California man gets POT back! [Archive] - DC Junkies Political Message Board

View Full Version : California man gets POT back!

notThe1

04-30-2009, 12:35 AM

California man gets POT back!

Score one for the good guys. A California man is acquitted of marijuana cultivation and possession charges by a jury of his peers. Why? Probably because the good people of Visalia CA. realize that it is a border-line harmless substance, a victimless crime, and in this gentleman's case, a source of medicinal relief. By the way, I love how the guy weighs out all his dank at the end. Gotta' make sure that the cops or other agents of our wonderful criminal justice system didn't dip into his stash
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=22a_1241061961
http://vidzking.com/?q=Tags/California-man-gets-POT-back

Bill Cosby

04-30-2009, 12:45 AM

LOL.............

:thumbsup:

wayers57

04-30-2009, 12:47 AM

Hog Trash

04-30-2009, 12:52 AM

Standing ovation! :happy:

I wonder how many Americans know about Jury Nullificatin?

Bill Cosby

04-30-2009, 01:03 AM

The feds should cut off all funding for highways in this state until they decide to do something about their pot heads.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/customavatars/avatar798_10.gif

He amonst you that has not smoked cast the first stone.........

wayers57

04-30-2009, 01:08 AM

http://www.dcjunkies.com/customavatars/avatar798_10.gif

He amonst you that has not smoked cast the first stone.........

that is just my avatar, I have never smoked cigarettes and only pot a few times. People that smoke are people that can't get through a day without a fix or crutch. People operating a motor vehicle are no different than a drunk in their judgement and should be held accountable.

notThe1

04-30-2009, 01:10 AM

Standing ovation! :happy:

I wonder how many Americans know about Jury Nullificatin?
Thats a good point. You can be guilty and the jury can find the punishment excessive and throw it out. I hope my jury knows. :disbelief:

Bill Cosby

04-30-2009, 01:31 AM

Hog Trash

04-30-2009, 04:27 AM

Thats a good point. You can be guilty and the jury can find the punishment excessive and throw it out. I hope my jury knows. :disbelief:Not exactly...Jury Nullification states you can be guilty but the jury may still acquit for several reasons.

Most judges will not allow a jury to be instructed regarding Jury Nullification.

If you're ever called for jury duty and you don't wish to serve, just mention at the interview you are aware of JN and usually you'll be out the door quick!Jury Nullification

DEFINITIONS

"Jury nullification occurs when guilt is established but the jury decides to acquit on its own sense of fairness, propriety, prejudice, or any other sentiment or concern." Randall Kennedy, Race, Crime, and the Law (1997)

"Jury nullification… may take on a variety of meanings or shades of meaning."

"True" or stringent nullification "occurs when the jury recognizes that a defendant's act is proscribed by the law but acquits because it does not believe the act should be proscribed. The behavior, in other words, is not criminal in the eyes of the jury."

"Intermediate" nullification occurs when "although the act proved is properly classified as criminal, it is within a class of acts that do not deserve the punishment prescribed for them."

"Weak" or "ad hoc" nullification "reflects the jury's view that although the act proved is criminal and falls in a class of acts that may well deserve the prescribed punishment, such punishment is inappropriate in the case at hand."
http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/lessons/nullification/definitions.html

Independent Harry

04-30-2009, 01:37 PM

lol awesome, he got his pot back...that rules.

Binky

04-30-2009, 04:09 PM

The feds should cut off all funding for highways in this state until they decide to do something about their pot heads.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather be a "pothead" than a "pothole." :lmao2: :lmao2:

Binky

04-30-2009, 04:10 PM

http://www.dcjunkies.com/customavatars/avatar798_10.gif

He amonst you that has not smoked cast the first stone.........

No stone throwing coming from my direction. :D

Binky

04-30-2009, 04:26 PM

that is just my avatar, I have never smoked cigarettes and only pot a few times. People that smoke are people that can't get through a day without a fix or crutch. People operating a motor vehicle are no different than a drunk in their judgement and should be held accountable.

Well, as I said in another post, I only smoke pot after 6pm when I know I'm not leaving the house. And it isn't a crutch for me. I like it and there are times when I don't even touch it. And since I stay home when using it, I feel safe to say that I'm not driving my vehicle while smoking it.

One could also argue that booze is a huge crutch and when drinking and driving one is behind the wheel of a lethal weapon. Weed is very minor by comparison. You want to talk about impairing ones judgement, try that one on for size. Booze will impair one's judgement far more than a joint ever will. It's a hell of a lot safer to puff on a joint than it is to tip the old elbow until one is floating off into obivilion, so to speak. The worst that's ever happened to me while smoking it is I felt like exploding from a serious case of the munchies.

wayers57

04-30-2009, 04:45 PM

Well, as I said in another post, I only smoke pot after 6pm when I know I'm not leaving the house. And it isn't a crutch for me. I like it and there are times when I don't even touch it. And since I stay home when using it, I feel safe to say that I'm not driving my vehicle while smoking it.

One could also argue that booze is a huge crutch and when drinking and driving one is behind the wheel of a lethal weapon. Weed is very minor by comparison. You want to talk about impairing ones judgement, try that one on for size. Booze will impair one's judgement far more than a joint ever will. It's a hell of a lot safer to puff on a joint than it is to tip the old elbow until one is floating off into obivilion, so to speak. The worst that's ever happened to me while smoking it is I felt like exploding from a serious case of the munchies.

Tell that to my stepson who was driving after a joint, he killed two of his friends and now has titanium in his hip. His weed habit lead him to bigger drugs as an adult eventually landing him a felony. It is a shame as he has a degree in graphic design but can't get a job in his field unless he wants to work for minimum wage.

Binky

04-30-2009, 04:56 PM

Tell that to my stepson who was driving after a joint, he killed two of his friends and now has titanium in his hip. His weed habit lead him to bigger drugs as an adult eventually landing him a felony. It is a shame as he has a degree in graphic design but can't get a job in his field unless he wants to work for minimum wage.

What led him to bigger drugs is the fact that he was weak. A strong minded individual, such as myself, has the ability to stay away from that stuff. He was bored with the high he got from weed and wanted something that gave him a bigger and better high for his buck. If weed were the problem then millions upon millions of us would be out running others down while smoking it. Give me a freakin' break. I don't smoke nor do I drink. My only vice is some weed. I can promise you that never in my life has it led me to want to use other drugs. Nor have I gone out and ran someone down because I smoked a joint. How fuckin' stupid. :doh:

Binky

04-30-2009, 05:02 PM

wayers57

04-30-2009, 05:18 PM

And in this day and age, there isn't a damn thing wrong with working for minimum wage. A job is a job. To work at something for some sort of pay is better than sitting around collecting a welfare check and living off the rest of us. Earning even a small wage is good for the soul and will make one a better person in the end. :thumbsup:

that wasn't my point, my point was if he had layed off the weed, his life would have had a much different path. He would have been making 50,000 to 75,000/year possibly more in his own business. We all reap from our choices.

Mr, gone

05-01-2009, 06:09 AM

With responsible use, it should be up to the individual what 'drugs he/she chooses to ingest. When innocent people are physically altered as a result of irresponsible use, then those individuals should be punished accordingly. This crap about jailing someone who pocesses a few joints is a waste in millions of taxpayers dollars yearly.

Wayner, I feel you (as is millions of others) are unable to present an odjective view regarding this issue. I am convinced by comparing both substances myself, that achohol is a much more dangerous drug than pot under the same circumstances. I agree with Binky regarding the 'gateway effect' that ALL drugs (including alcohol) can have. It is the individual's addictive personality wich determines what level of 'buzz' is needed. Your stepson would likely have digressed to hard drugs regardless of what intial drug was utilized. This propaganda that pot is somehow more dangerous than even cocaine (as is displayed on the FDA's scheduling list) is completely ridiculous, and further justifies my comtempt for that administration's integrity!

Most people always have and will, desire a mental escape, cleansing or coping mechanism from the daily traumas that accumilate as a result of our cognition. Evoulution has not yet caught up to alleviate all the human addictive vices - of which a sampling below just scapes the surface of...

And used without caution can all be fatal...:disbelief:

Alcohol, Cigarrettes, Pot, Cocaine, opiates, downers, uppers, Steriods, Sex:D, Food, Addrenaline!

Binky

05-01-2009, 09:32 AM

that wasn't my point, my point was if he had layed off the weed, his life would have had a much different path. He would have been making 50,000 to 75,000/year possibly more in his own business. We all reap from our choices.

Yep, if you lie around smoking the stuff from the minute your feet hit the floor until you go to bed, then you will be lazy as an old sow, not wanting to get up and get motivated.

Anyway, no sense in wasting time dwelling on what our grown kids have done or not done. It's out of our control. Many times they don't even want our advice, which could leave them stumbling over the vast mistakes they make. They're going to do what they're going to do.

Cat slave

05-01-2009, 11:07 AM

Well, as I said in another post, I only smoke pot after 6pm when I know I'm not leaving the house. And it isn't a crutch for me. I like it and there are times when I don't even touch it. And since I stay home when using it, I feel safe to say that I'm not driving my vehicle while smoking it.

One could also argue that booze is a huge crutch and when drinking and driving one is behind the wheel of a lethal weapon. Weed is very minor by comparison. You want to talk about impairing ones judgement, try that one on for size. Booze will impair one's judgement far more than a joint ever will. It's a hell of a lot safer to puff on a joint than it is to tip the old elbow until one is floating off into obivilion, so to speak. The worst that's ever happened to me while smoking it is I felt like exploding from a serious case of the munchies.

ROTFL....:lmao2: ...the munchie syndrome thing!

I dont do pot because I dont know how to smoke but I still think people
should be able to use it as it is nowhere as dangerous to anyone else
as alcohol. And I dont think it is a problem for recreational or medical
use.

I say stop wasting the time of law enforcement so it can be applied where
it is needed, ie child molesters, murderers and true criminals.

Leave the weed alone and get over it. Imprison criminals for a change.

Cat slave

05-01-2009, 11:10 AM

Yep, if you lie around smoking the stuff from the minute your feet hit the floor until you go to bed, then you will be lazy as an old sow, not wanting to get up and get motivated.

Anyway, no sense in wasting time dwelling on what our grown kids have done or not done. It's out of our control. Many times they don't even want our advice, which could leave them stumbling over the vast mistakes they make. They're going to do what they're going to do.

Thats the truth and we will know when they have reached true maturity, they
will at last see and even admit that we were right! It usually takes falling
flat on their faces to get that much needed reality check though.:D
Tough love works too.

Bill Cosby

05-02-2009, 03:54 PM

that wasn't my point, my point was if he had layed off the weed, his life would have had a much different path. He would have been making 50,000 to 75,000/year possibly more in his own business. We all reap from our choices.

Sorry to hear about your son............

Perhaps that would have happened or perhaps it would have been beer or moonshine......:dunno:

IMO booze is legal & worse then pot.......... We have all heard about the person getting drunk doing stupid shit, beating their spouse, friends killing ppl etc......... I never heard anyone getting smoked up & beating their spouse or kicking the dog etc........

Not to say in the billions of times ppl smoked it did not happen but it certainly would be uncommon & news to me.........

They laws against it are simply archaic & niXon was nuts for starting this craZy war on drugs.... We have more ppl in prison then China or Russia or even India............

How Alcohol Prohibition Was Ended
by Richard M. Evans (http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/endprohb.htm)

You saved the very foundation of our Government. No man can tell where we would have gone, or to what we would have fallen, had not this repeal been brought about.
-Letter to the VCL, 1933

This is a story about a small, remarkable group of lawyers who took it upon themselves, as a self- appointed committee, to propel a revolution in a drug policy: the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

In 1927, nine prominent New York lawyers associated themselves under the intentionally-bland name, "Voluntary Committee of Lawyers," declaring as their purpose " to preserve the spirit of the Constitution of the United States [by] bring[ing] about the repeal of the so-called Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Ammendment." With the modest platform they thus commanded, reinforced by their significant stature in the legal community, they undertook first to draft and promote repeal resolutions for local and state bar asssociations. Their success culminated with the American Bar Association calling for repeal in 1928, after scores of city and state bar associations in all regions of the country had spoken unambiguously, in words and ideas cultivated, shaped, and sharpened by the VCL.

As it turned out, this successwas but prelude to their stunnung achievement several years later. Due in large to the VCL"s extraordinary work, the 18tg Amendment was, in less than a year, surgically struck from the Constitution. Repeal was a reality. The patient was well. People could drink.

Here is how it happened.

Climaxing decades of gathering hostility towards salloons and moral outrage over the general degeneracy said to be flowing from bottles and kegs, the Cocstitution of the United States had been amended, effective 1920, to progibit the manufacture and sale of "intoxicating liquors." the Volstead Act, the federal statute implementing the prohibitionamindmint, progibited commerce in beer as well.

At first prohibition was popular among those who had suppored it, and tolerated by the others. But before long, unmistakable grumbling was heard in the cities. To meet the uninterrupted demand for alcohol, there sprang up bathtub ginworks and basement stills, tight and discrete illegal supply networks, and speakeasies: secret, illegal bars remembered chiefly today as where, for the first time, women were seen smoking in public.

Commerse in alcohol plunged underground, and soon fell under the control of thugs and gangsters, whose organizations often acquired their merchandise legally in Canada. Violence aften settled commercial differences- necessarily, it might be said, as suppliers and distributors were denied the services of lawyers, insurance companies, and the civil courts. On the local level, widesspread disobedience of the progibition laws by otherwise law-abiding citizens produced numerous arrests. Courts were badly clogged, in large part because nearly all defendents demanded jury trials, confident that a jury of their peers was likely to view their plight sympathetically.

With the growth of well-organized and serious national anti-Prohibition groups like Americans Against the Prohibition Amendment and the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, popular support for repeal grew geometrically during the thirteen years of Prohibition. In th midst of the 1932 presidential election campaign, it erupted.

It was summer. Millions were broken from economic depression, beleaguered by crime and corruption, and thirsty.

As expected, the Republicans nominated the incumbent President, Herbert Hoover, who was pledged to support Prohibition. The VCL made a stalwart effort to gain a repeal plank in the platform, taking the debate as far as the convention floor, where they were turned away by a preponderance of delegates.

The sitution was much different with the Democrats. Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, who led in the delegate count, had carefully avoided taking a position on repeal. At the convention, a successful floor fight produced a pro-repeal plank- drafted and defended by the VCL- in the Democratic platform, which FDR unambiguously endorsed in his acceptance speech. "Tjis convention wants repeal," he declared. "Your candidate wants repeal."

During the election campaign, FDR made one unequivocal speech endorsing repeal. Otherwise, both candidates successfully aboided the issue, despite- or perhaps because of- their having takin opposite positions. "Politics is the art of changing the subject," observed Walter Mondale many years later.

When the only thing standing in the way of repeal was the election of FDR, thousnads of "wets" and hundreds of "wet" organizations moved unambiguously behind the Democrat. The message was clear: Roosevelt meant repeal, and repeal meant Roosevelt.

People wanted both, and Roosevelt triumphed in the election. The Number of "wets" in Congress grew significantly. In the nine states, voters passed referenda repealing the state prohibition laws.

This is when th VCL stepped forward and took on the remarkable leadership and responsibility for which they were so uniquelyequipped. It required no particular insight into the nature of democracy to know that when the weight of public opinion demanded repeal of Prohibition, Prohibition would be repealed. The question was how. Certainly, lest the repeal process- like any important undertaking- become mired in political and legal entanglements, a thorough and solid legal plan was essential.

For years, repeal advocates had urged that the repeal question should be resolved by conventions in the states, which is one of two methods prescribed in the Constitution for ratifying amendments. Problem was, this method had never been used. Always, the matter of amending the Constitution had been (and to this day has been) decided by state legislatures. But to "wets," that was out of the question, as state legislatures were notoriousy "dry," being dominated by rural, fundamentalist interests, passionate in their defense of progibition. (The "one man, one vote" rule would not become law for another thirty-one years.) The repeal resolution had to bypass state legislatures and go th popularly- elected conventions, if it were to succeed.

But by whom were such conventions to be called? How were delegated to be chosen? When and where were they to convene? Who would preside? By what rules should the convention conduct itself? What rights and priveleges would delegates have? How were conflicts between state and federal law to be resolved?

Heavy questions, these and neither Congress nor any state had spoken on the subject. Enter the VCL.

Conferring with eminent Constitutional scholars, conducting exhaustive legal and historical research, feverishly circulating drafts of statutes, memoranda, briefs, summaries, etc.- the working drawings of legal change- the VCL quickly produced a prototype state statute, which dealt with all of the organizational problims involved in setting up Constitutional camventions in the states. It was as invulnerable to legal challenge as the best legal- minds could make it. Called "truly representative," the conventions were carefully set up to mirror exactly the priferences of voters. This was accomplished by voters electing delegates pledged for or against repeal, and apportioning delegates based for or against vote. Thus the convention process became essentially a two- step referendum: voters would speak, and delegates would vote accordingly. In no way were the conventions to be deliberative bodies. The pretense of debvate was not to stand in the way of repeal.

Copies of the draft bills were sent to every governor and legislative leader in all the states. Utilizing their impressive network of affiliate- members throughout the forty-eight states, as well as their expuisite and plucky legal skills, the VCL provided expert witnesses for legislative hearings, submitted thorough legal briefs, defended legalchallenges, answered Constitutional questions- in short, enable states to prepare for the day that Congress would pass a repeal resolution and send it to the states for ratification.

Congress finally loosened the steamroller on February 20, 1933, an by December 5, in thirty-six states (the necessary three-fourths) legislation setting up conventions had been enacted, the conventions had been called, delegates had been elected and convened, and repeal resolution had passed! the final rollcall vote, in Utah, was eagerly monitored by millions over a national radio broadcast.

Nearly all the states that ratified the repeal resolution relied heavily on the prototype statute promulgated by the VCL. Many enacted it verbatim, others borrowed from it heavily.

Several hours after Utah ratified the 21st Amendment, while millions of Americans were celebrating, the VCL treasurer quietly balanced the books by making a final contribution from his own pocket in the amount of $6.66, and closed them permanently. Who were they?

At its peak, the VCL claimed around 3,500 "affiliate" lawyers in all states among its members. The organization was managed, however, by tight coterie of nine impeccably established "white shoe" lawyers.

For the entire term of its existence, the VCL was chaired by Joseph H. Choate, Jr., son of Theodore Roosevelt's ambassador to England, and an eminent Park Avenue lawyer. The organization's treasurer was Harrison Tweed, another Harvard/Harvard man, one of the country's most successful lawyers, and a prime mover in many important civic causes.

Choate and Tweed and seven others, similarily pedigreed, called themselves the Executive Committee, and prudently managed the affaurs of the organization. They were elite, but by no means elitist. They solicited affiliates in every state and participation by as many lawyers as possible, using ads placed in lawyers' magazines. very inquiry brought a thoughtful and deliberate response, as well as an appeal for financial support.

The executive committee hired an Executive Secretary, Mrs. H.P. Rhoudy, who ran the national office, and visited many state capitals, inlisting local lawyers and political figures in the cause. Her dispatches back to New York ring of diplomacy at its best.

What motivated these men? Their formal corporate charter, adopted in 1927, declared their grievances:

The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act violate the basic principles of our law and government and encroach upon the powers properly reserved to the States and the people.

The attempt to enforce them has been productive of such evils and abuses as are necessarily incident to violation of those principles, insluding disrespect for laws; obstruction of the due administration of justice; corruption of public officials; abuse of legal process; resort by the Government to improper and illegal acts int procurement of evidence; infringement of such constitutional guarantees as immunity from double jeopardy and illegal search and seizure.

Surely, the VCL executive committee were men of sociey where Prohibition was decidely unpopular, but their declared objective was to exise from the Constitution a vexatious and festering sore. When they achieved that objective, they disbanded.

What are the lessons of their success? Certainly, timing, preparation, and the creed of any good lobbyist: that one doesn't have to be a politician to make policy.

A more foreboding lesson is that the United States Constitution, upon which we ultimately rely for the preservation of our form of government and our sacred individual liberties, is highly vulnerable to the force public opinion. If the 18th Amendment can be repealed in a mere 288 days, cannot the First, or the Fifth? As the VCL prototype stature was not specific to repeal, the mechanism they helped put in place likely remains on the book in all states that enacted it.

Leaders of the VCL were railroad lawyers. What railroads paid them handsomely for, they did for the public gratis. They saw a train coming, and hurriedly secured all the rights and easements necessary if it were to reach its destination, avoiding a morass of debilitating lawsuits and other legal complications. Had they not made this vital contribution, ratification may well have failed.

Mr, gone

05-02-2009, 07:18 PM

Bill Cosby, Thanks for posting a great read regarding this topic. :thumbsup: Additionally, I recommend a great video entitled "The Gang". It describes how the ATF and IRS emerged from what was originally intended as an enforcement agency for moonshine during prohibition.

Bill Cosby

05-02-2009, 07:32 PM

Smurf-Herder

05-03-2009, 06:05 PM

Well, I've been smokin' weed since I was 13. Never had a problem with the law, or doing anything dangerous from being high. Unfortunately, with no real crime down here in Green Acres, the police have nothing better to do than bust all the dealers - leaving us all dry for the past couple months. Even in MA, it was around, but all the kids have gone straight; so us old stoners are just Jones-ing.

And I don't do alcohol, because I get drunk too easily; then left with a sleepy headache an hour later. I haven't even had a beer in 7 years. So now I'm up to 2 packs of cigarettes a day ... and the friggin' things were $9.48 a pack in MA.

Bill Cosby

05-03-2009, 06:24 PM

What state are you in??? If I may ask???

Smurf-Herder

05-03-2009, 07:19 PM

What state are you in??? If I may ask???

Virginia.

And in the most "civil-war minded" county - Shenandoah. When I first moved down here, MTV was refused by the local cable TV monopoly - because the owner's wife didn't want it allowed. But they're slowly coming into a 20th Century mindset.

Bill Cosby

05-04-2009, 12:55 AM

Virginia.

And in the most "civil-war minded" county - Shenandoah. When I first moved down here, MTV was refused by the local cable TV monopoly - because the owner's wife didn't want it allowed. But they're slowly coming into a 20th Century mindset.

LOL…….. I have been in Virginia many times.. Front Royal to Newport News to the belt way…..

I take it you are not a local………..

I liked Front Royal the rest of the place I would not be as fond of….

cheffy

05-04-2009, 02:05 PM

I'm in the process of getting my 215 medical card. I have an appointment on Wednesday to see the doctor. I'm a bit nervous, but I'm sure all will go well.

Smurf-Herder

05-04-2009, 06:30 PM

LOL…….. I have been in Virginia many times.. Front Royal to Newport News to the belt way…..

I take it you are not a local………..

I liked Front Royal the rest of the place I would not be as fond of….

I lived in Plymouth, MA and Buzzards Bay, MA until I was 34.

I'm a Yankee from Cape Cod ........... where the cops take your weed, to smoke for themselves.

Bill Cosby

05-05-2009, 01:33 AM

I lived in Plymouth, MA and Buzzards Bay, MA until I was 34.

I'm a Yankee from Cape Cod ........... where the cops take your weed, to smoke for themselves.

LOL..... I knew ppl from Nantucket & they always talked about how cool it was there..........

How you fitting in there???

Honestly the folks I knew from Natucket & Front Royal never got along that well...

Smurf-Herder

05-05-2009, 06:23 PM

LOL..... I knew ppl from Nantucket & they always talked about how cool it was there..........

How you fitting in there???

Honestly the folks I knew from Natucket & Front Royal never got along that well...

It's a mixed bag.

My first week down here I asked a girl at a Mobil station (on the Rte. 66 exit at Front Royal, btw) where I could find a decent Chinese Restaurant. She gave me a dirty look and said, she only eats American Food. And our first next-door neighbor couldn't wrap her head around the concept of Cranberry Bogs.

One of our customers likes to call me "Boston" .... as if it's supposed to mean anything to me. Most people think I'm from New York.

How do I fit in? I avoid as much contact with the local population as possible. :lmao2:

Luckily, more people are moving into the valley from out of state. And finally, we have Dunkin Donuts in the area, as of a few years ago. Back in '93 I couldn't even get a newspaper after 9pm; and all Internet access was long distance.

Bill Cosby

05-06-2009, 12:42 AM

It's a mixed bag.

My first week down here I asked a girl at a Mobil station (on the Rte. 66 exit at Front Royal, btw) where I could find a decent Chinese Restaurant. She gave me a dirty look and said, she only eats American Food. And our first next-door neighbor couldn't wrap her head around the concept of Cranberry Bogs.

One of our customers likes to call me "Boston" .... as if it's supposed to mean anything to me. Most people think I'm from New York.

How do I fit in? I avoid as much contact with the local population as possible. :lmao2:

Luckily, more people are moving into the valley from out of state. And finally, we have Dunkin Donuts in the area, as of a few years ago. Back in '93 I couldn't even get a newspaper after 9pm; and all Internet access was long distance.

LOL............ That was a lot like I thought it must be....