### Apollo BBS Archive - March 19, 1989

    Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:40:04

    Yeah, I really like Durant's. About the only evenings I'm free these days
    are Sundays or Mondays. Let me know.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:        Dean Hathaway and I will be going to the desert to test fire and
     2:sight a few weapons.  Probably on an early Saturday morning.  Are you
     3:interested?
     4:        Are you referring to Sunday or Monday morning, afternoon or evenings
     5:when it comes to Durants?

    Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:42:53

    I guess I was trying to make a feeble joke by comparing Jessica Lange
    sitting in the ape's right hand, to Jesus sitting in God's right hand.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Thanks for enlightening me on the King Kong trip.  I'd much rather worship
     2:Jessica Lange.  At least She has something I want and need.

    Mail from Sandy SYSOP
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 18:55:31

            I do not know if Dean's idea is all that good of one. It could
    back fire, you know. What if they count his anti-gun opinion -- that would
    nullify his own true opinion.
            It was a sad day at the gun range today. Picked up on some more
    interesting bits of information on the affects of these bills. One, is gun
    smiths will be required to turn in your name and gun serial number on any
    alterations that are not really necessary, like a real light trigger job
    and such. This is for semi-automatics which 45's and 9mm's fall into.

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

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:        Interesting news.  Looks like the current politicians want more
     2:control without the chance of revolution.  But there are enough guns out
     3:there to start one.  Wonder when they will ask us to turn in our weapons?
     4:
                                -Rod
    Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 57686
    Author: Louis Reukaiser  *** THIS IS ME ***
    Category: Bulletins
    Subject: It's Coming
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 20:24:09

            Beware the Great Depression of the Eighties is on its way.  Do not
    say I didn't warn you.

    Message: 57687
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Question?
    Subject: I'm depressed
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 21:33:24

    Why didn't Louis Reukaiser warn me?

    Message: 57688
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: DRUG CHATTER
    Date: 03/18/89  Time: 22:39:02

         Whoever said it is the addicts clamoring for legalization - that notion
    is just plain silly.  About as silly as saying all Christians are
    close-minded.
         If the government started legalizing drugs tomorrow, that would not
    send a message of "Its o.k. to do drugs now" -- that would only be true if
    EVERYTHING permitted by law was obligatory.  What it boils down to is this -
    This is America.  In this country, we are supposed to have the freedom of
    choice.  If people choose to destroy themselves, as sad it may be, that's
    their right.  Whether they choose to work themselves into the ground & end up
    having a nervous breakdown, or take drugs (any drug, including alcohol) in
    excess.  It's their body, and their life.  Drug use IS a victimless crime -
    a "victimless crime", by definition, is a crime in which there is no
    potential for filing police charges.  That is, the action (of using the
    drug) only brings direct harm to the person acting.  Now, Paul mentioned the
    family as "victim".  True, the user's family may go through anguish (and may
    not, depending on the drug and frequency used), but that user is ultimately
    responsible to him/herself, not his/her family, friends, etc.  About $10
    billion was spent last year on enforcement of drug laws.  This money could
    be used much more productively.  Drug users could be helped more effectively
    if drugs were legal.  Case in point - if you were hooked on cocaine today,
    would you seek help knowing full well you could end up under arrest?  If
    cocaine was legalized, wouldn't the decision to kick the habit be that much
    easier knowing you'd be getting help.  Jailing drug "offenders" isn't a
    solution, and in fact only perpetuates the problem.
       If I want to do drugs in the privacy of my own home, why should the
    government be able to tell me I can't?  Let's suppose for a moment -  Let's
    say some wild-eyed liberal atheist congressman presented a bill that said
    the Bible was dangerous to the well-being of the people, and should be
    banned to PROTECT Americans.  Especially the children (which always makes
    for a good emotional appeal).  Let us say further that this bill passed.
    Faced with a jail sentence if caught, would you still keep and read your
    Bible?  And, would you be pissed if the government started telling you what
    you could & could not mentally digest (meaning the teachings in the Bible)?
    You certainly wouldn't think the Bible to be dangerous, but not everyone
    would agree....  And whether or not it is dangerous is not the point - the
    point is - it is your right to choose.  That's what it's all about.
         You're not going to save the world by keeping drugs illegal.  Like I
    said before, I'd feel safer knowing these drugs were clean - kids and adults
    are going to use them regardless of the legality - each user thinks he'll
    be the one who won't be caught (that's human nature).  Or won't be the one
    to get the cocaine cut with draino.  If drugs were legalized, gangs wouldn't
    have the $$$ or the need to carry around AK-47s.  Drugs is big business, you
    know?  If drugs were legal, and a large-scale program was implemented that
    basically said, "Yes, you can take so-and-so drug, but this is what will
    happen" without the scare tactics now used (both in the gross exaggerations
    of drug use results in some cases, and the consequences of JAIL), kids &
    adults would be more prone to listen.  Illegality only makes it more worth
    getting to some.

    Message: 57690
    Author: Alan Finney
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Crimes
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 03:28:02

    "Murder should not be legalized because it involves an unwilling
    participant, the murdered."

        I think it can safely be argued, that the victim of murder IS a willing
    participant.  After all, you can't get shot if you don't stand there and
    take a bullet.  Furthermore, people get what they give.  I mean, if someone
    is murdered, they MUST have done something wrong to their killer.

    I think people must be held responsible for their actions, and this
    certainly includes those who are murdered because of their behavior and/or
    appalling ineptitude.

    Message: 57691
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann!
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:42:21

    Your "facts" are so full of holes as to be totally ridiculous!
    Families of drug abusing teenyboppers can just pick up and leave? I'm sure
    that if your kid was hooked on crack that's just what you would do, right?
    Send him or her off to school or the local detention center, and while they
    were there, pack up, sell the house and move without leaving a forwarding
    address or a trace. Sure you would!
     Legalization would eliminate the need for crime to feed the drug habit?
    Like hell it would! The kids who are getting hooked on garbage now would
    still get it, much the same way they get booze noe, and they would still
    find ways to get the money for drugs, even though they have no visible
    source of income.
     Finally, if you don't think that your and my tax dollars are going into
    rehabilitation programs, you just don't know where your money is going! And,
    since legalization will NOT reduce the number of addicts, neither will it
    reduce the need for rehabilitation centers, nor the need for government
    support of those centers. Actually, of all the drug rehab programs in
    operation today, I think the only one not supported by government funds is
    TeeTeen Challenge. (Which, by the way, just happens to be the most
    successful, according to a government survey.)
    Methinks that thou speaketh before thou thinketh the problem through.

    Message: 57692
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/bigotry
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:45:04

    Compared to your ignorance, my bigotry is as a drop in the ocean.

    Message: 57693
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/Tonkin
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 05:54:36

     I am well aware of the history of the USS Vincennes.
     Having spent some o my youth in the U.S. Navy, serving my country in a time
    of need, (a claim I don't believe you can make.), I am also well aware of
    the conditioned hatred that many enlisted military men feel toward officers,
    especially theirs.
     I merely suggested that the possibility that the perpetrator COULD have
    been one of the captain's own men SEEMS to have been overlooked.
     Have you ever been under military discipline? Matter of fact, have you ever
    been under any discipline at all? If you have not, then you could not
    understand the mindset that many military men have, a mindset that could
    conceivably lead to incidents such as the car bombing.
     Of course, it is easier to just lay the blame at the feet of foreign
    terrorists and let it go at that, since we don't seem to be able to do
    anything about them other than lodge a complaint at the U.N. How effective!

    Message: 57694
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Petrisko
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:08:48

    Those have got to be the dumbest arguments for legalization I've ever heard.
    It is indisputable that legalization would send a message that drug use is
    morally permissible.  In addition to its other functions, the law serves as
    a guide to what society regards as morally acceptable conduct.  To many
    people, the distinction between legality and morality is unclear at best.

    You then take on the claim that drug use is not a victimless crime because
    it often leads users to break their obligations to their families.  Your
    reply to this is simply to brush the argument aside.  "That user is
    ultimately responsible to him/herself, not his/her family," you state.
    I will admit that the question of whether and to what extent the government
    should enforce family obligations is a problematical one, but your response
    -- to simply deny that such obligations exist -- is disingenuous and
    unsatisfactory.

    You then claim that legalization would make it easier for addicts to seek
    treatment.  They are, you claim, reluctant to seek treatment because they
    fear punishment.  I would like to see you offer some empirical evidence to
    support this claim.  In any case, I don't believe that rehabilitation
    centers typically turn their clients over the the police, so if addicts do
    have this fear, it is entirely unwarranted.

    You then imply that doing drugs is the moral equivalent of reading the
    Bible.  That is ludicrous.  Surely you are not so doltish that you cannot
    distinguish between reading a book and injecting or ingesting substances
    that impairs the mind.  (If that is what you are claiming, then why not
    just argue that drug abuse is protected by the First Amendment?)  It is a
    clever metaphor (by your standards, anyway) but a worthless one:  Drug use
    is no more equivalent to reading the Bible than it is equivalent to murder.

    I am not sure whether drugs should be legalized.  But your pro-legalization
    arguments make the most convincing case I've yet heard against legailzation.

    Message: 57696
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/discipline
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:27:25

            Yes, I was in the boy scouts.

    Message: 57697
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Drugs
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:34:26

            It would be more safe for children to steal pot from their parents
    than alcohol.  The effects of alcohol are more damanging than marihuana.  If
    the child cannot find alcohol or pot then, because of the basic desire to
    get smashed after duress, the child will then get out the paint thinner,
    glue or something from the medicine cabinet.  Do you doubt this Paul?
            Humans have been using substances that makes them 'high' since
    pre-historic times.
                                    Rod

    Message: 57698
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/Tonkin
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:43:10

            I think you missed my point.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a U.S.
    Government-CIA operation that blamed the Viet Cong/Communists for war
    activity against the Americans in the waters I mentioned.  It was done so
    our then President could dupe the American people into going along with the
    U.S. bombing of Cambodia.  It was all a lie.
            When someone catches another in a direct lie, thereafter his words
    are taken with a grain of salt.
            My point was and is, Perhaps the American CIA bombed the Captains
    Van in order to have an excuse to remove the Iranian students from this
    nation.                         -Rod

    P.S.  I am not saying this is what happened but I wouldn't shut the door on
    the possibility either.

    Hello, Mildred Stuckstedd
    Is your name correct:Yes

    Caller # 135777 (9 today)
    It is now 03/19/89  09:56:26
    Message range is (57446-57698)

    Message: 57699
    Author: Mildred Stuckstedd  ***THIS IS ME***
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: DRUGS
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:57:53

            What if the entire family took drugs?  What if they were a wealthy
    family and did not need to steal?  Who would the victims be?

    First name:JAMES
    Last name:TARANTO
    Send mail to James Taranto:Yes

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:        Hi sweetie.  Louis Reukaiser and I are currently having an sexual
     2:encounter of the third kind.  He's is much too busy to inform you of any
     3:major shift in our ecomony as he is now shifting just below my belly button
     4:at this precise moment.

    Message: 57699
    Author: Mildred Stuckstedd  ***THIS IS ME ***
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: DRUGS
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 09:57:53

            What if the entire family took drugs?  What if they were a wealthy
    family and did not need to steal?  Who would the victims be?

    Message: 57700
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/drugs
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:41:01

    Your just like Daryl - lots of talk and no answers.

    You can bet your sweet 'Bippy' that if one of my little teeny boppers were
    on hard drugs they'd go to a dentention center and if they wouldn't take
    them, then we'd throw them out on the street! When I married my husband, my
    oldest daughter (16) came to live with us a few months later, She was on
    speed and it was ruining her life. My husband took her over - said she was
    most welcome to our house hold IF she got off drugs and made an effort. She
    didn't until he was ready to litterly throw her out on the street. She must
    have thought it over, because she gave them up! SHE - not us was responsible
    for herself. At that age, it's time to start taking over one's life. On the
    other hand, we also eventually got my 14 year old son - we LET him grow his
    marijuana in secluded places in our big yard. The stipulations were - he
    only used it at home - did not sell or give it away and if he was caught and
    put in a home - it was his problem! That we would lie like hell and say we
    didn't know he had the stuff growing. The outcome --- he had more fun
    fussing over those plants than he ever did smoking them - he had more
    respect for us because we didn't sit there with booze in our hands and
    telling him how awful grass was. (Which it isn't!) If we hadn't of done
    this, we knew perfectly well he'd still get it some place - go other places
    to smoke it and would probably still grow it too. He never did really get
    in to it - wasn't using it at all by the time he was 16 and got married at
    17 and now has 4 kids and none of them are into drugs of anykind including
    himself. True story. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 57701
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter/your drug post
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:44:06

    Those were great! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 57702
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Petrisko
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 13:26:07

    By the way, I went to Tower Records this afternoon, and they did not have
    The Journal of Inflammable Tots.

    Message: 57703
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: JT
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 16:53:52

         I never said doing drugs was the moral equivalent of reading the Bible.
    What I was doing was drawing a parallel - If I want to read the Bible in my
    home, that is my right.  If I want to take drugs, that should also be my
    right.  Why should the government be allowed to come in my home, and tell me
    what I can and cannot put in my body?  I would only be "hurting" myself, and
    not treading on anyone else's rights.  Right?
         As far as family obligations go, I never denied such obligations
    existed.  I'm just saying such obligations shouldn't be legislated.  Take
    care of yourself, take care of your own.

         BTW - the mag should be appearing in a Tower near you this week or
    next.

    Message: 57704
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Petrisko
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 17:22:04

    Your "parallel" between drugs and the Bible is absurd.  In the first place,
    no one is claiming that drugs should be illegal because the government has
    unrestrained power to regulate people's behavior in their own homes.  You
    seem to be adopting a Westfallian argument:  either everything you do in
    your home is legal, or nothing is.  Of course, one would then ask, why
    shouldn't I be able to commit murder or rape, provided I do it in the
    privacy of my own home?  Also, the use of drugs in one's home is only a
    small subset of the behavior that is proscribed by drug laws.  Even if you
    had offered a valid argument, would this imply that since Bibles may be sold
    commercially, drugs should be also? That since Bible-reading on public buses
    is legal, so should pot-smoking? That since one may read the Bible and then
    go out for a drive, it should likewise be permissible to shoot up heroin
    before driving?

    I accurately characterized your statement about family obligation, and your
    further clarification has done nothing to change this.  You replied to the
    argument that drug abuse is not a victimless crime because drug abusers
    neglect their family obligations by simply brushing aside the question of
    family obligations.  If you don't believe the person who is betrayed is a
    victim, then you do not believe, in any meaningful sense, that the betrayer
    had an obligation.

    Message: 57705
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Heaven
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 19:49:44

    Re:  "I have a question for you BoB.  Do you think that you would enjoy
    Heaven as much just knowing there are a certain percentage of the population
    that is being tormented for ever?  Just curious."

    I suppose that is a valid question.  I look at it this way.  Since I'm not
    sure what exactly heaven will be like, what we will do, what we will know,
    etc, and since I do believe it will be perfect, I think I will enjoy it
    thoroughly.  I have total confidence in God to do the right thing.  What God
    will do with the people who deny his Son, I will leave up to him.  There are
    members of my family who have rejected God and his Son.  I have worked to
    try to show them the truth.  I feel bad about their attitude.  Every man
    will have his chance to do what is right.  When a person knows what is right
    and still chooses to do wrong, its on their head.  I won't take a guilt trip
    for another who choose to do wrong.

    Message: 57706
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nick
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 19:52:07

    Re:  "The open
    container laws in Arizona are vague on these points"

    There arn't any "open container" laws in Arizona unless they have just been
    passed.

    Message: 57707
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 20:02:53

    Re:  "a hard look as Amsterdam"

    How does Amsterdam control DWI's?  Is there some kind of test to determine
    if someone is high on pot?

    Message: 57708
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 21:44:42

    Everyone rides bicycles.

    Message: 57709
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michael/Scuze Me?
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:13:32

    I would hardly endeavor to call myself righteous [Ps 143:2]. To do that
    would be, well, would be self-righteous! *grin*

    Message: 57710
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/57657
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:21:53

    Tormented forever, tormented forever   Eternal punishment,
    tormented forever

    Message: 57711
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/3 Points
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:36:21

    1. The families can choose to leave this obviously debilitated fellow
       family member alone to suffer by himself. Well, if you have absolutely
       no sense of family unity or no hint of conscience whatsoever, perhaps
       you could indeed do just that. For me to do something like that to a
       family member involved in drugs (that is, leave) would cause serious
       scars on my conscience for the rest of my life. I cannot speak for you,
       or how your conscience would play upon you in such a situation, but
       judging by your post, you consider leaving a drug-dependent family
       member, indirectly crying out for help, out in the cold, as a a viable
       "solution."

    2. Drug programs are around because of the illegal status of street drugs?
       Then what are all these prescription-drug addicts doing in these same
       rehabilitation centers? The drugs that they are taking are perfectly
       legal, and were probably prescribed to them by their own doctor. So, you
       assume that legalizing narcotics will make this all go away? Fuzzy logic
       at best.

    3. Did I actually see you call the drug addict a VICTIM? Yes, indeed I did!
       Certainly he is a victim (most likely) by his own bad decision) BUT HE IS
       A VICTIM NONETHELESS. Which blows a gaping hole in your (and Rod's)
       "conclusion" that the selling and abuse of narcotics is a victimless
       crime.
                        ....NEXT?

    Message: 57712
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/U Asked 4 It
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 22:48:12

    Q. Would legalizing drugs put the drug dealers, big and small, out of
    business?

    A. NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. In fact, if nothing else, it will
       merely shift the drug selling into the hands of the free enterprise
       system. Drugs would be easier to obtain than ever before. The dealers
       would no longer be underground types. With the legitimization of narcotic
       drugs, the "dealers" would be above-ground, "respectable" businessmen and
       salespeople. You see, anyone that is involved in the selling of any
       item to the public is called a dealer. By opening up my record business,
       I am going to become a dealer. In a greatly different business, yes, but
       still a dealer. So, in keeping with the wording of your question, the
       legalization of narcotic drugs would not eliminate dealers (big or small)
       from the marketplace.

    2. Would legalization save the nation money? I doubt it. More money will
       be needed to beef up the law enforcement agencies to prepare for the
       increased amount of drug-related disturbances that are to be expected.
       Not everyone is going to be "turning on" and "feeling groovy." Some are
       going to be "stringing out," "whacking out," and "spacing out." Deny it
       all you want, but in the same breath, deny the high percentage of
       narcotic drug usage in those arrested for criminal offenses of all sorts.

    3. Would imports stop? Nope. Tropical climes are still the best for growing.

    Message: 57713
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:35:32

            Don't forget, the United States Government made ready many drug
    rehab centers for the vets returning from Viet Namn.  There were not needed
    as the drugs were no longer needed by the majority.  Drug usuage, tobacco
    and alcohol included, goes up during times of stress.
            I would say that the correct answer to the drug problem this nation
    faces is to work on eliminating the cause of the stress.  Drug usuage will
    abate itself.
            In the mean time the drug war should soon be called off before we
    all go broke.  The alcohol prohibition was not won and neither will this one
    be.                                     Rod

    Message: 57714
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: BOB/Answer
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:38:50

            I can't really comment much on your message except perhaps to say
    that what you perceive to be truth may not in fact be truth.  How did you
    come into Christianity, the Eastern Religion?  Why believe in something that
    originated half a world away?  Bob has open arms.  And I must point out that
    Bobra is quite a looker and well, our heaven promises much more.  -Rod

    Message: 57715
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob/Holland
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:40:28

            I will have to do some research on that subject.  I'll get back to
    you.  Do their auto tires have wooden wheels?

    Rod, God & Bob Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 216
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod/mushrooms
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 11:53:06

    Tell me what effect the 'magic mushrooms' have on a person. For some
    reason that's one thing I've wanted to try - but am too chicken. I've heard
    you see God/angels/ the answers to the universe etc. True? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 217
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod/mushrooms
    Date: 03/19/89  Time: 17:07:36

         I've heard they give you the runs.  True?  -=*) PETER (*=-

    Message: 218
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mushrooms
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 00:48:33

            I liked LSD better than mushrooms.  With that drug one can perceive
    the oneness of the universe.  It is hard to describe but it is like you are
    there and you've always been there in the eternal NOW.  One needs not
    physical talking to know the feeling of another.  Everyone is related and a
    part of everything else.  Colors are great too and you can hear the spaces
    between the notes when listening to a song.
            I've had mushrooms about three or four times.  I just throbbed and
    it was more of a physical trip to me.  But some people really like them a
    lot.  Oh yeah, they usually make me laugh really a lot and over the
    smallest incident.
            I have been to some pretty far out places on LSD though but I don't
    know if acid is still made the way it was in the sixties.  Perhaps someone
    here knows?                             -Rod

    Message: 219
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: ACID
    Date: 03/20/89  Time: 01:01:26

            I took it the first time in 1968 after reading a Look Magazine
    article about a reporter who went to San Francisco and documented his trip
    on that substance.  It made me really curious.
            I was a junior executive in the credit department of a large New
    Orleans wholesale hardware house.  I was third man and was told I would be
    the credit manager in about 16 years.  Anyway, I was tired of the routine of
    knocking my brains out for naught.  I wanted to do things differently.  So I
    started hearing about what was happening in San Francisco.  The year was
    1967 and the Summer of Love had just ended.
            One day while sitting at my desk a long haired, bearded male in
    blue jeans and an open shirt with beads hanging about his neck walked
    through our office and to me he looked like, 'FREEDOM' in the flesh.
            Here I was looking at a clock waiting for FIVE to hit and here he
    was so flowing that I wanted to rip off my tie and join him.
            In the coming weeks I kept my ears open for more news of what was
    happening in California.  I quit going to the barber but I still shaved.  I
    bought weird buttons to wear on my suit and the first one said, "ALL BOSES
    ARE SMUCKS", the second said, "GRAPE NUTS IS A VENERAL DISEASE" and the
    third, "FLY UNITED" and it had a picture of two birds mating in mid-air.
            Then this guy, Professor Timothy Leary started making news and his
    motto was, "TURN ON - TUNE IN - DROP OUT.  He was into LSD.  Then this girl
    I had met showed up at my place one evening with two BLUE FLATS, which was a
    type of LSD.  She convinced me easily that we should take it together so we
    checked into a Holiday Inn on Airline Highway and dropped it. (to be cont.)

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