MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 51.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Free the Herb, it's superb.

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

What is the answer to our Drug (War) woes?

Legalize Maryjane, Herb, Pot, Boo, Grass, Dank?
26
87%
Lock up hop-heads for many months or even years?
4
13%
 
Total votes : 30

Postby purplepenquin » Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:20 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:OK, see this is just hippie Utopian la-la-land talk (not about the shirts.) It's great to be for the legalization of pot/hemp. It's great to be for alternative fuel sources. However, the two have not one iota to do with each other. I agree with pj about so many of these arguments being specious - you do neither of these causes any good when you make BS your main selling point. Hemp would be a great cash-crop with a plethora of beneficial industrial and commercial uses, but it ain't gonna power the world. It just ain't.


You sound pretty sure of yourself, so do ya wanna bet? Say about $100,000?

http://www.jackherer.com/

Seriousily...show me how/where they are wrong in their claim and not only will I promise to never speak of hemp as an energy source, but you get the Big Money to boot. If what is being claimed is total bs, it shouldn't be too hard for you to prove it, no?

pjbogart wrote: Whatever industrial use we may have for hemp, it has nothing to do with why people are fighting to have it legalized.


While it's true that I want to see people able to legally catch a buzz, it's untrue to say that hemp has nothing at all to do with why I want to see it legal. I really don't appericate you lying about me, so please stop doing so.

The fact is it is because of industrial use that I am fighting for re-legalization rather than settling for decrim.

pjbogart wrote: Lose the facade... spend some time talking about the billions of wasted tax dollars we spend incarcerating non-violent drug users and sellers. People can comprehend that argument. Every time you bring up hemp cars or the like, people tune you out.


Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't one speak out on both? And why can't one tailor their message to the audience?

Since it seems that most people on this particuler forum still scoff at the idea of bio-fuel, I decided to focus my attention on that. Are you telling me that there are also those on here who think it's a good idea to lock people up for non-violent crimes and I need to discuss that as well? I haven't encountered them yet, but like the ol' punchline goes....I'll keep an eye out for 'em.
purplepenquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:38 pm

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:30 pm

PurplePenquin wrote: show me how/where they are wrong in their claim

Which claim? What's the $100,000 for (the page doesn't say - do I have to disprove all his claims, or just one? What, exactly, is the challenge? Seriously, what are the specifics?)

Anyway, since I don't deny that hemp has a myriad of uses, and you know this, I obviously am not in a position to debunk everything your link had to say. However, if all I need to do is poke holes in the idea that hemp fuel could power the world then someone owes me $100,000. To be honest, the burden of proof is on you - as you are the one making the outlandish claim. The "facts" cited by the pro-hempers are usually little more than statistical gymnastics and wishful thinking.

Thanks for the link, though. This webpage is kinda a hoot - it's exactly the kind of outlandish, overstated, doom-and-gloom environmental BS that turns otherwise caring individuals off of the whole damn movement. Just look at this early paragraph:
If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . . CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA!

OK there are so many assumptions and pieces of misinformation in this single paragraph that it turns me off from the facts he will be presenting later before I even get a chance to see them.
1) "The greenhouse effect" is not something that can be "reversed" - it's a phenomenon. I assume he means, "reverse the emission of greenhouse gases that are causing global warming." Of course, by no means has "the greenhouse effect" been pinpointed as the cause (sole or otherwise) of global warming, nor has it been proven that global warming is caused by humans or that its effects will be disastrous (since the beginning of the industrial revolution, average temperatures have gone up by over one degree Fahrenheit and with that increase has come the largest improvement in overall quality of life - food, clothing, shelter, y'know, the basics - in the entire history of humankind. Just sayin'...)
2) Hemp would do nothing (nada, zilch, zip) to "stop deforestation" since the only places that are actually losing forest (i.e. have less trees now than say 100 years ago) are in some of the poorest areas on the planet. The folks cutting down the rain forests in South America aren't doing it to make paper, they're doing it because they have nowhere to live and no food to eat. In the U.S., of course, there is as much forest today as there was 100 years ago.
3) Stop using lumber for construction? We can build houses out of hemp now, too? Come on! As Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace no less, explained on an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit (which I highly recommend everyone check out), "when you go to the lumber yard, you're not ordering a tree to be cut down, you're ordering a new tree to be planted."
Check out his website and see what a non-doomsaying, scientifically minded environmentalist has to say. It may surprise you. (It is worth noting that Moore left Greenpeace because he saw that the movement he'd created had little to do with environmentalism anymore and had been co-opted and corrupted by politicos, socialists, and anti-government and anti-corporate interests, all of which are fine positions, but have nothing whatsoever to do with most environmental issues.)
http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm
4) "...in order to save the planet" - I was unaware the planet needed saving. Last time I checked, Nature was awfully gorgeous. Are there specific problems? Of course, many of which are being addressed. Trying to sell the need for legalization of hemp on the basis that the planet will "die" if we don't is simply ridiculous.
5) "the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles" - what minority of the world's population do you think is going to volunteer to go without paper or textiles? Your man plainly states that hemp cannot replace all of the needed supply. I guess he owes himself $100,000!
6) "meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs" - I really don't see how, unless you want to convert a significant portion of cropland currently used for growing food into hemp lands (sure, you can eat hemp, but wouldn't you rather eat hemp and corn and wheat?) And isn't it a saner argument to just say, "let's switch to biomass?" Why does it have to be exclusively hemp? Kelp and seaweed seem like more obvious choices to me, since they leave existing farmlands intact for growth of other crops. Regardless, at this stage, experiments with biomass as fuel have tended to produce little bang for their buck (this would undoubtedly improve with funding for improved technology, I admit.) This is why we don't burn garbage for fuel - it's only economically feasible on small scales. Look, if you really want to provide cheap, efficient, clean-burning fuel for the world, I should think you'd back nuclear power, but I'm guessing you think that's worse than fossil fuels. Especially since if industry and homes got their power from nuclear, that would make your dream of cars all running on hemp a bit more achievable.

After his initial burst of enthusiastic overstatement, Jack goes on to make such scientific claims as hemp is "the most perfect plant for the planet" before launching into misstatements about the prevalence of hemp in the past. To give but one particularly ridiculous example:
75 to 90 percent of all paper used from at least 100 AD to 1883 was made of CANNABIS/HEMP. Books, (including Bibles), money and newspapers all over the world have been mainly printed on CANNABIS/HEMP for as long as these things have existed in human history.
Uh... no.
Paper was invented around 100AD, that much is true, but it was invented in China - where it remained a tightly-kept secret until around 700AD when the Arabs learned the craft - it was not made exclusively from hemp (it was made from mulberry bark, bamboo fibers, rags, grass and even fishing nets!), and no European used the stuff until the 13th Century. Prior to the introduction of paper, Europeans mostly used vellum, which was made of animal skin (ever seen a Torah? That's vellum.) Earlier still, they used a papyrus product invented by the Egyptians around 5000 years ago!
Finally, in the U.S. and Europe, paper for newspapers was traditionally made from recycled rags (yes, some of these rags were undoubtedly hemp, but hardly the vast majority - cotton was the most prevalent.) In fact, rags were so in demand for papermaking in the mid-1700s that "rag wars" ensued, which saw countries banning the export of rags, leading to a large black market. When it became apparent that rags could not meet demand, the search for new fibers for papermaking led to paper made from everything from asbestos to swamp grass. The modern practice of making it from wood began around 1850. Given these facts, how is it possible that 75 to 90% of all paper used from 100 until 1883 was made from hemp?
As for money... paper money is a fairly modern invention. Unless Jack is arguing that coins were made from hemp, I cannot see how this claim can possibly be true either (especially considering the vast majority of money has been printed since 1937, when hemp was the victim of Congressional foul play.)
http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/tools.htm
http://www.computersmiths.com/chinesein ... /paper.htm
http://www.conservatree.com/learn/Paper ... tory.shtml

Obviously, I will not continue to parse his entire page, but I hope that my point has been made. When you hear a claim like "hemp will solve the world's ills" that sounds too good to be true, you really ought to investigate such claims for yourself, not just take the word of someone who clearly has a vested interest in swaying your opinion. I swear, I really am for the legalization of hemp and I really do believe it has a great number of potential beneficial uses. This is a far cry from making outrageous claims or invoking environmental gloom to sway people emotionally, rather than logically.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:22 pm

Hey PP -
I got so carried away looking at the website you linked to that I forgot to answer your question! :oops:
So, here we go...
Here's another good sensible environmentalist link:
http://www.sbcmag.info/past/2002/02dec/debunking.htm

All the way at the bottom you'll find these nuggets which explain quite succintly (without even trying) some of the basic flaws in the hemp-as-panacea argument. I've decided to take a different approach then you probably expect, not focusing on the use of fossil fuels, but on that other great plant that is good and wonderful (not to mention renewable), the tree:
60% of wood used worldwide is for energy, primarily in underdeveloped and developing countries because it is all that people can afford. However, replacing this energy source with non-renewable energy such as coal, oil or natural gas would only result in more carbon dioxide emissions.

Obviously, replacing it with hemp would mean no increase in CO2 emissions, but it would require clearing the forests anyway, since we'd need the extra space to grow the extra hemp to replace this lost energy source.
25% of wood used worldwide is for building houses and furniture. The production of wood substitutes generally requires the use of non-renewable energy sources, whereas the production of more trees simply takes non-polluting solar energy.
Obviously, this fact isn't relevant to the question of hemp as the One True Power Source, but since your boy Jack claims hemp is capable of providing...well...everything, I figured I'd leave it in. I just don't see how hemp can replace wood as a building material. Furthermore, even if those non-renweable energy sources necessary for manufacturing substitute materials are replaced with hemp, then you're still left with the need for more agricultural lands, not to mention a shitload of plastic chairs.
15% of wood harvested worldwide is used to manufacture pulp and paper for printing, packaging and sanitary purposes. Half of the wood used for this purpose is waste obtained from sawmills that produce solid sawn timber, therefore, not using wood for these purposes would not ââ?¬Å?saveââ?¬? many forests. Using substitutes such as cotton and hemp only leads to deforestation because more land needs to be cleared for agricultural purposes.
Right on!

In other words, any plan for replacing existing resources with hemp necessarily would involve deforestation, which Jack clearly states is one of the things he's trying to end by making hemp legal.

I'll take $30,000 in cash and the rest in a cashier's check, please. :wink:

Here's my real problem. As Jack says in his opening, "there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing..." This isn't Highlander! Why must "there be only one?" Why promote hemp specifically, when it seems far more reasonable to argue for biomass in general. I mean, anyone who advocates ending our near-complete dependence on one fuel source in favor of becoming completely dependent on another (even if preferable) is either insane, ignorant or evil. Doncha think?
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby eriedasch » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:11 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Why must "there be only one?" Why promote hemp specifically, when it seems far more reasonable to argue for biomass in general. I mean, anyone who advocates ending our near-complete dependence on one fuel source in favor of becoming completely dependent on another (even if preferable) is either insane, ignorant or evil. Doncha think?

Unless that source, namely hemp, does grow faster and easier than other plants that produce biomass fuel. I'm not here to debate biology or genetics but from what I understand (yes, learned most from Jack) the hemp plant because it is a weed not only is easier to grow, but enriches the soil in the process as oppossed to corn and other crops that need to be rotated, fertilized, pesticized in order to flourish from year to year.

I don't think anyone is saying biomass has to be made solely from hemp either, but is extremely sad state of affairs when the entire option is totallly dismissed in favor of fossile fuels. I remember back in the '80s the days of gas shortages, gasahaul, and people making biomass fuel from compost piles and using it to power their lawnmowers and other small engines. The technology is there, proven, and certainly not new.

Regarding nuclear power - there's that tiny little issue about radioactive waste that I can't seem to get past. Maybe I care too much about future generations having to deal with messes made today?
eriedasch
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 4:05 pm
Location: east side of Madison

Postby blunt » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:49 pm

Fine.
Let's save the world with industrial hemp AND get high.
Jeezus.
Oh: and get me the phone number of those two guys who power their cars on used french fry grease.
blunt
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8246
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 6:19 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Re: Print

Postby dalschaef » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:58 pm

papalion wrote:
But back on topic, just show us how to keep the stoners and drunks off the road and from killing themselves and others.

Peace,mon
Papa Lion


I sure can't say I have the definitive answer to that question, papa. But when I was spending nine of the happiest days of my life in Amsterdam more than a decade ago, I noticed that no one there really ever needed to come out of the cafe and drive stoned. The mass transit there is so excellent.

Check out this link, folks. It seems consistent with the topic:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _marijuana
dalschaef
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:03 pm

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:25 pm

Please allow me to address your points out of order, erie -
eriedasch wrote: it is extremely sad state of affairs when the entire option is totallly dismissed in favor of fossile fuels.

Agreed. The world is too dependent on fossil fuels.
eriedasch wrote: The technology is there, proven, and certainly not new.

Agreed. The only problem is one of scale, which I already suggested could be corrected through allocating more funds to develop better technology.
eriedasch wrote:hemp...is easier to grow, but enriches the soil in the process as oppossed to corn and other crops that need to be rotated, fertilized, pesticized in order to flourish from year to year.

Yep, all true.
But the validity of the point is lost, if all you plan to grow on the land is that-wonder-plant-that-will clothe, feed, power and house everyone: hemp. If your goal is to feed the world, hemp does not fare better than many of the crops developed in the last few decades; if your goal is to power the world with hemp, we need more farmland, which means less forest; if your goal is to stop "deforestation" by making paper from trees, I've already demonstrated why such an argument is doomed to fail. Allow me to again make clear that I advocate legalizing hemp cultivation, but if your goal is to allow farmers to produce an economically viable, annually renewable, technologically useful cash crop, then wouldn't it make sense to just make that case, instead of couching your arguments in exaggeration and distorting facts in the process? I am merely pointing out that hemp supporters go too far and end up overstating their case. This, in turn, turns people off to the main message, which I do think is a good one: hemp cultivation should be legal. When you say that hemp will power the world of the future, you just sound silly, and people stop listening. The only reason I am so combative on this issue is that I believe the kind of doom-n-gloom rhetoric being thrown around is harming the cause for legalization (and a host of environmental issues.) Calm down. Discuss rationally. There is no need to overstate the usefulness of hemp, since the sober truth is testament enough to why it should be legal. Fantasies about a world economy based on hemp scare the bejeezus out of the Average Joe and you'll never get too far with your agenda without his support.
eriedasch wrote:Regarding nuclear power...
Let's not get into this... I've been through it before, and considering how long-winded I've been about hemp... it's best to just nod and walk away...
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:38 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Yep, all true.
But the validity of the point is lost, if all you plan to grow on the land is that-wonder-plant-that-will clothe, feed, power and house everyone: hemp. If your goal is to feed the world, hemp does not fare better than many of the crops developed in the last few decades; if your goal is to power the world with hemp, we need more farmland, which means less forest; if your goal is to stop "deforestation" by making paper from trees, I've already demonstrated why such an argument is doomed to fail.


Doesn't material from other bio-mass fuels come from surplus crops?

If I remember correctly growing up around farms, but not on them, the farmers would rotate their corn crops. In the years that they didn't plant corn, they usually planted clover or rye, or something like that. And they always tilled that back into the soil. So no commodity came out of those acres during that year. If they planted hemp, they could harvest the bulk of the plant, still till over and it would still help replenish the soil.

Would that work?
white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby naked pagan » Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:42 am

Prof~

One thing I really disagree with is the need for more farm land. If tabaco is outlawed, then we can just use those fields :)

It should be pointed out that one of the reasons marijuana is illegal in the first place was strong lobbing by cotton farmers to limit competition in the market place.

The issue here is that Federal law does not distinish between the two different species of plant, so either one is legal. This is the part that needs to change (course catching a buzz is another story altogether) for this industry to be reborn. It may not cure everything, but there is a strong market for a number of products and any positve economic or enviromental impact is a good thing.

Imagine what would happen if a state like New Mexico were to 'legalize it'...stoner and industiral hemp....it would create such a boom economy that they wouldnt need no Federal Funding..heck, they wouldnt need any state tax, and might even get a refund from their goverment,like Alaska
naked pagan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 9:44 pm

Re: No problem?

Postby Cogitator » Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:50 am

papalion wrote:Could spawn a new organization: a spin-off from MADD called MAMA-Mothers Against Marijuana Abuse.


Eek.

Hey, check this article out: http://www.erstarnews.com/2003/may/6busted.html


That brilliant fellow who was storing the 400 pounds of kilo bricks in his garage? Yeah, he happens to be my son's father.

The part they didn't include in the article was that Brilliant Fellow and Brilliant Fellow's girlfriend took their 3-yr old daughter along with them for a 'family trip' to California. D'ya think they visited any parks or visited kid-friendly places? Unlikely. 'Sorry sweetie, Daddy doesn't have time to play, he's very busy right now transporting a half-million dollar load of Important Boxes'.

That is what steams me. It is one thing for an adult to make an adult decision to smoke dope (I've made that decision myself as well; please don't think I'm being critical of the high... I long for the high right about now). But in this case my 15 yr old son was asked by his Brillian Fellow father to lie to me (a father. asked the lad to lie. to me.) ('don't want to stress her out') for months. This kid, who is right in the steaming volcanic center of his own awkward teen years, has been put in the middle of an unwinnable situation, as has his little sister.

Brilliant Fellow's girlfriend is currently serving part of her sentence (in their home this is referred to as 'Mommy's at School', isn't that sweet?) and, I'm told, will be ankle braceleted to serve the remainder of her time at home whenever she's released.

Brilliant Fellow will shortly be headed to prison where he'll serve a 8+ year sentence. Won't that be lovely for family visits, watching and helping the kids grow up?

The legalization questions are grand and deeply complicated. But for me, the question about personal responsibility and taking care of the wee ones we've birthed if we are members of families and community are far more important than short-term gratification that comes with a most-righteous inhale. If the currents laws are set up to punish interstate drug transport well then golly gee, until the law says GO FER IT, maybe Daddy should neither take his little girl along for the exciting ride nor participate until such time that he has little to lose if/when he's caught.

If there was a M.A.M.A./Madison chapter I'd propose the name be slightly altered to Mothers Against Daddies And Significants (who) Fatefully Undermine Childhoods' Keepsakes.
Cogitator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:59 am
Location: How long was I out?

get with it, Wisconsin!

Postby dalschaef » Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:47 pm

dalschaef
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:03 pm

Postby eriedasch » Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:24 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: then wouldn't it make sense to just make that case, instead of couching your arguments in exaggeration and distorting facts in the process? I am merely pointing out that hemp supporters go too far and end up overstating their case. This, in turn, turns people off to the main message, which I do think is a good one: hemp cultivation should be legal. When you say that hemp will power the world of the future, you just sound silly, and people stop listening. The only reason I am so combative on this issue is that I believe the kind of doom-n-gloom rhetoric being thrown around is harming the cause for legalization (and a host of environmental issues.) Calm down. Discuss rationally. There is no need to overstate the usefulness of hemp, since the sober truth is testament enough to why it should be legal. Fantasies about a world economy based on hemp scare the bejeezus out of the Average Joe and you'll never get too far with your agenda without his support.

For what it's worth, I'll admit when I first read Herer's book many years ago in college I was pretty gung-ho about hemp saving the world and really wanted to believe it could.

Now all I'm asking is that we simply look at and try these proven alternatives to medicine and fuel. And as I stated earlier not all biomass fuel MUST be made from hemp. So merely to put on record, I am being calm and rational. What facts am I distorting? Maybe you are lumping my post in with the others that claim hemp is gonna save the world? I am totally content just sticking to the facts. I agree with most of what you say about a world hemp economy fantasy and realize yes it will turn off your everyday joe.

I think you need to calm down and realize we're on the same side on this one.
eriedasch
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 4:05 pm
Location: east side of Madison

Re: No problem?

Postby Chuck_Schick » Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:31 pm

Cogitator wrote:If there was a M.A.M.A./Madison chapter I'd propose the name be slightly altered to Mothers Against Daddies And Significants (who) Fatefully Undermine Childhoods' Keepsakes.

I gleefully tip my jester's cap to you, good madam.
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby purplepenquin » Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:02 pm

Prof--Well written and thought-out response, but me-thinks you kinda missed the point. Granted, that website I pointed you to uses a lil' bit of poetic-license to get their point across, but the claims they make are basically true. Hemp can be used as lumber, paper, food, medicine and fuel. No other one plant can meet all of those needs. Would it instantly be able to totally jump into the market and immedietly be the main source for those items? Of course not....but it could be an better choice, and given time we could phase out using trees and oil for some of those items.

And yes, despite your scoffing at the idea, it can easily be used as lumber. In fact, several compaines are doing it now. The website you mention (Patrick Moore's) doesn't even mention the word "hemp", so I don't understand why you are using him as a reference to prove that hemp can't be used as an alternative to trees. Perhaps he was refering to plastics or some other material when he was talking about non-wood lumber?

I am also confused as to why you think we would have to stop growing corn/wheat/food in order to grow hemp for fuel. Anything I've read on the issue states that because of the make-up of hemp, (it's been said that it has the most bio-mass out of any plant) it would only require 3-5% of our current croplands in order to meet our fuel needs. Granted, maybe it's one of those claims that just get repeated enough times so people think it's true, but I'm wondering if you have any other reports in mind that say it would require 90-100% of the croplands?

As for the claims about paper, the sources you mention don't state that vellum is the most common medium used during those times, but rather that it's the most common surviving medium from those times. A small difference perhaps, but it isn't the quite same thing you tried to claim.

Honestly, I understand your knee-jerk reaction when faced with the claims of what a versitile plant it is. It's the same type of thoughts I first had when I was first told that we could grow our fuel here in the MidWest rather than have to import it. But the more one looks into it, the more it looks like it would work. Rather than just scoff at it automatically, look into it a tad more and then tell me why it couldn't be used as an alternative to oil....
purplepenquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:38 pm

Postby blunt » Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:02 pm

Dear PurplePenquin:
You're funnier when you're high.
When can we be funny together?
blunt
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8246
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 6:19 pm
Location: Right behind you.

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar