williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (02/07/90)
What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? With the increased public awareness of the drug issue: drug abuse, drug testing, drug wars, it seems it has become very much a social issue, affecting our society more and more every day. In alt.drugs, alot of the discussion tends towards comments about the drug war, how it affects our day-to-day lives, how it is affecting the constitution, etc. Current conditions and policies are comparable to prohibition and other less favorable times. A 'mainstream' group to discuss societal impact might be a good addition. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (02/07/90)
In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > > What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? [much deleted] > A 'mainstream' group to discuss societal impact might be a good >addition. > Good group, bad name. This sounds like a perfect candidate for 'talk.politics.drugs', with the other highly-charged political issues. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
rwilliam@grebyn.com (Roger Williams) (02/07/90)
In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > > What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? > Actually, I've been thinking for some time now that talk.drugs would be a good idea. Articles on drugs have virtually taken over misc.legal and constitute a goodly portion of the traffic in talk.politics.misc. The issue certainly appears suited for the "talk" hierarchy. It's a single issue which seems to generate more heat than light. I've been reluctant to propose it myself, however, because of the recent creation of talk.rape and talk.politics.guns didn't seem to have much effect in eliminating traffic in other newsgroups on these subjects. Roger Williams rwilliam@grebyn.com
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (02/07/90)
How about rec.drugs?
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/07/90)
If a group is created to discuss drug issues, I think the term
"issues" should be in the name of the group, to make it clear that
discussion of where to get, how to use, and what it did still belongs in
alt.drugs.
I don't see any need for this group, but I certainly don't oppose it
as long as the name makes the purpose so clear that a manager can
understand at a glance.
--
bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -meaem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (02/07/90)
In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) writes: > What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? > With the increased public awareness of the drug issue: drug >abuse, drug testing, drug wars, it seems it has become very much a >social issue, affecting our society more and more every day. > In alt.drugs, alot of the discussion tends towards comments about >the drug war, how it affects our day-to-day lives, how it is affecting >the constitution, etc. Current conditions and policies are comparable >to prohibition and other less favorable times. > A 'mainstream' group to discuss societal impact might be a good >addition. I suspect the net isn't ready for it, but cases could be made for a whole range of groups: soc.drugs - The effects of drug use on society, the responses of society toward users/abusers of drugs, etc. rec.drugs - recreational uses of drugs rec.drugs.tobacco - The second most popular drug in the US rec.drugs.alcohol - relative merit of MD20/20 vs. Night Train? the most popular drug in the US rec.drugs.grass - Use of C. Sativa, C. Indica, and the other species whose name I always forget, along with prepared forms of the above, e.g. Hashish, Bhang, Charas, and so on. rec.drugs.coca - Coca leave chewing and associated derivative forms such as cocaine, and crack. soc.religion.drug - discussions of the "drug cults", historical perspectives on drug use in religion, e.g. drug use in early christian churches talk.religion.drug - discussions about modern drug cults and drug use as a mean of finding god, or equiv. sci.ethnopharmacology - studies re traditional uses of plants misc.legal.drugs - legal aspects of drug use aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion Capitalist democracy..must devise means to marginalize the population and exclude it from participation. The whole point of capitalist democracy is to ensure that private power rules. - Noam Chomsky
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (02/08/90)
From article <19349@grebyn.com>, by rwilliam@grebyn.com (Roger Williams): > In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >> >> What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? >> > Actually, I've been thinking for some time now that talk.drugs > would be a good idea. Articles on drugs have virtually taken > over misc.legal and constitute a goodly portion of the traffic in > talk.politics.misc. The issue certainly appears suited for the > "talk" hierarchy. It's a single issue which seems to generate How about misc.legal.drugs or talk.politics.drugs. This will keep out discussion of the practice of using drugs, which will make system administrators happy and is why alt.drugs was put in alt in the first place. If you make it look like it is discussing the legal issues surrounding drugs or the politics of drugs, you'll have a better shot than something like rec.drugs. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. sullivan@aqdata.uucp San Dimas, CA +1 714 599 9992
tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) (02/08/90)
In article <1990Feb7.030722.15380@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >> >> What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? > [much deleted] >> A 'mainstream' group to discuss societal impact might be a good >>addition. >> >Good group, bad name. This sounds like a perfect candidate for >'talk.politics.drugs', with the other highly-charged political >issues. I know this sounds silly, but if we could keep the word 'drug' out of it, it might just stand a chance of being available in the UK. Alt.drugs is censored by the UK backbone, and my hunch is that the name upset The Powers That Be there. Alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage are similarly censored. I may be mistaken. If the charter was carefully worded, we might stand a chance. Tim. -- Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...!ukc!axion!its!tjo ``Asking questions is the best way to get answers.'' --- Philip Marlowe.
dfl@Think.COM (David Lively) (02/08/90)
In article <1990Feb7.030722.15380@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > > What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? [much deleted] > A 'mainstream' group to discuss societal impact might be a good >addition. > Good group, bad name. This sounds like a perfect candidate for 'talk.politics.drugs', with the other highly-charged political issues. This sounds like a great idea. It would make some of the alt.drugs purists happy by removing the political discussions. Being in the mainstream groups would probably result in more diversity, so we (some of us) won't do as much "preaching to the choir". Of course, this might cause AT&T to drop Usenet entirely :-) David
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/08/90)
In article <DFL.90Feb7151324@agrius.think.com> dfl@Think.COM (David Lively) writes: > This sounds like a great idea. It would make some of the alt.drugs purists > happy by removing the political discussions. And make others upset by removing any excuse for getting alt.drugs at their site. I proposed an alt.drugs.politics a while ago, until this point was brought up. Personally I'd like to see this group. Apart from the political flame wars, alt.drugs is more fun than reading Castenada. I do think it'd be a problem for a large subset of the readership, though. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (02/08/90)
In article <N85+{=@masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk> tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes: [propsals for *.[*.].drugs] > >I know this sounds silly, but if we could keep the word 'drug' out >of it, it might just stand a chance of being available in the UK. >Alt.drugs is censored by the UK backbone, and my hunch is that the >name upset The Powers That Be there. Alt.sex and alt.sex.bondage are >similarly censored. > It is silly-- talk.politics.drugs is the appropriate name, and if the powers that be there can't accept it, it is because they truly don't want any discourse on drugs. This group wouldn't be on drugs and how to use them, it would be on the drug problem and how to stop it, the side-effects of the so-called War on Drugs, etc, etc. If the UK backbone wants to censor that, their users will recognize that they AREN'T censoring it because of the word 'drugs' in there. But, if you want to be cryptic and really think it will fool the UK censors, try talk.politics.cds (for Controlled Dangerous Substances) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/08/90)
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: }From article <19349@grebyn.com>, by rwilliam@grebyn.com (Roger Williams): }> In article <131328@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: }>> }>> What does anyone think about the idea of a soc.drugs newsgroups? }>> }> Actually, I've been thinking for some time now that talk.drugs }> would be a good idea. Articles on drugs have virtually taken }> over misc.legal and constitute a goodly portion of the traffic in }> talk.politics.misc. The issue certainly appears suited for the }> "talk" hierarchy. It's a single issue which seems to generate }How about misc.legal.drugs or talk.politics.drugs. As for naming and intent, I think that either of those would be great places for the group to end up. Much of the debate on drug policy really properly belongs in talk.politics.drugs, but actually quite a lot of it [and more, I would prefer!] discusses really legal matters: questions of privacy, due process, judicial precedents, etc, and so it wouldn't be completely inappropriate in the 'legal' part of the hierarchy. Altogether, though, I'd think that talk.politics.drugs is probably its most apprpriate home. Was there a formal "call for discussion" back at the beginning of this thread? If not, someone should start the clock on a real discussion-period. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02138 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (02/10/90)
Well, I really had hoped that the group would be more used to
spread light & information than heat. Something like a forum for
what is happening, what knew things are being done to fight drugs and
how it is affecting our freedoms. Also information like the recently
posted article on the real causes of violence in relation to drugs,
etc.
Is it possible to have such a group, or do people think that
talk.politics.drugs is the only way to go?
-wat-
--- An it harm none, do what you will.russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (02/10/90)
In article <131548@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > > Well, I really had hoped that the group would be more used to >spread light & information than heat. Something like a forum for >what is happening, what knew things are being done to fight drugs and >how it is affecting our freedoms. Also information like the recently >posted article on the real causes of violence in relation to drugs, >etc. > > Is it possible to have such a group, or do people think that >talk.politics.drugs is the only way to go? > >-wat- > > --- An it harm none, do what you will. It's all political. Everything you mentioned has an equivalent in talk.politics.guns, so I'd say a group for discussing what you mention would be talk.politics.drugs. Of course, there will always be the anti-drug fanatics who will spread heat instead of light and information, insist that you don't need these freedoms, and insist that drugs cause violence. But hey, you post your articles and you take your chances. If you want a pro-legalization group to spread that sort of information, you should probably do it as a moderated group. (soc.drugs might be acceptable in that case) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (02/10/90)
In article <131548@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) writes: > Well, I really had hoped that the group would be more used to >spread light & information than heat. Something like a forum for >what is happening, what knew things are being done to fight drugs and >how it is affecting our freedoms. Also information like the recently >posted article on the real causes of violence in relation to drugs, >etc. > Is it possible to have such a group, or do people think that >talk.politics.drugs is the only way to go? Soc.drugs would be a good place for enlightened, polite discussion, but it will need moderation. Placing it in the talk hierarchy effectively gives it to the rabble, no offense intended :-) aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion The Administration is committed to a balanced budget, and we will fight to the last blow to achieve it by 1984. - Ronald Reagan, 1981