Re: The Big Lie: Dope fiends?

Wally Sass (WallySass@AOL.COM)
Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:03:42 EDT

Mike Bennett writes:

>Hard to know where to start. These were issues during the sixties,
>maybe but not now.

Seeing as this is the 60's list, it seemed an appropriate subject.:-)))

>Jimi scared mothers and fathers of kids but not the power structure
>in any way.

You and I know that Jimi was not a threat, but at the time Jimi and
those like him were definitely considered a threat by 'the establishment'
(a term I hesitate to use, but everyone knows what I'm referring to)
owned and operated by mothers and fathers (except the occasional
homo-sexual like Hoover). The right-wing fanatics of the time did feel
that their power structure was eroding and blamed said erosion on all
the things they were just not able to control to their satisfaction; the
press (to a degree): college corriculums(sp?); television shows; movies
(though they tried); music (again, they tried and are still trying); and most
of all, the minds of their children.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that people such as Nixon (a father
of two daughters) and Lyndon Johnson (the number of children varies)
and most members of congress and the clergy felt threatened by Jimi
Hendrix and those like him, for one reason or another. These were the
folks who 'controlled' the power structure of the day. These virulent anti-
communists felt, for instance, that opposition to the Vietnam 'Police Action'
was subversive and therefore threatening to 'the power structure', as
you say. Many people felt 'the power structure' was further threatened
by anything considered anti-christian (anything not christian) or anti-
american (the precursors of the Family Values types of present day
fame). Jimi embodied in one person so many of the things these un
enlightened Americans of yesteryear were painfully afraid of.

Jimi Hendrix dressed in a way that seemed to further blur the
distinctions between the sexs that many felt was indicative of homo-
sexuality and the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Ruffles
and wild colors previously worn only by woman and peacocks
were cool and indescribably masculine when worn by the powerful
presence that was Jimi!

The blatant, unashamed sexuality of Jimi Hendrix threatened many in
and of 'the power structure' for the simple reason that said structure
was exclusively manned and operated by white folks, the majority of
which harbored the same prejudices as the local populations of their
regions of origin. I mean, there's Mr. Jones's daughter staring dreamily
at this wild-haired, loud, squeaky-guitar playing negro who dresses
like a girl!!! "As my congressman, can't you do something about this
before next election? Downright un-american, ain't it!"

>Autopsies can not reveal addiction, except in advanced cases of
>alcoholism and years and years of heroin addiction.

Not being a forensic scientist (and having never played one on tv)
I can't say for sure either way, but it does not seem likely that the
official correnors report would state that "Jimi Hendrix was not
addicted to heroin at the time of death" if they were not able to
determine the truth of their statement. There is NOT ONE SHRED
of evidence that he ever was. In the face of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary, to persist in espousing the opposite contention
because it confirms so neatly a finely ingrained prejudice (or pet
theory) is, IMO, intellectual dishonesty.

>It is determined by drug-seeking behaviors.
>Jimi is still dead from drug use.

Drugs (sleeping pills) were a 'contributing factor' in Jimis death.

Your original statement was:

>If Jimi was not a junkie, Mr. Ed was not a horse.

I repeat: There is no evidence of any sort that Jimi Hendrix was a
junkie. There is, once again, authoritative, documented proof to the

Mr. Ed is a horse, and Jimi Hendrix was not a junkie!


>If you need drugs to feel good, you should head immediately for the
>nearest 12-step meeting or psychotherapist.

The first step of most 12-step programs is 'to give everything up to
God'. What if your an atheist?:-))))

>The use of drugs and alcohol cost the taxpayers billions of dollars
>in medical care, accidents, homicides, suicides, etc. So drug use is
>not victimless.

Treating heart disease consumes a similar figure. So eating hamburgers
with all that fat is not victimless. We should pass a law against
everything that may be bad for us as determined by the majority, I
presume? This is the kind of thinking that makes us spend money on
prisons to lock up casual drug users.

The cost to society of locking up otherwise productive people because
of personal drug use far outweighs any supposed benefit society could
possibly receive through decreased drug use. 'Daddys in jail because
he was smoking some dope after work so moms working two jobs
to pay the court costs and the kids are getting along ok but they wonder
why daddys a bad person.' Happens.

>Alcohol and/or drugs are involved in 70% of domestic violence
>cases. Sixty percent of felony arrests for crimes other than possession
>are of people under the influence.

What was it that caused these things in the other 30% and 40%, respectively?

>Whatever spirituality may be, it does not come from a bottle or a syringe.

Where does it come from? A change in the chemical balance of the brain?
God? Krishna? The Pope? Bill Gates?

Being as spirituality is the most subjective of all the 'realms of thought'
invented by the human mind, your speculations as to where spirituality
does NOT come from are therefore highly suspect due to their subjectivity.

>Drugs cause permanent brain changes which can be mistaken for
>spiritual phenomena.

Spiritual phenomena cause permanent brain changes which can be
mistaken for drug use.:-))))) (Just a joke!)

>In the sixties (the purpose of the list, after all), there were those
>who were self-centered and self-indulgent who wanted to be free
>to do their own thing, no matter what the societal consequences,
>and usually just to piss off authority figures. Their sentences began
>with a whine: "I don't see why I can't..........."

I don't see why I can't expect the principles of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights to be upheld.

>Others were more concerned with service to their communities
>and were interested in organizing workers and in creating a more
>just society even if it meant tearing down the existing one, and they
>were willing to fight and die for those reasons. They believed, as
>I do that the good of the greater community must come before any
>fantasy "rights" of the individual.

IMO, upholding the rights of the individual is the noblest and most
appropriate function of government. 'The good of the greater community',
as you say, can only be worthwhile in direct proportion to the freedom
and liberty granted to it's every individual member. A monolithic police
state results when a philosophy of restricting personal freedom for
'the good of the greater community' holds sway.

>You can not do drugs because it is harmful to the rest of us.

Confirmation of my preceding point.

>Drugs were made illegal because of the behaviors of those who
>used them. Being arrested has saved more dope fiends lives than
>anything else.

Dope fiends? LOL

Like being arrested and thrown in jail for blowing a joint is a good thing!!

>Libertarianism is another name for selfishness.

I don't think I can pull off a juxtaposition on this one!!!:-)))))
Good try, though!

Wally 'Dope fiends?' Sass