"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain"

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by RMJL, Jul 4, 2003.

  1. Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

    Analysis of Studies Finds Little Effect From Long-Term Use
    By Sid Kirchheimer
    Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
    on Tuesday, July 01, 2003
    WebMD Medical News

    July 1, 2003 -- Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.

    The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.

    In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.

    Surprising Finding

    "We were somewhat surprised by our finding, especially since there's been a controversy for some years on whether long-term cannabis use causes brain damage," says lead researcher and psychiatrist Igor Grant, MD.

    "I suppose we expected to see some differences in people who were heavy users, but in fact the differences were very minimal."

    The marijuana users in those 15 studies -- which lasted between three months to more than 13 years -- had smoked marijuana several times a week or month or daily. Still, researchers say impairments were less than what is typically found from using alcohol or other drugs.

    "All study participants were adults," says Grant, professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research Center at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine.

    "However, there might be a different set of circumstances to a 12-year-old whose nervous system is still developing."

    10 States OK Marijuana Use

    Grant's analysis, published in the July issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, comes as many states consider laws allowing marijuana to be used to treat certain medical conditions. Earlier this year, Maryland became the 10th state to allow marijuana use to relieve pain and other symptoms of AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, glaucoma, and other conditions -- joining Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

    Medicinal marijuana is available by prescription in the Netherlands and a new marijuana drug is expected to be released in Great Britain later this year. In the U.S. and elsewhere, Marinol, a drug that is a synthetic form of marijuana and contains its active ingredient, THC, is available by prescription to treat loss of appetite associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

    Grant says he did the analysis to help determine long-term toxicity from long-term and frequent marijuana use. His center is currently conducting 11 studies to determine its safety and efficacy in treating several diseases.

    "This finding enables us to see a marginal level of safety, if those studies prove that cannabis can be effective," Grant tells WebMD. "If we barely find this effect in long-term heavy users, then we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting, which would be safer than what is practiced by street users."

    Grant's findings come as no surprise to Tod Mikuriya, MD, former director of non-classified marijuana research for the National Institute of Mental Health Center for Narcotics and Drug Abuse Studies and author of The Marijuana Medical Handbook: A Guide to Therapeutic Use. He is currently president of the California Cannabis Medical Group, which has treated some 20,000 patients with medicinal marijuana and Marinol.

    'Highly Effective Medicine'

    "I just re-published a paper of the first survey for marijuana toxicity done in 1863 by the British government in India that was the most exhaustive medical study of its time in regards to possible difficulties and toxicity of cannabis. And it reached the same conclusion as Grant," Mikuriya tells WebMD.

    "This is merely confirming what was known over 100 years ago, as well as what was learned by various government findings doing similar research -- marijuana is not toxic, but it is a highly effective medicine."

    In fact, marijuana was available as a medicinal treatment in the U.S. until the 1930s.

    Lester Grinspoon, MD, a retired Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who studied medicinal marijuana use since the 1960s and wrote two books on the topic, says that while Grant's finding provides more evidence on its safety, "it's nothing that those of us who have been studying this haven't known for a very long time.

    "Marijuana is a remarkably safe and non-toxic drug that can effectively treat about 30 different conditions," he tells WebMD. "I predict it will become the aspirin of the 21st century, as more people recognize this."


    SOURCES: The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, July 2003. Igor Grant, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; director, UCSD Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research Center. Tod Mikuriya, MD, president, the California Cannabis Research Medical Group, Oakland; former director of non-classified marijuana research, the National Institute of Mental Health Center for Narcotics and Drug Abuse Studies. Lester Grinspoon, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston; author, Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine and Marihuana Reconsidered.

  2. glad to see more studies telling the truth.
  3. Hmm, so it confirms something we all to an extent know is true.

    But look at who did the studies. All pro pot sources.

    And even they're not willing to be drawn on whether it damages the growing nervous system in children and teenagers.

    Further they cover their asses using vague terminology - "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term - what the fuck is "very small"? Since when was SMALL a cientific definition of anything?

    Now don't get me wrong, I believe moderated use of cannabis has a positive health benefit. However I also think and have anecdotal evidence that misuse of cannabis - just like any other substance - can lead to health "problems". These health problems may not be direct cause/effect problems but the cannabis use will no doubt have some bearing.

    Misuse (of any active chemical) can come in many forms for many different people but primarily I'm talking about cases where a substance becomes a crutch upon which to lean.

    I just feel that just as we don't hesitate to cast doubt on reports published regarding the negatives we should examine the validity of pro pot reports before claiming them to be truth.

    I'd like to read the entire study and examine the methods used in measuring brain damage, loss of learning, recall etc etc as they are all incredibly subjective tests.

    I'd also like to know why the numbers of case studies differ between users and non users.

    What I will say in the studies favour is at least 700 is a decent sample size.

    I see it like this, biased information, or non 100% information from the pro pot cause will enable the anti pot cause to tear the results of any study (and subsequent ones) apart.

    Just MHO.
  4. To my knowledge the (Former Pennsylvania Governor) ,
    Shafer Commission , done under President "Tricky Dick" Nixon was the most in depth study done by an anti-pot organization/commission.

    Nixon ,according to transcripts of his chopped up/censored tapes was openly upset with the commissions findings stating to Schaffer ,"You will not go against the wishes of this Administration". You see the original findings were that marijuana was/is relatively harmless.

    The findings have since been all but rewritten to indicate many untruths.

    Fragments of those transcripts are still around the net.

    Search Schaffer Commission on Drug (Something or other)

    I currently am an inactive activist or I'd look it up myself.:rolleyes:



    Oh ,What the Hell !

    Once-Secret "Nixon Tapes" Show Why the U.S. Outlawed Pot

    By Kevin Zeese, AlterNet
    March 21, 2002

    Thirty years ago the United States came to a critical juncture in the drug war. A Nixon-appointed presidential commission had recommended that marijuana use not be a criminal offense under state or federal law. But Nixon himself, based on his zealous personal preferences, overruled the commission's research and doomed marijuana to its current illegal status.

    This newly revealed information comes from declassified tapes of Oval Office conversations from 1971 and 1972, which show Nixon's aggressive anti-drug stance putting him directly at odds against many of his close advisors. Transcripts of the tape, and a report based on them, are available at www.csdp.org.

    Congress, when it passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, temporarily labeled marijuana a "Schedule I substance" – a flatly illegal drug with no approved medical purposes. But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana to permanently relegate it to Schedule I, and so they created a presidential commission to review the research and recommend a long-term strategy. President Nixon got to appoint the bulk of the commissioners. Not surprisingly, he loaded it with drug warriors. Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman. As a former prosecutor, Shafer had a "law and order," drug warrior reputation. Nixon also appointed nine Commissioners, including the dean of a law school, the head of a mental health hospital, and a retired Chicago police captain. Along with the Nixon appointees, two senators and two congressmen from each party served on the Commission.

    The Shafer Commission – officially known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse – took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects, polled the public and members of the criminal justice community, and took thousands of pages of testimony. Their work is still the most comprehensive review of marijuana ever conducted by the federal government.

    After reviewing all the evidence, these drug warriors were forced to come to a different conclusion than they had at first expected. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about legalization. When Nixon heard such talk, he quickly denounced the Commission – months before it issued its report.

    As a result of Nixon's public rebuke, Shafer met with the President. The Commission was upset, and the purpose of the meeting was to reassure them. But Nixon didn't budge. Instead, he warned Shafer to get control of his commission and avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders" who are "soft on marijuana." He warned Shafer that the Commission would "look bad as hell" if it came out with recommendations different from the direction of Congress and the President.

    During their meeting, Shafer reassured the President that he would not support "legalization," even though there were some on the Commission who did. He told Nixon they were looking for a unanimous recommendation. Nixon warned Shafer that he "had very strong feelings" on marijuana. Nixon and Shafer also discussed Shafer's potential appointment to a federal judgeship.

    But in the end, the Shafer Commission issued a report that tried to correct the "extensive degree of misinformation," to "demythologize" and "desymbolize" marijuana. They reported finding that marijuana did not cause crime or aggression, lead to harder drug use or create significant biochemical, mental or physical abnormalities. They concluded: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

    The most important recommendation of the Commission was the decriminalization of possession or non-profit transfer of marijuana. Decriminalization meant there would be no punishment – criminal or civil – under state or federal law.

    Nixon reacted strongly to the report. In a recorded conversation on March 21, the day before the Commission released its report, Nixon said, "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Nixon and his advisors went on to plan a speech about why he opposed marijuana legalization, and proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" during the 1972 presidential election year. Nixon wanted a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them."

    Shafer was never appointed to the federal court.

    Nixon's private comments about marijuana showed he was the epitome of misinformation and prejudice. He believed marijuana led to hard drugs, despite the evidence to the contrary. He saw marijuana as tied to "radical demonstrators." He believed that "the Jews," especially "Jewish psychiatrists" were behind advocacy for legalization, asking advisor Bob Haldeman, "What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?" He made a bizarre distinction between marijuana and alcohol, saying people use marijuana "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun."

    He also saw marijuana as part of the culture war that was destroying the United States, and claimed that Communists were using it as a weapon. "Homosexuality, dope, immorality in general," Nixon fumed. "These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us." His approach drug education was just as simplistic: "Enforce the law. You've got to scare them."

    Unfortunately, Nixon did more than just "scare them," whoever they were. His marijuana war rhetoric led to a dramatic increase in arrests. One year after his "all out war" comments, marijuana arrests jumped to 420,700 a year – a full 128,000 more than the year before. Since then, nearly 15 million people have been arrested for marijuana offenses.

    For thirty years, the United States has taken the path of Nixon's prejudice and ignored the experts. We now have the largest prison population in world history, and drug problems are no closer to solved. Indeed, plenty of evidence indicates that drug-related problems are worse than ever.

    It did not have to be this way. At the same time that the Shafer Commission issued its report, the Bain Commission in Holland issued a report that made similar findings and recommendations. In Holland, they followed the advice of their experts. Thirty years later Holland has half the per-capita marijuana use as the U.S., far fewer drug-related problems and spends much less on drug enforcement. With statistics like that, it's no wonder that most of Europe is going Dutch. Just last week a British Commission issued a Shafer-like report, indicating that the U.K. is moving in the Dutch direction.

    It is not too late for the U.S. to move to a more sensible path. We are approaching three quarters of a million marijuana arrests annually. Every year that the U.S. fails to adopt a policy based on research, science and facts we destroy millions of lives and tear apart millions of families.

    Where will we be in another thirty years if we don't change course and make peace in the marijuana war? Now that we know the war's roots are rotten – and after we've lived through the decades of damage and failure it has produced – we should face the facts. The thirty-year- old recommendations of the Shafer Commission are a good place to start.
  5. That's what I call service!! :)

    Cheers RMJL! :)

    That Reuters/Medline article is substantially better than the one posted. Maybe you should change them?

    Just downloaded the .pdf file, shitty 56k modem in this fucking shed!!

    The initial problem I have with this "new study" is that it is just a combination of previously published studies which fulfil certain criteria. Many of these I have read and have issues with (but more on that a little later).

    Some of these reports included despite failing 1 of the criteria given for inclusion, the study could fail one criteria (except "the study had to have an appropriate non-cannabis using (or extremely lim-ited cannabis using contrast group, and it had to have enough detail in the presentation of results to permit computation of effect size") or both criteria "Cannabis-using group is drug-free on day of testing", "Study reports length of abstinence from cannabis before testing".

    The latter (failing two) seems reasonable but the first means that a report could have failed either of these criteria which IMHO are equally important to having a completely valid test:

    i) Includes a group of "cannabis only" users;
    ii) Outcome measures include valid neuropsycholopcal tests;
    iii)Study addresses potential history of neurolopcal or psychiatric problems.

    This means that not only could there be multiple drug users within the cannabis group but also that members of either group may have previous mental health problem, and that neither may have been tested in a valid way anyway!!

    Further to this the studies upon which they are based even if they fit these criteria (or even all of them with no "relaxation") are in some cases flawed and in many cases fairly incomparable.

    For example, there is no consistancy in usage amount across the tests (or determined groups of usage levels) and this seems not to have been accounted for in their formulae or in many of the source studies. Further the amount of time using cannabis is not accounted for, neither is the age of the subject or other existing health aspects taken into account in some of the source studies. If you've ever seen the queue for subjects for medical testing it is almost invariably young students so we immediately have a possibility for bias! <-{slight joke but not entirely untrue}

    Further to this - admittedly mild - criticism of the report the news reports have added further bias.

    Despite finding no major degredation under certain conditions the report also makes clear that small but NOTICEABLE degredation in memory and learning skills was noted, which is a worry in itself when a large slice of medium to heavy cannabis users are late teens/early twenties, a stage where obviosuly much learning is done.

    It also states that users who had smoked the previous day (day zero, and day 1) DID have impairments on several neurocognitive tests. These impairments had worn off by day 28, at which time the THC level in the users urine was undetectable. So effectively what this is saying that every day smokers WILL have neurocognitive impairments until the active cannabis compounds are removed from their system.

    The authors explain this away in this statement:

    "Subtle cognitive impairments observed in the active users during the first week of cessation might represent residual effects (i.e., effects of persisting low levels of THC in the system), abstinence phenomena, or both."

    Which when you really think about it doesn't wholly rebutt my statement.

    The authors themselves note the limited use of this report:

    "In interpreting the results of this meta-analytic study, several caveats need to be considered. First, many of the stud-ies examined had significant limitations. For example, several studies had small numbers of subjects, reducing our confidence in the individual study's results and creating concerns
    about generalizability. Second, many studies had insufficient information about potential confounding fac-tors. These factors included recency of last cannabis expo-sure, extent of exposure to other drugs of abuse, presence of confounding neuropsychiatric factors (e.g., depression, anxiety, personality disorders, etc.), or other neuromedical risks that can independently affect brain function. As an example, the most recent study by Solowij et al. (2002) focused on patients receiving treabnent for cannabis depen-dence, and the controls were non-patients. This study found negative effects on memory. An unanswered question is whether the cannabis users in that study, being persons who sought or were referred to treatment, might consist of a highly selected group that either were experiencing canna-bis
    related cognitive problems, or who had such difficulties as a function of comorbid psychiabic disorders."

    They go onto to further criticise many of their source studies.

    I do however agree fully with their final conclusion:

    "The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis sug-gests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neuro-cognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."

    So you see, what Im saying is, that on the face of it this is a wholly positive article, but when you dig a little deeper - which an anti cannabis campaigner would - it is found to be full of limitations and in all honesty, holes.

    What I've come to realise is that there is no one truth, just our own truth.

    Authors note: I wrote that at pace so please forgive any grammatical or typing errors.

    Another Authors note: Please don't take this as argumentative, pessimistic or as me being unenthusiastic about the decriminalisation of Cannabis and the legalisation of medicinal Cannabis movement/cause.


    SS - The Realistic Medical Cannabis Activist / Devils Advocate :)
  6. And...


    Not the wanderer also known as K?

    If so, check your mail.

  7. SureShot,

    I am many things to many people.

    I will check.:)
  8. this pisses me off....why doesnt the govnt get their HEADS out of their ASSES....the facts are staring them right in their fuckin eyes and they know it...

    GJ RMJL, roach, sureshot.....
  9. a massive load has been lifted from my shoulders:)
  10. This is in direct conflict with several other post on this forum.

    Not surprising really.

    Anti pot folks are smart enough to realize that new smokers want 'new facts' to base their decision of whether to smoke or not.

    And they are supplying new smokers (and the rest of us) with all these new findings.

    Are the researchers so much smarter ,so much more dedicated ,than those of a decade ago ? No ,probably not.

    Ask yourself ,"What 'has' changed ?"

    Did America get a new Attorney General who is a christian fanatic or something ?

    Did America get a President who is as backwards as any hillbilly from appalachia ?

    Ask yourself ,What is different ?

    About the knowledge you had yesterday about marijuana use.

    Are you now unsure because the truth is slowly disappearing ,while all along you are being bombarded by lies and deceptions.

    ? I have no answers for many of you . You are already decided .
  11. The thing about all of this is that whether a study is done by groups that are pro-pot or groups that are anti-pot, there's going to be holes in either study...holes that the other group is looking for. I read studies by anti-marijuana groups all of the time. They go on and on about tar and how serious it is but then never mention in their article or study about the chemicals that react with THC and how the THC along with these chemicals cause tar to never bind therefore cutting the damage rate of tar down significantly in pot smokers. There are a blue million facts that are always left out.

    Then you have to look at real life experience. There are so many of us here who have been smoking pot for 15+ years...many of us every day and most us of with few breaks. We could take "their" tests and be "their" guinea pigs and completely blow the anti-pot people out of the water with the knowledge that we have retained and the lack of brain damage that has occurred with us.

    The government knows that they are wrong and that they have been for many, many years. The government could never admit that, though, so they are going to start allowing studies like this to trickle out and they might possibly start leaning more towards the side that we need them to lean on. Too many states are backing up the use of medicinal marijuana and the only way that they can get their way is for the government to start reforming the laws. The Federal government will either find a scapegoat for the lies that have been forced down our throats or they'll make some incredible finding "on their own" that proves marijuana to be beneficial. Until they can take credit for the good that will come from legalizing MaryJane, then it won't be done.

  12. I just want to quickly answer these points.

    Research techniques have advanced significantly in the last decade, most notably in the computer power available to collate and analyse datasets.

    Yes america got all those things, but this is more than a political issue, certainly my point was anyhow, i don't give a flying who is in the hot seat in the US, science should still be science. Besides, not all of us live in the US and despite their influence being substantial, it is not in anyway absolute.

    No, I'm not unsure, i believe the same today as i have always believed, medicinal marijuana should be available to those who need it and those who use it recreationally or spiritually should not be criminalised, and frankly I am fed up with being patronised by people telling me i'm a victim of some system - no offence intended.


    I wasn't critcising the movemnet, just this report, which is based on reports that have fundamentally bad methodology and hence has limited use when it comes to proving anything.

    The authors themselves note it's limitations and when you actually examine it and the reports it is based on you can understand why.

  13. My points really did not need your condoning ,thank you.

    They are my opinions and 'need' neither condoned or rebutted.

    I'm sure you have your own adgenda to follow.

    This is not a debate session ,so I will not feed one. There are other boards for that.

    And..................your treading in my footsteps is getting pretty annoying.
  14. Apologies,

    I thought that was aimed at debate and/or at me.

    If this is not the forum for debate, an internet message board, I don't know where is.

    I will no longer bother to post.

  15. It is my belief that you only joined these ,Yahooka and Grasscity Boards that I know of ,groups to advertise your own site your own adgenda. Not the first to do so.

    Of coarse I've been wrong before .

    As far as the debating goes ,I was trying to state that I wasn't interested in partaking in one ,and not so much that you couldn't/shouldn't. You can create a thread to do just that.
    A debate is not a discussion acording to Websters ,which is what I refer to when a defininition escapes me. :)

    Now if you should wish to debate me on any aspect of Marijuana decriminalization ,we can discuss the ground rules ,scope ,time ,place ,etc... that such a debate reguires.

    Discussions are carried out on discussion boards ,a debate is something a bit different ,and would require some preperation. At least on my part.

  16. Being as I've been at Yahooka for well over 2 years, OG for a similar amount of time, and FINALLY been here for only a few weeks and have made no political statements here aprt from to pull apart a shamelessly pseudo scientific "study".

    Most of my contributions here are in the grow forums and occasionally in the more "light hearted" forums where I can see some humour in a reply or whatever. I have no desire to anything but help where I can but if i step on some toes or break some egg shells, so be it.

    I have no desire to debate decriminalisation issues here (or in Yahooka) often as to do so is a little pointless. No offence but the views represented within a community of "something", whatever that something is, in this case the use of cannabis tends to give only a small view of the entire picture.

    I will debate politics ,religion and all that crap "ya really shouldnae mention" in polite company where I feel a particular need to defend, or bring up a point.

    As for advertising "my site", you're obviously getting apranoid. Because as you'll see "my site" is a plaything, for me, to play with .php and content management systems in general. Fuck mang, it even says on the first page!! A couple of mates add articles they desire to be saved for posterity, but their behavior is up to them. The only reason it's in my signature/profile is because I like those I talk to be able to find out a little about me if they feel the need to.

    If it offends I shall remove it, or at least you can ask me to remove it. But I feel it is no worse than the ridiculous 500 word signatures (which mean i have to scroll like a demon to read the fucking threads - sorry this is a personal bug bear). A large proportion of which express some kind of view on something. No different. All express how that user feels about a particular subject (even if it is just themselves) and hence are in your terms advertising an agenda.

    If expressing my opinion means I have an agenda... then fuck yeah, give me some agenda action baaaaaby.

    Actually I'll just take a nice sloppy blow job.

    Now if you want to split hairs about discussions/debates etc then feel free, if you want to set a debate thread, with a set topic and sides etc etc go for it, but a more contrived and stifled "debate" you will not find.

    Opinions and ideas are best transferred freely in an open and uncensored environment IMHO.

    If someone disagrees with anything I say PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE to say so. If there is a valid an intelligent point to be made (not as is so often the case in Yahooka "fuck off gaytard" (i hate homophobia)) then I always want to hear it.

    Learning is a constant thing for all of us, and discussion is without doubt one of the major pillars of learning, even critiscism, flaming and arguments can teach us about ourselves and those around us, as well as at a higher level about the human pysche as a whole.

    Anyway, I'm done. Work calls.
  17. Stifled and contrived ?

    Somewould also call it fair and balanced.

    And that is a point you and I will probably always disagree on.
  18. Probably...

    ...But then since you have questioned my intentions [edit - without cause and in public] and are unwilling to have your opinions challenged or "condoned" as you put it even when they are in the public domain...

    I don't really care.

    Have a beeeautiful day.

  19. will we EVER see a full and comprehensive scientific research study done that covers all aspects of cannabis that affect us?
    from bong types, to times of day cannabis is consumed, to reactive properties of each component released and each probable material they'd have contact with, to psychologocal & neuroligal study, .... etc etc... the lot.

    easy answer-


    most probably never.

    not because of lack of will, but because its an almost impossable undertaking. we'll never be able to account for everything. we'll always overlook something.


    that or incompetence not the reason these studies fail us. these studies fail us because ... the system. i know, i'm starting to sound like an old cliche, but in that fairly broad general statement, it is true. the way things are, there are those in power with their own motives and agendas working their best to ensure that anything that will look truely convincing as the truth never gets the light of day. It was true in Nixon's day, and its still true to this day.

    roach, sureshot....
    u guys seem to be being argumentative just for the sake of it with no real apparant point of contention between each other. made for an amusing read, quite enjoyable. if it had been the same discussion between two stupid people i would have probably been either rolling around the floor in stitches or slapping my forehead. lol

    keep up the good work both of you. ;) :p :D

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page