at small, progressive liberal arts
colleges with a high faculty-student ratio, high student intellectual
capacity as measured by College Boards, close student-faculty
relationships, and considerable value on academic independence,
intellectual interest, and personal freedom for students.[1]  At a number
of such colleges, it is probably true that half or more of the
students have tried marihuana or one of the "hallucinogens," but the
great majority of the nation's 2,200 colleges have a lower
intellectual climate, are often noted for their practical orientation,
a relative absence of serious student intellectual pursuit, and an
emphasis on fraternity life and sports.  It is estimated that between
10 and 25 percent of the students on such campuses use these drugs."[2]

[1] K. Keniston, "Heads and Seekers: Drugs on Campus, Counter-Cultures
and American Society," _American Scholar_, 38 (1968-69), p. 98.

[2] Several studies: _J._Amer._Coll._Health Ass._, 17 (1968), p. 47,
p. 145, p. 41.


To paraphrase, "marijuana is for smart people, alcohol is for
conformists."  Okay, that's reading a little into it....

Randy
From: cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier)
Subject: Re: Plea for Money: Rehauling anti-WoD list
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:48:20 GMT

In article <Bu62Mz.AuH@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico) writes:

# 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!

Sending postage stamps would be great.  I'm not sure about the SASE idea,
how would they know where to send a SASE if they are not on the net?
Anyhow, I can afford the envelopes and copying myself, so if you want to
help send stamps.

-- Chris
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6143 alt.drugs:15368
From: batboy@milton.u.washington.edu (Thomas Radke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 5 Sep 92 08:00:58 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

What happens (now bare with me) when you jack off while trippin'?

For me, it's one of the best ways to get close to GOD.

_Tom
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney)
Subject: Re: Clinton Challenge -- I gave it a shot
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:19:42 GMT

Even on the outside prospect that deep down inside Clinton agrees with
your agrument on legalization, he could never admit it this close to
election, the results would be disastrous. Probably removing all chance
of his prospects of election if he did take that stance on civil
libertys. So you know well what his responce is going to be
unfortunatly.
-- 
*William Taney                * Friends don't let Friends Vote
*muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu        *        Republican
*Western Illinois University  * Clinton/Gore and Carol Moseley Braun
*                             *             in '92
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:35:34 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|>}>
|>}>Before 1914, all drugs were safe and legal.
|>}
|>}     Legal, yes. Safe? Not really. The problem was that many preparations
|>}containing opiates could be sold _without the consumer knowing he was
|>}using as potentially addictive drug._ There was no requirement that
|>}drug-containing substances be so labled, so you ended up with a lot
|>}of upper-middle class patent-medicine users becoming narcotics addicts.
|>}(As long as drug addiction was only a problem of the poor or of racial
|>}minorities, there was of course no reason to make it illegal.)
|>}
|>}     The obvious and reasonable response would have been a simple labeling
|>}requirement, but the government decicded to save us from ourselves...
|>
|>I don't quite agree.  It's certainly true that many people didn't know
|>that they were consuming opiates,but it doesn't follow from this that
|>the producers should have been coerced into labeling their products as
|>such.  Why shouldn't the consumers educate themselves, perhaps by
|>asking the producers to label their products voluntarily?

     Sure. Just like the cigarette manufacturers would voluntarily stick
warning labels on their cancer sticks. Fat chance. 

     A "free" market can only function properly when consumers are fully
informed; it is therefore proper for the government to take action to
ensure that this condition holds. Labeling requirements are a simple
way to do this. A consumer might have gone out and fully educated him/herself
about the the effects of opium, but if he/she doesn't know which products
contain opium and which don't, it's does no good.

     (I'm sure you'll still disagree; this isn't the (big-L) Libretarian
viewpoint. That's why I'm not a (big-L) Libretarian.)

===============================================================================
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!
                    "I wonder why. I wonder why.
                     I wonder why I wonder.
                     I wonder _why_ I wonder why
                     I wonder why I wonder!" -- Richard P. Feynman
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6312 alt.society.civil-liberty:5874