cannabisnews.com: Cannabis Could Replace Harmful Meds 










  Cannabis Could Replace Harmful Meds 

Posted by CN Staff on September 12, 2007 at 14:09:38 PT
By Chris Goldstein and Paul Armentano 
Source: New Mexican 

New Mexico -- Millions of Americans are living in pain; so many, in fact, that doctors now prescribe enough painkillers in a single year to medicate every person in the nation. According to a disturbing new study by the Associated Press, Americans in 2005 consumed over 90,000 kilograms of powerful narcotic painkillers, not only codeine, hydrocodone and morphine, but also meperidine (Demerol) and oxycodone. In many cases, these drugs can be habit-forming. In some cases, their use can be deadly.
But what if there were a safer, cheaper, and potentially more effective alternative available for pain management — one that greatly reduced the user’s risk of dependency, and one that was incapable of causing a lethal overdose? For a handful of Americans there is. That medicine is cannabis. In 12 states, including New Mexico, patients now can use cannabis therapeutically under state law. Many of these patients use cannabis for pain relief.Investigators at San Francisco General Hospital and the University of California’s Pain Clinical Research Center assessed the efficacy of inhaled cannabis on HIV-associated sensory neuropathy. Neuropathic pain, colloquially known as nerve pain, affects an estimated 1 percent of the world’s population and is typically unresponsive to both opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications.Researchers reported that patients who smoked low-grade cannabis three times daily experienced, on average, a 34 percent reduction in pain. Assessing the use of cannabinoids as analgesics has demonstrated that they also can alleviate the neuropathy associated with multiple sclerosis, diabetes, cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Canadian health regulators just approved the use of an oral cannabis spray for the treatment of cancer pain.Survey data from numerous studies also indicates that medicinal pot users typically require fewer pharmaceutical drugs than their non-using counterparts. In June, investigators at Columbia University reported that HIV patients who used cannabis therapeutically made fewer requests for over-the-counter medications, such as pain relievers and anti-nausea drugs, than subjects administered a placebo. Evidence also demonstrates that cannabis has an adequate safety profile, particularly when compared to other pain medications. For instance, long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen, is a leading cause of stomach ulcers and stomach bleeding, with some reports estimating that their use contributes to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 16,500 deaths annually in the United States.The use of narcotic painkillers such as oxycodone (OxyContin) to treat chronic pain also poses serious health risks, including death by overdose and addiction. Recently, a federal judge in Virginia ordered OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma L.P. and three of its executives to pay more than $634 million in fines for misleading the public about the drug’s risk of addiction. By contrast, few users of cannabis, less than 10 percent, according to the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, ever become dependent on the drug, and no human case of fatal overdose has ever been attributed to cannabis.Finally, cannabis is far less expensive to the consumer than most prescription painkillers. For example, Americans spent $4.7 billion on OxyContin between 2002 and 2004. By comparison, pain management with medical cannabis can cost patients as little as $40 per month, perhaps even less if they choose to grow their own medicine at home. In states such as California, many medical-cannabis patients have the option to participate in locally sanctioned not-for-profit organizations which provide patients’ access to medicine on a sliding scale based on what they can afford. According to the American Chronic Pain Association, one in three Americans lives in persistent pain. Isn’t it time to grant these patients legal access to a non-toxic alternative that can help them alleviate their pain and suffering? Chris Goldstein is the producer of a daily podcast for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana laws, and the host of Active Voice Radio on KSFR/KSFQ in Santa Fe. Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for NORML in Washington, D.C. Source: New Mexican, The (Santa Fe, NM)Author:  Chris Goldstein and Paul ArmentanoPublished: September 8, 2007 Copyright: 2007 The Santa Fe New MexicanContact: webeditor sfnewmexican.com Website: http://www.freenewmexican.com/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/ MMJ: Battle Brewing Over State Pot Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23299.shtmlMMJ: Drug Bust Sparks Questions Over Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23293.shtmlFeds Should OK Medicinal Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23287.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #85 posted by whig on September 16, 2007 at 10:09:27 PT
Larry Silverstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_SilversteinLook how much this man has profited, and how he has sought more money from the insurers than even this. He is such a wealthy man now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #84 posted by Taylor121 on September 16, 2007 at 09:54:13 PT
Toker
Hehe, it's not problem at all. Taylor is a male/female name. It was an easy mistake to make. I've only made that clear here a few times so don't even worry about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #83 posted by FoM on September 16, 2007 at 06:29:28 PT
Toker00
I matched Dennis Kucinich with 94.29% match.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #82 posted by Toker00 on September 16, 2007 at 06:24:36 PT
FoM # 69
I matched Kucinich also with 84.44%.This is a good test for who represents you in Washington. Want to share your results so we can get a gist of who our average Representative would be?http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.htmlToke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #81 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 20:39:54 PT
Taylor121
My sincere and humble apology. I truly mean you no disrespect. Not that being mistaken for being female is...oh I'm just gonna shut up.Sorry, Man.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #80 posted by Taylor121 on September 15, 2007 at 20:16:33 PT
For the record
I'm male.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #79 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 17:58:56 PT
OT: Interesting read for the serious 911 
Truth seekers. Whether you are already convinced or never will be, this is an enlightening article...http://journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GonzalezCommentsonGarcia.pdfToke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #78 posted by Hope on September 15, 2007 at 17:17:14 PT
Thank you, BGreen.
There's no doubt in my mind that you all could be right. The way we are treated and the kind of officials we have running our government... there's no telling when we'll ever learn the truth of what happened.Whether people in government were directly complicit or not...they were certainly indirectly complicit. Their foolishness and ignorance in devoting so much time and resources to the War on Drugs had them blind to the true danger. Could they possibly have been THAT dumb and inept to have LET it happen, right before their eyes? Apparently, it's hard for some people to believe that they could. I have no doubt that they could.They were all tied up and engrossed in keeping the cat out of the house...and they blindly held the door open for the tiger.After finally getting to see Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism last night, I suspect that even 9/11 and certainly this prohibition that is causing so much grief and harm can be traced back to the lasciviously greedy banker/villains that that documentary has exposed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #77 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 16:39:55 PT
We are not alone on this...
Here's a few comments from folks with a little more inside knowledge than many of us.http://911proof.com/7.htmlThis isn't to hammer Taylor121. She is welcome to her pace of enlightenment. This is for everyone.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #76 posted by BGreen on September 15, 2007 at 15:48:58 PT
Exactly, Mayan
This isn't a slam on Taylor121, Hope or anyone else that disagrees with us. This is very simply a matter of some questions that need to be answered. Why won't they answer them or even allow the questions to be asked?Also, I don't agree with everything 9/11 truth or any other group is saying, but I do agree with a lot of what is being said.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #75 posted by mayan on September 15, 2007 at 14:21:11 PT
Hmmm...
From the link I just posted...The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 3  4  Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." -Considering that many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive and many former commercial and military pilots have come forward and stated that even they themselves would not have been able to manuever those planes that way, it truly makes one wonder. Doesn't it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #74 posted by mayan on September 15, 2007 at 14:15:59 PT
BGreen
You said it. Bush & Cheney had to be dragged kicking and screaming to testify and they would only do so if it wasn't under oath and if they were able to to testify together while they held hands. Very telling, indeed.And let's not forget the missing TRILLIONS... Missing Trillions Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference: 
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.htmlIf you add it all up it just DOESN'T add up! If the official version of 9/11 is beyond absurd then there has to be another explanation. All evidence points to complicity at the highest levels of government.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #73 posted by BGreen on September 15, 2007 at 13:24:31 PT
The facts point to an inside job w/ coverup
Sorry to disagree with Hope and Taylor121, but it's really obvious that this government is complicit if not completely responsible for the attack on 9/11.The simple fact that this government has hindered if not completely stymied any real investigation into the events of 9/11 is pretty damning circumstantial evidence of foul play, because everybody else in the whole world really wanted to get to the bottom of this.Then you have the complete refusal of every single member of this government to take the same oath of truthfulness that the rest of us are required by law to take any time we testify in a court of law.These two simple facts scream GUILTY, and I believe with every bit of my heart and mind that things are much more sinister than anybody could even fathom.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #72 posted by Hope on September 15, 2007 at 12:09:14 PT
Maybe....
the 911 conspiracy theorists did it! They planned, and did it all, to make everyone but them look really bad.I tend to agree with Taylor. To disagree with you is not a personal insult to you or your fellow believers. Is it forbidden to disagree with you?It's one thing to take sides on an idea...it's another to lose friends over a theory, even a probable theory, or suspicion, that is not provable at this point. I'd like to see a thorough, trustworthy investigation, myself. Lot's of it looks questionable...to say the least. I'm not swallowing anyone's explanations or theories wholesale. We'll know the whole truth in about fifty years... maybe.Say what you will about what you think, but, please, don't be so vitriolic to those who disagree with you. What earthly good could it possibly do? You don't win people to your way of thinking and understanding by belittling them and casting doubts on their intelligence.It is not a personal insult, nor calls for any, to disagree on this matter.Now... on this issue of fighting cannabis prohibition...we have the facts, without a doubt...let's get it done!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #71 posted by Taylor121 on September 15, 2007 at 11:07:36 PT
Guys...
I'm not here to bicker with you over this issue. I just wanted to let people know that some of us have looked at both sides and don't buy it. I wouldn't mind a new independent investigation, but that isn't the same thing as formulating theories based on loose evidence and circumstances. Now, like I said, I feel I am being talked down to. For some reason I'm being asked to apologize later on if things change, and you bet I will! But honestly the 911 posts here are usually quite arrogant as if fallibility doesn't apply to some of you. I'm being shot questions left and right, and to explain everything, yet you haven't gone through the PDF and told me why those reports and methodologies are wrong.So instead of us debating and linking back and forth, I would rather discuss cannabis. I just wanted to let some of those watching that not everyone here believes in 911 conspiracies. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #70 posted by Hope on September 15, 2007 at 09:16:09 PT
Cannabis Could Replace Harmful Meds
Cannabis! They used the word "Cannabis" in an American newspaper.I've just learned on another thread that cannabis could replace the hideous bone hardening drugs they are pushing on people to fight bone loss.Why won't they come to their senses? Do the prohibitors of cannabis have to be cursed and thrown into darkness before they can see they are wrong? Will they have to cry out in darkness because of what they have done to others in their self righteousness and bent sense of morality? What will it take? Are they permanently and irrefutably given over to their "darkness"? Will they go to their grave not ever being able to see the truth of their wickedness?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #69 posted by FoM on September 15, 2007 at 08:45:46 PT
This is Called a Candidate Calculator
I took it and Dennis Kucinich was the one that matched my answers.http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #68 posted by FoM on September 15, 2007 at 07:50:20 PT
Toker00
After all these years on CNews we have a group of people who look at life in different ways from each other but we don't fight and at some point we accept that we might not ever understand something but that's ok. We live and learn and the only time it would get bad is when infighting or talking down to each other becomes the norm. I wish we had more news about cannabis but it will pick up again I'm sure.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #67 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 07:26:58 PT
Impeachment Poll
560,507 responses89% Yes4.2% No (missteps but no high crimes or misdemeanors)5.1% No (absolutely nothing wrong)1.9% Don't freaking know...Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #66 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 06:55:00 PT
FoM
I sincerely apologize for cluttering up c-news with other world news but I will try to keep this subject on one thread in the future if you say we can continue discussions about these things. Your call.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #65 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 06:52:32 PT
Texans vs. The New World Order.
Here are what a couple of Texans have to say about the NWO.Dare to peak at this one Taylor121? It's not just about 9-11. It's much broader in scope. As a Texan, what do you think about the NAU and the Superhighway that is cutting across our state only to bring economic disaster to many of us here? Do you join with Hoffa and many others in saying we resist this?http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/140907_b_grounds.htmToke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by mayan on September 15, 2007 at 04:43:37 PT
More
According to FEMA there never were firefighters in #7. Building #6 stood between #1 & #7 and absorbed most of the debris but managed to stand for months before being demolished. A destruction crew did use the term "pull" in reference to the eventual demolition of building #6... World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others:
http://infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htmIt is also strange how some folks had prior knowledge that building #7 was going to come down...Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse: 
http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html
 The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.htmlWTC 7:
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by Toker00 on September 15, 2007 at 04:15:07 PT
whig
Right. What the whole 9-11 movement is about, is presenting all of the anomalies, evidence and circumstances and getting everyone to see if there are conclusions that can be drawn from them and whether or not another investigation is warranted. The FACT that there never WAS an independent investigation and that the evidence was protected and removed under controlled and exclusive conditions in clear violation of Federal law points many fingers. No one has been punished for any incompetence though failure of normal procedures abounded and the admittance of incompetence by the agencies bound and organized exclusively for protecting America and Americans cannot go unpunished. It sure would be convenient, if your brother was head of security at WTC, to have as many shutdowns and evacuations necessary to install wiring and explosives unnoticed. Since the building had massive unoccupied floors, not just offices, any activity could go on without anyone but the workers knowledge. Except. Except for the fact that many employees heard construction noises above them and below them on many floors along with residual dust from construction forces weeks/months before the twin towers were mysteriously pulverized before our eyes.How did the hijackers get on board the planes and not be on the passenger lists? Why were no DNA of the hijackers found? Israeli security companies were responsible for security at all the terrorists points of entry to the planes. Check out the story about the Dancing Israelis who were filming the Towers demise. Why were they so happy? Could it be because they assumed that now we would rush to the middle east and destroy it for them so they can continue their illegal expanse of Zionist territory?So Taylor121, will we get an apology from you in the near future when those of us who have been studying the corruption in our government for years and connecting the incriminating dots you seem to think are invisible? Because what's at hand here is a revolution. Early in it's infancy but growing like a weed. A non-violent grass-roots movement of Truth. Not just about 9-11 but all things. You see with your own eyes the damage done with Prohibition by the very monsters you refuse to connect to 9-11. They are the same. They are the people who give disease infected blankets to warm the unsuspecting and trusting Indians. They are the ones who use humans as guinea pigs in their research for medical control of Humans. They are the ones who have built prison complexes for physical control of Humans. They are the ones who design frankenfoods for maximum profit at who knows the price to Humans. Yet you refuse to see the volumes of evidence against them. You must have your reasons...Toke.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by afterburner on September 15, 2007 at 03:26:12 PT
Clarification to 'Bad Medicine?'
US CO: PUB LTE: Anti-Pot Obsession
(20 Sep 2007)
Colorado Springs Independent
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1061/a06.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by whig on September 15, 2007 at 02:01:44 PT
Taylor121
I really do want to know if you agree that there should be criminal indictments for murder and/or conspiracy to commit murder on September 11, 2001.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by whig on September 15, 2007 at 00:23:56 PT
OT Survey
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?  * 559640 responseshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/?polls=is_open
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by Hope on September 14, 2007 at 23:06:11 PT
Off Topic
Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism. As many of you know, my computer is too slow to load it. It was just shown on Free Speech TV.Everybody should see the movie. If they don't understand it, they should watch it until they do.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by Taylor121 on September 14, 2007 at 21:19:24 PT
Firefighters
The firefighters gave up on the fires because there was low water pressure. The term "pull it" doesn't refer to blowing up a building and isn't used as slang for controlled demolitions. Pull it could mean pull the operation back, or a number of everything. Anyway I don't want to turn this into a huge argument. I posted up some evidence, little if any was rebutted. PDFs are right there that explain several things. Believe whatever you like, but you aren't stupid if you have looked at both sides openly and don't believe a theory because of a lack of evidence. I freely admit that there are some anomalies, but there is not uncommon in a hectic situation and the unknowns of that day do not equal evidence for an alternative theory. In any case, like I said believe whatever you like, but I haven't seen a thing to make me endorse the idea that 911 was an inside conspiracy. It's so speculative. Let's focus on what we all believe in, ending cannabis prohibition. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 17:31:35 PT
mayan
It's certainly incriminating.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by mayan on September 14, 2007 at 17:30:47 PT
Silverstein: "Pull It" 
Is that enough evidence of foreknowledge? You can't just rig explosives for a controlled demolition in a moment's notice. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 17:27:31 PT
mayan
Now if Larry Silverstein had demonstrated foreknowledge in some way, as by saying that he had made a decision to pull a building that had not yet collapsed, that would be a problem for him.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 17:26:14 PT
mayan
Isn't that interesting?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 17:25:58 PT
mayan
Did I say something wrong?If we're going to make accusations, we should establish who benefited, without deriving from that necessary conclusions that they had foreknowledge. If we can show both benefit and foreknowledge, that is rather more strong. Also, we should bear in mind that the intended beneficiary could have failed to benefit in some way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by mayan on September 14, 2007 at 17:23:23 PT
Bin Laden
He's not even on the FBI's "most wanted" list for the crimes of 9/11. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by mayan on September 14, 2007 at 17:22:08 PT
whig
"Careful with that cui bono stuff. :)"Just what are you saying?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 16:57:44 PT
Toker00
Our standard should be the same as a grand jury's, proof sufficient to induce a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, not only probable cause, or preponderance of evidence.First, does there exist proof sufficient to induce a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, Osama bin Laden, for participation in conspiracy to commit murder on September 11, 2001?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 16:50:35 PT
Toker00
I know you are a passionate advocate, and you honestly believe that you have seen proof sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. Even that would be insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction unless you can say who participated and prove their foreknowledge.This should be treated as a public trial of evidence, and we can hold it right here if FoM wants or we can go elsewhere. Bottom line, we can look at all publicly available evidence and invite defenders of the official conspiracy theory to present their case as well. This won't be sufficient to convict, but a firm basis for a grand jury to be convened to issue indictments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 16:45:14 PT
Cui bono
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bonoCui bono is still a standard rule applied in criminal investigations. Effective use of cui bono depends on various factors, which are illustrated here using the hypothetical case of a wealthy man named "Mr. Jones", who was found beside a road with his skull smashed.Cui bono can be applied only in cases where some act was planned with the intention of obtaining a benefit. If Mr. Jones died as the result of a random accident (e.g. a heavy object fell off a passing truck and hit him) or without a premeditated act (e.g. struck by a careless drunk driver), cui bono will not be relevant.Cui bono requires a good understanding of all possible motives. As Mr. Jones was wealthy the police will certainly concentrate on his heirs, but others may also have benefitted from his death. Perhaps Mr. Jones was killed by his wife because he had a mistress, or Mr. Jones was killed by his mistress because he wanted to end the relationship. It is possible that Mr. Jones had a drug habit, and was killed by his dealer in an argument over payment. Jones may have been involved in other illegal activities, and his business partners killed Jones to silence him. Finally, Jones may have been the innocent victim of a mugging.The understanding of motives requires that even motives existing only in the mind of the killer must be taken into account. Mr. Jones could have been killed by somebody who wrongly believed that he would inherit his fortune, or by a murderously jealous wife, who mistakenly believed that he had been unfaithful. The motives of supposedly insane criminals ("He was an invader from Mars! I saved Earth!") may fall into this category as well.It is possible that several different people will benefit from the murder, or that the actual murderer would not be the one with the most to gain. Mr. Jones may have been the victim of a violent mugger who wanted the cash in his wallet, and knew nothing about his fortune.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by whig on September 14, 2007 at 16:39:40 PT
mayan
Careful with that cui bono stuff. :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by mayan on September 14, 2007 at 16:15:08 PT
WTC #7: 2+2=4
Larry ?Lucky Larry? Silverstein:
http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php?ArticleID=10744From the above linked article..."Youve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million. Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership. Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, two key players in the 9/11 attacks." More...Profile: Larry Silverstein:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silversteinProfessional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.htmlLarry Silverstein,WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.htmlBut, I guess to some, 2+2=5. Orwell rolls in his grave.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by afterburner on September 14, 2007 at 13:56:00 PT
A Scanner Darkly
UK prohibitionist thinking:DRUG SCANNER CHECKS PUBLIC (Source:Oxford Mail) 12 Sep 2007 http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v07/n1055/a03.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by Toker00 on September 14, 2007 at 08:17:19 PT
She was a Bush supporter...
until she saw End gamE. Here's a skeptics conversion: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/140907Paradigm.htmToke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by FoM on September 14, 2007 at 05:15:07 PT
Toker121 
Heck I don't know! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Had Enough on September 14, 2007 at 04:21:20 PT
Just a few months before 9/11/2001
May 5, 2001Chevron redubs ship named for Bush aideCondoleezza Rice drew too much attentionLeaving a wave of controversy in its wake, one of the most visible reminders of the Bush administration's ties to big oil - the 129,000-ton Chevron tanker Condoleezza Rice - has quietly been renamed, Chevron officials acknowledged yesterday. "We made the change to eliminate the unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name," said Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell. The double-hulled, Bahamian-registered oil tanker carrying the moniker of Bush's national security adviser was renamed the Altair Voyager, after a star, Gorell said. The unannounced decision to rechristen the tanker was made by Chevron officials in late April, after "we had been in discussions with (Rice's) office," said Gorell. Asked if Rice or the White House had specifically requested the name change, Gorell said, "that's not for me to discuss." Rice's spokeswoman, Maryellen Countryman, did not return calls on the matter yesterday. The Chronicle reported a month ago that the White House had faced questions over the appropriateness of the tanker's name -- particularly as California struggled with the effects of an energy crisis. The giant vessel was part of the international fleet of the San Francisco- based multinational oil firm, christened several years ago in honor of Rice, a longtime Chevron board member. Rice, a former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after Bush named her his top national security aide. But critics said the ship served as a giant floating symbol of the Bush administration's cozy ties to the oil industry. "It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry -- in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry," Chuck Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity said last month when the watchdog organization first raised the issue. The tanker's name also raised more serious questions of possible conflict of interest for Rice because Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria. Last month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the issue of the tanker had "already been addressed" by Rice, and he added, "she will uphold the highest ethical standards in office." “Chevron officials argued last month that the ship's name was entirely appropriate because it was a special honor for Rice -- part of a longstanding tradition of naming ships after members of the Chevron board. They noted that George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr were all afforded similar honors, and that those names did not change even when honorees went into government service."We would not be renaming the Condi Rice tanker," said Bonnie Schiken, spokeswoman for Chevron, in early April. "If you remember, Carla Hills was on our board, and went off the board to take a role in the administration . . . we did not rename the tanker." ”Pat Moloney, executive director of the Pilot Commission and master of the historic liberty ship Jeremiah O'Brien, said yesterday, "In the old sailing ship days, they'd say it was bad luck to change the name of a ship." But in modern times, it's not only common but prudent, he said, noting that the infamous Exxon Valdez was changed to the Sea River Mediterranean after its environmental disaster. Chevron's move "makes good sense . . . because the ship has potential for high profile," said Moloney of the Condoleezza Rice. "The companies don't want an asset like that with an obvious political liabilityMore…http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/05/05/MN223743.DTLThings that make you go Hhhmmm...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Toker00 on September 14, 2007 at 03:30:14 PT
whig
Yeah. I figured I stepped up a step too high with that one, too, whig. Lol! But then I suppose I could act like the DEA and say no "trials" have proven cannabis to be medicine, either. But I won't, because I know better. However, Alex Jones and many others would probably say that the 9-11 evidence is just as irrefutable.I'm not posting this to argue with anyone. You did what I expected, whig. You proved that while one cause may seem outrageous when based on the widespread evidence, another cause may seem quite logical, when neither, according to modern history, have proven theories. I DO believe 9-11 would be harder to prove, but look how long we have been trying to "prove" cannabis is medicine? There is no doubt that cannabis IS medicine. When the evidence that 9-11 was an inside job is investigated like cannabis has been investigated, I believe it is just as provable. But I guess that depends on what the definition of "is" is.Toke.    
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by whig on September 13, 2007 at 23:17:47 PT
Taylor121
Do you agree that there must be criminal indictments brought for the events of 9-11?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by whig on September 13, 2007 at 23:16:49 PT
Toker00
"There is as much evidence that 9-11 was a false flag terror attack as there is that cannabis is medicine."Sorry, I don't agree with this.The fact that cannabis is medicine is irrefutable. There has been no trial of 9-11. Until there is a trial, all theories are provisional.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 21:54:12 PT
Taylor00? Who dat?
FoM you are so funny. Who are you talking to?Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 21:51:13 PT
FoM
Sure they knew. They trained the hijackers. FBI informants lived with them. They stopped the investigations of Al Qaeda and destroyed all the information they had compiled that could have been used to prevent 9-11 if we had had honest Government. They are moving forward with their agenda. That is why we must continue to convince the hard to convince of the FACT that 9-11 was an inside job. Not caused by our Government, but by criminal elements within the military and executive branches of it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 21:38:27 PT
Taylor121
Well, I guess I just don't know what else to say. Some people just don't get it. Either you are one of those people who just can't see evil, or you simply don't know what it is. I'm surprised that you find the evidence showing cannabis has medicinal value is strong enough to believe but evidence of Government Conspiracies is not. How did anyone ever convince you about cannabis's medicinal value? Most people who believe 19 Arabs and their leader in a cave with a cell phone did 9-11 also believe John Walters when he says we are winning the War on Drugs and that cannabis is equal to heroin.Just a couple more questions if you can afford me the answers. Can you explain Bush's actions on 9-11? Can you explain how he saw the FIRST plane hit the Tower when news footage of that crash didn't get aired til the next day? Why did Rummy slip and say that flight 93 was shot down over Penn., and that a missile had damaged the pentagon? Does the PNAC crowd and NWO bother you at all with their plans for Humanity? Can you at least explain the lobbies being blown out BEFORE the first plane hit? BEFORE the collapse of the second tower? How were the slurry walls moved out so far? Please be honest. Truthers show the damaged side to building seven often enough. The building would have actually collapsed and fallen toward the damaged side, not straight down. But what do structural engineers know? What do you think the white hot metal pouring out of the towers was? How do YOU explain the explosions going off ALL OVER THE BUILDINGS BEFORE THEY COLLAPSED? These explosions were audibly sequenced detonations. Seismographs show strong seismic activity when the lobbies blew, but not when the towers fell. The concrete had been so Pulverised, there were no chunks large enough to cause any seismic measurement of the debris hitting the ground. No pancake layers at ground zero. There is as much evidence that 9-11 was a false flag terror attack as there is that cannabis is medicine. I don't see how you can see stronger evidence for one than the other. Oh well. I'm glad you at least are not trying to convince us that the official story is true, just that our evidence is weak by your standards. That's kuul.You still didn't really answer any of our questions or give your opinion of what you think DID happen on 9-11. Care to share your version? Is the evidence stronger for the other side? I guss I should just drop it. I'll stop now. I won't wonder about your opinion anymore. You have the right to reject what you think is weak evidence. Toke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by FoM on September 13, 2007 at 21:27:00 PT
Taylor00
What I do believe for sure is they knew this was going to happen and didn't pay attention. An attack would trigger what it triggered. Then they could move forward with their objectives. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Taylor121 on September 13, 2007 at 21:13:59 PT
FoM: There are pics in the PDF file but
you could probably check out google images to look at more images of the pentagon wreckage. What happened on 911 was terrible, but I had to look into it deeply since some people, even a small population of scholars, were saying the Administration did it or allowed it to happen. I looked carefully and found the evidence to be insufficient.If you want to know where some sound arguments and evidence are, you only have to look at cannabis legalization for adults. There's an argument with objective evidence behind it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by FoM on September 13, 2007 at 21:08:23 PT
Taylor121
I can't read a pdf file because the adobe reader messed up my computer but were there identified bodies from that flight? I believe they should show more pictures of the Pentagon then the few they showed us. There must be more. Have they found jewelry or anything to identify a passenger? I really haven't followed it very closely but I know people here have and that's fine with me. I don't like to look back at just about anything in life that is negative but I want to look forward so maybe we can prevent more problems from happening.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by Taylor121 on September 13, 2007 at 20:24:57 PT
Here's the thing
You are assuming that I haven't looked at everything and are talking down to me. Take my word for a second and believe me when I say I have looked at the evidence very seriously and I was very open to the possibility. I even went to a seminar and lecture on my campus over a year ago. The evidence is not there and yes I understand there could be psychological reasons for some people not considering it, but that doesn't fit me. I could equally say there are psychological reasons why many people in the 911 truth movement want their hypotheses to be true, but I would say some honestly believe what they believe because they weigh the evidence more heavily than I. Toker, I'm also aware of the philosopher and process theologian David Ray Griffin who is on board with the truth movement. I have read through his arguments and I find them weak as well. mayan, I don't think you accurately used the word "obvious" to describe WTC 7. If it was obvious, more people would believe it. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpgPart of the North Tower slammed into WTC 7 and took a chunk of its structural integrity out. Look for pictures and you can find a huge chunk missing on its back side, the side that usually isn't shown by 911 truthers. The tower was significantly damaged throughout the day by out of control fires that weren't put out because a sprinkler system without pressure and low pressure with firefighters. Firefighters reported creaking sounds as steal began to weaken from the fires in the afternoon. It eventually buckled and collapsed.http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdfRead the full thing. Then compare it with truth reports, I encourage everyone.FoM, bodies were recovered. http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by Had Enough on September 13, 2007 at 20:07:02 PT
Pictures…
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htmLook at those columns. Clear defined cuts.Lucy!!! Somebody has some splainin to do!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 18:44:32 PT
Taylor121
Hey, it's ok. I just wanted you to know that just by going to the Internet sites or listening to Popular Mechanics and such you won't learn much. What I found was that the more I looked at DVDs like 911 Mysteries, Terror Storm, Every body's Gotta Learn Sometime and the speech given by David Ray Griffin at U of W Madison, the more I found pieces and parts that I didn't see or hear the previous times I watched and listened to them. Loose Change was much more publicized and much less effective than any of the DVDs or speech I mention above. To me it has drawn more attention to 9-11Truth but without many of the crucial points and names analyzed.To help you understand why most people don't really want to hear the truth about 9-11, there is a CD titled: "Psychology of Resistance to 9-11 Truth". It works as a tool to help rinse your washed brain. And mine. We have all been brainwashed since birth. We are hoping that by exposing the Globalists and NeoCons and all the others who work for Greed and not Love, we might somehow have Love and not Greed.You must trust your own self to find the Truth that lies a-scatter about the Earth. But please don't limit your search to the well worn path. More people were deceived to walk down those paths than were lead down them by Truth. Think for yourself. But think deep enough to break the surface. We can make a difference.Toke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on September 13, 2007 at 18:09:58 PT
greenmed
I don't think they were suppose to post this already written article until after the President spoke and they goofed. The media amazes me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by mayan on September 13, 2007 at 17:49:02 PT
Taylor 121
Just one question. How do you explain the obvious controlled demolition of WTC #7?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by greenmed on September 13, 2007 at 17:36:46 PT
advance review
Pre-emptive journalism?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by FoM on September 13, 2007 at 17:27:23 PT
Review of The President Speech
I haven't seen it yet though. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2961319.ece
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Taylor121 on September 13, 2007 at 17:10:25 PT
Evidence
I've looked at those sites, I've read the arguments, I've looked at the evidence. I'm not a fool nor am I convinced.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by mayan on September 13, 2007 at 17:08:05 PT
Taylor 121
You have looked at the evidence? Really? You obviously didn't look too long or hard. There are plenty of people much more knowledgable than you or I who question the official story. There are Military leaders,Legal scholars,Structural engineers,Architects,Scientists,
Pilots,College Professors,Members of Congress,9/11 Commissioners,Psychiatrists,psychologists, survivors and family members...http://patriotsquestion911.com/http://911blogger.com/node/11094Open your eyes and see what even a fool can see.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by afterburner on September 13, 2007 at 15:26:47 PT
whig
That's what the neo-con myth-makers count on. They keep creating new "realities" to keep the truth-seekers off balance. However, a wise human once said, "The truth will out."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 14:50:40 PT
whig
I beleive that is possible. Why? All that we need is an independent investigation. The evidence speaks volumes for itself. We need outrage. Where's the outrage? In the families of 9-11 victims. In the survivors who know what they heard and when and where they heard it. In most of the people who have bothered to examine the evidence with an open mind and not a fool's gullibility. In those who have known for decades the tricks of the treasonous and the webs they weave to trap us in. In those who refuse to become part of what we reject in our hearts. It can happen.Toke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by whig on September 13, 2007 at 09:47:04 PT
Toker00
We need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to make convictions.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by dankhank on September 13, 2007 at 09:18:17 PT
it's OK
planned destination works, too ...Trust the government?  Ha!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 03:39:22 PT
Dang it!
Planned Detonation. Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Toker00 on September 13, 2007 at 03:17:15 PT
whig
Stay tuned. Thanks to Kucinich and others who step up, the paper work is in the making and some of it is already filed. Until an independent investigation is held, nothing can go forward. Until all this "evidence" is analyzed by legal council and argued and on and on...we will only have theories. Preponderance of the evidence. That is what we need.aolbites, nothing is accidental. Those nukes didn't just go missing. It wouldn't surprise me that they are already set and waiting for detonation. Planned destination.Toke. Toke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by whig on September 13, 2007 at 01:40:31 PT
aolbites
Can you give a link to a good synopsis of the missing nuke?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by aolbites on September 12, 2007 at 23:23:04 PT
Don't forget ..
6 Nukes are reported missing ... 5 nukes are reported found ... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by museman on September 12, 2007 at 23:23:03 PT
Yup
"The same powers that push the weaponry buttons are the same powers that keep Cannabis prohibited. To trust these people even as for as the bathroom is inconceivable to me after all these years of learning their nasty little secrets. "The "Same Powers.""Evidence" is only as good as those same powers define it as being. The actual witness of the character of our government in action over the past 6 years is more than circumstantial enough to support the conclusions drawn from the available material.I saw it in Bush's eye's. Never forget it. When the secret service whispered in his ear. You could just see the reflection of the burning towers in his eyes, even though he was looking at a camera, and a group of school children.The guy probably whispered "Fait Accompli."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by whig on September 12, 2007 at 21:39:14 PT
Toker00
Really all we have are theories until a criminal indictment and prosecution is commenced.Why hasn't that happened?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Toker00 on September 12, 2007 at 20:30:32 PT
Taylor121
Your opinion is as welcomed here as anyone else's but if you have analyzed all the available evidence on most of the available DVDs and books about 9-11 written by scholars and speeches by architects, former government officials close to the heart of Washington and the recent influx of highly influential people not only questioning the official story but joining the Truth movement and you still say the evidence is weak, then I must wonder how you came to this conclusion. None of this evidence is proof. That can only come from a court of law. At first glance, you cannot possibly take in all the circumstantial and physical evidence that support criminal misconduct of our Government officials, so how can it be discounted as weak? The evidence has created too many questions for it to be very weak. Do you think the evidence of this New World Order, Martial Law and Global Government is weak also? Are you certain that the bodies found at the Pentagon were from the plane, or the building? Since a huge metal plane was supposedly "vaporized", how did the bodies avoid all that heat and pressure? Just asking. The same company that "investigated" the Pentagon also "investigated" flight 93, and although the coroner on the scene said he has yet to see a drop of blood at the crash site, they claimed to have found bodies there, too. The people who came outside after the Pentagon exploded said they smelled cordite, not jet fuel burning. The questions just go on and on... I understand your skepticism and it took me many sleepless nights continually going over many of the 9-11 DVDs and Government documents that not only support but prove that False Flag Terror attacks are not weak nor are Government conspiracies to bring the people to support War. They are very real.Please don't think I'm arguing. Many of us didn't see a Conspiracy connection for years after the attack. Volumes of circumstantial and physical evidence, while not proof, is strong enough for me to support this movement all the way to the War Crimes courts. How you can say it is a weak movement is beyond me. The movement is growing by bounds everyday and the evidence is constantly increasing. Do I think we will ever know the Truth about 9-11 in it's entirety? No. Will there be any convictions for 9-11 Treason? Probably not that stick. They gave promotions instead. While you can't prove a negative, that it wasn't a conspiracy, how can you deny all the evidence and enormous number and cross section of the people involved in this movement?Castro? Who cares what Castro thinks? He isn't the only leader of the world who questions 9-11. Many do and that is increasing, too. If you watch MSM, you will be lulled back to sleep.The same powers that push the weaponry buttons are the same powers that keep Cannabis prohibited. To trust these people even as for as the bathroom is inconceivable to me after all these years of learning their nasty little secrets. Want to end Cannabis prohibition? Then remove the power of War from those who use us as fodder. End All the Wars of the World. Expose the Elite for the evil people they are, don't doubt their evil. Peace.Toke.   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 20:20:10 PT
Dankhank
Thank goodness for another small miracle!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Dankhank on September 12, 2007 at 19:57:47 PT
Dodd speaks ...
check this ...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/12/dodd-would-decriminalize-_n_64198.htmla good start ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 19:15:09 PT
Taylor121 
I don't follow conspiracy theories very closely. I want to know if they have definitely matched DNA to victims on that flight. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 19:05:58 PT
charmed quark 
Some people do need opiates to control pain. Most people that get addicted to opiates started taking them because of intense pain from an injury or illness. Many pain issues can be controlled without opiates though. The problem with opiates is withdrawal and tolerance. Tylenol 4 is toxic to the liver because of the tylenol. My liver titer test was really bad when I went to the hospital. Cannabis won't cause horrible pain if stopped suddenly like narcotics do. I know I went thru detox and it was the worst pain I ever had in my life and I've had 5 major surgeries.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Taylor121 on September 12, 2007 at 19:04:53 PT
Btw, 911 truth has weak evidence behind it
Castro is wrong on many of his points. There were bodies identified. There was evidence of passengers. I know this isn't a popular place to say it, but I will say it because I know a lot of people are observing and they need to know that not everyone out there that supports the movement to legalize cannabis also believes in 911 truth. I have looked at the evidence in support of the 911 truth movement and it is weak. I'm not saying everything the official story says about 911 is 100% accurate, but I will say that the alternative theories of 911 are supported on a weak line of supportive inferences. This is coming from someone that believes Bush is a terrible president.Be cautious in what you put your stock in. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Toker00 on September 12, 2007 at 19:02:02 PT
GCW
I wonder why, too? Doesn't their very existence depend on healing and curing the sick? Isn't their entire purpose to provide hope and health to all who are in need and offer compassion to their fellow man? Isn't that what they do with their profits? Put them back into discovering new and better and cheaper treatments and cures that are safer and more easily available to those in need? Doesn't Cannabis offer all of that without the need for expensive studies and analyses? Can't People buy dangerous medications right over the counter and wouldn't it make more sense to allow patients to grow or provide others with a Natural Herb alternative to harsher Opiates and Chemi-Sorcery? Profits wouldn't be a concern to a Health Oriented Corporation if an alternative were available in Nature would they? Aren't a lot of meds. just synthetic and high volume versions of Naturally occurring substances?
But pharmaceutical companies don't like Cannabis.I wonder why, too? I mean if corporations are considered people, and people are basically good, I wonder why RX companies don't like cannabis? Patients using cannabis, like cannabis. It's cheaper than RX meds. It works better than those inferior expensive meds. Still...I wonder why, too? We know it's not just for the profit, right? Right?!?Toke. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Taylor121 on September 12, 2007 at 18:59:05 PT
Agreed charmed
There is no need to demonize opiates any further than they already are. There needs to be sympathy towards people in pain, not anger. Opiates help many people and yes, they are relatively safe when managed properly.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by charmed quark on September 12, 2007 at 18:55:10 PT
a bit misleading
As a pain patient, I think this article is a bit off. I don't like to see opiates demonized. It's bad enough in this country to get adequate pain management.Only on certain types of pain, such as neuropathic, has cannabis been shown to be superior to opiates. For other types of pain, opiates are probably superior. My guess is that combinations of cannabis and opiates could be very effective for some types of pain, allowing lower doses of the opiate.Pure opiates are actually fairly safe as long as the dose is managed carefully. They do not damage the body as many drugs might. No liver, kidney or other organ damage. Their problem is that too large a dosage can cause respiratory suppression. That's how they can kill you. Constipation is a common side effect and can actually be serious. But otherwise they have a good long-term safety profile.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on September 12, 2007 at 14:44:42 PT

Why do pharmaceutical companies dislike cannabis?
Now why does the pharmaceutical industry hire lobbyists to stop cannabis from becoming legal?I wonder why?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by nuevo mexican on September 12, 2007 at 14:27:43 PT

You guys beat me to it! WoW!!!
Blitzers' says, 'lets come back to this subject, but first.....'
Huge!
Go Mayan!
Go FOM!
Good to see you Dankhank!
Castros' guy agrees! 
More later tonight!
Got ya!
CNN uses 911truth to hook us, so we will have to report back later!
But there is was!
And only because Castro says it, where are all of the other world leaders?
And Obama hit a grand slam out of the park today when he said Bring them home and end the war today!YES!!!!Gore/Kucinich/Obama/Edwards/Richardson......creme of the crop!
Hillary is the rotten apple, of course, she's the only women they dare have do their bidding!Call your Senators and Reps too, just say no the bushes war on Iran, and end the Occupation in Iraq now, and stop the war on Medical Cannabis patients as well!You won't be sorry, they must hear our voices, and our outrage...We must stop these madmen now, and listen to Randi Rhodes at AirAmericaradio.com to hear someone how is extremely educated, outspoken, and FOM-like when it comes to integrity!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 14:14:53 PT

Dankhank
I just heard that on CNN. I will be listening.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Dankhank on September 12, 2007 at 14:13:28 PT

9/11 truth ...
hey Mayan , et al ...Castro has a theory of 9/11 ...coming on CNN shortly ...
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment