On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:28:50 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing
> for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of
> Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not
> too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In
> the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard drug,
> and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.

It's kinda a weird situation in the US, because it's legal in the state, 
but illegal under federal law.  That means that a lot of dispensaries are 
cash-only businesses because the banks don't want to risk a federal suit 
for trafficking "drug money".

But most in the US these days see weed as no more harmful than alcohol or 
cigarettes (and some say less so), which does beg the question of why 
there's a double standard about it.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 10-3-2016 1:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:28:50 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing
>> for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of
>> Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not
>> too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In
>> the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard drug,
>> and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.
>
> It's kinda a weird situation in the US, because it's legal in the state,
> but illegal under federal law.  That means that a lot of dispensaries are
> cash-only businesses because the banks don't want to risk a federal suit
> for trafficking "drug money".
>
> But most in the US these days see weed as no more harmful than alcohol or
> cigarettes (and some say less so), which does beg the question of why
> there's a double standard about it.
>

The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of 
the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end. 
Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not 
irrelevant - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair 
match to the 'upper'-world.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2016 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.

Maybe impossible is not the right word. Legalising the herb would 
automatically do that. Okay that is a simplification and a lot of 
criminals would still be involved at the start as they have the networks.

> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
> irrelevant

There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise 
a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that 
there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs 
and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down 
on them.


> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
> match to the 'upper'-world.

Indeed it is.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10-3-2016 11:59, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
>> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
>
> Maybe impossible is not the right word. Legalising the herb would
> automatically do that. Okay that is a simplification and a lot of
> criminals would still be involved at the start as they have the networks.

Indeed. Legalising would have to be total /and/ everywhere, otherwise 
legal stuff will be hijacked towards non-legalised regions.

>
>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>> irrelevant
>
> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
> a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
> there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
> and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
> on them.

I suppose international treaties are a major stumbling block, and then 
we are only talking about weed: the whole business of xtc and party 
drugs is yet another kettle of fish. All quite established in the main 
stream society today, yet hardly controlled or illegal-proof.

>
>
>> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
>> match to the 'upper'-world.
>
> Indeed it is.
>

Unfortunately, and far from the awareness of the average citizen.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:14:16 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 10-3-2016 1:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:28:50 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing
>>> for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of
>>> Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not
>>> too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In
>>> the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard
>>> drug,
>>> and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.
>>
>> It's kinda a weird situation in the US, because it's legal in the
>> state, but illegal under federal law.  That means that a lot of
>> dispensaries are cash-only businesses because the banks don't want to
>> risk a federal suit for trafficking "drug money".
>>
>> But most in the US these days see weed as no more harmful than alcohol
>> or cigarettes (and some say less so), which does beg the question of
>> why there's a double standard about it.
>>
>>
> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
> irrelevant - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
> match to the 'upper'-world.

Quite possibly.  There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who 
drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least, 
tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:59:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>> irrelevant
> 
> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
> a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
> there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
> and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
> on them.

The same is true for legal pharmaceuticals here in the US as well.  The 
FDA won't approve foreign drugs for use in the US, which really causes us 
problems with drug prices.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2016 10:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:59:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>>> irrelevant
>>
>> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
>> a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
>> there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
>> and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
>> on them.
>
> The same is true for legal pharmaceuticals here in the US as well.  The
> FDA won't approve foreign drugs for use in the US, which really causes us
> problems with drug prices.
>

You are closer to Canada then you were. So that shouldn't be a problem 
for you. ;)

Seriously, you would think that someone had manufactured the system to 
maximise the profit.

I think we are back to:

On 3/10/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
 > - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
 > match to the 'upper'-world.

;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:08:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/10/2016 10:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:59:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>>>> irrelevant
>>>
>>> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to
>>> legalise a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I
>>> believe that there are several international treaties controlling the
>>> use of drugs and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of
>>> the UN comes down on them.
>>
>> The same is true for legal pharmaceuticals here in the US as well.  The
>> FDA won't approve foreign drugs for use in the US, which really causes
>> us problems with drug prices.
>>
>>
> You are closer to Canada then you were. So that shouldn't be a problem
> for you. ;)
> 
> Seriously, you would think that someone had manufactured the system to
> maximise the profit.
> 
> I think we are back to:
> 
> On 3/10/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>  > - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair match to
>  > the 'upper'-world.
> 
> ;-)

That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former ;) )

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Quite possibly.  There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who
> drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least,
> tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).

That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be 
just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was 
when I was the age to smoke it.
Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;)  )

True and you must be rich or have good medical insurance. It seems to me 
that the Pharmas charge as much as the market will bear.
There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment. With 
drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and companies 
prosper.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 2016-03-10 19:42, also sprach Stephen:
>There is a lot more tolerance than there was
> when I was the age to smoke it.
> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>

London was pretty tolerant in 05-06 when I lived there...

Weird though, was Zurich in 99 when I had to walk past Needle Park to 
get from my flat to the Hauptbahnhof.

-- 
dik

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2016 1:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;)  )
>
> True and you must be rich or have good medical insurance. It seems to me
> that the Pharmas charge as much as the market will bear.
> There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment. With
> drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and companies
> prosper.
>

Same here. Treatments (drugs) refused by insurance companies because 
they are too expensive.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2016 6:31, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2016-03-10 19:42, also sprach Stephen:
>> There is a lot more tolerance than there was
>> when I was the age to smoke it.
>> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>>

Tolerance is high here. I live in the countryside and a fair amount of 
youth, and an uncertain number of adults, use weed openly. However, 
there also is a darker side around with other drugs, and a well-defined, 
drugs-related, criminal nucleus.

>
> London was pretty tolerant in 05-06 when I lived there...
>
> Weird though, was Zurich in 99 when I had to walk past Needle Park to
> get from my flat to the Hauptbahnhof.
>

All Needle Parks in the world are pretty dismal. There are a few 
individuals that I cross now and then when going to the supermarket. Not 
difficult to spot unfortunately.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-3-2016 6:31, dick balaska wrote:
>> Am 2016-03-10 19:42, also sprach Stephen:
>>> There is a lot more tolerance than there was
>>> when I was the age to smoke it.
>>> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>>>
>
> Tolerance is high here. I live in the countryside and a fair amount of
> youth, and an uncertain number of adults, use weed openly.

As it is here, now.

> However, there also is a darker side around with other drugs, and a well-defined,
> drugs-related, criminal nucleus.
>

Yes, and when they are forced to meet in the logistics chain. We get 
what you would expect. Youngsters  and vulnerable people getting caught 
up in something they can't handle.

>>
>> London was pretty tolerant in 05-06 when I lived there...
>>
>> Weird though, was Zurich in 99 when I had to walk past Needle Park to
>> get from my flat to the Hauptbahnhof.
>>
>
> All Needle Parks in the world are pretty dismal.

True, when I lived in Sydney and walked the wrong way down Victoria St. 
at the Cross, all you could hear was the crunching of needles. :(

> There are a few individuals that I cross now and then when going to the supermarket.
Not
> difficult to spot unfortunately.
>

Sadly true.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2/12/2016 4:44 PM, clipka wrote:
> Should I be ashamed for noticing that "Mormons" are just one letter away
> from "morons"?
>

I think people are people, and people do what people do.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 10-3-2016 11:59, Stephen wrote:
>> On 3/10/2016 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
>>> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
>>
>> Maybe impossible is not the right word. Legalising the herb would
>> automatically do that. Okay that is a simplification and a lot of
>> criminals would still be involved at the start as they have the networks.
>
> Indeed. Legalising would have to be total /and/ everywhere, otherwise
> legal stuff will be hijacked towards non-legalised regions.
>

I don't know. Let the prohibitionists look after them selves.


>
> I suppose international treaties are a major stumbling block, and then
> we are only talking about weed: the whole business of xtc and party
> drugs is yet another kettle of fish. All quite established in the main
> stream society today, yet hardly controlled or illegal-proof.
>

Yes we might have gone too far making the drugs we had in the past 
illegal. The door to legal highs has been opened.


>>
>>
>>> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
>>> match to the 'upper'-world.
>>
>> Indeed it is.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, and far from the awareness of the average citizen.
>

I wouldn't know. Being squeaky clean, myself. :-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12-3-2016 10:36, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 10-3-2016 11:59, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2016 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>>> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
>>>> match to the 'upper'-world.
>>>
>>> Indeed it is.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, and far from the awareness of the average citizen.
>>
>
> I wouldn't know. Being squeaky clean, myself. :-)
>
>

It makes me uneasy. People talk about the maffia thinking it is far from 
their bed, from another country. It isn't.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:47:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;)  )
> 
> True and you must be rich or have good medical insurance. It seems to me
> that the Pharmas charge as much as the market will bear.

And even with good medical insurance, good care is sometimes hard to find 
or comes at a premium.  For example, even though we've got a good dental 
plan, a crown cost us about $600 a few weeks back - because our dentist 
charges more than the standard rates (but they're good and worth it - 
I've always had a phobia of needles in general, and the work I've had 
done, when it's involved needles, hasn't been a problem at all.  In my 
mind, that's worth the extra cost).

> There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment. With
> drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and companies
> prosper.

Yeah, on this side as well.  And then we have opportunists like Martin 
Shrikeli who take drugs that are affordable and jack the prices up, and 
then justify it by saying the insurance companies cover it *anyways*.

Because insurance company money is free to the consumer, apparently.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Quite possibly.  There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who
>> drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least,
>> tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).
> 
> That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be
> just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was
> when I was the age to smoke it.
> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.

Could be.

The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven largely 
(but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about "personal 
responsibility".  There's an irony in that.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 2016-03-16 12:46, also sprach Jim Henderson:

> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven largely
> (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about "personal
> responsibility".  There's an irony in that.

There's several issues I've always thought were backwards.
- Abortion is a personal choice, should be the Republican PoV.
- Homosexuality is a personal thing, should have nothing to do with the 
government, and "outlawing" it should not be the Republican PoV.
- Pot (and rec drugs in general) you just mentioned.  "Government knows 
what's best for you" is not supposed to be the Republican PoV.

-- 
dik

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2016 4:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:47:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;)  )
>>
>
>> There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment. With
>> drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and companies
>> prosper.
>
> Yeah, on this side as well.  And then we have opportunists like Martin
> Shrikeli who take drugs that are affordable and jack the prices up, and
> then justify it by saying the insurance companies cover it *anyways*.
>

I hope they throw away the key.

> Because insurance company money is free to the consumer, apparently.
>

I wonder how the world would have turned out if you had a "free at the 
point of use" health service.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2016 4:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Quite possibly.  There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who
>>> drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least,
>>> tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).
>>
>> That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be
>> just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was
>> when I was the age to smoke it.
>> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>
> Could be.
>
> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven largely
> (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about "personal
> responsibility".  There's an irony in that.
>

Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen 
on passing oppressive laws?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:

> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
> on passing oppressive laws?
>

<grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2016 12:23 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
>> on passing oppressive laws?
>>
>
> <grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.
>

He is not my Trump, the Duck. </Boak>

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:53:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/16/2016 4:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Quite possibly.  There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people
>>>> who drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at
>>>> least, tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years
>>>> ago).
>>>
>>> That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be
>>> just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was
>>> when I was the age to smoke it.
>>> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>>
>> Could be.
>>
>> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven
>> largely (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about
>> "personal responsibility".  There's an irony in that.
>>
>>
> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
> on passing oppressive laws?

Yep.

"We want government out of our lives" - and then pass laws that interfere 
with women's health issues, have intrusive surveillance, want to weaken 
strong encryption, and criminalize things like pot that only generally 
affect the user.

Basically, to limit anyone who they feel has a different "morality" than 
they do.

There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:23:00 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so
>> keen on passing oppressive laws?
>>
>>
> <grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.

What a terrible, terrible pun.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:15:55 -0400, dick balaska wrote:

> Am 2016-03-16 12:46, also sprach Jim Henderson:
> 
>> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven
>> largely (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about
>> "personal responsibility".  There's an irony in that.
> 
> There's several issues I've always thought were backwards.
> - Abortion is a personal choice, should be the Republican PoV.
> - Homosexuality is a personal thing, should have nothing to do with the
> government, and "outlawing" it should not be the Republican PoV.
> - Pot (and rec drugs in general) you just mentioned.  "Government knows
> what's best for you" is not supposed to be the Republican PoV.

Agreed on all three points.

"We don't want government getting between a patient and a doctor" - well, 
except in this instance, where it's imperative that the decision not be 
made by the patient and the doctor.

Drives me crazy.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:47:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/16/2016 4:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:47:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;)  )
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment.
>>> With drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and
>>> companies prosper.
>>
>> Yeah, on this side as well.  And then we have opportunists like Martin
>> Shrikeli who take drugs that are affordable and jack the prices up, and
>> then justify it by saying the insurance companies cover it *anyways*.
>>
>>
> I hope they throw away the key.

Same here.

>> Because insurance company money is free to the consumer, apparently.
>>
>>
> I wonder how the world would have turned out if you had a "free at the
> point of use" health service.

That would be a nice thing.  As it is now, there's always a concern about 
going to the doctor for something - because "how much is it going to cost 
me?" is always a deciding factor.

Like "I've got kidney stones - but no insurance.  Do I go to the ER for 
pain meds and treatment, or do I live with the pain?" - that's a decision 
nobody should ever have to make.

And then when you get charged $3,000 for the visit (what was essentially 
a 15-minute consultation with the ER doctor), it's not exactly like 
you're in a position to shop around for the least expensive ER, compare 
Yelp reviews, and make an "informed consumer decision" about where to go.

And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable 
(I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in the 
US - but I've never known it to be true).

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2016 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'.;)

Hell bound?
At least by their own rules.

And it is all Old Testament, where is the Christianity?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2016 5:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >>
>> >I wonder how the world would have turned out if you had a "free at the
>> >point of use" health service.
> That would be a nice thing.  As it is now, there's always a concern about
> going to the doctor for something - because "how much is it going to cost
> me?" is always a deciding factor.
>
> Like "I've got kidney stones - but no insurance.  Do I go to the ER for
> pain meds and treatment, or do I live with the pain?" - that's a decision
> nobody should ever have to make.
>
> And then when you get charged $3,000 for the visit (what was essentially
> a 15-minute consultation with the ER doctor), it's not exactly like
> you're in a position to shop around for the least expensive ER, compare
> Yelp reviews, and make an "informed consumer decision" about where to go.
>
> And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable
> (I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in the
> US - but I've never known it to be true).

I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.03.2016 um 19:58 schrieb Stephen:

> I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.

I can't get my head round the American attitude to /everything/...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:58:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable
>> (I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in the
>> US - but I've never known it to be true).
> 
> I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.

You're not the only one.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:25:18 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 17.03.2016 um 19:58 schrieb Stephen:
> 
>> I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.
> 
> I can't get my head round the American attitude to /everything/...

You're not the only one (seemed only natural to repeat the statement :) )

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:55:26 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/17/2016 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'.;)
> 
> Hell bound?
> At least by their own rules.

Nope....

Hypocrisy.  That's the word.

"Government out of my life" does not equal "government out of everyone 
else's life" to some.

> And it is all Old Testament, where is the Christianity?

Long since forgotten by many.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 17-3-2016 18:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:23:00 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so
>>> keen on passing oppressive laws?
>>>
>>>
>> <grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.
>
> What a terrible, terrible pun.
>

I know, and I am ashamed, but I could not resist. :-)


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:04:49 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 17-3-2016 18:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:23:00 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so
>>>> keen on passing oppressive laws?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.
>>
>> What a terrible, terrible pun.
>>
>>
> I know, and I am ashamed, but I could not resist. :-)

If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife asks 
that question of me on occasion when I make a really good^H^H^H^Hbad 
pun.) :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/18/2016 4:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:55:26 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2016 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'.;)
>>
>> Hell bound?
>> At least by their own rules.
>
> Nope....
>
> Hypocrisy.  That's the word.
>

Yip! then to the Hell they wish on others.

> "Government out of my life" does not equal "government out of everyone
> else's life" to some.
>
>> And it is all Old Testament, where is the Christianity?
>
> Long since forgotten by many.
>

Indeed.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/18/2016 4:23 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:58:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable
>>> (I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in the
>>> US - but I've never known it to be true).
>>
>> I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.
>
> You're not the only one.
>

Including your president.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife asks
> that question of me on occasion when I make a really good^H^H^H^Hbad
> pun.):)

What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:52:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/18/2016 4:23 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:58:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable
>>>> (I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in
>>>> the US - but I've never known it to be true).
>>>
>>> I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.
>>
>> You're not the only one.
>>
>>
> Including your president.

Yep.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife asks
>> that question of me on occasion when I make a really good^H^H^H^Hbad
>> pun.):)
> 
> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)

A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:51:44 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/18/2016 4:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:55:26 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/2016 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'.;)
>>>
>>> Hell bound?
>>> At least by their own rules.
>>
>> Nope....
>>
>> Hypocrisy.  That's the word.
>>
>>
> Yip! then to the Hell they wish on others.

Well, in their minds, certainly.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 18-3-2016 23:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife asks
>>> that question of me on occasion when I make a really good^H^H^H^Hbad
>>> pun.):)
>>
>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>
> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>

True indeed. Mine was not, but again, I got fascinated by the linguistic 
correspondence, which I never can resist. :-/


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3/18/2016 10:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife asks
>>> that question of me on occasion when I make a really good^H^H^H^Hbad
>>> pun.):)
>>
>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>
> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>

I prefer mine "Well Pun" :-P


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:29:56 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/18/2016 10:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife
>>>> asks that question of me on occasion when I make a really
>>>> good^H^H^H^Hbad pun.):)
>>>
>>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>>
>> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>>
>>
> I prefer mine "Well Pun" :-P

See, now that wasn't a good one. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:54:04 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 18-3-2016 23:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife
>>>> asks that question of me on occasion when I make a really
>>>> good^H^H^H^Hbad pun.):)
>>>
>>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>>
>> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>>
>>
> True indeed. Mine was not, but again, I got fascinated by the linguistic
> correspondence, which I never can resist. :-/

That's something I find more interesting, once I get past the groan. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 21-3-2016 3:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:54:04 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 18-3-2016 23:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife
>>>>> asks that question of me on occasion when I make a really
>>>>> good^H^H^H^Hbad pun.):)
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>>>
>>> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>>>
>>>
>> True indeed. Mine was not, but again, I got fascinated by the linguistic
>> correspondence, which I never can resist. :-/
>
> That's something I find more interesting, once I get past the groan. :)
>

I suppose, because I am juggling with (at least) three different 
languages on a daily basis, I have become very sensitive to word-meaning 
and word-context differences.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:04:41 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 21-3-2016 3:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:54:04 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> On 18-3-2016 23:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife
>>>>>> asks that question of me on occasion when I make a really
>>>>>> good^H^H^H^Hbad pun.):)
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>>>>
>>>> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> True indeed. Mine was not, but again, I got fascinated by the
>>> linguistic correspondence, which I never can resist. :-/
>>
>> That's something I find more interesting, once I get past the groan. :)
>>
>>
> I suppose, because I am juggling with (at least) three different
> languages on a daily basis, I have become very sensitive to word-meaning
> and word-context differences.

Hehehehe, yeah, I get that.  I'm a technical writer/editor, and I always 
have to be aware of those things as well. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/21/2016 2:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:29:56 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2016 10:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:53:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/18/2016 4:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> If you're honest about, it, though, did you really try?  (My wife
>>>>> asks that question of me on occasion when I make a really
>>>>> good^H^H^H^Hbad pun.):)
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with puns? A good one is clever. :)
>>>
>>> A good one is a rare thing indeed. :)
>>>
>>>
>> I prefer mine "Well Pun" :-P
>
> See, now that wasn't a good one. ;)
>
> Jim
>
>
>

You are not a connoisseur, I deem.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:13:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> You are not a connoisseur, I deem.

Au contraire, but I have a refined taste. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message