Apollo BBS Archive - March 1989

Apollo BBS Archive - March 21, 1989



Main Menu command:V

Special Election March 28, 1989 Proposition 300
Known as the VALTRANS Plan for 103 miles of elevated automated rapid transit
trains... to be paid for with a 1/2 cent sales tax increase for the next
thirty years.  The bus fleet will expand from 350 to 1500 vehicles as well.

[A]  YES, I am for this plan as proposed by proposition 300
[B]  NO!, I am against this plan as proposed by proposition 300

How do you vote [A-B] or [CR] to abort:B

Poll results to date:
[A] 7    [B] 11

Mail from Sandy SYSOP
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 20:54:44

        I, too, want to take a writing course.
You can post some logical reasonable posts, then you seem to follow them up
with a BONER!
        You remind me of a character on Hill Street Blues, one of my
favorite shows at present. I think he called himself Captain Marvel, the
caped crusader for justice and the american way. Detective Belker keeps on
running this guy in for interfering with police work. Everytime these two
meet, Captain Marvel makes one heck of a speech, the 'apple pie, patriotic,
love your fellow man' type then blows all the sentiment out the window by
saying something like his mother is from mars.
        Now, if you could keep your mother's origin out of your up and
coming speeches, I think you could 'whip some ass', rally the masses, and
have a revolution.

                        Sandy
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        I just become tired of talking to 'brick walls'.  When Paul & Daryl 
 2:start quoting the bible or refuse to answer logical points, not only from me
 3:but JT & Dean Hathaway, Ann, Alan, and Peter as well, then I get frustrated.
 4:But at least I get to see how it is in real life.
 5:        By the way, how did you find out my Mother was from Mars?  I was 
 6:keeping that a secret until later.  Oh well.  Thanks for the posts, I'll try
 7:not to blow it.                         -Rod

Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 03:22:40

If I had any good drugs, I would have used them all by now.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        See you around the Universe.

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 5329
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last, last
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 21:11:11

        (double grin)

Message: 5330
Author: $ Mike Howerton
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Carter/Crossroads
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 01:05:32

When is Crossroads going 9600??  Maybe it will be worth the call then. 
Apollo is the only board that I still call at 2400.  And to think that at
one time I thought 1200 was fast.

Message: 5331
Author: $ Jeannie Innajug
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Carter
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 07:14:53

Hey.............Mikey............

Don't let the door hit you in the tush!

See Y'aa..............
Jeannie

Message: 5332
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: JT/last last last
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:53:44

#7327 - 'If the shoe fits, wear it'!

Apollo Underground Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 120
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 21:11:44

        Ah......!

Message: 121
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last, Last, Last
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 05:49:37

             Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Message: 122
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last etc.
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:55:47

See?

Message: 123
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last several
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 22:21:00

See? WHAT?! (Been away for too long).
 
-Pat

Message: 124
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 13:58:46

        I love Jim and Tammy.

Computer Hacker SIG Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 127
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Bit Bucket Talk
Subject: Mike on leaving
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:56:45

But why are you leaving when Apollo is going full steam? -=*) ANN (*=-

The outer COSmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 2946
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Question ?
Subject: Last
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 21:13:11

        Did you know that I have 'perfect' vision?

Message: 2947
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Shit-Chat!
Subject: Sandy Sysop
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 05:45:43

You don't know what you are missing.
                 Love You All
                 Ralph

Message: 2948
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question ?
Subject: Masterbation
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:58:01

I can't hardly see a thing anymore. Suppose there's a connection?
Hahahaha -=*) ANNIE THE FANNY (*=-

Message: 2949
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Answer !
Subject: JT/joke
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 22:23:29

That's a joke I like! I HAVE been away from here for too long.
 
-Pat

Message: 2950
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Rod/2945
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 22:58:51

And then you started smoking marijuana to improve your eyesight, right?

Message: 2951
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Ann/2947
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 22:59:27

Oops/2948.
 
But you're happy, right?

Message: 2952
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Question ?
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 05:44:00

What is this thing called Masterbation?
                  Ralph

Message: 2953
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Ralph/masterbation
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 07:56:55

You'll really have to ask someone else that question. I'm pure and innocent.
Everybody knows that! My eyesight is bad and I have pimples. Hmmmm ....

Message: 2954
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Ann/lesson
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 14:01:27

        Masterbation means ???  MastUrbation means to have sex with
yourself.  -Rod  P.S.  I should know.

Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 57738
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Taranto/Drugs
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 17:54:15

  I do not accept the idea that it is a legitimate function of government
to protect the citizen from himself where no fraud or coercion are involved.
  If I did accept that idea I would still not accept the idea that drug
use can be effectively dealt with by arresting users.
  If I did accept all of the above I would still be against the policy
because it would put impossible demands on the law enforcement and criminal
justice systems at a time when they are already unable to deal with the
problem of violent repeat offenders.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 57739
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul/Drugs
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 17:55:33

Paul: Using your definitions for 'victims' of drug abuse we could easily
      build a case for outlawing practically every activity imaginable.
      You started by calling the person who uses the drug a crime victim
      and then went on to include everyone who might be harmed, annoyed,
      or taxed as a result of that activity. Using this kind of thinking
      we would all be in prison. Drug abuse is a victimless crime because
      it does not involve fraud or coercion, as long as the user has freely
      chosen to do it. If fraud or coercion result from it, such as property
      crimes committed to pay for drugs, then that is a separate issue, just
      as it is a separate issue if someone commits a theft in order to
      finance the purchase of motorcycle for example. When you think of
      the huge amounts of drugs being consumed, it should be obvious that
      the stereotype of drug users as non-productive people who routinely
      rob and steal can not be accurate. If that picture were true for the
      average user we would all have been robbed blind and murdered long
      ago.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 57740
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hathaway
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 19:57:17

I believe an argument can be made against drug legalization based on
libertarian principles.  The notion that any activity is permissible that
does not involve force or fraud presupposes that man is a rational being.
I do not believe, for example, that most libertarians would argue against
institutionalizing the mentally incompetent -- that is, people whose mental
condition leaves them incapable of caring for themselves or renders them
dangerous to themselves and others.  Libertarians may take issue with others
(or with each other) as to where the line should be drawn or how stringent
should be the burden of proof.  But if it is agreed that someone is
incapable of rational thought, I don't think most libertarians would
disagree in principle that to assert that he has a right to liberty is at
best meaningless and at worst pernicious.

The question, then, is this:  If the capacity for rational thought is a
precondition of the right to liberty, does the right to liberty include the
right to ingest substances that diminish or destroy the capacity for
rational thought?  I think a strong argument can be made that it does not.

As for the practical consideration you raise, I have not suggested that the
solution to the drug problem is "jailing users," and I don't know that
anyone has.  The solution is more likely found in lesser sanctions, such as
the denial of various government privileges (drivers licenses, for example)
to those who fail drug tests, public exposure of drug users (as Bill Bennett
recently proposed), and increased use of drug tests by private employers.
There should also be more discipline in schools and, yes, more education as
to the effects of drugs.  It is clear that the drug problem can only be
solved if we're willing to apply a little imagination to it.  Stock,
boilerplate answers like yours and Paul Savages's are the reason the war on
drugs has so far proved unwinnable.

Message: 57742
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JT
Date: 03/20/89  Time: 21:09:48

        Interesting thought ...... "...does the right to liberty include the
righr to ingest substances that diminish or destroy the capacity for
rational thought?"
        They say that one man's right ends at the end of the other man's
nose. If one can not rationally think out his/her next course of action,
they stand a good chance of infringing on the other person's right to
'happiness' or whatever.
        So, who has the greater right? The person wanting to injest a
substance that will alter his/her rational thought OR the person wanting to
enjoy his/her 'happiness'?

Message: 57743
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: TARANTO
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 00:02:16

  
     Why shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape in my own home?  I'll
tell you why - Because I'm not murdering & raping myself.  Those are actions
committed on another person.
     As far as drug use in public goes - if the use were legal, the abuse
should be handled much in the same way the abuse of alcohol is handled now. 
Driving under the influence of ANY drug (whether it be pot or booze) is a
no-no.  

Message: 57744
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: News Today
Subject: GUESS WHAT
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 00:09:18

     For anyone interested, I have a humor column in the this week's issue
of that new weekly rag, "Where It's Hot!".
     Yeah, I'm a journalist now.  Just like JT.

Message: 57745
Author: David Roe
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: rape
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 01:33:47

        Hey, I raped myself before.  Could I be arrested?

Message: 57746
Author: Woodrow Smith
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: Spirit Departure
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 02:09:35

Mr. Albert Sykes reports the following experience: "I was sitting having
biscuits with some friends when I felt my spirit leave my body and go make a
telephone call.  For some reason, it called the Moscowitz Fiber Glass
Company.  My spirit then returned to my body and sat for another twenty
minutes or so, hoping nobody would suggest charades.  When the conversation
turned to mutual funds, it left again and began wandering around the city. 
I am convinced that it visited the Statue of Liberty and then saw the stage
show at Radio City Music Hall.  Following that, it went to Benny's Steak
House and ran up a tab of sixty-eight dollars.  My spirit then decided to
return to my body, but it was impossible to get a cab.  Finally, it walked
up Fifth Avenue and rejoined me just in time to catch the late news.  I
could tell that it was reentering my body, because I felt a sudden chill,
and a voice said, 'I'm back.  You want me to pass those raisins?'"

Message: 57747
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 06:47:02

 Would you like to differentiate for us between the drug pusher (or sales
clerk if drugs were legalized) who puts a substance in a kid's hands that
alters his mind to a point of suicide ("Look at me! I can fly!" as he jumps
off a building) and the murderer who puts a gun to the kid's head and pulls
the trigger? The results are the same, no matter how you want to pretty them
up to support your position.

Message: 57748
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: The sysop resting
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 06:49:58

AHA! He's coming back! I knew it wouldn't last! (smile)

Message: 57749
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Taranto
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 07:06:08

 I have repeatedly said that there are no pat "boilerplate" solutions to the
drug problem. Granted, I do have some ideas on the subject, and harsher
penalties for the distribution chain is a prime one, but I agree with you
that discipline and education are probably some of the most effective
weapons existant. They are not without some built-in problems of their own
however. Discipline in the schools? How is a teacher or school administrator
to discipline children, when any attempt to do so is to invite a lawsuit by
ignorant, sue-happy parents? How much more time are school systems to spend
on drug education at the expense of the three "R"s, only to be frustrated by
peer and parental pressures and laxity?
 Exposure of drug users and employers' tests may be good, but the ultimate
dismissal and resultant unemployment would only increase the possibility of
criminal activity, once the user loses his source of legitimate income. To
say that viewing drug users as unproductive is to stereotype is to deny the
facts in evidence that this is usually the case. While there undoubtedly are
some productive members of society who occasionally use drugs, there can be
no denying that drugs are addictive, (crack, for instance, is referred to as
instantly addictive), and, once addicted, a person's usefullness is
adversely affected, to say the least. 
 While legalization MAY take a few dollars out of the coffers of organized
crime, it will not make narcotics less addictive, nor will it negate the
need for addicts without visible sources of income to resort to criminal
activity to support their addiction.

Message: 57750
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/#57726
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:10:20

Your quote: Perhaps the real reason you want to legalize marijuana is purely
self-serving behind that big red paper thin banner"??? Sorry! I do not
understand that statement fully - especially about 'red paper thin banner'!
I DO understand that it is sarcasum of course and it's obvious you are
miss-understanding me. I DO NOT want to legalize marijuana because I want to
use it! I thought I had made it clear in many posts that it doesn't agree
with me. But I do not think that other's should be denied using it. I know
it is not as bad as drinking, so why NOT legalize it. Perhaps a lot of
alcholics will use it instead. Marijuana is the most 'over rated' drug
around! Unless someone totally over indulges in it, it will not do as much
harm as booze will when taken moderately.
Re: organized crime - of course I know it will not be eliminated if drugs
are made legal. But it will sure take a big bite out of their profits. I am
conserned with the little pushers - the guy on the street! The people that
would ordinarily hold down factory jobs and be useful to their families and
society. Instead, they make lots of big bucks pushing drugs - getting the
young started on the stuff! Why would they hold a factory job when they can
make triple the money on expensive drugs? AND the addicts themselves - if it
were legal, they wouldn't need a life of crime to feed their habit! Also,
some of the hard stuff could be used legally in the medicine world. That is
one of the real shames here - it can't be used on patients dying in horrible
pain! I'm NOT saying this is a perfect answer to the problem but what we are
doing or not doing now is failing and always will. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57751
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/my brother!
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:27:53

But you see Daryl, that's exactly what you are saying really -- "Just say no
brother" because that's all we have to offer right now! Your discription of
a drug addict was right - that's the way they can turn out. He is a ZOMBIE
that can't control his own life at that point and does need help. In the
beginning, it WAS his choice and no others. Now, he has no choices.
Re: my personal reaction to this if it was my brother (BTW I do not have a
brother) ---- First, if he was living with us and started taking drugs, we'd
kick him out if he didn't stop. (not marijuana) If he got to the stage to
which you discribed, we'd take him back in - try to steer him into
rehabilition and give him all the help we could. We'd give him money to feed
his habit (with in reason of course) and may even buy it illegally for him!
At this point, he is sick regardless of what is making him sick. He will
probablly die young(ish). This can and does happen with drinking too. But
you see, my point is - my brother is an addict and it's illegal! Nothing
stopped him! But perhaps he started at 13 years old - got started by some
friend of his that urged him to 'have a little fun' - the one that sells it
at great profit and the ONLY way he is making that great profit is by
getting people hooked. -=*) ANN (*=-
P.S. If my husband was dying of cancer horribaly, I'd certainly purchase
heroin for him regardless of the risks. I'd expect the same from him.

Message: 57752
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: News Today
Subject: In the paper
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 08:51:24

These are a few little tid bits the U.S. Attorney General Thornburgh said
this morning in the paper regarding drugs:

"The war on drugs will be won on the battlefield of values"

"This is a battle in which everyone in the United States must enlist if
we're going to win it"

"An outraged community is going to say to the drug user that their behavior
will no longer be tolerated"

Whew! What fighting words they are!!! But I can't figure out what I'm
supposed to do as a member of a community?! Am I for instance, going to the
local high school (where I know that drug use is the norn) and face those
drug using turkeys and tell them a thing or two? Should I stand on the
street cornor - handing out pamplets on the horrors of drug use? Should I
picket in front of the school? Should I lug around a big heavy cross on my
back and preach to them that Christ died for their sins, so repent?
Battlefield of values?? Sounds like some patriotic war song. Or better yet,
a politician's 'gobble - dee - gook' speech! What nonsense! And the funny
part about it is - It's been done before - time and time again with hardly a
dent! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57753
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Taranto/Drugs
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 13:46:40

But can we in our right mind truly eliminate one evil by legalizing another
greater evil? (Recreational drug use, not the drug itself, though in this
day and age they walk happily hand in hand.)

Message: 57754
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Ex-Christian
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 13:51:25

The problem is, anyone can call themself a Christian. However, whether
someone decides to tack the name on for convenience and go on doing what
they're doing, or truly dedicate their lives to serving the Lord, confuses
only us lowly humans. God can tell the difference, and trust me, these
"Christians of Convenience" have already recieved their reward in full.
[Matthew 6:1-4]

Message: 57755
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 13:58:40

Whether you decide to smoke, toke, shoot, and snort your way to oblivion is
not my decision. You have decided that you are happy in your happy little
drug-clouded quasi-reality, and darned if I am going to stop you. But what
about our children? What about those whose minds haven't been infected yet?
Look, you are going to continue to buy drugs whether they are illegal or
not, and nobody (short of the law) is going to stop you. I think that if any
body wants to corrupt their mind with drugs, it is a decision that they are
going to make whether the law says they can or not. The way things are now,
I am quite satisfied with. Personally, I cannot understand the foggy logic
that people try to use to justify their desire for the freedom to destroy
themselves. You wanna know what the problem is, Rod? THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT
HERE THAT CARE. Now you may find that to be a problem, but...

Message: 57756
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James/57749
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 14:05:07

You made some good points in that message, James. Arresting the user (unless
that user has committed a crime) accomplishes little. However, the points
that you brought up are good ones. It may point out to the drug user that
the only doors that are closing on him/her via drug abuse are not just those
that he/she is closing on him/herself.

Message: 57757
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James/II
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 14:06:30

PS: The reference number in that above message was wrong. The "9" should
have been a "0".
 
Good points, well taken.

Message: 57758
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Petrisko
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 16:34:31

Well, you have invalidated your own analogy.  Since the Bible is not treated
legally the same way alcohol is, then drugs are not equivalent to the Bible
if they are to be treated as alcohol is.  You will have to come up with a
better argument.

Message: 57759
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Savage
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 16:38:35

As I have pointed out, the economics of the drug trade are such that an
anti-drug strategy cannot center on efforts directed against suppliers of
drugs.  There is, I suppose, a moral argument to be made for including such
efforts along with efforts against users.  But if our goal is to minimize
the use of illicit drugs, we must concentrate on efforts against the users.
As for education, it would be absurd to further neglect the "three R's" in
the name of devoting more time to drug education.  In fact, better education
in academic fundamentals would itself help stop drug abuse by giving kids
some sense of purpose.

Message: 57760
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: WESTFALL
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 16:42:38

YOU ASK WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO LEGALIZE A GREATER EVIL (I.E., DRUG USE)
IN ORDER TO STOP A LESSER EVIL (I.E., PROPERTY AND VIOLENT CRIME BY ADDICTS
TO SUPPORT THEIR HABITS).  THIS IS A MISLEADING QUESTION.  WHAT WE SHOULD BE
ASKING IS TO WHAT EXTENT THE LEGALIZATION OF DRUG USE IS GOING TO INCREASE
SUCH ACTIVITY, AND TO WHAT EXTENT IT IS GOING TO STOP VIOLENT CRIME.  IT MAY
BE THAT DRUG USE WOULD NOT INCREASE APPRECIABLY UNDER LEGALIZATION BUT CRIME
WOULD DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY, IN WHICH CASE THE ARGUMENT FOR LEGALIZATION IS
QUITE POWERFUL INDEED.  OR IT MAY BE THAT DRUG USE WOULD GO WAY UP BUT CRIME
WOULD REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME.  IN THIS CASE, OBVIOUSLY, DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE
LEGALIZED.

Message: 57762
Author: Mike McCarter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: MSG#57761
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 19:13:16

I LIKE THAT LAST MESSAGE. VERY MOVING, HAS SPIRIT, LAUGHS, CRIES.
I GIVE IT 3 STARS!!!

Message: 57763
Author: $ Rod Bias
Category: Hard/Software
Subject: AST SixPakPlus
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 02:29:17

     I just traded some hardware and wound up with an AST SixPakPlus but  
NO DOCUMENTATION.  I need information on setting DIP switches and jumpers. 
Can anyone supply me with a copy of the information I need?
     
                             Rod Bias
                             602-438-9202
     AST SixPakPlus (not SixPakPremium -- I have info on that).  Thanks.

Message: 57764
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 05:05:30

Once again your position is as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but it is
probably pointless to show you the credibility gaps. However, for the sake o
discussion:
1. T
1. Thos "little pushers" who, if it were not for the profits realized in
peddling poison would hold down factory jobs. HA! The pusher types are
stereotypical ne'er do wells who, if they weren't dealing drugs would "eke
out" a living doing other laborless things such as fencing stolen goods,
stealing themselves, pimping for a few "ladies" or some other nefarious
occupation.
2. The addicts, most of whom have no visible means of support since their
addiction prevents them from holding down a real job, would not suddenly
find honest work if dope was legal. They would still have to rob, steal and
kill for their next fix.
 3. As to those "poor, suffering souls" who are dying agonizing deaths from
cancer or whatever, the medical profession has and uses plenty of pain
killing drugs, including hallucigens, to make the last days or hours of
these people as comnmfortable as possible. THey don't need crack, meth or
any other street drug to do their thing.
Why do you insist on hanging on to lame duck alibis for legalization that
have never held water better than a seive? Probably because there is no real
justification for it.
@

Message: 57765
Author: $ Ralph Blehm
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 06:12:54

Why are you always right and everybody else is wrong?
                   Ralph

Message: 57766
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/drugs
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 07:43:44

Perhaps you are right Paul - the pushers would just go on to other things
like becoming pimps - the addicts still would not work at a honest living.
But a lot would be elminated if drugs were legal is all I'd hope for. The
pusher that lures children into drugs for one. The countries who grow and
ship the stuff would have to find other 'farming' to do. (Some little
countries - that is their main income) I don't profess that legalizing it
would cure everything - it may even make it worse, I don't know. I just say
it's worth a try because we're not getting anywhere the way things are!
There's 'BIG TALK' in the paper of punishing the users - even the casual
ones. But I don't see how that can be accomplished do you? If there's 1
pusher to every 100 users - how can we even begin to think of punishing the
user if we can't control the pusher now? I know it's been used as an example
MANY times - but remember what happened during probition? They finally ended
up legalizing it again because they were getting no where and people like Al
Capone were living like kings. He wasn't the only one either. Half the
people in the country were braking the law! 

Re: using drugs in medical cases - in the last stages of cancer (some) the
drugs they use now do not cut the pain. Morphene (sp) is the main one that
is used and it is good only up to a point. Why on earth would you be against
using Heroin if it let them die peacefully and pain free? Morphene is
addicting too and what difference does it make if these people become
addicts? I'm curious as to your answer on this. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 57767
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Last
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 10:53:59

You say that you don't know if legalizing it would make things better or
worse. Then why are you so blindly willing to make it legal? Ok, what if
things DID get worse? We'd just simply make them illegal again, right? I
don't think so. Your reference to the Prohibition was a prime example. To
legalize them COULD be going from bad to worse. In an offhand way, I would
say your statement agrees to that. To try and and instill a "Prohibition"
after legalization COULD make things even worse YET. James is right, we need
to use a little creativity in whatever finally comes about. To simply argue
the black/white point of legalization vs. status quo is too short-sighted.
If they WERE legalized, what ELSE would need to be done? If they aren't
legalized, what should we start doing right NOW? We can't just close our
eyes to the possible conseqences and just say "OK, let's do it." We need to
open our eyes as wide as we can, and research all aspects and possible
outcomes.

Message: 57768
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 14:12:52

        You are sick.  Your religion has damaged your brain.  You are also
blind.  Oh yeah, and you and a brick wall have a lot in common.

        Dean Hathaway left a number of good, logical posts on drug
legalization but I bet you didn't see them.  The logic of them most probably
made your little mind go blank.  How convenient. -Rod

Rod, God & Bob Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 224
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann/brains
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 03:33:16

That's hogwash. We already use all of our brain.

Message: 225
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 03/21/89  Time: 09:00:54

'Little Anthony and the Imperials' ----
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You ARE funny today! It took
real talent to think up all those un-related (in this case - related) names!
'Laura Lansberry' Hahahahahaha. -=*) ANN (*=-

Rod, God & Bob Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit-Chat

Subject:Ann/Laura

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:        Laura lives in Tucson and gets on a BBS there.  In my latest 
 2:newsletter from The American Atheists, Tucson Chapter, there is a letter to 
 3:the editor from her (him).  So, Laura is alive and kicking.
 4:        Rod
 5:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 226

Message: 227
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: LSD
Date: 03/22/89  Time: 14:27:09

        Forty-five minutes after taking the drug, Jackie Deluane and I were
sitting in the coffee shop of Holiday Inn on Airline Highway, Metairie,
Louisiana.  It was dark outside.  The walls started melting and colors
jumped out at me.  Went outside and started walking down the road.  We went
into a Krystal Hamburger joint and each ordered a burger.  She took the top
bun from hers and rubbed the meat and mustard in my face.  I laughed while
doing the same to her.
        We left and went around the corner to a country and western bar. 
Everyone wanted to buy us a drink but the thought made us sick.  They they
wanted to pick up on Jackie and I felf threatened.  This was definitely not
the time to feel scared.  We got the hell out of that place and walked back
to the motel.  We made love on the floor while listening to some sixties
music (it was the sixties).  
        Afterwards she informed me that she had to be home by five A.M. and
I was somewhere in the middle of tripping.  I drove my red, 66 VW Karmann
Ghia the five miles to her home.  Everything was melting.  Half the time I
was ten or so feet above the car trying to communicate with the driver.  I
dropped her off at her home in the French Quarter and headed for the nearest
all night bar.  I melted into the peoples arms and we became soul mates for
life.  I still have bits and chunks of them in me.  We became fused together
into a glorious mass of electrical energy.  I can tell you where each and
every on of them is to this day.  I can tell you exactly what they are
doing.  Except a few are no longer in the flesh because of the war.  One of
them is now a undercover narc. for the Tampa Police Department.  (later)
|1!_4"7 V9$iM~Ko
NO CARRIER