HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtymp15@staff.tc.umn.edu (David Hutton)
Subject: Recipe FAQ (woops)
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:14:49 GMT

To: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org
Subject: Re: READ THIS!!!  Mj-Recipe FAQ
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Organization: University of Minnesota
Cc:
Bcc:
 
In article <1992Oct14.124548.10076@linus.mitre.org> you write:
>In article <mtymp15.718941764@staff.tc.umn.edu>, mtymp15@staff.tc.umn.edu (Davi
d Hutton) writes:
IThanks
>>I am proposing to be the "archiver" of a marijuana recipe FAQ.  I need people
>
>Have you read FAQ-MJ-consumption and marijuana-consumption?  Both already
 
>exist in the directory /public/alt.drugs on milton.u.washington.edu.
 
Yes, I have.  Already I have recieved some imaginative recipes that I have
never seen posted or FAQed anywhere.  This collection will be a nice change
from the "oh... just fry it in butter for a couple minutes" responses that
are too common.  One interesting idea is a stir-fry vegie thang which I
tried and flew for 10 hours on.  Really tasted good, I cooked it in the]
Wok and cut the vegies with a Ginsu (tm) knife.
 
I repeat:
 
        If you or anyone directly (your grandma) or indirectly (your
        pet poodle) you are related to has a recipe or concept for the
        utilization of the magic erb in cooking for pleasure, please
        send it to:
 
                mtymp15@staff.tc.umn.edu      (or)
                mtymp15@epx.cis.umn.edu
 
Thanks to all who have already sent me mail... now all you amotivational
slugs, whip out your adrenaline reserves and type me a message!

-- 
It is better to light a candle then to curse the darkness....
mtymp15@epx.cis.umn.edu  OR  muffman@tfsquad.mn.org

meow
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: lamontg@carson.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Safrole
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:11:36 GMT

johnf@cislabs.pitt.edu (Jack Faley) writes:
>  Has anyone tried to extract safrole from Sassafrass roots?  What kind of
>yield should be expected?

Ditto for Nutmeg.  (Hey, I'm reading through lots of CA's but I don't have
time to check out everything).

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds."
                                      -- Principia Discordia
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.elections
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:13:49 GMT

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
: 
: Then, we need a reason why the government should *categorically* be unable
: to prohibit other "voluntary" agreements--like drug testing (going back to
: the original question).

Why should the government be able to do so - as long as they are part of an
agreement between the employee and the employer?

... deleted ...

: And, going to back to drug testing, as more and more companies require this,
: don't you think that more and more workers (professional, talented, or
: otherwise) will decide that they have no choice but to tolerate it if they
: wish to work?

Not if they are smart. That is where closed shop states have an advantage.
You must be union to work. Now, if the talented professionals could manage
to refuse to work - then such companies would go broke, because their less
restrictive competitors would be getting all the talented employees.

: >	Given that such practices would be publically known, do you think
: >	such an employer would be sucessful in attracting purchasers of
: >	his goods and/or services to the extent that his business would thrive
: >	and grow?
: 
: This is funny.  History shows that when you have a good price, people don't
: much care how bad the working conditions were.

Often true.

: Have you ever decided not to buy a product because you knew/thought it was
: made by employess working in awful conditions with extremely low wages, or
: even by prison labor?

Yes - I have. So have many others.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.atheism,talk.politics.drugs
Newsgroups: alt.drugs

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Clinton: "I am adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs!"
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:59:27 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>It may be a breakthrough that drug legalization was brought up in a presidential
>debate, but it's even more of a breakthrough that both the bipartisan monopoly
>and the "Independent" proved themselves to be pure irrational, fascist
>supporters of the drug jihad.

>Clinton said that he knows the most about drugs because of his brother.  He
>didn't even know enough to inhale!  I've had friends and acquaintances who've
>been imprisoned for drug possession.  The USA has the highest incarceration
>rate in the world!  The price of cocaine has gone down, the supply is up,
>police seize the property of innocent people...

>I'm mad.  This is intolerable.

I'm voting Libertarian; I encourage all of you to do the same.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.atheism,talk.politics.drugs
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: We'll all burn in hell!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:51:41 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <j1moody-131092233325@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>What, do you think Catholics don't ever toke up?
	Not if they listen to the church.  Of course if they don't listen
	to the church then they become the sort of Roman Catholic that 
	I am---apostate is the quaint little word the church uses.  ;-)

>There are a lot of people who pay attention to what the pope said. Maybe
>they aren't in your circle of acquaintances, but they're out there.
	No they're not in my circle of acquaintances they are among my 
	relatives.  Although, in actual fact, the majority of American
	catholics that I know pay very little attention to the silliness
	to come out of Rome.  They put their envelopes in the basket and
	go to communion and let the Pope rattle on.

>Yeah, one question: Is it too much to ask to respect other people's
>religion?
	Which other people?  (Read above if it isn't clear) 

>Or does that require you to act too much like an open-minded person?
	Sister Lucille didn't teach me to be open minded, she said
	that you can't be open minded about sin. ;-)


						smg


Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: ap.1060@cupid.sai.com (Anonymous)
Subject: [anonymous] Somalian leaf
Originator: lamontg@hardy.u.washington.edu
Keywords: anonymous
Reply-To: ap.1060@cupid.sai.com
Organization: Somewhere
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:48:45 GMT


Some friends were talking about a leaf that they thought comes from
Somalia.  Chewing this is supposed to give you a really amazing high, and
they thought that it was not yet banned in Canada (or North America???).
They weren't sure what it was called but they thought it was CAT or CAG. 
Does this make any sense or am i way off base?  I would appreciate a
posting to clear this up.  Thanks.

-- 
To post anonymously to alt.drugs send a message to ap.4151@cupid.sai.com.
All lines after a line containing only "--" will be stripped.
Remember:  These articles are anonymous, but not secure. 
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: JJACO02@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Jacoby, James Derek)
Subject: Re: [anonymous] Re: Nitrous Oxide
Organization: Rice University  
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:15:55 GMT

  There is no personal experience involved here, but I thought that the use of
a micronox torch was simply as a method for getting the N2O out of the cartridg
e by replacing the butane cartridge with an N2O cartridge. I certainly don't th
ink that it was ever suggested that you inhale either of the gases in the micro
nox torch.
 --Derek
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Clinton: "I am adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs!"
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.010618.6104@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
>I don't follow the corrupt
>politics of IL anymore since I escaped that most hideous of all states*.
>
>Jim Del Vecchio
>
>* hyperbole, but surely close after NJ and CA.

	Gee, uh... *thanks* Jim...
From: wolffie@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: War on drunk driving fails
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:58:20 GMT
Reply-To: wolffie@u.washington.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington

In article <1992Oct15.084752.43867@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>  
dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> From NEWSWEEK: October 19, 1992 pg. 8.  Printed without permission.
> [deletion]
> 
> What?  You mean jail won't cure an alcoholic?  Better start
> confiscating those cars and houses!  We do know how to turn a drunken 
> bum into a homeless drunken bum.
 
Let's see, last two I heard about were a mother of five kids killed on her  
traffic-flagging construction job and a pregnant mother of two who broke all  
four limbs (crush injuries) two days before she was to be remarried (the  
drunks were out of jail before she was out of intensive care).  Both kids in  
the back seat suffered severe injuries, too.

Hang the bastards. 

John Wolff
From: honig@aster.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Subject: Re: talking to kids
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Reply-To: honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Organization: UC Disneyland, in the Kingdom of Bren
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:36:43 GMT
Distribution: na

 mrc65@cas.org () writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.214221.16595@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> brooks@ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin D Brooks) writes:
>>
>>My kids are presently 11 and 15 years old...well past the start of being
>>curious about everything that goes on in mom and dad's life.  A few years
>>back my theory was that "well, maybe this just say no thing isn't such a
>>bad idea".  I mean, seriously, kids are better off if they do "just say no".
>
>I have a *bright* 7-year-old that was indoctrinated into the 'Just Say No'
>crap earlier this year in his school.
>
>Me: Well, son, what was the best thing you learned in school today?
>Him: I learned how to just say no.
>Me: Just say no to what?
>Him: To drugs
>Me: Oh, what are drugs?
>Him: They're things that are against the law and kill you.
>
>The point here is that the schools don't teach what *drugs* really are. I went
>on to explain to him that anything that someone puts into their body that isn't
>food or drink could be considered a drug. When he takes his vitamins, when mom
>smokes a cigarette, when I take an aspirin, we are taking drugs. The important
>thing to teach children is not the government's warped attitude and mission,
>but that anything that goes into your body is going to affect it in some way,
>and that the individual must take the responsibility to find out what the effect
>will be (hopefully through reading, not experimentation).
>
>MRC
>--
>Michael R. Cirivello (mrc65@cas.org)
>Librarian/Info Junkie                        Just say Know!
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>MST3KTalkingHeadsDavid ByrneLittleFeatMacintoshNORMLPoliticallyIncorrect

Children shouldn't take drugs.  Children shouldn't have sex.  Children
shouldn't operate heavy machinery.  Children should heed wise adults
advice.

Adults can take drugs, have sex, and operate machinery if they want to.
Adults should think critically about their actions and about what they're
told, and have an obligation to make decisions for themselves.

Now, are you a child, or an adult?  And how does your government treat you?

--
David "Dances with Motion Sensors" Honig

"Everybody here is part of my work.  Even those who don't want to be are
part of my work." ---Christo
From: honig@aster.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Subject: Re: LSD Flashbacks?
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Reply-To: honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Organization: UC Disneyland, in the Kingdom of Bren
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:32:04 GMT

 ganz@resumix.portal.com (Jonathan Ganz) writes:
>John, this is all well and good if you insist (rather stiffly) that
>the walls are in fact not breathing.  What if they are and the LSD
>allows you to see it under its special circumstances....you see the
>paradigm shift I take it.
>
>My experience is that this is a pretty strange world and there's
>no sure way of telling what's what except by general agreement.
>
>Jonathan
>

Another mind ruined by a liberal education...

--
David "Dances with Motion Sensors" Honig

"Everybody here is part of my work.  Even those who don't want to be are
part of my work." ---Christo
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Re: Destructive Drug Rehab programs
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.034313.12427@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tkirby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Kirby) writes:
> 
>      I feel there can be only one reason to bar visitors and open mail,
> and that is to conceal some form of wrongdoing.  I don't know if the
> program an aquaintance of mine was related, but it was a rip-off.

Presumably they want to cut off all the other influences which might work 
against their brainwashing.
  
>      In no other area of medicine is anyone required to submit to such
> humiliating treatment.  

You mean drug.rehab *is* an area of medicine?

Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
                  New Zealand

Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Request for cite ... "crack babies"
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:56:20 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

"Paul Hager" (hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>I seem to have lost my cite for the metasurvey that invalidated 
>the assertion that thousands of crack babies were being born.
>Could some kind soul please post?  

Fun with the text grabber:

>From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
>Subject: Re: "crack babies"
>Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
>Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 05:56:43 GMT
>
>Here are a few references found after about 30 seconds online.
>
>Author: Koren-G. Graham K.
>Institution: Department of Pediatrics & Research Institute,
>              Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>Article Title: Cocaine in Pregnancy: Analysis of Fetal Risk
>Source: Vet-Hum-Toxicol.  1992 Jun.  34(3).  P 263-4
>Abstract: During the last decades there has been a substantial
>              increase in the recreational use of cocaine in young
>              adults and parallelly there has been an increase in
>              its use by pregnant women. We analyzed all published
>              papers on cocaine use in pregnancy and found that
>              for most endpoints studied (eg, prematurity, head
>              circumference) there were many studies showing
>              effects and many showing no effects.  Upon meta-
>              analysis, most of the effects could not be shown
>              significant when compared to control groups.  In
>              a prospective study in Toronto, babies exposed to
>              cocaine during the first trimester only had Bayley
>              scores at 18-mo of life that were identical to
>              unexposed babies or to those exposed to canabinoids.
>              Motherisk presently counsels women who discontinue
>              cocaine use in the first trimester of pregnancy that
>              there is no increased developmental risk for the baby.
>
>Author: Neuspiel-D-R
>Title: Cocaine-Associated Abnormalities May Not Be Causally Related.
>Source: Am-J-Dis-Child. 1992 Mar. 146(3). P 278-9
>
>Author: Mayes-L-C. Granger-R-H. Bornstein-M-H. Zuckerman-B.
>Institution: Yale Study Center, New Haven, Conn 06510
>Title: The Problem of Prenatal Cocaine Exposure. A Rush to Judgement
>References: Review Article: 43 refs.
>Source: JAMA.  1992 Jan 15.  267(3).  P 406-8
>
>...
>Bill

There was also a good column by Joanne Jacobs around late July/early 
Aug 1991 that debunked the statistical side of the CB epidemic.

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Marijuana Myths (repost)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:00:20 GMT

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
: In article <1992Oct15.013018.13346@news2.cis.umn.edu>,
: mtymp15@staff.tc.umn.edu (David Hutton) wrote:
: > 3. Marijuana is a "gateway" drug -- it leads to hard drugs
: > 
: > 	This is one of the more persistent myths.  
: 
: This is a myth only where Ganja is decriminalized. As long as pot is
: illegal, it is most definitely a gate-way drug because it introduces
: one to the illegal underground. 

Bah! So does drinking milk as a baby. Maybe we should prohibit that,
as well.

Bill
From: honig@aster.ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Subject: Re: LSD FlashBacks?
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Reply-To: honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig)
Organization: UC Disneyland, in the Kingdom of Bren
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:24:24 GMT

 lamontg@carson.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>T. Peter Leone <IO20823@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>> Could you elaborate on the physiology of LSD please
>>and what are the long term effects of LSD, and are they positive or negative
>>because I think that I feel the effects of having used LSD, I think that I have
>> become a lot more paranoid since using it and I just wanted to know your opini
>>on.  I also find that some people who use LSd do very well in school, and other
>>s don't seem to be able to function in our society.  Why is this?
>
>You might consider not using LSD in the future.  The psychological effect of
>LSD (its intensity, etc) can induce a schizophrenic break in those who
>are already susceptible to schizophrenia.  Increased paranoia could be a
>sign that you're having small breaks into schizophrenia, and one thing that
>you want to avoid is a trip that sends you into a first full-blown break.
>Impossible to diagnose you over the net, but its something you might
>consider.
>
>--
>Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu

Hi, Lamont, I think you're going too far when you mention forays into schizo.
But you're right in dissuading the poster, because paranoia (for any reason)
and LSD (industrial-strength ego-stripper) don't mix.

dh
--
David "Dances with Motion Sensors" Honig

"Everybody here is part of my work.  Even those who don't want to be are
part of my work." ---Christo
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom)
Subject: Re: Clinton: "I am adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs!"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:54:29 GMT

In article <1688113D0C.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (
avid Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.003834.4564@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom) writes:
>
>> About the gun control think I started:
>>
>> OK, goddammit, I hate Democrats (the party I mean) and I hate Republic
ns
>>even more (just because). They are both worthless parties and I refuse 
o
>>vote for either one of them. Even though it looks like Marrou won't be
>>elected, I will most likely vote for him because it's more within my
>>principles. Then when either asshole is in office, I can say, "I didn't
>>vote for the bastard!" and take whatever action necessary to keep my
>>freedoms that the Constitution _doesn't_ and _can't_ guarantee. (Our
>>Constitution is a mockery and has never been applied the way it should 
e.
>>paper does not guarantee freedoms...)
>
>     You certainly can't say he isn't passionate about his beliefs.
>
>> Perhaps my earlier babblings were a tad askew. I've always been
>>frustrated that the Libertarian party hssn't gotten its balance yet. I'
l
>>be glad when thewy finally catch hold of the voting public. Their being
>>refused entry in the debates, in my opinion, was illegal, pure and simp
e.
>
>     The organization running the debates is a private corporation.  As 
uch
>they can invite who they want, when they want, period.  The debates are 
not*
>a government function.  Much as I'd like to see Mr. Marrou up there with
>the other candidates, they have every *legal* right to exclude and ignor

>him.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Gro
p
>               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
>               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu



 Somehow I got the idea that every candidate was to be allowed equal time.
This may be a complete fabrication that I put together in my head. Bah! I
think I'll go back and be quiet about the whole damn thing. I never
realise how much it gets under my skin until I start ranting and raving in
a post... OK, I'm calm now... :-)

St. Anthony

--
    Pass the mustard, Lewis!                      |  
                                                  |  aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu
    ClCH=CH-AsCl2  <-- "This will have to do..."  |
                                                  |
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: baillod@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)
Subject: Re: Clinton: "I am adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs!"
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.212254.11624@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>I think that this validates my observation on Clinton -- that he
>is emotional and irrational on this issue because of his step-father's
>alcoholism and his half-brother's cocaine use.  I don't think 

That's the way it looks to me too.

>For what it's worth, I think that the "winner" of the debate was
>Perot.  Clinton played rope-a-dope most of the time but did get in
>a few zingers -- with help from H. Ross.  Bush was relaxed -- laid

I agree with one of the commentators on PBS--Perot appeared unPresidential,
hokey, and small-townish, and sounded simplistic and uninformed, especially
when it came to foreign issues.  Now, maybe the American people are a little
simplistic themselves, but they can tell when somebody is giving a good
answer.  Perot's answers were good only 25% of the time.

From the sound of the candidates' positions on legalization, it doesn't
look as though there'll be too much leadership on the Presidential
level for the legalization cause.  But then, is that really where you'd
expect it to come from?  I think legalization will exist as a grass roots
movement if it is to exist at all.

-- 
Brad Baillod						baillod@eecs.umich.edu
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom)
Subject: Re: SEX AND DRUGS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 22:54:30 GMT


 OK OK don't anybody flame this guy. Even if it isn't true, it was a good
story. NOw if it IS true... What possessed you to do all of those drugs at
once? I mean DMT alone is enough to blow most people away...

St. Anthony

--
        CH3  O            CH(CH3)2        |      dadaMatrix
           >-P-S-CH2CH2-N<            VX  |                       
    CH3CH2O               CH(CH3)2        |     aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu
                                          | A kinder gentler lobotomy...
Newsgroups: alt.drugs