What is Digg?61 Comments
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48ok while i got no problem with drugs, and i LOVE stone as a person and his proffesional work..to spike someones drink with doses is just wrong... especially if they have never done it prior and arent expecting it.. i mean half the ability to have a good and not scary trip is to be prepared for it.. not knowing its coming = bad bad times....
- gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Agreed Aidenag, uknowingly dosing anyone with anything pretty much equals bad. And yeah set and setting will determine the outcome and all that, though knowing isn't one hundred percent of the equation. The first acid trip ever was Hoffman's accident in the lab, and he noted "I saw strange colors and felt wonderful.", though it likely wasn't a full hit.
- loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I thought a few REAL Stone fans would get it. If you sat me and a friend of mine in a room with a typewriter, we could come out in 4 hours with the complete script to "Platoon."
That's the line Tom Berenger's character Barnes told to Sheen and the rest of his platoon after he killed Elias. - harumph, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21they want to take it away because they know it opens people's perception. it makes them think from within themselves and not seek answers from power systems, i.e. govts and religion. a simplistic answer, yes but think of all the drugs that really do no harm to others and this is a good approximation as to why the people in power fear them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@qwjc: Not a full hit? There are no "full hits" with LSD-25--nor with anything else that I can think of. No one has any idea how much LSD-25 made it into Hoffman's brain, but since he was handling it in solution and mentioned that his skin came into direct contact with it, circumstantial evidence suggests that his dose was over 100 mics--100 mics being just about the common dose.
- Setari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"lent him one of his favorite French prostitutes"
I thought Stone was crazy for spiking his dad's drink until I read that line, then I figured it runs in the family. :P - kigabit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If only. Drugs can be an incredible source of inspiration and acumen when used by the right person. Maybe Hollywood could come up with an original movie idea then, rather than making books into movies.
- BloodyPath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The only result of this, if any, will be making it more difficult to import/grow the needed plants. Remeber salvia? The stupid kids on local news now smoking giant blunts of it, not realising the burning point is too high for the real drug to be inhaled?
The problem isn't so much the drugs. It's the pitiful lack of knowledge about this kind of *****, and people's gung-ho attitude of "one's a normal dose? hell give me three" that makes most hallucinogens deserving of being illegal.
Maybe that seems pointless.. who cares right? Well the American Indians, for one.. and a few hundred other indigeonous peoples and religions (shamanism and rastafari anyone?) who use these substances safely for inner peace and discovery. It makes the American LSD movement of the 60s look almost gluttonous in comparison.. - harumph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9is salvia illegal now? i got some legally a few years ago. it can be really scary because it is so intense and so fast. you do get a feeling that you are being monitored by the drug almost (read people's trip reports) and admonished if you are using it for less than noble purposes. that said, salvia and dmt are amazing in their ability to completely disconnect you from your own body and place you in a reality that is very convincing. not for the timid of spirit, to be sure. i sometimes might agree that some people probably shouldn't be handed these things, as americans we are babies about this sort of stuff and expect to be able to do whatever we want without consequence or personal culpability for our own safety.
- Gatesophile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8erowid.org, best site for drug info.
anyways, I think it's pretty bad to drug someone without them knowing, but hey, if that's what he wants to do... - xrisnothing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12drugs are not for everyone, especially hallucinogens. i can't believe someone could do this to their own father.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Are you sure you don't use drugs? Judging by your post, it sounds as though you are high right now. Seek peace, not control.
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5tiabin,
it can be scary unless you make a conscious decision to battle your demons. it sounds escapist but unless you try it, you don't really understand what actually happens in your head. i used to be very afraid of hallucinogens but am now a proponent. i think if you approach them as party drugs you are on a bad track. if you look at them as tools for meditation or personal growth they can be very powerful. everyone i know who has tried mushrooms, etc. report that they rate the experience as positive, even if they have a hard time with it at first. ultimately each has to decide on their own if they are ready to handle something of that magnitude or not. - kigabit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Wow, you really gotta lay off the meth stylerm. No, I'm not kidding, that is an extremely common tweaker hallucination. As far as Mr. Stone spiking his father's drink, I have a friend who had their drink spiked with acid, and had a horrible, horrible trip. But I don't know enough about Mr. Stone's relationship with his father to judge his actions.. and the anecdote about the French prostitute leads me to think that his father is the kind of person who can handle and embrace the strange and unexpected... I honestly don't think Mr. Stone would have done anything like that without having a good idea of his father's ability to cope.
- Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've heard psilocybin is now being used to treat OCD. I would really like to find out more info from this.... and how it affects a person's EEG.
I was interested to note that with ayahuasca it supposedly raised gamma and alpha band frequency's coherencies higher... which is similar to that of a meditating buddhist monk. A lot of studies showing ayahuasca practicioners have lower level of neuroses too.
The strangest things I find about hallucinogens, especially ayahuasca, is that it seems like people initially start off with having bad trips... while the more they used it the better things seemingly get. It's claimed they're battling out their "unconscious demons" so-to-speak.
Hallucinogens make me nervous... but I'd really like to find out a lot more about their ability in moderation to supposedly heal neuroses... does this ONLY apply to ayahuasca? - neutrino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Tiabin:
"I've heard psilocybin is now being used to treat OCD. I would really like to find out more info from this.... and how it affects a person's EEG."
There are a few resources you can check out to learn more about this. First, http://www.erowid.org, the best substance database on the internet.
Second, to learn about substances that are being used to treat psychological disorders, you can look at the website for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies: http://www.maps.org/
And finally, for more technical information, such as EEG information, the best place to look is probably the pubmed search engine (searches peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
Good luck.
------
edit - links don't seem to work, but that's what cut and paste is for, i guess. - Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8ayahuasca and psilocybin are two things which can make great :)
I have to say it's not for everyone... but I'll never understand why those people want to take it away. - mynameisjack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's been a bunch of studies done with DMT, the molecule in ahayuasca that causes people to have these great experiences. Many have described it as mysitical. I myself know people who've done it and it's vastlly improved their lives.
The problem is that since pharma companies can't patent it, the Government has no incentive to make it legal. Unfortunately, that' show the sytem works. It'll take politicians with serious balls to change it, and, as far as I can tell, those are only fictional characters in movies. - bat-21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That would explain his movies, especially Alexander.
- kilodelta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6drugs are bad, m'kay?
- Insolent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Your analogies are not only terrible but they don't even address what I was talking about.
Studies (Johnston & others, 2005) suggest a strong negative correlation between perceived risk of marijuana use and its consumption. Yes, if people know what drugs can do and which ones do cause harm, they won't use them, believe it or not. The thing is, they are hardly ever told the truth by public school programs, and their friends most likely won't tell them that their memory recall will get worse, their concentration will get worse, and if they are predisposed to schizophrenia (with marijuana, not methamphetamine which will undoubtedly destroy ANYONE'S perception of reality) the psychosis can be triggered. If that wasn't clear enough: for some people you can smoke pot all the time and notice no difference from when you started, other people (I know of somebody who went straight to nutty-bin) can become mentally insane. We don't have enough data on determining what genes might be responsible and only a history of schizophrenia in your family is an indicator. There is no money for research for this because: 1. many religions preach against use of psychoactives, 2. corrupt politicians gained a lot of influence and money through the drug war, but without religion saying psychoactives are bad, what would politicians use to manipulate the public, besides the mass demonization that they instill. I'm all for kids not wanting to use drugs even though MTV tells them it's cool, if they can be happy anyway, but as long as they know why they should or should not use them, the actual truth, then they can make the decision for themselves, and if there are repercussions, yes, they will face them and be responsible. Drugs don't cause school shootings, oppressed, isolated, desperate, and genetically aggressive and neurotic typically male teenagers do.
Date rape? Girls know about the dangers of date rape and yet drink a ton in unsafe environments. Guys think they're self-entitled to have sex with anyone or anything, and often try to get with drunk girls. Drunk girls later regret that they weren't careful in the number of drinks they had, and even though their inhibitions were lowered, they couldn't just say 'I decided not to have sex if I got to drunk, so I won't' but instead they call it date rape. The drug doesn't knock you unconscious, you can still reason, but since it's impaired, it's always possible that it was date rape. Guys already KNOW this but think sex is so important and they are entitled, so they ignore it. Girls are irresponible as well because they do not safeguard themselves while they are sober or have someone watch them if they are sober. Oh and that's called a '*****-block' which is very uncool, i.e. guys want sex so bad they demonize the safeguards women use to protect themselves.
There are also the less frequent uses of GHB and sleep-inducing drugs. But everyone cheats with enough of an incentive, and if someone will not feel guilty for it and get a benefit from it, and will get away with it consistently - that's how it happens. It's wrong but no amount of religion will fix it, so we need to find other ways besides, "Pray to Jesus," because this is most likely the only life we ever get and it's undervalued in the face of eternal happiness or damnation for following a set of rules put forth by the Pope and Catholic Church (recently okaying birth control and apologizing for locking up astronomers who said the Sun was the center of the solar system) or similar idiots who are given authority and never questioned.
You think anything I've said excuses people from responsibility? If so, you're an idiot, and I hope to see you in the Darwin Awards sometime soon. I merely attempt to explain, as people all seem to follow the laws of probability (from our understanding of how genetics and environment influence behavior, illusions of free will aside, and again, thanks religion for asserting the irrational rather than supporting the opinion with evidence, those two factors account for EVERYTHING determining your learning and consequent behavior).
And what I said which you completely ignored, let me restate. If people hear what drugs do from sources that won't lie to you to get you to behave 'the way you should,' like religious authority and the government's anti-drug programs, they likely won't be choosing the drugs with the most harmful side effects and won't have as serious health repercussions. Obviously moderation is important. Genetics predispose people to obsessive behaviors such as alcoholism - if your dad was an alcoholic you better pay very close attention to the repercussions of your drinking, and maybe even get a friend or family member to watch it for you and tell you if they notice anything bad coming out of it.
But, are drugs at all an open discussion? Could you mention your drug use in public as easily as you could mention your smoking habits, how you're trying to kick the habit, or how much alcohol you had and then threw up? No, social stigma worsens an already bad situation. Exposure is key to making it a rational discussion on both sides, and that does not mean everyone should do it with no thought of consequences, but just because drugs might be the only thing on earth that isn't a physically involved actvity with risk (as opposed to rock-climbing or racing), doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand as demonic as religion would have you believe.
And to "don't blame everyone on earth but yourself for the place you wound up in" I sure as hell will blame people for being gullible enough and lazy enough to accept God as a reasonable explanation, and hateful enough to not even attempt to understand the behaviors of others and view themselves as superior. Being gullible, retarded (like autistic), stupid, short, or ugly are not flaws, but calling anyone those things and they will be offended because the cultural consesus is those are flaws but nobody would say it because they'd get people angry. Similarly suggesting everyone is equally capable to do everything is hopeful and ignorant, and yet there is some notion that someone with terrible genes can be the world's greatest scientist or athlete despite their inability to master math or logical thinking or increase athletic performance as well as many others. - BloodyPath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, it's not illegal, but the publicity it's recieving isn't helping anything.
Case in point, 3 years ago you could also buy 5-MeO-DMT legally by mail in the united states. People started raving about it in forums, cops finding it on kids etc, DEA did a crackdown and now the only place listing it for sale is a place in China, meaning if it's real it probably won't make it through customs.
Even though it's still technically legal to possess. - kigabit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nice generalization(s), toolbox.
- SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wow, thats all i can say.
- Insolent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, some can cause permanent brain damage, which is exactly why we need to stop treating drugs as taboo and with so much scorn. People who do get addicted need to know it's nothing to be ashamed of and despite their best efforts they are not all-powerful. People also need to be informed, by unbiased sources, of the risks involved.
Also, where is all the research to find a drug with the same effects but less or no measurable harm? Oh right, social stigma and drug war prevents that.
People are addicted to religion and over-eating.
From what we do know, the people who are most likely to develop psychoses from prolongued use of drugs were already at risk. Many of the same mechanisms might have led them to self-medicate.
At the same time, people everywhere are judgmental as hell and drive people to use drugs to feel better because 'ew it's a nerd' 'ew it's an emo' 'ew it's a gay' and similar *****. If anyone is depressed or shows 'weakness' their only respite might be with drugs. Thank religion for the justification of holier than thou attitudes, and the factionalization and perennial pissing contest that goes on in the US.
Chances are the examples you used could've been avoided if someone had more choices in the drugs, it was easier for them to seek help, or a combination of factors including the US is morally bankrupt and would rather be as nationalistic as the Nazis and look the other way because it's more convenient. - astroid0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it is usually incredibly wrong and irresponsible to spike someone with anything.
That being said, I have a close group of friends who will occasionally dose eachother with psychedelics, but we have an established trust and bond that guarantees it will never happen at a bad time to trip -- so I guess it's a little different. BTW, no one has ever been anything but ecstatic to find out they are coming up on 'cid or amt or whatever. Of course, we are all experiened trippers, and have a high level of trust between us.
I certainly couldn't see doing it to my parents. - dodoporridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@gwjc: I think I remember reading somewhere (don't have a citation) that Hoffman's accidental ingestion of LSD-25 amounted to much, much more than your average 100-200mcg dose.
- Zzzzzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Inspirational? Life changing? Don't forget that many illegal drugs, especially the hallucinogens, cause permanent brain-damage. I have witnessed friends and family change into shells of the person they once were. The hallucinogens seem to have the ability to do far more harm than help. I have started calling it the chemical labotomy.
One guy in particular I remember (tripped on anything he could find) was curled up on top of a washing-machine one day screaming, trying to escape being eaten by the snakes on the floor. The only thing I saw on the floor was dirty laundry. This poor guy ended up in and out of Dorothea Dix Hospital the rest of his life.
Then of course there was Syd Barrett. Rest in peace Syd
With some of these drugs like meth, moderation doesn't even work. So have fun kids, but please be careful, your brain can only recover from so much abuse. - casabona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not a Dick? He blantantly lies to people and passes it off as truth that not only people accept, but is easy to prove wrong. But I guess since he is liberal, it's ok for him to lie.
- flashback99, on 12/25/2008, -0/+1electromagnetic. I'm afraid nobody has explained to you that drugs unlock creativity. This is known fact.
Talented graphic designers, filmakers, musicians & programmers will all testify...
you've been brainwashed into thinking that all drugs are bad and harmful...!
Sure some people don't use drugs and come up with good ideas, but MOST of the talented ones use or have used drugs for inspiration and creativity for centuries... - johnm2154, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1Brain damage? Many? Argument from ignorance. There are few commonly-enjoyed drugs that cause brain damage, but its not like there aren't plenty of commonly used legal drugs that do.
The only ones I can think of right now are the amphetamines which might have some toxicity, and probably do, however; they are still prescribed for various indication. Other than that you've got rare synthetic opioids and I don't know what else.
The vast majority of drugs, the pscyhadelics, the canabinoids, the opioids, and many amphetamine/phenylethylamine analogues cause no problems other than acute psychological effects in retards and some raise in blood pressure, like coffee, that can be dangerous to people with very fragile cardiovascular systems. - asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's too bad we can't spike drinks with acid anymore. Being that it's rare nowadays in the US, it goes for maybe $30-50 a hit. I wouldn't let that go into anyone's body except mine. Besides, if you get someone to trip unknowingly, they'll have a bad trip anyway. It'll be a waste.
Anyway, as for drugs. I HIGHLY encourage you all to read http://www.csdp.org/ - BloodyPath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yea, you go run up front and uh.. lead the way and all that. Nice to have cannon fodder =)
Seriously tho, you do realise how close that lil speech of yours sounds to a cocaine-fueled monologue don't you? - anpanman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love every movie of Oliver Stone.He is a very good director.
- KORGOTH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Drugs can never act as a substitute for creativity in an artistic context. They can, however, unlock the doors to greater forms of creativity within the mind of the artist.
Sure The Beatles still would have been The Beatles without LSD, but they never would have made Yellow Submarine. Pink Floyd still would have been Pink Floyd without LSD, but they never would have made Dark Side Of the Moon.
Granted, these drugs have the ability to make person worse given the right circumstances, but they also have the ability to precipitate greatness when taken with respect and responsibility. - thkfceblkhrt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Everyone should read the books on this page:
http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/
I read them at about 14, they really cover the topic very well and show what psychotropic drugs can do when applied to a spiritual practice or mind expanding exercise.
Even thou these books were influential on me I never did psychotropic drugs. So go figure ..if I can read a whole series of books that romanticize hallucinogens at 13-14 and never try them my self, then perhaps grown adults and the teens of today can accept that Oliver has an opinion and not follow him like sheep. I think its great that such a successful person chooses to voice his opinion even though it may not be PC.
And it doesn't make me want to go out and try acid any more than I did before I saw his comments. - SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1exactly. Tha whole trippy scene when everything turned red.
- Insolent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2$30-50 dollars a hit? Holy *****. More like $5 in parts of california. It mostly depends on supply in your area (often by state and regional area, you live in the bible belt by any chance?), and California is a mecca of great hydroponic weed, quality shrooms, cheap LSD and ecstacy (of high purity to boot). I think even an eight ball of cocaine isn't so ridiculously priced that only celebrities like Kate Moss and politicians like George Bush have the privilege. If they were legalized, the cost would probably be 90% taxes as most drugs are incredibly cheap to mass produce and they'd surely be taxed to raise the price.
- Insolent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I write to be objective because opinion has no place in matters that can be settled objectively. I did make some estimations that are subjective; however, they aren't inaccurate. I generalize guys, and I wouldn't say all or even the majority, but the ones who do commit date rape (not the malicious kind) will often think nothing of having sex with a girl who has had a few drinks. Why should they, they might even be more drunk than the girl. But the law is clear that any amount of lowered inhibitions, "diminished capacity," can be considered date rape, and a small girl can get buzzed off one drink. It sounds unfair that it only favors girls, but since guys typically initiate, the following scenario occurs. A guy that would normally have a slim chance has a slightly better chance because the girl is even slightly inebriated; she may later regret it. It is stupid because the girl could easily say, "no" and that'd be it, knowing that they are drinking (at what point do you suddenly forget you are drinking? besides nearly passing out, that's clearly rape), but their inhibitions were lowered, so they're technically not able to consent at the time.
And you're right, it is useless to try to categorize the average drug user when statistically they are poorer, homosexuals are more likely to use drugs than heterosexuals, and it's clearly impossible for psychology to determine the potential reasons people might use drugs: like self-medication, religious purposes, relaxation, escapism, and model those compared to the population. Useless to search for motivating factors behind drug use.
Nobody ***** thinks before they speak, or thinks before they believe. Humans are stupid. - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Benefits of tripping, my ass...Sorry Oliver, I saw 'Alexander'. If that's not evidence that drugs are bad for you and everyone around you (aka, the audience who was forced to watch a three hour Creed video narrated by Anthony Hopkins) I don't know what is.
- ejm508, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1syd barrett was the only member of pink floyd on LSD and he left years before DSoTM
- Iaianrocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0try 5$ a hit lol
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Insolent, the way you write is struggling to be so objective I have a hard time determining which you are, a male or female? The reason I ask is if you honestly believe what you're writing;
"Guys think they're self-entitled to have sex with anyone or anything, and often try to get with drunk girls. Drunk girls later regret that they weren't careful in the number of drinks they had, and even though their inhibitions were lowered, they couldn't just say 'I decided not to have sex if I got to drunk, so I won't' but instead they call it date rape."
Also, it's useless for you or anyone to try and categorize the drug user, because people from all walks of life have tried and to some extent used drugs for an infinite amount of reasons. - projectnirvana, on 03/20/2009, -0/+0WE need to look for better substitutes for tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and even straight hayawaska... People will always experiment with consciousness altering substances.
Legalizing some drugs that are far less harmful than tobacco or alcohol may be a temporary measure to stop the worst insanities of The War on Drugs. But we will still have numerous health and social problems associated with legalized drug abuse.
We need to develop safer plant-based alternatives to many legal and illegal drugs. This will happen because governments will not be able to afford the economic losses associated with illegal drug trade, the sacrifice of the young people on the altar of the War on Drugs, and the loss of productivity of older citizens who are hooked on Big Pharma’s ineffective and harmful psychotropic substances.
So, in 3-5 years time, you will be able to buy in a corner shop a derivative of hyawaska or ibogaine or peyote or psilocybin mushroom to make you feel good and sane, and more tranquil, and more productive (although not necessarily in the way that the governments would plan it -- please search Google for “Project Nirvana”).
However, before this happens there will be a War on those who want to stop the War on Drugs, as these people will become the worst enemies of the drug mafias and the war-on-drugs-addicted law enforcement agencies around the world (read the extraordinarily prescient “High Society” by Ben Elton).
But eventually, the economics of increased productivity and extra tax dollars for the governments burdened with ageing and less productive populations will win. Hopefully, we will go the way of “Project Nirvana” (Pyotr Patrushev) and not the way of the “Brave New World” (Aldous Huxley) or ”The Futurological Congress” (Stanislaw Lem). - electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Could explain why it's average rating is so poor ( http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/alexander ). Probably have been a good film if he wasn't on drugs, maybe he'd have been lucid enough to think, "no maybe I'll do it this way... oh wow!"
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe so, but he's not a dick.
- electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Drugs can be an incredible source of inspiration and acumen when used by the right person."
The untalented you mean? The majority of creative people manage without having to get high or tripped out on drugs, that's why they're _creative_ because they're original thinkers not whacked out on drugs. Someone with nothing to say will say nothing, someone on drugs with nothing to say will still say nothing.
Drug trips make better stories than the stories they produce, it's never going to change. Someone who's creative is going to be creative despite being on drugs, if The Beatles never touched drugs they would still be The Beatles. There's also VERY strong evidence creativity comes from disorders like bipolar and the drugs come _after_ creativity and damage it because it's self-regulation, so it's all bull *****. - franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2In the title replace "Oliver Stone" with "Most of hollywood"
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I hallucinated once and didn't like it at all. At the time I thought someone was trying to go through every single closed door I saw. I heard and saw the handle moving, I heard keys turning in locks...I didn't know who it was and was really freaked out. I got up and looked through the peephole about 30 times within 5 mins.
- thenewdanger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0$30 to $50? I did LSD two weeks ago and it was about $10 a hit. Oh, and Insolent, you're the man. I think anybody who does drugs seriously and not for the sake of doing it, really believes legalizing many drugs would help the government more than anything. And I read someone saying that hallucinogenic drugs do permanent damage to your brain. While that is the accepted theory by some, there's not nearly enough to prove it entirely. For instance, someone who smokes pot for 20 years versus someone who drinks for 20 years is better off. Marijuana is basically short term risk (aside from lung damage, but its considerably less than the risk some of us ciggarette smokers have to deal with), whereas alcohol actually kills off brain cells and liver cells. Some people suggest erowid, I also suggest it. Read some of the journals that scientists write and learn what they are talking about, because more often than not, the drugs aren't as bad as the government wants to make us all believe they are.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is