Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm | By: Radical Russ
Thanks to a tip from our friends at LEAP, I reported on Tuesday about Iowa Senator Charles Grassley offering an amendment to Senator Jim Webb’s prison reform bill that forbids the commission from recommending the legalization of marijuana or even studying what effect legalization might have on society. Well, thanks once again to the Tom Angell, blogging for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, we now have audio of Senator Grassley defending this censorship of science, even as he talks about putting “all options on the table.” (Catch the audio on tonight’s Stash.)
QUESTION: I hear there was an amendment to a bill tomorrow that would legally prevent some of the government’s top advisers from — according to some of the memos we’ve seen — even discussing the idea of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs.
Can you talk a little bit about that? I understand that you pulled that amendment, but, nonetheless, I wanted to ask you what your intent is with that.
GRASSLEY: Well, my intent on that amendment isn’t any different than any other amendments that are coming up. The Congress is setting up a commission to study certain things. And the commission is a — is an arm of Congress, because Congress doesn’t have time to review some of these laws.
And — and — and the point is, for them to do what we tell them to do. And one of the things that I was anticipating telling them not to do is to — to recommend or study the legalization of drugs.
Their — their program would be what we tell it it is. …
Senator Webb wants to understand why we have 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s imprisoned. Sen. Webb understands that the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs™ has a lot to do with it. Sen. Webb understands that discussion of marijuana legalization must be on the table. I’m not sure which concept is more misunderstood by Senator Grassley: science, democracy, free speech, or justice. Wait, maybe it’s compassion:
QUESTION: Would your amendment have even stopped the discussion of legalized marijuana for medical purposes?
GRASSLEY: I think that would not — let’s see. Yes, the extent to which it would be decriminalization, the answer is yes.
Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 am | By: Chris Goldstein
10/30/2009 by Chris Goldstein
On October 19th the Ocean County College in Tom’s River, NJ hosted a debate on medical marijuana. A professor of Social Science, Brad Young, moderated. The opposition was Terrence Farley, a former county prosecutor and the now head of the NJ Narcotics Task Force Commanders Assn. Farley is a vehement prohibitionist and we’ve sparred over this topic on television programs before.
Neither of us saw the questions prior to the debate and this question was particularly interesting. As an added bonus you get to see me address some of the reefer madness we encounter locally.
Essentially, “Should medical marijuana be covered by health insurance.”
Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm | By: Radical Russ
(ONDCP) Marijuana legalization, for any purpose, remains a non-starter in the Obama Administration. It is not something that the President and I discuss; it isn’t even on the agenda. Attorney General Holder issued very clear guidelines to U.S. Attorneys about the appropriate use of Federal resources. He did not open the door to legalization.
Regarding state ballot initiatives concerning “medical” marijuana. I believe that medical questions are best decided not by popular vote, but by science. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which studies and approves all medicines in the United States, has made very clear that the raw marijuana plant is not medicine, and any state considering medical marijuana should look very carefully at what has happened in California.
Legalization is being sold as being a cure to ending violence in Mexico, as a cure to state budget problems, as a cure to health problems. The American public should be skeptical of anyone
selling one solution as a cure for every single problem. Legalized, regulated drugs are not a panacea—pharmaceutical drugs in this country are tightly regulated and government controlled.
yet we know they cause untold damage to those who abuse them.
To test the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana, we only need to look at already legal drugs — alcohol and tobacco. We know that the taxes collected on these substances pale in comparison to the social and health care costs related to their widespread use.
You know, for someone who says he doesn’t discuss marijuana legalization, it seems he sure has a lot of things to say about marijuana legalization.
Just one of the victims of an FDA "studied and approved" drug.
We’re all for the FDA studying the medical efficacy of marijuana, but every time we try to make that happen, NIDA and the DEA block those efforts. “Marijuana’s not medical,” they say. We say,”Hey, we’ve got hundreds of thousands of people who say they’re getting medical relief. Can we at least study that?” They say, “No.” “Why not?” we ask? “Because marijuana’s not medical.” “But we’ve got all these studies…” “Nah nah nah nah, we can’t hear you, marijuana’s not medical, nah nah nah!” Besides, the FDA studied and approved thalidomide, Phen-Fen, and Vioxx, so excuse us if we don’t put a ton of credibility into that agency telling us how horrible marijuana is.
Should the people in a democracy be allowed to vote on what substances they are allowed to use as medicine? Why not? The acts in the early 20th century that were passed to regulate the “snake oil salesmen” occurred in a time when we didn’t have widespread communications like now. If someone tried to sell an ineffective or dangerous tonic these days, he’d be out of business faster than you can say “Twitter”. It’s not like we see a widespread call for votes on medical cocaine or medical methamphetamine… oh, wait, I forgot, those drugs are medical and any doctor in the US can prescribe them, but not a non-toxic herb. Besides, if a company like “Extenze” can sell a pill claiming to make my penis bigger, so long as they put “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease,” I can’t for the life of me figure out why we need FDA approval for a plant.
Furthermore, most people don’t realize that a large proportion of the drugs the FDA does study aren’t approved for the way they are being prescribed:
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing pharmaceuticals for an unapproved indication. Off-label use of medications is very common. Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off-label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31% (Radley, et al. 2006). New drugs are often not tested for safety and efficacy specifically in children. Therefore, it is believed that 50-75% of all medications prescribed by pediatricians in the U.S. are for off-label applications.
Thursday, October 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm | By: Radical Russ
(San Jose Mercury News) OKLAHOMA CITY—In a case highlighted by advocates seeking to reform Oklahoma’s drug laws, the state on Wednesday sought to revoke the parole of a man sentenced to decades in prison for growing marijuana that he says was used to treat his arthritis pain.
William Joseph Foster, 51, initially was sentenced in Tulsa County to 93 years in prison after authorities uncovered a pot growing operation in the basement of his Tulsa home in 1995. A state appeals court later reduced that term to 20 years in prison, and he was released on parole in 2001.
During Wednesday’s parole revocation hearing, the Department of Corrections argued before an administrative law judge that Foster violated the terms of his parole while living in California by using and growing marijuana in that state and failing to follow his parole officer’s directions.
Foster maintains he was released from supervision by a parole officer in California overseeing his case, and he claims he refused to sign the paperwork on the advice of an attorney because it would have extended his parole by four years.
“We’re spending all this time, effort and money on one man when our prisons are already full,” said Norma Sapp, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “I bet we could send six kids to college on what we’ve spent to keep Will in prison.”
Let’s see if I can follow the logic here:
Oklahoma catches Will Foster growing medical marijuana for his arthritis and sentences him to 93 years, so they can keep fellow Oklahomans safe from, uh, er, a guy smoking a joint to ease his pain.
Oklahoma paroles the guy and allows him to leave the state and serve his parole in California, where he can legally smoke a joint to ease his pain.
California looks at the guy and says, “This is no criminal,” and ends his parole, allowing the guy to live his life and legally smoke a joint to ease his pain.
Oklahoma gets very upset at California, because if he’d stayed in Oklahoma, he’d still be on parole and be unable to smoke a joint to ease his pain.
Oklahoma fights to extradite him, put him in a cell, and are now working to revoke his parole so he can serve the rest of his 20-year-sentence, so they can protect Oklahomans from a guy smoking a joint to ease his pain 1,500 miles away in a place where medical marijuana is legal.
Marijuana: the drug so deadly powerful that its private legal medical use can endanger people from two time zones away.
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm | By: Radical Russ
(Minneapolis Star-Tribune) Bong water can count as a controlled substance, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision that raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers who fail to dump the water out of their pipes.
In a 4-3 decision Thursday, the state’s highest court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance.
The statute defines a drug “mixture” as “a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity.” When the language of a statute is unambiguous, the high court said, precedents prohibit courts from disregarding the letter of the law under the pretext of pursuing the letter of the law.
“Regardless of purity” means that even a fleck of an ash that registers a molecule of THC floating in your bong water makes all that water weight a controlled substance. 25 grams of water equals 25 milliliters, which equals a little over five teaspoons of water. Five teaspoons of water in your bong makes you a first degree criminal. An ounce and a half of bong water makes you a felon.
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 at 9:43 pm | By: Radical Russ
It’s fun to watch prohibitionist ideologues thrash about as the polls show ever-increasing support for cannabis re-legalization. This recent memo by the Obama Administration declaring a hands-off policy for state-compliant medical marijuana operations has whipped up Clinton Admin Drug Policy Spokesman Bob Weiner.
“Be careful about the new lax enforcement policy for medical marijuana,” former White House Drug Policy Spokesman Bob Weiner is telling the Department of Justice and the Obama Administration. “Prescription marijuana use may explode for healthy people.”
Unfortunately, as many as 90% of purchases at clinical distribution centers are “false defenses”, some law enforcement agents report – “which means individuals are not really sick but simply want the pot,” Weiner asserts.
Again with the supercops who can discern someone’s relative health on sight alone.
“Medical marijuana is not as effective as other healing mechanisms for many illnesses such as glaucoma, pain, or nausea that users try it for because of false hype leading to false hope. Just as laetrile was legalized in the 1970’s in 27 states to cure cancer but was found to be useless apricot pits, leading Senator Kennedy in a Senate hearing to decry the ‘false hope’ delaying true treatment, ‘medical’ marijuana today could be a placebo delaying far better treatments,” according to Weiner.
Unfortunately, there was no hope for that run-on sentence which perished in a tragic head-on collision with a false analogy. The difference between laetrile and medical marijuana is that 850,000 people a year don’t get their lives permanently affected by an arrest for laetrile. Medical marijuana is far more popular and effective as judged by the millions who use it, some of whom are only alive today, like Cathy Jordan, because of medical marijuana. Laetrile was indeed a false hope, thus few people seek it out anymore, even though it is an unscheduled substance. Marijuana is the third most popular substance behind alcohol and tobacco because lots of people continue to seek it out even after a century of prohibition.
“Many medical marijuana advocates press its use for pain killing and appetite enhancement,” Weiner asserted, “but you might feel just as good after a shot of gin. Science, not politics, must drive what is determined to be safe and effective medicine in America. The medical marijuana advocates never mention the potentially better applications of THC in marijuana from suppositories, jells, aerosols, or the already approved pill Marinol — they just want the high from the smoked version.
You might feel good after a shot of gin. But you’d find yourself feeling worse later and find the alcohol exacerbating your problems, unlike cannabis. And Bob Weiner has obviously never tried Marinol, which got me higher than any marijuana I’ve ever tried, or heard us drone on for years now about vaporization, tinctures, and edibles.
“There is a real danger that if marijuana is made essentially a prescription drug, its abuse and usage explosion could parallel other prescription drugs over the last decade, such as OxyContin, which have tripled nationally and quintupled in many locations because of the ease of availability.”
A real danger, perhaps, if marijuana were as addictive and deadly as OxyContin. Using Weiner logic, I could say there is a real danger that if badminton is made into a televised sport, its ratings could match the NFL.
“No one wants to deny a dying cancer patient a hit of grass, if that’s what he or she wants.”
Well, unless he or she fools the supercop into thinking he or she looks too young and healthy. Why is it OK for the dying cancer patient to enjoy “the high from the smoked version” but not the “healthy people”? Is the notion here that pot’s going to scramble your brains, corrupt your morals, and destroy your body, but, eh, fuck it, you’ll be dead soon anyway, so what? At least the cancer patient got a little slice of joy amidst all his or her suffering. But you healthy person… no joy for you!
I really think that is part of the prohibitionist’s mindset. Alcohol is OK because even though it gives you joy, it kicks your ass with a hangover the next day and it slowly kills you if you keep it up. Cigarettes are OK because even though they give you joy (or at least relieve a craving) you’re punished by standing outside in the cold and it slowly kills you if you keep it up. But cannabis gives you joy, and then the next day, week, month, year, and decade, you feel fine and still get joy from it. There’s little downside to pot use, except for the illegality. There’s no payback of misery in exchange for your joy.
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 9:36 pm | By: Radical Russ
It’s long and it’s rambling and it’s chock full of reefer madness. It’s an op-ed called “In defense of banning marijuana dispensaries” by San Bernadino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, a man who took a sacred oath to protect and defend the good people of San Bernadino (a point he makes twice – he’s only doing it for your own good, you see.)
You can get the distilled eau de guanoloco* out of just two paragraphs:
However, the real issue here is that the medical marijuana movement is a fraud. The majority of medical marijuana card holders in the state of California are under the age of 30. How many of them actually have serious illnesses other than drug addiction? Even if they were truly sick, there are no credible studies demonstrating the medical benefits of marijuana.
I guess in San Bernadino, people under 30 don’t get epilepsy, cancer, irritable bowel, glaucoma, fibromyalgia, crushed vertebrae, migraine headaches, PTSD, anxiety disorder, AIDS, or any other number of diseases and conditions medical cannabis can alleviate. Diseases and conditions that don’t necessarily put you in a wheelchair or make you look visibly sick or disabled. And even if they are truly sick, since Brad can’t be bothered by 17,000 credible studies on cannabis and cannabinoids, let them take Vicodin or something instead of a legal non-toxic herb.
The case against marijuana is most clear when the mental abilities of a lifelong marijuana smoker are observed. In fact, I will take this argument one step further. While many ill people believe their symptoms can be alleviated by smoking marijuana, the political movement behind legalizing medical marijuana is the same movement that seeks to legalize the drug for recreational use.
Well, the mental abilities of this lifelong marijuana smoker are taxed trying to understand Brad’s reasoning. Why would people like me who want to legalize marijuana for all people not support legalizing marijuana for sick people? Why would sick people who want to legalize marijuana for themselves support locking other pot smokers up for being too healthy? And do you mean that we can’t allow people to self-medicate with a non-toxic herb because some of them might enjoy it?
By the way, I want to form a new elite team of competitors called The Cannabrains. We’d go to places like San Bernadino and challenge people like Brad Mitzelfelt to whichever test of mental abilities he chooses against one of our Cannabrain lifelong marijuana smoker teammates. For example, he could play chess against chess master Ben Masel** from our Madison, Wisconsin affiliate. I’m pretty handy at pop culture trivia. Cannabis Karri is kick-ass at Boggle. Are there any more volunteers for the Cannabrains? Maybe we could seriously challenge these people and play the games online. Some of the most brilliant people I know are lifelong stoners, which makes sense when you figure intelligent people would gravitate toward the least harmful, most fulfilling recreational substance.
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm | By: Radical Russ
(Christian Science Monitor) The federal government has limited resources to fight drugs, and funds should not be wasted on prosecuting users and providers of medical marijuana who comply with state laws, the Obama administration said this week.
While this argument may indeed seem a sensible prioritizing of federal effort and dollars, the White House and the public should realize it comes with a cost.
That cost is Washington’s tacit approval of state-sanctioned medical marijuana, which the drug’s proponents will take as a green light to push even harder for their ultimate goal: full legalization of marijuana use and distribution.
Backers would like to see the buying and selling of pot regulated and taxed much like alcohol and tobacco. Their patient and well-funded route to this goal is through the states, with one avenue being state legalization of medical marijuana.
All well and good. The problem is, the line between legal and illegal regarding marijuana is fading year by year. The pro-pot groups would rub it out altogether. For the sake of a clear-thinking and healthy America, that must not be allowed to happen.
My favorite logical flaw with this reasoning is that:
a) the feds ease up on prosecuting states for medical use;
b) cannabis activists push harder for legalization;
c) so the problem is… that the people will then vote for legalization?
So, you’re admitting that the only way you can keep the people from legalizing pot is by prosecuting sick people? You’re admitting that if the people of a state experiment with legalization for a small segment of the population, they won’t find enough problems with it to oppose on a wider basis. Or they may actually find some benefits from legalization? In other words, you can only manage to keep America clear-thinking and healthy by keeping them ignorant of cannabis and putting them in cages for using it?
By the way, when does that “well-funded” start trickling on down to the Stash?
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 6:41 pm | By: Radical Russ
(Washington Post) The Justice Department says it’s backing off the prosecution of people who smoke pot or sell it in compliance with state laws that permit “medical marijuana.” Attorney General Eric Holder says “it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers.” Party hardy! I mean — let the healing begin!
I don’t think the federal government should be spending a whole lot of time on small-time druggies, and I’m undecided about legalizing pot, which enjoys 44 percent support among the general public, according to a recent poll. Recreational use is not the wisest thing — and if my 12-year-old son is reading this, that means you! — but it’s no more harmful than other drugs (e.g., alcohol) and impossible to eradicate. On the other hand, I worry it’s a gateway to harder stuff. So I think we probably should have an open debate about decriminalization.
The Institute of Medicine in 1999 and everypeer-reviewedstudysince has concluded that there is no such thing as a “gateway effect” from marijuana to “harder stuff”. What this writer, Charles Lane, wants is the government acting as parent to keep his 12-year-old off of pot by saying “don’t do it, it’s illegal”. Which, by the way, has been a colossal failure; almost forty years into the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs™ and kids still say it is much easier to acquire weed than whiskey and blunts than beer.
But it should be a real debate, about real decriminalization, and not clouded — pardon the expression — by hokum about “medical marijuana.” … I do not deny that for some people, including some terminal cancer patients and pain-wracked AIDS sufferers, marijuana is a blessed relief. Let ‘em smoke, I say, just as the Justice Department has usually ignored such cases since long before Holder spoke up. But if you believe there is any scientific evidence that smoked marijuana has the multiplicity of therapeutic uses that advocates claim — well, I’ve got a bag of oregano I’d like to sell you.
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 5:29 pm | By: Radical Russ
It seems like not a week goes by that I don’t see something in the NORML Blog’s comments similar to this:
re; Recent legalization initiative efforts in Colorado, Nevada (twice), and Alaska have all failed at the ballot box,
in a foolish attempt to win over the people who can NEVER be won over (for whatever reason, ideology or $$$ vested interest) they put in too-low limits, (1 ounce), rediculus restrictions, way beyond what is required for alcohol or prescription drugs, no legal access, (o.k. to have, illegal to sell or grow, etc) harsher provisions for some things, (for smokers who have kids who might see, or smell, something, but are NOT being harmed in any way), causing MANY pro-pot people to vote against it.
then, next time, we seem to say, “well, we lost last time, we need to give up even more to the other side this time”
“treat pot like alcohol or tobacco” gets OVER 50%. if people feel (falsely) that they are in the minority, they will stay in the closet.
when they know they are truly in the majority, they will make their voices heard, we will legalize, and some pepole will be out of their cushy jobs.
(cops),
(prison guards),
(drug dealers),
(you).
Yes it’s the old “NORML secretly doesn’t want legalization because they would go out of business” theory. Damn! Our double-secret classified master plan to keep pot illegal so we can roll around in piles of cash in our stately penthouse suite has been discovered! I was hoping that by driving around in an eleven-year-old used car with major body damage and a rear differential that sounds like a bad shopping cart wheel, I would hide the luxurious wealth I enjoy in my cushy job moderating comments at the NORML blog. You know, I was just thinking about this last time I voted against a pro-pot initiative because it wasn’t good enough. I thought, you know, it’s a good thing 850,000 people a year have their lives upended paying $400/ounce for plant matter so I can live such an opulent lifestyle.
I thought we were alone in this kind of double-cross – promoting legalization when we really don’t want it because working in the non-profit, donation-supported political advocacy sector is so financially and materially rewarding. Turns out, though, that there are plenty of us working in advocacy non-profits that secretly don’t want what we’re fighting for because it would cost us our jobs. For example, my friends working for PETA really do want to see more puppies abused and tortured because it keeps the donations flowing. My pals at Greenpeace really do love to see more Japanese whaling because every dead cetacean is another dollar for the cause. My NAACP buddies don’t really want to see an end to racial discrimination because they’d have to find real work. Al Gore is just crossing his fingers and hoping you’ll burn some more coal so he can win another Nobel Prize. Just like we here at NORML really want marijuana to remain forbidden so we can write blog posts, answer emails, lobby politicians, appear on radio and TV, and travel across the country working 60-80-hour weeks for something we don’t believe in.
If only we were better at masking our true intentions, like the guys in the grassy knoll, the directors on the moon landing soundstage, and the explosives experts in the basement of the World Trade Center, maybe we could have gotten away with it all.
MrSpof: Maybe Dr Mitch could comment on the efficacy of reasonable amount of weed like that consumed (smoked) quickly mitigating migraine effects. I know the lowering of blood pressure would be [...]
MrSpof: Had the onset of a migraine yesterday. Immediately took 8 , moist cool washcloth on eyes, heating pad on neck and upper back, turned off lights. Migraine gone in [...]
MrSpof: As you personal non-accredited doctor, I advise the rest of you to smoke/vape/eat heavily
slash5city: frickazee'd.... Mr. Spof, thank you very much
MrSpof: Risen and roasted How the hell are you?
RevRayGreen: always Fidget......always.
Adam: Maybe in WA, judges are starting to think about the true cost of a Drug charge...
Adam: Tim Lincecum, pitcher for the San Francisco Giants will pea to a paraphernalia charge/ Possession charges DROPPED
Adam: Add some cottage cheese to your pancake batter, replace the maple with a fruit syrup! f-ing killer, YES I was stoned...
Fidget Truittelli: Good morning from beautiful Arizona! I hope you all have a happy, fun day. Remember to 'pay-it' forward. Do something nice for someone.
BenJaMin: Go NORML!!!
BenJaMin: Russ Is Tha BEst! :smokin:
SneakerPimp: oh there it is thanx russ
SneakerPimp: so whats up with today stash?
RevRayGreen: Barney Frank Present When Partner Arrested for pot-- http://bit.ly/1XpM2R
RevRayGreen: KMK 11/17/09 VAL AIR ballroom DSM
bullbog: that's crazy. I had a NORML black t-shirt on. It was hell of a show
RevRayGreen: dude I was probably 4-5 seats from you then
bullbog: 4th row center. I wish I was closer.
RevRayGreen: were in in the orchestra pit 4th row? or 4th row center, that's where I was bu slightly to the right
RevRayGreen: our show ______v'''''''
RevRayGreen: catch our chow tomorrow online Carl'sCannabis Corner
www.macswordlive.com 12-2 PM you can go there now and find archived shows
bullbog: revraygreen after looking at your pic from last nite. I'm pretty sure I seen you. I regonize you from the march in May
Just Legalize It: nothing really cool dealing with marijuana happens in massachusetts.... it sucks.... other than the boston freedom rally... but one thing a year isnt enough! i want to move to [...]
"Truth In Trials Act" Reintroduced In Congress; Maine: Voters Approve Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Measure; Colorado: Breckenridge Voters Overwhelmingly Decide To End Pot Penalties. […]
Maine: Voters To Decide Next Week On Medical Marijuana Expansion Measure; Colorado: Breckenridge Voters To Decide Next Week On Eliminating Pot Penalties; California: Lawmakers Hold Historic Hearing On Marijuana Legalization; New Hampshire: Senate Fails To Override Medical Marijuana Veto. […]
Gallup: Majority Of West Coast Voters Back Marijuana Legalization; Pot Arrests Responsible For Majority Of Marijuana Treatment Referrals; DOJ To Federal Prosecutors: Do Not Focus Resources On Medical Marijuana. […]
Some of the nation’s top athletes discuss why today's pros are turning to cannabis — and away from alcohol and painkillers — off the field, and question why pro sports leagues are continuing to sanction those who do. Moderator: Steve Bloom, Author, Pot Culture; editor, celebstoner.com * Toby Grear, MMA fighter * Sean Neumann, Documentary Filmm […]
Cannabis Law Reform's Missing Link: Law Enforcement Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper; LEAP and NORML Advisory Board; Author of Breaking Rank Putting the Mexican Cartels Out of Business Mexican drug cartels now employ over 100,000 soldiers and are responsible for nearly ten thousand deaths per year. Their largest source of income is marijuana. […]
Iowa Sen. Grassley: Webb Commission will “do what we tell them to do” and not “recommend or study the legalization of drugs.”
, moist cool washcloth on eyes, heating pad on neck and upper back, turned off lights. Migraine gone in [...]
frickazee'd.... Mr. Spof, thank you very much
and roasted 
Russ Is Tha BEst! 
Fresh Stash V RSS Feed
Loading ...
