home

Dueling Marijuana Studies

A new U.S. study finds that marijuana potency has increased in recent years. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy responds like Henny Penny claiming the sky is falling. :

[Drug Czar John Walters] cited the risk of psychological, cognitive and respiratory problems, and the potential for users to become dependent on drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

A more rational view: [More...]

While the drug's potency may be rising, marijuana users generally adjust to the level of potency and smoke it accordingly, said Dr. Mitch Earleywine, who teaches psychology at the State University of New York in Albany and serves as an adviser for marijuana advocacy groups. "Stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke," he said.

...[T]here's no data showing that a higher potency in marijuana leads to more addiction, Earleywine said, and marijuana's withdrawal symptoms are mild at best. "Mild irritability, craving for marijuana and decreased appetite — I mean those are laughable when you talk about withdrawal from a drug. Caffeine is worse."

Meanwhile, a study by the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute (CPMCRI) has found that ingredients in the marijuana plant inhibit the the activity of breast cancer cells "in vitro" and in animals.

While previous studies have found that tetrahydrocannabinol, another cannabis compound known as THC, has properties found to inhibit cancer growth, the CPMCRI study is the first time that CBD has been shown to have a similar effect. According to CPMCRI, the study was accepted for publication in October.

"This pre-clinical research clearly demonstrates the therapeutic potential of marijuana's active compounds," said CPMCRI cannabinoid researcher Jahan Marcu, who is also on the Medical & Scientific Advisory Board of Americans for Safe Access (ASA). "The availability of a non-toxic substance that has the potential to fight breast cancer and likely other forms of cancer is of tremendous importance."

Also significant is a new study by Canadian scientists showing that marijuana repairs damaged brain cells and reduces anxiety and depression. This is similar to findings by researchers in Israel who found that "cannabinoid drugs are helpful in cases of nerve damage and trauma" and by the US Department of Veteran Affairs which "found similar results working with veterans suffering from PTSD in the 1980s and suppressed the results."

< Texecutions Resume With Huge Last Meal Request | Rezko Defends Obama in Letter to Judge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is good news (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM EST
    or it would be, if we could legally get any:

    Also significant is a new study by Canadian scientists showing that marijuana repairs damaged brain cells and reduces anxiety and depression.

    As it is, I have to destroy brain cells in order to reduce anxiety! ;-)

    Seriously: Interesting stuff. Thanks!

    Warning! (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:06:47 AM EST
    Many years ago, having heard somewhere that MJ reduced menstrual cramping, I tried it for that on a bad day.  BIG MISTAKE.  Didn't reduce it at all, but it did make time move much, much more slowly.  When I realized what a dumb thing I'd done to myself-- just streched out my intense physical discomfort even longer-- the other main effect of MJ kicked in and I started laughing so hard at my own stupidity that I got through it OK.


    Parent
    The THC inhibitor (sorta reversed mariguna) (none / 0) (#35)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    Was very close to being the new wonder drug.  It was closed down in the last stage of trials as it showed that it increased heart issues (I believe).  But it did show that is:
    Decreased appetite
    Increased concentration
    It was sorta like a healthy speed with more positive side effects

    The point is that, by studying these drugs, we can find so many uses.  It is a shame that the worse set of classes I had in medical school were the one's on illegal drugs.  The reason they were bad is that there was just no science to back up the information, because studying these drugs is not okay.  It was like a very detailed say no to drugs campaign (with a hard test at the end).


    Parent

    Well The Dolts At BushCo (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    Obviously need to have adult supervision around when using any concentrated products. Particularly concentrated laundry detergent, frozen orange juice concentrate, anchovy paste, and especially alcohol. I can imagine the shock and possibly death that would when those who are used to drinking two pints of beer drink the same volume of tequila.

    Higher potency? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Left of center on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:36:26 AM EST
    Pot buyers are actually getting their moneys worth? This kind of thing could be very detrimental to the American business community where you usually get get less than half of what you pay for, no matter what the product is.

    On the Other Hand (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:40:48 AM EST
    Here in Humboldt County, the industry is responding to marketplace demand, which these days is for large, perfectly shaped buds.  This has to be marijuana that is grown indoors.  Which means lots of trucks delivering diesel fuel on horrible rural dirt roads, crossing precarious bridges, to deliver the fuel into plastic water tanks that have no secondary containment.

    Diesel spills into secondary and tertiary mountain streams kills salmon fry and is creating a series of silent springs.

    Indoor grown bud is also subject to spider mite infestations, to which growers respond by dousing the whole grow room with extremely toxic pesticides.  

    Guess what?  They don't wash the pesticides off before they ship the bud to consumers.

    Happy trails.

    Most People I Know (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    Prefer organic outdoor plants from Humbolt. Longer growth period means big plants with more nutritious vitamins and better buzz. And the buds look just fine. I guess everyone has their priorities.

    Parent
    I just love this (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:51:52 AM EST
    Oh no! More potent marijuana with more THC! Heavens what will we do! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

     Putting aside whether or not these idiots have ever smoked marijuana, do they know ANYONE who has? What are the drawbacks of even, hell, habitual use? They like to eat and laugh.  So what? Who cares?

     We are spending millions, billions of dollars to ban plant life.  Ridiculous.

    Hey Scoob, light me up one more. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:06:13 AM EST
    This comes as no surprise since pot has been steadily growing in potency since at least the 1970s. The drug czar gave the typical kneejerk reaction, completely ignoring the positive evidence that's out there. But that's politics.

    The real crime: Filling our overcrowded prisons with drug users while we're running out of room for violent offenders. Sentencing needs a serious revamp.

    Sorry you missed the Thai. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:30:21 AM EST
    The best in the '70s was as potent as anything on the market today. What's changed is which fraction of what's on the market gets busted. Used to be the narcs were sitting in basrs looking to buy, the best wasd spooken for, but the crap could only be moved by fronting it to the flakes who sold to strangers in bars.

    Nowadays, they're likely to bust grows, getting the high end for their surveys.

    Parent

    Not To Mention (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    Mexican Flowertops, and all the wonderful strains that were available in the 70's. Personally I have not noticed a difference in strength, but I have noticed a big reduction in variety.

    Parent
    Exactly... (none / 0) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    ...what I was thinking.  Sure isn't like it was when I was a kid.  Back then you could get an amazing variety and most of it was pretty potent.  

    Perhaps the government is making more potent strains, but they can't compare to the sweet, super sticky stuff from the 70's/80's.

    Parent

    this whole "gateway drug" theory (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:59:42 AM EST
    is a load of statistical crap. i'd bet money that if they asked, most heroin and cocaine users also drank alcohol and ate snickers bars. using their methodology, one could then reasonably argue (with the same level of validity) that both alcohol and snickers bars are "gateway" drugs as well.

    i suspect the seagrams and M & M Mars Co's might argue otherwise. and god help them if they try and make snickers bars illegal!

    there is no valid, scientifically based evidence, to support the claim that use of pot inevitably leads to use of harder drugs, or even significantly increases the probability, there just isn't. this hasn't stopped the harry anslingers from asserting it, but it just isn't so.

    all that said, i'll give this report all the respect it's due, and use it put my cat's food and water dishes on, to keep the floor clean.


    re: Gateway drugs (none / 0) (#39)
    by Pieter B on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    Some years back Dr, Dean Edell broadcast a report on study which showed that the real "gateway drug" to alcoholism and hard drug abuse in teenagers was tobacco. Ah, here we go -- National Institute on Drug Abuse. This article is more recent than the study I recall Dr. Dean speaking of, and the conclusion is the same.

    Parent
    Ten years ago (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54:45 PM EST
    an anti-drug propagandist came to my school and insisted that marijuana then wasn't "what the Beatles were smoking." She was laughed off.

    Andgarden, what was she saying? (none / 0) (#4)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:02:10 AM EST
    I don't understand the point...

    Parent
    Exactly what Jeralyn is highlighting here (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:11:39 AM EST
    That MJ supposedly didn't used to be so powerful.

    Parent
    So why was she laughed out? (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:14:59 AM EST
    Sorry to be so dense...


    Parent
    Maybe Because It Is More Powerful Today (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:40:57 AM EST
    And everyone got uncontrollable giggles, or perhaps everyone was just tripping.

    Parent
    gyrfalcon, (none / 0) (#18)
    by creeper on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:17:56 AM EST
    it took me a couple of reads before I followed what andgarden was saying. I think the explanation is in the title subject of his post.  The speaker was saying that marijuana in 1998 was not the same as what the Beatles were smoking in the '60's.

    She was probably right.  So what?

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:00:54 AM EST
    In my day, at least, the range of effects of pot was very limited-- not like alcohol where you can go anywhere from faintly happy to dead drunk, but just a pretty basic level, no matter how much you did.  No point at all to using up good weed once you'd gotten where you wanted to be anyway.

    I conclude people like Walters and his ilk have never used it and simply have no idea what they're talking about.  Bet they routinely have a few cocktails at lunch, though.

    The main reasons, I'm convinced, that MJ use ever leads to harder drugs is because it breaks the psychological barrier to using something illegal, but more importantly, the fact that buying the stuff, depending on your source, can open the door to the ability to get hold of more dangerous drugs for those so inclined.  The vast majority aren't so inclined, and legalization would eliminate both of those hazards altogether.

    They should stop wasting their time fuming about marijuana and focus on meth.

    That's how I was back in the day (none / 0) (#43)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    Smoke, get a buzz and that was it.  To me, there was no point in smoking more because I wasn't going to get any higher.  However, I had plenty of friends who would keep smoking continuously, so I guess it's one of those YMMV (your mileage may vary) things.  

    I do agree with your point about breaking the psychological barrier.  Also, the demonization of marijuana made us discount the warnings about other drugs.  

    I have no idea whether pot is stronger now than it was 30-40 years ago.  I rarely smoke anymore, and since I'm 30-40  years older, it hits me harder.  I do know it's way more expensive!

    Parent

    DARE? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:10:19 AM EST
    My daughter's class, got together and asked the cop:  if she smoked pot when she was young.  And they decided if she said no, only two things were possible:  she was a dork or lying.  Either option was not a good thing.  Of course she said no.  So, much for drug education in 4th grade.  

    I was a dork.  So, there.  

    DARE..... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    does such a diservice to our kids it's not even funny.

    I'll never forgive that bastard who came to my class in the 5th grade saying smoking marijuana can kill you.  He had me thinking my older brother was on death's door.

    I thought honesty was the best policy...

    Parent

    Irony, Thy Name Is DARE (none / 0) (#44)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    I remember reading, and this was years and years ago, a study that found that in some cases, hard drug usage actually went UP a small but statistically significant amount, in schools where DARE has pushed their party line. The explaination for that phenomenon went something like this:

    DARE comes in, and fills kids heads with the worst of lies; Marijuana kills you, is a guaranteed gateway drug, etc etc etc. Instead of telling kids the truth, which is, it's not harmless, you shouldn't be smoking it as kids, but chances are it's not really going to harm you in any significant way.

    So some of these kids smoke weed anyhow. Find out that, HEY, it didn't kill me like those pigs in DARE said it would. This leads the kids to believe that the information given on hard, dangerous drugs like meth, coke, and heroin must be lies too.

    I don't know if this is for real or not, but it has an odd sort of logic about it. Look at how "successful" and how quickly those ads trying to link marijuana to terrorism and children shooting each other with guns were pulled.

    Parent

    I think it definitely could be for real.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    I know when I got older and found out for myself how much the DARE officers flat-out lied about marijuana, I wondered if they were lying about cocaine and heroin too.

    Luckily, I knew enough people around the neighborhood who were addicted to these drugs to see that DARE wasn't totally full of sh*t when it came to the harder stuff, just partially.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:03:54 PM EST
    The truth is enough. But they can't be satisfied with the truth. Because the truth is that without marijuana (which is no worse than alcohol or tobacco, and in some ways, less bad), the DEA would have to make massive cutbacks. The police would actually have to go after REAL criminals. The prison-industrial complex would collapse. And who's going to force person after person to take drug tests?

    I remember the most useless thing DARE ever did when I was a kid: Hand out Mike and Ikes and say "Okay, I'm going to pretend to be a drug dealer. You have to say no when I offer you "drugs". And we're thinking "Turn down delicious candy?! NO!" So we're all munching on our fruit-flavored esters, laughing at the teen DARE teachers. Sad...

    Parent

    This quote: (none / 0) (#9)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    While the drug's potency may be rising, marijuana users generally adjust to the level of potency and smoke it accordingly, said Dr. Mitch Earleywine, who teaches psychology at the State University of New York in Albany and serves as an adviser for marijuana advocacy groups. "Stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke," he said.

    is entirely consistent with what has been shown in tobacco smokers. [Smokers "compensate" for low-tar or low-nicotine cigarettes by inhaling deeper, etc.]

    Awful as smoking is as a drug delivery method, it does allow the user to effectively titrate doses, it seems.

    Trauma (none / 0) (#17)
    by creeper on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:09:24 AM EST
    This is similar to findings by researchers in Israel who found that "cannabinoid drugs are helpful in cases of nerve damage and trauma"

    I fell a week ago and fractured my pelvis.  This is incredibly painful and there is no pain medication that brings relief.  Even Oxycontin does nothing to stop the hurt.  You feel the "rush" (managing a grin here) but underneath the waves of disconnectedness the pain remains.

    How I wish marijuana were an option.  Then maybe I'd be sleeping at this hour instead of whining to you.

    For that sort of pain (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:36:13 AM EST
    better to eat cannabis extracts in large doses. When I broke my ankle5 years ago, the ER doc couldn't believe I was turning down opioids. Once they put me on a morphine drip to operate however, the cannabis alone didn't work so well.

    Aside from providing a stesadier dose, best to eat it rather than smoke, or ev en vaporize,to avoid shaking the injury by coughing.

    Parent

    Propaganda Studies (none / 0) (#21)
    by jsknow on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:00:15 AM EST
    PROHIBITION never works it just CAUSES CRIME & VIOLENCE. Illegal drugs are way easier for kids to get than legal ones. The USA spends $69 billion a year on the drug war, builds 900 new prison beds and hires 150 more correction officers every two weeks, arrests someone on a drug charge every 17 seconds, jails more people than any nation and has killed over 100,000 citizens because of the drug war. In 1914 when ALL DRUGS WERE LEGAL 1.3% of our population was addicted to drugs, today 1.3% of our population is STILL ADDICTED TO DRUGS. The only way to control drugs is to REGULATE THEM AND END THE PROFITS AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALS just like ending alcohol prohibition did. There's only been one drug success story in history, tobacco, THE MOST DEADLY and one of the MOST ADDICTIVE drugs. Almost half the users quit because of REGULATION, ACCURATE INFORMATION AND MEDICAL TREATMENT. No one went to jail and no one got killed. JOIN EMAIL LIST, WATCH VIDEOS:
    Internet Explorer:  http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
    Other Browsers:  http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html


    the man (none / 0) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:58:24 AM EST
    is always keeping us down. OK, that was a bit of a flashback, and here's another: Buffalo Springfield, one of Stills best early songs with a cut up Neil Young for your late night viewing pleasure.

    I never understood what the big deal was. Caffeine and alcohol are worse than pot in my opinion. Well, perhaps except for the smoking part. I have to admit, new stuff sure seems a lot more potent than what I remember from, well, a while ago. But I'd have to do further studies to be sure.

    Studied for over a hundred years (none / 0) (#24)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:00:29 AM EST
    Dating back to the British Hemp Commission...and the conclusions then were pretty much the same as today...so why is it still illegal? Partly because of the the way the propaganda used to justify its' prohibition is presented.:

    Themes in Chemical Prohibition By William L. White, from: Drugs in Perspective, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979

    The main themes:

    1. The drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy.

    1. The drug is identified as solely responsible for many problems in the culture, i.e., crime, violence, and insanity.

    2. The survival of the culture is pictured as being dependent on the prohibition of the drug.

    3. The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino theory" of chemical progression.

    4. The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption.

    5. Both the user and supplier of the drug are defined as fiends, always in search of new victims; usage of the drug is considered "contagious."

    6. Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access.

    8. Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated. (Emphasis mine: CMD)

    Now, don't that sound like yer average stick-up-the-arse culture warrior? Back in the day of alcohol Prohibition, he looked like this. (Click on the individual pics for detail.)

    Now, he looks like this.  But, then as before, he really, really likes his work

    If the DEA Is Unhappy With Increased Potency (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    then they only have themselves to blame.

    Seriously, theres a reason why bootleggers only dealt in spirits and hooch. The more powerful and compact the substance, the easier it is to get more of it across the border.

    More THC just = less amount needed to smoke to get the same effect. Some of that Dutch stuff really can knock you back on your ass if you aren't careful though, but at least it won't permanently blind you or something like bad hooch could.

    And unlike tobacco, you can at least vape cannabis, and get rid of smoke problems altogether...

    hey!! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Gringo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:23:37 AM EST
    I  just realized that when I experimented  with drugs back in the late 60's,  I was warned that for the rest of my life I would experience "flashbacks".

    Well....I ain't been having any flashbacks and I feel cheated!   I paid good money for those drugs,  with the full understanding that at some later date I would experience flashbacks.

    Where  the hell is  Ralph Nader when you need him?

    I want my flashbacks!!

    Nice graphic (none / 0) (#27)
    by dead dancer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:19 AM EST
    Garden gnome! Never.

    Garden gnome burning one! Look great placed next to the front door welcome mat.

    Could be onto something here.

    from what i hear there is not much diff (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:36:51 AM EST
    In the past few years.  Sometimes it is a bit stronger than others but mostly the same.  Now while I was in spain i heard that it was much much better, two puffs and out.  

    Skunk (none / 0) (#29)
    by allpeopleunite on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:48:14 AM EST
    It must be remembered that skunk (now predominant in the United Kingdom and becoming popular in the United States) has no Cannabidiol which is what balances out the THC's psychotic effects, so in a way that weed is fundamentally different from the weed normally smoked.

    Marijuana Is Bad for You (none / 0) (#30)
    by john horse on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:51:35 AM EST
    I think marijuana is bad for you.  So is nicotine.  So is alcohol.  All drugs have potential harmful effects.  That is why I don't advocate anyone using drugs.

    However, I believe that just because something is bad for you doesn't necessarily mean it has to be illegal.  We have to look at the costs and benefits of prohibition.  

    After decades of research, the federal government has not made the case that the ill effects of marijuana use justify its illegalization.  Take this recent study.  

    "Particularly worrisome is the possibility that the more potent THC might be more effective at triggering the changes in the brain that can lead to addiction," Volkow (director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse) said.

    I think there is also a possibility that Volkow is talking out of both sides of her *ss.  I find it "particularly worrisome" when I see studies that couch their conclusions in "likelihood" and "might".  After all these decades of prohibition, doesn't the government have any conclusive studies documenting marijuana's harmful effects.  Over thirty years ago, Dr. Lester Grinspoon studied the effects of marijuana and concluded that smoking marijuana is no more and no less harmful than drinking a cocktail.  I see no studies  that contradict this conclusion.      

    If that is the case then the arguement for prohibition just doesn't hold up.  Too many lives have been ruined and resources wasted in the war against marijuana use.  Its time to end the madness.

    agreed with everything but the title (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18:22 AM EST
    I simply dont think its "bad" for everyone in all cases.
    anything can be bad if abused.  potency certainly has increased.  I am not always happy about this.  I  actually prefer the "not-quite-killer" stuff.
    but its getting harder and harder to find.
    from a commodity stand point it makes sense. for the same quantity the provider can make more money.
    something any business can relate to.
    commerce is a wonderful thing.


    Parent
    Maybe Bad For You (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    But for many it is good.

    MJ is just another plant that seems to have curative effects for many people. It counteracts stress and provides antioxident protections against certain cancers. Some say that tomatoes and all deadly nightshades are bad for you too....

    Parent

    I'd definitely concur.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:25:48 AM EST
    that more high potency is in the black marketplace than in years past, and this is definitely a good thing as it leads to less inhaled smoke, as the good doctor pointed out.

    As for the anxiety and depression study, in my personal experience I've found it very effective in reducing stress and anxiety.  It's the ultimate relaxation aid.  Depression not so much....I find the herb enhances existing emotions...if you're happy it makes you happier, if you're down in the dumps it can take you further down.  Though it's important to remember it effects every human being differently, others may find it effective in battling depression.  

    But it's fine to buy pre-made Jello shots... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    ...at the local grocery.  Or spiked lemonade.  Or, or or....  The complete absurdity and hypocrisy of marijuana prohibition continues.  

    Or to brew it at home (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    Good for Anheiser-Busch and all that the puritans who founded this country loved their beer.

    Parent
    Hey, don't forget about home winos. (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    SB 607 just got signed into law.

    Parent
    Instead of more... (none / 0) (#38)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    phoney baloney anti-marijuana propaganda studies,
    they should focus their resources into protecting us from !!!POISON TOMATOES!!! and other food disasters.

    Put the killer tomato pushers in the slammer. (none / 0) (#41)
    by JSN on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM EST
    killer tomatos (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    great movie

    Parent