newprotest.org: MARIJUANA AND THE BIBLE

MARIJUANA AND THE BIBLE

November 16, 2004
by: jovial_cynic
Make sure to read the back-and-forth comments below this post. This helps to further clarify the relationship between marijuana and the bible.

This post is not meant to condone the use of marijuana. It's simply meant to focus in on the arguments that have been used to identify the use of the plant as intrinsically immoral.




I don't smoke pot. however, I don't find most of the arguments against it compelling.

One argument presented is that it is bad for your body. Your body is a temple, yadda yadda. I agree. But tylenol is bad for your body. Your body tries to filter it out through your liver just like it does any other toxin. And so is aspirin - asprin thins out your blood and can cause stomach and intestinal bleeding. And so is partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is in just about every processed food we eat. So simply saying it is bad for you isn't enough of a reason to say "don't smoke marijuana" because that is hypocricy. We all do things that are bad for our bodies EVERY day. We drive cars that release toxic gases into the environment, for goodness sakes.

The other argument is that it is against the law. In some countries, it is not against the law. Is it morally ok to smoke marijauna in those countries? And by technicality, it is not illegal to smoke marijuana in the US. It is illegal to buy it, illegal to sell it, and illegal to possess it. To sidestep that issue, you could always smoke off of somebody else's joint; as long as you do not possess it, buy it, or sell it, you are doing nothing illegal. And how about everybody that drives 1 mile an hour over the speed limit. It looks like everybody breaks the law, yet we tell people to stop smoking marijuana, and I've never heard a sermon about driving too fast.

There are lots of other arguments that I find to be faulty as well. "It affects your mind." Well, so do sleeping pills. Yet we find no immorality in that. What about laughing gas at the dentist? That makes you high. What about high-level pain killers? Christians have nothing to say about that.

I think people can do stupid things and have it not be sin. You can do things that could lead to DEATH, and still not have it be sin. Look at dirt-bikers that do flips in the air on their bikes. I think these people are insane. People die doing that. But could I accuse them of sin, because they are possibily hurting their bodies? Or is it only sin when the body is *actually* hurt? Of course not... these are silly arguments.

I don't believe that smoking marijuana is an issue of "is it sin, or is it not sin." It's an issue of "is this wise, or is this foolish." At some point, you have to grow up and no longer do foolish or childish things. The sooner you get there, the more clearly you can see the will of God, and the more ready you will be to respond to His call. This is not an issue of sin. There no law of God violated.

COMMENTS for MARIJUANA AND THE BIBLE


Daniel said:
I agree with everything you stated. I use the 1 mile an hour argument all the time. Of course, it ok in MODERATION. Jesus taught us moderation is the key. If your life revolves around Marijuana and you don't have your priorities in line, then YES you need to stop and re evaluate your life. If you use marijuana to relax after a hard day, or to use it in spiritual terms, by all means keep using. Jesus said that our body is a temple, so that means, no more coffee, soda, processed foods, sleeping pills, painkillers, or anything that is not COMPLETELY NATURAL. So, in conclusion, there are alot worse things than marijuana. God created it, so let's enjoy it. If it wasn't meant to be inhaled, then the Lord our God would not have made it potent and euphoric in nature.
February 19, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
Daniel, this statement: Jesus taught us moderation is the key.

... is not correct. This teaching is not found in the scriptures.

My point here wasn't to condone the smoking of marijuana. In fact, because the scriptures teach that we are to obey the law of the land, provided that they do not cause us to sin, believers are not to possess marijuana because it violates the law of the land.

My point is simply that there is no intrinsic moral prohibition against the smoking of the plant. However, if it is illegal, we must not do it. The 1-mile-an-hour argument is only an illustration that we have to be consistent from the pulpit; it does not mean that we justify illegal behavior because we can freely break the law by speeding.

Daniel - I am being quite clear here. If the law of the land prohibits it, believers have no moral ground to stand on to engage in illegal behavior.

God also created mercury, arsenic, and BEARS. But these are all terribly dangerous, and I don't recommend recreational activity involving any of them.

February 19, 2009


tim said:
Romans 13- 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. If we truly wanna follow what was written here, and if the government is not doing what pual says it should do, than it is invalid with paul's teachings about this matter. Putting people in prison for using marijuana does go against christ's teachings. Jesus did not condem others for what they ate or consumed but the pharisees sure did. He said a man is not defiled by what goes into his mouth but by what comes out.
February 26, 2009


tim said:
all things are permissable but everything may not be benificial
February 26, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

Nothing in Romans supports your claim that Paul is asserting that a government is invalid for not following what Paul says it should do. Furthermore, I think you aren't taking into account the context of Paul's writing. The Roman empire was anti-Christian at the time, and in fact held Paul in prison during the time in which he wrote most of his letters. The Roman empire certainly did not do as Paul said it should do. However, Paul states that we are to obey the laws of the land, in spite of the land's lack of alignment with biblical law or interpretation thereof.

The examples we have of the people of God obeying the law of immoral nations is plenty. David obeyed King Saul at the heigh of Saul's wickedness. Mordecai stood by and defended crazy King Xerxes to prevent his death at the hand of assassins. There are no examples in the text where disobedience to the law of the land, except where the law instructs a believer to sin, is condoned or considered acceptable, regardless if the laws of the land aren't in alignment with the scriptures.

February 26, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
Furthermore, here's the full text of that Roman's passage:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13:1-7)

February 26, 2009


tim said:
sorry man you are wrong. Where in the this passage does it say unless it causes you to sin you need to obey the law? it doesnt. i agree but how did you come to this conclusion. almost all the disciples were killed because they didnt obey the law of the land. If they would have preached in other lands where the law didnt punish christians would that have been sin?? no. so they refused to obey the law of the land even though it didnt cause them to sin.
March 04, 2009


tim said:
If paul said obey the laws of the land then why didnt he??!!
March 04, 2009


tim said:
so way back in the day when black people were slaves. it was against the law to teach them to read. you wouldnt teach him to read the bible???? its against the laws of the land.....
March 04, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

The disciples were killed because they preached the word of God, as instructed by Christ. They were told in the gospels that they would be killed for His name's sake. To disobey obey the law of land (in the context of the disciples who were persecuted) was to obey God, which was the correct choice for the disciples.

You are correct in noting that the Roman's passage does not specifically mention the issue of sin. However, if you jump over to Acts 5, you get this exchange between the disciples and the members of the Sanhedrin, who are the ruling authority (lawgivers of the land):

---

"Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

---

So the pattern is established. Paul says to obey the laws of the land, and indicates that the structure of authority is established by God, and give that Paul was talking about the Romans, who killed many Christians, he could not have been arguing that "godly nations" are the only ones that are established by God. God established Pharaoh's position in the Exodus; God moved the Babylonian empire against Israel because Israel's sin; etc., etc.

And in this passage, Peter indicates that the laws of the land, however, hold no bearing as it relates to God's instructions, which are to abstain from sin (via the commandments, and proper interpretation of the Old Testament laws and prophecies), and to simply do what God instructs (in this case, the preaching of the word when led by God to do so).

Also note that when the disciples in the Acts 5 passage were subsequently flogged, they didn't protest -- they were flogged because they disobeyed the laws of the land, and they submitted to the laws and accepted being flogged. The disciples, in response to the punishment, rejoiced that they could be counted worthy of suffering for Christ.

I don't think that getting busted for possession of marijuana qualifies as "suffering for Christ."

March 04, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

regarding slaves, per the Acts 5 passage, if you were instructed by God to teach slaves to read the scriptures, you obey God, and you suffer the consequences of violating the laws of the land. That's my read on Acts 5, which is where one gets the "except where it causes you to sin (or disobey God)" qualifier to the Romans passage that instructs us to obey the law of the land.

Paul says "submit to the laws of the Land." Peter says to "obey God." It shouldn't be too difficult to piece the two together in a way that is consistent with scripture.

March 04, 2009


tim said:
if hundreds of thousands of non violent people were thrown in jail to be beaten, raped, and some killed for using a certain plant, would condoning this be sin??? How can you call that just? jesus did not condemn people for what they put in their mouth, the pharisees did.
March 04, 2009


tim said:
im just asking you to be real with yourself man. if it was the middle of the night and you are driving. there is clearly not a soul on the road. would you come to a complete stop and wait for a red light to turn to green? If you dont then you are sinning against God and if you died right then and there you would die in your sin??? No offence but honestly i think you think this way cause its been drilled into you for so long. why do you believe this? did you come to this belief by reading the bible for yourself or because it is what has always been taught to you and are therefore bias about the scriptures. having a distorted view of them? I dont know.
March 04, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

You're bringing up a few issues at once here, and I'll do my best to answer.

In regards to whether I'd "die in my sin" as a result of running a red light... I don't view sin that way. I don't view my relationship with God that way. We are sinful creatures. Christ's sacrifice delivered us from sin. Those who have relationship with Christ no longer fear the ultimate consequence of sin (separation from God), but still have to deal with the natural/physical consequence of disobedience. We who are saved are saved, and what God has claimed, none can take away. I do not believe that a person, who's eyes have been opened to a relationship with God, can undo that relationship. Israel, many times, turned their back on God, but God was relentless in His persuit for the people He loved. Relentless. And I believe the same is true for God's love for me.

If you think that I simply profess what has been drilled in my head, you should read through my other writings under both the "Theology" category under the Project heading, and in the "Religion" category under the Criticism heading.

Regarding the statement about Jesus not condemning people for what they put in their mouths -- I don't disagree with you. I am not talking about condemnation. I'm not talking about salvation, as it relates to the smoking of marijuana. I don't condemn anyone in that situation. But I don't condone it, either. And Jesus certainly did not advocate overthrowing or disobeying the laws of Rome, which was clearly anti-Christian. He didn't say that his torture, humiliation, and death was unfair, unjust, wrong, etc., etc.

March 04, 2009


tim said:
so if the government made it illegal to have books about christian apologetics, that would make it sin to read these books? not having these books is not neccessarily sin. Answer the question please. Please quit talking around it.

March 04, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

I'm not talking around anything. I'm giving you a broader picture of where I'm coming from so you can more easily see for yourself how I would answer such a question. I have no problem directly answering your questions; I just don't think it'd be as productive, since my answers within your worldview may be meaningless.

Anyhow, when the Law of God (ie., Mosaic Law, books of prophecy etc.) don't explicitly state that an act is or is not sin, what's left is specific instruction by God. If I felt that God specifically desired that I possess books about Christian apologetics, despite a prohibition, I would obey God, and simply deal with the consequences of the law. If I suffered legal consequences, I would rejoice, finding myself counted worthy to suffer in the obedience of God. That's the pattern we see from Christ and from the disciples.

Here's the thing. If you feel that people are justified in smoking marijuana despite the law, that's a choice you make, and the people who do so may suffer legal consequences. But doing so is not some God-inspired civil disobedience. It's rebellion against the law of the land, and per the Romans text, it's rebellion against God. It's thumbing your nose at the God instituted structure of government authority; you cannot serve God and rebel against the structure He established, for whatever reason He may have done so. The only time it is right to disobey such authority is when God has specifically provided instruction for it.

That's the text.

Whether any of us live up to that, I can't say. I doubt it. I *do* speed. I *do* fail to come to a complete stop at a traffic light, and I do so in spite of knowing that the law of the land prohibits such activity. It is rebellion on my part. I admit that I shrug my shoulders and say that I don't really care. I'm wrong for it, plain and simple. And this is why I don't judge, or I'd rightly be called a hypocrite.

In any event, a Christian would be incorrect to ever say that it is "OK" to ignore the text, simply because they cannot do so perfectly. The fact that we do sin is no proclamation on our part that it is OK to do so. And we should repent of our sins, not endorse them with self-serving interpretations of the text.

March 04, 2009


tim said:
so if you roll up on a stop sign and dont come to a complete stop, you believe that is a sin against God??? yes or no
March 05, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

I don't play the "yes or no" game, especially when your questions are loaded with multiple meanings. The "yes or no" game is what people do when they refuse to accept the possibility of a different perspective, and instead are trying to force somebody else's answers into their own worldview. This is meaningless. I'm not interested.

If you want to read up on my perspective of "sin," read here. If you want clarification, I'll be glad to chat about it. But this O'Reilly-Factor-style "just answer the question, yes or no" line of questioning is ridiculous.

March 05, 2009


tim said:
okay man, you said that sin was disobeying God. you also said that disobeying the government is disobeying God. so you do think that not stopping fully at a stop sign is sin against god

March 05, 2009


tim said:
i just wanted you to admit it but you didnt so i had to say it for ya
March 05, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

Paul said this: "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

If you believe the text, you are in a position to agree with me on this point. Do you believe the text? Do you believe that it has been interpreted correctly?

March 05, 2009


tim said:
dictionary.com says that the verb rebel is to reject, resist, or rise in arms against one's government or ruler. who is to say he wasnt talking about rise in arms against the government
March 05, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

Good. Now we are having a reasoned discussion, where we are trying to really see what the text says. I appreciate this. I hope this is genuine exploration on your part, and that it demonstrates a willingness to engage in a sharing-of-the-mind on the topic at hand.

Using an English dictionary does provide some insight. However, given that the text was written in Greek, having a Greek cross-reference might be more useful. In this case, the greek word used in the passage is Anthistemi, which means:

---
to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose
to set against
---

So it aligns reasonably well with the english. But if we limit the scope of the word rebellion to "rising up in arms," the section in Romans 13:6 about paying taxes seems out of place. Rather, the text seems to suggest that refusing to pay taxes is an example of the kind of rebellion he's talking about. And the text doesn't simply focus on this kind of rebellion, but rather goes as far as to say that we are to be "in subjection."

In verse 5, it where it says that believers are to be in "subjection," the greek word is Hupotasso, which means:

---
to arrange under, to subordinate
to subject, put in subjection
to subject one's self, obey
to submit to one's control
to yield to one's admonition or advice
to obey, be subject
---

And from this, it appears that the state of being that believers are meant to maintain isn't merely a "don't rise up in arms" sort of situation, but rather a full submission to the ruling authorities. Submission. God calls us to submit to His will, and this passage (in verse 1) links subjection/submission under the ruling authority as subjection/submission under God Himself.

March 05, 2009


tim said:
im sorry that you feel it is unreasonable to ask a specific yes or no question. I think that you really dont wanna admit how outlandish your belief about this matter really is. it certainly is not ridiculous for me to ask you that question. I honestly think you are being the one who is unreasonable and you are the one who is using the scripture to defend your own personal beliefs.
March 06, 2009


tim said:
and why are you just writing to my computer?
March 06, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

I've fully answered your questions. At this juncture, I have no clue what you're talking about. Nor do I have any idea what you mean by "just writing to my computer."

March 06, 2009


tim said:
I see no more point in writing to you because it is too frustrating. If I revealed a profound revelation to you, you would already have your pre conditioned answer. No offense but I dont know if there is anything I could say to you to open your mind. I could try and reason with you but you have set your mind and there is no way that you are giving in one bit. I definitly understand what you are saying but you refuse to try and understand what im telling you. Regardless of what I write to you, your arguments are the same. Whatever I may write, you "know the answer" already. Im sorry your conscience has not been awakened in some very important areas about what going on in this world. but mine has and God tells me through my conscience and his word. I could tell you that paul was talking to his church. and about the government of that time. He did not know what was going to be in the future. But im sure you would not try and understand this. You probably are looking for ways to argue against that already. just so you have an excuse to keep believing what you believe. there is nothing I could say to you. sorry for wasting your time.
March 06, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

You are asserting that because I'm standing my ground, I've "set my mind" here. But you've also set your mind, and I've given you explanation as to my reasoning. You argue your beliefs based on what you understand; I'm doing nothing different.

Yeah - Paul was speaking to the church in Rome, and perhaps you are suggesting that Paul's words were only useful to that specific audience. In which case, it appears you are suggesting that the text has no meaning for us, save that it is an interesting history lesson. But I don't think the text works that way. And Paul's continual reference to the Old Testament flys in the face of your argument. If the text at hand only applies to the audience at the time, the people of Paul's time could have argued that the Old Testament laws only applied to the Old Testament people. But this is clearly nonsense, given the context of the scriptures.

What's interesting here is that, after going back and forth on the Roman's passage, you've gone from saying that it means a certain thing ("it is invalid with paul's teachings about this matter", to quote you), to now suggesting that it means nothing, because Paul was writing to a different church within a different government.

This feels like intellectual dishonesty. Paul's statements certainly applied in your original comment on this post. And now that I've clearly laid out the meaning of the words in the text, you wish to invalidate the text by implying that it only has meaning to the people at the time of the writing.

You said "who is to say he wasnt talking about rise in arms against the government", and I addressed that clearly. You haven't addressed this. This, too, is frustrating. And I'm sure that, in order to justify your own existing belief system, you also have an answer for my response regarding the Roman's passage.

And here's something perhaps you have failed to notice. I wrote the blog post regarding the scripture's stance on marijuana specifically, and noted that the smoking of the plant is not intrinsically sinful. I followed up on a comment regarding legality, and I've made a statement that is in alignment with the text. You came here to inject your opinion, and haven't provided a scriptural basis for that opinion. You're just throwing out anectodal scenarios and yes/no questions, and there's no substance in it. You haven't substantiated your claim that we are free to break whatever laws we want. You have a moral position without scriptural support for that position.

Provide some scriptured reasoning for violating the law of the land, and then we'll go from there. Otherwise, yes -- this conversation is going nowhere.

March 06, 2009


tim said:
ok, please dont put words in mouth like you are doing. I argued some of the wrong things with you earlier, I have a greater understanding of the matter now. I dont want to state all of the obvious errors in what you are saying. Because to argue with you feels like chasing the wind. have a good life man
March 06, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

You said this: I argued some of the wrong things with you earlier, I have a greater understanding of the matter now. I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Which statement you made are you saying is incorrect:

1. "than it is invalid with paul's teachings about this matter"

2. "who is to say he wasnt talking about rise in arms against the government"

3. "I could tell you that paul was talking to his church. and about the government of that time."

I'm not sure which statement(s) you are now retracting. Perhaps some of the confusion in this conversation is that we aren't fully understanding each other; I can't know your position unless you clearly retract a statement you made.

And if you feel that my statements are obvious in their error, please clarify. If you show me my error in a claim I have made, I will gladly retract the statement. Otherwise, accusing someone of being obviously wrong without actually explaing is also like chasing the wind.

March 06, 2009


tim said:
it might be easier if i just talked to you on the phone

March 06, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

Nah - not so interested a phone conversation on the matter. However, here's another chunk of text that might further define my position:

---

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." - 1 Peter 2:13-21

---

Combine this with Jesus' instruction to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (re: taxes), and I think that there's a pretty explanation in the text about how believers are supposed to view the laws of the land, the government, the slave/master relationship, etc. etc.

March 09, 2009


tim said:
go to youtube. type in christian relationship to government romans 13. and you will finally understand what paul was talking about. We have both been arguing the wrong arguments.
March 10, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
tim -

I believe you referring to this series:

Christian's Relationship to Government Pt 1
Christian's Relationship to Government Pt 2

That is interesting. The guy is scoping the Romans 13 text into simply not repaying harm for harm, and that the instruction to submit to the government is really about allowing the government to execute vengeance, and claims that nothing is said or implied regarding obedience to the government. The 1 Peter 2 text seems to work with that interpretation as well.

I'll have to think about this for a bit and see how it aligns with other areas of the text.

Thanks!

March 10, 2009


tim said:
no problem
March 10, 2009


Natasha said:
your both putting way to much stock in the bible.
March 23, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
Natasha -

You're coming from a framework that doesn't define the Bible as God's word to His people. If you are not "His people," I suppose the book makes no difference to you, which is fine. But what business is it to you if others wish to live their lives according to a text they believe is written for their instruction? Why do you care?

March 23, 2009


D. Trayne said:
fascinating discussion. Jovial, very well spoken. You've had some biblical schooling, yes?
September 19, 2009


jovial_cynic said:
D. Trayne -

No, not in any technical sense. I haven't taken any classes or been a part of any seminary, if that's what you mean. I'm just going off of what I understand the bible to say.

Which part are you finding fascinating? The blog post itself, or the back-and-forth in the comments?

September 19, 2009


David said:
I think when you think about it, the whole concept of people rotting in jail for a joint is just wrong. I know Im no one to tell but I doubt jesus would have wanted things this way.
November 15, 2009


gnman said:
I would bet most anything that "Tim" was high or recently high while writing all his comments. I have spoken with several teenagers who smoke pot who "defended" their position without about as little logic and reasoning as "Tim". Here's a great statement to remember - "Those who are deceived don't know they are deceived." Anyone who is or has been recently under the effects of marijuana has honestly opened themselves up to Satan's influence greatly and will have a very hard time seeing truth. It's just about necessary that they get clean for a good while before they can will even be open to Scriptural truth.
April 08, 2010


jovial_cynic said:
gnman -

I don't believe that people who are high on marijuana are necessarily opening themselves up to "Satan's influence." Is a person at risk of demonic influence when they're on laughing gas at the dentist's office, or when taking prescription vicodin after a surgery? They're as high as a kite when on the drug. Or do "legal" drugs block the power of the devil?

Do you see what I'm saying? You're not consistent with your stance on marijuana, despite the fact that we agree that believers should not break the law.

April 11, 2010


thomas said:
tim. you don't know what you're talking about. running stop signs yes or no? good god man read a book.
May 31, 2010


jake said:
tim, stop fucking calling people "man"
June 02, 2010


john said:
jovial, do you have the same beliefs about cocaine as you do with pot?
June 02, 2010


jovial_cynic said:
john -

Which specific part of my beliefs are you asking about? Whether or not Christians should obey the law of the land, or whether or not cocaine use should be considered "immoral?"

My understanding of cocaine is that it causes irreparable harm to the brain, and it is chemically addictive. I think it's a terrible foolish thing to take in, and I'd intervene as best I could if a friend was destroying their life with it.

June 02, 2010


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 334182 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.80.137.168) will be logged.