According to the poll, 89% of New York state denizens support making medical marijuana legal, and 57% favor legalizing recreational pot.
Hopefully it will go to the voters the next time around.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/poll-support-legal-marijuana-gaining-new-york-state-article-1.1617325 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/poll-support-legal-marijuana-gaining-new-york-state-article-1.1617325)
Don't hold your breathe...
Wasn't it Coumo that made it for isolated areas for only certain dire illnesses? I could be wrong on who, but the limit was total shit and think that needs to be redone so that it is fully medical option like the Dude state CA, at least. So what are we looking at, this year or 2016? Meanwhile I have heard that many have moved to CO and others are think of it.
Please, don't. Pot is, like, bad for you, man.
We're enjoying the stoner tourism and tax money here in Colorado and we don't feel like sharing.
Quote from: Shagbeard on February 20, 2014, 05:13:29 PM
Don't hold your breathe...
Wasn't it Coumo that made it for isolated areas for only certain dire illnesses? I could be wrong on who, but the limit was total shit and think that needs to be redone so that it is fully medical option like the Dude state CA, at least. So what are we looking at, this year or 2016? Meanwhile I have heard that many have moved to CO and others are think of it.
The way this happens is by putting it to a vote.
Most politicians won't come out in support but once the public support is there then they don't have to any more.
If it happens it will be 2016. That's a lot of time to pressure a vote.
Progress is slow, but we're in it for the long haul. Besides, not like us stoners don't know how to wait patiently on the couch.
(http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/loldoghigh-stoner-dog-meme.jpg)
(http://assets.hightimes.com/arnold-schwarzenegger.jpg)
Yeah, this is just about par for the surreal course of today's world. NY state will legalize pot but NYC will still drop the Nazi jackboot on anyone who dares purchase a 32oz beverage. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Quote from: jgiffin on February 22, 2014, 01:16:55 AM
Yeah, this is just about par for the surreal course of today's world. NY state will legalize pot but NYC will still drop the Nazi jackboot on anyone who dares purchase a 32oz beverage. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
(http://www.jonathandoctor.net/images/facebook_like_button_big-small.jpg)
Quote from: jgiffin on February 22, 2014, 01:16:55 AM
Yeah, this is just about par for the surreal course of today's world. NY state will legalize pot but NYC will still drop the Nazi jackboot on anyone who dares purchase a 32oz beverage. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Well at least they got Bloomberg out of there.
That beverage thing was over the line big time. All time world record over the line.
I'd love to hope that somehow someday I might be able to go out have a nice dinner a couple drinks and then light up a stogie in the restaurant. But the way things are now they'd call the SWAT team.
Not so much to defend nut to explain the theory.
Banning over sized soft drinks is meant to lower healthcare costs that are spread across the spectrum. When some numbnut spends everyday drinking what is essentially a poison and causes a lot health issues for them selves, we all end up paying for that, in terms of added healthcare costs and lost GDP. No man is an island we all share in each other's fates, so if we could keep some from over doing it, we would all benefit. This theory is behind everything about civilization. Like we all gave up the freedom to shit in the street, in order to have a sane and reasonable society.
Quote from: revgms on February 22, 2014, 11:51:19 AM
Not so much to defend nut to explain the theory.
Banning over sized soft drinks is meant to lower healthcare costs that are spread across the spectrum. When some numbnut spends everyday drinking what is essentially a poison and causes a lot health issues for them selves, we all end up paying for that, in terms of added healthcare costs and lost GDP. No man is an island we all share in each other's fates, so if we could keep some from over doing it, we would all benefit. This theory is behind everything about civilization. Like we all gave up the freedom to shit in the street, in order to have a sane and reasonable society.
That only applies because we've socialized healthcare costs. That was the initial mistake. If we didn't require hospitals to provide emergency care to everyone without consideration of payment, those concerns would take care of themselves without reducing the liberty of the populace as a whole.
You have a right to fuck up yourself. You don't have a right to make me pay for it.
Quote from: jgiffin on February 22, 2014, 11:05:04 PM
That only applies because we've socialized healthcare costs. That was the initial mistake. If we didn't require hospitals to provide emergency care to everyone without consideration of payment, those concerns would take care of themselves without reducing the liberty of the populace as a whole.
You have a right to fuck up yourself. You don't have a right to make me pay for it.
Right! It was preferable when poor people just died on the streets.
(http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ALLFAMILY0.jpg)
Those were the days!
Quote from: jgiffin on February 22, 2014, 11:05:04 PM
Quote from: revgms on February 22, 2014, 11:51:19 AM
Not so much to defend nut to explain the theory.
Banning over sized soft drinks is meant to lower healthcare costs that are spread across the spectrum. When some numbnut spends everyday drinking what is essentially a poison and causes a lot health issues for them selves, we all end up paying for that, in terms of added healthcare costs and lost GDP. No man is an island we all share in each other's fates, so if we could keep some from over doing it, we would all benefit. This theory is behind everything about civilization. Like we all gave up the freedom to shit in the street, in order to have a sane and reasonable society.
That only applies because we've socialized healthcare costs. That was the initial mistake. If we didn't require hospitals to provide emergency care to everyone without consideration of payment, those concerns would take care of themselves without reducing the liberty of the populace as a whole.
You have a right to fuck up yourself. You don't have a right to make me pay for it.
We still have to pay to clean up the dead bodies, we also lose consumers, producers, potential discoveries and ideas. As a capitalist I know I make more money being surrounded by living, healthy, prosperous customers than if I let my fellow Americans fall so far they can no longer help me.
Quote from: revgms on February 22, 2014, 11:51:19 AM
Not so much to defend nut to explain the theory.
Banning over sized soft drinks is meant to lower healthcare costs that are spread across the spectrum. When some numbnut spends everyday drinking what is essentially a poison and causes a lot health issues for them selves, we all end up paying for that, in terms of added healthcare costs and lost GDP. No man is an island we all share in each other's fates, so if we could keep some from over doing it, we would all benefit. This theory is behind everything about civilization. Like we all gave up the freedom to shit in the street, in order to have a sane and reasonable society.
Personally I don't put a price on our basic freedoms.
This is the same attitude that religion seems to take. That the general populace can not be trusted and must be guided like sheep. Sorry I don't buy it.
We used to believe that the greatness of the US was the proof that freedom works.
I still believe it. Leaving people to their own devices will not lead to the end of the world.
People should do what they see fit and keep their noses out of others shit In the end that will work out fine.
But if your freedom comes with a bill for me, how is that free?
Also you'd have to prove free will actually exists and that you are not actually making that argument as a function of determinism, you had no choice but to make that argument, because free will doesn't exist. That argument is an outcome of preconditioning.
Quote from: revgms on February 23, 2014, 10:35:28 AM
But if your freedom comes with a bill for me, how is that free?
Mine doesn't.
Some people are a burden.
That is simply a fact. It always has been and always will be.
But that is a red herring.
The question is whether leaving people to their own devices amounts to more of a burden than deciding to micro manage people lives.
The reality is that if you could track to a dime the cost to you in actual dollars and cents the difference between a world where people are allowed to have large sodas and one where they aren't it wouldn't even amount to pennies.
So really it's not just one decision. The single decision doesn't add up to squat and the only way this sort of thinking amounts to anything real is if you stack more and more control on people. "Wear a seat belt." "Wear a helmet" "Don't smoke" bla bla bla.
What's next? A fat tax?
It's not worth it. You create an absurd Orwellian nightmare. Otherwise each little thing doesn't even amount to squat.
Banning large soft drinks wouldn't have lower our cost for health insurance one dime and the meager percentage of a penny that it might have saved the insurance companies would have gone in somebody else's pocket.
We're all being meant to feel lucky for crumbs while doctors and insurers get rich.
I reject that idea. It's not unreasonable that I should expect not to go into bankruptcy when I get sick and I shouldn't have to forgo such extravagant behavior (sarcasm) as having a fucking large soda or a fucking cigar every once in a while.
What do you need that for Dude?
;)
I just think it's fantastic that it is being sensibly (and positively) discussed in the media at last.
You should see the bile things like the Times (UK Times) print about Holland and the fact they have legalised drugs.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 24, 2014, 07:35:00 AM
I just think it's fantastic that it is being sensibly (and positively) discussed in the media at last.
You should see the bile things like the Times (UK Times) print about Holland and the fact they have legalised drugs.
They were doing that here for a while.
Eventually the lies become unsustainable.
Legalizing in Washington and Colorado takes a lot off the table. When a pundit makes claims and two entire states worth of people see right through the bullshit then credibility becomes and issue.
The reality is that every place where they legalize weed sees a decrease in use by youth users once the black market dies.
It's happened over and over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/marijuana-usage-down-in-t_n_1865095.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/marijuana-usage-down-in-t_n_1865095.html)
I thought about this when the recent news story broke about capturing the prime Mexican drug lord. Seems obvious enough that this guy's lieutenants are about to struggle for internal control of the cartel, while other gangs fight to capture some of its market share. If either and/or both are true, then some peoples are about to get shot-the-fuck-up, son.
Soooo, instead of spending billions capturing these guys why not legalize their product and cut their revenue sources out from under them? Nah, too damn sensible...
Quote from: jgiffin on February 24, 2014, 02:33:52 PM
Soooo, instead of spending billions capturing these guys why not legalize their product and cut their revenue sources out from under them? Nah, too damn sensible...
If anyone in power was willing to learn that lesson, they would have learned it 80 years ago.
Quote from: jgiffin on February 24, 2014, 02:33:52 PM
I thought about this when the recent news story broke about capturing the prime Mexican drug lord. Seems obvious enough that this guy's lieutenants are about to struggle for internal control of the cartel, while other gangs fight to capture some of its market share. If either and/or both are true, then some peoples are about to get shot-the-fuck-up, son.
Soooo, instead of spending billions capturing these guys why not legalize their product and cut their revenue sources out from under them? Nah, too damn sensible...
I saw the news about that and the first thing that occurred to me is that it wouldn't slow down his operation one bit.
Where this is a ton of money to be made somebody will be doing whatever it takes.
Prohibition showed us that. The time of Gangsters.
True enough. In that same vein, I'm interested to see what happens to illegal weed sales in Colorado. If they decrease significantly, it would seem pretty good evidence that taking a supply-side approach to the drug trade is the best way to eliminate the criminal element.*
*Footnote: Of course, if you're opposed to the drug in principle, I suppose whether its being sold legally or illegally isn't really important. But, then again, you probably think the world was created 4000 years ago and Jeebus hid fossils in the sand to trick biologists. So, we don't really have much to talk about anyway.
Quote from: jgiffin on February 27, 2014, 10:57:23 PM
True enough. In that same vein, I'm interested to see what happens to illegal weed sales in Colorado. If they decrease significantly, it would seem pretty good evidence that taking a supply-side approach to the drug trade is the best way to eliminate the criminal element.*
*Footnote: Of course, if you're opposed to the drug in principle, I suppose whether its being sold legally or illegally isn't really important. But, then again, you probably think the world was created 4000 years ago and Jeebus hid fossils in the sand to trick biologists. So, we don't really have much to talk about anyway.
As a Coloradan, I can answer that for you...
There will be a black market because the legal supply (at least at the moment) is limited and it's taxed out the ass. Also, although it's easier to get in Denver than Starbucks, some smaller towns don't have shops yet. However, there has also been a major shift in law enforcement resources - instead of focusing on busting pot smokers and then forcing them to rat up on their dealers, they're now focusing all of their attention on the black market dealers (especially the ones who deal to kids and teens - that's become a hot law enforcement issue here), the smugglers and the cartels.
Also, every state law enforcement agent in the states bordering us are like rabid dogs right now - I haven't driven out of the state yet, but when I do I fully expect to be pulled over and fucked with by Johnny Law, just for having a Colorado plate on my car. That applies doubly to Nebraska and Kansas, but who the fuck wants to drive into Nebraska or Kansas?
All of this adds up to making life much more difficult for those who still want to sell pot (and especially harder drugs) illegally.
As a full-on supporter of legalization, it pisses me off when prohibitionists point to an issue like this as some sort of failure of legalization. Thriving black markets exist for untaxed cigarettes, booze, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
On a related note, when will the Lebowski Fest be returning to Denver? Because, you know...
Excellent, please keep up the eye-witness reports, Yeti. Everything you said makes sense for a market in the nascent process of self-balancing. It will be very interesting to see how things adjust. Ideally, the other systems would adapt to legalization but, you're right, there's a shit-ton of people/agencies that want to see it fail for their own reasons.
I've smoked pot exactly once in eight years but, still, you can't help but see the futility and bad motives of this war on drugs.
The US drug war, one of the worst ideas ever. Seriously, I'd love to have a few minutes reading through the history textbooks of the future, where they'll talk about what a huge waste of time, money and human potential the drug war was.
Not a huge waste of time, a huge make-work project with the side benefit of keeping people in fear.
During the First Iraq War my wife and I went to Egypt to deliver a piece of medical equipment I had designed and train the people how to use/service it.
When we got there, we saw the hospital (a major medical university) was in SERIOUS need of repair. Cats roamed the halls to keep the rats down, people sleeping on the floor, lights so dim I had to use a flashlight to determine color codes of wires...
We asked them why they were buying this particular piece of expensive gear when it wasn't for any critical treatments. They explained how this works... Egypt received a "humanitarian aide grant" that had strings attached. The money could ONLY be used to buy equipment from a list of USA companies with political connections and low sales (a make work project for USA companies). So, they ordered a couple of these machines because they could use ONE feature of it to monitor cardiac patients. If it wasn't for that feature, they wouldn't have any need for these.
When we got back home I asked a friend who worked for one of the embassies in San Francisco. He confirmed that's how the make work projects function and that I wasn't supposed to know about that.
Quote from: revgms on March 01, 2014, 10:42:25 AM
The US drug war, one of the worst ideas ever. Seriously, I'd love to have a few minutes reading through the history textbooks of the future, where they'll talk about what a huge waste of time, money and human potential the drug war was.
\
Come on man, it gave the entire U.S. Southern Command a reason to exist. If it weren't for the war on drugs I would have had to spend those 4 years worth of my time in some hell hole like the Persian Gulf. I got to visit some great places like Cartegena and San Andrea Colombia, Salinas Ecuador, Montego Bay Jamaica, Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, St. Thomas (and a few not so great places like Rodman Panama and Puerto Quetzal Guatemala) and a shit ton of other places that would be remembered if I had not killed those brain cells while there. And all at tax payer expense. 8) And I got to see what 52 metric tons of cocaine looks like all in one place (pretty fucking amazing is what it looks like).
I think for an encore we should have a war on pornography. I will volunteer to fight that one as well.
Ron
Quote from: Ron on March 01, 2014, 06:59:31 PM
I think for an encore we should have a war on pornography. I will volunteer to fight that one as well.
Ron
There wouldn't be much of a war. If the government was keen on eliminating probably 90% of the tube and torrent sites that are currently thriving on the Internet (at least the ones based or hosted in the U.S.), they could do so by next week - all they would have to do is require every website that hosts pornography to produce the required production and performer records. Have you ever noticed that statement at the beginning of every porn tape that includes an address for a record keeper, usually somewhere in L.A. or the Valley? In essence, every website that is illegally hosting pornography can't legally prove that the performers are 18 or over - only the original production company has those records on file, and they sure as shit wouldn't be helpful in providing them to the tube and torrent sites. The sites that host amateur porn are even more screwed because those records don't exist at all - when Jack was violating his wife Jill and recording it with his iPhone, neither one of them signed paperwork and produced identification beforehand.
Yes, the government has been ineffective in cracking down on the music and mainstream movie torrent sites, but how effective would the threat of a child porn prosecution be? Oh, it isn't child porn? Well then, show us the records. Maybe the granny porn sites would be okay, but who knows.
The government just isn't interested in doing this because it would result in a renaissance for the established porn producers, while the status quo is quickly and effectively driving most of them out of business. Now, will there be a crackdown in the future? Again, who knows. Maybe if the country elects another bible-thumping republican and he doesn't have a middle eastern country to invade...
There's also a problem with porn on the Internet. In some counties seeing a woman's ankle might be considered porn, in other areas nude sunbathing is common. Child pornography? As there isn't a worldwide consensus on what age is no longer a child, there's a problem there. Also, what about family photos/videos at a nude area (where it's considered perfectly normal)?
The oddest examples I've seen is a nude beach set up in Israel facing across a river to an Arab country...just to piss them off.
Also, my wife and I were eating in a beach-side restaurant in another country. You could be nude on the beaches, but NOT on the streets which passed right by the beaches. They served snacks to people on the beach on a low wall between the restaurant and the beach so the people didn't have to get dressed.
Quote from: jdurand on March 02, 2014, 03:41:51 PM
...Child pornography? As there isn't a worldwide consensus on what age is no longer a child, there's a problem there. Also, what about family photos/videos at a nude area (where it's considered perfectly normal)?...
As for the age of consent in Bahrain, it is set at 21 for women who want to marry without their father's consent.
Believe this: If the major porn producers had significant lobbying efforts, web-based porn purveyors would be required to verify the ages of their performers, too.
::) The War on Porn was a joke. I was trying to evoke images of me in my MOPP 4 gear carrying porn stars off the ship's brow and stacking them like bales of drugs on the pier. I guess you had to be there (in my head).
Ron
The best documentary I've seen about the "war on drugs" is this...
It's from the guy who did "The Wire". A sobering and unsensationalized look at the drug war.
http://www.thehouseilivein.org/ (http://www.thehouseilivein.org/)
It's on netflix if you have an account
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_House_I_Live_In/70229263?trkid=13630398 (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_House_I_Live_In/70229263?trkid=13630398)
or rent here
http://www.amazon.com/The-House-I-Live-In/dp/B00B19HFMK (http://www.amazon.com/The-House-I-Live-In/dp/B00B19HFMK)
Quote from: jdurand on March 02, 2014, 03:41:51 PM
Also, my wife and I were eating in a beach-side restaurant in another country. You could be nude on the beaches, but NOT on the streets which passed right by the beaches. They served snacks to people on the beach on a low wall between the restaurant and the beach so the people didn't have to get dressed.
That's actually true in New York. Some time ago women's right groups got up in arms that men could be topless on public beaches but not women. They won in court and it is totally legal to go topless on public beaches.
I had no idea till I was on a beach at a state park and there where topless women there.
On occasion the courts do something good. Now if I could smoke a fattie on a beach while sipping some Jack on ice and looking at boobies I'd say we are making progress.
Quote from: BikerDude on March 03, 2014, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: jdurand on March 02, 2014, 03:41:51 PM
Also, my wife and I were eating in a beach-side restaurant in another country. You could be nude on the beaches, but NOT on the streets which passed right by the beaches. They served snacks to people on the beach on a low wall between the restaurant and the beach so the people didn't have to get dressed.
That's actually true in New York. Some time ago women's right groups got up in arms that men could be topless on public beaches but not women. They won in court and it is totally legal to go topless on public beaches.
I had no idea till I was on a beach at a state park and there where topless women there.
On occasion the courts do something good. Now if I could smoke a fattie on a beach while sipping some Jack on ice and looking at boobies I'd say we are making progress.
I absolutely, positively know that someone, somewhere, would throw a fit over this. I just can't wrap my head around why.
Quote from: jgiffin on March 03, 2014, 09:31:44 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on March 03, 2014, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: jdurand on March 02, 2014, 03:41:51 PM
Also, my wife and I were eating in a beach-side restaurant in another country. You could be nude on the beaches, but NOT on the streets which passed right by the beaches. They served snacks to people on the beach on a low wall between the restaurant and the beach so the people didn't have to get dressed.
That's actually true in New York. Some time ago women's right groups got up in arms that men could be topless on public beaches but not women. They won in court and it is totally legal to go topless on public beaches.
I had no idea till I was on a beach at a state park and there where topless women there.
On occasion the courts do something good. Now if I could smoke a fattie on a beach while sipping some Jack on ice and looking at boobies I'd say we are making progress.
I absolutely, positively know that someone, somewhere, would throw a fit over this. I just can't wrap my head around why.
Until just a few months ago you could sit around the Castro (in San Francisco) in restaurants and on park benches stark naked. After the city banned it we got treated to protests from the "Body Freedom" movement. I had a good laugh one day when a not unattractive 40ish lady standing naked in front of the Federal court house told me that "...body freedom is a global issue man" in response to me asking why she was protesting a local ordinance in from of the U.S. Court House (it is really all just courts and mission support offices for various govt. agencies, but because we are closer to the Civic Center than the real Federal Building where Pelosi et. al. have offices we get all the protests) rather than City Hall? Despite her response, the next protest they had was down at City Hall.
And you don't even have to smoke a fatty here. Just walking to lunch from the court house to Hayes valley you get to see naked protesters as you navigate between clouds of medicinal marijuana. =P
Quote from: Ron on March 04, 2014, 12:09:21 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on March 03, 2014, 09:31:44 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on March 03, 2014, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: jdurand on March 02, 2014, 03:41:51 PM
And you don't even have to smoke a fatty here. Just walking to lunch from the court house to Hayes valley you get to see naked protesters as you navigate between clouds of medicinal marijuana. =P
If I'm forced to choose an extremes I'll take that one every time over some uptight suit wearing waste of oxygen feeling he has the right to tell other's how to live. Freedom. What a concept.
Quote from: Ron on March 04, 2014, 12:09:21 AM
Until just a few months ago you could sit around the Castro (in San Francisco) in restaurants and on park benches stark naked. After the city banned it we got treated to protests from the "Body Freedom" movement. I had a good laugh one day when a not unattractive 40ish lady standing naked in front of the Federal court house told me that "...body freedom is a global issue man" in response to me asking why she was protesting a local ordinance in from of the U.S. Court House (it is really all just courts and mission support offices for various govt. agencies, but because we are closer to the Civic Center than the real Federal Building where Pelosi et. al. have offices we get all the protests) rather than City Hall? Despite her response, the next protest they had was down at City Hall.
And you don't even have to smoke a fatty here. Just walking to lunch from the court house to Hayes valley you get to see naked protesters as you navigate between clouds of medicinal marijuana. =P
I really need to visit San Fran, man. It sounds fascinating.
Quote from: Ron on March 03, 2014, 02:36:45 PM
::) The War on Porn was a joke. I was trying to evoke images of me in my MOPP 4 gear carrying porn stars off the ship's brow and stacking them like bales of drugs on the pier. I guess you had to be there (in my head).
Ron
I enjoy sperging about the Industry whenever I'm provided even the slightest opening. Not that there are many slight openings in porn...
Quote from: Yeti on March 07, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
Quote from: Ron on March 03, 2014, 02:36:45 PM
::) The War on Porn was a joke. I was trying to evoke images of me in my MOPP 4 gear carrying porn stars off the ship's brow and stacking them like bales of drugs on the pier. I guess you had to be there (in my head).
Ron
I enjoy sperging about the Industry whenever I'm provided even the slightest opening. Not that there are many slight openings in porn...
Those were the funniest 22 words I have read all year. I have ASNR'd a lot of things and mostly it burns, but curiously Tito's, Kahlua and Half & Half spraying from my nose wasn't too uncomfortable.
Quote from: Yeti on March 07, 2014, 04:46:54 AM
Quote from: Ron on March 04, 2014, 12:09:21 AM
Until just a few months ago you could sit around the Castro (in San Francisco) in restaurants and on park benches stark naked. After the city banned it we got treated to protests from the "Body Freedom" movement. I had a good laugh one day when a not unattractive 40ish lady standing naked in front of the Federal court house told me that "...body freedom is a global issue man" in response to me asking why she was protesting a local ordinance in from of the U.S. Court House (it is really all just courts and mission support offices for various govt. agencies, but because we are closer to the Civic Center than the real Federal Building where Pelosi et. al. have offices we get all the protests) rather than City Hall? Despite her response, the next protest they had was down at City Hall.
And you don't even have to smoke a fatty here. Just walking to lunch from the court house to Hayes valley you get to see naked protesters as you navigate between clouds of medicinal marijuana. =P
I really need to visit San Fran, man. It sounds fascinating.
It is a fun city to live in. I have lived here twice. Lived here for a few years in the late 80s, early 90s, and came back in 2012. Unfortunately I am now moving from the city of manly loving, to the city of brotherly love =). I hope Philly is half as cool as the bay.