### Apollo BBS Archive - July 11 - 12, 1991

    Mail from Melissa Dee
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 17:23:31

    Well, now it looks as though we will just have a reception and do the boring
    wedding thing at the court house.  But, it will be on Halloween, if I get my
    way.

    I suppose we could do a mock thing at the reception.  Plans keep changing
    every minute here.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Well, I made the buttons last night and delivered them to Metropophobia
     2:today.
     3:
     4:Speaking of Halloween, I have a priests outfit but I could substitute the
     5:white collar for something in neon, I suppose.
     6:

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7535
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 16:14:55

    Sorry Rod, but Doctor's (Not drugged lock smiths) state your statment is a
    misleading one.

            Example, One Doctor said death from smoking is put down as 'death
    from smoking' or lung failure.  They don't say death from 'Camels' or
    the type cigarette.  In this case death from marijuana is death from
    'smoking' or pulmonary failure....

            Also went on to explain how marijuana can make other problems worse
    to a point where that kills the user....  ROOT cause however can not always
    documented as the cause since it was only what triggered the killing
    disease.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 7536
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Pot
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 16:27:26

      Asking for proof that marijuana has not killed anyone is asking that
    someone prove a negative. This is folly. To settle the question one need
    only prove that marijuana HAS killed someone.
      Beyond that little point is the more important question of how bad is
    marijuana, especially compared to accepted forms of self-medication. The
    fact that there can be such dispute over the possibility that pot might have
    ever killed someone indicates that it is nowhere near as dangerous as
    alcohol or tobacco. It wouldn't take much effort to find proof that
    cigarettes, whiskey, or many other forms of self-medication had killed
    someone.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7537
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last Dean?
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 19:45:08

            Grrrrrrr...  Cigarettes do kill people, a pretty much excepted fact.
    (except to militant smokers)  Smoking POT has many of the 'same' poisons, so
    if a lung is opened up and it is determined there was pulmonary damage, the
    doctor can't very well ask the victim what he was smoking.  Smoking Pot is
    as bad for you as smoking tobacco type cigarettes.

            It's like this...  should six dumb dudes drive off the edge of the
    Grand Canyon in a Ford T-Bird....   The death certificate is NOT going to
    say they were killed by a Ford T-Bird.  The documented deaths will be noted
    as a fall from great heights with a sudden stop. Even though the T-Bird was
    the platform from which they entered deaths door.  Someone looking up the
    history of Ford T-Birds is never going to find these DEATHS as documented
    files.

           Bottom line... Smoking POT or smoking cigarettes, the cause of death
    might be noted in documantation as 'pulmonary failure'.   I could probably
    say "there is no documented proof that 'Lark' cigarettes ever killed anyone"
    and get away with it.  It is that same DUMB logic when someone tells you
    that 'There is no documented proof POT has ever killed anyone'.

            Frankly, I don't care if you choose to smoke, snort or eat these or
    any drugs.  Making false claims to get the young hooked by telling them it's
    SAFE is a crime.  This is where the drug pusher (or one plugging it) should
    be shot!

    Message: 7538
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Deadly T-Birds etc.
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 22:17:02

    If some dumb dude drove his T-Bird off the edge of a cliff, I sure wouldn't
    say that the car killed him.  I'd say he wrecked the car.

         Crushed skull with avulsion of the cranium and brain.  Closed fracture
         of right humerus.  Multiple lacerations of hands and lower extremities.

    That was from the death certificate of Jayne Mansfield.  We might suspect
    that mosquito spray is hazardous to your health, but you'd never guess from
    reading the certificate that it killed her.

    Toyota Motors puts everything up front.  The company has a monument in Japan
    to honor the souls of people killed in Toyotas throughout the world.

    I'm positive that bananas are also hazardous to your health.  But I can't
    prove it.  I can't find a single documented case of death resulting from
    eating a banana.  They always put it down to something else -- "asphyxia due
    to tracheal obstruction", "slipped on skin, fractured skull" or whatever.

    However, great strides are being made in the USSR.  They have finally
    succeeded in proving that the air we breathe really *is* dangerous.  "The
    evidence for oxygen toxicity is overwhelming," announced Anatoly Zenotov,
    professor of biochemistry at the University of Kiev.  "Statistical studies
    show without a doubt that 100% of people who breathe oxygen eventually die."

    Message: 7539
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann on Rod
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 22:53:44

        He must be doing well considering all the kids he has, eh?

        Then I know some bunny rabbits that must be reaching nirvana!

    *chuckle*

    Message: 7540
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Drug deaths
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 05:47:00

     One simple fact that Rod likes to overlook in his statements is that, while
    admittedly every user of marijuana does not eventually turn to hard drugs,
    it has been proven that every hard drug addict began his or her journey in
    to the dismal world of drugs with marijuana.
     In light of that fact, and since plenty of deaths have been attributed
    directly to hard drugs, there definitely IS a connection between marijuana
    and death.
     Anything that alters the mind has deadly potential.

    Message: 7541
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff/cause of death
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 05:50:26

    I kind of doubt that any coroner would get quite so flowery in his
    description as "a fall from great height with a sudden stop". The diagnosis
    would be more likely to read simply "multiple traumatic injuries".
     Other than that, I agree totally with your post.

    Message: 7542
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Paul/Addicts
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 07:58:33

    And every hard drug user has used aspirin. So ban aspirin.

    Message: 7543
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: aspirin
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:28:46

            But the majority of aspirin users do not go on to harder 'illegal'
    type drugs.  A higher percentage of pot users however do try harder and more
    deadly 'illegal' drugs.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 7544
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: pot
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 10:04:03

    So is it correlation or causation?  I'd say it's a little of both.

    Message: 7545
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Cliff/aspirin
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 13:01:33

    But Paul's point was that hard drug user's had started with mj and gone on
    to harder stuff. I was merely pointing out that they could have started with
    aspirin, or even alchohol. Even alchohol ! Oh yes, that's what should be
    banned next. These drug users started with Coors Light and went on to harder
    drugs. Hey, I bet those drug users may have shot a gun or two and found
    shooting not enough to satisfy their insane lust for greater and greater
    thrills and went on to greater things. Which reminds me. When I was a
    teenager and a BAC, my girlfriend was the minister's daughter (fundy
    Baptist) and she suggested to me that we should try aspirin and Coke (not
    Cocaine) and that it would give you quite a high. So, let's ban the
    following: Guns! (Yeah!), Aspirin (boo), Coke (wet kind, boo), Coors Light
    (OK, it's mostly water anyway), BAC girlfriens (bad influence on potential
    atheists)

    Message: 7546
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Roger's ban on drugs
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 13:18:23

            Well Roger, I would like to get one thing strait.  I am NOT for
    banning any of what you mentioned.  I think education is the way to help
    people, then let them make their own choice.  Laws should not be passed to
    prevent people from doing STUPID things to themselves in the privacy of
    their own homes.  Being in jail because you did something harmfull to
    yourself makes no sense to me what-so-ever.   Seems to me, just being in
    jail is more harmful then smoking a few joints.

            However, people who PROMOTE drug use to others should be punished.
    Especially those who state "They are safe", "There has never been a
    documented death" and other such misleading garbage.

            I can see a use for many drugs if used correctly.  Someone dieing a
    painful death should be allowed to take what he wants.  Hell, he does not
    have to worry about lung cancer if he is dieing from some other disease.
    Smoking for 'fun' is just plain ""STUPID"".

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 7547
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: CLIFF
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 15:02:05

      Everything you said about not being able to show marijuana as the cause of
    death in a case where smoking pot DID kill someone applies just as much to
    cigarettes, and yet we are able to determine when cigarette use is to
    blame.
      I would like to see some proof that marijuana smoke has the same toxins in
    the same strengths as cigarette smoke. I wouldn't rule it out, but I suspect
    that it is false. I don't smoke anything and can't stand to be around people
    smoking cigarettes, but marijuana smoke doesn't make me sick when I am
    exposed to it like tobacco smoke does.
      I question things when I think the official line is bull. That is my job.
    By questioning the 'correct' attitude toward drugs and the questionable data
    that backs it up, I am not encouraging drug use. I do not use them myself
    and leave it up to the individual to choose to or not. Asked my opinion I
    would say "Why do it?" Saying that I must either get in line and chant the
    'correct' slogans and stop questioning our pure and honest authorities or I
    am a criminal sounds just a little extreme don't you think?
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7548
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 18:20:06

            Then you go to the Library and read the medical books.  I read it
    out of Sandy's medical books from her drug class.  I don't have the books
    now. The statment was that Pot contained MANY of the same poisons that were
    found in cigarettes.  You argue with the author, I don't care since I don't
    use the product.

            If I had proof, you would still doubt it...  You're a libertarian.

                                            clif-

    Message: 7549
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Kars / Automotive
    Subject: Project Cuda 65
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 18:23:25

            It would get HOT out...  Primed the inside of my door panels the
    other day... and the floor pan.  The body is almost ready to shoot with the
    primary color.  I have car parts all over the property.....sigh

                                            clif-

    Message: 7550
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Pot
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 20:33:19

    I too have also read several articles on the effects of pot and
    cigarettes. Most notibly they compared the two because the
    two were so much alike. Pot came out on top with the most
    harmful output, partly to blame because of the lack of filters.

    No, Dean, I've read stuff like this too. Pot contains some very
    harmful ingredients in the smoke. If they ever legalized the
    stuff, I'd say the safest way to consume it would be to mix it
    with chocolate or fudge brownies.
    Imagine the commercials from the companies who would make them.

    Message: 7551
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mary Jane
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 02:04:55

    I have no personal ax to grind in this debate because I don't use the stuff
    myself.  All the same, I'm not impressed with arguments for keeping pot
    illegal while alcohol and tobacco remain legal.  Except for one possibility.

    I am not impressed with arguments that pot is more dangerous than -- or even
    *as* dangerous as -- alcohol and tobacco.  The latter two drugs at least
    have clear statistical links with mortality.  Pot is arguable.  That ought
    to tell us something about the probabilities.  If I were picking a course of
    action based on probability of death alone, I'd sooner pick the one that was
    arguable than the one that was proven.

    I'm not too impressed with the possible dangers of people driving while
    high.  In all probability alcohol affects driving a lot worse than pot does.
    And you can detect pot in the bloodstream quite readily, for longer periods
    than you can alcohol.  The total number of drug abusers and irresponsible
    people won't change very much.  The people who would drive while high are
    those who drive drunk today.  More than likely they're already doing so.

    I am not impressed with arguments that "all" (I don't even believe "all" --
    "most" would be more like it) abusers of hard drugs got started on pot.
    This is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" -- the fallacy of confusing sequence
    with consequence.  If A and B are statistically correlated, you have to ask
    whether A *caused* B, or whether B caused A, or whether A and B both result
    from a third cause, C.  Or whether the connection is accidental.

    People who abuse illegal drugs are usually seeking relief from something,
    and are very likely to abuse not one illegal drug, but several of them.
    Lots of people pop pills with alcohol.  And sometimes die from it.

    If they were into coke, speed, heroin, acid, angel dust, I would *expect*
    them to be into pot as well.  And in fact, I would expect them to have
    started with it as their first *illegal* drug, because it's relatively
    benign, common, cheap, and easily obtainable.  Have we also asked how many
    of these dopeheads abuse alcohol as well?  Have we asked how many pot users
    do *not* go on to abuse other illegal drugs?

    We should also ask what else the pot smoker has in common with the crack
    smoker and the rest of them -- and the answer is simply that all of the
    drugs they use are illegal.  Why do people use drugs that are not legal?
    Some of them do so because they know perfectly well that "the law's an ass",
    but a fair percentage of both groups will do so because they're driven to
    break the law by their own need.  Here is another statistical link.

    If pot were legalized, I would naturally expect the number of users to go
    up.  I wouldn't expect the number of users of other drugs to go up, because
    the additional pot users would be those who preferred to keep within the
    law.  We might even see a slight *decrease* in the number of people using
    other illegal drugs.  If they figured that pot answered their needs about as
    well as some other drug, they might prefer to use the one that was legal.

    I am not the slightest bit impressed by anyone who argues that pot is wrong
    because it's illegal.  If you ask them why it's illegal, they'll often say
    "because it's wrong".  That's a circular argument.

    If you asked why it's *really* illegal, I'd have to ask "why are things in
    general illegal?"  The general answer is not because something is "wrong",
    but because enough people wanted it illegal to influence a bunch of
    politicians to pass a law against it.  Often this is because something is
    *really* wrong, such as murder, and most people wouldn't stand for it if we
    didn't have laws against murder.  Often it's just arbitrary, like the tax
    rate.  Sometimes the mere fact of agreeing on something is more important
    than what you agree on.  Often it's because deluded people think something
    is wrong.  They don't have to be right.  And all too often it's because
    certain people shout louder or have more clout.  Frequently the third and
    fourth reasons are connected, because the people with more clout can buy
    more shouting and persuade more of the deluded people to agree with them.

    To decide whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing if pot were
    legalized, I have to do some of this weighing of probabilities that is
    always necessary when you try to define reality.  Without hard evidence and
    a track record, there is no absolute reality; merely opinions and guesswork.
    When I do this weighing of evidence, I have to ask not only what the
    evidence is, but also who is presenting it, and what interest they have in
    the outcome.

    If they seem to be disinterested, as I am, that's one thing.  If they're
    solely looking out for themselves without seeking to penalize others, that's
    reasonable too.  If they're looking out for themselves to other people's
    detriment, I'll weigh what they say accordingly.  If they're simply dense,
    or hysterical, I'll attach some importance to that as well.

    In America today we have an enormous hysteria against "drugs".  I can't
    argue that drugs aren't a problem, but I will point out that people have a
    knee-jerk reaction to the word "drugs", a purely emotional reaction that has
    little relationship to the actual effect of any particular drug.  Many
    people are just too thick to tell the difference between one drug and
    another.  There is also a negative streak of puritanism that breeds
    suspicion about anything that makes people happy, be it sex or whatever.
    Presumably this comes from unhappy experiences that convince people life
    wasn't *meant* to be happy.  But these people make an unduly loud noise, so
    I tone down their unthinking reactions to pot accordingly.

    I attach far more importance to the fact that some people's economic
    dominance would be threatened by burgeoning sales of hemp products.  These
    people have plenty of clout with politicians and plenty of influence over
    what the media say -- which in turn affects the way people think.  Just
    thinking something's wrong or dangerous doesn't make it so.  But whether
    it's true or false, if a message is repeated enough times, it colors
    people's "reality".

    A message doesn't become any more true for being said many times over; but
    that's the way people think.  All of this doesn't prove that pot is right,
    or safe.  But it does indicate to me that there's a lot of shouting and not
    much solid evidence.

    I certainly can't agree with the notion that people who "promote drug use"
    should be subject to prosecution.  That flatly contradicts the First
    Amendment.  Nobody is stopping people from speaking out in *opposition* to
    drugs.  And if drug use is so bad, the facts ought to speak for themselves.

    The only thing that worries me about pot is the evidence that heavy users
    seem to sink into a kind of torpor in which they lose a great deal of
    initiative and ambition.  Being laid back is one thing.  Falling over
    backwards is quite another.  Of course, I can understand why certain people
    would be opposed to pot on these grounds, because people with ambition and
    greed are easily manipulated into being puppets to bolster the power of the
    manipuator.  People who are satisfied with life and couldn't give a damn
    will tell them to go jump in the lake.  All the same, I question the effect
    that a general loss of drive would have on a nation's vitality.

    But if I were asked to vote for legalization of pot, I'd go for it.  If it
    doesn't work, it doesn't work; but the world won't come to an end because of
    it.  It certainly didn't come to an end in Alaska, where it was legal until
    recently.  And the results would be very interesting to watch.

    Message: 7556
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Roger/7542
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 06:01:05

     i mught have anticipated a response like that from you. It goes so well
    with the simplistically twisted way your little brain functions. (or fails
    to function, depending on the point of view of the viewer.)

    Message: 7557
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:12:41

    Hey - I went from rum and lots of coke to straight shots of Jack Daniels!
    I'm bad to the bone! -=* ANN * =-

    Message: 7558
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:15:11

    ... and long live Libertarians!!! -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 7559
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon on M.J.
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:27:43

    Truly enjoyed your 5 posts on pot. You look at things so nice and reasonable
     - no hysteria!
     However, I am disappointed in your joking type posts to me about England,
    taxes there, etc. etc. You are such a prolific writer - I thought for sure
    I'd be able to find out about a foreign country for a change from a good
    source. Now, I've lost my original post (questions) to you and have lost
    your reply because the system cut me off and I don't know what # your post
    was. Maybe in the future you would tell me about England OK? I guess I want
    to find out if they are so different than us - political wise - restrictive
    wise. -=*ANN *=-

    Message: 7560
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Drugs
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:49:41

    Well, I mostly agree with you, I'm afraid.

    Message: 7561
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Paul/7556
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 09:03:43

    And you should eat some smart pills.

    Message: 7562
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/England
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 14:20:38

    Don't worry, I do intend to put some more complete answers up in the
    immediate future.  If you're having trouble locating your original post, it
    was 76526.  Mine was 76549.

    "The number is...  76549.  Please make a note of it.  Thank you for using
    AT&T."

    Message: 7563
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:34:37

    Re:  The only reason a pot smoker may become paranoid is that smoking pot is
    a crime in the eyes of the establishment.

    I don't think so.

    Message: 7564
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last/felix
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:16:29

    That's okay by me.  Think what you like.  Go to church, pray, worship
    something.  Believe what you want.  It won't change anything.

    Message: 7565
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Pot
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:21:23

    Some excellent posts on drugs here (except for the lunacy group).

    I've smoked pot for twenty five years and I have never had the desire to try
    heroin or alcohol.  By the way, from the information I have, alcohol is
    harder on an individual than heroin and I believe it.

    Many people have died from the killer Columbian Coffee Bean than from both
    Heroin and Marijuana combined.  Smoke that.

    And as far as pot making someone lazy, I'd like to see either Paul, Cliff or
    Thornburg keep up with me at work or play.  And as for ambition, I have been
    self employed for most all of my working career.

                                    Rod

    Message: 7566
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dean/you win
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:23:35

    I made up some buttons this week and showed them to various people.  I asked
    them to point out their favorites.  Each of the people picked your, "Don't
    Edit Reality for the sake of Simplicity.  Those buttons are now at
    Metropophobia.

    Message: 7567
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon, you 1-5
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 18:47:24

    Excellent posts.  Have you thought of sending that message off as an article
    in some rag?  It's good.

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4913
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Beyond...
    Subject: Major Labor Pains!
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 13:08:16

    I didn't want to aggravate the other discussions, so I put
    this here.

    What if it were true that your chances of getting past the
    pearly gates were directly proportional to your frequency
    of birth?  If you had been *very* frequently born during life, say
    at about 4MHz throughout your life, would you get to take
    cuts in line?  What about the poor schmucks who had only
    been born twice?  Would they have to wait around forever?!
    Does anyone know if frequency analysis (or some suitable
    analog) is mentioned in the Bible?

    Message: 4914
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: last/frequency
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:25:53

    It's not nice to not share drugs with your friends.

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Message: 76506
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Police State
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 15:59:30

            The Webster's New Twentieth Century (UNABRIDGED) Dictionary states:

    police state, a government that seeks to intimidate and suppress POLITICAL
    opposition by means of a secret police force.

            Rod was smoking something or just added what he wanted to the true
    definition of 'police state'... not one of my Webster's (I have several big
    ones) has the meaning Rod posted.  Not even close!

    Message: 76507
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beau/name change
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 16:46:48

      Will that make you and Melissa eligible for some kind of pensions?
    Colonels do pretty well I bet.
      See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 76508
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Prohiboholics Anon.
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 17:59:29

      Now that Matsuda has cloned the gene, it will be much
    simpler to study and screen drugs that bind to the cannabinoid
    receptor.  "Once you can clone the receptor, you can screen
    1,000 compounds each day," observes Solomon H. Snyder of
    John Hopkins University, one of the investigators who
    established in the 1970s that the brain contains opiate
    receptors known as endorphins.  Synthetic analgesics that
    arose from that discovery are now being tested in clinical
    trials.
      Some drug companies studied synthetic cannabinoids a decade
    or more ago but gave up because of their side effects.
    Pfizer, for example, experimented with levonantradol, a
    compound that proved to be a potent antiemetic and analgesic
    in clinical trials.  But the company abandoned commercial
    development of the drug because it sedated patients too
    much, according to Lawrence S. Melvin, Jr., a Pfizer
    pharmacologist.
      Susan J. Ward, a pharmacologist at Sterling Drug, says her
    company has developed a new range of compounds, known as
    aminoalkylindoles, that bind strongly to cannabinoid
    receptors.  Sterling has also developed compounds that
    prevent binding to the receptor.  But it is Snyder's
    impression that "none of the drug candidates have been free
    from psychoactivity.  They are good analgesics, but they
    make you high, so they won't be developed."
      With the cloning of the cannabinoid receptor, that
    obstacle may vanish, Snyder says.  As a molecular tool, the
    clone could lead the way to subtypes of the cannabinoid
    receptor.  Drugs designed to affect receptor subtypes might
    well have advantageous effects.  According to Snyder,
    Matsuda's data already provide a hint that a receptor
    subtype might exist.                            --T.M.B.

    From Scientific American, March 1991, Letters:

    Misplaced Priorities?

    To the Editors:
      "Cannabis Comprehended." by Timothy Beardsley (("Science
    and the Citizen," Scientific American, October 1990)), was
    more noteworthy for the medical biases that it revealed than
    for its news of recent brain physiology discoveries.
    Medical technologies that have unpleasant side effects, such
    as radiation therapies for cancer that cause headaches,
    nausea and hair loss, are considered acceptable.  Yet a drug
    that makes patients "high" as its main (if not only) side
    effect will not even be developed!
      Are we so afraid of pleasure that we would rather let
    people suffer than risk letting some of them have fun?

    Wilma Keppel
    Omaha, Neb.

    Message: 76511
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Bill #76497
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 18:30:52

    Cute.

    "Hippocampus" was transcribed correctly but "cannaboids"
    should have been "cannabinoids."

    "Cannaboids" is a brand of canned cockatoo entrails currently
    being test marketed in Brooklyn.

    (thanks for catching it)

    Message: 76512
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Paul/Sin
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 19:04:58

    How suggestive.

    Message: 76513
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Rod / "Heathen"
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 22:57:55

        I know an arrow leading to the lion arena when I see one.

    Message: 76514
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul on Roger
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 23:08:42

         If Roger calls us "boobs" because we believe the Bible, then perhaps
    that is why he refers to himself as a "christian agnostic."  Since it is
    only through the Bible that Jesus is described in his fullness and divine
    nature, I could see where Roger, doubting the Bible, could hesitate to come
    down from the middle of the fence and embrace the Living One who calls,
    "Come!"

         Christ describes the fate of such that fall into this category in
    Revelation 3:15-16.  I certainly do not wish to see such a thing happen on
    Roger, but if he denies the Lord and His Christ, then I can certainly not
    be expected to bear the burden of the consequences nor the guilt that would
    result in those consequences.

         We are by nature rebellious and independent.  When we leave the nest,
    we are happy to be free from our parent's guidance.  We certainly do not
    wish to be told that we have another Father, and we certainly do not want to
    be told that we are dependent upon Him for anything.  Pride cometh before a
    fall.  My pride caused me to fall and crushed me.  It was only in that
    helpless state that I was able to understand just how helpless I indeed was.
    I am not ashamed to admit that I serve God, that I believe in His Word,
    that, despite my shortcomings and sinful nature, I try to live my life in
    accordance with His will.  And it is my faith that makes Christ's
    righteousness mine, and makes my feeble attempts at obedience righteous in
    my Father's sight.  It's a real man who is able to get down on his knees.

    Message: 76515
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on The Bird
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 23:10:44

         You are certainly welcome to take HER "under your wing."  Granted, I
    have not had a lot of time to work with her, so she is not exactly tame.
    (Not that she bites, but she is rather flighty.)
         Let me know an evening that I would be able to get her over to you.
    And leave directions for me in E-mail.  After I picked up the monitor, I did
    something with the directions I had. They most likely got tossed.

    Message: 76516
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: 76470 / Roger
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 23:12:11

        Yes, you must be.  Although I doubt that Christ said it with a Southern
    drawl, I agree with it.  Being a BAC is the only way that you can truly be a
    Christian.

    Message: 76517
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger on Paul
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 23:16:16

        Roger, EVERYONE is self-righteous to some extent.  The only exception
    was Jesus Christ.  The sinful nature within us causes at least some pride to
    leak out from time to time.  But should we attempt to justify our own self-
    righteousness by comparing it to another's?  Or should it rather compel us
    to understand our shortcomings and remind us of the true and perfect
    righteousness that is given us in Christ?  It's hard to pull a speck out of
    someone else's eye when...well, you know (I hope you know) the rest.

    Message: 76518
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michelle & Beau
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 23:22:37

    "My lover is mine and I am his;
         he browses among the lilies.
     Until the day breaks and the shadows flee,
         turn, my lover, and be like a gazelle
             or like a young stag on the rugged hills."   (SS 2:16)

    "Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the maidens." (SS 2:2)

        Congratulations to the two of you as you enter into the lifelong
    commitment of marriage.  May your lives together be blessed, and may your
    many experiences as husband and wife, in good times and bad, be memories to
    treasure.

    Message: 76519
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: BURKETT
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 02:22:31

         Pushing product is the bottom line.  Praise the almighty buck.

    (Actually, the gallery is still open.  This is an additional, albeit a bit
    more commercial, venture.)

    Message: 76520
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: BILL ON MARK
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 02:25:03

         Boy, talk about holding a grudge.  Talk about making mountains out of
    molehills.  So he threatens a user or two with physical harm - nobody is
    perfect, 'ya know?  Sheesh.  Remind me never to look at YOU crosseyed!

    Message: 76521
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: DARYL/SERRANO
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 02:35:04

         "I see a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Tell me, how much more
    research..."

         Using that logic one could then say, "God commanded a bear to eat
    children just because they made fun of the bald head of one of his
    disciples.  Tell me, how much more research do I have to do to know God must
    be pretty malicious?"
         Of course, you'd probably say that person was closed minded for
    basing an entire opinion on hearsay.

         From your last, I assume you have seen the photograph.  What could be
    lost by making a point of looking up the article the next time you're at the
    library?

    Message: 76522
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill/76496
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 05:31:23

    Oh right! Roger is so self-righteous in his unbelief! Such a picture of
    humility and servitude! HAH!
     Besides, my nose only honks about twice a year, when something or other
    blooms. THe rest of the year, I have to use a mechanical horn.
     Thanks for the nice words on my shoes, however, They're supposed to be
    funny.

    Message: 76523
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/shining
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 05:36:57

     Did I create yet another typo Gordon? I MEANT sun, not sin. THe only place
    where sin never shines (or rears it's ugly head) is in Jesus CHrist, and as
    far as Roger is concerned, I think He (Jesus) is still waiting in the wings.
     THe rest of us are just as much a mess, except for the fact that we are
    forgiven and justified in Him.

    Message: 76524
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl-what?
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 06:24:02

    Re: "Being a Born Again Christian is the only way that you can truly be a
    Christian"!!!! (Daryl Westfall to Roger Mann)

    What in the world are U talking about? I think you offended every Christian
    that was raised in a faith and belived in it! I've never heard such a
    'nutsy' statement in my life. Where did you come up with that doozie? Who
    ever told you that one - I'd stay away from. Satan sent him!!!! Geeze!
                                *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76525
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl #76517
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 06:36:20

    Re: your ... "The sinful nature within us causes at least some pride to leak
    out from time to time".

    Pray tell man what is the matter with a little pride? It is inborn - you can
    see it even in small children that haven't yet been taught to be prideful.
    Why can't pride be a positive thing? Why must some Christians condemn just
    about everything and leave nothing but a shell of themselves because
    everything to them is a 'sin' - drinking, dancing, smoking, pride, cards.
    I think it would be a heck of a lot simpler and enjoyable  if you just took
    a whip and beat yourselves and called it even! Instead of trying to find the
    positive in the Bible, they only find reasons to not enjoy themselves in
    this life and pick other's apart because they do. I just don't get this Born
    Again Christian stuff and having to refrain from all the goodies in life.
    From what I've been told about it, I'd avoid it like the plague if that is
    what it means. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76526
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Gordon on England
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 06:51:01

    Could you answer some questions about your former country? I am curious to
    see if we are alike in many ways or totally different.

    Do the English pay more taxes than we do a year? The middle income people?
    How is property priced there? High I assume, but is there any new building
    going on? How often do people move?
    Is England leaning more towards socialism than capitalism? What about
    welfare - socialized medicine? Is there many small businesses or more large
    corporations like we have here? What about prices at the supermarkets? The
    same or higher/lower?
    Are they obsessed with cigarette smokers - cholesterol - obesity - alcohol -
    ratting on their neighbors - racism. How do they feel about not being able
    to own a gun?
    Is there less of such things as child abuse? (Sexually also?) Less gays?
    Less AIDS? What kills the English the most - heart disease, cancer, other?
    What is their life expectency? Do they show more mannors towards each other
    than we do? What about the abortion issue?

    It is very rare to find out about other countries from the 'horse's mouth'
    so to speak and no offence intended! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76527
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Paul and Roger
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 07:52:37

    A very thoughtful and well-written response. Rather than the near-hysterical
    response by Paul you rise the the challenge. There is no rebellion on my
    part --- only the sad recognition that the faith of my childhood is based
    upon empty promises with nothing behind it. A realization that we are alone,
    together, in this universe. If there is comfort to give, we give it to each
    other. If there is forgiveness, it is we who forgive each other. Each of us
    are human and we share the common bond of humanity. More than that, we share
    the common ancestry of billions of years of evolution with the rest of the
    universe. We are learning not to destroy but to build, and as we build, the
    universe builds becoming something we cannot know but something we have
    a part in playing. So, we have a choice: we can be builders or we can be
    destroyers. Let's throw off our superstitions and hatred of others and
    become builders together.

    Message: 76528
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: 76516/Daryl
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 07:54:09

    At least according to "John". What about "Matthew, Mark, and Luke" (I don't
    consider Paul to be a Christian, since he subverted the young religion to
    his own purposes and glory.

    Message: 76529
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Roger
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 07:54:54

    True. It's just that some folks are a leetle more annoying than others.

    Message: 76530
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: My Dinner with...
    Subject: Apro-Cannaboids
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:19:19

    > "Cannaboids" is a brand of canned cockatoo entrails currently
    > being test marketed in Brooklyn.

    Love it!  Are they from Chef Boidardee?

    Hey, Annie!  Put those birds to work!

    Message: 76531
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Rod Defines
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:19:46

    > I'm sorry that you cannot accept Webster's Unabridged
    > Dictionary's verbatim meaning of "police state".  I don't have
    > a problem with it.

    I do.  And my definition came from a Webster's Unabridged, too.

    > I would imagine that all countries have their secret police
    > squads ready to roll when necessary.

    You might be surprised at how much we agree.  Too bad you picked such an
    extreme starting point.

    Message: 76532
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Cliff-Rod's Def
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:20:11

    > Rod was smoking something or just added what he wanted to the
    > true definition of 'police state'... not one of my Webster's (I
    > have several big ones) has the meaning Rod posted.  Not even
    > close!

    I doubt that Rod added anything to the definition he gave.  If he says it's
    verbatim, I believe him.  On the other hand, that he took it from a pinko
    leftist commie-inspired running yellow dog dictionary cannot be in doubt.

    Message: 76533
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon-Hist Lesson
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:20:50

    > Is it recorded in the annals of King Henry I?

    The puniness of American history struck me when I took some friends from
    Britain to see the Indian ruins at Tuzigoot.  I had told them how wondrous
    these ruins are and how amazing it was that, given the supposed
    technological backwardness of the people, the ruins had survived so long.

    While touring the ruins I caught them snickering at one of the signs near
    the entrance.  I asked what was so funny.  The replied, "We were married in
    a church older than this."

    Oh well.

    Message: 76534
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter's A Pusher
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:21:25

    > Pushing product is the bottom line.  Praise the almighty buck.

    Any Madonna trinkets for sale?  (I want one of those pointy brassieres Opus
    was wearing a couple weeks ago.)

    Message: 76535
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Crosseyed Peter
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:21:51

    > Remind me never to look at YOU crosseyed!

    I HATE when people do that!  I'm never sure which is the good eye.

    Message: 76536
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul & Daryl
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 08:22:07

    I wonder if we could enlist these two in the wars on drugs and gangs.  If
    they could be persuaded to come out in support of these two
    crises-of-the-week, I'm sure drugs and gangs would start to look so bad no
    one would go near either again.

    I mean, look what they've done for Christianity and religion in general.

    Message: 76538
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 09:55:42

    How about an original poem rather than copied Bible verses for Mychele and
    Beau?

    Message: 76539
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Puny history
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 10:00:44

    This has been bothering me too.  Maybe that's why I live in a 1938 house
    with a 1972 cat and drive a 1969 car.  I'm thinking of rebuilding and
    restoring those old round refrigerators to sell.  Any takers?

    Message: 76540
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Volcano watching
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 12:40:10

    We must be living quite close to a volcano ourselves.  If we stroll outside
    our house and look around, we can find cinders like pieces of pumice.

    I'm sure there's evidence that the San Francisco Peak did erupt about the
    year 1100, but I wondered how anyone managed to pin it to an exact year
    (1116).  My question is, who was around to do the counting?

    The Mayas had calendars, but they'd all gone by then.  So did the Aztecs,
    but I didn't think the locals in Arizona were much at keeping calendars in
    1116.  Maybe the date of the eruption was fixed with something mundane like
    dendrochronology.

    It seems highly unlikely that any Europeans were around to record the event,
    but I didn't want to reject that possibility out of hand either.  Doing that
    would be perpetuating the myth that Christopher Columbus was the first
    European to get to America, and ignoring once again the people who came here
    before him.

    Not forgetting the people who were already here, of course.

    Oh, there are supposed to be some ancient ruins in Zimbabwe, but I don't
    think anybody knows who built them.  Sure wasn't Cecil Rhodes.

    Message: 76541
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: BBBs
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 17:37:46

    Bible-believing Boobs does not mean that all boobs are bible-believing, nor
    does it mean that all bible-believers are boobs.  I can talk about American
    Nazis without getting you upset, can't I?

    Message: 76542
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Prohiboholics Anon.
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 18:44:03

    From Scientific American, December 1990:

    Going to Pot
    A grassroots movement touts hemp's environmental virtues

    Worried about global warming?  The depletion of forests?
    U.S. dependence on foreign oil?  World hunger?  How about
    the cost of bailing out savings and loan banks?  A small but
    vocal group of Americans is promoting a simple solution to
    these problems: hemp, also known as *Cannabis Sativa*, or
    marijuana.
      Pot enthusiasts have lobbied for the drug's legalization
    for decades--in vain.  But recently they have put an
    environmental spin on their pitch.  They claim that the
    fast-growing, hardy weed can yield more cellulose per acre
    than trees; it can be woven into textiles while doing less
    damage to the environment than synthetic fibers or even
    cotton; its seeds, which are not psychoactive, are second in
    protein content only to soybeans; and its seed oil and raw
    biomass make a renewable source of fuel.
      The guru of this grassroots movement is Jack Herer, a
    large, hirsute Californian and admitted marijuana partaker.
    "I'm smoking right now," he growled in a recent telephone
    interview.  Herer says he has a "pipe dream" in which people
    live in homes made of hemp particleboard, read hemp
    newspapers, wear hemp clothes, drive cars powered by
    hemp-based methanol and even dine on hemp-seed tofu.
      Five years ago Herer wrote and published a history of hemp
    called *The Emperor Wears No Clothes*.  The book, which
    Herer says has sold more than 100,000 copies so far, is
    chock-full of marijuana Americana.  It notes that Thomas
    Jefferson, among other forefathers, grew hemp on his farm
    and that the sails and shrouds of the USS *Constitution*
    were made out of the stuff, as were the original Old Glory
    sewn by Betsy Ross and the first Levi jeans.
      Indeed, hemp was once a major crop in the U.S., used to
    make textiles, rope, paper and other products.  Herer
    contends it was banned in the 1930s not because of its
    health risks but because it posed an economic threat to
    industrialists--notably newspaper magnate William Randolph
    Hearst--committed to wood and petroleum-based products.  If
    hemp is allowed to return, Herer says, "it could save the
    planet."
      Other experts say Herer's claims are a bit exaggerated.
    David F. Musto, a Yale University historian of illegal
    drugs, noted that Hearst campaigned in his newspapers
    against all drugs, not just marijuana.  Quentin Jones of the
    U.S. Agricultural Research Service adds that while hemp is
    certainly versatile, other plants can fulfill its verious
    roles more economically.
      Herer retorts that he has a standing offer of $10,000 to
    anyone who can prove him wrong.  He has formed two groups--
    the Business Alliance for Commerce in Hemp and Help End
    Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP)--to promote the cause.  He also
    lectures and organizes rallies across the country.  In late
    September he spoke at a pro-marijuana "festival" in Madison,
    Wis., attended by 14,000 people.
      Herer has had difficulty enlisting mainstream types in his
    movement.  Yet he did inspire a Kentucky attorney named
    Gatewood Galbraith to enter his state's 1991 gubernatorial
    race on the hemp-legalization platform.  Galbraith, who has
    made campaign appearances in a car powered by diesel fuel and
    hemp oil, insists his candidacy is for real.  He points out
    that in 1983 he won more than 40,000 votes in a losing bid
    to become commissioner of agriculture and that country and
    western star Willie Nelson has endorsed his current bid.
    "Politically," proclaims Galbraith, who shares Herer's
    passion for smoking pot, "I'm right on the cutting edge."
      Now about the S&L crisis.  A plan devised by the Business
    Alliance for Commerce in Hemp calls for legalizing
    marijuana, now conservatively estimated to be a
    $50-billion-a-year business, and then allowing ailing banks
    to recoup their losses by investing in the trade.  Call it
    a joint venture.

    From Scientific American, April 1991:

    Hemp Hassles

    To the Editors:
      I enjoyed your discussion of the many nonsmoking
    commercial uses of the hemp plant, alias marijuana
    (("Science and the Citizen," Scientific American, December
    1990)).  One small point needs to be clarified, however: I
    am the sole founder and national director of the Business
    Alliance for Commerce in Hemp (BACH).  Jack Herer is not
    directly affiliated with us.
      Ironically, in that same issue, "50 and 100 Years Ago"
    reprinted a 1940 item about how Du Pont's first nylon plant
    might replace a third of U.S. silk imports by 1942.
    Farm-grown hemp fiber could, or course, have met the entire
    silk demand--but it had been outlawed in 1938 at the urging
    of Du Pont and other special interests.

    Chris Conrad
    National Director, BACH / Los Angeles, Calif.

    Message: 76546
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Police State
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 19:31:18

    Besides arguing against the existence of undercover police
    squads, does anyone care to address my questions at the end
    of #76411?

    Whenever there's talk in the mainstream media of prison overcrowding,
    the only solution offered is to build more prisons.  The
    fact that more citizens are incarcerated per capita in the
    United States than in any other country is conspicuously
    avoided.  Frankly, this is beginning to disturb me.
    We were once third behind the Soviet Union and South Africa.

    Message: 76547
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill Burkett
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 20:11:07

    Funny, when I read about the "Hippocampus", the exact same thing
    entered my mind;
    "This guy's yankin my chain, it's really a HIPPIE CAMPUS."

    Well, it was worth a chuckle anyway.

    Message: 76548
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Apro-76411
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 20:27:40

    Well, 13% increase in prison population.{ Neet. Now adjust it to
    make it a per capita increase to wash off the sensationalism.
    America's population is also increasing, not just in birth rates
    either. WIth this open borders policy, I'd doubt we are receiving anything
    less than a few million newcomers each year from the south.
    I find no evidence of sadomasochistic tendencies or policies within
    the City of Phoenix. Actually, having delt with a church visitation
    program, and after hearing many a story, it's my opinion that
    the system bends over backwards to prevent incarcerations.

    Check out the figures for education, match them with the percentage
    of increasing calls to police and demand for police services. Nope,
    it ain't the Government. It's the people. And the people
    are winding up there with little help from the Government.

    Message: 76549
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/England (1/183)
    Date: 07/11/91  Time: 21:35:28

    Well, a response to all these interesting questions ought to be good for a
    quite a few posts.  To mollify those people who must be thinking to
    themselves "Dammit, I was afraid of that!" I'll try to answer them as
    concisely as I can.

         Yes.  I would be too.

         Yes.  Yes.
         High.  Yes.  Less often.
         Somewhat.  What about it? -- it's still there.  Not as many.  What
              about them?  Higher.
         Less so.  Not as concerned.
         Yes.  (Probably.)  No.
         Yes.  Heart disease.
         70.2 male, 76.2 female.  Often.  What about it? -- like welfare and
              socialized medicine, it's still there too.

         Yes it is, no offence taken.  [I echo British spelling of "offense".]

    More CONcise means less PREcise, however, so I appreciate that this needs
    elaborating.

    Message: 76550
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Petrisko/Serrano
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 01:23:31

        Perhaps I will.  Granted, you make a pretty good point there.

    Message: 76551
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann on Born Again
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 01:36:17

    (Ann to Me)

    > I've never heard such a 'nutsy' statement in my life. Where did you come
    > up with that doozie? ...I think you offended every Christian that was
    > raised in a faith and believed in it... Where did you come up with that
    doozie? Who ever told you that one - I'd stay away from. Satan sent him!!!!"
    "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born
    of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives
    birth to spirit.  You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be
    born again.'"

    You know who spoke those words, Ann? JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

    Those who have faith in Christ and trust in his word ARE born again, Ann. I
    don't know what your concept of 'being born again' is, but whatever it is,
    it is apparently at odds with what being born again REALLY means. If the
    concept of being born again offends a Christian, then that Christian really
    needs to read because he doesn't understand the ABC's of his faith.

    You say that the person who spoke these words is to be avoided? That he is
    of Satan? Do you know that the people of Jesus' time said the same things
    about him? "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow
    drives out demons." Want to read his reply? Look up Matthew 12:25-37.

    Message: 76552
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 01:41:47

        You miss the point entirely.  Being a Christian is not being miserable.
    Being a MONK may be miserable, but being a Christian certainly is not. Your
    "enjoying oneself" must be defined however, as well as "all the goodies in
    life."

        Being a Christian is not a dull experience in the least.  HOWEVER, being
    a Christian does mean that one recognizes that one does have to answer to
    his Superior, in his words, and his actions.  There are lots of ways to have
    fun that don't result in STDs or hangovers.  It's funny that the only people
    that I have heard complain about the Christian lifestyle are those outside
    of the picture. And I can testify to that, because I've been on both sides
    of that picture.

    Message: 76553
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Roger/Apostle Paul
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 01:43:31

    >I don't consider Paul to be a Christian, since he subverted...to his own
    >purposes and glory.

    How so?

    Message: 76554
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill / 76536
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 01:45:18

        Ooh, what a low blow.  Ow, what a one two punch.  Ouch, I am in pain.

    Message: 76555
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michael / 76538
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 01:49:33

         Well, gee Mr. James, I'm sorry for doing something a little different
    in the way of congratulations. I thought my post was very much
    appropriate. I must say this is a first for me. I have never been criticised
    for a congratulatory reply before - especially not from someone to whom that
    blessing was not even intended.

    Message: 76556
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: War!
    Subject: Final
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 02:01:56

         Simply amazing.

         Of course, I COULD simply shut up.

         But I'm not always one for giving the public what they want.

         I've been accused of everything from giving Christianity a bad name to
    writing lousy messages of congratulations.  That's what I've always loved
    about Apollo [no offense, Cliff]: It's warm homey atmosphere.  One where
    one can really say what he thinks without being demeaned or belittled. I
    guess that's why I hang around.  Either that or I'm a masochist.

          A Christian masochist.  What a concept.

    Message: 76557
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Annie/76524
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 05:47:14

    Daryl got that "nusty" statement from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself, who
    is quoted in the Bible as saying "You MUST be born again."
     If you can't believe Jesus, who can you believe?

    Message: 76558
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 05:58:52

     Keep on keeping on, brother! Just don't stop posting because the atheists,
    agnostics and plain ignoramuses are after you!
     By the way, I read the last chapter in the Book, and we win! Hah!

    Message: 76559
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger #76527
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 07:16:31

    Very good post - but you'll get a hysterical response. -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76560
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill on entrails
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 07:18:37

    We got rid of our Cockatoo a year ago. No braised entrails today!
                         -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76561
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on BAC
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 07:31:57

    I have always been confused on what a Born Again Christian is. I have heard
    claims from people that told me .... they found God on the spot .... that
    they came back to their religion after losing their faith for awhile .. that
    they changed religions! All these said this is what is meant by being Born
    Again. I even have been told that if you were a Catholic for example, was
    baptised shortly after birth and raised in that faith, that you still wern't
    Christian but needed to be born again to be saved. {
    The words "Born Again" means to me to come back to a faith you turned your
    back on for a while! -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76562
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on other
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 07:43:23

    I too have been on both sides and have came to the conclusion that society
    says what we should do, eat, drink more than God does!
    Enjoy? I would be totally bored to death to never dance, play cards, drink
    etc. To go to church again and hear boring, long sermons giving by someone
    not any less of a sinner than myself is un-thinkable to me now. To read the
    Bible all the time ... ugh! Not only would it be boring, but it is hard
    reading and not understandable. I now hear you quoting the Bible all the
    time and I remember myself doing just that and I cringe at how people must
    have started avoiding me because of it. I had no mind of my own - no
    personality except what I thought I should have.
    I find joy in God without all of it - but I also enjoy a good belt of
    whiskey and a poker game and we go dancing and raising hell on occasion.
    I may even smoke a big cigar one of these days! If born again means I must
    give these up .... count me out! -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76563
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Paul
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 07:47:53

    I too think Paul was a fake - just like Oral Roborts - Bakker and the ilk.
    Why? Because it doesn't make sense what he said about women in the Bible
    that's why. Yeah, I'll admit that hits close to home but it is still a
    questionable subject. I am sure you will tell me reason as to why Paul hated
    women but I can't justify it for any reason. According to him, they belonged
    in their place! Doesn't sound like someone sent from God to me.
                  -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76564
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on BA
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 07:54:13

    When Jesus talked of being born again that meant shedding of the old
    belief's and taking on the new - being Baptised! It didn't mean people had
    to have some sort of 'on the spot revelation'. As I mentioned, I have talked
    to people that claimed that being raised and believing in a religion such as
    Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist ISN'T enought - that one must be born
    again to reach Heaven - be a true Christian!!
                                -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76565
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:06:57

    Re: your .... "if the concept of being born again offends a Christian, then
    that Christian really needs to read because he doens't understand the ABC's
    of his faith" .....That statement I find very confusing to say the least.
    Here again I'm getting the opinion that BA and being a Christian are two
    different things - that being JUST a Christian isn't enough! Isn't EVERY
    Christian BORN AGAIN???? I think maybes if you defined the two...!

                          -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76566
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Grand
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:10:13

    I wanted to announce that old Annie is now a 'great grandma' and it is
    great! We went to see and hold little Johnathon Michael last night and it
    was wonderful. Not bragging of course, he IS a good looking baby.
                               -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 76567
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Darly/Paul
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:39:45

    As you know, Paul had a fight with Peter. Peter lost and Paul won. Most of
    the stuff Christians profess are an almalgam of Hellenistic mores (look at
    Paul's anti-sex stance) and Paul's interpretation.

    Message: 76568
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul/Daryl
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:41:15

    NO NO NO. Jesus Christ NEVER said it. It was a story written by "John"
    around 100 AD to provide a metaphor for the conversion experience.

    Message: 76569
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann on BAC
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:44:10

    We had a converted Catholic in our Baptist church. Catholic conversions to
    Protestantism were VERY rare, so we were extremely happy that this woman
    became a Christian. So, yes, at least the Baptist church did not consider
    RCC's to be "saved" (at least in 1950) I have no idea what they believe
    today (thank God)

    Message: 76570
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann/76565
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:47:44

    Very good question. Yes, every Christian IS born again. What the BAC's want
    you to do is be a Bible-Believer. The two were almost indistinguishable. If
    you follow the culture, you believe the same things they do. The central
    point being Bible Believer. The second church of my childhood was called
    Bible Community Church because the central tenet was belief in an inerrant
    Bible. (And we used to laugh at the RCC's because they believed in an
    inerrant Pope)

    Message: 76571
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/GG'ma
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 08:48:39

    Wow ! Congratulations. Y'all must have 'em REAL young.

    Message: 76572
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 13:06:23

    Quit whining.  I'm not going to feel sorry for you because you intentionally
    misinterpret my messages.

    Message: 76573
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 13:07:02

    How can you be a Christian and have no religious beliefs?

    Message: 76574
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 14:24:53

    Wow, a GREAT-grandma?  Congratulations!  Do you have an eventual goal in
    mind?  I mean, you've still got plenty of time to add a few more "greats"...

    Message: 76575
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michael/76573
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 16:18:06

    How indeed ? I'll let you make the appropriate conclusion.

    Message: 76576
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: In search of
    Subject: Dinosaurs
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 16:53:46

    The following is a reprint from a "Moody, May 1983" I thought
    I might share. The Author is Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD in Physics.
    He is a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque.
    ==================================================================
    Dale A. Russel is Scientific American magazine ("The mass
    Extinctions of the late Mesozoic," January 1982, pp. 58-65)
    examines different explanations for the mysterious disappearance
    of dinosaurs from the earth "at the end of the Mesozoic era
    some 63 million years ago."
            At that time "at least 15 separate families of dinosaurs,
    possibly representing between 50 and 70 distinct species,
    inhabited North America.
    Scientists, he says, have put forward many hypotheses to account
    for the abrupt disappearance. He mentions  "disruptions of the
    food chain both at sea and on land, a general alteration of the
    environment as the sea level began to drop at the end of the
    Mesozoic, a sharp rise in temperature, a fall in temperature
    caused by volcanic dust in the atmosphere and so on."
            Evolutionists are not agreed whether a resulting shock wave
    or tidal wave or the spreading of 500 billion tons of meteorite
    dust (containing iridium) forced dinosaurs off the Earth.
    Some varieties of the evolutionist scientist claim sharp rises in
    temperature, a fall in temperature caused by volcanic dust in the
    atmosphere and so on.   In contrast to all of this, the Bible implies
    that dinosaurs existed in the days of Adam, Noah and Job.
    It describes two of them in detail. We find evidence of men and
    dinosaurs together in fossils, in worldwide legends and possibly
    even in today's world.
     On the fifth day, "God created the great sea monsters"
    (Gen. 1:21). The Hebrew word given here as "sea monsters" is TANNIN,
    often translated as "dragon":
    "In that day the Lord will punish Leviathan the fleeing
    serpent.....even Leviathan the twisted serpent; and He will kill the
    dragon [tannin] who lives in the sea" (Isa.27:1).

            So the great tannin of Genesis 1:21 seem to be a large sea-
    going reptile, such as the plesioaur ("near lizards"), a long-
    necked sea-swimming creature with a large body, four pad like
    fins, a long tail and lots of teeth.
            In the beginning these dinosaurs were part of the creation
    that God called "very good": "There is the sea...and Leviathan,
    which Thou hast formed to sport in it." (Psalm 104:25,26).
    At that time they ate only plants (Gen. 1:30). But like all of
    creation, they were affected by Adam's sin (Gen. 3 Rom. 8:19-22).
    Probably then, many of them became the meat-eaters
    we find in the fossils. According to Genesis 5, more than a
    thousand years passed from Creation to the birth of Noah. During
    that time men and other creatures multiplied rapidly (Gen. 6:1).
    Possibly the dinosaurs contributed to the violence that filled the
    earth (Gen. 6:11-13). Because of man's corruption, God destroyed
    the human race in a flood of water so great that
    "all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered"
    (Gen. 7:19). This would be the flood that killed all
    land animals: "Thus he blotted out every living thing
    that was upon the face of the land" (Gen. 7:23).
    The word translated "blotted-out" here literally means "wipe",
    like wiping dirt off a dish. (2 Kings 21:13). So God physically
    swept the animals off the surface of the continent.
    Many of their bodies were buried in tons of mud carried downhill
    by onrushing water. Organic material in the mud hardened it rapidly
    like concrete and formed the fossil rocks we find today.
    The only exceptions to this destruction were the sea creatures,
    Noah and his family and the animals God sent to him: 'Two of every
    kind shall come to you to keep them alive" (Gen. 6:20). Since
    dinosaurs are among the fossils, they must have existed when the
    flood started. So many pairs must have presented themselves to Noah.
    Were they too big for the ark? Not if they were young dinosaurs.
    Unlike mammals, reptiles never stop growing.
    The longer they live the bigger they get. The large dinosaurs may
    simply have been older ones, just as some men had long lives before
    the flood (Gen. 5).
         In any case, there was no need to take full-grown dinosaurs
    aboard.  Some of the stronger creatures left outside the ark fought
    upstream to higher ground. Both men and dinosaurs probably found
    themselves together on shrinking islands of safety.
    There is interesting fossil evidence for this in the limestone bed
    of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.
            In the Cretaceous (dinosaur) layer that the river has uncovered,
    trails of both human and dinosaur crisscross together. "Footprints in
    Stone," produced by Films for Christ in 1973, documents excavations
    of some of the trails. Dr. John D. Morris has written "Tracking
    Those Incredible Dinosaurs" (Creation-Life, 1980) and included
    photos, diagrams and locations of each trail. Evolutionists have
    tried to explain the human footprints as "carvings."
    But newer excavations in June of 1982 in the limestone shelf at the
    river's edge show the same human and dinosaur trails under
    undisturbed rock. These tracks, uncovered in front
    of TV cameras (WFAA, Dallas), could not have been carved.

            Naturally, Evolutionists don't like this evidence because their
    theories have the dinosaurs going extinct about 60 million years
    before man appeared. The Paluxy footprints imply that the whole
    evolutionary time scale is wrong.
            Dinosaurs leaving the ark after the flood would survive at least
    a short time. There is biblical evidence that the patriarch Job lived
    a few centuries after the flood, after Babel but before Abraham. Some
    of the evidence is: Job's lifetime (Job 42:16) compared to those in
    Genesis 11:10-26, a reference to the flood (Job 22:15,16) and the
    lack of any reference to Abraham or his descendants. So Job should
    have known about dinosaurs. Perhaps he even saw a few.
    In Job 38-41 God gave him examples from creation showing His wisdom
    and power. The climax in chapter 41 describes Leviathan.
    In the first nine verses God asks Job 14 questions.
    All of them imply that Leviathan is too powerful for
    humans to catch: "No one is so fierce that he dares
    to arouse him [Leviathan]; who then is he that can stand before
    me [God]?"

            Some scholars say that Leviathan is just a crocodile.
    But even primitive tribesmen can catch crocodiles.
    So Leviathan must be something much more powerful. He has
    impenetrable armor scales (vv. 13,15-17), great strength
    (12,22) jaws as large as doors (14), terrifying teeth (14).
    He churns through the sea leaving a wake behind him (32,32). This
    description fits the plesiosaurs and their kindred.
            But Leviathan also breathes fire.
    "His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes from his mouth"
    (Job 41:21). Because of that, other scholars say that God was merely
    talking about a mythical creature familiar to Job from nearby
    countries.
    But would God use something false to show Job true power?
    I don't think so. It is more reasonable to think Leviathan was real.
    It really wouldn't be hard for God to make a fire-breathing animal.
    For example, Leviathan could make a burnable organic gas (like methane)
    in his stomach, belch it out his mouth and strike a spark from
    special teeth as hard as flint. Presto, flames.
            God sums up Leviathan by saying,
            "Nothing on earth is like him, one made without fear"
            (Job 41:33).
    God describes another creature, "Behemoth," in Job 40:15-24.
    Behemoth sounds like a brontosaurus to me. Brontosaurs and their kind,
    the brachiosaurs, were huge plant eating, stumpy legged, long-necked,
    slow moving giants. Behemoth ate grass (v. 15), had strong muscles
    (16) and sturdy bones (18). It lived in swamps (21,22) and had a tail
    as big as a cedar tree (17). Some scholars want to demote
    Behemoth into being a Hippopotamus. But a Hippo's tail is more like
    a small rope than a cedar tree.
            Behemoth was "the first of the ways of God" (v. 19), probably
    because he was the biggest of God's creatures. Scientists in 1983,
    found the bones of one brachiosaur, the largest ever, in Colorado.
    He was about a hundred feet long abd weighed more than a hundred tons.
            Leviathan as a scaly fire-breathing monster fits the description
    of a dragon. Almost every ancient culture had a dragon myth. Such
    legends circulated in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Canaan, Greece, Northern
    Europe, China, Japan, Mexico and Peru. Many of these people had no
    contact with Israel or the Old Testament. But if dinosaurs existed
    at the time of Babel (Gen.11:9), parnets would tell their children
    about such a marvelous animal as they scattered all over the world.
    So the dragon myths apparently recall a time when men and dinosaurs
    existed together.

            According to scripture, the Flood was less than 5,000 years ago
    (Gen. 11:10-26, and others). There is biblical as well as contemporary
    evidence that the climate became much colder after the Flood. There
    is geologic evidence for at least one brief "ice-age" a short time
    after the fossils were laid down.
            Job mentions ice and snow (6:16;9:30;24:19;37:6;38:29) and
    possibly glaciers (37:10) in the presently warm Middle East.
    Most of the dinosaurs probably died out after a few centuries,
    being better suited to a warmer world. Some scientists suggest a few
    of them have survived to this day. In 1977 the New York Daily News,
    (July 21, p. 4C) printed an article about such a creature. It showed
    a photo of a 30-foot, two ton carcass dredged up from the South
    Pacific off New Zealand in the nets of a Japanese fishing trawler.
    It had "two fins front and rear, a 5-foot neck and a 6-foot tail."
    A Japanese biologist said it "looked like a plesiosaurus."
    Evolutionists have difficulty accepting such evidence. But creationist
    scientists have no problem with it, though they would not rest their
    case on such evidence.
    ======================================================================
    I figured I might post this to get these folks "with an open mind" a
    chance to read an alternative to the evolutionary line. Of course,  I
    have always figured that an open mind is a hole in one's head......;-)
    Comments of course, are welcomed.             -Mike

    Message: 76584
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike #76548
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 20:02:41

    Thanks for your reply.

    I originally took the 13% increase in U.S. prison population
    as you suggested and regarded it as simply as high and as
    low as it is.  My concern was the continuing increase in our
    already high per capita prison population--the highest in
    the world.  I'm afraid I didn't understand your last
    paragraph.  Did you mean that government policy should not be
    regarded as a causal agent in this prison problem?

    I'd be curious to hear from some Libertarians, too.

    Message: 76585
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/Paluxy
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 20:22:13

    I'll bet you 5-to-1 that Dr. Humphreys no longer believes the Paluxy river
    tracks, or any tracks in that area, to be evidence of human-dinosaur
    cohabitation.  It is certainly true that almost every other creationist has
    backed away from the "evidence" if not actually denounced it.

    As for all of the bible quotes, there are people who could find the same
    information in the works of Shakespeare, Sir A.C. Doyle, or Nostradamus.

    Message: 76587
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike Carter
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 20:52:28

    Please use the Religion Category when posting religious crap on this board.
    I suppose you swallow this pseudo-scientific clap-trap hook, line, and
    sinker. Well, I suspect you do for the same reason Paul Savage has to eat
    smart pills  ---  your brain has turned to mush listening to Pat Robertson
    on the BBB cable channel.

    Message: 76588
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dog
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:14:27

    Re:  Bible-believing Boobs does not mean that all boobs are bible-believing,
    nor does it mean that all bible-believers are boobs.

    Thank you Dog.  Now I feel better.

    Message: 76589
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peaches
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:21:19

    Re:  The words "Born Again" means to me to come back to a faith you turned
    your back on for a while!

    To me it is speaking of a "spiritual" birth.  The first time you were born
    it was physical.  The second (again) time you were born it is spiritual.
    Someone once said, "If you are born once, you die twice.  If you are born
    twice, you die once.  Neat huh?

    Message: 76590
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Paul/Peaches
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:23:51

    Re:  Because it doesn't make sense what he said about women in the Bible

    What did Paul say that you object to?

    Message: 76591
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Peaches
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:26:31

    Re:  Isn't EVERY Christian BORN AGAIN?

    Yes.

    Message: 76592
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Religion
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:32:57

    Re:  I suppose you swallow this pseudo-scientific clap-trap hook, line, and
    sinker. Well, I suspect you do for the same reason Paul Savage has to eat
    smart pills  ---  your brain has turned to mush listening to Pat Robertson
    on the BBB cable channel.

    Man, oh man!  It sure is fun bashing all them Bible believing Christians.
    I'm surprised they still stick up for what they believe in.

    Message: 76593
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Prisons
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 21:51:28

    Wouldn't extradition have removed the immigrant factor
    mentioned above?  I mean, why would the U.S. Government have
    bothered to incarcerate foreign nationals?

    The 1991 World Almanac says "The number of prisoners under
    jurisdiction of Federal or State correction authorities at
    year end 1989 reached a record 710,054."  Well, it's a
    record breaker, but it doesn't sound too bad.  Yet, "From
    1980 through 1989 there was an increase of about 115% in the
    prison population."  The estimated 1990 census showed a
    total net increase in U.S. population of only 10.2% during
    roughly the same period.  "The 1989 increase meant a
    nationwide need for more than 1,600 new prison bedspaces
    per week."  Apparently the beds themselves weren't "needed."

    From Scientific American, July 1991:

    Opium, Cocaine and Marijuana in American History
    Over the past 200 years, Americans have twice accepted and
    then vehemently rejected drugs.  Understanding these
    dramatic historical swings provides perspective on our
    current reaction to drug use

    by David F. Musto

    Dramatic shifts in attitude have characterized America's
    relation to drugs.  During the 19th century, certain
    mood-altering substances, such as opiates and cocaine, were
    often regarded as compounds helpful in everyday life.
    Gradually this perception of drugs changed.  By the early
    1900s, and until the 1940s, the country viewed these and some
    other psychoactive drugs as dangerous, addictive compounds
    that needed to be severely controlled.  Today, after a
    resurgence of a tolerant attitude toward drugs during the
    1960s and 1970s, we find ourselves, again, in a period of
    drug intolerance.
      America's recurrent enthusiasm for recreational drugs and
    subsequent campaigns for abstinence present a problem to
    policymakers and to the public.  Since the peaks of these
    episodes are about a lifetime apart, citizens rarely have
    an accurate or even a vivid recollection of the last wave of
    cocaine or opiate use.
      Phases of intolerance have been fueled by such fear and
    anger that the record of times favorable toward drug taking
    has either been erased from public memory or so distorted
    that it becomes useless as a point of reference for policy
    formation.  During each attack on drug taking, total
    denigration of the preceding, contrary mood has seemed
    necessary for public welfare.  Although such vigorous
    rejection may have value in further reducing demand, the
    long-term effect is to destroy a realistic perception of
    the past and of the conflicting attitudes toward
    mood-altering substances that have characterized our
    national history.
      The absence of knowledge concerning our earlier and
    formative encounters with drugs unnecessarily impedes the
    already difficult task of establishing a workable and
    sustainable drug policy.  An examination of the period of
    drug use that peaked around 1900 and the decline that
    followed it may enable us to approach the current drug
    problem with more confidence and reduce the likelihood that
    we will repeat past errors.
    (continued)

    Message: 76596
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: War!
    Subject: R-Mann
    Date: 07/12/91  Time: 22:31:50

            You are NOT the SysOp here.. You do NOT demand what category a user
    is to use.  I would also request that you refrain from calling religious
    talk and/or theory "religious crap"...at least on the PUBlic Board.  You
    have the right to your view, but let's not get nasty about it.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 76597
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Annie/Born again
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 05:22:39

    Religious dogma, be it Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist or whatever, will
    teach you to be faithful to the church and it's teachings. That is not what
    the Bible is all about, nor is it what true Christianity is all about. To be
    a Christian is to develop a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ,
    the only one who died for your sins, and the only one able to assure your
    eternity in God's Kingdom.
     It has been well said that going into a church will make you a Christian
    to about the same degree that going into a garage makes you an automobile.
    "To know Him, and the power of His resurrection!" That's what makes you a
    Christian, regardless of the name over the door of your church. That is what
    it means to be "born again". It's really so simple that many well meaning
    people miss it while they are looking for some complicated formula for
    working out their own  way to heaven.

    Message: 76598
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike's 8
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 05:32:39

     Interesting article, Mike. THanks for sharing it.

    Message: 76599
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Felix/Mann
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 05:37:00

     I am trying very hard to ignore his derogatory, insulting posts. They used
    to be little more than silly, and I was under the impression that we were
    going to stop the silliness. I will now let his idiotic, atheistic claptrap
    rantings and ravings speak for themselves.
     He is beginning to make even Rod Williams look almost Christlike!

    Message: 76600
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Old Annie
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 06:35:13

    > I wanted to announce that old Annie is now a 'great grandma'...

    Gawd!  You MUST be old!

    Congratulations!

    Message: 76601
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Apro - Prisons
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 06:35:56

    > Wouldn't extradition have removed the immigrant factor
    > mentioned above?  I mean, why would the U.S. Government have
    > bothered to incarcerate foreign nationals?

    Foreign nationals who are suspect of or commit are usually deported only if
    those crimes are considered minor (or if they have good connections, I
    suppose).  We want to punish those that commit serious offenses ourselves.

    I believe this whole prison overcrowding issue to be one of fundamental
    importance to our society.  Our apparent desire to put each other away is
    scary; it shows a deep-rooted fear of others and, since we as a society are
    made up mostly of "others," a fear of ourselves.

    Message: 76602
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Rod
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 06:55:57

    I am glad to see that some good comes from my ranting.

    Message: 76603
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: War!
    Subject: Sysop
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 07:00:11

    I think you are being unreasonable. Such stuff offends me and if it had the
    Religion category, I would be warned before reading it.

    Message: 76604
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: War!
    Subject: ROGER MANN!
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 08:14:41

            If you think that "offends" you... how about this...
                    (POOF)... you are now in the ntom Zone...

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    P.S.  Unlike Cubby SysOp, I HAVE the key.....

    Message: 76605
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon on great
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 09:39:11

    The only other 'great' I would like to add to my life is to be a great
    artist and get paid for it! ha. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76606
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/dinosaurs
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 09:54:08

    Those were interesting posts and of course, it is quite possible things
    happened that way. I personally cannot believe such things as the dinosaurs
    were on the Ark or that the entire world was covered with water though.
    And I certainly would question where he got his source of finding man and
    dinosaur fossels together. If that is so, then it had to be an accident that
    a dinosaur died on the spot millions of years before a man died on the same
    spot!
    Fact is - even science says there was a massive flood about 8 thousand years
    ago and that it might have tilted the axis of the earth, thus changing the
    weather that was the same all over the earth - mild - to one that had
    icecapped poles and variations of temperatures.

    There could have been an Ark and Noah - but he could not have gotten all the
    animals into that Ark -two of each! This tells me that the earth was not
    completely covered with water - that species survived other places.

    I still say, that one can believe in Evolution of things and still believe
    in the Biblical stories such as Noah and the Ark! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76607
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cat on Paul of Bible
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 09:57:45

    Cat: "What did Paul say that you object to?"

    I will get back to you on that one. -=*) PEACHES (*=-

    Message: 76608
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 10:01:48

    Re: your ... "Gawd! You MUST be old!

    Replay to that...
    "Gawd! I FEEL old! *>>> ROCKING CHAIR ANNIE <<<*

    Message: 76609
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/last
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 10:03:45

    If you did indeed put Roger in the Zone, I would venture to say you stand at
    great risk of losing a member! I could be wrong but....! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76610
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on BAC
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 10:17:32

    I will admit to still being confused at what a Born AGain Christian means!
    I read your post, #76597 - even printed it out and read it carefully, I
    still do not understand.
    You said for example ... "Churches will teach you to be faithful to the
    church and it's teachings - that is not what the Bible is all about - to be
    a Christian is to develop a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ
    .... etc.etc."
    Well isn't that why people go to church?? To read and learn the Bible? To
    "Know the power of His resurrection"???? (your quote) Are you telling me
    that one can go to a church all his life - believe in God and Jesus, the
    Bible and still not be B.A??? How can anyone call themselves a Christain and
    not know the power of His resurrection??
    A sample story and question....
    A person is born a Baptist for instance and is brought up in that faith. he
    belives in Jesus - goes to church faithfully and leads a so called Christian
    life. In fact, he knows no other lifestyle and wishes for none other. He
    could be a Methodist, Catholic or Lutheran - doesn't matter. Is this person
    a Born again Christian?
    I have always gotten the impression from BAC that they have came back to
    their lost faith. The sample man of my story had no 'revelation' - he just
    was born into the faith and beleived because his parents taught him to
    believe that way. Programmed if you will. Sorry, but that's fact.
    Anyway, could you elaborate more on this subject. I've always been curious.
                          *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76611
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Prohiboholics Anon.
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 12:44:17

    Until the 19th century, drugs had been used for millenia in
    their natural form.  Cocaine and morphine, for example, were
    available only in coca leaves or poppy plants that were
    chewed, dissolved in alcoholic beverages or taken in some
    way that diluted the impact of the active agent.  The advent
    of organic chemistry in the 1800s changed the available
    forms of these drugs.  Morphine was isolated in the first
    decade and cocaine by 1860; in 1874 diacetylmorphine was
    sythesized from morphine (although it became better known as
    heroin when the Bayer Company introduced it in 1898).
      By mid-century the hypodermic syringe was perfected, and
    by 1870 it had become a familiar instrument to American
    physicians and patients ((see "The Origins of Hypodermic
    Medication," by Norman Howard-Jones; Scientific American,
    January 1971)).  At the same time, the astounding growth of
    the pharmaceutical industry intensified the ramifications of
    these accomplishments.  As the century wore on,
    manufacturers grew increasingly adept at exploiting a
    marketable innovation and moving it into mass production, as
    well as advertising and distributing it throughout the
    world.
      During this time, because of a peculiarity in the U.S.
    Constitution, the powerful new forms of opium and cocaine
    were more readily available in America than in most nations.

    Under the Constitution, individual states assumed
    responsibility for health issues, such as regulation of
    medical practice and the availability of pharmacological
    products.  In fact, America had as many laws regarding
    health professions as it had states.  For much of the 19th
    century, many states chose to have no controls at all; their
    legislatures reacted to the claims of contradictory health
    care philosophies by allowing free enterprise for all
    practitioners.  The federal government limited its concern
    to communicable diseases and the provision of health care to
    the merchant marine and to government dependents.
      Nations with a less restricted central government, such as
    Britain and Prussia, had a single, preeminent pharmacy law
    that controlled availability of dangerous drugs.  In those
    countries, physicians had their right to practice similarly
    granted by a central authority.  Therefore, when we consider
    consumption of opium, opiates, coca and cocaine in
    19th-century America, we are looking at an era of wide
    availability and unrestrained advertising.  The initial
    enthusiasm for the purified substances was only slightly
    affected by any substantial doubts or fear about safety,
    long-term health injuries or psychological dependence.
    (continued)

    Message: 76613
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Prisons
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 13:36:06

    The lead editorial in today's Republic just happens to
    address this issue:

    ...The 1978 code was the Legislature's response to growing
    public dissatisfaction with judicial discretion and the
    clamor to get tough on crime.  The Legislature responded
    with a code that focused on mandatory prison sentences.
      ... Institute for Rational Public Policy: "In the end,
    there is no certain deterrent effect, no measured
    incapacitative result, no proportional just desserts....
    There are merely cases processed and offenders moved along
    or out of the system."
      ... it would appear that the code's unintended
    consequences sparked a veritable explosion in the state's
    prison population, along with all the costs of keeping more
    and more crooks in the slammer.  The Department of
    Corrections budget hit $255 million this year, a 700 percent
    increase since 1978, when prison spending was a paltry
    $32 million.  In 1980 the incarceration rate stood at 140
    per 100,000 of population; last year the figure hit 369,
    well above the national average of 289.
      If these statistics fail to alarm, consider this: the
    prison system's capacity is 14,478, and yet it currently
    houses 14,943 inmates.  Even with such alternative programs
    as home arrest and Work furlough, the prison population is
    growing by 75 inmates monthly.
      If this trend continues unchecked, in 10 years the prison
    population would exceed 20,000 and the DOC budget could push
    past $1 billion.  Surely such numbers are enough to prompt
    public debate on our sentencing and corrections policies.
      Moreover, criminal code revision and mandatory sentences
    have been responsible for swinging the pendulum toward
    prosecutorial discretion, yet with scant improvement in the
    crime rate.  No sensible person would suggest that violent
    criminals be turned out of jail prematurely.  Yet is it a
    proper application of the criminal code for prosecutors to
    wield mandatory sentences as a hammer, intimidating
    defendents into accepting bad plea bargains rather than risk
    lengthy mandatory terms((?))
      The consultant's report depicts "a system gone awry," but
    it fails notably in assessing the code's impact on Arizona's
    crime rate.  Critics of the report allege that per capita
    crime is down and credit mandatory sentences.  If indeed the
    crime rate had been reduced, would it not be
    reasonable to expect a slowing in the growth of the prison
    population?  Clearly, more is at work here than either the
    report or the code's defenders comprehend.
      What is needed is a full-fledged review of the state's
    sentencing provisions and a debate on the cost-benefit
    aspects of throwing more and more people into prison....
    (end of Republic editorial)

    If this continues, it might become more cost-effective to
    instead lock up the wealth that people attempt to acquire
    through criminal activities.  Or is that the "solution" that
    launched this disaster in the first place?  Why is the
    public not told of these things until they're so bad?
    Does Metrocenter still have those cruising barricades?
    The editorial (again) made no mention of the relation
    between U.S. per capita prison population and that of other
    countrys.

    Message: 76616
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Bill Burkett
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 15:56:36

    Does the Cub Sysop approve or disapprove of the demeaning tirade
    Roger Mann directed at me personally for the 8 posts on Dinosaurs?
    I think he should apologize for his tantrum.
    I figured I might repost that article for its clean, scientific
    and un biased commentary on "What could have been."

    Yet I still find there are two sets of rules on this board.

    Please clean up his act.

    Message: 76617
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: Last / Mike?
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 16:11:26

            Hmmmmm, Roger Mann is basicly in the PHAntom Zone for that attack.
    Where is there two sets of ules?  I know you always feel 'picked on', but
    other then toss Mr Mann into the Zone, what else do you want me to do?
    I thought those 8 posts were among the best you have ever done Mike.  They
    attacked no one...  That is why I was puzzled about Roger's retort with the
    insult.

            Now do you guys understand why I would just as soon not be SysOp of
    this or any BBS?

            Bill, take over for a few days, I think I am going to be sick!

                                            clif-

    Message: 76618
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Webster's
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:30:30

    If you doubt the defination of police state as listed in my 1989 Webster's
    Unabridged Dictionary then why not pick up some easy money, say $100.

    I listed the entire meaning of police state, verbatim.  But couldn't you use
    that money?

    Message: 76619
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/serve God
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:32:16

    Kinda like serving a slippery eel, isn't it?

    Message: 76620
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Burkett, dictionary
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:35:56

    Yeah, well, I just put a double hex on you and now you can look forward to
    spending your eternity in hell, twice.
                                    Faithfully,
                                      Rod

    Message: 76621
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Volcano
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 17:40:42

    It was mentioned to me in the same conversation on volcano's in this part of
    the west that some type of radioactive dating was used.  Something about
    compression and the length it took to travel through the earth.  I am not
    certain though and I will ask my friend if I see him before he moves back to
    upstate New York.  He did retire from the U.S. Forest Service and worked
    those years in Arizona.

    But then again, there was a Globe Gazette headline last week that claims
    there was a man found alive who was born in 1092 A.D.  Suppose?

    Message: 76622
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cubby Sysop
    Date: 07/13/91  Time: 18:46:11

    is the best, most logical SYSOP of any board that I have ever been on.  And
    he can really smack home a point.  You are appreciated, probably more than
    you know.

    Twilight Zone Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 29
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Macabre
    Subject: Aw, Jeez...
    Date: 06/12/91  Time: 07:59:18

    ...not again!  Why doesn't someone tell Rod Serling about second-hand smoke?

    Message: 30
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Journey
    Subject: Second visit
    Date: 06/12/91  Time: 12:55:53

    I've been here before too.  I seem to remember a message asking us to put in
    one and only one post.  Is that still in force?  If so, I shouldn't enter
    another one.
    So I won't.

    Hm-hmm, hm-hmm...

    If I knew I was going to be here, I would have thought of something
    more entertaining to say.

         You beat your pate, and fancy wit will come.
         Knock as you will, there's nobody at home.

                     - Alexander Pope (Or Ben Jonson.  Or somebody...)

    Hm-hmm, hm-hmm...

         There was a young man from Rangoon
         Who always ate peas with a fork.
              When they asked him why
              He gave this answer
         "I can't get them to stay on my knife!"

           Interesting exercise in rhyme and scansion...  Now I've run out of ro

    Message: 31
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Bizarre
    Subject: This place
    Date: 06/17/91  Time: 06:21:25

    This is crazy - I logged on and was posting on the main board and I
    accidently disconnected myself. I logged back on and was suddenly in the
    Twilight Zone - which is really nothing new with me, being in it in daily
    life! In fact, just this morning I went on yet another trip to the T.Z. and
    at 4:30 AM too. Got up because the dogs were barking, switched on the light
    and nothing happened. Glendale was in a power failure. I spent the next hour
    eating donuts, drinking coffee, staring at a candle and wondering how on
    earth all these people in all those past centuries EVER got along without
    electricity???? Talk about hell!! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 32
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Bizarre
    Subject: data
    Date: 06/17/91  Time: 22:28:24

    This is my 882nd login, caller #161104, #25 today.

    Gordon, that thing about one post is in the Phantom Zone (and on the old Mr.
    Sloan)

    Message: 33
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Sight & Sound
    Subject: HUYN
    Date: 06/18/91  Time: 23:14:35

         I always liked that show "The Outer Limits" better.

    Message: 34
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Journey
    Subject: Again!
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 20:16:52

    Well, it's been just five weeks since my last visit.

    Caller # 161229 (36 today)
    It is now 06/21/91  20:14:05
    Last on @ 06/20/91  21:55:31
    Last message read was  (75866)
    Message range is (75652-75901)
    You have logged in 1722 times

    I guess not many people care to figure out when Apollo opens the door to
    this place?  Or is it just a 1-in-1000 chance or something?

    Message: 35
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Bizarre
    Subject: Why That's Not ...
    Date: 07/05/91  Time: 18:40:02

    Glitter!  Those are *STARS*!

    Is this SIG legal?  I mean, will it show up on my next
    breathalyzer?  Do the voices in my head bother you?

    Message: 36
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Dimension
    Subject: data
    Date: 07/09/91  Time: 10:21:49

    I am caller number 161717.  The Shields are down.

    Message: 37
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Bizarre
    Subject: I'm back
    Date: 07/09/91  Time: 21:01:48

    I am caller 161734.
    Shields are 00%
    I vote for random.

    Message: 38
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Journey
    Subject: So am I
    Date: 07/10/91  Time: 21:17:20

    I am caller number 161765, the 25th today.  It is my 462nd login.

    The [S]hields just fell down and hit me on the head.  I am seeing stars.
    Did you ever get hit on the head by half a suit of medieval armor?

    The reason we all keeping slipping into this time warp has something to do
    with the solar eclipse tomorrow.  If there is no solar eclipse in your
    reality tomorrow, you are not here.  If you are here, expect the sun to
    blink out at any time.  Then you'll be able to see even *more* stars...

    Message: 39
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Dimension
    Subject:Solar Eclipse
    Date: 7/13/91  Time: 5:34:34

    Don't go outside during one of these.  It will cause you to grow hairy
    patches on your body.

    Do, do drugs.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.