I was (and am) completely drug free since I shook off that haze after my
birth through caesarian section.
Never was interested in anything but Camelia Sinensis and occasionally
Virginian tobacco and a hookah once-a-month. However, recently while
enjoying a hookah with fabulous pomegranate shisha, I was told (people
around me were talking about recent Denver decision on cannabis) that there
are people who produce, manufacture and sell legal non-cannabis smoking
mixes that deliver experience almost identical to hashish. I looked at the
net and among other similar sites, this is what I found:
http://www.herbalsmokeshops.com/honeyblonde.html

Can anyone comment on this? Is this for real? is it legal? I am sorry for
posting an apparently offtopic message but I think any usage of natural
plant extracts can be called a tea or potentially be made into tea, so this
is still within our domain...

Sasha.

Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> Can anyone comment on this? Is this for real? is it legal? I am sorry for
> posting an apparently offtopic message but I think any usage of natural
> plant extracts can be called a tea or potentially be made into tea, so this
> is still within our domain...

'round these here parts, "tea" refers only to products of the plant
_Camellia Sinensis_. Any other herbal infusion into water is a
"tisane".
I don't know how I'd categorize this "near-hash" of yours, but it
wouldn't be "tea".


stePH
--
GoogleGroups sucks ass.

Alex Chaihorsky > wrote:
>http://www.herbalsmokeshops.com/honeyblonde.html
>
>Can anyone comment on this? Is this for real? is it legal? I am sorry for
>posting an apparently offtopic message but I think any usage of natural
>plant extracts can be called a tea or potentially be made into tea, so this
>is still within our domain...

For years there's been some guy advertising a similar mixture in the back
of Rolling Stone, so this is not a new thing, and nobody seems to be going
after the guys promoting it. On the other hand, if the stuff was any good,
the DEA probably _would_ be going after them.

I believe that the Analog Drug Act does make this stuff illegal, but it
could also be argued that it makes tea and banana peels illegal too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I believe that the Analog Drug Act does make this stuff illegal, but it
> could also be argued that it makes tea and banana peels illegal too.

How so?

stePH
--
GoogleGroups licks balls.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky typed:

>
> Can anyone comment on this?

P.T.Barnum once said, "there's a sucker...." I can't imagaine who
buys this stuff since ganga (I'm told) is freely available in large
cities and on campus...

> Is this for real?

Real crap that has nothing to do with ganga, and most certainly does
not act as an intoxicant... If it did, you can bet that some
government agency would shut them down...

> is it legal?

Yes, because it's a placebo.



--
Cordially,

Sonam Dasara
11/14/2005 10:40:32 AM

stePH > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> I believe that the Analog Drug Act does make this stuff illegal, but it
>> could also be argued that it makes tea and banana peels illegal too.
>
>How so?

In the eighties, designer drugs started appearing. And the drugs that
were being made were all basic variations of Schedule I and Schedule II
drugs, but they weren't identical to them, so technically they were legal.

After making dozens of different similar amines illegal, Congress passed
the Analog Drug Act, which basically makes it illegal to possess anything
that is structurally similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II drug.

This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
xanthine on Schedule II.

It's still not as much fun as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act,
which defines any subcarrier as an encrypted communication, thereby making
it illegal to listen to FM stereo broadcasts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Sonam Dasara wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky typed:
>
> >
> > Can anyone comment on this?
>
> P.T.Barnum once said, "there's a sucker...."

Actually, he didn't. Most likely David Hannum did, and it got
misattributed to Barnum (though Wikipedia has a different story [but
also mentions Hannum].)


stePH
--
GoogleGroups sucks ass.

Let's leave poor Mr. Barnum and his non-existant quotes out of this - also
suckers, loosers and all other chidish labels - the question is very simple
and its about knowledge, not guesses.
Do you know this from personal experience, articles, etc of you just
applying "common sense"? C'ause if you applying just "common sense" that's
not much help, since my question was about specific knowledge. I am aware of
DEA, ATF, etc. and in the absense of what seem to be quite an energetic
following, I would not even pay attention at these ads. However, living next
to "Burning Man" desert I hear many praises for these products from passing
pagan folk that has also a habit of hanging out in Reno for a week or two
before and after the "event".
And these, as oppose to very ignorant yours truly, are very knowledgable (in
this subject) crowds. I doubt that they can be fooled by a "placebo".

Also when you speak of "freely available" - you are not suggesting
"available for free" or "legally available" or " openly available"? I asked
several of my student friends about this and they all asked me to ask you
back what the hell is "ganga"?

Sasha.


"Sonam Dasara" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky typed:
>
>>
>> Can anyone comment on this?
>
> P.T.Barnum once said, "there's a sucker...." I can't imagaine who
> buys this stuff since ganga (I'm told) is freely available in large
> cities and on campus...
>
>> Is this for real?
>
> Real crap that has nothing to do with ganga, and most certainly does
> not act as an intoxicant... If it did, you can bet that some
> government agency would shut them down...
>
>> is it legal?
>
> Yes, because it's a placebo.
>
>
>
> --
> Cordially,
>
> Sonam Dasara
> 11/14/2005 10:40:32 AM

Thanks Scott.
It looks like Analog Drug Act outlawed 90% of natural remedies with one
sweep! Did they ever defined the level of structural similarities? And,
BTW, which law outlaws petroleum or glue sniffing if any?
I mean is there a law that sez that if something makes a bunch of Homo
Sapience "high" other than alcohol, its illegal? Then again, they would need
to define a high...

I guess the only way to find out is to buy some and test it on my quite
adventurous SF friends. But then I may be seen as a distributor?
Ah, the land of Freedom! And its glorious Evangelical Politburo!

Sasha.


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> stePH > wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that the Analog Drug Act does make this stuff illegal, but it
>>> could also be argued that it makes tea and banana peels illegal too.
>>
>>How so?
>
> In the eighties, designer drugs started appearing. And the drugs that
> were being made were all basic variations of Schedule I and Schedule II
> drugs, but they weren't identical to them, so technically they were legal.
>
> After making dozens of different similar amines illegal, Congress passed
> the Analog Drug Act, which basically makes it illegal to possess anything
> that is structurally similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II drug.
>
> This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
> xanthine on Schedule II.
>
> It's still not as much fun as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act,
> which defines any subcarrier as an encrypted communication, thereby making
> it illegal to listen to FM stereo broadcasts.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
. net...
> Let's leave poor Mr. Barnum and his non-existant quotes out of this - also
> suckers, loosers and all other chidish labels - the question is very
> simple and its about knowledge, not guesses.
> Do you know this from personal experience, articles, etc of you just
> applying "common sense"? C'ause if you applying just "common sense" that's
> not much help, since my question was about specific knowledge. I am aware
> of DEA, ATF, etc. and in the absense of what seem to be quite an energetic
> following, I would not even pay attention at these ads. However, living
> next to "Burning Man" desert I hear many praises for these products from
> passing pagan folk that has also a habit of hanging out in Reno for a week
> or two before and after the "event".
> And these, as oppose to very ignorant yours truly, are very knowledgable
> (in this subject) crowds. I doubt that they can be fooled by a "placebo".
>
> Also when you speak of "freely available" - you are not suggesting
> "available for free" or "legally available" or " openly available"? I
> asked several of my student friends about this and they all asked me to
> ask you back what the hell is "ganga"?
>
> Sasha.


Sasha, ganga is (I believe) the Jamacan term for marijuana. As to the herbal
blend you sent the URL for, it contains things like Datura derivatives and
Lobelia derivatives, both of which are powerful herbs in an of themselves
and not something I myself would mess with without being under the care of a
knowledgeable naturopath. I seem to remember someone telling me Lobelia has
an affect on the heart, and I think Datura does the same. I know they sell
it at the local health food store in bulk but that doesn't make it
safe...but you know that. (On that page they also say that Scotch Broom tops
are a traditional smoking material...they should come up to where I live, we
can't get rid of the blasted stuff)

As to people being "fooled" by placebos...well, to be honest, if people are
very driven to have an out of the ordinary experience, they'll have it. Some
of these herbs may relax or whatever, but I don't think that they'd produce
the sorts of effects that one would attribute to things like say opium. But
of course I'm talking from a non-experiencer so....maybe you SHOULD ask your
friends. Personally I find drumming works better. ::shrug:: JMHO.

Melinda

"Melinda" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Let's leave poor Mr. Barnum and his non-existant quotes out of this -
>> also suckers, loosers and all other chidish labels - the question is very
>> simple and its about knowledge, not guesses.
>> Do you know this from personal experience, articles, etc of you just
>> applying "common sense"? C'ause if you applying just "common sense"
>> that's not much help, since my question was about specific knowledge. I
>> am aware of DEA, ATF, etc. and in the absense of what seem to be quite an
>> energetic following, I would not even pay attention at these ads.
>> However, living next to "Burning Man" desert I hear many praises for
>> these products from passing pagan folk that has also a habit of hanging
>> out in Reno for a week or two before and after the "event".
>> And these, as oppose to very ignorant yours truly, are very knowledgable
>> (in this subject) crowds. I doubt that they can be fooled by a "placebo".
>>
>> Also when you speak of "freely available" - you are not suggesting
>> "available for free" or "legally available" or " openly available"? I
>> asked several of my student friends about this and they all asked me to
>> ask you back what the hell is "ganga"?
>>
>> Sasha.
>
>
> Sasha, ganga is (I believe) the Jamacan term for marijuana. As to the
> herbal blend you sent the URL for, it contains things like Datura
> derivatives and Lobelia derivatives, both of which are powerful herbs in
> an of themselves and not something I myself would mess with without being
> under the care of a knowledgeable naturopath. I seem to remember someone
> telling me Lobelia has an affect on the heart, and I think Datura does the
> same. I know they sell it at the local health food store in bulk but that
> doesn't make it safe...but you know that. (On that page they also say that
> Scotch Broom tops are a traditional smoking material...they should come up
> to where I live, we can't get rid of the blasted stuff)
>
> As to people being "fooled" by placebos...well, to be honest, if people
> are very driven to have an out of the ordinary experience, they'll have
> it. Some of these herbs may relax or whatever, but I don't think that
> they'd produce the sorts of effects that one would attribute to things
> like say opium. But of course I'm talking from a non-experiencer
> so....maybe you SHOULD ask your friends. Personally I find drumming works
> better. ::shrug:: JMHO.
>
> Melinda

I see. Thanks, Melinda.

Sasha.

Alex Chaihorsky > wrote:
>And these, as oppose to very ignorant yours truly, are very knowledgable (in
>this subject) crowds. I doubt that they can be fooled by a "placebo".

Hey, placebo is the most powerful drug around. It's so strong that even
a tiny fraction of the standard dose is just as effective. Although when
I worked in a hospital, it was in the pharmacy database as "Obecalp Forte."
They had pills, elixir, and injectable form.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:43:34 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky typed:

> Let's leave poor Mr. Barnum and his non-existant quotes out of this - also
> suckers, loosers and all other chidish labels - the question is very simple
> and its about knowledge, not guesses.

Who said I was "guessing"? It's still my opinion that web sites like
these are aimed at "suckers" - if you disagree, buy it, then smoke it.
Report back as to whether it produced the same effect as smoking an
equal amount of hashish. I know what the answer will be, but inasmuch
as you seem to demand empirical proof, and that can only be found by
smoking both it and hashish.

> Do you know this from personal experience,

Even if I did, I would not so state in a public forum -
marijuana/hashish is illegal.

> articles, etc of you just
> applying "common sense"? C'ause if you applying just "common sense" that's
> not much help, since my question was about specific knowledge. I am aware of
> DEA, ATF, etc. and in the absense of what seem to be quite an energetic
> following, I would not even pay attention at these ads. However, living next
> to "Burning Man" desert I hear many praises for these products from passing
> pagan folk that has also a habit of hanging out in Reno for a week or two
> before and after the "event".
> And these, as oppose to very ignorant yours truly, are very knowledgable (in
> this subject) crowds. I doubt that they can be fooled by a "placebo".

Let me try again: that product can not produce the kind of
intoxication provided by hashish. Period. Tetrahydrocannabinol is the
psychoactive ingredient in marijuana (Hashish is the sticky resins and
pollen from the flowers) and none of the ingredients listed are even
remote analogs of THC.

Consequently if they report that this product produces a "high" like
THC, I'll continue to tell you that it's a placebo effect and that
these folks fooled you into thinking that they are knowledgeable. YMMV
as they say.

For example: datura is used as a hallucinogen by some native Amazon
peoples; all species of Datura contain powerful alkaloids which in
sufficient quantities have the power to kill. The main alkaloids
represented are Scopolamine, Hyoscyamine and Atropine and produce a
wild, hallucinogenic and rather unpleasant trip. I doubt there is
datura in this fellow's product; in fact he qualifies it by saying it
is a datura "derivative" - whatever that may mean.
>
> Also when you speak of "freely available" - you are not suggesting
> "available for free" or "legally available" or " openly available"? I asked
> several of my student friends about this and they all asked me to ask you
> back what the hell is "ganja"?

Then you're asking the wrong people. Ganja is a common (Google turned
up 4,290,000 references) slang term for marijuana/hashish.


--
Cordially,

Sonam Dasara
11/15/2005 12:08:07 PM

Sonam /15/05


> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:43:34 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky typed:
>
>> Let's leave poor Mr. Barnum and his non-existant quotes out of this - also
>> suckers, loosers and all other chidish labels - the question is very simple
>> and its about knowledge, not guesses.
>
> Who said I was "guessing"? It's still my opinion that web sites like
> these are aimed at "suckers" - if you disagree, buy it, then smoke it.
> Report back as to whether it produced the same effect as smoking an
> equal amount of hashish. I know what the answer will be, but inasmuch
> as you seem to demand empirical proof, and that can only be found by
> smoking both it and hashish.
>
>> Do you know this from personal experience,
>
> Even if I did, I would not so state in a public forum -
> marijuana/hashish is illegal.
>
>> articles, etc of you just
>> applying "common sense"? C'ause if you applying just "common sense" that's
>> not much help, since my question was about specific knowledge. I am aware of
>> DEA, ATF, etc. and in the absense of what seem to be quite an energetic
>> following, I would not even pay attention at these ads. However, living next
>> to "Burning Man" desert I hear many praises for these products from passing
>> pagan folk that has also a habit of hanging out in Reno for a week or two
>> before and after the "event".
>> And these, as oppose to very ignorant yours truly, are very knowledgable (in
>> this subject) crowds. I doubt that they can be fooled by a "placebo".
>
> Let me try again: that product can not produce the kind of
> intoxication provided by hashish. Period. Tetrahydrocannabinol is the
> psychoactive ingredient in marijuana (Hashish is the sticky resins and
> pollen from the flowers) and none of the ingredients listed are even
> remote analogs of THC.
>
> Consequently if they report that this product produces a "high" like
> THC, I'll continue to tell you that it's a placebo effect and that
> these folks fooled you into thinking that they are knowledgeable. YMMV
> as they say.
>
> For example: datura is used as a hallucinogen by some native Amazon
> peoples; all species of Datura contain powerful alkaloids which in
> sufficient quantities have the power to kill. The main alkaloids
> represented are Scopolamine, Hyoscyamine and Atropine and produce a
> wild, hallucinogenic and rather unpleasant trip. I doubt there is
> datura in this fellow's product; in fact he qualifies it by saying it
> is a datura "derivative" - whatever that may mean.
>>
>> Also when you speak of "freely available" - you are not suggesting
>> "available for free" or "legally available" or " openly available"? I asked
>> several of my student friends about this and they all asked me to ask you
>> back what the hell is "ganja"?
>
> Then you're asking the wrong people. Ganja is a common (Google turned
> up 4,290,000 references) slang term for marijuana/hashish.
>

OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:

> OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?

"Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????

Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.
--
Cordially,

Sonam Dasara
11/15/2005 1:40:03 PM

Sonam Dasara wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
>
> > OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
>
> "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????
>
> Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
> cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
> drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.

I believe Mr. Plant is referring to your mis-spelling "ganja" in your
original post. Your attempted retcon notwithstanding, you spelled it
"ganga" and almost every Google hit on *that* word refers to the
alternate name for the river Ganges.

stePH
--
Today's waste is tomorrow's overtime.

"stePH" > writes:

> Sonam Dasara wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
> >
> > > OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
> >
> > "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????
> >
> > Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
> > cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
> > drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.
>
> I believe Mr. Plant is referring to your mis-spelling "ganja" in your
> original post. Your attempted retcon notwithstanding, you spelled it
> "ganga" and almost every Google hit on *that* word refers to the
> alternate name for the river Ganges.

Returning to a theme, not to mention a thread, let me say Mr. Plant is
not now, and has never been, a spelling snob.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

I was the first to correctly spell ganja in this group about a year
ago. My missing two k's of wild tree large leaf Banzhang just showed
up. A good substitute for hallucinations is delirium. Get sick,
really sick. If it can produce a buzz people are
eating,drinking,smoking,snorting,injecting it. The war against drugs
is a war against the American people. Addiction and recovery is
cheaper than crime and punishment. Our low was in the single digits
last night. I thought Bang was the sound of the eyelids of the
Bodhisattva hitting the ground.

Jim

Lewis Perin wrote:
> "stePH" > writes:
>
> > Sonam Dasara wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
> > >
> > > > OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
> > >
> > > "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????
> > >
> > > Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
> > > cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
> > > drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.
> >
> > I believe Mr. Plant is referring to your mis-spelling "ganja" in your
> > original post. Your attempted retcon notwithstanding, you spelled it
> > "ganga" and almost every Google hit on *that* word refers to the
> > alternate name for the river Ganges.
>
> Returning to a theme, not to mention a thread, let me say Mr. Plant is
> not now, and has never been, a spelling snob.
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /
> http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Sonam 11/15/05


> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
>
>> OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
>
> "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????

Don't be upset. It's inappropriate, but meant friendly.
>
> Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
> cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
> drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.

Yes. Please excuse the spelling error.
That's it, exactly. Being a poor boy,
I never ate hashish. Have you ever
been to Quetta in Baluchistan?

Michael

11/15/05


>
> Sonam Dasara wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
>>
>>> OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
>>
>> "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????
>>
>> Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
>> cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
>> drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.
>
> I believe Mr. Plant is referring to your mis-spelling "ganja" in your
> original post. Your attempted retcon notwithstanding, you spelled it
> "ganga" and almost every Google hit on *that* word refers to the
> alternate name for the river Ganges.

StePH,

Respectfully, I wasn't actually referring to Sonam's spelling error, such
corrections being forbidden me by my God. I wouldn't know from first hand
experience, of course, but I have heard it said that drinking Bhang, you
need to be *very* careful not to overdo it, because the desired result would
creep up on you much more slowly than it would using intake methods. But,
who am I to lecture the cognoscenti (sp?)?

Michael

Lewis 11/15/05

> "stePH" > writes:
>
>> Sonam Dasara wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
>>>
>>>> OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
>>>
>>> "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????
>>>
>>> Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
>>> cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
>>> drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Plant is referring to your mis-spelling "ganja" in your
>> original post. Your attempted retcon notwithstanding, you spelled it
>> "ganga" and almost every Google hit on *that* word refers to the
>> alternate name for the river Ganges.
>
> Returning to a theme, not to mention a thread, let me say Mr. Plant is
> not now, and has never been, a spelling snob.
>
> /Lew

Regarding spelling snobbery, Lew is of course quite correct. Regarding the
header, let me say, so as to put the matter finally and completely to rest,
that I have never, nor do I now, extract teas mimicking cannabis.

Hope this helps.
Michael

Michael /16/05


> 11/15/05
>
>
>>
>> Sonam Dasara wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:49:47 GMT, Michael Plant typed:
>>>
>>>> OK, Mr. Smartypants: What's "Bang"?
>>>
>>> "Mr. Smartypants" ?????????????
>>>
>>> Do you mean "Bhang"? If so, it's a sweet (milk, almonds, sugar,
>>> cloves etc) Asian tea prepared with the leaves of the marijuana plant,
>>> drunk by the poorer folks. The wealthier ate hashish.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Plant is referring to your mis-spelling "ganja" in your
>> original post. Your attempted retcon notwithstanding, you spelled it
>> "ganga" and almost every Google hit on *that* word refers to the
>> alternate name for the river Ganges.
>
> StePH,
>
> Respectfully, I wasn't actually referring to Sonam's spelling error, such
> corrections being forbidden me by my God. I wouldn't know from first hand
> experience, of course, but I have heard it said that drinking Bhang, you
> need to be *very* careful not to overdo it, because the desired result would
> creep up on you much more slowly than it would using intake methods. But,
> who am I to lecture the cognoscenti (sp?)?
>
> Michael



That was "other intake methds."
Very sorry.
M

Michael Plant wrote:
>
> Respectfully, I wasn't actually referring to Sonam's spelling error, such
> corrections being forbidden me by my God.

It made sense to me ... Mr. Dasara seemed to be taking the attitude
"sheesh, you don't know what 'ganga' is? You could Google it, you
know" -- when Google would *not* return anything relevant to marijuana
on that spelling. Similarly, a Google search on "bang" will not return
the same results as a search on "bhang."

Intentionally or not, I think you showed him up perfectly.


stePH
--
Today's waste is tomorrow's overtime.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:40:40 GMT, Michael Plant typed:

> Respectfully, I wasn't actually referring to Sonam's spelling error, such
> corrections being forbidden me by my God.

I knew that you weren't; those who do need to get a life.


> I wouldn't know from first hand
> experience, of course, but I have heard it said that drinking Bhang, you
> need to be *very* careful not to overdo it, because the desired result would
> creep up on you much more slowly than it would using intake methods. But,
> who am I to lecture the cognoscenti (sp?)?

I attended college and graduate school for 1964 to 71, and hash
brownies were quite popular back then. Indeed, you are correct -
ingesting ganja produces a delayed high, sometimes the delay could be
eight hours. As for Bhang - I never knew anyone who drank it in the
States or Europe - too exotic, perhaps. I did, however hear of it in
Katmandu, but never knew of anyone who tried it: back then, hashish
was legal, and a ball of it was 35 cents...
--
Cordially,

Sonam Dasara
11/16/2005 11:04:35 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> stePH > wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that the Analog Drug Act does make this stuff illegal, but it
>>> could also be argued that it makes tea and banana peels illegal too.
>>
>>How so?
>
> In the eighties, designer drugs started appearing. And the drugs that
> were being made were all basic variations of Schedule I and Schedule II
> drugs, but they weren't identical to them, so technically they were legal.
>
> After making dozens of different similar amines illegal, Congress passed
> the Analog Drug Act, which basically makes it illegal to possess anything
> that is structurally similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II drug.
>
> This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
> xanthine on Schedule II.

How does that illegalise banana peels?

Mårten Nilsson wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
> ...
> > In the eighties, designer drugs started appearing. And the drugs that
> > were being made were all basic variations of Schedule I and Schedule II
> > drugs, but they weren't identical to them, so technically they were legal.
> >
> > After making dozens of different similar amines illegal, Congress passed
> > the Analog Drug Act, which basically makes it illegal to possess anything
> > that is structurally similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II drug.
> >
> > This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
> > xanthine on Schedule II.
>
> How does that illegalise banana peels?

The oil in patches
All over atlantis, atlantis
You remember atlantis
Donovan, the guy with the brocade coat
Used to sing to you about atlantis
You loved it, you were so involved then
Thats back in the days when you used to
Smoke a banana
You would scrape the stuff off the middle
You would bake it
You would smoke it
You even thought you was getting ripped from it
No problem


stePH
--
What happens in Bizarro World, *stays* in Bizarro World.

"stePH" > skrev i meddelandet
ups.com...

>Mårten Nilsson wrote:
> > "Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
> > ...
> > > In the eighties, designer drugs started appearing. And the drugs that
> > > were being made were all basic variations of Schedule I and Schedule
> > > II
> > > drugs, but they weren't identical to them, so technically they were
> > > legal.
> > >
> > > After making dozens of different similar amines illegal, Congress
> > > passed
> > > the Analog Drug Act, which basically makes it illegal to possess
> > > anything
> > > that is structurally similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II drug.
> > >
> > > This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
> > > xanthine on Schedule II.
> >
> > How does that illegalise banana peels?
>
> The oil in patches
> All over atlantis, atlantis
> You remember atlantis
> Donovan, the guy with the brocade coat
> Used to sing to you about atlantis
> You loved it, you were so involved then
> Thats back in the days when you used to
> Smoke a banana
> You would scrape the stuff off the middle
> You would bake it
> You would smoke it
> You even thought you was getting ripped from it
> No problem

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

/mårten

Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>>
>> This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
>> xanthine on Schedule II.
>
>How does that illegalise banana peels?

Back in the sixties, there was a rumor going around about how bananas
contain "banadine" which will get you high. I think _Steal This Book_
has some details on how to dry and smoke banana peels.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>>>
>>> This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
>>> xanthine on Schedule II.
>>
>>How does that illegalise banana peels?
>
> Back in the sixties, there was a rumor going around about how bananas
> contain "banadine" which will get you high. I think _Steal This Book_
> has some details on how to dry and smoke banana peels.
> --scott

That rumour is still around, but since the banana peel isn't actually a drug
nor similar to a drug I can't see how it would be illegalised by the analog
drug act.

/Mårten

Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>> Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>>>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>>>>
>>>> This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
>>>> xanthine on Schedule II.
>>>
>>>How does that illegalise banana peels?
>>
>> Back in the sixties, there was a rumor going around about how bananas
>> contain "banadine" which will get you high. I think _Steal This Book_
>> has some details on how to dry and smoke banana peels.
>
>That rumour is still around, but since the banana peel isn't actually a drug
>nor similar to a drug I can't see how it would be illegalised by the analog
>drug act.

Because if you look at the wording of the law, you can claim that _anything_
is structurally similar to _some_ drug.
--scott

Electrical banana, it's going to be a certain craze. Electrical banana,
it's bound to the be the very next phase. They call it mellow yellow...
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>>> Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>>>>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to make xanthines like caffeine illegal, since there is one
>>>>> xanthine on Schedule II.
>>>>
>>>>How does that illegalise banana peels?
>>>
>>> Back in the sixties, there was a rumor going around about how bananas
>>> contain "banadine" which will get you high. I think _Steal This Book_
>>> has some details on how to dry and smoke banana peels.
>>
>>That rumour is still around, but since the banana peel isn't actually a
>>drug
>>nor similar to a drug I can't see how it would be illegalised by the
>>analog
>>drug act.
>
> Because if you look at the wording of the law, you can claim that
> _anything_
> is structurally similar to _some_ drug.
> --scott

So pretty much everything is illegal?

/Mårten

"Mårten Nilsson" > writes:

> "Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
> ...
> > [...]
> > Because if you look at the wording of the law, you can claim that
> > _anything_ is structurally similar to _some_ drug.
>
> So pretty much everything is illegal?

You're under arrest.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Mårten Nilsson > wrote:
>
>So pretty much everything is illegal?

Right. This is the New American Way.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Lewis Perin" > skrev i meddelandet
news
> "Mårten Nilsson" > writes:
>
>> "Scott Dorsey" > skrev i meddelandet
>> ...
>> > [...]
>> > Because if you look at the wording of the law, you can claim that
>> > _anything_ is structurally similar to _some_ drug.
>>
>> So pretty much everything is illegal?
>
> You're under arrest.

I don't live in the US.