Should I be ashamed for noticing that "Mormons" are just one letter away
from "morons"?

Post a reply to this message

On 2/12/2016 9:44 PM, clipka wrote:
> Should I be ashamed for noticing that "Mormons" are just one letter away
> from "morons"?
>
No, not for noticing it. Only for mentioning it.

Cue Jim Henderson. :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:00:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 2/12/2016 9:44 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Should I be ashamed for noticing that "Mormons" are just one letter
>> away from "morons"?
>>
> No, not for noticing it. Only for mentioning it.
> 
> Cue Jim Henderson. :)

Why?

I don't live in Utah any more. ;)

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 2/13/2016 5:44 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:00:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 2/12/2016 9:44 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Should I be ashamed for noticing that "Mormons" are just one letter
>>> away from "morons"?
>>>
>> No, not for noticing it. Only for mentioning it.
>>
>> Cue Jim Henderson. :)
>
> Why?
>

I just thought you might like to comment. :)

> I don't live in Utah any more. ;)
>

Certainly not Kansas, Toto.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:58:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 2/13/2016 5:44 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:00:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/2016 9:44 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>> Should I be ashamed for noticing that "Mormons" are just one letter
>>>> away from "morons"?
>>>>
>>> No, not for noticing it. Only for mentioning it.
>>>
>>> Cue Jim Henderson. :)
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
> I just thought you might like to comment. :)

Nah. :)

>> I don't live in Utah any more. ;)
>>
>>
> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.

You got that right. :)  Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for one 
thing. But higher taxes on spirits.

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 2/18/2016 5:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.
> You got that right.:)   Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for one
> thing. But higher taxes on spirits.

Hard liquor always makes me laugh. To me hard liquor is the Green Fairy 
(90–148 U.S. proof) or Polish spirit (190 US proof). Whisky 40% ABV, 70 
proof or 80 US Proof is only mother's milk. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 2/18/2016 5:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.
>> You got that right.:)   Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for one
>> thing. But higher taxes on spirits.
> 
> Hard liquor always makes me laugh. To me hard liquor is the Green Fairy
> (90–148 U.S. proof) or Polish spirit (190 US proof). Whisky 40% ABV, 70
> proof or 80 US Proof is only mother's milk. :)

Hard liquor makes lots of people laugh. :)

In Utah, though, only beer in grocery stores, and only up to 3.2% ABV.  
Anything else, you have to go to a state-run liquor store.

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 2/19/2016 6:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2016 5:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.
>>> You got that right.:)   Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for one
>>> thing. But higher taxes on spirits.
>>
>> Hard liquor always makes me laugh. To me hard liquor is the Green Fairy
>> (90–148 U.S. proof) or Polish spirit (190 US proof). Whisky 40% ABV, 70
>> proof or 80 US Proof is only mother's milk. :)
>
> Hard liquor makes lots of people laugh. :)
>

<grin>

> In Utah, though, only beer in grocery stores, and only up to 3.2% ABV.
> Anything else, you have to go to a state-run liquor store.
>

Something similar in New Mexico. Had to go to Walgreens for spirits and 
Walmart for beer.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:56:33 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 2/19/2016 6:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/2016 5:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.
>>>> You got that right.:)   Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for
>>>> one thing. But higher taxes on spirits.
>>>
>>> Hard liquor always makes me laugh. To me hard liquor is the Green
>>> Fairy (90–148 U.S. proof) or Polish spirit (190 US proof). Whisky 40%
>>> ABV, 70 proof or 80 US Proof is only mother's milk. :)
>>
>> Hard liquor makes lots of people laugh. :)
>>
>>
> <grin>

That's what I was going to do - finish the gin this weekend.  I *knew* I 
was forgetting something.

>> In Utah, though, only beer in grocery stores, and only up to 3.2% ABV.
>> Anything else, you have to go to a state-run liquor store.
>>
>>
> Something similar in New Mexico. Had to go to Walgreens for spirits and
> Walmart for beer.

That seems .... random.

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 2/22/2016 6:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:56:33 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2016 6:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/18/2016 5:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.
>>>>> You got that right.:)   Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for
>>>>> one thing. But higher taxes on spirits.
>>>>
>>>> Hard liquor always makes me laugh. To me hard liquor is the Green
>>>> Fairy (90–148 U.S. proof) or Polish spirit (190 US proof). Whisky 40%
>>>> ABV, 70 proof or 80 US Proof is only mother's milk. :)
>>>
>>> Hard liquor makes lots of people laugh. :)
>>>
>>>
>> <grin>
>
> That's what I was going to do - finish the gin this weekend.  I *knew* I
> was forgetting something.
>

You forgot an imperative? Tsk! Tsk! :)

>>> In Utah, though, only beer in grocery stores, and only up to 3.2% ABV.
>>> Anything else, you have to go to a state-run liquor store.
>>>
>>>
>> Something similar in New Mexico. Had to go to Walgreens for spirits and
>> Walmart for beer.
>
> That seems .... random.
>

How about this TL episode?
I was at the checkout in Walmart and two of my colleagues at another, 
buying drink for the barby. Robert had forgotten his ID so Bobby (yes 
true names) said that he had his and would buy it. (A smart move by 
Robert.)
"No you won't" said the cashier.
"If I sell it to you. You will give it to him and he does not have an 
ID. I can't sell it you you."

Meanwhile I am trying not to wet myself. :)
Too bad there were only two stooges there.
I did not want to become the third one.




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2016-02-22 05:12, Stephen a écrit :
> On 2/22/2016 6:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:56:33 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/19/2016 6:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/18/2016 5:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>> Certainly not Kansas, Toto.
>>>>>> You got that right.:)   Hard liquor in the grocery stores here, for
>>>>>> one thing. But higher taxes on spirits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard liquor always makes me laugh. To me hard liquor is the Green
>>>>> Fairy (90–148 U.S. proof) or Polish spirit (190 US proof). Whisky 40%
>>>>> ABV, 70 proof or 80 US Proof is only mother's milk. :)
>>>>
>>>> Hard liquor makes lots of people laugh. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <grin>
>>
>> That's what I was going to do - finish the gin this weekend.  I *knew* I
>> was forgetting something.
>>
>
> You forgot an imperative? Tsk! Tsk! :)
>
>>>> In Utah, though, only beer in grocery stores, and only up to 3.2% ABV.
>>>> Anything else, you have to go to a state-run liquor store.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Something similar in New Mexico. Had to go to Walgreens for spirits and
>>> Walmart for beer.
>>
>> That seems .... random.
>>
>
> How about this TL episode?
> I was at the checkout in Walmart and two of my colleagues at another,
> buying drink for the barby. Robert had forgotten his ID so Bobby (yes
> true names) said that he had his and would buy it. (A smart move by
> Robert.)
> "No you won't" said the cashier.
> "If I sell it to you. You will give it to him and he does not have an
> ID. I can't sell it you you."
>
> Meanwhile I am trying not to wet myself. :)
> Too bad there were only two stooges there.
> I did not want to become the third one.
>

It happened to a couple of friends (a long time ago).  They were camping 
in Maine, he was 20 and she was 21.  While grocery shopping, my (male) 
friend picked up a 6-pack of beer, and put it on the counter.  The 
cashier asked him for his ID.  When his girl friend produced her ID, the 
cashier said that although she appreciated the courteous gesture, she 
couldn't sell it to them since he had put it on the counter.  They had 
to leave the beer there.

The girl walked back in the store by herself and proceeded to buy the 
6-pack of beer without any prolbems.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:12:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> That's what I was going to do - finish the gin this weekend.  I *knew*
>> I was forgetting something.
>>
>>
> You forgot an imperative? Tsk! Tsk! :)

Well, I don't forget imperatives when I'm writing tasks, since that's 
what our style guide dictates. :)

>>> Something similar in New Mexico. Had to go to Walgreens for spirits
>>> and Walmart for beer.
>>
>> That seems .... random.
>>
> How about this TL episode?
> I was at the checkout in Walmart and two of my colleagues at another,
> buying drink for the barby. Robert had forgotten his ID so Bobby (yes
> true names) said that he had his and would buy it. (A smart move by
> Robert.)
> "No you won't" said the cashier.
> "If I sell it to you. You will give it to him and he does not have an
> ID. I can't sell it you you."

Yeah, that does happen.  The easy solution is the group leaves, then one 
comes back in later.  It's a liability thing for the store.  In some 
places, they're required to card everyone, but I think it gets a little 
foggy if you're buying and you've brought your 6-year-old kid in the 
store, too.

> Meanwhile I am trying not to wet myself. :)
> Too bad there were only two stooges there.
> I did not want to become the third one.

LOL

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 2/22/2016 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:12:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> That's what I was going to do - finish the gin this weekend.  I *knew*
>>> I was forgetting something.
>>>
>>>
>> You forgot an imperative? Tsk! Tsk! :)
>
> Well, I don't forget imperatives when I'm writing tasks, since that's
> what our style guide dictates. :)
>

Good thing too. Mustn't let the House Style down, old boy. ;-)

>
> Yeah, that does happen.  The easy solution is the group leaves, then one
> comes back in later.  It's a liability thing for the store.  In some
> places, they're required to card everyone, but I think it gets a little
> foggy if you're buying and you've brought your 6-year-old kid in the
> store, too.
>

I wore the front cover of my passport, clean. Carrying it around in the 
heat. Not that I would be buying alcohol every day.
It seems strange to need to carry ID all the time.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:09:46 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 2/22/2016 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:12:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> That's what I was going to do - finish the gin this weekend.  I
>>>> *knew*
>>>> I was forgetting something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You forgot an imperative? Tsk! Tsk! :)
>>
>> Well, I don't forget imperatives when I'm writing tasks, since that's
>> what our style guide dictates. :)
>>
>>
> Good thing too. Mustn't let the House Style down, old boy. ;-)

Absolutely.  Gerunds sound too samey when looking at a list of titles.

>> Yeah, that does happen.  The easy solution is the group leaves, then
>> one comes back in later.  It's a liability thing for the store.  In
>> some places, they're required to card everyone, but I think it gets a
>> little foggy if you're buying and you've brought your 6-year-old kid in
>> the store, too.
>>
>>
> I wore the front cover of my passport, clean. Carrying it around in the
> heat. Not that I would be buying alcohol every day.
> It seems strange to need to carry ID all the time.

In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside the US 
(maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with their 
regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or at least 
required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.

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

Shortly after my 30th birthday, I stopped off at a liquor store on the 
way home from work to pick up six-pack of something fermented.  The 
little pimply-faced ferret behind the counter immediately demanded my ID.

I was absolutely tickled spitless.  I was giggling and grinning as I 
pulled out my driver's license and handed it over.

"Thank you," I said, in the sexiest voice I could manage (given his 
complexion).  "You've made my day."

"Well," he snarled snarkily, "we have to card EVERYBODY."

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the little pimply-faced 
ferret is STILL a virgin.

--Sherry Shaw

-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

On 2/25/2016 2:00 AM, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
> I was giggling and grinning as I
> pulled out my driver's license and handed it over.

When I was around 30, my buddy and I took our wives to a bar to see NRBQ 
(good band).  The women were carded, the men weren't, and they were so 
ecstatic that we got mileage out of that all night. "I got carded! He 
thought I looked at least *close* to 18!"

Post a reply to this message

> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside the US
> (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with their
> regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or at least
> required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.

That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go back 
and ask again for a drink :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 25-2-2016 9:27, scott wrote:
>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside the US
>> (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with their
>> regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or at least
>> required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
>
> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go back
> and ask again for a drink :-)
>

hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>> the US
>>> (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with their
>>> regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or at least
>>> required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
>>
>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go back
>> and ask again for a drink :-)
>>
>
> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)

Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a gun 
;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they need 
to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll want to 
see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such 
requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a 
gun without ID.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:27:27 +0000, scott wrote:

>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside the
>> US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with their
>> regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or at least
>> required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
> 
> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go back
> and ask again for a drink :-)

The liquor stores in Utah typically have a police officer on duty.  I 
wouldn't recommend coming in with a gun and threatening anyone. :)

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, 25 Feb 2016 14:27:47 +0000, scott wrote:

>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with
>>>> their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or
>>>> at least required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
>>>
>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>>
>>>
>> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)
> 
> Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a gun
> ;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they need
> to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll want to
> see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such
> requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a
> gun without ID.

Heh, that's certainly 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 26-2-2016 2:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:27:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with
>>>>> their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or
>>>>> at least required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
>>>>
>>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)
>>
>> Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a gun
>> ;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they need
>> to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll want to
>> see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such
>> requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a
>> gun without ID.
>
> Heh, that's certainly true.
>

So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun 
than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the 
booze store but not in the gun store...

Weird country. Maybe a topic for the brothers Coen.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun
> than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the
> booze store but not in the gun store...

That was the original point I was trying to make - maybe it didn't come 
across too well ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2016 8:56, scott wrote:
>> So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun
>> than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the
>> booze store but not in the gun store...
>
> That was the original point I was trying to make - maybe it didn't come
> across too well ;-)
>
>

I needed a bit of booze to get the point and then I needed a gun to get 
the booze and so I ran up against the policeman who tazered me and I 
just woke up in a padded place with a door without a door handle and 
bars in front of the small window.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside the
>>> US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with their
>>> regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or at least
>>> required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
>>
>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go back
>> and ask again for a drink :-)
>
> The liquor stores in Utah typically have a police officer on duty.

Crazy.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/26/2016 8:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I needed a bit of booze to get the point and then I needed a gun to get
> the booze and so I ran up against the policeman who tazered me and I
> just woke up in a padded place with a door without a door handle and
> bars in front of the small window.


Ah! The days of our youth. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2016 10:13, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/26/2016 8:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I needed a bit of booze to get the point and then I needed a gun to get
>> the booze and so I ran up against the policeman who tazered me and I
>> just woke up in a padded place with a door without a door handle and
>> bars in front of the small window.
>
>
> Ah! The days of our youth. ;-)
>
Yeah... climbing up along drain pipes because the key was lost... :-)

or

getting kicked out of a police station because we wanted to stay 
inside... (I swear to the truth of this story) ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2/25/2016 2:00 AM, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
> Shortly after my 30th birthday, I stopped off at a liquor store on the
> way home from work to pick up six-pack of something fermented.  The
> little pimply-faced ferret behind the counter immediately demanded my ID.
>
> I was absolutely tickled spitless.  I was giggling and grinning as I
> pulled out my driver's license and handed it over.
>
> "Thank you," I said, in the sexiest voice I could manage (given his
> complexion).  "You've made my day."
>
> "Well," he snarled snarkily, "we have to card EVERYBODY."
>
> There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the little pimply-faced
> ferret is STILL a virgin.
>
> --Sherry Shaw
>

You really do have to card everyone, though.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 2/26/2016 2:50 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:

>
> You really do have to card everyone, though.

Now, yes.  30 years ago, no.  I've been carded more in my 50s than I 
ever was in my 20s.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:45:54 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 26-2-2016 2:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:27:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol
>>>>>> with their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah
>>>>>> requires (or at least required at one time) a photo ID for
>>>>>> purchase.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)
>>>
>>> Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a
>>> gun ;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they
>>> need to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll
>>> want to see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such
>>> requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a
>>> gun without ID.
>>
>> Heh, that's certainly true.
>>
>>
> So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun
> than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the
> booze store but not in the gun store...
> 
> Weird country. Maybe a topic for the brothers Coen.

Yep.

But here where I live, weed is also legal, so I suspect we don't have 
high crime.  Or maybe we do, depending on the meaning of 'high' you 
apply. ;)

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, 26 Feb 2016 08:54:48 +0000, scott wrote:

>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol with
>>>> their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah requires (or
>>>> at least required at one time) a photo ID for purchase.
>>>
>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>
>> The liquor stores in Utah typically have a police officer on duty.
> 
> Crazy.

Given the number of homeless near some of the stores, it makes sense.

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 9-3-2016 2:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:45:54 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 26-2-2016 2:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:27:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol
>>>>>>> with their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah
>>>>>>> requires (or at least required at one time) a photo ID for
>>>>>>> purchase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>>>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a
>>>> gun ;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they
>>>> need to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll
>>>> want to see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such
>>>> requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a
>>>> gun without ID.
>>>
>>> Heh, that's certainly true.
>>>
>>>
>> So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun
>> than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the
>> booze store but not in the gun store...
>>
>> Weird country. Maybe a topic for the brothers Coen.
>
> Yep.
>
> But here where I live, weed is also legal, so I suspect we don't have
> high crime.  Or maybe we do, depending on the meaning of 'high' you
> apply. ;)
>

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.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

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