Surprise No. 2: 'Polish sausage' and '(polska) kielbasa'
Raymond S. Wise
to a poster who was writing from Poland:
[begin quote from Usenet post]
Just as you can find "Swiss cheese" in a supermarket in the US without any
of it having been imported from Switzerland, you can find "Polish sausage"
in such a supermarket without any of it having been imported from Poland.
For us, "Polish sausage" is a *type* of sausage, like "Italian sausage," or
"bratwurst," or "knockwurst." Perhaps Don of Kansas City, Missouri, who
makes sausages as a hobby, could identify the difference between these
Polish sausage and other types of sausages. I could tell you only that the
meat in Polish sausage is course ground and they are paler. In length,
Polish sausages are straight and are suitable to serve bun, while something
like kielbasa comes in a long form (typically sold in the shape of a U)
which is curved. On those relatively rare occasions when I buy Polish
sausage, it is a national brand: Johnsonville brand Polish sausages.
[end quote from Usenet post]
The poster was amused (his post included the word "hehehe") by this
distinction between "Polish sausage" and "kielbasa." He asked for a photo of
what we meant by the term "Polish sausage." I posted the following URL:
http://www.johnsonville.com/siteconf.nsf/Lkp/00689.jpg/$File/00689.jpg
I also admitted that I had been wrong about Polish sausages being paler than
other sausages, that I had confused them with some of the other types of
sausage sold by Johnsonville.
Since that time I have been to several different supermarkets, and at each
one I have taken a look at the sausage area of the meat section. I was
surprised, first, to see that the term "kielbasa," by itself, was nowhere to
be found. Most kielbasas were referred to as "polska kielbasa," such as in
"Klements Smoked Polska Kielbasa." I found one use of "kielbasa" modified by
the word "turkey": "Jennie-O Turkey Kielbasa."
"Healthy Choice Polska Kielbasa" was, unlike the others, which were
presented in the shape of a U, presented in a package of two long sausages,
at least as long as two ordinary Polish sausages such as those represented
by the JPG image cited above. And one product, "Hillshire Farm Polska
Kielbasa" contained sausages which were the same size as those Polish
sausages. It may very well be, then, that the usual distinction in American
English between "Polish sausage" and "(polska) kielbasa" is one used for
marketing only, with the product itself being essentially the same.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Adrian Bailey
news:fZKdneeM0bR...@gbronline.com...
> In a previous post to alt.english.usage , I wrote the following, in
response
> to a poster who was writing from Poland:
>
>
> [begin quote from Usenet post]
>
> Just as you can find "Swiss cheese" in a supermarket in the US without any
> of it having been imported from Switzerland, you can find "Polish sausage"
> in such a supermarket without any of it having been imported from Poland.
> For us, "Polish sausage" is a *type* of sausage, like "Italian sausage,"
or
> "bratwurst," or "knockwurst."
I don't think that one can get away with that in the UK. If the Swiss Cheese
is American, it'd have to say "American Swiss Cheese" on the pack.
[snip]
> Since that time I have been to several different supermarkets, and at each
> one I have taken a look at the sausage area of the meat section. I was
> surprised, first, to see that the term "kielbasa," by itself, was nowhere
to
> be found. Most kielbasas were referred to as "polska kielbasa," such as in
> "Klements Smoked Polska Kielbasa." I found one use of "kielbasa" modified
by
> the word "turkey": "Jennie-O Turkey Kielbasa."
Were those "polska kielbasa" made in the US too?
> "Healthy Choice Polska Kielbasa" was, unlike the others, which were
> presented in the shape of a U, presented in a package of two long
sausages,
> at least as long as two ordinary Polish sausages such as those represented
> by the JPG image cited above. And one product, "Hillshire Farm Polska
> Kielbasa" contained sausages which were the same size as those Polish
> sausages. It may very well be, then, that the usual distinction in
American
> English between "Polish sausage" and "(polska) kielbasa" is one used for
> marketing only, with the product itself being essentially the same.
Adrian
Raymond S. Wise
news:i6BEc.9750$a37....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:fZKdneeM0bR...@gbronline.com...
> > In a previous post to alt.english.usage , I wrote the following, in
> response
> > to a poster who was writing from Poland:
> >
> >
> > [begin quote from Usenet post]
> >
> > Just as you can find "Swiss cheese" in a supermarket in the US without
any
> > of it having been imported from Switzerland, you can find "Polish
sausage"
> > in such a supermarket without any of it having been imported from
Poland.
> > For us, "Polish sausage" is a *type* of sausage, like "Italian sausage,"
> or
> > "bratwurst," or "knockwurst."
>
> I don't think that one can get away with that in the UK. If the Swiss
Cheese
> is American, it'd have to say "American Swiss Cheese" on the pack.
There's been a long discussion of this matter in alt.usage.english , in a
post which was crossposted to soc.culture.europe and rec.travel.europe in
which at least one poster appeared to be offended at Americans using "Swiss
cheese" to mean a cheese not originating in Switzerland. He (and perhaps
others in the thread) did not believe that any emmental or gruyere was sold
in the UK which did not come from Switzerland or France. I learned, as a
result of researching the matter for that thread, that legally, according to
nomenclature rules of the Food and Drug Administration, "swiss cheese" and
"emmentaler cheese" are the exact same product. So legally, we Americans
could call Swiss cheese made in America by the name "emmentaler," we just
don't. Gruyere is a slightly different product, which can be substituted for
Swiss cheese in certain products and still fall with rules of the FDA and
the US Department of Agriculture.
More interesting to me than the question of "American Swiss Cheese" being
sold in the UK is "American cheese" being sold in the UK, that is,
pasteurized process American cheese, not necessarily cheese imported from
America. From what I have read, I get the idea that you don't have process
cheese slices on sale in British supermarkets, although I would think that
McDonald's restaurants in the UK serve that cheese, although not necessarily
with that name. It's a process cheese made from cheddar, called also a
"processed cheese," although the other term is older and "processed cheese"
is likely the result of hypercorrection.
Date: 2004-06-18 12:38:22 PST
>
> [snip]
>
> > Since that time I have been to several different supermarkets, and at
each
> > one I have taken a look at the sausage area of the meat section. I was
> > surprised, first, to see that the term "kielbasa," by itself, was
nowhere
> to
> > be found. Most kielbasas were referred to as "polska kielbasa," such as
in
> > "Klements Smoked Polska Kielbasa." I found one use of "kielbasa"
modified
> by
> > the word "turkey": "Jennie-O Turkey Kielbasa."
>
> Were those "polska kielbasa" made in the US too?
I would be amazed if even one of the brands was imported. If there were any
sausages in those supermarkets which were imported from Poland, I would
expect them to be in the deli section of the store (although I have seen
butter from Normandy sold in the dairy department of one store, and butter
from Denmark sold in the dairy department of another).
Produce is another matter. It is not unusual nowadays to see such things as
apples or grapes imported from Chili and orange juice concentrate which came
(in part, anyway) from Brazil. And large general supermarkets are now
competing with ethnic supermarkets, putting in whole sections devoted to
food favored by Asian and Hispanic consumers.
Wood Avens
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>More interesting to me than the question of "American Swiss Cheese" being
>sold in the UK is "American cheese" being sold in the UK, that is,
>pasteurized process American cheese, not necessarily cheese imported from
>America. From what I have read, I get the idea that you don't have process
>cheese slices on sale in British supermarkets, although I would think that
>McDonald's restaurants in the UK serve that cheese, although not necessarily
>with that name. It's a process cheese made from cheddar, called also a
>"processed cheese," although the other term is older and "processed cheese"
>is likely the result of hypercorrection.
We do - but it's not known as (or considered) "American cheese", it's
labelled and sold as "processed cheese" (sic). As in the US, it
usually comes as a pack of individually-wrapped square slices, to fit
sliced bread for sandwiches.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Skitt
> "Adrian Bailey" wrote:
>> Were those "polska kielbasa" made in the US too?
>
> I would be amazed if even one of the brands was imported. If there
> were any sausages in those supermarkets which were imported from
> Poland, I would expect them to be in the deli section of the store
> (although I have seen butter from Normandy sold in the dairy
> department of one store, and butter from Denmark sold in the dairy
> department of another).
You haven't tasted really good butter until you have tasted butter from
Latvia. It used to be exported to many European countries and even the USA,
and Latvia was well known for it in the '30s. I don't know if it is again
available ouside of Latvia.
The latest thing that Latvia is trying to introduce to the world is cannabis
butter. I have eaten a lot of it in my childhood, and it is delicious.
Don't anybody get excited -- it's not the same as smoking or eating the
leaves. It is a product of the seeds, and they are not narcotic.
http://www.cannabis.net/articles/cannabis-butter.html
--
Skitt (AUE's token Latvian)
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:fZKdneeM0bR...@gbronline.com...
>> In a previous post to alt.english.usage , I wrote the following, in
> response
>> to a poster who was writing from Poland:
>>
>>
>> [begin quote from Usenet post]
>>
>> Just as you can find "Swiss cheese" in a supermarket in the US
>> without any of it having been imported from Switzerland, you can
>> find "Polish sausage" in such a supermarket without any of it
>> having been imported from Poland. For us, "Polish sausage" is a
>> *type* of sausage, like "Italian sausage," or "bratwurst," or
>> "knockwurst."
>
> I don't think that one can get away with that in the UK. If the
> Swiss Cheese is American, it'd have to say "American Swiss Cheese"
> on the pack.
That seems more reasonable. But in the US there are a number of
common food items whose ordinary names include a nationality -- "swiss
cheese" (essentially ementhaler) and "polish sausage" being among the
most common. Few people here know any *other* name for these products
(I happen to know the name "ementhaler" from living in Switzerland for
two years as a child).
There is a requirement for clear origin labeling on most packaged food
(at least anything shipped interstate), so nobody is going to be
confused that the "Swiss cheese" they bought came from Switzerland.
Then there are "french fries", with even less justification for the
name.
We also allow companies to call themselves things like "federal
security", which I also think is a bad idea. Although by now it's
been going on long enough I doubt anybody is fooled.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> You haven't tasted really good butter until you have tasted butter from
> Latvia. It used to be exported to many European countries and even the USA,
> and Latvia was well known for it in the '30s. I don't know if it is again
> available ouside of Latvia.
Many moons ago, when I travelled to and from Europe on the
S.S. France, they served us a different unsalted butter each day (with
table cards telling us about it). The one thing I was clear on is
that adding some salt helped a lot -- made it edible, in fact.
> The latest thing that Latvia is trying to introduce to the world is cannabis
> butter. I have eaten a lot of it in my childhood, and it is delicious.
> Don't anybody get excited -- it's not the same as smoking or eating the
> leaves. It is a product of the seeds, and they are not narcotic.
Neither is any other part of the plant.
> http://www.cannabis.net/articles/cannabis-butter.html
(Mind you, I'm in favor, on principle; I'm just quibbling about
nomenclature, which seems on-topic for this group.)
Skitt
> "Skitt" writes:
>> The latest thing that Latvia is trying to introduce to the world is
>> cannabis butter. I have eaten a lot of it in my childhood, and it
>> is delicious. Don't anybody get excited -- it's not the same as
>> smoking or eating the leaves. It is a product of the seeds, and
>> they are not narcotic.
>
> Neither is any other part of the plant.
>
>> http://www.cannabis.net/articles/cannabis-butter.html
>
> (Mind you, I'm in favor, on principle; I'm just quibbling about
> nomenclature, which seems on-topic for this group.)
I thought about that, but that's what the site said, and I didn't instantly
come up with a better word to describe the effects of a good toke or ten.
Or was it that you are commenting on the particular plants grown up there,
in the cold cruel north, where they don't have any
pleasurable-effect-producing stuff hidden in any parts of them?
From the article, I understood that even seeds from our Mendocino crop could
yield harmless cannabis butter.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
meirman
Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>
>Since that time I have been to several different supermarkets, and at each
>one I have taken a look at the sausage area of the meat section. I was
>surprised, first, to see that the term "kielbasa," by itself, was nowhere to
>be found. Most kielbasas were referred to as "polska kielbasa," such as in
>"Klements Smoked Polska Kielbasa." I found one use of "kielbasa" modified by
>the word "turkey": "Jennie-O Turkey Kielbasa."
I haven't tried Jennie-O Turkey Kielbasa, but Turkey Kielbasa is
generally known for the unique spices used which were gathered from
all corners of the Ottoman empire.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
Michael DeBusk
> > Neither is any other part of the plant.
<sniplet>
> I thought about that, but that's what the site said, and I didn't
> instantly come up with a better word to describe the effects of a
> good toke or ten.
Drugs extracted from cannabis are hallucinogenic, not narcotic.
A narcotic makes one feel sleepy, numb, or stuporous, and (at least
here in the US) the word always refers to opiates or opioid substances.
We usually use them to fight that pain on which little else will work.
A hallucinogen alters one's perceptions and breaks down the brain's
ability to process linear thought. There's no current acceptable
medical use for most hallucinogens, though LSD therapy has been shown
quite effective in cases of chemical dependence. (The medical
application of marijuana is not for its hallucinogenic properties, but
for one or more if its side-effects.)
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
Raymond S. Wise
news:FROEc.21499$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:48 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Neither is any other part of the plant.
>
> <sniplet>
>
> > I thought about that, but that's what the site said, and I didn't
> > instantly come up with a better word to describe the effects of a
> > good toke or ten.
>
> Drugs extracted from cannabis are hallucinogenic, not narcotic.
>
> A narcotic makes one feel sleepy, numb, or stuporous, and (at least
> here in the US) the word always refers to opiates or opioid substances.
> We usually use them to fight that pain on which little else will work.
>
> A hallucinogen alters one's perceptions and breaks down the brain's
> ability to process linear thought. There's no current acceptable
> medical use for most hallucinogens, though LSD therapy has been shown
> quite effective in cases of chemical dependence. (The medical
> application of marijuana is not for its hallucinogenic properties, but
> for one or more if its side-effects.)
The question is, was the Web page in question using the word "narcotic" in
the manner you have used it above, or was it using it in a later sense, such
as the following, from MWCD11 (from the entry for the noun "narcotic"): "*1*
[...] *b :* a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to
that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic
or not."
From the Web page Skitt cited earlier,
http://www.cannabis.net/articles/cannabis-butter.html
[quote]
Latvians love it. And unlike the soft drug cannabis, it's legal.
"Only seeds are used for cannabis butter. The narcotic substance
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is in the resin and blossoms," Janis Strazdins, a
narcologist, told AFP.
[end quote]
Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it is
subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates. So, was the
"narcologist" making reference to this legal sense or was he making
reference to the physiological sense of which you were speaking? I don't
think we should simply assume that he was using the term in the
physiological sense.
The double sense of the term does, I think, inevitably lead to
misunderstanding, and it's a misunderstanding which is much more serious
than occurs, for example, with the two possible meanings in which a word
like "intergalactic" may be used (one of which follows the usage of
scientists and the other of which is used quite differently). Nevertheless,
we have to recognize that there *are* two different meanings. Whether the
narcologist quoted in the Web page has used the word "narcotic"
appropriately or not depends upon which of the two meanings is the "default
meaning" of the word "narcotics" in his profession.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>You haven't tasted really good butter until you have tasted butter from
>Latvia.
People here swear by Irish Butter, as it is labeled. We have Irish
Carrots, Irish Sugar (whatever that's supposed to mean) and Irish
just-about-everything. They all taste pretty much like the American
varieties to me, but perhaps I don't have a fully honed sense of
patriotism yet.
Charles
A cow by any other name would smell just as sweet
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>"Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> You haven't tasted really good butter until you have tasted butter from
>> Latvia. It used to be exported to many European countries and even the USA,
>> and Latvia was well known for it in the '30s. I don't know if it is again
>> available ouside of Latvia.
>
>Many moons ago, when I travelled to and from Europe on the
>S.S. France, they served us a different unsalted butter each day (with
>table cards telling us about it). The one thing I was clear on is
>that adding some salt helped a lot -- made it edible, in fact.
Few things are nicer than unsalted butter spread on freshly baked
bread, preferably of the French variety. I learned this in Germany
where unsalted butter is often served with the rolls. When on anything
else, I agree that butter requires a fair dose of salt -- on it, in
it, or both.
Charles Riggs, who keeps both unsalted and salted butter on hand
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>(I happen to know the name "ementhaler" from living in Switzerland for
>two years as a child).
How it is labeled in Irish shops as well. It confused me at first that
I could never find Swiss cheese, as it is called in the US.
Charles
Matti Lamprhey
>
> Many moons ago, when I travelled to and from Europe on the
> S.S. France, they served us a different unsalted butter each day (with
> table cards telling us about it). The one thing I was clear on is
> that adding some salt helped a lot -- made it edible, in fact.
It may be worth noting that there are two basic types of butter --
lactic (aka cultured) and sweet-cream. Most of the butter made and sold
in Britain is sweet-cream, and salted. A large proportion of the
butters from other parts of Europe is lactic, however -- they have a
culture added to them, and are often unsalted. I assume Left- and
Under-pondian butter is largely the sweet-cream type.
Matti
Michael DeBusk
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
> Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it
> is subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates.
To my way of thinking, the only sensible way of classifying a drug is
by the effect it has on one's body/mind. Classifying them by which cop
gets the most highly motivated when you have some in your pocket makes
no sense at all to me.
> So, was the "narcologist" making reference to this legal sense or
> was he making reference to the physiological sense of which you were
> speaking? I don't think we should simply assume that he was using
> the term in the physiological sense.
If the group of police officers concerned with illegal drug traffic
calls themselves a "narcotics task force", it's because they have
labeled themselves (or been labeled) inappropriately. The label is too
narrow. That isn't a good reason to use it.
Consider the possibility that some of these task forces were organized
back when narcotics were the only illegal drugs with which the police
were really concerned.
> the two possible meanings in which a word like "intergalactic" may
> be used (one of which follows the usage of scientists and the other
> of which is used quite differently).
Curious. "Intergalactic" means "between two galaxies" or "among
galaxies". What other possible meaning is there?
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "Skitt" writes:
>
>>> The latest thing that Latvia is trying to introduce to the world is
>>> cannabis butter. I have eaten a lot of it in my childhood, and it
>>> is delicious. Don't anybody get excited -- it's not the same as
>>> smoking or eating the leaves. It is a product of the seeds, and
>>> they are not narcotic.
>>
>> Neither is any other part of the plant.
>>
>>> http://www.cannabis.net/articles/cannabis-butter.html
>>
>> (Mind you, I'm in favor, on principle; I'm just quibbling about
>> nomenclature, which seems on-topic for this group.)
>
> I thought about that, but that's what the site said, and I didn't instantly
> come up with a better word to describe the effects of a good toke or ten.
> Or was it that you are commenting on the particular plants grown up there,
> in the cold cruel north, where they don't have any
> pleasurable-effect-producing stuff hidden in any parts of them?
No, quibbling about putting cannabis in the same category with the
coca and poppy derivatives.
> From the article, I understood that even seeds from our Mendocino
> crop could yield harmless cannabis butter.
Perhaps I'll get to try it sometime.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 04:42:11 -0500, Raymond S. Wise
> <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
>> Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it
>> is subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates.
>
> To my way of thinking, the only sensible way of classifying a drug is
> by the effect it has on one's body/mind. Classifying them by which cop
> gets the most highly motivated when you have some in your pocket makes
> no sense at all to me.
Obviously, you are not a drug user (or are a stupid one). If one were
using or trafficking, classifying them by 1) market demand, and 2)
legal consequences would both seem to be key information.
David Dyer-Bennet
The butter we get here in Minnesota is labeled "sweet-cream"; I don't
know how it's actually made, never having studied dairy tech. I don't
find American unsalted butter any more appealing than French.
Areff
> The butter we get here in Minnesota is labeled "sweet-cream"
Say, do youse get anything besides "Land O Lakes"?
--
Skitt
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>> Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it
>> is subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates.
>
> To my way of thinking, the only sensible way of classifying a drug is
> by the effect it has on one's body/mind. Classifying them by which cop
> gets the most highly motivated when you have some in your pocket makes
> no sense at all to me.
Weed made me sleepy, but that could be just me, I guess. My brother had a
different reaction -- talk, talk, talk ...
Skitt
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "Skitt" writes:
>>> You haven't tasted really good butter until you have tasted butter
>>> from Latvia. It used to be exported to many European countries and
>>> even the USA, and Latvia was well known for it in the '30s. I
>>> don't know if it is again available ouside of Latvia.
>>
>> Many moons ago, when I travelled to and from Europe on the
>> S.S. France, they served us a different unsalted butter each day
>> (with table cards telling us about it). The one thing I was clear
>> on is that adding some salt helped a lot -- made it edible, in fact.
>
> Few things are nicer than unsalted butter spread on freshly baked
> bread, preferably of the French variety. I learned this in Germany
> where unsalted butter is often served with the rolls. When on anything
> else, I agree that butter requires a fair dose of salt -- on it, in
> it, or both.
>
> Charles Riggs, who keeps both unsalted and salted butter on hand
The butter from Latvia that was made for export was quite salty. It was
available also locally, but you had to specifically ask for it, and it cost
more. That is what my mom bought. Always.
Raymond S. Wise
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 04:42:11 -0500, Raymond S. Wise
> <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
> > Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it
> > is subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates.
>
> To my way of thinking, the only sensible way of classifying a drug is
> by the effect it has on one's body/mind. Classifying them by which cop
> gets the most highly motivated when you have some in your pocket makes
> no sense at all to me.
>
> > So, was the "narcologist" making reference to this legal sense or
> > was he making reference to the physiological sense of which you were
> > speaking? I don't think we should simply assume that he was using
> > the term in the physiological sense.
>
> If the group of police officers concerned with illegal drug traffic
> calls themselves a "narcotics task force", it's because they have
> labeled themselves (or been labeled) inappropriately. The label is too
> narrow. That isn't a good reason to use it.
>
> Consider the possibility that some of these task forces were organized
> back when narcotics were the only illegal drugs with which the police
> were really concerned.
Of course. If hallucinogens had been made illegal before narcotics, we might
very well be referring to all illicit drugs as "hallucinogens" now. (I
wonder: What would "narcs" be called?)
>
> > the two possible meanings in which a word like "intergalactic" may
> > be used (one of which follows the usage of scientists and the other
> > of which is used quite differently).
>
> Curious. "Intergalactic" means "between two galaxies" or "among
> galaxies". What other possible meaning is there?
"Pertaining to outer space" or "pertaining to the space between solar
systems." Such a meaning is given or implied in MWCD11, the *Random House
Webster's Unabridged,* and (as "intergalactique") in the French
dictionary the *Grand Robert* (the closest thing the French have to the
Oxford English Dictionary). I have proposed that getting rid of this meaning
would be a good reform, as I expect that this use of the word
"intergalactic" can help to confuse some people about the nature of the
universe. Nevertheless, the meanings which the word now actually has include
*both* "pertaining to the space between galaxies" and "pertaining to the
space between solar systems."
Raymond S. Wise
news:2kj4pfF...@uni-berlin.de...
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > The butter we get here in Minnesota is labeled "sweet-cream"
>
> Say, do youse get anything besides "Land O Lakes"?
Crystal Farms butter and the house brand of Cub Foods come to mind. And, as
I pointed out before, butter from Normandy and Denmark are available.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
Well, even the butter made with the resinous buds is "harmless", but to
avoid the THC you'd need to be careful to strip the seeds of their
herbaceous coat. The seeds themselves do not have the active ingredient
but they are each individually ensconced in tissue that's loaded with it.
David Dyer-Bennet
Sure, lots of brands; even short of looking at Lunds or Byerly's for
premium products.
Robert Bannister
> No, quibbling about putting cannabis in the same category with the
> coca and poppy derivatives.
What's wrong with poppy derivatives? I use ground white poppyseed as a
thickening in curries and I know it is used in the Balkans in cakes. For
a while, it was illegal in Australia because they thought opium/heroin
could be made from it. It's nothing like those blueish poppy seeds they
use on bread, but neither sort are drugs.
--
Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
Don't the poppy seeds found on poppy seed rolls show up on drug tests
as a false-positive? Or is this an urban myth?
raymond o'hara
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hne9e0lpvgj83oeni...@4ax.com...
It does show up and it is not an urban myth.
Skitt
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> No, quibbling about putting cannabis in the same category with the
>>> coca and poppy derivatives.
>>
>> What's wrong with poppy derivatives? I use ground white poppyseed as
>> a thickening in curries and I know it is used in the Balkans in
>> cakes. For a while, it was illegal in Australia because they thought
>> opium/heroin could be made from it. It's nothing like those blueish
>> poppy seeds they use on bread, but neither sort are drugs.
>
> Don't the poppy seeds found on poppy seed rolls show up on drug tests
> as a false-positive? Or is this an urban myth?
It seems that they could cause a positive reading on a drug test.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html
Good thing they didn't have drug tests for children in Latvia, as I have
eaten lots of poppy seeds, gathered from the poppies growing all over the
fields there.
Good grief! I've eated poppy seeds by the handful and cannabis-butter by
the pound! Was I a doper?
Michael DeBusk
> Obviously, you are not a drug user (or are a stupid one).
I almost asked if you were a smart user, but I realized I didn't want
to know the answer. ;)
> If one were using or trafficking, classifying them by 1) market
> demand, and 2) legal consequences would both seem to be key
> information.
As far as I know, users do not classify drugs by market demand or by
legal consequences. Users don't care about the market demand, but about
how the drug makes them feel (or, in many cases, how it makes them stop
feeling)... that is to say, about the effect it has on their bodies.
They don't care about the legal consequences because it never occurs to
them that they might get caught.
Regarding traffickers, I can't say. The only ones I've met are those
who are selling to meet their own usage needs, so they're primarily
users. The ones who create the need and then fill it are not folks with
whom I generally hang around.
Michael DeBusk
> Weed made me sleepy, but that could be just me, I guess. My brother
> had a different reaction -- talk, talk, talk ...
Marijuana seems to be one of those odd drugs that affect people in a
variety of ways. I've met people who, such as you, felt sleepy in
response to it, as if it were a narcotic or a depressant; I've met
people who saw colors and other "groovy scenery" and who were extremely
creative and intuitive (or its shadow side, paranoid) under its
influence, just as one might expect of a hallucinogen; I've met people
like your brother, who responded to it as if it were a stimulant.
I'm told that LSD can affect a person however they expect it to affect
them. One of Tim Leary's basic principles for its use is that the
patient has to be properly prepared... that is to say, to tell them
what to expect.
One of the things I was taught in my training in hypnosis is of the
importance of the "pre-talk" with the client, letting them know what to
expect and answering their questions.
Perhaps there's a lot of the placebo effect going on here.
Michael DeBusk
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
> Of course. If hallucinogens had been made illegal before narcotics,
> we might very well be referring to all illicit drugs as
> "hallucinogens" now.
If we care to split hairs, hallucinogens were made illegal -- in a
manner of speaking -- by the Spaniards who took the southwestern USA,
Mexico, and Central America from the aboriginals. They were considered
to be "of the devil" and their use was, pardon the euphamism, forcibly
discouraged. It played hell with the native religions.
> (I wonder: What would "narcs" be called?)
"Squares". ;)
> > Curious. "Intergalactic" means "between two galaxies" or "among
> > galaxies". What other possible meaning is there?
>
>
> "Pertaining to outer space" or "pertaining to the space between
> solar systems."
Ew. That's "intragalactic." Of course, with all the effort I hear put
into saying the word "intranet", perhaps that one wouldn't be worth the
trouble. (Some folks at the hospital are actually pronouncing
"intranet" with the accent on the second syllable. It works, but it
sounds so bloody weird.)
Raymond S. Wise
I see from a search of Google Groups archive that I once quoted in a post to
alt.usage.english a page of the following Web site. Let me take this
opportunity to recommend the entire site:
Odysseus
>
> I'm told that LSD can affect a person however they expect it to affect
> them. One of Tim Leary's basic principles for its use is that the
> patient has to be properly prepared... that is to say, to tell them
> what to expect.
>
roughly equally important determiners of the experience, the other
two being dosage and setting. I might add that one's response to
*any* psychoactive drug is in part learned or socially conditioned; I
would go so far as to contend that the criminalization of drug use is
somewhat like a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it establishes a
context for antisocial behaviour that has little, if anything, to do
with the intrinsic properties of the substances concerned.
--
Odysseus
Mike Lyle
[...]
> all corners of the Ottoman empire.
And what a ghastly mistake it was we deliberately broke _that_ up.
We're still paying.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:37:30 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Weed made me sleepy, but that could be just me, I guess. My brother
> > had a different reaction -- talk, talk, talk ...
>
> Marijuana seems to be one of those odd drugs that affect people in a
> variety of ways. I've met people who, such as you, felt sleepy in
> response to it, as if it were a narcotic or a depressant; I've met
> people who saw colors and other "groovy scenery" and who were extremely
> creative and intuitive (or its shadow side, paranoid) under its
> influence, just as one might expect of a hallucinogen; I've met people
> like your brother, who responded to it as if it were a stimulant.
I've only rarely indulged; and the only biggish session I was in led
me to believe that the familiar roads I drove home by were all running
downhill. (It was about three in the morning, so nobody was about; and
I was half-way home before it occurred to me that I might not be fit
to drive.)
Mike.
Charles Riggs
<m_de...@despammed.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:48 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Neither is any other part of the plant.
>
><sniplet>
>
>> I thought about that, but that's what the site said, and I didn't
>> instantly come up with a better word to describe the effects of a
>> good toke or ten.
>
>Drugs extracted from cannabis are hallucinogenic, not narcotic.
Legally, I suspect cannabis is classified as a narcotic in many
countries. One dictionary says a drug must be addictive to be a
narcotic, so cannabis, many of us would agree, does not fit the bill.
>A narcotic makes one feel sleepy, numb, or stuporous, and (at least
>here in the US) the word always refers to opiates or opioid substances.
>We usually use them to fight that pain on which little else will work.
Thank goodness for morphine.
Isn't cocaine classified as a narcotic, it having nearly opposite
effects to those above?
>A hallucinogen alters one's perceptions and breaks down the brain's
>ability to process linear thought. There's no current acceptable
>medical use for most hallucinogens, though LSD therapy has been shown
>quite effective in cases of chemical dependence.
Are MDs permitted to prescribe it for that purpose? UK MDs being the
most likely candidates, I'd guess.
Charles
Charles Riggs
<m_de...@despammed.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:45:13 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, you are not a drug user (or are a stupid one).
>As far as I know, users do not classify drugs by market demand or by
>legal consequences. Users don't care about the market demand, but about
>how the drug makes them feel (or, in many cases, how it makes them stop
>feeling)... that is to say, about the effect it has on their bodies.
>They don't care about the legal consequences because it never occurs to
>them that they might get caught.
David may have been on the right track if you're including the use of
cannabis. Of course cannabis smokers, a great many of them, are
concerned about legal consequences. Does anyone think we're a bunch of
idiots or that we're hooked on the drug, it taking away our volition?
Like most partakers, not that I've done it with any degree of
frequency but few college students haven't given it a go, I've tried
to do it in the safest way possible so as not to be detected. Where
it's legal, no problem, of course.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Michael DeBusk wrote:
>> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
>>> Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it
>>> is subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates.
>>
>> To my way of thinking, the only sensible way of classifying a drug is
>> by the effect it has on one's body/mind. Classifying them by which cop
>> gets the most highly motivated when you have some in your pocket makes
>> no sense at all to me.
>
>Weed made me sleepy, but that could be just me, I guess. My brother had a
>different reaction -- talk, talk, talk ...
With me, talk, talk, talk and eat, eat, eat. Hash is different: f..,
f..., f... In the old days, that is.
Charles
Charles Riggs
<m_de...@despammed.com> wrote:
>I'm told that LSD can affect a person however they expect it to affect
>them. One of Tim Leary's basic principles for its use is that the
>patient has to be properly prepared... that is to say, to tell them
>what to expect.
On my second, and last, experience with it I was with a couple of
students at Catholic University in Washington, DC. Under it, I was
convinced I was Jesus Christ. Much as I respect Timothy Leary, I'm
pretty certain no-one suggested I take on that character and, to my
knowledge, it's not something I'd normally wish for. Strange stuff,
LSD.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
During the early 60s it was popular at my school to eat a quantity of
Morning Glory seeds now and then for their alleged hallucinogenic
qualities. 'Blues' they had to be. The local shops put that variety
off-limits eventually.
Nutmeg dissolved in hot water then drunk like a tea, as well, but I
learned that one later from a California couple I was traveling with.
I wasn't convinced there was anything to either belief.
Bad idea with the nutmeg anyway since an agent with a drug-sniffing
German shepherd had me unpack my rucksack on the train to Stockholm,
thereby finding a small bag of ground nutmeg. After I explained it
wasn't what he must have thought it was, I was allowed to go on my
merry way.
Vietnam war days back then, when Americans were as unpopular in Sweden
as a fart in an elevator, so it didn't surprise me too much, as the
only American on board, that no-one else's suitcases or rucksacks were
examined or even sniffed.
--
Charles Riggs, who is not a suspicious-looking character
Charles Riggs
<carmenl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Skitt wrote:
>>
>> From the article, I understood that even seeds from our Mendocino crop could
>> yield harmless cannabis butter.
>
>Well, even the butter made with the resinous buds is "harmless", but to
>avoid the THC you'd need to be careful to strip the seeds of their
>herbaceous coat. The seeds themselves do not have the active ingredient
>but they are each individually ensconced in tissue that's loaded with it.
The next time you strip some of these seeds, send the coats my way,
all right?
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>It may be worth noting that there are two basic types of butter --
>lactic (aka cultured) and sweet-cream. Most of the butter made and sold
>in Britain is sweet-cream, and salted. A large proportion of the
>butters from other parts of Europe is lactic, however -- they have a
>culture added to them, and are often unsalted. I assume Left- and
>Under-pondian butter is largely the sweet-cream type.
I don't know about Aussie Land, but both are available in the Land of
Huge Shopping Centers. Here, the unsalted isn't available in the
large-size package of the other, and I don't see it being checked out
nearly as often. Unsalted appears to be for the connoisseurs of bread
with butter, with no other spread added to destroy the subtle flavour.
Charles
Mike Lyle
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:44:44 -0500, Raymond S. Wise
> <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course. If hallucinogens had been made illegal before narcotics,
> > we might very well be referring to all illicit drugs as
> > "hallucinogens" now.
> > (I wonder: What would "narcs" be called?)
>
> "Squares". ;)
I'd always assumed that 'narc' was an extension or reinvention of
'nark'. But Collins suggests that 'nark'='informer' is only Br and
Aus: can I take it, then, that US didn't have 'nark', and so formed
'narc' independently? I see that Partridge and OED1 didn't find 'nark'
before the mid-19C; but since its origin is Romany _nak_='nose' it may
have been around much earlier; and Partridge has 'turn snitch' from
c1780.
I suppose the spelling shows it may not have been in use at rhotic
times and places, which may suggest it was relatively late.
(I may say, though, that 'nark'='irritate' feels to me like the more
usual Aus, though not Br, use.)
Mike.
John Dean
It was the Intergalactic Laxative that got me from here to there ...
--
John Dean
Oxford
Jens Brix Christiansen
> Of course. If hallucinogens had been made illegal before narcotics, we might
> very well be referring to all illicit drugs as "hallucinogens" now. (I
> wonder: What would "narcs" be called?)
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't tell you that.
Mike Lyle
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:19:05 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
> <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> >It may be worth noting that there are two basic types of butter --
> >lactic (aka cultured) and sweet-cream. Most of the butter made and sold
> >in Britain is sweet-cream, and salted. A large proportion of the
> >butters from other parts of Europe is lactic, however -- they have a
> >culture added to them, and are often unsalted. I assume Left- and
> >Under-pondian butter is largely the sweet-cream type.
Thanks for that, by the way, Matti: I remember trying to explain the
difference between what I called "English-speaking" butter and the
rest to dear Brian Goggin when he wondered why butter could be
bothered to be called "lactic", and being stumped for the word for our
kind.
> I don't know about Aussie Land, but both are available in the Land of
> Huge Shopping Centers. Here, the unsalted isn't available in the
> large-size package of the other, and I don't see it being checked out
> nearly as often. Unsalted appears to be for the connoisseurs of bread
> with butter, with no other spread added to destroy the subtle flavour.
The point about unsalted butter is that if you're really fussy you can
use it without upsetting the salt balance of your recipe: it's not
just for bread. The salt was originally, I think, added as a
preservative: when I used to make butter at home, the unsalted
certainly didn't keep so well.
Mike.
Michael DeBusk
> Isn't cocaine classified as a narcotic, it having nearly opposite
> effects to those above?
Cocaine is a stimulant.
> >LSD therapy has been shown quite effective in cases of chemical
> >dependence.
>
> Are MDs permitted to prescribe it for that purpose?
In the US, it is impossible to prescribe LSD at all. There are,
currently, some studies going on which may change that.
Michael DeBusk
> Of course cannabis smokers, a great many of them, are
> concerned about legal consequences.
Of course. But do they tend to actually *classify* the drug on that
basis? Unless I misunderstood the question, it had to do with
classifying drugs, and it is that to which I was responding.
Skitt
> The point about unsalted butter is that if you're really fussy you can
> use it without upsetting the salt balance of your recipe: it's not
> just for bread. The salt was originally, I think, added as a
> preservative: when I used to make butter at home, the unsalted
> certainly didn't keep so well.
Right. In the land and time of no refrigerators (Latvia in the '30s),
salted butter was the norm. Butter made for export had extra salt.
raymond o'hara
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:51:44 +0100, Charles Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
wrote:
>
> > Of course cannabis smokers, a great many of them, are
> > concerned about legal consequences.
>
> Of course. But do they tend to actually *classify* the drug on that
> basis? Unless I misunderstood the question, it had to do with
> classifying drugs, and it is that to which I was responding.
Illegal drug classification no longer has any bearing on the drugs
themselves but on the penalties that can be levied. Grass is classified as a
narcotic so they can put you in jail for it.
Default User
> Don't the poppy seeds found on poppy seed rolls show up on drug tests
> as a false-positive? Or is this an urban myth?
The Mythbuster guys checked that one out, and indeed got positives from
consuming baked goods with poppy seeds.
Brian Rodenborn
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:45:13 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, you are not a drug user (or are a stupid one).
>
> I almost asked if you were a smart user, but I realized I didn't want
> to know the answer. ;)
>
>> If one were using or trafficking, classifying them by 1) market
>> demand, and 2) legal consequences would both seem to be key
>> information.
>
> As far as I know, users do not classify drugs by market demand or by
> legal consequences.
They certainly are aware of the price structure and availability.
Market demand is a key component of that. As for consequences, I
certainly know that some of my friends who use illegal drugs are
fairly careful about it; that seems to suggest they're aware of
possible consequences, and trying to avoid them.
> Users don't care about the market demand, but about how the drug
> makes them feel (or, in many cases, how it makes them stop
> feeling)... that is to say, about the effect it has on their bodies.
> They don't care about the legal consequences because it never occurs
> to them that they might get caught.
That's simply false.
> Regarding traffickers, I can't say. The only ones I've met are those
> who are selling to meet their own usage needs, so they're primarily
> users. The ones who create the need and then fill it are not folks with
> whom I generally hang around.
Me neither (at least to my knowledge).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:51:44 +0100, Charles Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course cannabis smokers, a great many of them, are
>> concerned about legal consequences.
>
> Of course. But do they tend to actually *classify* the drug on that
> basis? Unless I misunderstood the question, it had to do with
> classifying drugs, and it is that to which I was responding.
In the cases I know anything about it's a complex decision. Maybe the
people I've ever discussed the issue with just don't *like* cocaine
much, and the fact that it's more persecuted that marijuana isn't
really part of their decision process. I know that's true in *some*
cases, but I'm not at all sure it's true in all cases. Several people
have said things that suggest they'd like to do cocaine regularly, if
they thought it was safer and if it was more affordable.
Default User
> I don't know about Aussie Land, but both are available in the Land of
> Huge Shopping Centers. Here, the unsalted isn't available in the
> large-size package of the other, and I don't see it being checked out
> nearly as often. Unsalted appears to be for the connoisseurs of bread
> with butter, with no other spread added to destroy the subtle flavour.
Here (St. Louis), both unsalted and salted sweet cream butter are sold
in the four-sticks-to-a-pound boxes. Unsalted is the usual butter called
for in baking recipes.
Brian Rodenborn
Evan Kirshenbaum
See
http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/html/poppy.html
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>>>>No, quibbling about putting cannabis in the same category with the
>>>>coca and poppy derivatives.
>>>
>>>What's wrong with poppy derivatives? I use ground white poppyseed as
>>>a thickening in curries and I know it is used in the Balkans in
>>>cakes. For a while, it was illegal in Australia because they thought
>>>opium/heroin could be made from it. It's nothing like those blueish
>>>poppy seeds they use on bread, but neither sort are drugs.
>>
>>Don't the poppy seeds found on poppy seed rolls show up on drug tests
>>as a false-positive? Or is this an urban myth?
>
>
> It seems that they could cause a positive reading on a drug test.
> http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html
>
> Good thing they didn't have drug tests for children in Latvia, as I have
> eaten lots of poppy seeds, gathered from the poppies growing all over the
> fields there.
>
> Good grief! I've eated poppy seeds by the handful and cannabis-butter by
> the pound! Was I a doper?
>
I do remember, as kid in England, the old folk would tell us that
sniffing the poppies that grew wild in the cornfields would make us
sleepy and that we shouldn't do it. Stimulated by this prohibition, I,
of course, sniffed a lot of poppies, but never once felt sleepy.
--
Rob Bannister
raymond o'hara
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:cc51bb$ku5$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.> >
> I do remember, as kid in England, the old folk would tell us that
> sniffing the poppies that grew wild in the cornfields would make us
> sleepy and that we shouldn't do it. Stimulated by this prohibition, I,
> of course, sniffed a lot of poppies, but never once felt sleepy.
>
> --
> Rob Bannister
>
It worked okay for dorothy.
Odysseus
>
> Illegal drug classification no longer has any bearing on the drugs
> themselves but on the penalties that can be levied. Grass is classified as a
> narcotic so they can put you in jail for it.
In Canada simple possession of any illegal drug can result in jail
time, but the same distinction is made: cannabis, with the 'real'
narcotics and cocaine, is covered by the _Narcotics Control Act_,
under which I believe the Crown may always proceed by indictment,
while others appear in the _Food and Drug Act_, under which a summary
conviction carries a maximum penalty of two years.
--
Odysseus
Michael DeBusk
<first...@boeing.com.invalid> wrote:
> Here (St. Louis), both unsalted and salted sweet cream butter are
> sold in the four-sticks-to-a-pound boxes. Unsalted is the usual
> butter called for in baking recipes.
I've been told that salt can hide the "off" flavor of inferior-quality
milk when used to make butter. I will buy unsalted butter and salt it,
if it needs salt, myself. (I've not found it needs it.)
Michael DeBusk
> > As far as I know, users do not classify drugs by market demand or
> > by legal consequences.
>
> They certainly are aware of the price structure and availability.
> Market demand is a key component of that. As for consequences, I
> certainly know that some of my friends who use illegal drugs are
> fairly careful about it; that seems to suggest they're aware of
> possible consequences, and trying to avoid them.
Yes, that's true... and I don't know that that has anything to do with
how they tend to *classify* them.
> > Users don't care about the market demand, but about how the drug
> > makes them feel (or, in many cases, how it makes them stop
> > feeling)... that is to say, about the effect it has on their
> > bodies. They don't care about the legal consequences because it
> > never occurs to them that they might get caught.
>
> That's simply false.
Which?
Incidentally, it occurs to me that my experience of "drug users" is
atypical. I've spent the past sixteen years working in and around
ambulances and hospitals and psychiatric units and such. I don't see
most people who are using; I only see the ones who abuse. Perhaps I
should remind myself of this on occasion.
david56
> I do remember, as kid in England, the old folk would tell us that
> sniffing the poppies that grew wild in the cornfields would make us
> sleepy and that we shouldn't do it. Stimulated by this prohibition, I,
> of course, sniffed a lot of poppies, but never once felt sleepy.
I never sniffed any poppies, and I felt sleepy nearly every day.
--
David
=====
Don Aitken
In the UK, the term "narcotics" has never been used in legislation,
but that doesn't stop either the police or the press from using it.
What they mean by it is usually not at all obvious. It used to be
commonly used in medicine as a synonym for "opiates" - I have a 1970s
pharmacopoeia which includes the heading "Morphine and other Narcotic
Analgesics", but doesn't seem to be much used now.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:17:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> > As far as I know, users do not classify drugs by market demand or
>> > by legal consequences.
>>
>> They certainly are aware of the price structure and availability.
>> Market demand is a key component of that. As for consequences, I
>> certainly know that some of my friends who use illegal drugs are
>> fairly careful about it; that seems to suggest they're aware of
>> possible consequences, and trying to avoid them.
>
> Yes, that's true... and I don't know that that has anything to do with
> how they tend to *classify* them.
I think this has come down to *our* differences in usage, then.
>> > Users don't care about the market demand, but about how the drug
>> > makes them feel (or, in many cases, how it makes them stop
>> > feeling)... that is to say, about the effect it has on their
>> > bodies. They don't care about the legal consequences because it
>> > never occurs to them that they might get caught.
>>
>> That's simply false.
>
> Which?
"don't care about the legal consequences because it never occurs to
them..."
> Incidentally, it occurs to me that my experience of "drug users" is
> atypical. I've spent the past sixteen years working in and around
> ambulances and hospitals and psychiatric units and such. I don't see
> most people who are using; I only see the ones who abuse. Perhaps I
> should remind myself of this on occasion.
That's probably true; only three of the drug users I know have ever
been arrested for it. I believe only two (disjoint from the first
group, incidentally) have ever required medical assistance because of
it.
(I realize that, in that paragraph, I'm distinguishing "drug users"
from those who use and abuse alcohol. In general I try to quash that
distinction when it comes up, but since we started discussing mostly
legal consequences, and they're so different these days, I'll leave it
for that one paragraph.)
meirman
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> posted:
>
>The butter we get here in Minnesota is labeled "sweet-cream"; I don't
>know how it's actually made, never having studied dairy tech. I don't
>find American unsalted butter any more appealing than French.
I ate unsalted butter for years, but only during Passover because
salted kosher-for-Passover butter was never available. I too never
became fond of it, and didn't even buy any some years. Five or ten
years ago they started selling salted butter also, so that's what I
buy.
If the only difference is salt, there's no problem making it with
salt, so there were/are probably quite a lot of Jews in America who
like/d it without salt.
>--
>David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
Michael DeBusk
> >> That's simply false.
> >
> > Which?
>
> "don't care about the legal consequences because it never
> occurs to them..."
Do you think people who choose to use illegal drugs do so believing
they'll get caught at it?
> (I realize that, in that paragraph, I'm distinguishing "drug users"
> from those who use and abuse alcohol. In general I try to quash
> that distinction when it comes up, but since we started discussing
> mostly legal consequences, and they're so different these days, I'll
> leave it for that one paragraph.)
True. Most of the people with whom I've had serious trouble have been
abusers of alcohol. Aside from the occasional idiot teenager who thinks
it'd be "cool" to try jimson weed or the bodybuilder who overdosed on
steroids once (ever seen one man, single-handed, bench-press another? I
would have been impressed if I hadn't been thinking, "Jeez, what the
fuck do we do now?"), I don't get much violence out of druggies. The
most angry (but not usually violent) are the heroin overdoses whom we
shoot up with Narcan. "You bastards! You ruined a hundred-dollar high!"
Yeah, dude, but at least now you're breathing...
Robert Bannister
frequently accompanied by violence, are caused by drug addicts who need
money to feed their habit. I'm not defending violent drunks, but they
mostly fight people roughly their own size and age and, apart from the
indefensible and euphemistically named 'domestic violence', they don't
usually go beating up old ladies with baseball bats.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> You must live in a safer place than I do. Most break-ins, which are
> frequently accompanied by violence, are caused by drug addicts who
> need money to feed their habit. I'm not defending violent drunks, but
> they mostly fight people roughly their own size and age and, apart
> from the indefensible and euphemistically named 'domestic violence',
> they don't usually go beating up old ladies with baseball bats.
Old ladies with baseball bats can be pretty tough, though.
Michael DeBusk
> You must live in a safer place than I do.
It's where I work, actually. And I suppose it's safer for now, but the
area is getting worse.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
> Michael DeBusk wrote:
>>
>>
>> True. Most of the people with whom I've had serious trouble have been
>> abusers of alcohol. Aside from the occasional idiot teenager who thinks
>> it'd be "cool" to try jimson weed or the bodybuilder who overdosed on
>> steroids once (ever seen one man, single-handed, bench-press another? I
>> would have been impressed if I hadn't been thinking, "Jeez, what the
>> fuck do we do now?"), I don't get much violence out of druggies. The
>> most angry (but not usually violent) are the heroin overdoses whom we
>> shoot up with Narcan. "You bastards! You ruined a hundred-dollar high!"
>> Yeah, dude, but at least now you're breathing...
>>
> You must live in a safer place than I do. Most break-ins, which are
> frequently accompanied by violence, are caused by drug addicts who need
> money to feed their habit.
Yes, it's the need for money, not the effect of heroin, that
causes the violence.
Alcohol, on the other hand, can incite violent behavior
simply for the sake of violent behavior. Similarly for
amphetamines, and, to a lesser extent, cocaine. With
cannabis, the violence is completely associated with
trafficking and growing.
>I'm not defending violent drunks, but they
> mostly fight people roughly their own size and age and, apart from the
> indefensible and euphemistically named 'domestic violence', they don't
> usually go beating up old ladies with baseball bats.
>
Perhaps they're mostly *seen* fighting people their own size
and age. When they get home...
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 12:58:51 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> >> That's simply false.
>> >
>> > Which?
>>
>> "don't care about the legal consequences because it never
>> occurs to them..."
>
> Do you think people who choose to use illegal drugs do so believing
> they'll get caught at it?
I think it's meaningless to talk about all people who use illegal
drugs as being in one group.
All the people I've ever discussed it with (relatively few people, and
certainly a statistically meaningless sample) thought quite a lot
about the legal risks, and about ways to avoid them when possible.
Therefore the claim that *all* people who take illegal drugs don't
care about the legal consequences is provably false -- I know
counterexamples personally.
>> (I realize that, in that paragraph, I'm distinguishing "drug
>> users" from those who use and abuse alcohol. In general I try to
>> quash that distinction when it comes up, but since we started
>> discussing mostly legal consequences, and they're so different
>> these days, I'll leave it for that one paragraph.)
>
> True. Most of the people with whom I've had serious trouble have
> been abusers of alcohol. Aside from the occasional idiot teenager
> who thinks it'd be "cool" to try jimson weed or the bodybuilder who
> overdosed on steroids once (ever seen one man, single-handed,
> bench-press another? I would have been impressed if I hadn't been
> thinking, "Jeez, what the fuck do we do now?"), I don't get much
> violence out of druggies. The most angry (but not usually violent)
> are the heroin overdoses whom we shoot up with Narcan. "You
> bastards! You ruined a hundred-dollar high!" Yeah, dude, but at
> least now you're breathing...
If you do work that brings you into regular contact with people having
a drug problem, you're missing all the ones who quietly smoke a few
joints every day, and/or drop acid occasionally. There are even quite
a few people who use injected heroin for years without trouble.
I associate largely with people who are holding down jobs, have
friends, some who have families, and have been doing so for 20 years
or more. A few of them also use drugs regularly; a few others just
now and then. I knew one man I'm quite convinced avoided both
alcoholism and committing assault by smoking a lot of marijuana. He
was nice and mellow, worked at the same place for more than 20 years,
had lots of friends, hobbies that he also had time and energy to work
on, a very successful long-term romantic partnership, etc.
David Dyer-Bennet
That's the result of the illegality, not of the addiction (or just
strong desire). That's precisely why alcoholics don't commit many
robberies; the prices are low and the quality is high and it's easy to
find a dealer without running high risks. If the other drugs weren't
illegal, they'd do far less damage.
meirman
Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>"Michael DeBusk" <m_de...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:FROEc.21499$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:39:48 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Neither is any other part of the plant.
>>
>> <sniplet>
>>
>> > I thought about that, but that's what the site said, and I didn't
>> > instantly come up with a better word to describe the effects of a
>> > good toke or ten.
>>
>> Drugs extracted from cannabis are hallucinogenic, not narcotic.
>>
>> A narcotic makes one feel sleepy, numb, or stuporous, and (at least
>> here in the US) the word always refers to opiates or opioid substances.
>> We usually use them to fight that pain on which little else will work.
>>
>> A hallucinogen alters one's perceptions and breaks down the brain's
>> ability to process linear thought. There's no current acceptable
>> medical use for most hallucinogens, though LSD therapy has been shown
>> quite effective in cases of chemical dependence. (The medical
>> application of marijuana is not for its hallucinogenic properties, but
>> for one or more if its side-effects.)
>
>
>The question is, was the Web page in question using the word "narcotic" in
>the manner you have used it above, or was it using it in a later sense, such
>as the following, from MWCD11 (from the entry for the noun "narcotic"): "*1*
>[...] *b :* a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to
This must be the definition of the "ignorant?", because the
restriction they refer to are called in law in the US and I think all
the 50 states a restriction on "controlled substances". And in
medicine and science they certainly wouldn't be using narcotic for
non-narcotics. I don't doubt that drugheads have never learned or
can't keep track of what's what.
>that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic
>or not."
>
>From the Web page Skitt cited earlier,
>
>http://www.cannabis.net/articles/cannabis-butter.html
>
>
>[quote]
>
>Latvians love it. And unlike the soft drug cannabis, it's legal.
>
>"Only seeds are used for cannabis butter. The narcotic substance
>tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is in the resin and blossoms," Janis Strazdins, a
>narcologist, told AFP.
>
>[end quote]
>
>
>Clearly, THC is a "narcotic" in the sense that in many countries, it is
>subject to legal restrictions similar to those put upon opiates. So, was the
>"narcologist" making reference to this legal sense or was he making
>reference to the physiological sense of which you were speaking? I don't
Maybe he loves the word narcotic, since he's a narcologist.
>think we should simply assume that he was using the term in the
>physiological sense.
>
>The double sense of the term does, I think, inevitably lead to
>misunderstanding, and it's a misunderstanding which is much more serious
>than occurs, for example, with the two possible meanings in which a word
>like "intergalactic" may be used (one of which follows the usage of
>scientists and the other of which is used quite differently). Nevertheless,
>we have to recognize that there *are* two different meanings. Whether the
>narcologist quoted in the Web page has used the word "narcotic"
>appropriately or not depends upon which of the two meanings is the "default
>meaning" of the word "narcotics" in his profession.