cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk 










  Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk 

Posted by CN Staff on May 23, 2006 at 16:35:21 PT
By Salynn Boyles 
Source: Fox News  

USA -- People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests. While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.
The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.Tashkin presented the findings today at The American Thoracic Society’s 102nd International Conference, held in San Diego.Boomers Reaching Cancer Age The study population was limited to people who were younger than 60 because people older than that would probably not have used marijuana in their teens and early adult years.“People who may have smoked marijuana in their youth are just now getting to the age when cancers are being seen,” Tashkin says.A total of 611 lung cancer patients living in Los Angeles County, and 601 patients with other cancers of the head and neck were compared with 1,040 people without cancer matched for age, sex, and the neighborhood they lived in.All the participants were asked about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diets, occupation, family history of lung cancer, and socioeconomic status.The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers.The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater their risk of developing lung cancer and other cancers of the head and neck. But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all. The THC ConnectionStudies suggest that marijuana smoke contains 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer than cigarette smoke. Marijuana smokers also tend to inhale deeper than cigarette smokers and hold the inhaled smoke in their lungs longer.So why isn’t smoking marijuana as dangerous as smoking cigarettes in terms of cancer risk?The answer isn’t clear, but the experts say it might have something to do with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is a chemical found in marijuana smoke.Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD.In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke.The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.While there was a suggestion in the newly reported study that smoking marijuana is weakly protective against lung cancer, Tashkin says the very weak association was probably due to chance.Cancer risk among cigarette smokers was not influenced by whether or not they also smoked marijuana.“We saw no interaction between marijuana and tobacco, and we certainly would not recommend that people smoke marijuana to protect themselves against cancer,” he says.By Salynn Boyles, reviewed by Louise Chang, MDSOURCES: American Thoracic Society 102nd International Conference, San Diego, May 23, 2006. Donald Tashkin, MD, professor of medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles. Robert Melamede, PhD, molecular biologist, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. WebMD Medical News: “Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than Tobacco?”Source: Fox News (US)Author: Salynn BoylesPublished: Tuesday, May 23, 2006Copyright: 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. Website: http://www.foxnews.com/Comments: foxnewsonline foxnews.comRelated Articles: Mary Jane Trumps Joe Camelhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21868.shtml No Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21866.shtmlPot Doesn't Increase Oral-Cancer Risk, Study Says http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18939.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #74 posted by FoM on May 25, 2006 at 11:38:24 PT
Press Release from The Drug Policy Alliance
Study Shows Marijuana Smoke Does Not Raise Cancer Risk***Thursday, May 25, 2006A study presented at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society on May 24 found that smoking marijuana, even heavily, does not increase the risk of cancer. The study was headed by Dr. Donald Tashkin of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.Tashkin, who has studied the effects of marijuana on the lungs for years, had expected the study to reveal that heavy marijuana use results in elevated cancer risk.Past studies have yielded varied results on this question, but most were conducted on a small scale and possibly affected by bias. The large-scale UCLA study focused on 2,200 people, about 1,200 of whom had lung, oral, laryngeal or esophageal cancer.The study used personal interviews to collect information about lifetime marijuana, tobacco and other drug use, as well as information about family history of cancer, diet and other possible factors. The result was that people who smoked marijuana, even those who smoked heavily for years, were at no greater risk of developing cancer than those who did not smoke. In contrast, people who smoked more than two packs of cigarettes per day were 20 times more likely to develop cancer than those who smoked nothing.Tashkin said that past studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain many of the same carcinogenic chemicals found in cigarette smoke. The findings of the study now have researchers considering the possibility that marijuana may have a protective effect against cancer, perhaps deterring tumor growth. 
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/052506cancer.cfm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #73 posted by whig on May 25, 2006 at 06:20:46 PT
rchandar
If you love someone, set them free.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #72 posted by rchandar on May 25, 2006 at 05:50:35 PT:
just a thought
if I built this fortress around your heart,
encircled you in trenches and barbed wire,
then let me build a bridge,
for I cannot build a castle,
and let me set the battlements on fire.Sting, 1985Still one of my favorite rock songs. what with immigration the way it is today in Congress, thought I'd give the song a post.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #71 posted by whig on May 25, 2006 at 03:34:19 PT
American Idol
My wife likes the show and I watch it with her sometimes, I'm not hugely into it but it's kind of mindless fun to watch the auditions and then it just hooks people in to see who goes on to the next level. It's a singing competition which is designed to find someone plastic, the whole thing is an audition really for a commercial part. As long as you understand this and don't put any more importance on it than that, it's fine. Neither Taylor Hicks nor Katherine McPhee are likely to have anyone killed. The same cannot be said for politicians.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #70 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 22:57:05 PT

Patrick 
It's the getting off their butt part that makes the difference. Maybe we should be able to call in our vote for President. Now that might help.I'm kidding but I'm serious.PS: I've never watched American Idol. It really must be something as popular as they say it is.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #69 posted by Patrick on May 24, 2006 at 22:29:40 PT

Happy Birthday Bob!
I want to add something else regarding voting. While I have never watched American Idol here is an excerpt from a news article I just read:It was Katharine vs. Taylor, McPheever vs. the Soul Patrol, with a recording contract and the fifth “Idol” title up for grabs.
More than 63 million votes were cast, “more than any president in the history of our country has received,” Seacrest said.That simple fact is a very sad sad statement on the people in this country. I will remember it the next time I hear someone say it’s the politician’s fault, or it’s the government’s fault or some other such utterance blaming our elected representatives for all our problems. There’s no reason I can fathom that people will spend money calling in a vote for a singer on TV than getting off their butt and casting a vote for the leader of their county. It’s really pathetic in my humble opinion just pathetic. 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #68 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 16:03:35 PT

Bob Dylan
Happy Birthday!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #67 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 15:34:35 PT

Max
Look at the obscene amount of money that Feinstein has raised and spent on her political campaigns:http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?cid=N000073641989-2006 Total Receipts: $44,855,6681989-2006 Total Spent: $37,289,011
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #66 posted by Max Flowers on May 24, 2006 at 14:51:25 PT

Turncoat Democrats
Between Agent Feinstein and Agent Pelosi---who has already stated that she will not seek the impeachment of Bush---we have sufficient republican agents in the democratic party, don't we (not that I'm a democrat)? They can join their neocon friends in the slammer for all I care. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #65 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 14:25:20 PT

whig
I promise! I promise! I promise!!!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #64 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 14:18:45 PT

FoM
Just don't vote for any Republicans, okay? :)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #63 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 14:16:15 PT

whig 
You can be very convincing as why not to vote. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #62 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 14:14:12 PT

FoM
Actually, I will be non-voting in California. :)Feinstein supported the war in Iraq; she has claimed that she was misled by President Bush on the reasons for going to war. The Center for Public Integrity has reported that Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq (and Afghanistan) contracts through his company, Perini.Senator Feinstein was the original Democratic co-sponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. In a "Statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein On the President’s Comments Regarding Patriot Act and Domestic Spying," Senator Feinstein stated: "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people."Feinstein is a firm supporter of capital punishment and of a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #61 posted by jose melendez on May 24, 2006 at 14:01:29 PT

y'all have been busy!
Did not Tashkin's study purport to reveal a negative correlation between lung cancer and smoked cannabis?see: http://tinyurl.com/r9sqssee also:http://tinyurl.com/zo6u8 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #60 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 13:59:51 PT

Whig
You will be voting in CA so what about Feinstein if you decide to vote? http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Drugs.htm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #59 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 13:43:04 PT

Bob Casey on Drugs
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Bob_Casey_Drugs.htmQ: Is there any room in the Casey administration for the legalization of drugs in any way?A: No.Q: Have you ever smoked marijuana?A: No. I did drink a lot of beer though.Q: What kind?A: Oh, lots of different kinds.Q: He looks like an Iron City man to me.A: I'm from Scranton; they only serve Budweiser there.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #58 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 13:39:39 PT

Interesting Link
Brown seems the best in Ohio but I couldn't figure out how to just get the page but you can access your representatives views on this link.http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Sherrod_Brown_Drugs.htm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #57 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 13:30:06 PT

runderwo
There are a few decent people who manage to succeed in politics. They are exceptions. Like Russ Feingold in the Senate. Most are corrupt. Here in Pennsylvania we have Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter. Not much good there: They are two of the biggest Korporate whores. The Democrats are going to run a Conservative Democrat against Santorum in November: Bob Casey is pro-Life, pro-Alito, pro-Iraq-War. WTF.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #56 posted by runderwo on May 24, 2006 at 12:57:22 PT

whig
At least find representatives and senators whose principles and platform you agree with and who pledge not to take money in exchange for political favors. They do exist. You just have to research them (starting at opensecrets.org is a good start). Good representatives will hamstring a crappy president no matter who he is. Don't you agree that a half-bad situation is better than an all-bad one?I don't understand your contention that by voting for one candidate, you are somehow voicing your approval of another.It is also important to remember that representatives and senators are elected by popular vote (i.e. democratically) while presidents are not. And the president is just a figurehead with respect to public policy, because his only powers are war and police powers and the veto. So don't obsess about who is president because it is really irrelevant. A friendly legislature is more important and you have far more choice there. Of course I respect your right to abstain if you find none of the choices appealing, but to say that all political candidates are corruptible is not the same as saying that they are all corrupt or will become corrupt. If they do, they are up for reelection every 2 years so they can be quickly dispensed with.I have to wonder that for those who are irreparably dissatisfied with the choices they have out there, why they don't run as candidates themselves on the very platform that would encompass everything they are dissatisfied with. Corporate mass media control is no longer an excuse since publishing on the Web is available to anyone. Attracting an audience is more challenging, but if your ideas are appealing, they should sell themselves."One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -- Plato"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift"Almost everything you do in life will be insignificant, but you must do it anyway." -- Gandhi"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." -- Frank Zappa
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #55 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 12:42:19 PT

Off Topic But Not Really
Impeachment? No. Impalement!***By Will DurstJune 2006 IssueI don’t know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, rightwing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infra-structure destroying, buck passing, hysterical, criminal, history defying, finger pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clearcutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture out-sourcing, election fixing, women’s rights eradicating, Medicare cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, jingoistic, homophobic, xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist, audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing, crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed, domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, inbred, inept, insipid, incapable, incompetent, ineffectual, insolent, insincere, know-it-all, snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless, shameless, avaricious, noxious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless, tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution denying, irony deprived, consciously depraved, conceited, perverted, peremptory invading, thirty-five day vacation taking, bribe soliciting, hellish, smarty pants, loudmouth, bullying, swell headed, ethics eluding, domestic spying, medical marijuana busting, Halliburtoning, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering, malevolent, demonizing, Duke Cunninghamming, hectoring, dry drunk, Muslim baiting, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge packing, science disputing, faith based advocating, armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny, insane, unscrupulous, lily livered, greedy (exponential factor fifteen), fraudulent, delusional, CIA outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact twisting, ally alienating, betraying, chickenhawk, sell out, quisling, god and flag waving, scare mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, smirking, bastardly, voting machine tampering, sociopathic, cowardly, treasonous, Constitution shredding, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, trust funding, nontipping, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground and media polluting (which is pretty much all the polluting you can get), deadly, traitorous, con man, swindling, pernicious, lethal, illegal, haughty, venomous, virulent, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, yellowbelly, hypocritical, Oedipal, did I say evil, I’m not sure if I said evil, because I want to make sure I say evil . . . EVIL, cretinous, slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit. Impeachment? Hell no. Impalement. Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people’s justice. Make it a curtain rod. Because it would hurt more.Yes, political comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host Will Durst received a thesaurus for his birthday, but he didn’t need it.Copyright: 2006 The Progressivehttp://progressive.org/mag_durst0606
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #54 posted by rchandar on May 24, 2006 at 12:32:05 PT:

niederwiet to remain "soft drug"
Hi--The article is at both expatica.com and uk420.com. Apparently the Dutch Health Minister has decided that "super-strong" varieties of marijuana, Niederwiet, are not so damaging and, therefore, he and the scientists in a government-commissioned study will not reclassify Niederwiet (and Nederhash) as "hard" drugs. This was in the making for three years. Good, good news, u won't go 2 Holland and smoke schwag!--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #53 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 12:21:41 PT

AP 
It's not as if the AP doesn't have any articles about cannabis to run today:http://tinyurl.com/kw7rw
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #52 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 12:12:04 PT

Poor Boo Boo 
Too much! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #51 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 12:04:06 PT

Dankhank
I didn't like Clinton. I was (and am) upset about a lot of things his administration did. Waco, the war in the former Yugoslavia (which is *still* under occupation, though it gets few headlines anymore). He did nothing for cannabis either. Gore was Clinton's VP, and I presumed would be more of the same. His running mate, Lieberman, is really a piss-poor excuse for a Democrat at best too.Bush campaigned on a more modest foreign policy, no "nation building" excuses for war, etc. I didn't trust him at his word, so I didn't vote for him, and even if I did vote that year it would have been for Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, not Bush. So, no bullet dodged there. Only if I had had to choose between Bush and Gore in 2000, it would have been Bush that got my vote.I'm glad he didn't.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #50 posted by dongenero on May 24, 2006 at 12:03:30 PT

Maybe I was too rough on AP
They have more important news to keep track of...such as.....AP news - Boo Boo the Chicken dies Wed May 24, 11:55 AM ETARKADELPHIA, Ark. - The exotic chicken that was saved from drowning by mouth-to-beak resuscitation more than three months ago has died, her owner said.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #49 posted by Dankhank on May 24, 2006 at 11:56:55 PT

Repugnants
never voted for any of them ... never will ...
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #48 posted by Dankhank on May 24, 2006 at 11:54:48 PT

Condemn?
don't think I did ...just asked questions ...So you would have voted repub in 2000 ...Why?nice to know you would have regretted it, but what made you think that George the younger would have been the better choice?feeling like you missed a bullet by not voting?I did more than vote in 2000 and 2004 ...I bugged politicians ... you should have seen me take John Edwards' meeting away from him in OKC for about 5 minutes to talk about cannabis-related items in front of many college students, including "kill someone and keep your loans, smoke a joint and lose them."People need to know these things, organize groups, groups go to see politicans and then go vote.Took me four years of hammering to get our town newspaper to go on record favoring Medical Marijuana, but they did.engage them, make them say stupid things so others can hear them.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #47 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 11:39:27 PT

Non-Voting
Dankhank wrote: Does the idea that "you don't vote you don't bitch" mean anything? I know it has never stopped anyone who wanted to bitch in the absence of excercising that most fundamental of American rights, the vote. Should it?No, it should not. Those who say this implicitly deny the First Amendment, freedom of speech, which is arguably the most fundamental of "American rights." You would have had me vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Because if I had been constrained to the two major parties, that's who I would have voted for. And I would have regretted it ever after.I do not trust politicians to keep their words. Fancy that. Campaign promises are worthless. If I cannot trust someone, I would not delegate my authority to him. Should I?I could have voted third party, but it would have had no more impact than the non-vote. Less, actually, because by participating I would be consenting implicitly to be bound by the result, to respect the winner as the legitimate authority. Should I respect George W. Bush?My non-vote is an active, intentional rebuke to the corrupt political system which does violence in the name of the people. I am not willing to be party to it. Should I be?Patrick writes:If enough of us dislike that representation we must VOTE to make a change. That’s how our “democracy” or as some like to call it, our “republic” works.But I am not a republican, and democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. If the sheep thinks it's in his interest to cast his preference, he's likely to get eaten. Better to stay out of that kitchen.Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit by and do nothing.I'm doing what I can, Patrick. This is what I'm doing. Voting is something a lot of people do who never, ever speak out about anything. Do you think that is better?You may not agree with me on this, and that's fine. I don't have to agree with you either. All I am saying for now is that nobody should vote for any Republicans now. If you want to go and vote for Democrats or Greens or Libertarians then go ahead. I won't condemn you. Don't condemn me.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #46 posted by sam adams on May 24, 2006 at 11:35:34 PT

mayan
I saw the Pentagon 911 movie on either Nat'l Geographic channel or the History channel last night (I get 'em mixed up). It was an entire special dedicated to the plane crash at the Pentagon.2 things really struck me - 1, everyone in the country knew that the attack on WTC had begun, both planes had hit, and yet, there were no US planes available to protect the Pentagon, the world's biggest fort.2, the details of the approaching "plane" are extremely sketchy. Flight controllers saw nothing until the very last minute, when the "plane" appeared on radar. There is still no video at all showing the plane. The video just released by the Pentagon shows basically nothing.The interesting thing about the recently released video is that it WAS released before, they had it for the TV special. The only thing that was added was a single frame of a large white object hitting the building. Why would they wait 5 years to release that?I am becoming much more skeptical about 911 as time goes on. Just the story on the Pentagon itself was really interesting- it's three times the size of the Empire State Building! The military industrial complex is HUGE. Imagine how powerful it is. Look at what's happened since 911 - defense spending has DOUBLED across the board. Think of all those defense contractor execs, military and CIA bureaucrats, all their connections.Sometimes you don't need to discover a conspiracy, you just need to look at the plain facts right out in the open. After 911 actually happened, I thought the biggest strange coincidence of all was that 3 out of 4 planes were successful - and look at which plane did not hit its target - the one headed for Capitol Hill and our fine Congressmen and White House. Coincidence? or what about the anthrax - originating in US military labs, sent only to Democratic congressmen and not Republicans. Conspiracy? No, just the facts. Another interesting thing is that there was no airplane wreckage at all around the Pentagon. According to the TV show, the plane that hit the Pentagon was only going 350 miles an hour, vs. 500 for the WTC planes, which left lots of pieces of seat & airplane laying around, despite 2 huge office buildings collapsing onto the wreckage.Also, a big chunk of the show talked about the engineers worked for months to figure out why more of the Pentagon wasn't destroyed - the damage to the building was incredibly small and minor considering the putative weight of the plane and the amount of fuel it had.  They did come up with some explanation, but it didn't convince me of anything.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #45 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 11:23:42 PT

dongenero 
You're right. So far no AP. I hope that the powers that be know we are watching closely. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #44 posted by dongenero on May 24, 2006 at 11:18:15 PT

AP news ...where are you????.........
It is interesting that this anti-cancer research result does not even show up in AP's health/medical headlines.Reuters has it.....though it is buried a ways down, despite high ratings by readers.I recall that whenver there was some po-dunk research, such as in Greece, about schizoprenia or some other supposed deleterious effect(debunked by the way), the news agenicies were all over it.Such is the depth of illogical, prohibitionist indoctrination.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #43 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 10:11:42 PT

A Little Political Comic Relief
I didn't watch SNL this past Saturday so I missed this. It is so funny to me. Enjoy! LOL!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO076LcG8RM&search=%22Neil%20Young%22
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #42 posted by Max Flowers on May 24, 2006 at 10:06:21 PT

Oh my god, that image is awesome!
Anyone here who hasn't looked at mayan's link below that says "New Zogby Poll Frightens Masters Of Terror Into Releasing Bin Laden Tape", you simply must. There is an image someone made in Photoshop of Bush in chains and prison garb, scowling defiantly, and it looks SO real. It made a chill run down my spine and filled me with hope for the real thing. Fantastic! I live for the day when we see it for real.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #41 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 10:01:28 PT

Bob Dylan
My husband just called and told me he heard it was Bob Dylan's 65th Birthday and he wants to wish him a Happy Birthday. Happy Birthday Bob.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #40 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 09:58:42 PT

Max Flowers 
I never heard of that party. I wish people that had really good political ideas joined one of the major parties and pushed for recognition there. That would be much more beneficial in my opinion. Fix what is broken is the way I look at it.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #39 posted by Max Flowers on May 24, 2006 at 09:55:16 PT

Third parties
It's really sad that the Constitutionalist Party doesn't have it together, since that is really what we need---a total, top-to-bottom realignment to the Constitution. Maybe my thinking is too simplistic, but it seems to me that we could solve pretty much all our problems by just reverting back to actually and literally using the Constitution as the guide to everything that we do. That is what it was intended for, after all. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #38 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 09:26:22 PT

afterburner 
I love those words too. Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God.That's heavy.Long live Neil Young.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #37 posted by afterburner on May 24, 2006 at 09:23:35 PT

I Love Those Lines
"Re-unite the red white and blueBefore it turns to stone"Neil Young is a healer! {Who are the healers? They are the “peacemakers,“ the “spiritual elders.“ They are anyone who strives to exercise unconditional love and true forgiveness and thereby teaches this to others. By doing so, they lead people back Home - back to the Creator - as all paths but the path of love leads us astray. {Peacemakers are any age. They come from all religions and from no religion, from all societies and from all social and economic backgrounds. Every one of us is potentially a peacemaker, as the teaching and learning of love is our true purpose on Earth. We need only to claim our inheritance.} --Gathering of the Healers: The Healing of the Nations http://www.rastaheart.com/
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #36 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 08:51:23 PT

Maybe...
I believe we are on the verge of freedom, people. Many of us older activists have always said when it went, it would go like the Berlin Wall. Suddenly and completely. We've watched it fissure and reheal itself for years. I think it's coming down."Joy to the world! All the boys and girls! Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, and joy to you and me!"
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #35 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 08:47:26 PT

"...gasping it's last breaths."
I think so. I've been feeling it for several weeks now...even before this story broke. I think it's happening and they are easing the scaredy mainstream into the new reality.Since I'm not a prophet of God, if I were, I would always be right, don't lay any bets on it. But I feel it. Maybe it's an anti-anxiety attack of some kind.I also sense prohibitionist are livid.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #34 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 08:42:59 PT

Loretta
I think about it often, even though I can't vote for her. Wouldn't it be something if she won? I can't help but think she has a chance. The thing that is concerning me right now...I think marijuana prohibition is gasping it's last breaths. What if she wins and has that hard and sorry job of being governor and cannabis is already legal? That would be the pits for her...although I have no doubt she'd do a round up job and maybe be the best and most progressive governor the state of Alabama will ever see. She could do it. She is very interested in prison issues. Even if cannabis is legal for adults by the time she wins...she could still do so much to clean up their prison system there.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #33 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 08:37:05 PT

JR Honestly?
I don't live in her state so I don't even think about voting for her.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #32 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on May 24, 2006 at 08:33:29 PT

Voting
FoM, you really wouldn't vote for -any- Libertarian? Not even Loretta Nall??
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #31 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 08:18:53 PT

Lookin' For A Leader 
This song has really fired me up for a better tomorrow.Lookin' for a LeaderTo bring our country homeRe-unite the red white and blueBefore it turns to stone***Lookin' for somebodyYoung enough to take it onClean up the corruptionAnd make the country strong***Walkin' among our peopleThere's someone who's straight and strongTo lead us from desolationAnd a broken world gone wrong***Someone walks among usAnd I hope he hears the callAnd maybe it's a womanOr a black man after all***Yeah maybe it's ObamaBut he thinks that he's too youngMaybe it's Colin PowellTo right what he's done wrong***America has a leaderBut he's not in the houseHe's walking here among usAnd we've got to seek him out***Yeah we've got our electionBut corruption has a chanceWe got to have a clean winTo regain confidence***AMERICA is beautifulBut she has an ugly sideWe're lookin' for a leaderIn this country far and wide***We're lookin' for a leaderWith the great spirit on his side***Someone walks among usAnd I hope he hears the callAnd maybe it's a womanOr a black man after all.Listen to LFAL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5377060
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 07:48:30 PT

Third Party
I really have tried hard to understand how voting for a third party can help our country. I wish I could vote for a Green as a third party but never a Libertarian. I have watched and listened to the arguments to vote for a Libertarian and none of them have made sense to me. I've heard people say I will vote for a Libertarian but they are Republicans to me. So what kind of a statement is that? You won't get rid of Republicans in power by voting for a Libertarian but you actually guarantee that we keep them. I can't vote for a Green because it will throw it to a Republican and I can't handle any more Republicans.I didn't vote for most of my life but I must vote now. I can't stand the direction our country is going. I must do something to help change this disaster. If Republicans don't get voted out of power life will be horrible. If Republicans get anymore empowered then they are we won't have any liberties left soon. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #29 posted by afterburner on May 24, 2006 at 07:44:11 PT

RE Voting
First join the party, even if you hate their guts. Go to the party meetings and speak out. Volunteer to aid party functions and talk, talk, talk. Maybe eventually we'll get platform issues we want and candidates worthy of our votes!
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #28 posted by Patrick on May 24, 2006 at 07:16:20 PT

Voting
I am with Dankhank on this one. This “American Experiment” will only work optimally as more and more citizens cast a vote. You all have heard the expression freedom isn’t free? Thanks to others in the past the price of freedom for most of this country is nothing more than the time and effort to stay informed and cast a vote. Seems even that is too much effort for some. And those “some” would be much happier living under a dictatorship in my humble opinion where there is no question regarding authority.Whig you said, “The purpose of a deliberate non-vote is to deny authority.” With all due respect, I think that you achieve the exact opposite effect. You make it one vote easier for the party you dislike to win and gain “authority.” One thing that I think people tend to forget is that the only authority granted to elected officials is the authority to represent us when meeting to make our laws. If enough of us dislike that representation we must VOTE to make a change. That’s how our “democracy” or as some like to call it, our “republic” works.Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit by and do nothing. Vote and then live with your decision.The problems we have today in part stems from the “Mutt People” of the past who were too lazy, misguided by what casting a vote means, or just simply don’t care. In either case, I still believe that those folk would be much happier and more content letting a dictator tell them how to live their lives. Just my 2 cents.That is all.

[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #27 posted by Dankhank on May 24, 2006 at 06:24:16 PT

Voting
The purpose of a vote is to select appropriate leadership to further the aims of our collectively-stated objectives re: Constitution/Declaration of Independence and all other political thought that contributes to an orderly management of this American "experiment."Certainly we have failed miserably at this in recent years. The answer should be replacing failing leaders with those who have the right attitude. Attitudes can be changed by simply speaking out en mass. Gathering the "mass' is the hardest job. Does the idea that "you don't vote you don't bitch" mean anything? I know it has never stopped anyone who wanted to bitch in the absence of excercising that most fundamental of American rights, the vote. Should it?In OK it's possible to register to vote by mail. Forms are available at the election board. We can get a stack of them and hand them out to anyone, they fill out at home and mail it in. You can also do the paperwork starting from my links page on my chessy little website, print out the data and mail it to the election board. I think I must have been the first one locally to do it from the web, as it sorta disappeared for a couple of weeks. Like anything you do with a bureaucracy you must follow up, but the phones work.I don't have the answers, only the questions, and an idea that we MUST engage or perish under the fists of the madmen ...
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #26 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 05:54:23 PT

Dankhank
From the Wikipedia article you cited:"When the poem was recounted in the United States in the 1950s, the first stanza, referring to communists, was often omitted, due to the rise of McCarthyism and the Red Scare."Now that is irony.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #25 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 05:00:35 PT

Dankhank
I hardly think I'm remaining silent. When people talk about using a vote to "send a message" I often ask why they don't just write their message out in plain English and send it to the people you are trying to communicate with. The purpose of a vote is to grant power to someone. The purpose of a deliberate non-vote is to deny authority.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #24 posted by Dankhank on May 24, 2006 at 04:54:36 PT

Voting
It's easy to see why many will not vote these days. There is a perception that voting solves nothing. I'm inclined to agree if one votes in a vacuum. Marshalling votes could make a difference, but it requires work. I agree that no Republican will get my vote, they haven't for decades. Opting out of the process is not a solution, in my view, merely the act of an ostrich, putting head in sand thinking one is safe from the madness.I reminded them of the poem:When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...Martin Niemuller
1892-1984
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #23 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 04:18:48 PT

JR Bob Dobbs
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the third parties will be elevated to the stage until and unless they are just as corrupted as the current major parties. In fact we've had third party movements in the past and this has happened every time. The system corrupts everyone. You need money to get elected, and the corporations control the airwaves.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #22 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on May 24, 2006 at 04:08:10 PT

Don't not vote!
If you think the system is rigged for the Repubs and Dems, you're right. Vote third party! And it doesn't even matter that much which third party you choose - they won't win. All they can reasonably hope for is 5% of the votes so they can be included in the next election's debates. Wouldn't you love to see a Green or Libertarian on that stage, actually talking about things that the major two parties have ignored for far too long? Not voting is throwing your vote away. Voting third party may feel like throwing your vote away, but if enough people do it, we stand a chance at really changing the political paradigm.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #21 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 03:41:01 PT

Dankhank
I won't vote either, and right now I'm encouraging those who have voted Republican in the past to abstain especially if they might split their ticket this year. My position is that the current administration is empowered by every elected Republican however much someone might think a particular candidate is different. No Republicans should be returned to office. None. It is tantamount to voting for the Nazi Party.Unfortunately most politicians in the Democratic Party are just as much bought and paid for by the same Korporate interests. Not everyone is willing to withdraw their sanction altogether, and I understand that. We don't have a lot of alternatives right now and it will take time to construct, if we can even agree on workable plans to do so. So if someone wants to vote, go ahead and vote for a Democrat or a Green or even a Libertarian but count me out of it and I'll gladly explain why I think it's better to abstain altogether -- under no circumstances vote Republican.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #20 posted by E_Johnson on May 24, 2006 at 00:38:08 PT

Hmm I wonder what it means
The Fox News story is more intelligent and complete than the Science story. That's not what I normally would have expected.Does Alan Leshner have enough power to ruin science journalism over there at the AAAS?
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #19 posted by Dankhank on May 23, 2006 at 22:10:13 PT

Buzzkill
I had an depression-causing conversation with two guys that I consider friends. They aren't the best friends that I have, but we share a love of the leaf. I have the unwanted job to try and educate them to the need to get interested in trying to change the direction of this country. One has served time, a felony, for "manufacture" and has no driver's license, for years now, yet has a big motorcycle, a pimped-out pickup truck he's buying from his dad. He lost his license for unpaid child support, but sees no need to stop driving. Likely he can't, since he needs his job.The other gent works for his father in a pawn shop, quite a lucrative job, I guess, here in this Army town which is also job-depressed. This gent would have you believe he is a good man while having an affair with a married woman. He's a strange one. He has had internet for years, yet knows almost nothing about what is going on in this country, unless I tell him. He does have some odd ideas about some things that make me wonder what he looks at online. He still thinks that Canada is the promised land.Both are beaten down by the system, reveling in their "freedom" to be ordinary. They won't vote, the felon says he can't, but has never checked to see if it is true, the other says it means nothing. I was called a "buzzkill" tonight because I wouldn't stop. I was asked what I smoked, when I have been on the wagon for a few days. It was really strange, and illuminating. I met the masses and they were ignorant and uncaring. I have met the Mutt People ...http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/01/revenge_of_the_.htmlI remember this from a few months ago ... scary ...
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #18 posted by afterburner on May 23, 2006 at 21:49:48 PT

MikeEEEEE 
Also, in the case of calcium-deficiency, the body will pull calcium out of the bones and teeth to meet its needs. Not only that, some 'drugs' like coffee deplete the body's calcium reserves.{What in the world ever became of sweet Jane?She lost her sparkle, you know she isn't the sameLivin' on reds, Vitamin C, and cocaine,All a friend can say is, "Ain't it a shame?"} --Truckin' by The Grateful Dead
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3270
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #17 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 23, 2006 at 21:34:27 PT

afterburner -- interesting connection
I think the four major electrolytes are Ca+, K+, Na+ and Mg+. Electrolytes because they have that charged + thingie.The doctor may have a point, because the bones, which use Ca+, produce red blood cells and white blood cells (WBC's). The WBC's are immune system cells that fight cancer.

[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #16 posted by afterburner on May 23, 2006 at 21:23:14 PT

Dr. Robert Barefoot, Chemist & Calcium Proponent 
claims that DNA [the master controller of cells] is thwarted from proper healing of cells in a calcium-deficient diet, leading to various diseases including cancer. Since many people are lactose-intolerant, they may be calcium-deficient without knowing it, even when drinking lots of milk. Teal'c on Stargate SG-1 says "I have no desire to consume bovine lactose." Cow's milk is made for calves. Mother's milk is made for children.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #15 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 23, 2006 at 21:22:24 PT

Off topic: Addicted to oil spin
It's interesting when the oil pusher Bush (and corporate company) tells us we're addicted to their product. As if it's our fault.Tricks are for weasel scammers.

[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 21:08:43 PT

MikeEEEEE
It sure is a culture war. The culture of war or peace. I am really beginning to understand why Republicans call those on the other side Hippie Pinko Commies. War creates jobs, equipment, guns, bombs and eliminates the surplus young and most often poor men. If anyone cares for anyone and doesn't want them to suffer a person could be called a commie. http://www.countryjoe.com/feelmus.htm
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #13 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 23, 2006 at 20:55:13 PT

Us an them
And after all, we're ordinary men.Don't go looking for common sense. This is a culture war.Another type of culture war is Iraq, with the spin of spreading democracy. The real truth can be found in the proof, the weasels first, at the start of the war, took control of the administry of oil.Wars are for control of resource$, with the typical lie spins. People tend to need reasons behind what they do, and the reason is provided by spin.I dislike the spin masters using the children, but that’s the art of propaganda. This country seems addicted to war – war on drugs, war in Iraq, war on immigrants. I wonder if I missed any other wars.Insanity always reaches a peak, and sometimes goes back to norml.

[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #12 posted by freewillks on May 23, 2006 at 20:36:23 PT

ONDCP: how will they spin this?
 how will the ONDCP/NIDA spin this? I almost feel like dancing in the streets. Its kinda like a "WE TOLD YOU SO"So to Tandy and Walters I offer you the middle finger to spin on this all you want, but you can't tell me smoked marijuana will give me lung cancer any $# $ more!
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 20:33:13 PT

MikeEEEEE 
I agree with you. I am almost at a point that I don't know what it will take to make them understand. When will those that fight us really listen to what our side is saying? It makes people feel so unimportant and that only big pharmaceutical companies and their profits matter. That's what it's all about. Just money.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #10 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 23, 2006 at 20:25:21 PT

FoM -- more about cancer
Normally, cells in our body have a genetic life span, and you’re right, certain people are predisposed to diseases such as cancer. If there is a family history, these people should have genetic testing if it’s available, or get checked to catch it quickly.As people age their immune system functions at a slower rate, therefore, the body cannot fight as well the foreign cancer cells, that's why it's important the study was done during a lifespan.Cancer cells are normal cells that genetically go out of control, the genetic information goes crazy, and these cells don’t have a life span, they’re immortal, living forever. That’s the problem, living forever and never dieing they form tumors. If not caught in time it spreads, and these abnormal cells kill the normal cells, killing the body, i.e.: the wasting. Radiation and chemo kill the cancer cells, but they kill the normal cells too, leading to the side effects – where marijuana helps with them.People who smoke tobacco and drink alcohol are at higher risk for laryngeal cancer. Biologically, cannabis is a different plant than tobacco. There is proof now that cannabis does not have the triggers that start the genetic process of cancer, by the study data.Great news, but the immune system cannot fight the stupid cancers in this govt.

[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 20:17:53 PT

Related Article from Reuters
Study Finds No Marijuana Link To Lung Cancer***By Deena BeasleyMay 23, 2006 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers.They had expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer.Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the heaviest pot smokers. It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.The study results were presented in San Diego on Tuesday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society.The study was confined to people under age 60 since baby boomers were the most likely age group to have long-term exposure to marijuana, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, senior researcher and professor at the UCLA School of Medicine.The results should not be taken as a blank check to smoke pot, which has been associated with problems like cognitive impairment and chronic bronchitis, said Dr. John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia. He was not involved in the study.Previous studies showed marijuana tar contained about 50 percent more of the chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, Tashkin said. In addition, smoking a marijuana joint deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco."Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin said in a statement. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers -- they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may encourage aging, damaged cells to die off before they become cancerous.Hansen-Flaschen also cautioned a cancer-marijuana link could emerge as baby boomers age and there may be smaller population groups, based on genetics or other factors, still at risk for marijuana-related cancers.Copyright: Reuters 2006URL: http://tinyurl.com/p6ckn
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 19:59:49 PT

MikeEEEEE 
There is something else that baffles me about cancer. No one has every gotten any form of cancer in my immediate family so far. I am not saying I believe this 100 percent but I do believe people are predisposed to certain health problems. Smoking and drinking will cause oral cancer. I have seen that more then I care to with people we know over the last few years. They all drank beer or something stronger and smoked cigarettes. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #7 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 23, 2006 at 19:54:01 PT

One belief about cancer
We are always getting cancer, but a good immune system gets rid of it. Each substance has different triggers for cancer, and of course, cannabis is different than tobacco, and all the stuff they put in it to keep it more addictive.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #6 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 23, 2006 at 19:21:49 PT

No pills.... That has always been the problem
Corporate Amerika cannot make money on a plant you can grow yourself.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 18:32:04 PT

mayan
We don't need no stinking pills!I sure agree with that! 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #4 posted by whig on May 23, 2006 at 18:14:11 PT

Sam
Fox is not just "mainstream media." Fox is Pravda.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #3 posted by whig on May 23, 2006 at 18:12:44 PT

Still in denial
"While there was a suggestion in the newly reported study that smoking marijuana is weakly protective against lung cancer, Tashkin says the very weak association was probably due to chance."Cannabis is anti-carcinogenic. It's not a chance result.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #2 posted by mayan on May 23, 2006 at 18:11:33 PT

THE MAINSTREAM
In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke.The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.Oh, my! I can't believe FOX News actually printed this! Cannabis will certainly be the medicine of choice for every aging generation from here on out. We don't need no stinking pills!THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...New Zogby Poll Frightens Masters Of Terror Into Releasing 'Bin Laden Tape':
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/240506zogbypoll.htmOsama Bin Distractin:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/osama-bin-distractin.htmlBin Laden - 'Moussaoui' Not 911 Terrorist' - Tape A Hoax:
http://rense.com/general71/oax.htmWhat Would Flight 77 Eyewitnesses Have Actually Seen?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506actuallyseen.htmZogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=200605220220414219/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on May 23, 2006 at 17:36:11 PT

Amazing...
This news is just now hitting mainstream media? Wonder how long it will take the ONDCP to issue rebuttals. The government has been such collossal bastards toward marijuana consumers, bashing doors in, beatings, firings and forefietures, to name a few. I don't see how they can live with themselves. 
[ Post Comment ]







  Post Comment