Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!tektronix!tekcrl!vice!tekfdi!videovax!stever From: stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Inappropriate comments about drugs Message-ID: <1973@videovax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 15:54:10 EDT Article-I.D.: videovax.1973 Posted: Wed Oct 1 15:54:10 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 09:49:04 EDT References: <439@hp-sdd.UUCP> <1767@well.UUCP> <1528@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Distribution: net Organization: Tektronix, Comm Group, TV R&D Lines: 67 Summary: Please keep pro-drug propaganda out of net.micro.amiga! In article <3689@ism780c.UUCP>, Tim Smith (tim@ism780c.UUCP) writes: > Nearly any recreational activity is dangerous if done recklessly. Drugs > are no exception. Under proper conditions, many drugs can be very fun > and as safe as many other common, more accepted forms of recreation. > Sure, some drugs are very bad ( heroin, for example ), but many others > have reputations far worse than they deserve ( LSD, 'shrooms ). Ah, yes! The old propaganda of the late 60s and early 70s, all over again! That may play in Whistleville, but not to anyone who has seen the wreckage left by these so-called "safe" drugs. Remember Red Skelton's daughter, who stepped out a fifth-floor window while on "safe" LSD? A high-school friend of mine had LSD slipped into his beer by a so-called "friend" during the ecstatic early days of acid's popularity. The bad trip that followed landed him in Warm Springs (Montana's state mental hospital) for months. My family and I drove over periodically to see him in the hospital as he fought to recover. When my friend finally improved enough to be released, he was a shell of his former self. With his artistic abilities gone and his intellect throttled, he works at menial jobs to support himself. In article <1147@hoptoad.uucp>, John Gilmore (gnu@hoptoad.uucp) writes: > The only serious problem with drug use is that it is illegal. It wasn't > illegal in 1900 and the country survived -- and in better style than now. True, most drugs were not illegal in 1900. A rising tide of abuse led to a public outcry that resulted in their being declared illegal only a few years later. > Isadora Duncan died from riding in a convertible with a scarf on, are > you going to make convertibles and scarfs illegal because a famous > person died that way? What is the cost/benefit ratio to individuals and to our society of each activity? Why is it that teenagers (and others) regularly die on the streets of Portland of drug overdoses, yet I haven't (in the eleven years I've been here) heard of an accidental death caused by a scarf? > I don't gauge the "national mood" by what I read in the papers or by > politicians' press releases. Talk to a few of your friends instead. I have -- with results that are apparently at variance with John's latest poll. . . > Laws will come and laws will go, but drugs are here to stay. So is murder. That "drugs are here to stay" is a reason for encouraging their use??? Nice try, guys -- redirecting the conversation to net.nobody-knows-where! My request was simple. This is net.micro.amiga, whose purpose is to disseminate information about the use (and abuse) of Amigas. If you want to tell fairy stories about drugs and encourage gullible people to use them, please do it on net.rec.drugs or some other place where it belongs. When your fingers start clamoring to insert even a single line of pro-drug propaganda into an article in net.micro.amiga, show them who's boss -- JUST SAY NO!!!! Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever