Legalisation Of Cannabis And A Whole Pot Of Ignorance

Whilst in the process of writing a couple of other articles, a rather hostile debate broke out on Twitter, last night, on the controversial issue of legalising cannabis.

My personal views are somewhat mixed. Whilst I personally cannot abide the substance and would never care to even try it, that does not mean that I am against the legalisation of cannabis.

In fact, there are actually some very good reasons for legalisation, just as there are also some strong arguments against. Nevertheless, when pointing out the negatives last night, I received a number of responses from the ever-so-lovely fellow tweeters. Here are just a few examples:

As I dared to debate the potential problems that legalisation might present, I was subsequently blocked by TJ Kincaid @amazingatheist, for not sharing his views 100%. This was despite my stating that cannabis should be legalised, but felt that a very carefully drafted legislation, and tight regulation, should be construed.

There are certainly reasons for legalisation. For example, a study published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet, ranked cannabis as one of the least harmful drugs. Yet, many cannabis users are actually risking their health, and others via passive smoking, by consuming cannabis that is of uncontrolled and doubtful purity. For example, the ‘Talk To Frank’ website states that Cannabis may be ‘cut’ with other substances to increase the weight and the dealer’s profits, with laboratory-confirmed reports of impurities such as glass and pesticides being found in herbal forms of cannabis; and with hash/resin frequently being mixed with a range of substances to increase weight. The site also reports of a 2010 study on contaminants found in drugs, which reported that there were cases of cannabis being adulterated with henna, lead and aluminum. By legalising cannabis, regulatory measures can be taken to control the quality of the substance. Not to mention that with the substance currently being illegal, the Government receives no revenue, and criminals are making all the profits.

Furthermore, people who use cannabis for genuine medicinal purposes are criminalised and somewhat alienated for using it, and are prohibited from a beneficial medicine for a serious condition. No important long-term research can be conducted on the therapeutic uses of cannabis, because of its current illegality in Britain. As a result, police time is wasted, the courts are backlogged with multiple cases, whilst the prisons are overcrowded.

As for the benefits of the drug itself, the plant contains more than 400 chemicals, including cannabidiolic acid, an antibiotic with similar properties to penicillin. The different chemical derivatives of the plant can be used for medicinal or recreational purposes, and is reported to acts as a mild sedative, leaving most people feeling relaxed or sleepy. By contrast, it is also claimed to make some more animated, and is also reported to release inhibitions. Wide-scale trials testing the safety and efficacy of cannabis extracts (or synthetic forms of them) are currently underway, and so far there has been interest in the use of cannabinoids in nausea and vomiting, appetite, control of cancer symptoms, pain, anxiety and muscle spasticity. Cannabis appears to be able to help reduce the side effects of chemotherapy treatment, although not more so than other already established medications. Some cannabinoids have been reported to relieve nausea during cancer treatment, allowing patients to eat and live normally. There have also been reports of cannabinoids having a protective effect against cancer in mice.

Research has also shown that smoking cannabis from a pipe can significantly reduce chronic pain in patients with damaged nerves, a study suggests. Cannabis extracts also seem to benefit people suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS), by reducing muscle spasticity, thus increasing a person’s ability to stay independent.

However, one myth about cannabis is that it is safe, because it is natural. Despite the suggested benefits, a survey of 1,000 adults conducted by The British Lung Foundation, found that one third wrongly believed cannabis did not harm health, and 88% incorrectly thought tobacco cigarettes were more harmful than cannabis. The NHS news website highlights that many of the same cancer-causing compounds in cigarettes are also present in cannabis, and reports on one study suggestion that over the course of a year, smoking a single joint each day could result in the same level of lung damage as smoking 20 cigarettes per day over the same period.

Indeed, studies have found a significantly higher accident culpability risk of drivers using cannabis, and chronic inflammatory and precancerous changes demonstrated in the airways of cannabis smokers, and a case-control study showed an increased risk of airways cancer that is proportional to the amount of cannabis use.

Furthermore, a study conducted at University of Toronto, on the adverse effects of cannabis on health found a causal role of acute cannabis intoxication in motor vehicle and other accidents with the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis, in the blood of injured drivers in the absence of alcohol or other drugs.

Several different studies indicate a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. The adverse effect of cannabis use on the clinical course of schizophrenia has been confirmed in a 3-year follow-up study of psychotic and non-psychotic subjects in the Netherlands. Those who were using cannabis at the start of the 3-year period were more likely to have some psychotic symptoms, and especially to have severe symptoms, at follow-up. Both this, and a second study, revealed that those who had psychotic symptoms at the start of the study showed a more severe adverse effect of cannabis use than those who were non-psychotic at the start. Studies reveal that cannabis can also cause serious relapse in people with schizophrenia.

Furthermore, a significant link between cannabis and depression has also been found in various cohort studies, with a large-scale case-control study in New Zealand found a significant link between heavy cannabis use and serious attempts at suicide. A Canadian study found in a representative sample of over 1800 Quebec adolescents, that over one third had used cannabis and other illicit drugs more than five times, and encountered a variety of interpersonal problems related to their drug use. Cannabis has been shown to cause feelings of anxiety, suspicion, panic, and paranoia.

Another study has linked cannabis to testicular cancer, whilst cannabis has also been found to cause cognitive decline. A growing body of evidence indicates subtle but apparently permanent effects on memory, information processing, and executive functions, in the offspring of women who used cannabis during pregnancy. In total, the evidence indicates that regular heavy use of cannabis carries significant risks for the individual user and for the health care system.

Whilst recognising that there are limitations to the current evidence, the Canadian Cancer Society believes there is enough research to suggest an increased risk of cancer associated with long-term smoking of marijuana and being exposed to second-hand marijuana smoke. They suggest that cannabis smoke contains as many as 50 of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, and also state that there is scientific evidence that smoking marijuana may be associated with increased abnormalities in some of the cells in the body, including precancerous changes in the lungs. Might it, thus, not be wise that more research be conducted to better understand the cancer risks associated with long-term recreational smoking of cannabis and of exposure to second-hand cannabis smoke (not to mention the added risks of third-hand smoke), before ultimately deciding to legalise it? There are also studies which contradict such health risks, and the question is, which “evidence” should we believe?

My personal experience is that even walking a few centimetres behind a person smoking cannabis outdoors is sufficient to give me symptoms 20 minutes later, such as nausea, alteration of taste, insomnia, and brain fog. This would certainly tie in with the findings of scientific research.

However, despite the scientific findings that suggest cannabis is a harmful drug, none of the cannabis research carried out over the past 50 years has been conclusive. Although tobacco also affects the lungs, the law does not criminalise those who smoke, and it is not illegal to smoke outside of an enclosed public area. However, taking the possible health risks into consideration, combined with the risks of passive smoking, there is all the more reason to tightly legislate where the drug can be smoked. As free individuals we, of course, should all have the autonomy to put whatever substances we wish into our own bodies. However, it is unfair to inflict our potentially risky lifestyle choices upon others, via passive smoking. There is also the issue of burden upon the health service, which in the UK, is already under strain from lack of funding, the burden of the British binge drinking culture, obesity adding to the number of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease cases, and from people generally living longer and presenting an array of old-age related illnesses. Furthermore, there is the possibility of serious consequences arising from mixing cannabis with alcohol, which reinforces the requirement that we need a very tight legislation if the drug were to be legalised

I appreciate that cigarettes, alcohol, and pollution from vehicles are all toxic and can potentially cause much harm, but to use that as an excuse to add to pollution and health risks, is a very weak argument, and does not reinforce why a person has the right to selfishly inflict their smoke upon others, who may be suffering from chronic chest complaints. UK legislation makes smoking in a public place an offence under Section 1 of The Health Act 2006. However, it does not apply to outdoors, which means smoke is often a problem for people walking behind someone on the High Street, or standing at a bus stop, or living in a flat next to a smoker, etc., which could also be a problem if cannabis were legalized. A wise legislative solution might be to enforce that users only smoke the drug within the confines of their own private detached house, or at a special designated “Marijuana Bar”, where it will not impact the health of others who do not wish to have second hand cannabis smoke inflicted upon them without their consent.

On the grounds of legalising cannabis for its health benefits, it would surely be more prudent to administer a cannabinoid based medicine derived from the cannabis sativa plant, such as that which came into use in the UK in 2010 for people with MS, rather than administering the recreational cannabis that causes euphoria. Less than 3% of those in trials for the derived drug said it changed their mood. As a botanical product, it is difficult to test for efficacy and safety of the natural product, as the proportions of active chemicals can range greatly from plant to plant.

What is particularly interesting is that pro-cannabis advocates all claim that cannabis has the ability to “calm” a person. Therefore, I question why cannabis users are so hostile and aggressive in their method of debate, if the drug has such a calming affect? Surely such aggressive language and manner, similar to that on Twitter, goes someway in reinforcing the studies that suggest the drug causes permanent psychological problems such as anxiety, perception, paranoia, and hostility – not to mention mental illnesses.

It is also interesting that the pro-cannabis advocates, including TJ Kincaid, failed to note that I was not saying that the cannabis should not be legalised, but was merely pointing out the issues legalisation could potentially cause. Consider the studies that suggest how the effects of cannabis can interfere with a person’s attention, judgement, and thinking, and perhaps this suggests the reason as to why.

Alas, such hostility in the pro-cannabis advocates’ method of debate, is surely not the way to convince government officials of the drugs supposed benefits. Conversely, it might even go some way into convincing officials that the studies suggesting the drug’s adverse effects on the brain are accurate after all.

14 thoughts on “Legalisation Of Cannabis And A Whole Pot Of Ignorance

  1. Prepagan says:

    Excellent stuff Kate!

    I’m in a similar position to yourself in as much as I can’t partake without feeling unwell and yet I’m inclined to favour legalisation. Thanks for the useful information. Much appreciated. Don,t let the trolls get you down.

    • Hi, and thanks for your very kind comment. It really is much appreciated.

      Don’t worry, it takes far more than a bunch of ignorant twitter trolls to get me down. Twitter… Shitter! :)

  2. Interesting fact (I think): the anti-weed campaigns are primarily funded by tobacco and alcohol companies. And, on top of that, the “research” done on the effects of weed are also known to be fuelled by tobacco and alcohol companies, or sponsored by governments against its legalisation. I myself don’t like weed; just doesn’t sit well with me, though, the simple point that cigarettes and alcohol are legal while weed isn’t makes one wonder. If you’re interested, Noam Chomsky’s got some great articles/youtube videos on this topic. And re the twitter outburst, such is the society we live in. Whaddaya gonna do?

    • Hi, thanks for the comment, and I will definitely check out Noam Chomsky’s articles/videos.
      Having seen the state of people after/while smoking cannabis, I’m inclined to think it is not as harmless as the advocates claim. Also, without exception, every cannabis smoker I know has problems uncontrolled emotional outbursts, hostility, suspiciousness, and some kind of depression. The question is whether it’s the chicken or the egg? – Did the weed cause their issues, or did their issues lead them into smoking weed? Who knows. All I know is, inhaling it makes me feel queasy (so no benefit there!), and I certainly don’t want to risk becoming so hostile and paranoid. I also dislike the way it appears to affect people’s senses to the point that they cannot spell properly or type poorly (as I have witnessed when chatting with a cannabis user over Yahoo messenger). It clearly has some adverse affect on the brain (as does alcohol), and if only temporary, it is unfair to inflict it on others who may not wish to be intoxicated via passive smoking. Hence the need for strict regulation, if legalised.
      And, regarding Twitter – Yup; such is the society we live in.

      • Yeah, my first roommate when I lived in NY smoked five times a day, quite literally, which made me very reluctant to even try it. Though, most things are detrimental when we’re speaking addiction, and there’s definitely no proof to suggest that weed’s addictive; mentally perhaps, but not bio-chemically. I also don’t understand how people claim that it boosts creativity, all I wanna do is sleep and eat. Mushrooms, on the other hand, now that’s a creative juice you can sink your teeth into. And I’ve also experienced the heightened emotional outbursts that you speak of after smoking, granted, I’m a bit nuts, generally, so in my case the egg definitely preceded the chicken.

        Russell Brand made this point that I totally agree with re legalisation: by making the possession of weed a criminal offense, we’re telling society that people who smoke it are criminals.

        I really don’t think that this is a good message, it’s hostile and hateful. On the one hand, if you’re not addicted and use it only recreationally, occasionally, then you’re no harm to anyone. And if you are severely addicted, the last thing you need is someone calling you a criminal because of your downfall. Addicts of weed, like any other addicts, need help above all else, not a finger being pointed at them. We’re not going to send people to jail for refreshing their Facebook page over and over, why imprison someone who gets high all the time? And re the passive smoking issue, tobacco is far more harmful than weed, purely because of the chemicals inside of it. Smoke isn’t good for you full stop, though burning the shit they put in cigarettes is going to do you a hell of a lot more harm than passively inhaling weed smoke which is a lot more pure … if what you’re smoking actually is pure, that is. Neither is good, cigarettes are definitely worse, and research that tells us otherwise is conducted by tobacco companies, usually, I’d say.

        Oh, and another myth, weed kills brain cells. The research they did to “prove” this point made it so that the monkeys they experimented on were deprived of oxygen, which was why the research demonstrated that it did kill brain cells. It had nothing to do with the weed, they skewed the experiments, like has often been done, to prove the point they wanted to make; you deprive someone of oxygen for too long, of course you’re going to lose brain cells. The research is all their for public vision, it’s just that no one bothers to look at it. I don’t trust research that’s government funded, especially if it’s to do with a political matter.

        Sorry for the long comment, I just get mad that weed, and many other drugs, are illegal; even though I don’t myself use anything habitually, it’s absurd. Rubbish, self-serving propaganda. And I don’t know what it’s like in the UK, but for me, alcohol is the scariest drug of all. I do my best to avoid eye contact with anyone on a Friday or Saturday night, people become demonic. It’s a shame that drugs are mostly used as a form of escapism rather than to spark creativity or expand our minds, which they can certainly do if used properly. I shall stop talking/writing.

      • Hey man, thanks for the long response! Always great to read what you write. 

        Erm… Monkeys starved of oxygen. Hmm… I came across that  claim, but there appears to be no reliable information to prove that. Only rumours that people have written about in blogs. 

        Again, there are insufficient studies to prove that cannabis is any less harmful than tobacco.  All the studies seem to have limitations of some kind (too few subjects, subjects who also smoked tobacco, etc.), and are not 100% reliable (but then, what study genuinely is?!)

        All we can do as individuals is form our own judgement as to whether it is harmful or not. It certainly makes me feel unwell, and I do not like the effect it has on others when they are “stoned”, nor what it has turned some friends into with regards mood swings and depression. That said, I also dislike the effect alcohol has on people (yes it’s most definitely  the same in the UK on a Saturday night. It’s like a zoo, in fact!) 

        My issue is with the passive smoking. If cannabis has effects that are at all similar to alcohol and tobacco, then why should it be inflicted upon others, who may not wish to have effects similar to tobacco and alcohol imposed upon them? I am sure many would like to have the autonomy to chose if  they would like to smoke cannabis, and not have it inflicted upon them via second-hand smoke from someone living in the flat upstairs, and their smoke in the corridors. I have the same objection to tobacco smoke, incidentally. 

        Distain aside, I agree that it does not make sense that tobacco and alcohol are legal, when cannabis is not. 

      • Yeah I saw the monkey claim in a documentary; apparently the information’s there, I’ve never bothered to check it out. You want to know what my main issue is, generally; it’s that our governments dictate to us what’s allowed and what’s not; what’s bad and what’s good; what’s moral or immoral.

        The passive smoking thing is something that I, like you seem to, find rather repulsive. I grew up asthmatic, so if someone’s smoking near to me I usually break out in a fit of coughing. And it bothers me if someone’s smoke, weed or tabacco, is seeping through the cracks underneath my doors, purely for the fact that my lungs don’t like it. But I’d much rather live with this irritation than have my own ability to decide what I want to put into my body deprived of me, let alone be labelled accordingly for my decisions.

        I find it repulsive when people chew with their mouth open, as in, when their lips stick together and make that noise when they eat, to the point where I can almost vomit. Though, I don’t think we should lock up people for chewing like antelope. Granted, 1984 seems to be dawning in on us, I wouldn’t be that shocked if this were soon to be the case. Nice chatting.

      • Also, you and your blog also have been nominated for an award on my site. You may or may not accept this award. I encourage neither but both.

  3. Booloo says:

    “However, one myth about cannabis is that it is safe, because it is natural. Despite the suggested benefits, a survey of 1,000 adults conducted by The British Lung Foundation, found that one third wrongly believed cannabis did not harm health, and 88% incorrectly thought tobacco cigarettes were more harmful than cannabis.” This is an out right lie and not backed up by any medical professional with even the slightest amount of intelligence. On the CDC’s own website they state in 2011 cigarettes killed more people than all illegal drug use combined which in case you don’t realize includes marijuana. The statement that 1 cannabis joint a day is more harmful than 20 cigarettes is absolutely preposterous and even the most cursory glance at a regular smoker could show you this is not even remotely accurate.

    “My personal experience is that even walking a few centimetres behind a person smoking cannabis outdoors is sufficient to give me symptoms 20 minutes later, such as nausea, alteration of taste, insomnia, and brain fog. This would certainly tie in with the findings of scientific research.” Your personal experience is bullshit because the amount of THC your body could potentially absorb from what is left of the smoke leaving the person after being dispersed into the air is far too small for any sort of recognizable effects to take hold and it was most likely as is common with the placebo effect all in your head. The human lung absorbs 70-90% of the THC in inhaled smoke within 3 seconds of being inhaled therefore at best 30% of what is in the smoke is being released into the air so between that, the massive volume of air in an open space and any active wind currents you could not of inhaled enough second hand smoke to feel even the faintest effects.

    The simple matter of the fact is though that none of this matters. By keeping cannabis illegal thousands of peoples lives are ruined over a substance less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes (the 2nd largest cause of death in America), coffee, energy drinks and common house hold pain killers. Thousands of people in America die yearly from all those things yet I’ve yet to see a single case where cannabis has been proven to be the leading cause of death outside of accidents (If we’re bringing in accidents related to the substance should we look at the numbers of people killed by drunk driving monthly let alone yearly). Feel free to link me to one but I’d imagine you’ll struggle to find one. I’m all for keeping it out of the public no one should be forced to be around something they don’t like but to arrest people for personal use in their homes is a absolute travesty and goes against the entire idea of the so called land of the free. Also maybe next time link to some open source studies rather than ones gated with fees so people can check the bullshit science and prove it wrong.

    I was going to go through every link you provided and point out the bullshit in it but I’ll just deal with the most outrageous. The study by the BLF is based largely off this study which contained a grand total of 79 participants with lung cancer and 324 controls. This is 403 people in the study in a country of roughly 4.4 million people. That’s a study covering 0.0092% of the country and as any scientist will tell you it’s far too small a group to validate the experiment. Here we have an article linking to actual studies and quoting the information contained to explain how the whole 20 cigarettes is as dangerous as 1 joint is a bullshit number.

    All in all people shouldn’t go to jail for using a substance that is relatively harmless. There is no justification for sending people to jail for cannabis use and while it should most definitely be regulated and controlled if made legal it should be legal.

    • Dear Booloo,

      Thank you for taking the time to write your lengthy response. I especially liked the email address you provided:
      Most original.

      To address your points regarding the study by the BLF; do you personally have any scientific data to validate your assertion, ‘This is an out right lie’? It does not seem illogical that so many people are unaware of the potential harm, and one cannot discredit the statement (as you have), without evidence to the contrary. Your argument is based merely upon your personal opinion.

      It would appear that you have not taken into consideration that the apparent lack of statistical information for the number of deaths caused by cannabis, is perhaps the result of the substance being illegal. Many lung cancer patients, as an example, will not confess to having been regular cannabis smokers, for the fear of prosecution. Many cannabis smokers may also be tobacco smokers, which would make data linking the deaths to marijuana, unreliable. Also, like tobacco, it is unlikely that cannabis would cause death from short term use, but it is fallacious to imply that because there is no evidence to suggest a direct cause of death, that the substance is not harmful in other ways.

      With regards the link you included, how can you guarantee that study was any more reliable than any other study I included? For all we know, every study ever conducted throughout history, might be nothing more than one massive cluster of statistical lies. Yet, to assert that the studies I included are all ‘bullshit’, is again, merely your opinion, and is also not substantiated with valid facts.

      Whilst I agree that the claim that ‘one cannabis joint is more harmful than 20 cigarettes’, does appear somewhat preposterous, the fact is, we can only question it, but not discredit it without sufficient evidence to disprove it. Logic by itself is not a valid argument, although the link you provided does do a very good job in discrediting it. As stated in the link: ‘One thing I would like to know—and here I appeal to the scientists who I know read this blog—is how the researchers attributed these people’s lung cancer to marijuana when 89% of them smoked cigarettes?’ – Good point, and similar to one I made above.

      The UK population is approximately 62.5-million, by the way (We are a crowded country). And yes, I would agree that now makes the BLF study’s statistic appear all the more questionable.

      >’Your personal experience is bullshit because the amount of THC your body could potentially absorb from what is left of the smoke leaving the person after being dispersed into the air is far too small for any sort of recognizable effects to take hold and it was most likely as is common with the placebo effect all in your head. The human lung absorbs 70-90% of the THC in inhaled smoke within 3 seconds of being inhaled therefore at best 30% of what is in the smoke is being released into the air.’

      Perhaps there is some ‘placebo effect’ present. However, I am referring to having it blown directly into one’s face when behind, or infront, of someone in a crowd. I live I London, where streets packed with hordes of people, and is not like an average street in somewhere like Adamstown. I have also been subjected to inhaling the drug on a school bus, from the passengers directly seated behind. Therefore, I have inhaled enough to realise that the drug does have adverse effects in some people. Furthermore, I have yet to personally meet one marijuana smoker who is not hostile or aggressive, or does not suffer with depression, or a more serious mental illness. Why? The hostile, and aggressive responses I have received on this subject – all from marijuana smokers – only convinces non-marijuana smokers of the potential harm it could cause. Perhaps a less aggressive/hostile manner of presenting the case for legalising the drug, would be a more convincing and successful argument.

      >’By keeping cannabis illegal thousands of peoples lives are ruined over a substance less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes (the 2nd largest cause of death in America), coffee, energy drinks and common house hold pain killers.’

      Agreed. However, I am uncertain as to whether it is “less dangerous”. The fact is, we do not know, and that is also another reason why we need to legalise cannabis, so that more reliable studies can be conducted using real cannabis, and also to ensure the quality of the cannabis is regulated. As a botanical product, each batch will be different, so some form of quality control should perhaps exist.

      >’…to arrest people for personal use in their homes is a absolute travesty and goes against the entire idea of the so called land of the free.’

      Again, I agree whole heartedly, and this is another major reason as to why I believe cannabis *should* be legal. I do not object to what people put into their own bodies. My only objection is when people think it is ok to inflict it upon others. My views are the same regarding smelly food, by the way.

      >’Also maybe next time link to some open source studies rather than ones gated with fees so people can check the bullshit science and prove it wrong.’

      I will bear that in mind. Unfortunately, the official scholarly articles, that have not been mangled into a badly reported article, tend to be in journals that require subscription or university access. If you are at a university, or an alumni member of a good university, you should have access to the articles via institution Athens login. It is also unfortunate that there is a lot of speculative trash floating around on the internet, which is why I used an official science journal, and not some random blogspot post.

  4. Another great article, I can see why you anticipated it might cause a spot of discontent.

    I agree with you in that I don’t partake in its use but can’t see why it isn’t legalised when similarly and possibly worse substances are legal.

    Similarly all those who I have ever met who did smoke it all seemed to be a little bit the worse for wear due to taking it.

    I have never smoked cigarettes or anything else and can go from one year to another without alcohol and logically speaking believe the world would be better if all were banned. Lucky for everyone it isn’t down to me but how much happier, safer and probably wealthier we might be if they were.

    However if people want to slowly kill themselves it doesn’t really bother me although the wasted taxes and opportunities do so maybe adding another poison to the mix isn’t warranted just because we already have the others.

  5. Dean Esmay says:

    After 30 years of online discourse I remain agog sometimes at just how completely unhinged some people are online. I’ve come to sort of accept it as the nature of the beast. Online discourse was always fractious but these days, well, the collective IQ has dropped is all I can say.

    I would generally agree with you that the stuff needs to be regulated pretty tightly, like alcohol or tobacco. That’s not something I have a problem with.

  6. Hi Arnette,

    Sure, you can share the link. Thanks. :)

Please comment on this article. I would love to hear from you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s