Quote:
Originally Posted by skaltezon
.
Me neither.
I think I'm right about Morrison. In the book, Jim and I - Friends Until Death: Alain Ronay's account of Jim's passing Morrison's friend Pamela Courson is quoted as saying --
Evidence of regular use of a narcotic supports an inference of addiction, if not conclusively.
As for Hendrix, I heard the heroin story so long ago I can't remember where I got it. In Tony Brown's Hendrix: The Final Days, Hendrix' friend Monika Dannemann says he overdosed on her sleeping pills. There's yet another account that says his manager Mike Jeffery murdered him using sleeping pills.
But this is getting too far afield. My point is that it's implausible for the Beatles to have wanted a reputation lumping them together with narcotic-using musicians who passed out on stage, as RMR suggests.
.
The point at issue is whether they were pretending to be bigger drug users than they were. Isn't that like someone pretending to be a bigger idiot than he is? Also, I don't see the evidence for it.
.
|
I agree the Beatles shouldn`t be lumped in with some of the serious drug users of that era. Jim pretty much took anything in any quantity at any time, so I suppose he would`ve tried it, but the point was, that he wasn`t known for taking heroin and favoured other drugs far more, so I don`t think its fair to say heroin killed him.
The Hendrix opinion though is far more hazy, as I`ve read a lot about him and heroin, but also claims from many close to him that he hated needles and for this use could never inject, but he could have taken it in some other form.