cr> Re: pornography, violence, marijuana and monkeys


Sender: •••@••.••• (Glen Raphael)

Here's a web reference to studies of the connection between pornography and
violence. There's food for thought for both sides of the debate here:

And here's a web reference to a Marijuana Myths page which describes some
of the stories regarding alleged harm done by marijuna use and how those
studies were flawed. I agree with Allen Marshall that there are some
similarities with regard to the science used.

Specifically regarding Dr. Heath's studies, this source says:

>1. Marijuana causes brain damage
>The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is
>the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late
>1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of
>scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National
>Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title,
>Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply
>criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys),
>its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification
>of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of
>human populations of marijuana users have shown no
>evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977,
>published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
>(JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of
>marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association
>(AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
>That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought
>marijuana damaged the brain.

Glen Raphael, •••@••.•••  NewtPaint - the Newton paint program!
President, Stanford/Palo Alto Macintosh User's Group (SMUG)
<A HREF="">Glen's World</A><BR>


Sender: "Simeon ben Nevel" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The CDA and me... A personal encounter

I thought I'd share my close call with the CDA last week.

I *never* thought I'd have any cause to worry about exposure to prosecution
under the CDA.  I *never* send "indecent" materials to minors.  I don't send
mash notes to my wife via e-mail.  I don't up/download nasty pictures
to/from UseNet.

Foolish me....

I found out *exactly* how easy it is to *accidentally* open myself up for
prosecution under the CDA.  Thank goodness for folks like the ACLU, CDT,
EPIC and all the other organizations and individuals who fought for and
obtained the TRO preventing any per^h^h^hprosecutions under the indecency
provisions until the constitutionality of the Act is fully adjudicated.

Here's my story....

I read a number of Usenet newsgroups. Among them are two that I follow to
endulge my taste for Star Trek erotica.  I occasionally use the facilities
of my newsreader (tin) to mail stories I particularly like to myself for
later enjoyment.

I am also a member of a mailing list called PetBunny for people devoted to
rabbits as household pets.  There are nearly 400 subscribers in 11 countries
including at least 6 adolescents under the age of 18 (minors in many
jurisdictions).  I sometimes forward (mail) items of interest to bunny
lovers from Usenet to the list.

I think you can see what's coming.

As with many news/mail reading programs, tin remembers the last address used
to forward a usenet post and presents it as the default when you mail the
next item.

One day, I forwarded a Usenet posting from one of the Web Page announcement
newsgroups about a pet supply company to PetBunny.  When prompted, I entered
the list address, hit enter and off it went.

The next day, I found a Trek story I wanted to save, and used tin to mail it 
to myself.  Since I generally only send usenet posts to myself, I just hit 
enter a couple of times to accept the defaults and off it went..... to 

It wasn't until the outraged responses from the other PetBunny members began 
flooding my mail-box that I realized what I had done.  I fired of an 
immediate mea culpa and apology.  Fortunately, I am a long-term member of 
PetBunny and generally well-respected in that community.  Most people 
realized that a mistake had been made.

Aside from the horrific embarrassment of revealing my taste for Trek-smut to 
a large number of virtual friends, I had some *real* worries...

1) I was afraid that someone would complain to my ISP and get my access

   Fortunately, the furor has died down and other PetBunny members came to my
   defense and defused the situation.  No one appears to have complained to
   my ISP.

2) Since there are minors on the list and the list members are quite diverse
   politically, I worried that someone could "drop a dime" on me at the
   federal level.

   Again, fortunately, the TRO would seem to shield me (for now) from
   prosecutions at that level.

3) I am *still* exposed to action at the state level in at least 6
   jurisdictions as each of the minors on the list lives in a different

Scary stuff..... considering that *all* PetBunny posts are archived in at
least 2 locations I could be exposed to legal action for years as could the
folks who set up the archives, the ISP that provides the resources for the
archives, the owner of the PetBunny list and the educational institution
that hosts it.

Imagine.... years in jail and hundreds of thousands in fines for any or all 
of us.

Just for hitting enter and accepting the default at the wrong moment.

Simeon ben Nevel
Send mail with Subject: send index to get a listing of files available from
my e-mail robot.  It's mostly about pet rabbits, but there is a good FAQ on
managing listserv subscriptions, a document on accessing the Internet via
e-mail and an explanation of Pegasus-Win filenames/extensions.

I have recently added extensive information on the Rabbit Calicivirus (VHD)
to my auto-responder.

 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.