Facebook Twitter



DEAR ABBY: I just read something in the Joliet Herald-News that I think should be aired in your column.

A 20-year-old liberal arts student at the University of Iowa was sentenced to seven years in prison for distributing LSD. Abby, this guy made a fortune selling drugs. Furthermore, the judge ordered him to pay $1,210 a month to pay for his prison stay! After he serves his prison term, he will be on supervised release for four years, for which he must pay $91 a month.I think this is a wonderful idea. Why should honorable, law-abiding citizens have to pay to feed and house these criminals - especially the ones who got rich selling drugs? I wonder what your other readers think of this. - E.S. IN JOLIET, Ill.

DEAR E.S.: I'm with you. I am amazed that judges didn't think of it before, or have they? Readers?

DEAR ABBY: An unusual situation has caused hard feelings in our office and we would like your opinion of the following:

My friend and I purchased four choice tickets for a major upcoming sporting event as soon as the tickets went on sale. A lot of legwork and advance planning went into buying these tickets at $100 each.

The sporting event will take place shortly, and the value of the tickets has quadrupled. We could easily get $400 apiece for those tickets. My friend and I plan to attend the event and sell the other two tickets, thus paying for our expenses and making a small profit.

Office cronies want to buy the two tickets for their original price - $100 each. We insist on selling them for a price that we can easily get from others. We have not seen this topic discussed in your column and would appreciate your opinion. - OFFICE FOLKS

DEAR FOLKS: Tell your office cronies that the early bird gets the worm, and they must be cuckoo to expect you to sell those tickets at your cost at this late date.

DEAR ABBY: Will you please do a service for all adoptive families? Inform newspaper editors that adopted children are not fertility drugs. I am sick of seeing sentences such as this one - from The New York Times, no less: "They tried for 10 years to have a child; it was not until after they adopted a baby boy that Mrs. Brand became pregnant."

There is no cause-and-effect here. The chances of conceiving a child are the same before and after adoption. Implying that all one has to do is "relax" belittles the infertile couple's experience, and is an insult to them and their adopted child.

Imagine how adoptees must feel when they read that they were just a means to an end - a reproductive aid to bring about their parents' second child! Adoptive parents do not think that way, but journalists thoughtlessly perpetuate the myth that adopted children are second-best.

And another thing: Could we all lighten up on phrases such as "adopt a whale," or "adopt a zoo animal"?

One last thing, Abby, and I'll have it off my chest. My son's "real mother" didn't give him up. His real mother ADOPTED him. The dear young woman who gave birth to him wasn't able to be a mother to him, so SHE gave him up. - MARY RUSSELL, SOUTH EUCLID, OHIO

C) 1989 Universal Press Syndicate