Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!wuarchive!decwrl!orc!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.drugs
Message-ID: <51893@bbn.COM>
Date: 8 Feb 90 14:23:45 GMT
References: <19349@grebyn.com> <1990Feb7.174223.16179@aqdata.uucp>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Lines: 32

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