[Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
Darrell Keim
keim153 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 4 11:47:48 PDT 2013
Good observations, Joe.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
> Two things: First, the article commits several fallacies. For instance, it
> starts off condemning comments merely because they come from the Huffington
> Post. Second, it is well known that for a long time there was no government
> funding for studies done on the positive or medicinal benefits of
> marijuana, so this is an area where the research is biased. I don't have a
> problem with folks explaining the harmful effects of drugs, no matter the
> drug but if we are being truthful, in the case of marijuana, it is
> difficult to say just how bad (or good) it is. Here's to a better future in
> that regard!
>
> On the lighter side, here is a fun post on the topic -- from Huffington
> Post!
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/marijuana-deaths_n_3860418.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sunil:
>>
>> The article wasn't about the war on drugs. A large part of it was about
>> how the pro legalization side react to research showing m is bad for you.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <
>> sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Darrell,
>>>
>>> Is the so-called 'War on Drugs' a success? I think it's as much a
>>> failure as our other wars on nouns, as destructive and pointless.
>>>
>>> Sunil
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:33:58 -0700
>>> From: rforce2003 at yahoo.com
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
>>>
>>> I think you need to weigh the harm the substance does versus what is
>>> required to suppress it. In the long stretch of human history, people have
>>> ingested various mood-altering substances, alcohol being one that was
>>> integrated into many cultures going back into prehistory. It happens to be
>>> a drug that can be easily produced from readily available substances by
>>> unskilled labor. We had some experience with prohibition of alcohol in the
>>> US, and democratically decided that the cost of general suppression was not
>>> what we were willing to pay; we'd settle for curbing the most egregious
>>> abuses, and live with the deleterious effects, estimated at $223 billion
>>> per year. The economic costs of tobacco smoking are estimated at $157
>>> billion per year.
>>>
>>> Marijuana is another drug with a long history, but was not as widespread
>>> culturally, indeed, in the US is was regarded as only being used by "those
>>> people". However, over the last fifty years use has become more widespread
>>> among the general population (roughly half have tried it). A small majority
>>> now support legalization, yet the cost to state and federal governments for
>>> marijuana suppression is an estimated $20 billion per year. The argument
>>> can be made that the relatively benign effects of the drug as compared to
>>> alcohol or tobacco doesn't warrant such an expenditure. Voters in Colorado,
>>> Washington, California and Alaska seem to agree. à chacun son goût<http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%A0_chacun_son_go%C3%BBt&action=edit&redlink=1>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Force
>>> Moscow Idaho USA
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 2:49 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
>>>
>>> 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%2c9171%2c1552034%2c00.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
>>> *****
>>>
>>>
>>> &
>>> nbsp; &n
>>> bsp; &nb
>>> sp;
>>> *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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> ======================================================= 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=======================================================
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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/20130904/670100d9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list