HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b1zcxzw@kato.BELL-ATL.COM (Ruhl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Aviators vs. the WoD
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:50:17 GMT
Organization: Bell Atlantic

I have copied the following
There is a thread that is currently being discussed in rec.aviation that is of
interest to this newsgroup.  Certain pilots seem to fit DEA profiles due to
their flying patterns (see below).  


In article <1992Sep8.224119.1564@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org 
(Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>Among other things the DEA's been doing: 
>
>1. It (with the cooperation of Customs) has introduced the concept of 
>*targeting* international travellers, based upon their travel profiles (e.g., 
>go to Columbia 5 times a year, expect to be strip-searched and have things 
>shoved up your ass next time you arrive at JFK).  They don't need to display 
>any *evidence* that you are explicitly suspected of any crime: only that your 
>travel/lifestyle profile matches those of smugglers or other "undesirables."  
>And the Supreme Court has upheld this!

Hard to believe that this sort of behaviour goes on in the USA.  A friend
of mine flew his canadian-registered C-310 down to the dominican republic 
for the 500 anniversary in the spring - while the a/c was parked overnight 
in florida, the DEA broke into his a/c, tore up his floorboards, and wired
an extra transponder into his electrical system, in the process screwing
up his turn co-ordinator.  High quality work, obviously.  Needless to say,
a new weight & balance was not calculated.

Guilty until proven innocent.  Incredible.  I am never going to fly my a/c 
south of tennessee.

I don't use drugs (don't even use anti-histamines) but didn't anybody
learn anything from prohibition in the 30's?  When you try to legislate
morality, criminals get rich.  Increasing the enforcement pressure simply
causes a darwinian effect to take place - the nastiest and smartest criminals
prosper.  Is this the intent of the US govt?

Treating ths symptoms (the drug runners) is useless.  It doesn't make the
the demand for drugs go away - the economic force still remains.

Perhaps, though, the DEA doesn't really want to so-called "drug problem"
solved - they'd be out of a job.

Anyways, nuff said.

----

#include <std.disclaimer>



-- 

================================================================================
 Bill Ruhl              | The preceding statements do not represent the opinions
 AOPA Sundowner N2248L  | of me or my employer.  They are just what I think.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6142 alt.drugs:15367
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 5 Sep 1992 05:43:17 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:

>My father was an alcoholic. One day, he decided he had had enough and just
>quit. He never had a drink for the rest of his life. In other words, he quit
>for over 40 years - without any 'help' from AA where people would tell him
>that he would not be able to stay sober.

Well, that explains why you're so crabby.  Alcoholism is
a family disease.  You're sick, too.  Go to Al-Anon.
That's why it's there.  You can thank me later.


>So, your statement is disproven by example.................

Right.  Division by zero is impossible, therefore division is impossible.
 

>.............................................I am sure there are many others.
>Of course, you can always say that my father was not an alcoholic. I am sure
>you know better than the doctors.

Sixty years ago, the consensus of the medical community was that
alcoholics were hopeless.  They didn't mean the ones who could
quit on their own.  Then along came A.A. to blow the doors off
that "hopeless" bullshit, and the professionals have resented it
ever since.  Especially the atheists.  I can't for the life of me
understand why the question of the existence of God is such a
hot issue with some people.  I always thought eliminating the
threat of nuclear war was WAY more important than that.  Must
be an ego thing.

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Aviators vs. the WoD
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:52:45 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

b1zcxzw@kato.BELL-ATL.COM (Ruhl) writes:
>>They [Customs] don't need to display 
>>any *evidence* that you are explicitly suspected of any crime: only that your 
>>travel/lifestyle profile matches those of smugglers or other "undesirables."  
>>And the Supreme Court has upheld this!
>
>Hard to believe that this sort of behaviour goes on in the USA.

They don't think of you as being in the USA until after you pass
the customs check.  There seems to be no recourse within the legal
system against Customs agents.

-- 
                  The U.S. constitution has its flaws,
          but it's a damn sight better than what we have now!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: cklausme@jarthur.claremont.edu (Chris Klausmeier)
Subject: Plea for Money: Rehauling anti-WoD list
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:41:03 GMT


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 Klausmeier
Platt Campus Center
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont CA 91711

If you have any questions, send me mail.

Thanks!

-- Chris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.113236.2261@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
]In article <1992Sep1.185336.27994@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
]>of Clinton ....  aarrgh.  I'd almost rather have Richard Nixon back -
]>at least you could call him what he was, in public, without being
]>tossed in jail.... 

]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.

Ok, so it was exxageration, but ...
President Bush was speaking here in New Jersey this past week in a
rally at a VFW hall.  The local newspaper reported that anybody
carrying non-pro-Bush signs from the parking lot to the hall had them
confiscated and/or ripped out of their hands.  I had to be at work,
so I missed the rally, but I'd been thinking about bringing a sign
saying something about "Iran-Contra - the Buck Stops Here!"

And I *have* had police threaten me for standing quietly with a
politically incorrect sign after the bombing of Iraqi civilians....

-- 

				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 ...
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Socialist Worker's Party: Drug Policy
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:22:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


	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?

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
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: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:45:12 GMT

In article <60191@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
}     Sure. Just like the cigarette manufacturers would voluntarily stick
}warning labels on their cancer sticks. Fat chance. 

We don't know that warning labels are the best means of informing consumers;
only a free competitive market in consumer information could perform this
function.

}     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.

One of the major principles of free markets is that of caveat emptor, let the
buyer beware.  If consumers are interested enough in not consuming opiates,
they can have products tested for opiates at their own cost.  Forcing the
producer to do this is a violation of their individual rights.

}     (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.)

It's not even a libertarian position.  You may be more libertarian than the
average bear, but this position is inconsistent with libertarianism.  How
are we ever going to get others to take our principles seriously if we don't?


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
From: b1zcxzw@kato.BELL-ATL.COM (Ruhl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Aviators vs. WoD -- oops!
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:01:06 GMT
Organization: Bell Atlantic

My apologies for the aforementioned posting that got away from me before I had 
finished editing!  I wanted to bring the rec.aviation thread to the attention
of this group, since I feel that a united front against the WoD from a variety
of interest groups is required before the war is seen by the politicians as
politically detrimental to their election hopes.

- Bill
-- 

================================================================================
 Bill Ruhl              | The preceding statements do not represent the opinions
 AOPA Sundowner N2248L  | of me or my employer.  They are just what I think.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6188 alt.drugs:15489
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 9 Sep 1992 04:50:41 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, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) says:

>: Well, that explains why you're so crabby.  Alcoholism is
>: a family disease.  You're sick, too.  Go to Al-Anon.
>: That's why it's there.  You can thank me later.
>
>For your information - I drink about pint of stout every week when I do
>my laundry at the public laundromat. I also drink one or two glasses of
>wine once a month at a social dinner with friends.
>Now, you tell me - does that make me an alcoholic?

Al-Anon is for the *families* of alcoholics----codependents,
NOT alcoholics.


>Hm. How come the non-AA funded studies show that AA is seldom better,
>and sometimes worse, than other methods of treating alcoholism?

Publish or perish, Bill!  And when you publish, make it
CONTROVERSIAL, so as to warrant FURTHER investigation!
There's a LOT of money to be made in the recovery biz,
if you have the right pitch!


>What does the threat of nuclear war have to do with the treating or
>curing of alcoholism? Ever hear of a "straw man" argument?

Why do we keep getting into the same kind of trouble (war and
the threat of war), even though we don't want to....but STILL
think we're in control ??
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6200 alt.drugs:15530
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:58:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
: 
: >Hm. How come the non-AA funded studies show that AA is seldom better,
: >and sometimes worse, than other methods of treating alcoholism?
: 
: Publish or perish, Bill!  And when you publish, make it
: CONTROVERSIAL, so as to warrant FURTHER investigation!
: There's a LOT of money to be made in the recovery biz,
: if you have the right pitch!

I suppose the same could be said to apply to the AA studies also.
So, what's in it for the AA - and you?

: >What does the threat of nuclear war have to do with the treating or
: >curing of alcoholism? Ever hear of a "straw man" argument?
: 
: Why do we keep getting into the same kind of trouble (war and
: the threat of war), even though we don't want to....but STILL
: think we're in control ??

Because the governments of the various countries need something to
take the minds of the masses away from the real problems facing them.

People think they are in control since the politicians have them
convinced that they control government through voting. The only
problem is, when the establishment selects the candidates, then
it doesn't matter much who you vote for.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6168 alt.drugs:15419 alt.society.civil-liberty:5674
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ on civil liberties and the WOD
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:14:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
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...

===============================================================================
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 wasn't ready, man. I - I still believed in justice."
     "Your world entertains many quaint superstitions."
     -- Victor Milan, "Madman across the Water"
        (in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
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 07:08:05 GMT

In article <machman.715743238@milton> machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:

# 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

Oh yeah, the money's just flowing in.  Gee, now I'm able to pay off my
school loans and buy a car.

Sorry, this is NOT a money-making scheme.

Not every group on the list has a member with net access.  As a matter of
fact, very few do.  I contributed at least a third of the groups from
different lists I got, and there have been inconsistencies between the various
listings.  I thought it would be a good idea to iron the errors out and
since Aldis lives in Australia, it would make more sense for me to do the
mailing.  I just don't have the postage money.  If you don't trust me,
fine, don't help out.  

-- Chris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Civil Forfeiture -- A letter to the local paper
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 23:58:04 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I contend that even if drug usage *did* go up, the resulting social
costs would still pale in comparision to the political, social and economic costs
we pay to wage the war on drugs.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:01:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

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

     I'm almost afraid to ask...where'd you get this defintion? Did it
come to you in a dream? I still say this sounds like a typical AA
redefination to make themselves look like the One True Path to
recovery.

     Redefining your terms is still the best way to twist reality.
It's a favorite Drug Warrior tactic. "Oh, this drug isn't addictive?
Hmm, I've got this great idea. We'll make up this thing called
`psychological addiction'. Then we can say it's addictive!"

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
    "An independant reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be
     ascribed to the phenomenon nor to the agencies of observation."
     -- Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton)
Subject: Re: Smoking as a Drug Delivery System
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:59:41 GMT
Organization: talk.bizarre wannabees

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
[deleted]
: applied to the skin of a rabbit would kill it. What are the long term
: health hazards of nicotine (as opposed to cigarrete smoke) injestion?
: Thanks.
  You might take what I say with a grain of salt here, as I don't have a
good reference for it.  However, I did read a book on immunology a few years
ago which said that nicotine was a powerful immune system suppressant and
tumor promoter ("co-carcinogen").  
If true, it would explain 
1) why cigarette smoking is such a potent cancer source (introduction 
   of mutagens + immune system suppressant.)
2) why quitters often observe a sudden jump in allergies or develop
   asthma (rebound effect)
3) why doctors in less enlightened times used to recommend cigarette
   smoking to asthmatics.
  -- Clifton

--
Home: cliftonr@netcom.com     +1 808 521 9073
Work: clifton_r@verifone.com  +1 808 625 3234
Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
"Whatever flames upon the night/Man's own resinous heart has fed." - W. B. Yeats
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Let's stuff his mailbox (Re: Fwd from CLINTON ...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:54:41 GMT
    <1992Sep2.113236.2261@linus.mitre.org>
    <1992Sep12.205212.5822@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Sep12.205212.5822@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
>Ok, so it was exxageration, but ...
>President Bush was speaking here in New Jersey this past week in a
>rally at a VFW hall.  The local newspaper reported that anybody
>carrying non-pro-Bush signs from the parking lot to the hall had them
>confiscated and/or ripped out of their hands.  I had to be at work,
>so I missed the rally, but I'd been thinking about bringing a sign
>saying something about "Iran-Contra - the Buck Stops Here!"

I can see a rational behind that.  VFW invited Bush to speak.  Bush
supporters showed up to listen.  Bush bashers showed up to disrupt the
speech.  

Anyway, the buck is still hidden in Fawn Hall's bra.

>And I *have* had police threaten me for standing quietly with a
>politically incorrect sign after the bombing of Iraqi civilians....

I don't get this one.  Were you alone or in a group?  Large groups are
"supposed to" get parade permits before demonstrating.  But a single person
carrying a sign should be able to make his point in the town square without
being harassed.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs