From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: End of thread for me.
Date: 2000/06/28
Message-ID: <395AB2A5.41045507@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

Lon VanOstran wrote:
>
> AF Rigger wrote:
> >
> > Pot Heads aren't bad!  Crack Heads are!!!!!!!!
>
> The distribution system is mostly the same,

No they're not.  Most of the crack is imported by "cartels".  Most
pot is grown domestically, especially since the hybrids have gotten
so good.  Crack is bought from a street dealer.  Pot is normally
traded through a network of friends.

>and the greatest contributor
> to crime in this country. No business will survive without customers,
> thus the customers are responsible for the evil done by drug dealers.
> That is my not so humble opinion. You need not like it, but I'm afraid
> you will need to live with the fact that many of us consider users
> guilty of the murders committed by drug dealers. If you believe there is
> no God, and that justice will not be done, you had better be right.

The problem is, Lon, you don't jack-shit about pot smokers other
than the propaganda that you've observed.  I'm probably wasting my
time but I'll do so anyway, explaining what I KNOW about pot and not
what I've heard.

With the exception of a glass of wine on New Years, I'm a
tee-totaler so don't try to attack this post as the output of a
pothead.  Most of my friends smoke pot.  That's been the case since
college.  I suspect that the large number of my friends who smoke
pot do so as a self-selection process since I prefer to be around
fun, intelligent, creative and accomplished people.  Indeed, it got
to the point with my engineering company that I almost would ask
about pot use with candidates, the preference being given to those
who said "yes".

I hope that you can pull off the demagogic blinders long enough to
make the same distinction between recreational pot users and hard
core pot heads as is made between casual drinker and booze heads.
I'm obviously talking about casual users and not stoners.  Pot, like
booze in excess will turn the brain to jelly.  I have no interest in
being around jelly people regardless of the cause.

In terms of impairment, there is no debate that the type of
impairment caused by pot is fundamentally different than by booze.
Pot does NOT impair the motor skills until one is three sheets to
the wind.  Numerous academic studies as well as a rather famous test
done by Car & Driver magazine about 10 years ago demonstrated that.
C&D rented the Transportation Research Center in Ohio and set up a
test whereby volunteers got progressively stoned on pot and then
drove a variety of test courses.  Then the same test was done with
booze.  What they found was that while booze affected the judgment
and motor skills of drivers in the expected way, pot did not.  The
pot smokers could still maintain their driving skills and judgment
long after they were so stoned as not to want to bother with the
test anymore.  Given that a certain percentage of the population is
going to drive impaired, I'd ten times rather it be on pot than
booze.

Which brings up the next point.  Given that I have to be in an
environment where there are stoned people, i'd MUCH rather be around
pot smokers than boozers.  Pot makes the user mellow, creative, laid
back, unmotivated and so on.  Booze makes people stupid and
aggressive.  I know that in the presence of a bunch of pot smokers,
I'll never have to worry about some guy getting his manhood in a
snit and try to prove how big his is with his fists.

Some other things that I know.  If I have a party at my house and
the drug of choice is pot, as opposed to booze, then I know that:

* I don't have to worry about anyone getting sick and puking on the
carpet.
* I don't have to worry about anyone puking all over the bathroom.
* I don't have to worry about some little "big man" starting a
fight.
* No one will get loud and belligerent.
* Since most adults I know smoke using either a bong or glass pipe*,
I don't have to worry about some drunk dropping a cig on the
furniture and setting it on fire.
* No one will take out half the guest's cars as he tries to
drunkenly get his car out on the highway.
* If I ask for the keys from a guest because I think he's too high
to drive, the response will be "Oh yeah, right. Cool" instead of the
person considering it an invitation to fight.
* Anyone who over-uses will simply go to sleep.
* No hangover in the AM.
* Pot smoke smells a hell of a lot better than either tobacco smoke
OR stale booze.

(Forget the stair-step argument too.  Even government-sponsored
studies show that the real 'stair step drug', if there is one, is
tobacco.)

>
> Like the store owners who tell their children to "say no to drugs" and
> then prove they don't really mean it by demonstrating a will to profit
> from drug use, You can't hide from reality. You can only ignore it.

The reality is, Lon, that the so-called drug war is really a Drug
War against the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with drugs and
everything to do with power.  Evil Pot and other drugs is the only
tool the statists have found to reliably strip away one
Constitutional protection after another.  Almost any level of
state-sponsored repression or terrorism is "OK" as long as it has a
drug connection.  Can anyone imagine tolerating middle-of-the-night
home invasions by jack-booted state thugs operating under the color
of law if it DIDN'T involve evil drugs?  Can you imagine the
storm-troopers being allowed to bust down someone's doors on account
of a stolen TV?

The fact is, Lon, that some segment of the population is going to
choose to use mind-alterning drugs, be it pot or booze or tobacco.
Prohibition proved that no amount of government repression will
change that fact.  What Prohibition did was establish the Mob and
planted the seed of distrust of the government and the ignoring of
its laws.  Drug Prohibition has done the same thing all over again,
only worse.  At least back then, the government recognized that it
had no authority to prohibit booze use without a constitutional
amendment.  Modern government, and those like you who support it, no
longer bother with such annoyances.

Like the old saying goes, "It's not about drugs, It's about
freedom."  I thought that someone as smart as you would realize
that.

I have fought for years for the legalization of pot and the
decriminalization of all other drugs NOT because I have any desire
to promote said use but because I love freedom and am extremely
frightened at how fast what few freedoms we have are being destroyed
by the drug war on the Constitution.

* Joints are for kids and those who sneak around.  Adult casual
users who smoke in the comfort of their own homes usually use a
glass pipe or a bong because the smoke is more pleasant and is
neater.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: End of thread for me.
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:21:25 -0400

Lon VanOstran wrote:

> AF Rigger wrote:
> >
> > Pot Heads aren't bad!  Crack Heads are!!!!!!!!
>
> The distribution system is mostly the same,

No they're not.  Most of the crack is imported by "cartels".  Most
pot is grown domestically, especially since the hybrids have gotten
so good.  Crack is bought from a street dealer.  Pot is normally
traded through a network of friends.

>and the greatest contributor
> to crime in this country. No business will survive without customers,
> thus the customers are responsible for the evil done by drug dealers.
> That is my not so humble opinion. You need not like it, but I'm afraid
> you will need to live with the fact that many of us consider users
> guilty of the murders committed by drug dealers. If you believe there is
> no God, and that justice will not be done, you had better be right.

The problem is, Lon, you don't jack-shit about pot smokers other
than the propaganda that you've observed.  I'm probably wasting my
time but I'll do so anyway, explaining what I KNOW about pot and not
what I've heard.

With the exception of a glass of wine on New Years, I'm a
tee-totaler so don't try to attack this post as the output of a
pothead.  Most of my friends smoke pot.  That's been the case since
college.  I suspect that the large number of my friends who smoke
pot do so as a self-selection process since I prefer to be around
fun, intelligent, creative and accomplished people.  Indeed, it got
to the point with my engineering company that I almost would ask
about pot use with candidates, the preference being given to those
who said "yes".

I hope that you can pull off the demagogic blinders long enough to
make the same distinction between recreational pot users and hard
core pot heads as is made between casual drinker and booze heads.
I'm obviously talking about casual users and not stoners.  Pot, like
booze in excess will turn the brain to jelly.  I have no interest in
being around jelly people regardless of the cause.

In terms of impairment, there is no debate that the type of
impairment caused by pot is fundamentally different than by booze.
Pot does NOT impair the motor skills until one is three sheets to
the wind.  Numerous academic studies as well as a rather famous test
done by Car & Driver magazine about 10 years ago demonstrated that.
C&D rented the Transportation Research Center in Ohio and set up a
test whereby volunteers got progressively stoned on pot and then
drove a variety of test courses.  Then the same test was done with
booze.  What they found was that while booze affected the judgment
and motor skills of drivers in the expected way, pot did not.  The
pot smokers could still maintain their driving skills and judgment
long after they were so stoned as not to want to bother with the
test anymore.  Given that a certain percentage of the population is
going to drive impaired, I'd ten times rather it be on pot than
booze.

Which brings up the next point.  Given that I have to be in an
environment where there are stoned people, i'd MUCH rather be around
pot smokers than boozers.  Pot makes the user mellow, creative, laid
back, unmotivated and so on.  Booze makes people stupid and
aggressive.  I know that in the presence of a bunch of pot smokers,
I'll never have to worry about some guy getting his manhood in a
snit and try to prove how big his is with his fists.

Some other things that I know.  If I have a party at my house and
the drug of choice is pot, as opposed to booze, then I know that:

* I don't have to worry about anyone getting sick and puking on the
carpet.
* I don't have to worry about anyone puking all over the bathroom.
* I don't have to worry about some little "big man" starting a
fight.
* No one will get loud and belligerent.
* Since most adults I know smoke using either a bong or glass pipe*,
I don't have to worry about some drunk dropping a cig on the
furniture and setting it on fire.
* No one will take out half the guest's cars as he tries to
drunkenly get his car out on the highway.
* If I ask for the keys from a guest because I think he's too high
to drive, the response will be "Oh yeah, right. Cool" instead of the
person considering it an invitation to fight.
* Anyone who over-uses will simply go to sleep.
* No hangover in the AM.
* Pot smoke smells a hell of a lot better than either tobacco smoke
OR stale booze.

(Forget the stair-step argument too.  Even government-sponsored
studies show that the real 'stair step drug', if there is one, is
tobacco.)

>
> Like the store owners who tell their children to "say no to drugs" and
> then prove they don't really mean it by demonstrating a will to profit
> from drug use, You can't hide from reality. You can only ignore it.

The reality is, Lon, that the so-called drug war is really a Drug
War against the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with drugs and
everything to do with power.  Evil Pot and other drugs is the only
tool the statists have found to reliably strip away one
Constitutional protection after another.  Almost any level of
state-sponsored repression or terrorism is "OK" as long as it has a
drug connection.  Can anyone imagine tolerating middle-of-the-night
home invasions by jack-booted state thugs operating under the color
of law if it DIDN'T involve evil drugs?  Can you imagine the
storm-troopers being allowed to bust down someone's doors on account
of a stolen TV?

The fact is, Lon, that some segment of the population is going to
choose to use mind-alterning drugs, be it pot or booze or tobacco.
Prohibition proved that no amount of government repression will
change that fact.  What Prohibition did was establish the Mob and
planted the seed of distrust of the government and the ignoring of
its laws.  Drug Prohibition has done the same thing all over again,
only worse.  At least back then, the government recognized that it
had no authority to prohibit booze use without a constitutional
amendment.  Modern government, and those like you who support it, no
longer bother with such annoyances.

Like the old saying goes, "It's not about drugs, It's about
freedom."  I thought that someone as smart as you would realize
that.

I have fought for years for the legalization of pot and the
decriminalization of all other drugs NOT because I have any desire
to promote said use but because I love freedom and am extremely
frightened at how fast what few freedoms we have are being destroyed
by the drug war on the Constitution.

* Joints are for kids and those who sneak around.  Adult casual
users who smoke in the comfort of their own homes usually use a
glass pipe or a bong because the smoke is more pleasant and is
neater.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: End of thread for me.
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:08:51 -0400

Hugh wrote:

> The difference is, tobacco and booze are both difficult for the average
> person to "grow" on his own.

Boy, I can tell you're not from the South :-)  Think White
Lightning.  Think Hooch.  Think 'Splo.  Think fire in the hole :-)

Actually in the mountains around here, tobacco farming is amazingly
like pot farming.  Government subsidies make it profitable to grow
even tiny plots.  Tobacco will grow almost anywhere so out in the
country, you see little plots scraped out of the rocky hillside.
Same thing with pot.  And with the (indirect, via driving the price
up) government subsidy, pot, too, is profitable to grow on small
plots.

> Both are revenue producing agents for the
> government. Both produce huge income to the companies producing them.
> Pot, on the other hand, can be grown by anybody in their home. This is
> why I believe the government is and has been so down on pot. Given the
> choice, I wonder if booze consuming people would choose pot instead.

Actually the reefer war has a much more sordid origin.  Around the
turn of the century, hemp was giving cotton a run for the money.
The Southern power brokers didn't like the competition.  They teamed
up with the prohibitionists (the anti-pleasure league :-(  to ban
the growing, import and processing all forms of hemp including the
kind that makes THC.

That was bad enough but as usually happens, the politicians quickly
recognized a new power base and quickly turned the campaign from one
of corrupt trade policy to one of corrupt drug control policy.

That is, of course, a 2 paragraph summary of what it took another
author a whole book to explain.  I just hit the highlights.

> I
> do take issue with the no hangover statement. One of our young engineers
> regularly smoked pot on weekends. On monday morning, he showed a lot of
> signs of "hangover".

Find out what ELSE this guy consumes.  I'll be that there's some
booze or speed in the mix.  Or else this guy gets wasted the moment
he comes home on Friday and stays that way until it's time to go to
work.  Of course, that's not recreational use.

> I also think law enforcement would have a tough
> time with pot and driving while under the influence. Booze is easy to
> prove, pot is not.

Actually, if we decide to deal with the problem correctly, the
effects of either subject are equally easy to detect.  The correct
method is for the cop to measure impairment.  Several companies sell
handheld impairment testers what reportedly work well.  These
gadgets measure motor skills, coordination and mental impairment.
They use a variety of techniques but the most common is to require
the target to perform some combination of actions involving
coordination, short term memory and alertness.  They're cheaper than
Intoximeters and have been accepted in every court jurisdiction
where they've been tried.  With the impairment tester, the target is
tested directly for an impaired ability to drive instead of the
presence of a chemical in his blood or breath.  Impairment caused by
lack of sleep, illness, OTC drugs and other causes are equally well
detected - something the cops can now deal with poorly if at all.


> I'm not advocating the use of pot, I just put it in
> the same class as booze. Legalizing small home use production would kill
> the street sales. This at least would allow the street sales of more
> potent and damaging drugs to be nailed. This would allow us to ship the
> street sellers off for 25 or more years of solitary confinement. It
> wouldn't take long before the pipeline would dry up. Maybe I'm way off
> base on my take on it but I really don't see any difference between a
> guy smoking pot for relaxation or a guy downing booze.
> Hugh

We mostly agree on this much.  I want to see any drug with a market
sold over the counter at prices so cheap that even the street bum
can afford them if he so desires.  This acknowledges the obvious
fact that there will always be some number of people who can't
tolerate reality and will use something to screw up their minds.
What OTC sales would do is a) completely destroy the mob/gang system
by removing the obscene profits from the business, b) it would
remove the "mystique of the prohibited", what draws a bunch of kids
in, from the drugs, c) it would remove most of the motivation for
street crimes because there would be no need to steal to support a
habit, d) the worst of the users would fairly rapidly kill
themselves with the stuff which would cleanse the gene pool and
finally, e) it would remove the justification for a standing army
deployed against the citizenry and the Constitution.  The only down
side that I can think of is that the anti-enjoyment segment of the
population would become very frustrated.

In science, one of the basic tenants is that you postulate a theory,
contrive an experiment and if the experiment doesn't jive with the
theory, you alter the theory and try a different experiment.  The
ill-advised booze prohibition experiment failed miserably and left a
legacy of mobsterism, bootlegging, government corruption and the
undermining of respect for government. The drug prohibition
experiment has failed with similar results, but with the added
consequence of destroying individual liberties and shredding the
Bill of Rights.  But this time, the government and its civilian
sympathizers continue to do the same old experiment again and again
and again.  Reminds me of that old joke about the Pollock who kept
watching the same car crash on video tape over and over.  When asked
why, he says "I'm hoping that next time he won't crash."

Let's alter the theory and try another experiment.


John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: Beware of Baja
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:25:09 -0500
Message-ID: <f6n3o35eplu27r65he59m58qfrl4k3l7ls@4ax.com>

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:06:53 GMT, Robert Allison <rimshot27@spamless.net> wrote:

>That is all I am doing.  My nephew still smokes it as do many
>of my friends and they are paying about 10 dollars A GRAM for
>regular weed and much more for higher quality.  I was shocked
>by this because when I quit using I was getting pot for about
>50 an oz. or about 400 for a pound.  That was 17 years ago.

A friend who's loaded and smokes is paying about $400 an ounce for a name brand
(yeah, pot has trademarks :-) that is custom-grown to his order.  It has an odd, edgy
odor, somewhat unlike regular pot that has a pleasantly sweet odor.  I was shocked at
the price.

>
>35 years ago, I was getting pot for 30 bucks for a KILO!
>Inflation!

No kidding.  Makes one want to set up a hydroponic farm in the spare bedroom and grow
a few plants. :-)  With these new LED grow lights, one could do it without the power
company being able to nark on you.  And without the drug gestapo being able to see it
with their infrared viewers.

Re: the good old days.  Another friend showed up at my house in the mid-70s with two
paper grocery sacks full of weed.  He'd made a "group buy" and wanted to use my
triple-beam lab balance to cut it up. I didn't have a particular problem with that
except that the chief deputy lived across the street.  If he'd seen us he'd have
demanded a cut.

>
>What my friends tell me is that the pot is FAR stronger now
>than it was back then.

Yep.  What's really funny is that major hybridization work to enhance THC
concentration was done at UofTenn's experimental farm.  Don'tcha just love it?  State
money going to perfect stronger weed.  The stoutest stuff is now so strong that folks
are smoking it with what looks like a glass crack pipe except that it has a
"carburetor" hole on the side.  The pipe holds a tiny pinch no larger than a green
pea.  It is consumed in only 2 or 3 long tokes.  Amazing.

John