free the people free the herb

[Big Fitz]

a lot of the Temperance movement Fitz was carried out by Religious groups....that says a lot right there....as far as i am concerned.....

That's true. Many in the churches got behind the temperance movement the same way they got behind the emancipation movement pre-civil war. Although they favored prohibition as a solution, it didn't make many of the blue laws that came out of the period post-prohibition bad things. Like I said before, many of our quality of life laws came from that period when there were necessary regulations put out there to prevent the creations of hells-on-wheels as Jack Casement coined the term.

My problem stems from the fact that our society is too irresponsible, immature, and immoral to handle legalized drug use a this time. We're too often willing to give in to the desires of the reprobate and rabble-rousing troublemaker than we are protect the responsible citizenry. We are incapable of doing a morally correct thing and setting hard boundaries for the use of, an lifestyle choices of drug addicts like Lulu here (you admitted you use in 2 threads I've seen so far, so proudly own up to it).

Lastly, it's a state issue, not federal. I've no problem seeing the DEA and all other federal law enforcement agencies devoted to the war on drugs broken up to the states accordingly and let them decide the issue.

But regardless, if drugs are legalized, I want to make DAMN SURE that I am neither obligated, required or forced to associate, or support anyone who takes drugs by law or statute or regulation or taxcode. Nor should they be allowed the same rights as any responsible citizen who DOESN'T use them. Why? because they are by nature irresponsible and cannot be trusted to fulfill their obligations as a citizen. If you want to do drugs, you're on your own, completely and will not have the power to fuck up the lives of others by your irresponsible behavior.

Like I said, the temperance movement, for all its flaws, and there were quite a few, had the right idea that citizens should be allowed to demand a nicer place to live and at least on the local and state level, create laws accordingly in which provide the style of life they wish to have. But it seems this wisdom has been lost on current society so we must suffer more because of it till we remember why we did such things.

your saying DRUGS Fitz.....it seems most here are just saying Pot.....i certainly do not want harder stuff legalised.....as i have said many a time.....im all for Pot until they make Alcohol and Cigs illegal.....until then......

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's true. Many in the churches got behind the temperance movement the same way they got behind the emancipation movement pre-civil war. Although they favored prohibition as a solution, it didn't make many of the blue laws that came out of the period post-prohibition bad things. Like I said before, many of our quality of life laws came from that period when there were necessary regulations put out there to prevent the creations of hells-on-wheels as Jack Casement coined the term.

My problem stems from the fact that our society is too irresponsible, immature, and immoral to handle legalized drug use a this time. We're too often willing to give in to the desires of the reprobate and rabble-rousing troublemaker than we are protect the responsible citizenry. We are incapable of doing a morally correct thing and setting hard boundaries for the use of, an lifestyle choices of drug addicts like Lulu here (you admitted you use in 2 threads I've seen so far, so proudly own up to it).

Lastly, it's a state issue, not federal. I've no problem seeing the DEA and all other federal law enforcement agencies devoted to the war on drugs broken up to the states accordingly and let them decide the issue.

But regardless, if drugs are legalized, I want to make DAMN SURE that I am neither obligated, required or forced to associate, or support anyone who takes drugs by law or statute or regulation or taxcode. Nor should they be allowed the same rights as any responsible citizen who DOESN'T use them. Why? because they are by nature irresponsible and cannot be trusted to fulfill their obligations as a citizen. If you want to do drugs, you're on your own, completely and will not have the power to fuck up the lives of others by your irresponsible behavior.

Like I said, the temperance movement, for all its flaws, and there were quite a few, had the right idea that citizens should be allowed to demand a nicer place to live and at least on the local and state level, create laws accordingly in which provide the style of life they wish to have. But it seems this wisdom has been lost on current society so we must suffer more because of it till we remember why we did such things.

your saying DRUGS Fitz.....it seems most here are just saying Pot.....i certainly do not want harder stuff legalised.....as i have said many a time.....im all for Pot until they make Alcohol and Cigs illegal.....until then......

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Fine.......we'll make it simple for you, because apparently your brain pan isn't big enough to hold a whole concept.........

Legalize anything that is a plant. Period. Plants aren't drugs, they're plants.

However.........if you want to refine that plant, THEN it becomes a drug. Case in point? Cocoa leaves. If you chew them, it is about the same as having a cup of coffee. It's helpful to those living in the Andes, because it helps them to take up more oxygen at higher altitudes. And, if you chew cocoa leaves, guess what? You don't become addicted or suffer the kind of problems that those who use cocaine do. Why? Because the chlorophyll and plant material acts as a safety valve.

Refine the cocoa leaves until you have the pure cocaine? Well.....you've just taken out all the safety valves, and you can cause your heart to explode as well as suffer other bad effects. And........it's highly addictive. Why? All the safety valves have been removed.

By the way, remember what God told Adam and Eve when they got kicked out of Eden? He stated that if it grows out of the ground, you may have it. Interestingly enough, cocoa leaves generally grow at high altitude. I kinda think God knew what He was doing.

Besides, cannabis has been in use for thousands of years. Matter of fact, in some excavation sites in Israel, they have found evidence of both medicinal and recreational use of cannabis. One of the ingredients of the Holy Anointing Oil for the Kings of Israel was cannabis oil.

So no. Don't legalize drugs, but DO legalize plants. If you refine those plants into drugs? You should go to jail.

Same for meth and heroin by the way, those are drugs because they are created by mankind.

 

[Grace]

Heroin is made with poppy, hon. It's from a plant.
Shrooms will give you a high as well...possibly a dangerous one. They come from the ground as well.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Heroin is made with poppy, hon. It's from a plant.
Shrooms will give you a high as well...possibly a dangerous one. They come from the ground as well.

Actually, heroin is boiled away first. The one you're thinking about is opium, which is poppy sap. In my estimation, that is the ragged edge where the line is drawn.

Mushrooms have actually been proven to be useful in some types of treatment of various mental health issues, and no, they're not addictive, nor are they dangerous if you have a babysitter watching over you.

My line is drawn at the natural use of plants and fungi.

By the way, did you know that Native Americans who join the military are allowed to go home once every six months and take a peyote trip? It's legally sanctioned by the military because to them, peyote is a sacred plant and used in some of their religious ceremonies.

Had a guy on my ship once who had that exemption, and every 6 months, I had to type a page 13 (Record of miscellaneous entries) stating he'd just done so.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That's true. Many in the churches got behind the temperance movement the same way they got behind the emancipation movement pre-civil war. Although they favored prohibition as a solution, it didn't make many of the blue laws that came out of the period post-prohibition bad things. Like I said before, many of our quality of life laws came from that period when there were necessary regulations put out there to prevent the creations of hells-on-wheels as Jack Casement coined the term.

My problem stems from the fact that our society is too irresponsible, immature, and immoral to handle legalized drug use a this time. We're too often willing to give in to the desires of the reprobate and rabble-rousing troublemaker than we are protect the responsible citizenry. We are incapable of doing a morally correct thing and setting hard boundaries for the use of, an lifestyle choices of drug addicts like Lulu here (you admitted you use in 2 threads I've seen so far, so proudly own up to it).

Lastly, it's a state issue, not federal. I've no problem seeing the DEA and all other federal law enforcement agencies devoted to the war on drugs broken up to the states accordingly and let them decide the issue.

But regardless, if drugs are legalized, I want to make DAMN SURE that I am neither obligated, required or forced to associate, or support anyone who takes drugs by law or statute or regulation or taxcode. Nor should they be allowed the same rights as any responsible citizen who DOESN'T use them. Why? because they are by nature irresponsible and cannot be trusted to fulfill their obligations as a citizen. If you want to do drugs, you're on your own, completely and will not have the power to fuck up the lives of others by your irresponsible behavior.

Like I said, the temperance movement, for all its flaws, and there were quite a few, had the right idea that citizens should be allowed to demand a nicer place to live and at least on the local and state level, create laws accordingly in which provide the style of life they wish to have. But it seems this wisdom has been lost on current society so we must suffer more because of it till we remember why we did such things.

your saying DRUGS Fitz.....it seems most here are just saying Pot.....i certainly do not want harder stuff legalised.....as i have said many a time.....im all for Pot until they make Alcohol and Cigs illegal.....until then......

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

i smoked Pot a good 30-35 years Fitz......and the dozens of guys i knew tried other things but they stuck with Pot and Beer.....the guys who went into the harder stuff....we kinda never seen them to much anymore.....did not want to be around those guys.....most people who smoke Pot see the writing on the wall with the other stuff......

 

[Truthmatters]

Pot is nearly harmless.

This country would be much better off if more people used it in place of booze

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Pot is nearly harmless.

This country would be much better off if more people used it in place of booze

Except for the fact that if YOU are using it, it shows a very real possibility of diminished mental function.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Pot is nearly harmless.

This country would be much better off if more people used it in place of booze

Except for the fact that if YOU are using it, it shows a very real possibility of diminished mental function.

when high yea......afterwards......what were we talking about?......

 

[Immanuel]

Now whoever would have thought YOU were a pot head.

I'm willing to concede this point if I have it codified into law that it is permitted to discriminate against druggies, and bar them from ALL public assistance, financial or material.

You wanna wreck your life, you don't get to do it at my expense OR in my proximity. I want the right to bar you from my property, access to my children, tax money, neigborhood, driving, workplace and government. You can avoid this by choosing to NOT be a dope....head.

Oh, and automatic death penalty for crimes committed for or while on drugs.

Do that and it fucks over all the right people. Drug growers, traffickers and foreign powers while protecting our rights and culls these assholes out of society.

If it was made legal, it would be regualted like smoking and alcohol.

Pols love to make laws and tax shit. It would be like Xmas and the Ramadan feast happening all at the same time.

I wonder if any of the liberals who demand anti-smoking laws be instituted in bars and restaurants will support allowing pot smoking in all public locals.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I have never smoked pot and would not if it were legalized, but I would prefer that it be legalized and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes than to continue to fill our prisons with non-violent offenders that get busted for having a joint or drug paraphernalia.

Make it legal. Treat it like alcohol in reference to driving and stop making criminals out of kids that take a tote.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

your saying DRUGS Fitz.....it seems most here are just saying Pot.....i certainly do not want harder stuff legalised.....as i have said many a time.....im all for Pot until they make Alcohol and Cigs illegal.....until then......

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Fine.......we'll make it simple for you, because apparently your brain pan isn't big enough to hold a whole concept.........

Legalize anything that is a plant. Period. Plants aren't drugs, they're plants.

However.........if you want to refine that plant, THEN it becomes a drug. Case in point? Cocoa leaves. If you chew them, it is about the same as having a cup of coffee. It's helpful to those living in the Andes, because it helps them to take up more oxygen at higher altitudes. And, if you chew cocoa leaves, guess what? You don't become addicted or suffer the kind of problems that those who use cocaine do. Why? Because the chlorophyll and plant material acts as a safety valve.

Refine the cocoa leaves until you have the pure cocaine? Well.....you've just taken out all the safety valves, and you can cause your heart to explode as well as suffer other bad effects. And........it's highly addictive. Why? All the safety valves have been removed.

By the way, remember what God told Adam and Eve when they got kicked out of Eden? He stated that if it grows out of the ground, you may have it. Interestingly enough, cocoa leaves generally grow at high altitude. I kinda think God knew what He was doing.

Besides, cannabis has been in use for thousands of years. Matter of fact, in some excavation sites in Israel, they have found evidence of both medicinal and recreational use of cannabis. One of the ingredients of the Holy Anointing Oil for the Kings of Israel was cannabis oil.

So no. Don't legalize drugs, but DO legalize plants. If you refine those plants into drugs? You should go to jail.

Same for meth and heroin by the way, those are drugs because they are created by mankind.

Ladies and gentlemen, the slippery slope. Next the complaint will be 'the refining shouldn't be a crime'.

We as a nation do not have the moral clarity to be smart about this issue. The Me Generation assassinated that while stoned out of their gourds.

Oh, and satan is talked about in the bible too. Doesn't mean he's a good guy either.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm willing to concede this point if I have it codified into law that it is permitted to discriminate against druggies, and bar them from ALL public assistance, financial or material.

You wanna wreck your life, you don't get to do it at my expense OR in my proximity. I want the right to bar you from my property, access to my children, tax money, neigborhood, driving, workplace and government. You can avoid this by choosing to NOT be a dope....head.

Oh, and automatic death penalty for crimes committed for or while on drugs.

Do that and it fucks over all the right people. Drug growers, traffickers and foreign powers while protecting our rights and culls these assholes out of society.

If it was made legal, it would be regualted like smoking and alcohol.

Pols love to make laws and tax shit. It would be like Xmas and the Ramadan feast happening all at the same time.

I wonder if any of the liberals who demand anti-smoking laws be instituted in bars and restaurants will support allowing pot smoking in all public locals.

Immie

You notice that, do you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Pot is nearly harmless.

This country would be much better off if more people used it in place of booze

Except for the fact that if YOU are using it, it shows a very real possibility of diminished mental function.

Actually, diminished mental functions happen if a person uses cannabis prior to becoming an adult. Same thing happens with alcohol by the way. Why? Because a human's brain hasn't finished forming until around 18 or 20.

If you smoke after that? No lasting effects, just a bit of short term memory goes, but it comes back after the effects have worn off.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Fine.......we'll make it simple for you, because apparently your brain pan isn't big enough to hold a whole concept.........

Legalize anything that is a plant. Period. Plants aren't drugs, they're plants.

However.........if you want to refine that plant, THEN it becomes a drug. Case in point? Cocoa leaves. If you chew them, it is about the same as having a cup of coffee. It's helpful to those living in the Andes, because it helps them to take up more oxygen at higher altitudes. And, if you chew cocoa leaves, guess what? You don't become addicted or suffer the kind of problems that those who use cocaine do. Why? Because the chlorophyll and plant material acts as a safety valve.

Refine the cocoa leaves until you have the pure cocaine? Well.....you've just taken out all the safety valves, and you can cause your heart to explode as well as suffer other bad effects. And........it's highly addictive. Why? All the safety valves have been removed.

By the way, remember what God told Adam and Eve when they got kicked out of Eden? He stated that if it grows out of the ground, you may have it. Interestingly enough, cocoa leaves generally grow at high altitude. I kinda think God knew what He was doing.

Besides, cannabis has been in use for thousands of years. Matter of fact, in some excavation sites in Israel, they have found evidence of both medicinal and recreational use of cannabis. One of the ingredients of the Holy Anointing Oil for the Kings of Israel was cannabis oil.

So no. Don't legalize drugs, but DO legalize plants. If you refine those plants into drugs? You should go to jail.

Same for meth and heroin by the way, those are drugs because they are created by mankind.

Ladies and gentlemen, the slippery slope. Next the complaint will be 'the refining shouldn't be a crime'.

We as a nation do not have the moral clarity to be smart about this issue. The Me Generation assassinated that while stoned out of their gourds.

Oh, and satan is talked about in the bible too. Doesn't mean he's a good guy either.

Hey there you penis puffing colon jousting cock monkey.........if you'd actually bothered to read my post, you would have seen where I speak out AGAINST refinement, so no......there is no slippery slope.

I see that you still believe the bullshit laid on you by Anslinger and his cronies via Reefer Madness. No, cannabis does not make you act violently or anything like that. By the way douchebag, did you know that the whole reason cannabis was made illegal in the first place was because an FBI man named Anslinger (who was a racist) didn't like brown or black people and was looking for a way to lock them up legally, which also explains the ultra severe sentencing. Nope, sorry.......if you support keeping cannabis illegal, then you support racism.

Yeah. I know SaTan is mentioned in the Bible. However, you fucking moron, I didn't say anything about the Bible, I was mentioning the fact that they'd found archaeological evidence.

Try again stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yea, why don't we legalize cocaine and acid while we are at it.

Because the nanny-statist don't truly believe in whole freedom/responsiblity thing.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's true. Many in the churches got behind the temperance movement the same way they got behind the emancipation movement pre-civil war. Although they favored prohibition as a solution, it didn't make many of the blue laws that came out of the period post-prohibition bad things. Like I said before, many of our quality of life laws came from that period when there were necessary regulations put out there to prevent the creations of hells-on-wheels as Jack Casement coined the term.

My problem stems from the fact that our society is too irresponsible, immature, and immoral to handle legalized drug use a this time. We're too often willing to give in to the desires of the reprobate and rabble-rousing troublemaker than we are protect the responsible citizenry. We are incapable of doing a morally correct thing and setting hard boundaries for the use of, an lifestyle choices of drug addicts like Lulu here (you admitted you use in 2 threads I've seen so far, so proudly own up to it).

Lastly, it's a state issue, not federal. I've no problem seeing the DEA and all other federal law enforcement agencies devoted to the war on drugs broken up to the states accordingly and let them decide the issue.

But regardless, if drugs are legalized, I want to make DAMN SURE that I am neither obligated, required or forced to associate, or support anyone who takes drugs by law or statute or regulation or taxcode. Nor should they be allowed the same rights as any responsible citizen who DOESN'T use them. Why? because they are by nature irresponsible and cannot be trusted to fulfill their obligations as a citizen. If you want to do drugs, you're on your own, completely and will not have the power to fuck up the lives of others by your irresponsible behavior.

Like I said, the temperance movement, for all its flaws, and there were quite a few, had the right idea that citizens should be allowed to demand a nicer place to live and at least on the local and state level, create laws accordingly in which provide the style of life they wish to have. But it seems this wisdom has been lost on current society so we must suffer more because of it till we remember why we did such things.

your saying DRUGS Fitz.....it seems most here are just saying Pot.....i certainly do not want harder stuff legalised.....as i have said many a time.....im all for Pot until they make Alcohol and Cigs illegal.....until then......

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Classic thought process of the Nanny-Statist.

 

[California Girl]

I have never smoked pot and would not if it were legalized, but I would prefer that it be legalized and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes than to continue to fill our prisons with non-violent offenders that get busted for having a joint or drug paraphernalia.

Make it legal. Treat it like alcohol in reference to driving and stop making criminals out of kids that take a tote.

Immie

They can legalize it.... IF they guarantee that I won't be picking up the tab for the consequences. Because, despite the constant (and desperate) denials.... it has consequences... including acting as a trigger for a variety of mental illnesses. You want even more mentally challenged Americans? Fine. Have 'em. But not on my tab.

 

[Big Fitz]

your saying DRUGS Fitz.....it seems most here are just saying Pot.....i certainly do not want harder stuff legalised.....as i have said many a time.....im all for Pot until they make Alcohol and Cigs illegal.....until then......

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Classic thought process of the Nanny-Statist.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue as to my stance on the nanny state. Blind is such an appropriate name for you.

I suspect you just want license to be yet another brain damaged, irresponsible stoner hence why you can't stand even a whiff of accountability placed upon you for your actions even if it IS legallized.

Let me ask this then. If it were allowed to legalize Marinol (the pill form of the drug THC found in marijuana in much higher concentrations) but other uses of pot was not, would you be satisfied?

 

[BlindBoo]

Heroin is made with poppy, hon. It's from a plant.
Shrooms will give you a high as well...possibly a dangerous one. They come from the ground as well.

Herion is refined from opium. Opium is extracted from certain varieties of poppies. Raw opium contains about 12% morphine. Never really did opium back in the day so I can't comment on it effects

If you find the right shrooms they can give you a LSD like experience. Choose the wrong ones and your insides could turn to mush.

I think they should both be legally avaliable to consenting adults.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have never smoked pot and would not if it were legalized, but I would prefer that it be legalized and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes than to continue to fill our prisons with non-violent offenders that get busted for having a joint or drug paraphernalia.

Make it legal. Treat it like alcohol in reference to driving and stop making criminals out of kids that take a tote.

Immie

They can legalize it.... IF they guarantee that I won't be picking up the tab for the consequences. Because, despite the constant (and desperate) denials.... it has consequences... including acting as a trigger for a variety of mental illnesses. You want even more mentally challenged Americans? Fine. Have 'em. But not on my tab.

I do believe they're arguing for that result i.n this very thread