bobm@rtech.UUCP (Bob Mcqueer) (09/15/86)
> p.s. I'm forwarding this to net.rec.drugs and talk.politics.misc. Followups > should go there. My apologies for continuing in net.general, but this is a topic I would like to see aired on the net. Trouble is, net.rec.drugs hasn't had any news in it here for months. I think several sites, including someone upstream of us, killed this group. talk.politics.misc doesn't exist according to our active file. I guess this is a plea to those sites that squelched net.rec.drugs to view it as a misnamed net.drugs&society rather than net.have-you-done-this- stuff? though there will undoubtedly be elements of both in any discussions arising there. I know net.rec.drugs was raked across the coals ad-nauseum a few months back, and I don't like the thought that I'm triggering another round of it, but I do think that in light of current events it is appropriate for there to be SOME newsgroup for discussion of the interaction of society with various illegal AND legal conciousness-altering substances. BTW, MY followups are directed to net.news.group -- Bob McQueer {amdahl, sun, mtxinu, hoptoad, cpsc6a}!rtech!bobm
abc@brl-smoke.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (09/16/86)
Please keep this discussion in net.general. Some of us work at sites
funded by public money. At such sites, groups like net.rec..xxx and
talk.xxx are filtered from the users because they are not relevant to
our "official" duties. Yet, many of us may be the first targets of the
latest witch hunt, the likes of which the country may not have seen
since the activity of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. The group
net.general may be the only way we can discuss how we can protect
ourselves from careless or erroneously performed lab studies and other
attacks on us.
--
Brint Cooper
ARPA: abc@brl.arpa
UUCP: ...{seismo,unc,decvax,cbosgd}!brl-smoke!abcjpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (09/22/86)
Excuse the followup to net.general. In article <3874@brl-smoke.ARPA> abc@brl.arpa (Brint Cooper) writes: >Please keep this discussion in net.general. Some of us work at sites >funded by public money. At such sites, groups like net.rec..xxx and >talk.xxx are filtered from the users because they are not relevant to >our "official" duties. Net.general is not a catch-all - it is intended as a forum for items of interest to the ENTIRE user community. If you WERE to choose a newsgroup for this purpose, net.misc might serve better. In any case, if a site chooses not to carry a particular newsgroup - that is their prerogative, and you are free to seek employment elsewhere. Please do NOT clutter up newsgroups that you CAN receive with inapproprate junk: The whole point of the newsgroup system is to allow users to subscribe (or unsubscribe) to discussions that they are (un)interested in. Would you prefer it if your employer chose not to receive "net.general" anymore because of the volume of "drug related" traffic?! If you want to discuss a topic, and your site does not receive the approprate group, either 1. start a mailing list, 2. petition your employer, or 3. subscribe to compuserve (or any other pay Bulletin Board service) that allows any access you want (since you are paying for it).
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/23/86)
In article <273@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >BTW, I believe the drug discussion merits its own talk group, as it >will become a major focus in the months and years ahead. I'd like it >not to get lost amid the other political, legal, social, and medical >topics. I agree. I hear that 3 *BILLION* $$ has now been pledged to this holy crusade against pushers dealers and smugglers. I am also concerned about efforts to censor sexual entertainment and music lyrics, but I'm not sure how big that effort will still be after the November elections. The "drug war" apparently is not going to just evaporate, with that kind of funding. And many of the subscribers to this network may soon be pressured into (or threatened with loss of job) "voluntary" participation in unreliable drug tests with little or no assurance of rational and humane response to the results (assuming the result is positive and is not false, is there a drug treatment program without a lengthy waiting period? Will the victim .. er, I mean convict .. be subjected to harrasment if not fired outright? And remember, some of these tests respond to Advil and other legal drugs). This could be you and me, not "them", not just army recruits and air traffic controllers and senators and doctors. Lots of companies will be tempted to use urinalysis, based on wishful- thinking about its accuracy. This is not just a hypothetical moral issue, this is a major threat of ruined lives and careers, a serious issue *even if the drug tests were infallible*. Further discussion is very appropriate. Some on drug testing (reliability, ethics if it *were* reliable, alternatives that check actual alertness, current legal and union challenges ... etc); some on legalization, some on drug war as smoke screen, some on identifying what representitives and senators lean for and against various measures, ... and more. What to call it? I suggest: 'talk.drugwar' (or dwar, for short?) (talk, or net??) I sort of like 'net.repression', but that is a bit *too* slanted toward my own perspective. Likewise 'witch-hunt', 'smokescreen','folly' (I think Prohibition was called "Willard's Folly" or some such?), etc. Please note that my followup line is to net.news.group; edit it if you wish to respond to drug topic rather than to group creation. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Cocaine is God's way of telling you you've got too damn much money" (... I think by Robin Williams, in his act).