smoking, pot, hooch, drugs ....

Paul has made the most common-sense decision about this. In Montana we had conflicting state versus federal law and lots of folks got burned and growers lost their propertyand ended up in the can. For now, it's just Bad Juju here. When the cops show up because of some complaint about hippies or cults, Paul need to be able to opent the door wide and say come on in and look around. The same should go for dicey undocumented guns as well. Sadly, we should assume that the place will be surveiled. Too much risk for the property owner. Period..

large scale hooch production: Well, I think that the growing could be at TL and the processing could be at BC.

smokers: I was recently somewhere were i was about 60 yards away from a smoker outdoors and that wasn't far enough.

Paul is asking people to sign up for hard labor for education, fun, and the heck of it.

I started to answer this, but I got a little long winded and posted here instead.

My feeling is that anyone not pulling their weight will be asked to move on.

Yes. At the same time, I am a big fan of systems where a person can work hard for one period and then goof off for another period. Capitalism (from what little i know) is something where you can work hard for six months and then take three years off living frugally. In other words, go be a corporate whore for six months, and then be an artist in seed and soil for three years.

I was just thinking, as to processing, that any traditional processing means, up to and including jacking, would be of necessity low-energy. Presses can be made entirely out of wood, all that is needed for casks is a cooper (banding for barrels has apparently been made out of bamboo in Asia, split, plaited, and applied green, they shrink and tighten as they dry), and again, it can apply to many kinds of fermentation and preservation. Based on much of what comes out of the podcasts, I would venture that the more that can be done in a low-energy way in terms of providing products for sale, the more those items could be sold for to those who are looking for way-beyond organic.

The restricted energy and materials uses on TL could well act as a quality control feature for stuff that gets produced from scratch on the land so it never comes in contact with even the limited quasi-ick that might be allowed at BC, meaning safer foods and higher-value goods.

This is by way of discussion, not argument. Whatever you say, goes.

As to the whole artwork in seed and soil equating to goofing off, I think this is another example of superior work ethic acting as a character filter. For some, three years of idleness entails drunkenness and drugs. For you, it means what other people would call hard work. I, for the record, though I enjoy my pot, and try to drink my two glasses of biodynamic red a night, am much closer to your end of the scale, or at least I want to be. I just don't see you attracting the type of layabout that would cause the kinds of problems you're envisioning, much less being fooled by them in the interview process.

And as I see it, capitalism is the third ethic; you are reinvesting profit into the system to ensure the system continues. There is no such thing as surplus, there are only truncated viewpoints. Or so I see it. If you find yourself with a surplus, or a waste resource, for that matter, you've just found out that you missed an area of lack, or one needing either a feedstock or investment, of either time and effort or non-waste resources.

I'm going to stop rambling now. I hope some of my points are helpful.

-CK

Stick to your guns, Paul. Pot has the potential to destroy your dream. I never allowed it, but people lied about using it, and I found young people growing it in the windows of the houses twice. I Just got them to leave. The problem was, people around the boundaries were growing it, and they were linked to hard drugs: Pot is definitely a gateway drug to worse stuff, worse trouble, and worse people, dangerous people.

I see Paul's point entirely. Any excuse and the war on drugs is at your doorstep.

Rainbow Farm was just down the road from me. I saw it first hand.

My house gets buzzed all the time because I let the back land go to tall weeds. Lol, they caught me and someone nude sunbathing last year (beached whales in Michigan). Hope those pics went to the white house.

However. Paul. What if you grew some tobacco on your land. The indians did use it for medicinal use also. I do not smoke anything, pop pills or such. But the human body needs simple pleasures. Is this a knee jerk reaction to cigs and the culture that defines it? Manufactured tobacco is an altered product.

The native indians used tobacco and traded for it all over the American continent. If my history is correct.

Just exploring the issue. I would also do some research into settlements and special populations that have done a little of what you are doing. For whatever reasons social, religion or whatnot. To try and avoid pitfalls. The monkey people have not changed much in the last epoch Paul. You are a different kind of guy. Most are not.

Ban cell phones ad wireless routers.

Greta,

There is no reason to demonize pot. It is a medication like any other. Saying that pot is a gateway drug ignores the ubiquity of alcohol in our society, which, along with tobacco, primes children and teens for irresponsible attitudes towards recreational intoxication.

Idleness and stupidity are the real gateway, and the bits of rhetoric are just leftovers of the failed and mostly finished war on drugs. Education and purpose are the functional solutions.

As to merits (which are only really valid in a medical and theraputic context), most natural painkilling alternatives are either highly toxic or physically addictive. Opium, a good example because it is similarly easy to grow, is equally easy to become addicted to, and one can easily overdose. Medical cannabis, however, is safe at the highest possible levels (not true for synthetic analogs); not only is it not possible to overdose, long-term therapeutic use for pain produces no side effects except for a slight dip in IQ (which brain plasticity exercises can adjust for) and a propensity to raid the fridge, small prices compared with the benefits to those who are otherwise unable to function due to their pain. Further, contrast this with the physical and social detriment of alcoholism, and ask yourself if your perspective isn't slightly skewed.

It's Paul's land, so what he says goes. So if he says no illegal activities, that covers a lot of ground. Though if people have been using the land recreationally, it is probable that if the culture exists, the land has been used in the past for growing, and an eye should be kept to looking for and eliminating remaining plants.

You guys don't have the option in Montana, but my strategy for combatting illegal outdoor grow operations on my own land will be licensed cultivation of industrial hemp. The levels of pollen in the air should do a good job of pollinating any female plants people want to stay seedless, and therefore, potent (for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, the smokable bud is only produced by female plants, and it rapidly loses potency as the plant moves to make seed, as many vegetables eaten as greens will grow bitter if they go to flower and seed). Don't know what I'm going to do to protect my own secret crops from that same pollen, though...

The bottom line, though, is that Paul has said that there will be no recreational drugs. Out of a recreational context, this ceases to be a relevant topic.

Daniel, while I agree to some extent with the sentiment, banning cell phones won't get rid of cell signals if the towers are already in place. As to wireless routers, their ranges are relatively short on the 200 acre stage. Both of these will be moot points on the part of TL that has no electricity.

-CK

Another great reason to build a community without pot: no more discussions about pot.

An interesting comment on a thread started to discuss the topic, Paul.

-CK

I would put myself in the B category.
While some great people may choose to go elsewhere due to a no smoking policy, there are many fine folks who will much prefer a clean environment.

Problem is, most botanists I know that aren't Big Ag Boys smoke pot regularly, and that is what led them to reject big ag. And I do agree about the property thing. Perhaps an unwritten don't ask don't tell policy to save your ass? For example, if someone uses said medicine, and NOBODY else ever ever finds out about it, isn't growing it on your property, and doesn't stand around burning the poor herb all the time, what would be the problem?

Just a hypothetical, I understand your views based on your viewpoint paul.

Let's be clear: if i see it, smell it or hear of it, the person wielding it will leave immediately.

If people are uncomfortable with that, then they should not come to the property.

If anybody is unsatisfied with the reasons I have already spelled out, then they should not come to the property either.

I cannot think of how I could possibly be any clearer.

Jocelyn and I recorded a podcast about the land yesterday. In other communities, people move in to have a place to hang out and be nurtured by the community. I think this community will be made of people that have a passion as deep as mine to work hard to change the world - and they like this direction.

Nearly all other communities are 420 friendly, so I don't see that anybody is really suffering because of this rule. This community is VERY different from the others. And the no-pot thing is the biggest roadblock for most of the people thinking of coming here.

We don't need 50,000 people. We need about 12. And so far it looks like we are going to have more than 12 - so we're doing fine.

So long as the rules are clear. And that's pretty clear. I want to voice my opinion that I think that there is too much focus on the substances in question. I think that the attitudes engendered are really trying to foster a productive environment free of legal entanglements, and I think that this discussion has made that clear.

Maybe it's contained in a thread I haven't seen mentioned in this forum, but perhaps it would be useful to have a discussion on what plants can be grown for either their use in herbal/natural treatments, or, as in the case of Foxglove (I think it's a Datura) for heart medication or japanese knotweed for extracts with anti-cancer/longevity properties, the same as are found in red wine (responsible for the so-called "French Disease," where the diet is not considered healthy by any reasonable measure, but they aren't plagued by the types of diseases of decadence you'd expect). Obviously that would not include plants you couldn't legally cultivate.

I just want to say that as a recreational pot smoker, I don't think I'd have an issue not smoking were I to visit for any length of time; I don't smoke at school, or at work, or with people who don't smoke. Also, even potheads can want to detox sometimes.

I am still unclear on the issue of whether or not a distinction is being made between alcohol as an excuse to get irresponsible versus beverages before/with/after (as to personal preference, on the observation that some prefer to separate liquids from solids so as to not dilute the digestive environment) meals that happen to have been fermented. Are you discarding that aspect of fermentation, full stop?

It's a conspiracy, I tell you. Paul wants to hoard all the sweet fruity goodness for pie filling preserves. It's a pie filling conspiracy!

-CK

I meant digitalis, datura is jimson weed.

-CK

Seems a bit ridiculous to allow alcohol but not pot, if you ban one you should ban both. Alcohol causes FAR more harm than pot ever could. On my land I do not allow cigarettes or alcohol, but homegrown tobacco and homemade wine and beer is ok, I've never known an alcoholic that was motivated enough to make his own beer or wine. I'm glad you have a clear idea of what you want your community to look like, Paul, it's just to bad people like me wont be able to have any part of it. I haven't gone a day without Cannabis since I got my medical card 5 years ago. So your no pot policy doesn't even leave room for a weekend visit for me.

Jeff, you will have to find a different community.

Alcohol does not fall into the space of "war on drugs". This decision has nothing to do with which is better or worse, healthwise. 90% of this decision is based on being a vector for trouble with the "War on drugs".

A **LOT** of people are totally cool with fighting that war. And I hope they get pot legalized. I have other battles.

It's all cool Paul, I realized I probably wouldn't work out well in your community a long time ago, before I was aware of your opinion of cannabis. No worries, there's room for all kinds of communities with all kinds of people. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work your doing though.

Note that Paul is being very explicit about his expectations and reasoning. I don't know if the story would be different if pot was completely legal, but I think the conversation would revolve around productivity.

It doesn't matter. I don't think my public position would be any different. Any community I put together will need to consider the presence of children, and they go everywhere. I have no issues with adults consuming alcohol in the presence of children, but the carrying on that accompanies rowdy drunken parties needs to be the exception rather than the rule.

I don't really differentiate in this space, because to my mind, apart from the legal issues, it's the attitude that one must be intoxicated all the time, and that this must be a protected right that I find incompatible with the idea of getting anything done. It takes time and effort, and a considerable amount of cash, to be an addict, and all three will be valuable commodities on TL.

-CK

Bill helped set up an intentional community near hear in 1978
They mostly smoke, crop , they dont get much done they import most of their food ,women no longer want to live /go there
they poison gleditsia!
lots of people dont achieve highley stoned

It's funny that Paul even has to say this. I think everyone could tell from the podcasts that pot would not be allowed on the farm for a few reasons. At least that's the impression I picked up over the last couple of years.

Paul, concerning people problems in general, do you see yourself always being the one mediating situations/fixing disputes/kicking people off your land? I feel like that can be a real time waster, especially during periods where there's a lot more people than usual on your farm, like workshop weekends. Do you envision ever having a person on the farm to specifically deal with these issues? Like a permies cop? Someone that knows you well and exactly what the rules are, and has no problem being as curt with people as you are? I feel like you're going to be busy enough without having to babysit a bunch of people. Although maybe in time all of your permanent residents will just start to naturally do this kind of stuff for you.

Good question Jesse.

I think 98% will be mitigated by these conversations in the threads and podcasts. And then 1.95% will be mitigated by the people already here as conversations happen without me - by people that are like minded and aware of the lay of the land. And then 0.05% are going to require some sort of direct something on my part.

I like to think that the people coming to the project are as keen as I am on the project. And the days are so rich that pot and the debates about pot are like talking about politics on mars. So I just think it will be a non-issue. The folks that are keen on pot will be part of a different community.

Paul is right. Noone needs to smoke anything in Missoula, MT. The air, sky, and mountains are enough to get you high and feeling awesome.

+1 for Paul about pot.

Legal stupidities can screw up anything. Problem is real. Why buy trouble cheap?

Easy rule. Totally reduces risk of BIG problems.


Rufus

Chris Kott wrote: it's the attitude that one must be intoxicated all the time, and that this must be a protected right that I find incompatible with the idea of getting anything done. It takes time and effort, and a considerable amount of cash, to be an addict, and all three will be valuable commodities on TL.

-CK

I think CK nailed it. I often hear folks say that they've expanded their mind somehow. I can't see inside their minds. I can see other things about them and it seems that they usually forgo other forms of self improvement in favor of all this mind expansion.

Frank Zappa was one of the most creative and productive musicians in history . He was also one of the most outspoken civil libertarians . He did not allow any of his musicians while on tour to use or possess drugs of any kind , even in the parking lot or hotel rooms . He did not want an arrest to fuck up his project and concert . Cops in those days were just looking for a hippie to bust . Very wise choice , Paul . You have alot to lose . Not just with legal problems . Forgetting to close gates , jacking up machinery and tools . Who is more likely to do that ? Sober or drug impaired minds ? Question : Who would you rather do a knee replacement on you ? An alert and sober , health conscious surgeon who goes to the gym and practices tai-chi before work ; or , the surgeon who blew a huge spleef in his beemer on the way in ?

Jeesh, more people upset about rules on pot, then anything else? Someone needs to re-examine themselves!

I think it should be legal, but its not. Paul said it, and its fact! This is not the place to argue the legitimacy of the law. I am fairly sure paul didnt make the law. The law is BS, and sny thinkin man knows it.

Its still the law.

If you set your heels at " no pot" then i dont know what to say

Paul, I think your stance is just an example of wisdom in action. Its good that you are upfront and lay out your expectations, those that can't abide by your rules on your land are free to go somewhere else and do their thing. Much respect for the stance. It is interesting that so many people have such a big issue with a dude who has said from the get go, this is my land, my rules, if you can live within them and are likeminded lets work together to make a community for the benefit of all, if you can't carry on and find what you are looking for elsewhere.

The biggest thing that topics like this always seem to do is illicit conflict that I think comes from people feeling that they are being judged because someone does not agree with them. I think that is not the case, Paul has laid out what his thougts are.

Good on ya.

certainly not my call, but keep it simple - if it'll bring the law, allow the law to take your land, unfriend the landowner/dwellers with the law - DON'T DO IT. We're in an area where timber is the main cash crop (yeah, seperate discussion ) and the choppers are constantly buzzing this country side looking and your land will be taken, period. Nothing's worth that.

Kind of surprised there's this much discussion~

When i go to Pauls farm im just gunna smoulder!!!

John Seay wrote:I'm very much against the idea of recreational drugs. I really appreciate that there are others like me that are into "alternative" living. Everyone thinks that because I want to grow my own food and build a house out of mud that I must be some kind of hippie that smokes weed.

I'm 27 and never have tried any drug; including alcohol.

Congratulations John. You're ahead of the game, avoiding detours. Expanded understanding doesn't need any chemical substances to happen, in fact, the subtle suggestion of dependence keeps people from complete breakthroughs. Just my 2¢. And I unfortunately learned the hard way-- glad to be free, and "alternative" as you say.

I believe Paul's right. Someone shared this - Re: City of Arlington SWAT Raid on Peaceful Organic Farmers is a Big Budget Bust http://www.undergroundhealth.com/city-of-arlington-swat-raid-on-peaceful-organic-farmers-is-a-big-budget-bust/

Adding clarity on hooch: I have no objection to hooch. I, personally, don't care for it. But I am comfortable with folks bringing beer, wine or other spirits. After all, there is no law against it. And it isn't something where other people's consumption seems to foul my air.

That said, I really don't care for drunkenness. Or puke from too much hooch. Or people impeding the group due to their hangover. Then there is all sorts of wacky hooch-inspired drama that I don't want to ever see on my property.

Although nobody has tried this yet, I just hear a story and ...

No tobacco of any kind. This includes smokeless (chew).

And I don't like the electronic cigarettes either.

I fit into category 1. Though I don't have anything against it or against those that use it. As long as it's labeled a Class 1 narcotic and is used by the police to increase their money making imprisonment scheme, I will continue to stay away from it.

paul wheaton wrote:... people that fit into one of three groups:

A) people, like me, that just never wanted to try it

B) people that tried it at some point and now don't want any

C) people that have tried it, want to enjoy it some more, but will respect what I'm trying to do and won't partake on my land

For those that are looking for a community that is 420 friendly, I suggest you scope out ic.org

For those that could possibly qualify for A, B or C, I would appreciate it if you say something here.

I guess I'm in the
A category for pot,
A or B for tobacco,
definitely C for hooch (glad it's allowed and no, I won't miss the "freedom" to get puking drunk),
probably A for the rest of the possible illegal drugs and
B for a few of the legal ones (prescriptions etc).

I suppose the fact that Ernie can crutch to the edge of the property to smoke his tobacco pipe might reassure some of the more able-bodied visitors that reasonable accommodations are available. Due to the nature of his leg injury, he has been offered exemptions at other no-smoking communities, but he is not interested in taking exemptions. If it's gonna be a rule, then it's a rule. Rules that don't get enforced are preferences, and open the door to a lot of hurt feelings about preferential treatment. However principled this stance is, in practice it results in a grumpy and pain-impaired Ernie on certain workshop sites, and I am very much hoping his new leg brace makes it less of a sacrifice.

Reasons for my choices above:

1) irrational fear of getting in trouble.
I'm not talking about Paul's well-reasoned choices based on actual risks of government prosecution, but a kind of personal phobia that sometimes leads to panic or exaggerated responses. When I cross a posted boundary, I am more scared of getting caught than of any physical danger the boundary might be warning me about. Interesting thing to realize about oneself. Not necessarily an asset when prototyping new technology outside the box; I'm super risk-averse for both physical and legal dangers, yet powerful technology comes with risks.

2) rational distaste for addiction -
I don't want to be hooked on anything that might permanently either impair or make me dependent to avoid impairment. and I resent being dependent on anything that adds expense, and might put me in the embarrassing position of having to choose whether to feed my dreams, myself, or my addictions when money runs low. I get the driver seat, my dreams get shotgun (which includes making sure Ernie's OK and working toward our shared dreams), and we have plenty of candidates for the passenger seats (friends, family, causes). So I am very careful about picking up hitchhikers who might trash the back seat.

3) personal experiences
I have a biased aversion to some substance and tolerance for others. Partly because of the legal risks, I share Paul's intolerance for pot but tolerance for alcohol. Partly because of the observation bias the legal distinction creates, I have far more examples of healthy alcohol habits than healthy pot habits.
My family and subculture tolerates alcohol relatively well (many don't, and each individual is different). I have few good role models for healthy pot use, and some scary counter-examples of abuse and associated violence (odd as that may sound to the in-crowd). I might never know if someone is a discreet user, unless our relationship reaches a point of trust / confidence. The blatant, reckless, or inconsiderate users are the ones who everybody knows as users, and they are mostly among the least-pleasant and most abusive users.
My family also tolerates coffee, tea, prescription medications. I try to moderate my use anyway.
My family and culture are highly tolerant of refined sugars, but my body isn't. So I avoid them. I get a worse hangover from sugar than from beer. When I'm out with people, they seem to enjoy their pie more if they can see that I'm enjoying some fruit or a glass of cognac at the same time. So I rotate through occasional indulgences that fit my health, laws, and culture.

4) Professional consequences of risk:
- I like working with other people's kids. Swearing and "inappropriate hugging" are job risks, let alone a felony conviction or public disgrace. Held to a higher standard in the courts of both public opinion and HR background checks. Any drug-related conviction would close this door for most practical purposes.
- I'm a licensed commercial driver; my legal BA limit is 0.04 instead of 0.08 percent. If this does apply outside of work hours, anything more than half a beer is a possible DUI. Did I mention my phobia of getting in trouble? It makes me nuts when people 'fake it' with a seatbelt while I'm driving, let alone driving impaired. Since part of the risk involves legally provable conviction, substance abuse is a higher risk of getting in trouble than, say, driving sleepy, although the physical risks are similar. I try to avoid both.
- I'm currently self-employed, living by my wits (and hands, and driving skills, and social connections). I'd rather be increasing my skill base, not my risk of accidents.
- I live with someone who's permanently impaired due to someone else's momentary incompetence. Temporary impairment of one person can lead to someone's permanent impairment. legal vs. physical risks of various substances aside, we do things every day that involve other people's lives in our hands. We prefer to be at our best.
- We sometimes homestay with clients. I don't want to be getting headaches if I go to work with a Mormon or Seventh-Day Adventist client somewhere for a couple of weeks - hence even coffee is an occasional, not regular, indulgence. Ernie's tobacco and coffee use are issues we deal with as the addiction is already there, just as we deal with other physical handicaps, allergies, and phobias we each bring to our work.
- Minor risks to total abstention - lost networking opportunities, stress problems, social isolation - are one reason why I don't mind the occasional social drink, and tolerate other people's habits. Mostly, I prefer stress-relief methods with more tangible benefits (martial arts, meditation practice, gardening, maintaining friendships and family ties).

5) Responsibilities I care about:
I do enjoy a drink when I don't have to drive anywhere, but how often is that?
My mom once described parenting as being the designated driver for 18 years straight. I don't have kids, but I do have non-drivers who depend on me, and short-staffed local emergency services. It just doesn't make sense to get incompetently drunk if I care about those responsibilities, which I do. I almost need a watch rotation, with other sober adults for back-up, to feel safe indulging.
All this writing about drinking has me thirsty for the beer I stocked last week, yet there is dry lightning and thunder over our mountain, and the local fire crew was down to 3 people on hand (including me, despite my incomplete training). Now that it's started raining, if I don't get a call in the next couple hours, I might crack one this evening.
I had an EMT friend who got teased a bit for drinking two weeks on, two weeks off, when she was trying to get pregnant (she'd abstain until she knew it hadn't happened, then indulge for the week or two in between cycles). But having seen the consequences of ordinary incompetence, let alone impairment, being extra careful doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice.

6) Other interests.
Life is short - I don't want to miss any of it.
I watch my intake of time-sucking or money-sucking habits like video games, novels, and the like. If I can't stop when I get grumpy about it, I start taking steps to erode the habit.
If it doesn't taste good, don't drink it. If you can't afford what tastes good, stop drinking until you can. If you can't stop, it's time to stop.

I might lighten up about it all at some point. Maybe this is why certain people think I need to smoke pot. But I'd rather play it safe around the things I care about, than stop caring.

Another ponderous novella from yours truly,
-Erica

- edited for redundancy and due to an obsession with words