I suppose that next to the question of racial disturbance, there is no more controversial
 problem about the domestic affairs of this country at the present time than drugs.
 The word drugs has a very funny semantic problem.
 You have a place called the drug store, which is perfectly inoffensive and a regular part
 of the scene of life in these United States.
 But at the same time, you have a word drug as when we say a person is drugged, which
 means that he is happy but incompetent under the influence of heavy medical sedation.
 We also have another word that should be drugged, I suppose, if we use it in that way, which
 is called drunk, because a person, even pleasantly inebriated with alcohol, is just as much drugged
 as a person might be under the influence of morphine.
 He is rendered insensitive and vaguely sleepy.
 Now I should explain how I came to be interested in the problem which has now become so controversial
 of the influence of chemicals on the human mind.
 For many, many years, more than thirty years, I've been interested in the psychology of
 religion pretty much as a disciple of William James, who was really the first outstanding
 psychologist of religion, tried to understand what is going on when people have religious
 experiences.
 And he concentrated finally and rather particularly on a certain class of religious experience.
 There are experiences of visions, that people have revelations, they see Jesus Christ, the
 Virgin Mary, Krishna, Buddha, or who have you.
 But these are in a certain way less interesting than the experiences in which the individual
 has a sudden transformation of his sense of being alive.
 These experiences occur sometimes quite spontaneously, to children, to adolescents, or to anyone
 at almost any time of life.
 Sometimes they occur as the result of a, or the apparent result, of a discipline, as if
 you practiced yoga, Zen meditation, or Catholic contemplative prayer.
 And sometimes they occur as a result of certain ingestions of chemicals.
 The interesting type of this experience is when the individual is brought to realize
 that something that we'll have to describe from a number of different points of view.
 The experience itself is extremely simple.
 The only thing that is complicated is when we start to try to describe it in language.
 The experience itself in its utmost simplicity was once written down by somebody who took
 nitrous oxide and had a sense of total clarity about all the problems of life.
 And as he came to out of the experience, he had his pencil poised over a sheet of paper
 to write down what was the real hitty-gritty about this.
 And he wrote it down, he really got the point.
 Then when he returned to normal consciousness, he looked at what he had written, and he saw
 that what he had written was, "Everything in this universe is the smell of burnt almonds."
 Over which the academic community had a good laugh, and said, "Well, obviously this was
 a perfectly frivolous enterprise."
 But upon mature consideration, everything in this universe is the smell of burnt almonds.
 That is to say, take any particular experience, such as the smell of burnt almonds, or looking
 into the eyes of the person you love, or eating a steak, flying an airplane, lying on the
 beach in the sun, any experience.
 There is a way in which that experience implies everything else in the universe.
 The word "implies" is probably better than the word "is."
 Is to say you experience, there are certain states of consciousness in which you experience
 that everything is interconnected.
 Everything goes with everything else.
 I knew a woman who got in an accident in an elevator.
 She hadn't taken any drugs.
 And in this accident she was pinned with her leg caught in the mechanism, and she was there
 for half an hour before anybody could get to her rescue.
 She was having agonies.
 But she knew that she simply had to wait.
 There was nothing to do about it, so she completely accepted her situation.
 And she said that in that time she realized, to put it in her own words, "There is not
 a single grain of dust in this whole universe that is out of place."
 In other words, that peculiar, painful, unwanted situation was somehow made acceptable and
 all right, because it fitted in to a harmonious arrangement which involved everything that
 was happening, that had happened, or that ever would happen.
 And whether you approve of this kind of experience or not, whether you think it's rational or
 not, it keeps happening spontaneously, through discipline, or as a consequence of chemical
 agencies to thousands of people.
 And it is of course one of the generating forces in the things we call the great religions
 of the world.
 Obviously, Jesus Christ had an experience of this kind, which brought him to the feeling
 that he as a living organism was an expression of what he called in the language available
 to him, "God the Father."
 I am the Father, I am one, he who has seen me has seen the Father.
 That was an absolutely unacceptable pronouncement to his contemporaries, and so he got crucified.
 We are, I hope, a more tolerant age, and we are, I think, really in need of experiencing
 the relationship of the individual to the physical world in a way that is more positive,
 more constructive, more friendly, more close than that which expresses itself in a hostile
 technology, bent on the domination and the conquest of nature, considered as something
 alien to the human spirit, mechanical, thoughtless and stupid.
 That surrounds us as the mere featureless energy behind the galaxies.
 If indeed it were possible for many of us to have a sensation of not just merely belonging
 in this world, but being in it, if we could feel that our separate individuality is a
 coming and going expression of what it is that is happening through all the cycles of
 time and generations of cosmoses, we'd be able to cool it a bit, and not be so frantic
 in our pursuit of survival.
 It might be a very good thing.
 And that's simply giving an explanation of why I personally have been interested in exploring
 the psychology and the conditions of this kind of experience for so many years.
 Now then, in the middle 1950s, a British psychiatrist by the name of Humphrey Osmond persuaded a
 British novelist by the name of Aldous Huxley to take a dose of mescaline.
 And in the thought that at the time this was a drug which induced states of consciousness
 similar to schizophrenia, Humphrey Osmond realized that Aldous Huxley was a marvellous
 master of words, and therefore it might be a good idea to see if this experience were
 given to a man who could describe things in a wonderfully accurate and vivid way, we might
 learn something about what it does.
 Aldous Huxley didn't simply deliver a private report to the doctors, he rushed into print
 and published a book called The Doors of Perception, in which he said in effect that he felt from
 his point of view that having taken mescaline gave him an experience which he could not
 but identify with the great mystical experience of man's integration with the universe, which
 of course had been known through all history.
 When I read this as a student of the psychology of religion I was naturally fascinated, but
 unbelieving.
 I thought, you know, Aldous sometimes goes off the deep end.
 I knew him very well, and I know he had a kind of enthusiasm for all kinds of novelty.
 He had foreseen in his novel Brave New World that there might be a way of drugging human
 beings into sort of perpetual contentment and happiness so that they would give no further
 trouble to each other.
 And of course everybody had put this down and said that would be the end of the human
 spirit.
 And so I felt maybe this is another of Aldous' weird things and slightly dismissed it.
 But then the psychiatrists who had involved him in this finally got in touch with me,
 because they said you're supposed to be an authority on the psychology of religion and
 we'd like to know what you think about drug-induced mysticism.
 So I was foolish enough at the time to accept an invitation to stand in for Aldous Huxley
 at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Los Angeles.
 He couldn't be present and they asked me to talk about this in his place.
 I had not at that time experienced any of these drugs and I simply gave a theoretical
 talk on them.
 If I were to produce something like the deepest religious experience I would imagine that
 it would be like the sensation of swimming with water wings.
 That you're kept up by so-called artificial means, you get a notion of how it is to float,
 but as yet you haven't actually learned how to swim.
 And you know that magical moment because almost everybody in this room I presume knows how
 to swim.
 And you remember the magical moment when you suddenly found you could trust yourself to
 the water and keep afloat.
 And it was something a little bit beyond, a little bit different than being kept up
 by a life jacket or water wings.
 Well in a way I still preserve this point of view with regard to the relation of psychedelic
 chemicals to mysticism.
 But let me go on with the story of what actually happened.
 Somewhat later one of the doctors who had been associated with all this huxley said
 to me, "Will you actually try this out and give us your views on it?"
 And it's very nice to be flattered as an authority and also I was just plain curious.
 And I'm the sort of person who will try anything once.
 And so I submitted to being dosed with a hundred micrograms of lysergic acid diethylamide
 under 25, which maybe is not what you call acid.
 It's a very specific and particular chemical.
 And I had an extraordinarily interesting experience.
 But I felt that it was an aesthetic experience, not a mystical experience.
 And so it was just fascinating.
 The changes of one's sense of perception.
 It was as if, you know a gadget called a kaleidoscope, which is a combination of a kaleidoscope and
 a telescope.
 You look through this thing and it models everything you look at in fascinating patterns
 according to its own inner structure.
 And I felt that this drug did exactly the same thing as that.
 That it modified your nervous system in a certain way, like looking through a kaleidoscope
 telescope instead of a telescope telescope.
 And just jacked everything up and that was very interesting and so what.
 Then later on another psychiatrist approached me.
 He was in San Francisco at Langley Portland and said, "I don't think you've really gone
 into this deeply enough."
 I think I could point out certain things to you that would be interesting because you
 see this drug is something that you have to learn how to use, just as you would learn
 how to use a microscope.
 There's a certain technique to it.
 Supposing you're a biologist or a bacteriologist, you've got to learn the art of using the instrument.
 So I said, "Okay, okay, okay, let's try it again."
 I was very skeptical of the whole thing.
 And lo and behold, I had what I simply could not deny being an experience of cosmic consciousness,
 the sense of complete fundamental total unity forever and ever with the whole universe.
 And not only that, but that what this thing was fundamentally, despite everything and
 every kind of appearance in ordinary life to the contrary, that the energy behind the
 world was ecstatic bliss and love.
 Well I was very embarrassed by this.
 Because I thought, "Gee, you can't get mysticism out of a bottle.
 That's degrading everything."
 But yet I couldn't deny the fact that it had happened.
 So then by this time Aldous Huxley had rushed into print and had let the cat out of the
 bag that this kind of experience was possible through chemicals.
 At that time neither he nor I knew that this would become a tremendous popular rage.
 But I felt that I had a certain responsibility as somebody who knew something about the psychology
 of religion, and since he had come out in print and the idea was getting around that
 this was possible, I ought to say a few things about it in addition that would induce wisdom,
 caution and responsibility about the whole thing.
 And so I recorded my own experiences of this kind of thing in a book called The Joyous
 Cosmology, to which I appended not only the center part of the book, but a description
 of the experiences that I'd actually had, and then there was a prologue and an epilogue
 which were concerned with the social problems, psychological problems that might attend this
 kind of practice.
 And of course these are things that have assumed almost catastrophic dimensions.
 Suddenly in other words the whole world of young people caught on to this thing and said
 let's turn on, let's have this experience.
 Then when Timothy Leary got in the act, all caution was thrown to the winds and he felt
 that this is something that everybody really owed to himself.
 Everybody ought to be turned on.
 Well I wasn't so sure about that, because I wouldn't say everybody ought to sail around
 the world in an open sailboat.
 You know it's a great thing if you can do it, but I wouldn't sort of recommend it to
 anyone.
 I wouldn't say that everybody ought to spend three weeks absolutely alone in a forest,
 find out who you are.
 If you can take it, it's a great experience, but I wouldn't want to shove it down your
 throat.
 And incidentally that's the reason I ceased being a minister of religion.
 I was one for a while, but I found myself in the awkward position of supporting missionaries.
 Of people who are saying this Christianity is so great that you've all got to have it.
 And I don't believe that however good a thing there may be in the world that you should
 force it on people.
 You should offer it, yes, you should make it available, but don't shove it down the
 throat.
 And always observe the saying of Jesus, which is ought to be very embarrassing to the missionaries
 of Jesus, "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither casket or pearls before swine."
 So I don't want to define in advance who are swine and who are not, but I do think there
 is to be observed a very great caution in handing out anything good.
 After all, you don't serve oysters, Rockefeller, to your children because what they want is
 hot dogs or hamburgers and ice cream.
 You have to have a certain taste and a certain palate to appreciate things like that.
 And this is even more true when something you are going to do involves a certain element
 of danger.
 And we all saw right away that the use of psychedelic chemicals could be dangerous as
 well as illuminating.
 Why?
 For a very simple reason.
 That the mystical experience is something rather badly handled in Western culture.
 Because we're not used to it, it's not something which our standard brands of religion have
 done anything much about.
 They preach morals, they don't help people to find cosmic consciousness.
 And therefore in the context of Western culture, a person who has the mystical experience is
 very liable to get up and announce that he's God the Father Almighty and that he's impersonally
 in charge of the whole universe.
 And that this is at the same time a terrible responsibility, so much so that a boy down
 in Los Angeles who took some black market LSD and had a very troublesome experience
 turned himself into the police with a little note saying, "Please help me sign Jehovah."
 Other people have imagined that they are perfectly weightless and can walk out of a window and
 fly.
 Other people have imagined that they understand everything completely, that they can predict
 the future and remember all the past, that they can understand the meaning of any foreign
 language spoken to them instantly, and all sorts of marvelous things like that.
 And this is because of their traditional idea of becoming God and being omniscient and omnipotent.
 And because they feel that very basic sense of being one with everything that's happening,
 they misinterpret this through the screen, through the conditioning of their Western
 Christian Jewish culture.
 To mean, I am personally in charge of everything that's going on.
 Therefore they get megalomania, delusions of grandeur and all that kind of thing, and
 so an unsupervised experience with this kind of thing can sometimes be quite disastrous.
 Now then we have therefore various things to consider.
 Is the experience induced by such chemicals, LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, or the humble
 cannabis, is it valuable socially?
 Or is it simply a hallucination?
 If we might begin with the peculiar state of mind induced by alcohol, let's first of
 all consider that.
 Is the feeling of comfort and ease and relaxation which you experience through alcohol a real
 relaxation, a real comfort, or is it a hallucination?
 Well we can say that alcohol does have a valuable service to mankind to a certain extent.
 The mild quantities of this chemical make people less uptight, make them socialize easily,
 relax them to have a good appetite before dinner, but only in very strict moderation.
 More than enough of this chemical is deleterious to the whole human organism, and therefore
 it should be taken only in slight quantities, and is best handled as the French have handled
 the cult of fine wines, where you drink for the taste rather than the kick.
 And the cult of French wines lies behind the whole cult of French cooking, and is a highly
 civilizing influence.
 Hooray for that!
 But it's strictly in moderation.
 On that point, it's really not so good.
 But what about these other things?
 We find that all of these strictly speaking psychedelic chemicals, to be specific again,
 isocardic acid, mescaline, psilocybin, cannabis, and to a lesser extent the tryptamine drugs
 which have not been so fully explored.
 These chemicals are not addictive, as is alcohol, as is heroin, morphine, and things of that
 order, in that they do not, if a person stops using them, he does not suffer from withdrawal
 symptoms and also he does not have to keep increasing the dosage in order to produce
 the peculiar effects which they induce.
 But the question remains, is the change of consciousness which they produce, A) socially
 valuable and B) anything which gives us a better view of reality, or is it just a hallucination?
 Now let me take the second point first.
 The basic transformation of consciousness which comes about through the use of psychedelic
 chemicals is probably best described as one of polar feeling.
 You feel that everything outside is not the opposite of or contradiction of the inside
 but it just goes with it.
 You feel that the figure always goes with its background.
 Therefore you see in a funny way that all human behavior goes together in such a way
 that you cannot have saints without sinners, you cannot have cops without robbers, you
 cannot have failures without successes and vice versa.
 You cannot have the good and the valuable in life without the background contrast of
 the failure and the evil and also you cannot have life without death.
 And that's a rather shocking realization because you see our culture is geared to the idealism
 of having the good without the evil, of using medicine to bring us to the point where we
 don't need to die so that we can have life without death.
 Of reforming and psychotherapizing people so that we can have all good law abiding citizens
 and no criminals, all sane people and nobody in the asylums.
 And yet and yet and yet and yet from another point of view you can see that were there
 no sick people there would be no incentive for the study of medicine.
 Were there no crazy people there would be no incentive to the study of psychology, finding
 out about the human mind.
 And were there no wicked people there would be no puzzle and thinking about the problems
 of ethics.
 So that you arrive sometimes at this funny point of view where you see that everybody,
 however bad, has an essential contribution to the totality of life.
 And you don't know quite what to do with that kind of insight.
 You are at one point you are inclined to say it's completely subversive and yet from another
 point of view you say, but it isn't subversive because it shows that everything is somehow
 in its proper place.
 But at any rate that is the point of view which is very largely brought about by these
 [inaudible]
 So there is then a kind of a threat in this sort of experience.
 And now let's go on to consider, is it a fantasy or is it in any way true?
 Let's suppose I experience that my own individual existence is completely continuous with the
 existence of everything else.
 That I am a part of nature, not merely a part but an expression of the whole activity of
 the universe.
 Is that a hallucination?
 How am I to judge?
 The criteria by which we judge today are the ideas of our scientists.
 And if I go to the biologist, the physicist, the chemist, I find out that his description
 of me as a human being fits better with this so-called hallucination than does my normal
 state of consciousness.
 In my normal state of consciousness in which I am a product of a certain culture which
 believes that every individual is a separate soul or Freudian ego inhabiting a physical
 vehicle, I feel myself alienated from, separate from everything else that goes on.
 But if I am described by a biologist, I am nothing of the kind.
 A biologist describes me as an organism environment, not an organism in an environment, but an
 organism hyphen environment.
 The way that he describes my behavior, he describes my behavior as the same thing as
 the behavior of my environment.
 You go further than that.
 He'll describe the behavior of my environment as the same thing as my behavior.
 We are a single field of process, or what is sometimes called a transaction.
 In other words, the fact that the sun is life is the result of my nervous system.
 My nervous system turns the sun into life, and the sun would not be life unless my nervous
 system and your nervous system made it so.
 So in a way you make the world.
 At the same time, your nervous system is in the same physical world as the sun.
 And likewise, sometimes under the influence of psychedelic chemicals, you feel that everything
 that's going on is simply inside your head.
 The next moment you feel that your head is inside everything that's going on, and then
 you feel that everything that's going on inside the head sort of caps itself, like a game
 of children's games.
 And both points of view are true.
 But what I'm going to say is the feeling of my being continuous with everything that's
 happening in the physical world fits the facts as described by science more accurately than
 the normal subjective feeling of my being something merely in the world, being pushed
 around by it to some extent, and being able on my own part to push it around to some extent,
 but basically a stranger in the earth.
 So upon that sort of criterion, I feel that the change of consciousness induced by such
 a chemical fits the facts of scientific observation better than the normal kind of consciousness
 which I've been taught in my family and my schooling, where I've been given a feeling
 of my own existence that is simply the mythology of a particular culture.
 And also I go on to feel that it may be quite important that my state of consciousness be
 changed for our general survival.
 Because if I feel myself alien from and against my natural environment, the likelihood is
 that I shall pick a fight with it, and that I shall use technological power to destroy
 it, and not to cooperate with it.
 This I can see is what our culture is already doing.
 And therefore it impresses itself upon me that there is a certain urgency for human
 beings' minds being changed so that they can cooperate with their environment and not fight
 it.
 So then the idea occurs to me, is it perhaps providential that at this time in history
 a chemical agent makes itself available which will enable us to treat the disease of alienated
 consciousness, of hostility to the world?
 Could it be as providential that this is found in the twentieth century as Jenner found smallpox
 vaccine in the nineteenth century?
 That's not inconceivable.
 Arthur Koestler, who is a very sober gentleman and with whom I have had considerably bitter
 arguments about his estimation of Oriental philosophy, has in his book The Ghost and
 the Machine come out with the notion that maybe the only thing that can save a technological
 man from destroying himself is to treat his neurology directly, to alter it.
 And some neurologists are seriously beginning to talk about the necessity for peace technology.
 You might call it chemical peace fire.
 But there is among so many of us a resentment for this whole idea because we say it means
 then that you are reducing the human spirit to mere chemicals and that we cannot tolerate.
 I remember being at a meeting of psychiatrists and someone was talking about the marvellous
 uses of things like Thorazine and Rezepine in treating mental disturbance.
 And this man said, "If I ever thought that my profession of psychiatry would be reduced
 to giving pills, I would become a used automobile salesman."
 The feeling in other words is a great put down on human beings.
 If all that you are is chemicals, so what?
 But our experience again and again and again in the use of these chemicals does not go
 along with that view.
 We have found that, and this has been pretty much statistically verified by people working
 at Silver Springs, Maryland, which is the official United States Centre for Research
 with Psychedelics, that there is no necessary connection between taking say LSD and having
 a mystical experience.
 It may happen and it may not happen because it depends on factors beyond the drug itself.
 It depends on to whom it is given and under what circumstances it is given and by whom
 it is given.
 In other words, the function of the chemical is purely instrumental.
 Here you've got a gorgeous piano made by Steinway Company.
 Beautiful, crazy.
 And anybody who knows nothing about playing the piano can flitter his fingers around on
 the Steinway and it produces sounds that are essentially in themselves excellent because
 the piano is a fine instrument but they are not ordered in any kind of musical coherence.
 Give the same instrument to an expert and he uses it marvelously and it's exactly the
 same thing with psychedelic chemicals.
 Anybody can have a ball with them, just like anybody can have a ball looking through a
 microscope or a telescope.
 But not everyone can use them to produce a religious experience or profound aesthetic
 experience or as in many cases scientific inventiveness.
 It depends on what you bring to it, what you get out of it.
 So we must regard these things as very strictly instrumental.
 They do not do for you anything which you yourself in a way don't bring to it.
 But there always is naturally the temptation to feel that salvation lies in the bottle,
 salvation lies in the pill and if we only could take this thing we should somehow be
 transported.
 And that this is not the case is proved by the increasing number of people who have taken
 what I'll call street acid under the worst sort of circumstances.
 Not knowing what it's even made of, what the dosage is and having no regard for the conditions
 in which it is taken and have had the so-called famous bad trips.
 Of course, and I must underline the fact, don't use street acid.
 You don't know what it is.
 Of course if you're willing to play Russian roulette and you're willing to take all sorts
 of gambles, I suppose it's a free country.
 But it really isn't very sensible.
 You can take risks which are not under your control and you don't know what to do with
 it.
 On the other hand, when we consider from a social point of view what we're going to
 do about this, it isn't simply that there is lysergic acid of some sort running around
 on the streets in the black market and mescaline, psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine, but also of
 course our old friend marijuana.
 Which here there's no particular question about whether it's bad marijuana.
 It's just a vegetable.
 And what should be public policy with regard to these things?
 I feel very strongly that in a country where we value freedom, we must not attempt to legislate
 morality.
 Especially morality that is simply the concern of the individual towards himself.
 In other words, going back to even the basic religious ideas about moral behavior, it's
 fundamental to both Jewish and Christian thinking that an action is not significantly moral
 if it's done under compulsion.
 In other words, if you stay faithful to your wife merely because you are afraid of the
 consequences of adultery, you are not a truly faithful husband.
 If you give alms to the poor merely in order to get yourself a place in heaven or on the
 roster of donors to the synagogue, you are not truly charitable.
 So it is of the essence of moral behavior, according to Jewish and Christian theology,
 that it be violent.
 So that any moral behavior which is enforced is not moral behavior as a result of enforcement.
 And the only reason for enforcing any moral behavior is that immoral behavior may in certain
 circumstances cause grave inconvenience to others, as murdering people, as robbing them,
 as mugging them on the streets.
 That we are, I think, agreed ought to be prevented by the police.
 But when it comes to whether you will gamble, whether you will have irregular sexual games,
 whether you will change your state of consciousness by alcohol, by tobacco, by sleeping pills,
 by aspirin, by caffeine, by lysergic acid, you have a certain responsibility to judge
 for yourself.
 Because if you are deprived of that responsibility, of what other responsibilities might you also
 be deprived for your own good?
 Ought you to read the works of Karl Marx?
 Mr. Rafferty didn't think so.
 And yet, how would you know what to do about a communist enemy if you didn't understand
 the philosophy of Marx?
 How do you know how to deal with China, unless you've read everything written by Mao Zedong?
 You've got to understand your enemy, if enemy he must be.
 So responsibility implies a certain freedom to take risks and to make adventures.
 It's very dangerous, it could have been said, to go up in the air in a machine.
 The Wright brothers took a grave risk.
 Why if they had crashed, what would have happened to their wives and children?
 Would they have been in a fairer state?
 Or the Wright brothers should not have been allowed to fly that airplane.
 So in the same way, you might go mad.
 And your wives and children no longer have your support if you took certain adventures
 in consciousness.
 It's the same problem.
 So does the state have the right to tell you that there are certain risks you mustn't take?
 If the state does assume that responsibility, it can't be helped that the state is also
 saying at the same time that we must not make experiments which could possibly result in
 great benefits to mankind.
 We don't know whether they will result in this or not.
 The knowledge about this whole thing is not as yet certain.
 But we at least have the right to make the attempt.
 And I suggest that we don't make that attempt in absolutely undisciplined and uncontrolled
 situations.
 But the opposition to the use of these chemicals by politicians who are simply collecting votes
 and arousing all the little old ladies terrified by sensational stories in the press, that's
 all that is.
 But the fact remains, the hard core of the fact is, that if we are going to take dangerous
 adventures of this kind, it should be done absolutely out in the open, with the assistance
 of the best scientific and psychological and religious wisdom that is available.
 If we send people out into space in our astronauts, we have the whole scientific faculty of the
 country behind them.
 Likewise if we are going to send people into inner space, instead of being something that
 is done sub rosa, in a paranoid guilty atmosphere, it should be something in which we openly
 cooperate with the feeling we are holding your hand and we are with you all the way.
 But it isn't being done like that.
 And we are going through the same problem that we have been going through in this country
 for years, and you may be, as I am, very anxious that there be law and order in this country.
 That there be respect for our policemen.
 But respect for our policemen in this country ceased when prohibition came into effect.
 Because the officers of the law were asked to enforce things that the citizenry simply
 were not going to observe.
 They became hypocrites.
 Therefore armed preachers, and all preaching creates hypocrisy.
 When you put guns into the hands of clergymen, you have got real trouble.
 That one fell swoop we could restore respect for the police in this country by taking all
 matters of private morals out of their hands.
 Question needing no answer.
 Who would volunteer to serve on a vice squad?
 What kind of personality?
 Who would volunteer to peek through holes into men's toilets to see what they are doing?
 What kind of personality?
 You know, a lot of things, we can't retrain the whole police.
 We can't recruit a new police force with college educations and anything you might demand.
 It just can't be done.
 It's not practical.
 There isn't enough budget, as if that really mattered, but practically there isn't.
 But that one simple stroke of the pen, if we remove the drug questions, the sex questions,
 the gambling questions, and all those sort of things, out of police control and regard
 them simply as public health problems, respect for the police would go up like that.
 And we need it, we've got to have it.
 Because you can't be schizophrenic about your law enforcement officers and say to them,
 it's your responsibility to control us in ways that we don't want to be controlled.
 They don't know what to do.
 No wonder they're confused.
 No wonder they thought I'd gone crazy.
 But we've got to get behind these people and help them.
 And that's what we're doing really.
 So then, basically, young people have become interested in these so-called drugs because
 young people, it's not that they're just out for kicks.
 It's so easy to dismiss the adventures of the young by saying they're out for kicks,
 they're just goofing off.
 If young people are just the kind of people who are irresponsible and are just goofing
 off and are out for kicks, why assign them with the terrifying responsibility of fighting
 with the armed forces?
 If you can say they are responsible enough to do that, you must not dismiss them as immature
 little kids.
 Do you think they are?
 As adults, you fight your own battles.
 So the position is not that young people today are just looking for kicks.
 They are out for trying to find out what the hell this universe is about.
 And they are very confused.
 Because the answers of the old standard-brand religions, while they are in a way respected,
 they're not plausible.
 [BLANK_AUDIO]


{END}
Wait Time : 0.00 sec
Model Load: 0.64 sec
Decoding  : 2.44 sec
Transcribe: 4438.27 sec
Total Time: 4441.35 sec