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
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" -metjo@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
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?