[Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
Darrell Keim
keim153 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 3 15:22:54 PDT 2013
No disagreement here.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:
> The logical thing is to spend a lot more effort on alcohol abuse.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Absolutely, Art! So the logical thing to do is to legalize more drugs,
>> thereby increasing that toll.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Its difficult for me to understand those bitching so much about
>>> marijuana given huge toll that alcohol consumption has on our society.
>>> Just Google the costs of alcohol consumption on society to get a little
>>> hint.
>>>
>>> w.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had heard about it, but not realized it was available online.
>>>> Watching momentarily. Personally, I don't have much issue with medical
>>>> marijuana. People in real pain should have access to relief. What I don't
>>>> like is the poor way it has been implemented in the various states that are
>>>> trying. If it is medical, it should be treated as such. The drug should
>>>> be dispensed from REAL pharmacies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did you happen to catch Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s recent “Weed” documentary?
>>>>> It really was quite interesting . . . and discussed how the “anti” crowd
>>>>> really has been who manipulates the science J****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> In case you missed it:****
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *Why I changed my mind on weed*
>>>>>
>>>>> By *Dr. Sanjay Gupta*, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent****
>>>>>
>>>>> updated 8:44 PM EDT, Thu August 8, 2013****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *(CNN)* -- Over the last year, I have been working on a new
>>>>> documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the
>>>>> content is not.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts,
>>>>> growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions.
>>>>> What I found was stunning.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the
>>>>> scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and
>>>>> thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it
>>>>> was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in
>>>>> a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on
>>>>> Pot <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1552034,00.html>
>>>>> ."****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I am here to apologize.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't
>>>>> look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other
>>>>> countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the
>>>>> loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.
>>>>> ****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just
>>>>> looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency
>>>>> listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance<http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml>because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning
>>>>> as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that
>>>>> have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know
>>>>> that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It
>>>>> doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate
>>>>> medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that
>>>>> works. Take the case of Charlotte Figi<http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html>,
>>>>> who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after birth. By age
>>>>> 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different medications.
>>>>> Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures to 2 or 3 per
>>>>> month.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen more patients like Charlotte first hand, spent time with
>>>>> them and come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide
>>>>> the best care we can as a medical community, care that could involve
>>>>> marijuana.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in
>>>>> the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this article and upcoming documentary will help set the record
>>>>> straight.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O.
>>>>> Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as
>>>>> a schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years.
>>>>> My research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What
>>>>> I found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:****
>>>>>
>>>>> "Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the
>>>>> plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is
>>>>> that marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion
>>>>> of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana
>>>>> was classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg
>>>>> mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my
>>>>> investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have
>>>>> important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25
>>>>> years earlier.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *High risk of abuse*****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research<http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm>to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their
>>>>> conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in
>>>>> the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence
>>>>> marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence
>>>>> in around 9 to 10% of its adult users. By comparison, cocaine, a
>>>>> schedule 2 substance <http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml>"with less abuse potential than schedule 1 drugs" hooks 20% of those who
>>>>> use it. Around 25% of heroin users become addicted.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> The worst is tobacco, where the number is closer to 30% of smokers,
>>>>> many of whom go on to die because of their addiction.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> There is clear evidence that in some people marijuana use can lead to
>>>>> withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea. Even
>>>>> considering this, it is hard to make a case that it has a high potential
>>>>> for abuse. The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like
>>>>> those of the other drugs I've mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from
>>>>> alcohol, and it can be life threatening.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young,
>>>>> developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than
>>>>> adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years
>>>>> leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible
>>>>> heightened risk of developing psychosis.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I
>>>>> wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about
>>>>> trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s
>>>>> when their brains are fully developed.****
>>>>>
>>>>> * *
>>>>>
>>>>> *Medical benefit*****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> While investigating, I realized something else quite important.
>>>>> Medical marijuana is not new, and the medical community has been writing
>>>>> about it for a long time. There were in fact hundreds of journal articles,
>>>>> mostly documenting the benefits. Most of those papers, however, were
>>>>> written between the years 1840 and 1930. The papers described the use of
>>>>> medical marijuana to treat "neuralgia, convulsive disorders, emaciation,"
>>>>> among other things.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> A search through the U.S. National Library of Medicine this past year
>>>>> pulled up nearly 20,000 more recent papers<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=medical+marijuana>.
>>>>> But the majority were research into the harm of marijuana, such as "Bad
>>>>> trip due to anticholinergic effect of cannabis<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906840>,"
>>>>> or "Cannabis induced pancreatitits<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23892868>"
>>>>> and "Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283>."
>>>>> ****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the
>>>>> current U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical
>>>>> marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints
>>>>> a highly distorted picture.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *The challenges of marijuana research*****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> To do studies on marijuana in the United States today, you need two
>>>>> important things.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, you need marijuana. And marijuana is illegal. You see
>>>>> the problem. Scientists can get research marijuana from a special farm in
>>>>> Mississippi, which is astonishingly located in the middle of the Ole Miss
>>>>> campus, but it is challenging. When I visited this year, there was no
>>>>> marijuana being grown.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> The second thing you need is approval, and the scientists I
>>>>> interviewed kept reminding me how tedious that can be. While a cancer study
>>>>> may first be evaluated by the National Cancer Institute, or a pain study
>>>>> may go through the National Institute for Neurological Disorders, there is
>>>>> one more approval required for marijuana: NIDA, the National Institute on
>>>>> Drug Abuse. It is an organization that has a core mission of studying drug
>>>>> abuse, as opposed to benefit.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuck in the middle are the legitimate patients who depend on
>>>>> marijuana as a medicine, oftentimes as their only good option.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United
>>>>> States drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed
>>>>> was neuropathic pain<http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/guide/neuropathic-pain>.
>>>>> It is a miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have
>>>>> described it as "lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles."
>>>>> While marijuana has long been documented to be effective for this
>>>>> awful pain<http://www.jwatch.org/ac200704300000001/2007/04/30/marijuana-painful-peripheral-neuropathy#sthash.e8PMYHlU.dpuf>,
>>>>> the most common medications prescribed today come from the poppy plant,
>>>>> including morphine, oxycodone and dilaudid.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well
>>>>> for this kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United States every
>>>>> 19 minutes from a prescription drug overdose<http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/health/gupta-accidental-overdose>,
>>>>> mostly accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much
>>>>> as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana
>>>>> overdose.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> It is perhaps no surprise then that 76% of physicians recently
>>>>> surveyed<http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/poll-76-percent-of-doctors-approve-of-medical-marijuana-for-advanced-cancer-pain>said they would approve the use of marijuana to help ease a woman's pain
>>>>> from breast cancer.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> When marijuana became a schedule 1 substance, there was a request to
>>>>> fill a "void in our knowledge." In the United States, that has been
>>>>> challenging because of the infrastructure surrounding the study of an
>>>>> illegal substance, with a drug abuse organization at the heart of the
>>>>> approval process. And yet, despite the hurdles, we have made considerable
>>>>> progress that continues today.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in
>>>>> Spain and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401181217.htm>and its components. I'm intrigued by the neuro-protective study by Lev
>>>>> Meschoulam in Israel, and research in Israel and the United States on
>>>>> whether the drug might help alleviate symptoms of PTSD<http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-case-for-treating-ptsd-in-veterans-with-medical-marijuana/251466/>.
>>>>> I promise to do my part to help, genuinely and honestly, fill the remaining
>>>>> void in our knowledge.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> Citizens in 20 states and the District of Columbia have now voted to
>>>>> approve marijuana for medical applications, and more states will be making
>>>>> that choice soon. As for Dr. Roger Egeberg, who wrote that letter in 1970,
>>>>> he passed away 16 years ago.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what he would think if he were alive today.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
>>>>> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Darrell Keim
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:32 PM
>>>>> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media****
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> I enjoyed this article about why talking drug use prevention is so
>>>>> difficult on the internet. Certainly matches my own findings. My father
>>>>> was also roundly attacked when he lobbied against M legalization in his
>>>>> state.****
>>>>>
>>>>> ****
>>>>>
>>>>> *This article from Sue Rusche of What About The Children campaign was
>>>>> published to show just how inane are comments from the drug user community
>>>>> on the internet. The sad part is that many young people use Facebook and
>>>>> Twitter and can be easily influenced by the comments they read on these and
>>>>> similar sites. Parents need to educate their youngsters so that they know
>>>>> how biased and full of untruths such comment from drug users can be. NDPA
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Don’t Expect to Learn Anything True about Marijuana From Internet
>>>>> Commenters* <http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?p=1079>****
>>>>>
>>>>> Six days after *The Huffington Post* published my latest article,
>>>>> browsers had logged in 156 comments. The post was titled Marijuana
>>>>> Legalization Proponents Deny Health Harms Just Like the Tobacco Industry Did<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-rusche/marijuana-legalization-pr_b_2884765.html>;
>>>>> 153 of the 156 comments proved the point. ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Just 30 people made 80 percent (125) of the comments. Contributing the
>>>>> most were truthaboutmmj<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/truthaboutmmj?action=comments>(19); kevin
>>>>> hunt2012<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/kevin_hunt2012?action=comments>(12); Andrew
>>>>> swanteni<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Andrew_swanteni?action=comments>(9); Blows
>>>>> Against the Empire<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Blows_Against_the_Empire?action=comments>and
>>>>> ConnieInCleveland<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ConnieInCleveland?action=comments>(6 each);
>>>>> RMForbes<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/RMForbes?action=comments>,
>>>>> SchumannFu<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SchumannFu?action=comments>,
>>>>> and Volteric<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Volteric?action=comments>(5 each);
>>>>> JohnThomas<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JohnThomas?action=comments>,
>>>>> Tomaniac<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Tomaniac?action=comments>,
>>>>> and WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>(4 each); average
>>>>> dude<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/average_dude?action=comments>,
>>>>> FlyingTooLow<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FlyingTooLow?action=comments>,
>>>>> JD Salinger<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JD_Salinger?action=comments>,
>>>>> Matthew Fairbrother<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Matthew_Fairbrother?action=comments>,
>>>>> McMike55<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/McMike55?action=comments>,
>>>>> moldy <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/moldy?action=comments>, Paul
>>>>> Paul <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Paul_Paul?action=comments>,
>>>>> and susierr<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/susierr?action=comments>(3 each). Eleven people contributed 2 comments each; 28 contributed 1 each.
>>>>> Only one person, Jan Beauregard, PhD<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jan_Beauregard?action=comments>,
>>>>> a Virginia psychotherapist<http://ipivirginia.com/2012/10/jan-beauregard/>whose specialties include addictive disorders, agreed that marijuana has
>>>>> health harms. She contributed three comments. ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Clicking a link in a commenter’s name will take you to *Huff Post’s*<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/your-huffpost-experience_b_260666.html>Social News and a collection of all the comments that person has made about
>>>>> *Huff Post* stories. Commenters apply<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?paged=1>for a spot on Social News by linking it to their Facebook accounts, which
>>>>> magnifies *Huff Post’s* reach. Call it *Huff Post* squared.* Huff Post
>>>>> * cubed occurs if commenters also link Social News to their Twitter
>>>>> accounts. *Huff Post *<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/introducing-huffpost-badg_b_557168.html>awards
>>>>> badges to commenters based on the number of comments they make on *Huff
>>>>> Post’s* stories and the number of Facebook Friends and Twitter
>>>>> Followers they have. The more comments, friends, and followers, the higher
>>>>> level badges they earn. WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>,
>>>>> for example, who must hold some kind of record, has written more than
>>>>> 10,000 comments since joining Social News in May 2012 and has earned four
>>>>> badges–Level 2 Networker, Level 2 Superuser, Level 1 Crime Solver, and
>>>>> Moderator. ****
>>>>>
>>>>> *Huff Post* has brilliantly tapped into social media to expand its
>>>>> audience exponentially. But this brave new world comes at a cost. Few
>>>>> editors live in this world. Opinions triumph over facts. Quantity trumps
>>>>> quality. Truth loses. ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Juxtapose this with two major problems of current science: 1) the
>>>>> public cannot access most published studies and 2) scientific disciplines
>>>>> are so specialized that public access<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?paged=1>would hardly matter. A PhD is needed to understand the complexity of new
>>>>> knowledge scientists are developing today, and a PhD in one discipline does
>>>>> not guarantee understanding of knowledge developed in another. Scientists
>>>>> can’t speak each other’s languages anymore, so specialized have various
>>>>> disciplines become. An astronomer couldn’t explain the genome to you any
>>>>> better than a geneticist could explain the cosmos. ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Without access to comprehensible science, science illiteracy rules,
>>>>> particularly in the area of the science that underlies addictive drugs.
>>>>> Perhaps the most puzzling argument that runs through many of the comments
>>>>> about my post is one that rejects later work which contradicts earlier
>>>>> studies. WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>,
>>>>> for example, writes, “According to Dreher 1994, there are no prenatal or
>>>>> neonatal differences between babies from mothers who did use cannabis
>>>>> during pregnancy and babies from mothers who did not.” In addition to the
>>>>> 2012 study I wrote about, more than 50 other studies about the harmful
>>>>> effects of marijuana on the developing fetus have been published since
>>>>> 1994, but WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>claims the 1994 study negates them all. Maxpost,
>>>>> Midnight Toker<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxpost?action=comments>,
>>>>> goes a step further. He interprets Dreher’s study to mean: “Pregnant women
>>>>> SHOULD smoke DOPE!!!” ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Commenters attacked all the studies I wrote about, particularly the
>>>>> study indicating a link between marijuana use and testicular cancer. Steve
>>>>> Hager<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Steven_Hager?action=comments>dismissed it this way: “I believe the testicular cancer study involved 6
>>>>> people, maybe it was only 3. Worthless, really.” That study actually
>>>>> involved 163 young men diagnosed with testicular cancer and a control group
>>>>> of 292 healthy men of the same age and ethnicity and asked them about their
>>>>> drug use. The investigators found that compared to those who had never used
>>>>> marijuana, men who had used the drug were twice as likely to have
>>>>> testicular cancer. It’s difficult to understand why Mr. Hager couldn’t
>>>>> trouble himself to check how many people were involved in the study since I
>>>>> provided links to both the account of it published by *Science Daily*and the abstract of the study itself. Both clearly state the number of
>>>>> research subjects.****
>>>>>
>>>>> The collision of social media with current, complex science produces a
>>>>> chasm where scientific truth can be manipulated easily – and aggressively.
>>>>> I emailed Dr. Beauregard to thank her for supporting the marijuana science
>>>>> I had written about. She emailed back, “I have found many of the same
>>>>> facts, but the comments are more than I can stand and the backlash is
>>>>> horrific. I only posted a few things and have had literally over 50 people
>>>>> email me with hostile, emotional comments based on personal experience as a
>>>>> user.” ****
>>>>>
>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, is the heart of the problem. When it comes to
>>>>> marijuana, users dominate not just *Huff Post*, but the Internet as
>>>>> well. They relentlessly assault anyone who reports that a marijuana study
>>>>> might show a detrimental effect. Few have time to put up with this, not
>>>>> therapists like Dr. Beauregard who treats marijuana addiction, not
>>>>> scientists who conduct the studies, not writers who report the science.
>>>>> With marijuana, what takes place on the Internet is a shouting match; those
>>>>> who shout loudest win.****
>>>>>
>>>>> After this experience, I’ve learned something else about the drug:
>>>>> marijuana not only makes you lie, it makes you rude.****
>>>>>
>>>>> Source: www.nationalfamilies.org National Families in Action<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?author=2>March 29, 2013
>>>>> ****
>>>>>
>>>>> ****
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130903/7d1a1cb4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list