Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
Join us on Pete's couch.

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
February 2016
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29  

Archives

Moving beyond the stoner stereotype

Darrin Harris Frisby/Drug Policy Alliance

Darrin Harris Frisby/Drug Policy Alliance

Via 420Intel, the Drug Policy Alliance has developed a set of stock photos that’s available for use for free.

Media outlets continue to use stereotypical “stoner” images for otherwise serious news stories about marijuana. The Drug Policy Alliance is offering an alternative: stock photos of real, everyday people who use marijuana.

These photos are open license and free to use for non-commercial editorial purposes, and we hope they will help make the jobs of editors easier and the content more relevant.

Images must be credited, and may be used for editorial purposes only. No commercial use is permitted.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

56 comments to Moving beyond the stoner stereotype

  • Freeman

    Great idea — love it! DPA’s on the ball!

    Many of those photos illustrate that us folks they called stoners are now older and greyer. We’re now the generation that’s running things, and we’re not about to let society treat our grandkids like it did us.

  • strayan

    Well, well, well, looky what we have here:

    The United States Government cannot force Apple to unlock an iPhone in a New York drug case, a federal judge in Brooklyn says.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/judge's-iphone-ruling-in-new-york-drug-case-backs-apple/7210772

    Not going to use the ‘backdoor’ for anything but terrorism you say? Uh-huh, suuuuure.

  • StDavid'sDayHoax

    NASA’s conducting a series of ‘Rest Studies’ where the Space Agency wants volunteers who can stay in bed for a stretch of 70 days and smoke different kinds of cannabis. At the end of the successful run, the volunteering smokers will become $18,000 richer.

    http://tinyurl.com/nasaweedhoax

  • High Priest

    Fr Stephen Crossan was caught getting higher than the church roof. People wondered why his sermons were so long and always contained references to coke and nazis.

    “A catholic priest has taken leave from the priesthood after being filmed snorting a line of cocaine in a room that appears to hold Nazi memorabilia.

    Video footage obtained by the Sun on Sunday shows Father Stephen Crossan sniffing the class-A drug with a rolled-up £10 note at his home in Banbridge, Northern Ireland.

    The 37-year-old seems to say the words “I shouldn’t” as he snorts a line of white powder arranged on a plate.”

    http://tinyurl.com/j73b6vw

  • Non-commercial purposes only?

    Maybe I’m just taking this too seriously, but aren’t all media outlets problematically relying upon stereotypical stoner imagery (e.g. those forming the mainstream media) operating for commercial purpose?

    How effective will the DPA’s stock photos be with that serious limit?

    • It’s not whether the company operates for commercial purposes, but the purpose of the use. This would be allowed for any article or opinion piece about marijuana (or anything else) in any media, even if that media was commercially run. It would not be allowed for a shop, for example, to use in their advertisement for their store. In the media, there’s a distinct line between editorial (content) and commercial (advertising) material. These images are available for use in editorial.

      • DdC

        So it’s “not allowed” by whom? Internet cops giving pic tics now? I was always under the impression that what is posted is the same as leaving a newspaper on a park bench and anyone is free to read it or give it to someone. Why do they provide image location addresses if they don’t want them used? I have no reason to not abide by their wishes or am I selling something I require their pics for. Just seems like more of a request than an enforceable crime.

        • Tony Aroma

          You’re free to view what’s posted on the internet, but not take it and use it yourself. Violating copyright laws is most certainly a crime, and very easily enforced. If you steal someone’s intellectual property and post it on your web site, you’re basically telling the world about your crime. The only way it’s not enforceable is if the owner of the property doesn’t know.

        • Ditto to what Tony said.

          Back in the day, Drug WarRant used to have a bulletin board that was fairly active. One of the reasons I took it down (other than the fact that bulletin boards were going away) was one of the commenters kept posting tons of images and copies of complete posts from other websites, and I started getting take-down notices from the owners of those sites.

          In some cases, websites don’t mind you sharing their content, and there is, of course, fair use exception to copyright, but that’s a tricky line to maneuver. Always best to have permission.

          Even when I quote from news stories from other sites, I’m careful to give a link to that site and to excerpt it, rather than putting the entire content in my post (that’s one of the reasons why you’ll see […] to indicate that I left some out). When it comes to posting images, I look for copyright indications on the source page, and whether there is a caption label. Even if there is no copyright notice, I try to determine whether the owner of the photo would mind my use of it in context, and if I do decide to use it, am ready to take it down if contacted.

        • DdC

          Name one person ever busted for posting pics on the internet. A copyright isn’t any more than saying it is yours but nothing is registered. You can use a format that can’t be copied. But nothing posted is illegal. Pete you used to mention these emails but that is all they were, requests. I have had the library since 99 with pics from anywhere and everywhere and not one request. Like I said if you don’t want people to re-post your info then use a system that prevents it. Otherwise as with all of my pics. Free for the taking. I see where someone might not want their pics associated with issues they oppose. But there is nothing stopping anyone. Actually I can take their pics and copy write them just as easy by saying they’re mine. Pics can be removed by destroying the addy or tinypics has removed some. Same with sites censoring porn or issues. It is up to the website but the pic taker or artist posting are in an open domain. If you don’t want em re-posted, use the no copy format as with the Cannabist. Still show up on google. Are they infringing on copy writes, or by changing them to thumbprints? Silly. The pic addy is encoded so adding more words is ego. intellectual property? From photo chopped pics? Shirley you jest.

          http://www.drugwarrant.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/group-women-smoking-marijuana-bbq_7063-500×333.jpg

          Pete, your website advertisments are selling products.

        • DdC, I’m sorry, but if you’re not interested in actually learning about the law, then don’t try to claim to be an expert in it. The website advertisements are advertisements, and I haven’t put any pictures in them. To the extent that advertisers use pictures in their advertisements that show up on my page, then it’s their responsibility to make sure that they have the rights. I just have to make sure that I have the appropriate rights for my posts.

          Just because you haven’t gotten caught for infringement is less an issue of whether you’re right than it is of whether anyone cares. Believe me, an online newspaper can’t take that risk because they have a lot more money and are much more likely to be a target of a lawsuit. So they won’t use images unless they have the rights to them.

          And yes, people have been sued for using images on a blog, and have had to pay damages. So it’s not some made-up thing.

        • DdC

          DdC, I’m sorry, but if you’re not interested in actually learning about the law, then don’t try to claim to be an expert in it.

          You might be right that I’m not interested in censorship laws, fuck the arbitrary law. Fuck Copyrights.

          Copyleft is a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some, but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no ownership of copyright is claimed), copyleft allows an author to impose some restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would more usually be reserved by the copyright holder. Under copyleft, derived works may be produced provided they are released under the compatible copyleft scheme.

          The website advertisements are advertisements, and I haven’t put any pictures in them.

          I didn’t realize the Dodge Truck or Rehab ads were yours.

          To the extent that advertisers use pictures in their advertisements that show up on my page, then it’s their responsibility to make sure that they have the rights. I just have to make sure that I have the appropriate rights for my posts.

          Appropriate rights for my posts? who granted you rights. I paid for the isp and post what I feel like posting. If I google a pic to use for whatever reason, No one has ever stopped me. Twitter news pics or chopping them up for a statement. Sometimes a half a dozen pics into one political statement or drug worrier lies or whatever.

          Just because you haven’t gotten caught for infringement is less an issue of whether you’re right than it is of whether anyone cares.

          There ya go again. As I originally stated, Who Cares? Personally if someone doesn’t like what I’ve posted almost 20 years. They can state their reasons and if I see their point I’ll remove their article or pics. If it is a classist reason that they don’t like pot or advocating prohibition and politically oppose the post then forgetaboutit. It is a drug war. That doesn’t have to mean violent on our part but it doesn’t mean knuckle under to the whims of whiners.

          Believe me, an online newspaper can’t take that risk because they have a lot more money and are much more likely to be a target of a lawsuit.

          I said that, I’m not a newspaper or do I have the rights or a newspaper. As I said, if I don’t feel someone has a legitimate reason then it is my choice to remove it or keep it once it is posted. The website other than my own, can remove pics. Tinypics can ban them, sites can block them or me out or remove them. You’re asking for both sides of the argument to be true and it can’t be any more than a request if you grant permission to use them, by posting them with the addy to pass on, then you grant permission to use them, period, You can petition the site or the poster but I’ve never heard of anyone getting busted for using pics already posted. Or will I stop using anything i damn well please that is online.

          So they won’t use images unless they have the rights to them.

          Yes Pete, repeating it won’t change the facts that I am not a newspaper corporation or do I recognize any rights of censorship. If I’m on TV and they don’t like my cussing they can bleep it out. If I don’t want my pics used by prohibitionists I can create pics that won’t copy. I can’t discriminate on the future of my net pic falling into the wrong hands. Arbitrary is not law. Or is the photog a law enforcer. Now you’re only making me curious to chop one of these for the hell of it. Too bad I’m not selling anything.

          And yes, people have been sued for using images on a blog, and have had to pay damages. So it’s not some made-up thing.

          I ask for their names. Of coarse people have been sued, Donald Drumpf sues the weatherman on a regular bases. But how many are behind bars or have actually won the case? Not established media who are licensed, individuals chopping pics online? The logistics make that the same as the DEA going door to door busting people for toking a joint. Again, the authoritarian approach using censorship is creepy. Using pictures of “normal” people toking is bigoted. Using pics of “normal” people toking to sell a vape or bong doesn’t seem like it should be a crime as long as the pic taker has already posted it. I guess I have to take down my Tricky Dick face dart board. Or when I put Walters face on a giant dick.

        • Tony Aroma

          DdC, as someone who frequents this site, you should understand how just because someone violates the law and gets away with it, doesn’t change the law. Others still can and do get caught. And in the case of stolen intellectual property, it’s not a victimless crime.

        • DdC

          Tony Tony Tony,

          DdC, as someone who frequents this site, you should understand how just because someone violates the law and gets away with it, doesn’t change the law.

          La la la, really? You have a firm grasp of the obvious fersure. I’ve been an outlaw my entire adult life if you actually believe smoking pot is illegal. I believe the law is illegal. That won’t stop them from putting me in a cage. But truth is truth and lies are not recognized as laws in any civilized place. Obviously not the US.

          Others still can and do get caught.

          Again
          Name one person ever busted for posting pics on the internet.

          And in the case of stolen intellectual property, it’s not a victimless crime.

          It’s not intellectual property unless it is registered as such. I can claim a copyright but as long as the image addy is there it is free for the using. Same with google pics. This is net ethics and no one should claim anothers work as their own. So they should use a non-copy format. This “law” you refer to seems more of wish than legality. Same as the pot industry requires a medical card to shop at a dispensary. Not the law, an agreement by the dispensaries. There is no law requiring a medical card in CA except by the shops. There is no law I’ve heard of busting people for passing pics. Just censorship. I’ve already posted why I believe it is a stupid endeavor to silence some if someone opposes the content. Top o the world ma, come and get me coppers! Next!

        • DdC

          DdC, you make it sound like copyright law is made up or not taken seriously.
          Tony Aroma March 3, 2016 at 6:30 pm

          Tony stop beating a dead horse. Your straw man has nothing to do with copyrights on internet pics. I never said any such thing about copyrights overall, just on net pics. Show me any indication or warning. Name someone or show me a copyright law on posting pics. Especially ones posted as free to use. Its a request. Not stolen anymore than using a newspaper pic to line a bird cage. Silly. Art, music or lit could be registered and copies prevented. Thats the only way logically and since the internet started.

          In fact, it’s one of the few powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution. That’s about as real as a law can get.

          And not a damn thing to do with the post. Or did the forefathers have an internet. Did you hear me ask for a factoid on government powers? The post is about net pics and wishes, not copyrights for arbitrary use. No different than deciding to give spare change to the homeless. You can ask what they want it for and make a choice to give or not. If you think they will buy drugs or booze you can buy them a sandwich. But you have no right to say a word once you give them the money. They are free to buy anything they wish. Same with net pics and stop the diversionary horshit and stick to the issue.

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

          Not when they give it to the public.
          No © on the pic, no ™ Not even a Ↄ

          http://www.drugwarrant.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/group-women-smoking-marijuana-bbq_7063-500×333.jpg

          Show me Red, Herring things too? Looks to me like its made by a place called drugwarrant in the address. No © ™ T R or Ↄ. So what good is a © if no one knows it even is? Pile it on Tony. Tell me about K, it has as much to do with the post as anything else your tossing out and trying to make stick.

          Again this is not about property its about pixels. I told you about copyrights are noted by posting it, but as you said registering it makes it easier to stand up in court. Works in real time, not internet pics. Its censorship you advocate. Anything at google is free for the taking. Free to write whatever pleases or change the face to a horses ass. Too much freedom move to Russia but I don’t want your opinion of ™ that has nothing or can it be found on any internet pic. It has nothing to do with law or copyrights, just ethics and courtesy. Songs are different and unchangeable. Pics come with addy’s so you can pass them on or use them, the same with c&p parts of a book as references. Just willing to give up the freedom to corporate privatization is why yuppies are eat up with fear. Registered patents or Trademarks are on tangible objects, not pixels. So enough condescending whining about stolen pixels. I will use the pics as I see fit and it has nothing to do with not getting caught. My post are everywhere and pics can be removed by me if I think they are warranted. Or by the fabricator using a copy firewall or written requests to websites.

          FWIW,

          Again diversions from content out of context and nothing on net pics even stating they are copyrighted. You keep going on and on about tangible objects adulterated or taken or sold under false pretenses all with nothing to do with releasing something on the web. You can’t enforce it so it is not real or covered by any more than hearsay. Thats my pic. Is it? prove it? Or even find it. Here is the same pic posted. Who ya gonna call, ghost busters?

          Copyright This!
          http://i66.tinypic.com/vh7p81.jpg

      • DdC

        PS. I’m talking political pics not underage porn or snuff.

        • Tony Aroma

          DdC, you make it sound like copyright law is made up or not taken seriously. In fact, it’s one of the few powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution. That’s about as real as a law can get.

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

          I’ve been in this business for many years, and have worked with IP experts, and have learned a little along the way. For example, you are completely wrong that a copyright (or trademark) has to be registered. Actually, as soon a you create something, it’s automatically protected by copyright law. The only thing registration of a copyright does is make it much easier to defend in court. Another thing you might not have noticed, there are actually two different trademark symbols. ™ refers to a non-registered trademark (that’s TM), while ® indicates a registered trademark (R with a circle around it). Both are equally valid.

          Just because you don’t know about or understand the law, or recognize its legitimacy, or have broken it without getting caught, doesn’t make it not so. If you want to steal people’s property, that’s your business, but please don’t try to convince anybody that it’s OK or legal, as someone might actually believe you.

        • Tony Aroma

          FWIW, some things can be copyrighted and some can’t. You cannot copyright ideas, only the expression of those ideas. In other words, copyrights are very specific, and they only apply to tangible things, like a novel as opposed to the idea for a novel. You also can’t copyright data, only the analysis or presentation of it. So for example, you can’t copy a graph, but you can use the same data and create your own graph. Also, it makes no difference if the item is a photo of a sunset, or of a politician, or of naked people having sex. Not sure why you’d thing the content of a photo would have any relevance to copyright law (there are other laws that deal with things like underage porn).

      • DdC

        In the media, there’s a distinct line between editorial (content) and commercial (advertising) material

        There ya go. That is right. The Press has obligations to not infringe on unauthorized property, and they also have access we don’t have. They claim freedom of the press but seldom inform and usually sell products or the past, newspapers, that were not free or news. We are no different than someone sitting at a bar talking to someone. Except without the bar room brawls and drunks. That pic was on the bar and I drew a mustache on the dude and added a lunch menu. Or meme generators, good luck stopping that. That’s if you believe anything is original enough to warrant intellectual property rights. Certainly not social interactions of people.

        A ball-game could get people banned for slandering the other players or ump. Just the thought of this form of censorship is creepy. Isn’t the FCC enough? The bigotry behind this censorship is even lower. Suggesting the word intellectual is oxymoronic. Let’s wear blackface when we promote Ganja to the NAACP drug war illiterates. Or the Act Up campaign of blaming stoners because DC pigs in Congress blocked the vote. Before running as Libertarian for president. if you think you can justify stigmatizing lifestyles you disagree with into submission the same as forcing rehab for profits. Why not bank statements, brown eyed people, left handed red haired step children, or Newty’s Orphanage to work kids taking adult jobs. Or shapes, actually they are already stigmatized out of most ads. Just the pretty people that falls in the same category as bashing stoners.

        Stereotyping certain groups and for the same reasons as racism. Segregate and the pecking order will bring the profits the same as the Yankee Plantation owners hired guns, working the rednecks presiding over the blacks until the tractor replaced them. Racism, Classism or plain old politically correct, nice but not exactly precise. Buyer beware but you can’t look under the hood. So good luck with pics of “normal” people who look just like the ones who have been murdering Americans since before Amerigo Vespucci. Seems out of place here.

        Maybe Son of SAM Sabet might not enjoy my making him a Pinocchio sitting on Clinton’s lap as Giuseppe or as Chicken Little. Fuckem. Why even say anything when, like the drug war. It’s unenforceable. If someone offends the “cyberphotog” then they can address it as it occurs. Fear mongering people to hesitate saying what is on their minds in words or pixels is censoring free expression. Bullying people into silence for fear of committing a cryme and the net cops will take your puter away and ban you from the internet. Or there’s always the religion of Donald Trump, a.k.a. Donald ‘Drumpf,’ “litigious serial liar, “bull-artist” and a “baby with evil, smaller fingers” “Last Week Tonight” 2.28.16

      • Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

  • Justin Auldphart

    The concept of the “Stoner” is a bunch of cultural cliches made up and perpetrated by the media, just like Flappers, Bobby Soxers, Hep Cats, Hippies and Gangstas. Some people have so little sense of themselves that they emulate these stereotypes, right down to the manner of speech, supposed befuddled thinking and Cheetos binges…Been using since 1967 and never once have I sat on a couch, eating crap and going, “Oh wow!” and I doubt anyone on here has either…

    • Daniel Williams

      Never once?! Dude, smoke better weed…

    • DdC

      Philosophy, see the whole thing is a world full of rucksack wanderers, Dharma Bums refusing to subscribe to the general demand that they consume production and therefore have to work for the privilege of consuming, all that crap they didn’t really want anyway such as refrigerators, TV sets, cars,and general junk you finally always see a week later in the garbage anyway, all of them imprisoned in a system of work, produce, consume, work, produce, consume, I see a vision of a great rucksack revolution thousands or even millions of young Americans wandering around with rucksacks, going up to mountains to pray, making children laugh and old men glad, making young girls happy and old girls happier, all of ’em Zen Lunatics who go about writing poems that happen to appear in their heads for no reason and also by being kind and also by strange unexpected acts keep giving visions of eternal freedom to everybody and to all living creatures. Jack Kerouac, The Dharma Bums, 1958

      End Criminal Prohibition of Marijuana!

      We the people of Woodstock, citizens of the United States, in order to create a more perfect Union, demand an end to the criminal prohibition of marijuana. The millions of Americans who smoke marijuana are no different than their non-smoking peers. They are responsible citizens who work hard, raise families, and contribute to their communities. Arresting marijuana smokers distracts law enforcement from addressing more violent and serious crimes, invites the government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate, and needlessly destroys the lives, careers, and families of generally good citizens. Marijuana smokers are not part of the crime problem and should not be treated as criminals.

      NORML supports the removal of all penalties for the private possession and cultivation of marijuana by adults for responsible personal use; the medical use of marijuana by prescription to seriously ill patients; and legal hemp cultivation by farmers. The undersigned hereby petition our state and federal governments to stop arresting otherwise law abiding citizens who smoke marijuana.

      Furry Freaks Solution to PC Plastic People
      http://www.freaknet.org.uk/graphics01/g04/freaks/freaks04.gif

      Thank God for Hippies
      http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1148

      More pretty people’s pot parties 10.31.69
      In New York a group of middle-aged professional people begin an evening with a marijuana “cocktail party.” in Detroit some lawyers and executives get together in the small hours for wine-and-pot. In Beverly Hills, at a stately black-tie dinner, the matronly hostess beckons the butler who brings a silver tray with a single after-dinner joint to be passed around.

  • claygooding

    I don’t care to help move beyond the stoner image,,we were right and they were wrong and I may never get the chance to brand a drug warrior’s forehead so they can kiss my ass and hate me because I am me.

    • claygooding

      Super Tuesday and I am sitting here waiting for the polls to open so I can vote for Bernie.

      The Bern is on!!!

      • thelbert

        more power to you, clay. i quit cutting my hair when the “conservatives” invaded iraq. a trillion dollars later i’m sporting long hair and a stoner image, and we’re still meddling in other peoples’ business.

      • Daniel Williams

        Good for you, mon. And good you have the ganja to console you when The Bern is extinguished by the Hildabeast. But be sure to save a nug or two for when Trump beats the Hildabeast come November.

        And before anyone – and I’m talking to you DdC – accuses me of being a heartless moneybags, I think Bernie is (somewhat) correct about our problems, it’s just that his solutions are mostly if not all wrong. You don’t fix a rigged system by replacing it with another one, which is what Bernie is suggesting.

        Allowing us to keep more of our hard-earned money in our wallets, instead of sending it to Washington to be abused and wasted, is the answer. Limited government and personal responsibility is what will save the day.

        • claygooding

          I am sorry Daniel that ending the war on drugs,single payer insurance or a minimum wage increase doesn’t fit your idea of saving tax dollars funding bigger government,,,ending marijuana prohibition is savings enough to vote for Bernie win,lose or draw,,,and Hildebeast is damaged goods.
          She will lose even more support when she recognizes that one of the Bern’s biggest bi-partisan voting blocs is the marijuana reform group,,for the first time MMJ,rec and hemp farmers can agree on removal of marijuana from the CSA without throwing each other under the bus trying to get just their own group’s interests through a legislature.
          I predict Hillary,,in order to draw away some of Bernie’s support,,will change her mind on marijuana reform needing more research,,a flip flop like that would be too blatant for even braindead media watchers to swallow.

          Trump is already making noises about looking closer at MMJ instead of just dismissing it as a myth.

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          Mr. Trump has been unequivocal about his support for medicinal cannabis and his belief that it has valid medicinal utility. It’s obvious to me that he’s seen it work for one of his loved ones. From personal observation I think that outsiders just don’t adopt that attitude without that happening.

          If he wants the nomination and he is going to support regulated re-legalization he couldn’t make it known until after the Republican Convention even though he’s probably going to have the nomination in his pocket tomorrow morning. I’m not saying that I expect it to happen but if it does I won’t be shocked. It isn’t like he’s a moralist. He was instrumental in breaking the logjam and getting casino gambling established outside of Nevada. Yeah, he did it for money. That’s what makes the world go around.

          He’s survived every attack that the Party elite has thrown at him. Those bastards even sent Chris Christie out to endorse him as the candidate! If he can survive that he can survive anything.

        • DdC

          Daniel Williams March 1, 2016

          Good for you, mon. And good you have the ganja to console you when The Bern is extinguished by the Hildabeast. But be sure to save a nug or two for when Trump beats the Hildabeast come November.

          Oh Daniel, tsk tsk tsk. Bernie was always an outsider with minimal chances of actually winning. Even if he did it would be moot with the lame ass mentally deficient in Congress obstructing anything non-abortion or guns. Bernie was to level the table for issues to bring into the mainstream which he went beyond what anyone thought. Still not reality but the base has always been the candidate. It doesn’t matter if Hilzy wins as long as the base can hold her feet to the fire somewhat., A GOP will end America as we know it. Unless there is a check and balance with a Congressional upset. Now Bernie has gained support to the point he is the only one predicted to win over Trump and that Hilzy has so much baggage she will actually send votes to Trump over her. So with or without Bernie, if the base wins America wins. If the shit kickers get in and people stay as dormant as they have been.

          And before anyone – and I’m talking to you DdC – accuses me of being a heartless moneybags,

          Daniel, you try to preempt my posts but never seem to hit the mark. You accused me of calling you a Big Pharma groupie or something before. I never did, your empty accusations fell short of accuracy so I provided Clearance. By showing that your cheerleading about big communications had nothing to do with the harm of legal substances compared to Ganj