HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:02:44 GMT

In <1992Jul29.205817.2056@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>bill nelson writes:
>> Well, you are wrong. By the governments own figures - about 30% of regular
>> users of cocaine become addicted. I think you are drastically overstating
>> your position.
>Perhaps you'd think otherwise if you read what I wrote.
>I don't know what "regular users" are, I have contended nothing
>about them, I don't expect inquiry on hopelessly vague terms to
>be very productive, and I've written nothing on the subject.
>I took no "position", I summarized data.  Either they replicate
>or they don't.  Sorry, not much controversy here.

But you used terms like "addiction" which clearly don't have the
same meanings between your usage and our perceptions.

>> please use drugs that affect people this way,
>> rather than affecting rats.
>Why should we limit inquiry to a particular species?

Because, while SOME results are applicable across the spectrum,
many are not.  You have not explained your commentary about
addiction among all species sufficiently to make it clear
why you think those results mean what you seem to be saying.
You haven't even made it clear what you are trying to say,
since obviously Bill and I both missed what you say is your
point.  Try restating it again.

>> I would say that the pleasure derived from the drug is more likely 
>> to lead to abuse than any addictive potential.
>Circularity time.  How do you measure pleasure?

How do you measure anything psychological?  Or do you contend
that psychology isn't science?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                           NO SMOKING.  NO SPITTING.
                                    THE MGT.
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: mcauli_t@cs.uwa.oz.au (Tim McAuliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Growing 'shrooms in rice. Repost Please!
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:58:56 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.

A few weeks ago someone posted a method for growing magic mushrooms in
rice. Stupidly, I didn't save it. Now I've got access to spore prints but no
idea how to cultivate them. Could whoever posted the info repost it or mail it
to me? It would be much appreciated!


-- 
Tim McAuliffe                   ,-_|\   Proud member of UWA Hang Gliding Club
                               /     \     "Remember when sex was safe and
Email - mcauli_t@cs.uwa.oz.au  *_,-._/      hang gliding was dangerous?"
                                    v
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: anything about DMT
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:24:23 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <oeQqwsa00iUx0462ZD@andrew.cmu.edu> ww1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Spaulding Wood) writes:

>Yet it can be manufactured in the home?

It can be made from indole in a two step process. I would not
do it at home, as some of the chemicals involved are toxic and
potentially explosive. Some friends of mine, many years ago,
whipped up 20 g in two days in an abandoned lab at MIT.

-- 
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Advertisement in the UK Times..
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.065900.7840@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>In article <70429@apple.Apple.COM> morley@Apple.COM (John Morley) writes:
>>ignorance in the UK.  I'm delighted to see the quote from Jimmy Carter.  After
>>12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayle, its damn refreshing to think back to happier
>>days when politics didn't always have to mean maximum hypocrisy.
>
>You seem to have a strange definition of hypocrisy. Bush/Reagan think drugs
>are evil and will have you locked up for selling them. Carter says they're
>ok but still locks you up. Which is the most hypocritical?

This comment is probably not worth the bandwidth, but I fail to understand 
your objection, Bob.  While president of a country which has some laws that 
suck dead toads, Carter came out and said "some of these laws suck dead 
toads".  I fail to see any hypocrisy.

I've just re-read the quote, and it's a damn powerful call for change.  I
wish I heard someone besides the Libertarians saying such things today.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick
From: u8951608@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Refluxing San Pedro
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:04:56 GMT
Organization: University of New South Wales

In article <s8nm3+d.bprofane@netcom.com>, bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
> 
> Is there any reason to expect a precipitate when refluxing San
> Pedro with methanol?  I've heard of a case where this resulted in
> an off white precipitate coming out of the methanol solution.
> Could this be alkaloids precipitating out of a saturated solution?
> Just random byproduct?  None of the extraction methods I've seen
> mention this occurring.

This surprises me somewhat - I have never seen such a preciptate,
and I can't imagine what it would be. It is VERY unlikely to be
mescaline, which is very soluble in methanol. My advice is to
filter your methanol extract prior to distillation. If you are 
paranoid, try washing the precipitate in fresh methanol.

If you have gone to the trouble of doing a methanol extraction,
you might want to go just that step further and isolate the
alkaloids. Mail me if you want details.

Jeremy
mail to: jeremy@rsc3.anu.edu.au
From: ckt4x@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Curt Tsui)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Home Appliances which get you...
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:27:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

kaw4t@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU  writes:
> 	I trying to put together a list of home products which
> a person can get high off of.  I will start the list with a couple
> of my favorites, but would really appreaciate if others would add
> theirs too.  Thanks.
> 
> Product			Usesage			Comments
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Robotussin DM		drink 4/8/12 oz		like PCP and Heroin
> Scotch Guard 3m		inhale deeply		like NO3 - be sure to
> 						get the right kind!
> Nutmeg			Smoke until happy	headache possible
> Nutmeg			drink a match box	hallucinations likely
> 			amount in water	
> Banana Peels		Smoke dried until :)	headache possible
> 
> 	Feel free to add your own...

Don't forget inhaling airplane glue or liquid paper/white-out.
Watch out with the Scotch gard 3M stuff, even tho one type
fucks you up, there's another one that doesn't.  In fact
it's possible that the good stuff doesn't even exist anymore
(they might've found out about these alternative uses and
changed the formula to another one that can't
get you high).
--

Curt Tsui            
ckt4x@Virginia.EDU   
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Freebase=Crack
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:46:17 GMT

bz206@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph Hack) writes:

>>They are the same thing, "crack" is freebase with all sorts of crap
>>(baking soda, sugar, etc), in it to bulk it up.

>One wonders why people get so many crazy ideas about drugs.  This sort of
>shit is why!  Has anyone ever found SUGAR in their crack?  I think not.
>If you are going to spread bullshit to the net, James, at least make up
>some phony references to back it up like everyone else.

    My Grandma told me all of this: she wrote a book on it.  I'd tell
you where to look it up but I forgot her name.      ;-)

    Mannitol, sucrose, dextrose, fructose and inositol are all used to
cut cocaine HCl.  Baking soda is added to make crack, so then the user
has base + baking soda + mannitol, sucrose, dextrose, fructose, inositol
or whatever cuts were present in the HCl.    To make decent base, the 
baking soda and crap are removed in the next step.  To keep it bulked up
for sale, however, this step is omitted.  The exess baking soda is left in,
along with the crap.

>The part about baking soda is true, however, but it is not added to
>"bulk it up".  The baking soda is used to remove the HCL ion from the
>the cocaine, and as with most street drugs, it is a dirty synthesis,
>so lots of baking soda ends up in the final product.

>>>	Oh and by the way what is "ice"?
>>
>>	A fantasy.  Or, according to _Time_, "an epidemic that
>>	is sweeping the country".

>Since Jim has never seen it, it is a fantasy.  I wouldn't say it is an
>epidemic, but various drugs are being sold on the street at "ice",
>In these parts, many things pass for "ice" even though nobody knows
>what "ice" is supposed to be or do for you.  Usually, what people
>call ice is actually Intellex/Aminorex.  I suspect the "ice" in other
>areas is something else altogether.  Thats what we have to put up with
>as long as drugs are illegal.

    You've seen it where you live?   I believe something(s) sold under that
name exist(s).  If one alt.druggist sees it, tries it, and posts about it,
I will stop refering to it as a fantasy epidemic.

>Joe

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: st1g9@rosie.uh.edu (Lee Preimesberger)
Subject: An Apology fot Misinformation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:26:00 GMT

	From way back - two weeks ago and before my Final-from-Hell [tm]...

Me:>	Muscarine.  A. muscaria contains little or no amatoxins.  (Unless

Petrus:>Nope, there's very little muscarine in A. muscaria (0.0002-0.0003%). The
Petrus:>main active compounds are muscimol and ibotenic acid.
Petrus:>--
Petrus:>Petrus.Pennanen@helsinki.fi

	Quite right.  Many thanks to Petrus and all of those who e-mailed
correcting me.  This was a huge error on my part - senility must be marching 
thru my cortex with hobnailed boots this Summer. :-(

			  Lee Preimesberger
st1g9@jetson.uh.edu ----- Undergraduate Scum ----- University of Houston, USA
              "I got so high - I scratched till I bled."

=========================PUBLIC PGP ENCRYPTION KEY==========================
begin 644 key.pub
MF9@`T+`_*A)0<F5I;65S8F5R9V5R+"!,967>`SD3*ML0C"E-!9F\(7&)]^H3'
M[NPCFF;=.]Z\!"<4(W]U01U(B'V!3Y?+51"EO)N7OC43]A4H!G)B%OR53:BT'
MV;4SDZ+`6*Q0*P';DR:.;,.>1]"0B-QC"/:]!GG<AYZ_X*+;W5,X-S]!K0CL8
4U[[A4YB.K9XP'L[#?UYX:"X%`!$%.
``
end

	Yet another idea stolen from Bob Cain. . .
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:09:42 GMT

In <1992Jul29.210139.2254@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>Bill Skaggs writes:
>>Jon Krueger writes:
>>   There is a class of substances whose mere exposure leads to addiction.
>> Am I misreading this, or are you saying that for some drugs
>> administering the drug to somebody without their consent
>> would cause them to be addicted?
>Close.  There are some substances that administered to the
>organism with or without its consent will eventually cause
>addiction.  The consent has nothing to do with it.  Mere
>exposure means exactly that.

Explain what you mean by "eventually".  Explain what you mean by
"addiction".  Define how extensive this "mere exposure" has to be
to be significant.  Explain why you think it matters WRT legalization
of drugs for human consumption.

>> If this is what you're saying, can you cite some evidence
>> to back it up?
>Sure.  Better yet, you can collect your own.  The procedures
>are well understood.  This particular statement admits of
>some tests that are even cheap.

That's a good argument.  "I can, but I won't, because you (even though
you aren't a psych researcher) can do it yourself."  As if Joe average
has the time to conduct his own experiments about everything.  I suppose
next we're supposed to verify quarks for ourselves if we're interested?

Try again.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: instant addiction?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:51:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:

>>The currently accepted definition of addiction is that it means being
>>willing to do things that are damaging to oneself and to others in
>>order to obtain a substance.  By this definition most of the people
>>you describe are addicted the whole time.

The DSM III-R criteria clearly seem to revolve around more than this idea
however (for substance "dependence").  The three classes of criteria appear
to revolve around:

1)  Loss of control over the use of the substance
2)  IMarked impairment in psychosocial functioning with the continued use of
the substance
3)  Physiological adaptation to the use of the substance

[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: A Chink in the armor ?
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:32:27 GMT
Reply-To: bj496%Clevaland.Freenet.Edu@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU

At a Democratic party meeting tonight, they said that they needed one
"burning issue" with which to arm Clinton to defeat King George.
I raised the spectre of civil forfeiture as that issue - not the
WoD in general, not legalization, none of those idealisms. Just
civil forfeiture. nobody had heard of it, and all were interested.
I "just happened" to have some Pittsburgh Press reprints, which
I distributed strategically. As it turned out, there was an attorney
at the meeting who is currently involved in litigating a WoD theft (oops,
I mean civil forfeiture). He was VERY interested in the PP material.

It is scary to think that the #2 political party in America, arch-enemies
of the Royalists now in power, knew nothing of the Wod's "dirty
little secret" - civil forfeiture. I suggest that it might be time
and money well spent in educating the Dems to this issue, since
they desperately need SOMETHING if they are to defeat, or even stem the tide,
of Royalist/Republican/Bush forces. Spend a little time/money/effort
and spread the word. It may not be defeating the WoD - but then it might.
At least raising this issue before the elections might a) deprive the
WoD of one of their most trusted terror weapons, and it could
conceivably bring the entire WoD under political scrutiny and into disfavor.
not the concept of drug avoidance, but the current execution of the Plan.
That, at least, would be something, but it must be done as a separate issue
from legalization, medicalization, etc. leave all the "but it's not
fair" and "hemp for victory" rhetoric at home. Concentrate on the idea
that, while convincing people not to do drugs may be morally high ground
(in the hearts and minds of the voters) the way it is being done,
using SECRET TRIALS, administrative terrorism and civil forfeiture
wherein the police profit from whatever they steal 9oops, I mean confiscate)
is UN-AMERICAN. Nobody wants to think their brother, son or father
fought, possibly died, in whatever war to allow that sort of thing to
happen here.

Fruitless idealism, or political realities - possibly a political victory
(but certainly not for the libertarians). your choice.

W. K. Gorman

PGP public key available on request - .sig under repair.
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 08:50:06 GMT

s7356911@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (I WISH IT WAS A CHOICE BETWEEN GEORGE CLINTON AND KATE BUSH) writes:

>In article <1992Jul26.145826.15707@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes...
>>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!
>	Actually, a more techincal def'n (and less pejorative) would be
>someone who has to keep taking a substance to keep from experiencing 
>withdrawal symptoms (e.g., DT's in alcoholism).  

Is this really a technical definition of "addict"? The situation described
is a DEPENDENCY. A person in such a situation would be *dependent* on the
substance in question. This does not imply that he/she is *addicted* to
the stuff (unless "dependency" and "addiction" are considered to be two
different ways of describing the exact same thing.)

>(in spite of all that ``psychologically addictive'' bull$H|+ I've heard).

B.s.? I think psychological addiction is very real. (That's what I mean
whenever *I* use the word "addiction"--a psychological craving for a
substance, independent of either tolerance or dependence, i.e., a purely
mental phenomena.) It seems to be about the only explanation in the case,
for example, of a person who returns to using (or abusing) a substance
after many years of being "clean."

-- 
Keith_Lim@sfu.ca   Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada
Forum (Cog Sci); Senate; CDSU; ASC. ...but all opinions are my own only.

"...with a stroke of love on the canvas of my soul, I'm painting a perfect
 world with shades of Michaelangelo. With each promise made in every heart
 that knows, we can live in a perfect world in shades of Michaelangelo."
           --Belinda Carlisle & Charlotte Calley, "Shades of Michaelangelo"
From: rlk@cmptrc.lonestar.org (R-L-K)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: What Do YOU Think.
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:30:16 GMT
Organization: cmptrc.lonestar.org


In article <lamontg.712103623@milton> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>                        ... just to experiment with the effect of massive
>dopamine release on my brain -- I'd also like to experience the kind of
>euphoric pleasure associated with large doses of it, in order to test if it
>is truely *that* addictive or if I've been fed a line of bullshit.  LSD I
>would use under semi-controlled conditions as a tool to knock down and
>expose psychological walls in my mind, or in order to get different and
>extraordinarly lucid perspectives on various parts of the world.  MDMA I would
>take for both recreational purposes and to fascilitate communication between
>someone I knew.
>

Given that you're experimenting on the same brain that you're using to analyze 
the results, this sounds like an exercise in futility.  (Kinda like making mods
to a scope, then using that scope to check itself.)  What's wrong with
just enjoying being fucked up?


-- 
____
\  /  rlk@cmptrc.lonestar.org
 \/ 
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,sci.psychology,talk.politics.drugs
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:12:18 GMT

jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:

>David Vessell writes:
>> exposure to a substance does not guarantee addiction.
>
>Depends on the substance and the exposure.
>
>Which is all I said.

Uh huh.  What you said is that there is a class of substances where 'mere
exposure' causes addiction.  So which is it?

I stand by my statement that no substance can cause 'instant addiction',
whether it be physical resonance or compulsion to use.  For those
substances that can cause physical resonance, the exposure required is
considerable (heavy use for weeks for opiates, years for alcohol).  Even
those substances that cause compulsion to use rather quickly.....the
substance with the highest potential for abuse (a measure of how easily a
substance can produce a compulsion to use in a typical person) is nicotine.
If you smoke once, you're not hooked.  You most likely have to smoke for a
few days or so to find any difficulty in stopping.  Using cocaine once has
never caused a person to be 'addicted' by any definition, or at least there
aren't any documented cases.

-- 
=========*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: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 01:17:49 -0500

dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:

>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

	[...]

>>I agree that such a person might become psychologically addicted upon the
>>first usage and thus be clinically addicted. It is also one of the reasons
>>why I have stated, many times, that addiction does not equal abuse. In
>>some cases, addiction could actually be better for a person than not taking
>>some drug in the first place.

>I agree that a lot of this is a matter of semantics.  To me, 'addicted'
>implies that certain behaviour is conditioned to the point of compulsion and,
>by that definition, it can't happen in one trial.  At the very least, a person
>would have to use a drug 3-4 times to set up the compulsion.

Although I tend to agree with statement, I should point out that there
is a phenomenon called the Garcia Effect (I trust I got that right).
In essense, a conditioned response can be set up after only one trial.
The effect is observed when animals are given "tainted" food.  There
is no need to further condition them against that particular food, the
one trial suffices.  When this phenomenon was first observed, it 
created a great deal of consternation among the behaviorists.  I'll
leave it to others on the net more familiar with the field to comment
but, suffice that it is not unreasonable to posit a mechanism that
"instantly" conditions a response given that such an effect has already
been observed.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:00:31 -0400 
From: "Alan S. Ferrency" <af1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: MAO Inhibitors

Hello.
I know in the Natural Highs FAQ there are a list of things not to eat when
taking MAO Inhibitor drugs, and there are warnings on the drugs presented there
as to whether they are MAOIs or not.  I was wondering if anyone can tell me any
drugs (or foods or plants containins such drugs, I would prefer) that are MAO
inhibitors.  Specifically, I'm looking for ones not mentioned in the Natural
Highs FAQ, preferrably widely available, or at least legal, sources.  Thank you
very much.


-me
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Drug testing and life insurance
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:53:26 GMT

In article 1301300174@igc.org, canorml@igc.org (NORML California) writes:
>
>  Lots of life insurance companies are requiring urine testing for
>applicants, despite the fact that there isn't an iota of statistical 
>evidence that m.j. smokers have shorter life expectancies.

That's because insurance companies are rotten bastards.

---
gak
107/H/3&4

Newsgroups: alt.drugs