HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randyb@calera.com (Randy Bias)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Calera Recognition Systems
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:59:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.195648.9362@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.191221.14423@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>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
Hrm.  Well, I had an addictive personality, at least, I seemed to.  I'd say
that I cured myself, but I'm also a lot stronger spiritually (mentally?) than
most.  Also, I soon realized that there were tons of things to do out there
that are just as fun (or more so) than drugs.  Some people get hooked on the
fact that drugs are "fun" and easy to use.  You don't have to put much effort
into swallowing/smoking/etc.

I do believe I had an addictive personality, especially with alcohol, but
concern for other aspects of my life overwhelmed my need for most drugs.  I
mean, drinking several beers every night before bed is just plain bad.  The
weight comes on quickly and you become dependent on the alcohol to put you
to sleep.  Bleah.

>In any case, I don't think the fact that some people have addictive
>personalities is a legitimate excuse for throwing people into jail for
>possessing and/or using drugs.
Definitely.  I'm not sure all addictive personalities can be cured, but I
think that some serious work could be done on helping people.  I think too
often addictions are a form of escape.  Let's get to the root of people's
and societie's mental problems.

>-Pete Zakel
> (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
-- 
Randy Bias				randyb@calera.com
sysadmin@LARGE
"Sex is a cold linoleum floor under you and the people upstairs over you
yelling at you to quit screaming."-- Unknown (e-mail virgin or something silly)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5232 alt.drugs:13253
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:04:00 GMT
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <1992Jul21.051459.5474@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <7lama3c.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:

>}While I don't agree with Mr. Craig on much of anything I take issue with
>}this particular rebutal. I've spent enough time in N.A. meetings to believe
>}that for at least a signifigant subset of people some drugs do in fact
>}have that power.
>
>Mere anecdotal evidence from a non-represenative sample which conflicts with
>other anecdotal and scientific evidence.

I too am getting sick of Mr. Cain confusing the issue. Bob, we are not talking
about reality or personal experience here. If you can't show government studies
or statistics then personal first hand experience and observation are 
meaningless. It's just like Nancy said, just say no. The next time you go to
an N.A. meeting pass this along to everyone and explain how their problems are
a matter of semantics. They will then all go home happy and healthy and realize
the problems never really existed.



-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 03:26:26 GMT

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:

>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>: 
>: This is what I disagree with.  The blame should stay on the alcoholic.  The
>: alcoholic committed the acts, and responsibility suggests acceptance of
>: blame.  Why be responsible for something that wasn't your fault?  Do you
>: see why I disagree with this?
>
>Yes and I realize why you can't understand the moral validity and the
>effectiveness of the view.  I only can because I've been there.

You're right, I suppose I can't really speak on the moral validity of it.
But I can and do question its effectiveness.


>: 
>: Any shift of blame is irresponsible in the long run.
>
>I simply disagree.  Shifting the blame for the cause clears the way for
>accepting the blame for the consequences.

How?!?

Suppose I'm an alcoholic and I transfer blame from myself to the alcohol.
How, given this, what possible motivation would I have to accept the
consequences?  It wasn't my fault!  It was the alcohol.  Punish the
alcohol!  Of course, punishing an inanimate bottle of liquid is silly, so
what do I do?  Sue the liquor companies!  The alcohol is to blame, so the
liquor companies should suffer the consequences.

Please tell me how this is logically unsound?  It isn't.  It follows
naturally, which is why I oppose transferring blame away from the
alcoholic.

(Suppose:) You are an alcoholic.  You committed actions because of your
addiction to alcohol.  Those actions are yours, therefore you are to blame
for those actions.  Because you are to blame for those actions, you must
take responsibility for your actions if you wish to set things right.  By
knowing that you will be held to blame for future actions induced by your
addiction, you take responsibility for yourself and take care to either not
hurt people when you drink or simply not drink. 

So where have I gone wrong here?
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5287 alt.drugs:13431
From: al@spring.unr.edu (Al Benincasa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug-Slavery/Addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:46:08 GMT
Reply-To: al@spring.unr.edu (Al Benincasa)
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV

addiction is not a desease.....It's a disgrace

  / \
 <(0)>  "There IS no underground, Winston"
  \ /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:44:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.065847.19591@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> gaspar@inf.ethz.ch (gaspo) writes:
>In article <Jul.28.15.38.43.1992.15838@turbo.bio.net> will@turbo.bio.net (Will Nelson) writes:
>>>[Marijuana does not produce tolerance or physical withdrawal symptoms]
>>
>>This is simply not true. There is little tolerance to marijuana's
>>conjunctival injection and tachycardia, but there is tolerance
>>to just about all other measures of marijuana's effects, including
>>the euphoria. The physical withdrawal symptoms are mild compared
>>to those of other drugs, and vary with the level of drug consumption,
>>but the loss of appetite, REM rebound, and anxiety
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^------------------\
>>(including drug seeking behavior) are well documented. |
>                                                        |
>                               /------------------------'
>sorry, but could you explain this a little better? I think I know what
>you are talking about here, but would like some more info.  Also, loss
>of appetite?  Are you saying that if I stop using mj regularly, I can
>loose my appetite?  like, the munchies have taken over my entire hunger
>reactions? wow.
>
>Seriously, I'd appreciate pointers to the REM "well documented" bit.

I do have studies at home regarding the REM rebound effect.  (I believe
it's even mentioned in _Marijuana and Health_.)  I don't think the REM
rebound isn't necessarily true with me, as I always get the best dreams in 
the world after smoking pot, and going to bed.  (and afterwards, I don't
notice any more or less dreams.)  

Loss of appetite:  I'm questionable about this.  It's always been an
appetite-stimulate for me.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu

>--gaspo.
>
>- Scott "gaspo" Gasparian / Dept. Informatik -    |    - Umwelt    -
>- Stabstelle Software / System Administrator -  \ | /  -  Schutzen,-
>- ETH-Zentrum,  CH-8092 Zurich,  Switzerland -  _\|/_  - Rad       -
>- gaspar@inf.ethz.ch     /   +41'01'254'7205 -   '|`   -  Benutzen.-


Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: bd@c3consult.comm.se (Bjorn Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Today's LA Times
Organization: Communicator C3Consult AB
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:21:47 GMT

In article <36213@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> alehecka@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (MERLIN ) writes:
>
>  [stuff deleted]
>
>CARRIER		WEIGHT OF 100 DOSES	GUIDELINE RANGE
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Pure LSD	5 milligrams		10 - 16 months
>Gelatin capsule 	225 mg.		2.25-2.75 yr.
>Blotter paper		1.4 grams	5.25 - 6.5 yr.
>Sugar cube		227 grams	15.5 - 19.5 yr.
>								"
>			(LA Times, Monday, July 27, 1992)
>

The War On Truth was bad enough. The War On Logic and Sanity is worse!
This kind of "justice" is pure evil. I hope it never catches on here in
Sweden. And I hope it never gets applied to testosterone, which is
classified as an illegal drug here since July 1 this year...
--
Bjorn Danielsson                | If Shakespeare had Hamlet say "I think,
bd@c3consult.comm.se            | therefore I am", would that prove to us
Communicator C3Consult AB       | that Hamlet exists?
Uppsala, Sweden                 |                        -- Robert Nozick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Chapel Hill, NC Press
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:17:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.060627.1590@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
> WARNING!  Just because a *state* is moderate with respect to possesion of 
> small amounts of marijuana doesn't mean the feds won't show up and take
> everything you own.  I would guess that this is especially true after you've
> paid your $100 fine or whatever.  At that point, you are a CONVICTED DRUG
> MONSTER.  There's space in a fedaral pen being wasted on some rapist
> or killer that could be put to better use by incarcerating you.
>  

I suppose you make a good point. Perhaps that is why Mr Little
sold all his possessions?
But, you are right. The prison system is wasting their time
locking up rapists and killers, when we all know those MJ monsters
are sitting around corrupting our youth with their smoke.

P.S. I would put a smiley on that last one if it weren't so
sad but true. Our governmental policy is insane.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5260 alt.drugs:13351
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug-Slavery/Addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:07:38 GMT
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

pfcouvar@amhux1.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares) writes:
>	And some people (Bob for one) seem to think this _does_ happen. I have
>yet to be presented with conclusive proof one way or the other. My best guess
>is that anyone who is relatively stable psychologically can handle taking any
>drug. But the fact is there are tons of people out there who _aren't_ (at
>least not all the time) and for them, something akin to instant addiction may
>be possible. It may be psychological at heart, but if they can't get off of a
>drug on their own, no matter how strong their will to do so, what's the
>effective difference?

I heard an interesting story of one young woman who dropped acid for the
first time and had an attack that the person described which corresponded
*damn* good with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.  Nowadays, there are theories
that OCD may be caused by excessive dopamine and lower amounts of
seratonin.  This theory arises from the effectiveness of Prozac in treating
OCD, and the effect that Prozac has which is exactly the opposite of that.
Wouldn't it be interesting, though, if a drug that was somewhat the
opposite of Prozac could cause an "attack" of OCD in those that were
biochemically suceptible?  Guess what?  LSD is somewhat like that.  It
shuts down the firing of seratonin neurons in the raphe and I've heard
that it potentiates dopamine function in some way.

Perhaps then, this is what happened to her, and it was not a psychological
reaction at all, but a biochemical one.

I don't have any idea.  I'm merely presenting this scenario for your
consideration, since it appears that everyone in this newsgroup is competely
ignoring mind/brain duality in favor of explaining *everything* as a
function of the psychological mind.

-- 
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,alt.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:21:53 GMT

lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:

>Do you know anything about mind/brain duality?  I think you are.....
>.......                                 There may be people who have 
>lower neurotransmitter levels.  For example a deficiency of catecholamine
>or indoleamines -- possibly presenting itself as a biochemical depression --
>could predispose a person to addiction to cocaine or amphetamines.
>Basically, the first time a person took the stimulant, they would elevate
>their neurotransmitter levels and "feel normal" for the first time in
>their lives.  Then they would crash back to the same state they were
>in.  Thus they have essentially very strong physical addiction already.

This is not physical addiction, because the person's body can function
without the drug (and even by your description, did before).  They may have
a strong desire to go back to the drug, as the removal of the low mood
would serve as negative reinforcement to the drug use, but to call it
addiction is a bit misleading.  By that logic, diabetics are physically 
addicted to isulin injections, which is a silly assertion because there 
is no psychological element involved.


>Couple this with any psychological weakness at all (much less than what
>you are talking about) and the person could essentially become clinically
>addicted the first time they try the drug.  In these cases the mind could
>be fairly strong, but the body is weak.

But it would still take a conscious decision on the person's part to take
the drug again, and the person's body would not get sicker without the
drug, just return to its original state.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:53:01 GMT

In <1992Jul28.163051.11614@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.160010.7599@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>>Would a "normal, happy, well-adjusted individual" (if such existed :-)
>>be addicted to a drug just because of itself?  I maintain not.  In
>This is an interesting point. What do you base it on? I'm not necessarily 
>disagreeing, I'd just like to see the reasoning behind this.

Ok.

First off, let me make it clear that I don't see any reason why the
hypothetical happy etc. person wouldn't USE any given drug--there are
lots of reasons for drug use, and they don't preclude happy users.

But my perception of "addiction" per se is that it is destructive (by
definition) in some measure--moreso than simply the physical effects
like dead brain cells from alcohol or whathaveyou--and that the addict
tends to ignore (willfully or not, thereby aggravating the problem)
this destructiveness or discount its impact.  Part of being an addict
is being so focussed on the object of addction that things around
are often missed as well.

My hypothetical "happy, well adjusted person" would be open to most
experiences and not so especially focussed on something to the exclusion
of concerns about destructive behaviour or other relatively important
external events/things.  Such a person may well have their own 
preferences, but they aren't particularly blindered by them.


My own experiences with alcohol abuse (I don't think I ever "qualified"
as an alcoholic, my abuse wasn't exceptionally severe) and first reactions
to a couple other drugs form a large part of my perceptions here, as
do experience watching friends who have had one level of problem or
another, including people who had to have that daily toke or constant
drink.  I honestly *haven't* had much direct experience with people
that I knew were abusing harder drugs.  But the little exposure I
have had seems to indicate that they aren't that much different except
in their intensity.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                 Practical Ego Annihilation for the Zen Novice
        1) bang head against wall in a steady shuffle rhythm for 8 hours
From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Advertisement in the UK Times..
Summary: quote, please?
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:59:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23341
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

I'm afraid I missed the start of this thread, so I don't know what
Carter's quote was.  Could some kind soul please email
( att!alice!garry ) me the original article?

thanks very much.


-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5311 alt.drugs:13470
From: RR04@bunny.gte.com (Rob Robertson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:25:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: GTE Laboratories


In article <lamontg.711965053@milton> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu 
(Lamont Granquist) writes:

> 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.

Whoa. Hold the phone, Lamont. 

Who the hell is 'we'? When have 'we' EVER pigeon-holed somebody to put 
them in a more favorable position? Most often information is used for the 
benefit of those who possess that information and and any scraps thrown 
the way of those being categorized is to keep them placated and compliant.
 
Time and again great ideas get twisted around to serve those who take the 
reins of power. Jesus was really on to something there, but by the time it 
got around to me He was gone and the likes of Jimmy Swaggart,et al. had 
completely distorted the message for their own gain. Communism looks real 
good on paper, but in practice...

...and now I'm supposed to wear my DNA as an ID bracelet or else I'm 
completely cut out of society?! No way, Jose!

But then again, I just read a whole lot into that one little sentence and 
let it go to my head, so I could be persuaded to change my mind.

Neurochemically yours,

    Rob "I'm so glad that I'm a Beta" Robertson

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: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: possible source for strychnine rumours
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
    <1992Jul31.120323.5181@sys.uea.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:03:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.120323.5181@sys.uea.ac.uk>, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>I missed the beginning of this thread.  What is the "Strychnine Universe"?

Since the inception of alt.drugs, the newsgroup has been plagued with
monthly questions/assertations about the presence of strychnine in street
LSD.  This spring, Bob Cain (I think) made the intellectual leap that no
myth could be this popular unless it was true *somewhere*.  

Since we know (see the alt.drugs LSD FAQ for convincing arguments) that it
is cannot be true in our universe, there must exist another universe (very
close to ours in some dimension) where it is true.  We call this place "The
Strychnine Universe."

Sometimes we even get postings from there.  :^)

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.
From: pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilinskas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Drug-Slavery/Addiction (was Re: Partial Legalization)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:17:24 GMT
Organization: UB

al@spring.unr.edu (Al Benincasa) writes:

>addiction is not a desease.....It's a disgrace
Stupidity is not a disease....It's a guy named Al Benincasa.
____________________________________________________________________________
pck@acsu.buffalo.edu /  "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5399 alt.drugs:13636 sci.psychology:3286
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:30:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ohio University School of Art,. Athens

In article <1992Jul27.160010.7599@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>Would a "normal, happy, well-adjusted individual" (if such existed :-)
>be addicted to a drug just because of itself?  I maintain not.  In

This is an interesting point. What do you base it on? I'm not necessarily 
disagreeing, I'd just like to see the reasoning behind this.



-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *