RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety



Message

allthatjaz -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 6:54:45 AM)


Double post ...sorry!



Mercnbeth -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 8:06:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: takemeforyourown

Can natural cannabis be used to treat depression? I can't even tolerate the natural form (which I never inhaled). It makes my depressed brain paranoid (so I just say no).

It's true that Marinol is not as good as the natural plant. I have seen it do wonders for some patients, others found it unpleasant.


Edited for addendums


this slave has a friend, diagnosed with fibromyalgia, PTSD, depression and glaucoma...and she has recently transitioned to menopause.

cannabis consumption, for her, results in a measurable decrease in ocular pressure, an easing of her pain, a lightening of her mood and has not caused her to become paranoid or schizophrenic.

her therapists/counselors and MD's in charge of her physical issues have all encouraged her to use cannabis.

this slave is encouraged by the research as well as the positive discussions about how cannabis can indeed help many folks with their health issues...instead of the negative, racist attitudes and opinions regarding cannabis that have been so prevalent in this country for so long!

thanks to everyone for their input on this thread...especially allthatjazz for a most helpful link!!![:)]



wittynamehere -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 10:09:56 AM)

A few random replies to things I read in this thread:

1) You can also use a vaporizer to get the active ingredients from cannabis. It heats the plant material up to the point the desired compounds vaporize, and are drawn off and inhaled. The plant material and non-desired compounds remain in the sample to be discarded. No smoke at all. Just cool pure vapour to inhale. No coughing, sore throat, etc.

2) It can't CAUSE schizophrenia. It can only trigger it in people who are genetically or otherwise susceptible. It simply reveals that the psychosis is latent, it doesn't cause it. I worked in psychiatry for many years.

3) When you realize the scam being pulled by making pot illegal, your mind begins to open to other things. When you realize the govt is telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, while harming nobody, you realize they don't have your best interests at heart - for anything. You question a lot. They don't want this.

The "war on drugs" is what makes them dangerous. Before they were illegal, they caused no problems.... other than a little short term memory loss. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg
A really awesome chart, put together by the British medical journal "The Lancet" in 2007.



takemeforyourown -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 10:16:36 AM)

allthatjaz has reminded me of a cool memory I have from my first year as a nurse. I had a young patient who had an actual hole in his side where his stomach perforated and the gastric acid was literally leaking out and burning his skin. Truly horrible, I'm sorry ahead of time if that freaks anyone out. He asked me if I had any rolling papers for his weed and I did not. My nurse manager, however, was a sweet and wonderful pothead so I went to him and he immediately took a stroll down the hall to my patient's room and hooked him up.

I've often said that if I get diagnosed with a terminal condition, I want the dosing button to a morphine pump in one hand and a big doobie in the other. I'm hoping the morphine will alleviate any paranoia that the otherwise-good plant would give me.



allthatjaz -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 11:23:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

2) It can't CAUSE schizophrenia. It can only trigger it in people who are genetically or otherwise susceptible. It simply reveals that the psychosis is latent, it doesn't cause it. I worked in psychiatry for many years.


My apologies, your right and I stand to be corrected.
The problem with triggers is, we need to understand who amongst us is more susceptible.
We actually know so little about the human brain. 



angelikaJ -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 1:03:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Pop Quiz ~


Answer the questions below from the list of drugs provided:
Asprin
Tylenol
Darvocet
Insulin
Ambien
Morphine
Alcohol
Vicadin
Nicotine
Methadone
Oxycodone
Valium
Wellbutrin
Acetaminophen
Marijuana
Lexapro


1) Which one is impossible to overdose?
2) Which one can be taken in a form that will not cause damage to any vital organ?
3) Which one has been used the longest by humans?
4) Which one will not cause a seizure?
5) Which one can be made at home for minimual cost?
6) Which one does not have to be taken for a limited amount of time to avoid physical dependency?
7) Which drug has never killed a patient from either overdose or allergic reaction?
That is technically true: neither the Conrail engineer nor the brakeman died in the 1987 train collision that caused the deaths of 16 people who were on  the Amtrak train they collided with.
(Although that does not rule out other accidents that likely have occured while driving impaired.)
8) Which one does not stop working if taken over a prolonged period of time?
9) Which one doesn't enhance the profits of the drug industry?
10) Which one does not counter act with other medications?
That seems to be  untrue: according to drugs.com there are 13 drugs that are known to interact with cannabis



ANSWERS: 1 - 10) Marijuana


My response to this is not because I am against the responsible use of cannabis.
I am very much in favor of decriminalization and allowing the use of medical marijauna is a good step in that direction.
However, I still think DWI laws should apply if it impairs the driver and correct information also provided so that the rare drug interaction doesn't occur.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 3:19:07 PM)

quote:

I still think DWI laws should apply if it impairs the driver


I didn't note anyone sanctioning, or advocating for, the use of marijuana while driving a plane, train or automobile, but I'm glad you had to use this example of exception - it points to the hypocrisy of those citing such an occurrence as a reason for keeping it criminal. Eliminate Aspirin, Tylenol, and nicotine, and every other drug listed physically impairs its user. One has statistics tracked by the government Over 15,000 die every year from alcohol related fatalities. Those aren't exceptional occurrences as is your 1987 reference. In 1987 24,094 or 52% of all traffic fatalities were directly attributed to alcohol.
quote:

the rare drug interaction doesn't occur.
VERY rare.
From your link there is only one drug that has a "major interaction" Levomethadyl acetate. Levomethadyl acetate has a major (potentially deadly) drug interaction with 406 drugs and a moderate bad interaction with 320. Having one case of "major", and 12 "moderate"; Marijuana has fewer conflicting and is the only one with only 1 major interaction on the list.

Maybe not totally without interaction issues; however Marijuana, is one of the safest, if not the safest, drug on the list.

Funny, it's the only drug on the list that does not have a negative interaction with alcohol.



Termyn8or -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (3/30/2010 9:59:27 PM)

Getting back to the OP (I know this is rare for me), just what are the symptoms of this deficiency again ?

From what I remember it was about some people actually having a physical need for THC. That it may be linked to some sort of deficiency. Well now, why don't we talk about the anti-depressants and all the other things like synthetic hormones and all that. Even estrogen replacement therapy. The deficiency is there, and is satisfied by some snake oil made in a petrol refinery. And that's OK but if it grows in the ground it is not.

As far as intoxicative properties, no argument holds water. If you are over forty you may have seen someone who did a few Rorer 714s. They get higher than someone who drinks a fifth of whiskey (well some). So there is a line drawn, just where is it ?

I know where it is. It is defined by pieces of paper with green ink that come from a place called a mint.

People get high on oxys now, and a bunch of other legal drugs, and you may include alcohol. No argument on the euphoric experience or intoxitive properties can hold any weight, they are simply invalid. And that doesn't mean just crazoids like me, and in fact refined sugar qualifies as an addictive substance. It's actually made pretty much the same way as cocaine.

Maybe I'll just go and smoke some dandilions, I'll let you know how the buzz is.

T



DesFIP -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/3/2010 1:28:52 PM)

Was this research published in any reputable journal of medicine? Fox News does not fall into that category.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/3/2010 6:15:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Was this research published in any reputable journal of medicine? Fox News does not fall into that category.


DesFIP,
Here's a few research studies conducted with regards to anandamide, and the citations that go along with them:

quote:

anandamide was isolated and its structure was first described by Czech analytical chemist Lumír Ondřej Hanuš and American molecular pharmacologist William Anthony Devane in the Laboratory of Raphael Mechoulam, at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel in 1992. The name is taken from the Sanskrit word ananda, which means "bliss, delight", and amide.[1][2] It is synthesized from N-arachidonoylphosphatidylethanolamine by multiple pathways.[3] It is degraded primarily by the fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) enzyme which converts anandamide into ethanolamine and arachidonic acid. As such, inhibitors of FAAH lead to elevated anandamide levels and are being pursued for therapeutic use.

Devane WA, Hanus L, Breuer A, Pertwee RG, Stevenson LA, Griffin G, Gibson D, Mandelbaum A, Etinger A, Mechoulam R (December 1992). "Isolation and structure of a brain constituent that binds to the cannabinoid receptor". Science 258 (5090): 1946–9. doi:10.1126/science.1470919. PMID 1470919.

Mechoulam R, Fride E (1995). "The unpaved road to the endogenous brain cannabinoid ligands, the anandamides". in Pertwee RG. Cannabinoid receptors. Boston: Academic Press. pp. 233–258. ISBN 0-12-551460-3.

Wang, J.; Ueda, N. (2009). "Biology of endocannabinoid synthesis system". Prostaglandins & Other Lipid Mediators 89: 112. doi:10.1016/j.prostaglandins.2008.12.002

Gaetani, S.; Dipasquale, P.; Romano, A.; Righetti, L.; Cassano, T.; Piomelli, D.; Cuomo, V. (2009). Chapter 5 the Endocannabinoid System as a Target for Novel Anxiolytic and Antidepressant Drugs. 85. pp. 57. doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(09)85005-8

Hwang, J.; Adamson, C.; Butler, D.; Janero, D. R.; Makriyannis, A.; Bahr, B. A. (2009). "Enhancement of endocannabinoid signaling by fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibition: A neuroprotective therapeutic modality". Life Sciences. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2009.06.003


quote:

Anandamide has been shown to be involved in working memory. Studies are under way to explore what role anandamide plays in human behavior, such as eating and sleep patterns, and pain relief.
allet PE, Beninger RJ (1996). "The endogenous cannabinoid receptor agonist anandamide impairs memory in rats". Behavioural Pharmacology 7 (3): 276–284. http://www.behaviouralpharm.com/pt/re/bpharm/abstract.00008877-199605000-00008.htm.


quote:

A study published in 1998 shows that anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation.
De Petrocellis L, Melck D, Palmisano A, Bisogno T, Laezza C, Bifulco M, Di Marzo V (July 1998). "The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95 (14): 8375–80. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.14.8375. PMID 9653194.


quote:

Paracetamol (or acetaminophen in the U.S.A.) is metabolically combined with arachidonic acid by FAAH to form AM404.[15] This metabolite of paracetamol is a potent agonist at the TRPV1 vanilloid receptor, a weak agonist at both CB1 and CB2 receptors, and an inhibitor of anandamide reuptake. Subsequently, anandamide levels in the body and brain are elevated. In this fashion, paracetamol acts as a pro-drug for a cannabimimetic metabolite. This action may be partially or fully responsible for the analgesic effects of paracetamol.
Högestätt, E. D.; Jönsson, B. A. G.; Ermund, A.; Andersson, D. A.; Björk, H.; Alexander, J. P.; Cravatt, B. F.; Basbaum, A. I. et al. (2005). "Conversion of Acetaminophen to the Bioactive N-Acylphenolamine AM404 via Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase-dependent Arachidonic Acid Conjugation in the Nervous System". Journal of Biological Chemistry 280 (36): 31405. doi:10.1074/jbc.M501489200. PMID 15987694. edit
16.^ Bertolini A, Ferrari A, Ottani A, Guerzoni S, Tacchi R, Leone S (2006). "Paracetamol: new vistas of an old drug". CNS Drug Rev 12 (3-4): 250–75. doi:10.1111/j.1527-3458.2006.00250.x. PMID 17227290.
17.^ Sinning C, Watzer B, Coste O, Nüsing RM, Ott I, Ligresti A, Di Marzo V, Imming P (December 2008). "New analgesics synthetically derived from the paracetamol metabolite N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)-icosatetra-5,8,11,14-enamide". J. Med. Chem. 51 (24): 7800–5. doi:10.1021/jm800807k. PMID 19053765.



redwoodgirl -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/3/2010 9:15:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Edited to amend for 'Federally'; since here in sunny SoCal - the consumption in any manner of marijuana is 'licit'.





Gotta love Cali (norcal here :) )

living on norcal hwy 1, i actualy DO know a few people that have died from cannibus consumption-
DUI sort of deaths- if anyone knows hwy1...

but being a victim of a 22yr old boken neck, nothing else ive tried helps-
i HATE being stupid on pills......

btw, TCH is NOT physicaly addicting, please dont make me dig THOSE books out again!




Termyn8or -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/8/2010 2:48:48 AM)

FR

Couple of thoughts on this.

Way back in the thread someone wrote something to the effect that the assertion in the OP would mean that one could say a heroin addict has certain receptors for that drug and could be considered deficient. This would amount to a heroin deficiency. Preposterous on it's face of course, but upon further reflection what does make one person get addicted to one drug and another has a totally different choice ? Or perhaps everyone has those receptors and it just boils down to who tries it and who doesn't. Now I am in favor of total legalisation, but deliberately concentrating even a natural substance for profit, to simply enhance the addictive qualities might be something that possibly should be outlawed. This would put the drug companies' asses in a sling I think, so it's not going to happen. At any rate I would still not criminalize use, possesion or even sale of the substance, simply it's production. Being legal though, just as people have been known to sue bars for overserving when someone gets in a wreck on the way home, drug dealers might just get liability insurance. What a hoot, but many strange things happen on this planet.

Now another matter, of DUI laws. Most states have rewritten them to include drugs. If IIRC (the numbers) in Cleveland you could get charged with a 435.01 which is a DUI, or a 435.01a when drug intoxication is suspected. So technically it is already on the books at least here. However enforcement of driving on pot is a bit more difficult. Because THC stays in your system for up to a month, a drug test can't be used like a breathalyzer. Even at that I don't think the breatalyzer is all that accurate anyway. It's been proven wrong in court more than once, and even so cannot measure how intoxicated the person really is as the effects of alcohol vary from one individual to another. What's more, the breathalyzer only reports the rate at which the subjects body is excreting alcohol. Still not a vert good acid test.

I'll use the word only once - overpopulation. If some guy runs into a ditch on a lonely country road because he got too drunk and has to walk home, well that's his problem. But in modern society you are not likely to run into a ditch. Nice thing about ditches, they don't sue and you don't have to take them to the hospital.

Now comes the flipside. I do not want to argue against myself but I do know someone who really screwed up. He was hitting a joint driving down the road and the stuff turned out to be much better than he thought. He caught a rush and got into a wreck with injuries and had hell to pay. But since he had not been drinking he was not charged. This was a long time ago. Though a friend of mine, should he have been held accountable for a crime ? I would have to say yes. All of the elements are there, he caused injuries and a bunch of property damage because of a wreckless disregard. Should the possibility that he didn't expect the rush be taken into account for leniency ? Not my call. But then if someone is actually shooting up while driving they expect a rush and should at the very least, pull over.

And should their insurance if any, be able to refuse to cover the damages under these circumstances ? I would tend to think not, at least the first time. But then when renewal time comes around and he sees the new rate, sticker shock might have an effect. Many will pooh pooh the whole idea, but given some thought it is not all that bad, and what we have now doesn't work anyway.

And not to jump around, but this deliberately concentrating a natural substance to enhance it effects, including addictive effect is EXACTLY the contention used to sue the pants off the tobacco companies. What's more a trap was laid for them because once required to label the packages with tar and nicotine content, they had no choice but to manipulate it. Just like liquor companies must make the hootch slightly stronger than it should be, and then "water to proof" so that the label is correct. Of course a plethors of other things have been brought up when it comes to tobacco companies, but they were going to take a fall. Too much old money. (there's that word again)

Just some thoughts from the path less taken, now that the thread has settled a bit.

T



Esinem -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/9/2010 6:02:48 PM)

"If the idea of having a marijuana deficiency sounds laughable to you"

It's no laughing matter and will be making every effort to avoid this deplorable state [8D]



Esinem -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/10/2010 8:45:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

Double post ...sorry!


I put that down to a cannabinoid excess  [;)]



allthatjaz -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (4/10/2010 8:55:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinem

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

Double post ...sorry!


I put that down to a cannabinoid excess  [;)]



Meeee! as if [:D]

Hope to see you guys tonight



SirsJewel -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (6/20/2010 7:22:51 PM)

interesting ~ jewels



limerentgirl -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (6/22/2010 7:14:30 AM)

ugh, the debate/discussion is such a drag -- I just want a doobie!  [:)]



Termyn8or -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (6/22/2010 10:44:40 AM)

FR

Thanks lime and Jewel.. It's nice to see this one get resurrected.

"3) When you realize the scam being pulled by making pot illegal, your mind begins to open to other things. When you realize the govt is telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, while harming nobody, you realize they don't have your best interests at heart - for anything. You question a lot. They don't want this. "

witty said a mouthful there. I really don't know what to add, but I've known this for at least twenty years. I've seen Reefer Madness. I have also seen Cheech and Chong. Chris Rock put it pretty well "The war on drugs is just to get more motherfuckers in jail". That was in Feel The Pain, a great work IMO. He went on to say that we had a war on drugs, now there are more drugs, a war on terrorism, now there is more terrorism, a war on poverty, now there is more poverty.

The fact is, as much as I might enjoy it, the time might come to put the doobie down and grab a big knife or something and go down there and show them the strength of 300,000,000 people. They are fucking us up the ass every single day and what do we do about it ? Nothing. My ancestors would be pissed finding out what was going on and that I wasn't doing enough to fix it. None of them smoked pot, but they had ideals. I'll be the first to admit that I am not living up to xpectations, but what can I say ? I've had some problems.

But the majority is stupid. The PTB say it's bad so it is bad. How the fuck do I change that ? I am not being sarcastic here, I am a problem solver. How would you suggest I start on this ? Walk up to someone's door, just a random stranger and get them to join NORML ? Not very likely to succeed. I prefer to concentrate rather on actions that will be effective.

And the way I see it we can't concentrate on medical use. Recreational use is none of their fucking business. Otherwise you invite a situation where you get a prescription for a glass of wine, and the doctor will say whether it is white or red, sweet or dry. You want that ?

The fact is that I will do whatever I want whenever I want. It would be nice to do that with impunity as long as I don't hurt anyone. If you support my rights, I will support your's. Fair enough ? I would stand up and say "I think this guy is full of shit, but he has every right to say what he said". Though I have never done that I have stood in the face of a crowd. Years go in jail they were picking on this guy, laughing because he did not know how to read. I said to a roomful of "highly mixed" company "All you N_______ get the fuck away from me, the guy guy can't read, that is no laughing fucking matter". They all backed off, but later a few came to me and said "You know, you're right, that is no joke".

Not that I want to tout pot as a mind expanding drug, that can be done without the help of a substance. But for some the effects just come. Because of the effects you might lay down on the hood of one of your cars and watch the stars, and then ponder the secrets of the universe. That is not for you to do, you just keep you nose to the grindstone and keep "the machine" working for them.

The world is alot nastier than people know, or actually want to know. And that my friends, is why I don't fear the reaper. I am not depressed to any degree not commensurate with my knowledge. I am not suicidal. But when my number comes up I will be relieved. In other words I can take it or leave it. That affords me a type of freedom that very few will ever experience, and yes I still do have something left to lose. I am not stupid.

But if you put a gun to my head I'll likely say "Better test that thing or you might find it going down your throat". I may have lost alot of strength over the last few years, but I still have the moves. But the point is my lack of fear of death gives me an immeasurable advantage over most others.

They don't like that either. They don't like alot of things about me but there ain't a goddamn thing they can do about it.

T



LafayetteLady -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (6/22/2010 2:27:59 PM)

FR-

Of course there is a risk of driving impaired. The risk exists equally with most narcotics. I'm on a pain management regimen (in NJ, so no pot for me), and I will skip pills if I know I have to get behind the wheel of a car. It doesn't appear that I am "impaired" anymore by the effects, but I'm not willing to take that chance. Incidentally, I would be charged if involved in an accident and it was found that I was driving "under the influence."

The point is....is it really the government who uses that as an excuse or is it that there are still so many irresponsible people out there who continue to drive impaired? Merc, I'm sure if you are doing a half dozen jello shots, you are responsible and don't drive your car, but realistically can you honestly say that you are the norm or the exception?

I believe that a lot of good could come from legalizing marijuana. But I also believe a lot of bad can come of it too.



Termyn8or -> RE: Are you Cannabinoid Deficient? (6/28/2010 2:41:54 AM)

LL I no longer smoke nor drink while driving. For one the drinking can cause trouble, whether drunk or not. And if you've ever had to clean spilt beer out of the cupholder in the console, you know what I mean.

I am an old hand at smoking, been at it over 35 years. I doubt I would ever catch a rush like my friend did decades ago, but there is always the possibility of a coughing fit, which could cause a wreck. So I simply don't do it.

Some people get "shitfaced" on pot, and like any drinker must assess their level of impairment before going out driving around. If you smoke and drink, you will, and you can't just be immobile after the first drink or hit from a bong. It simply doesn't work, believe me. But you have to know your limitations. And don't forget that while the law means nothing to me, I really do not want to hurt others. When you are totally straight and hit another car and find a bunch of kids in that car, you begin to realize the power in your hand - literally that of life and death. That happened to me in 1989 when I was 29. Even though I got busted again in 1995, no injuries. And I admit fault. Yes, circumstances were stacked against me, coming out of a bar in unfamiliar territory, a shot at the door type of place. A poor sense of direction where I would have had to drive about 22,000 miles to get home. But when those keys are in my hand it is my sole responsibility for whatever happens.

The problem with pot is there seems to be no effective way to gauge if one is under the influence. You could smoke a joint on Saturday, get in a wreck on Wednesday and test positive, even though you are clearly not under the influence.

The thing that irks me is all this drug testing these days. Pot smokers are at a clear disadvantage here. I could do heroin or coke and be clean in a matter of days, but pot stays for thirty days approximately. But I don't let it get to me, and in fact if they tried to send me for drug testing I would respond "What do you want tested, I don't do the hard shit". Literally. If an employer is going to be that intrusive, I don't want the job and would sooner starve than to give up my rights. Remember the law means nothing to me unless it is in the Constitution.

Another development in society that not everyone knows about is that there are certain employees that are valuable enough that even the company will send someone else to go for their drug test. It is easy to throw a guy $100 to piss in a bottle. This practice is becoming more and more common in the trades. There are no links to prove this but I know it happens all the time. If there was proof, that would mean someone got busted doing it, and nobody wants that. Perhaps that would be considered a conspiracy,,,,, errr cooperation. Some guy can just make money for not smoking pot. Well not everyone wants to smoke pot and it is not my place to twist their arm.

There is alot more to this of course. It comes back to attitude in a way. About seven years ago some high broad hit a homeless guy and went home with his body halfway through the windshield. As she and her boyfriend got high, he pleaded for help for days as he couldn't extricate himself because his legs were broken probably among a few other things. They waited until he was dead and kept the car in the garage and only got busted when they were trying to get rid of the body. How high do you have to be to do that ? This has more to do with the person than their state of intoxication I believe.

And I also believe that some people drive better drunk or high than some do totally sober. Not that they should, but there is no way to guage this. But noone in their right mind would support unequal application of the law, there is already too much of that going on.

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to certain things.

T



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375