Suddenly Righteous Dudes
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Suddenly Righteous Dudes');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Suddenly Righteous Dudes
Posted by CN Staff on July 27, 2009 at 04:28:43 PT
By Karl Vick, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post
Fort Bragg, Calif. -- The steel-haired old hippies who grow the finest marijuana in the world began taking over Mendocino County four decades ago."Going back to the '60s, early '70s in Mendocino County, land was cheap," said Tony Craver, twice elected sheriff, now retired. "Thirty-five hundred square miles, only three population centers, very little law enforcement. . . . The hippies, if you will, moved in and started growing pot. The hippies became the establishment."
Democratic government serves at the consent of the governed; in this jurisdiction, enforcement of marijuana laws would be lax at best. A "grow" became an accepted component of the homesteads established by the back-to-the-land transplants who made their way across the Golden Gate Bridge, past the vineyards of Sonoma and into the woods. At Area 101, a club named for the highway lined with billboards for hydroponics and fertilizer, December brings the Emerald Cup, a public competition for the "best bud" in the county, if not the world."It's so a part of Mendocino County," said K.C. Meadows, managing editor of the Ukiah Daily Journal. "There are fairly large businesses in this town that got their start with marijuana money. And that's okay with people."How, then, to explain what happened to arrests here last year? Pot busts up 60 percent.And what could account for the vote to roll back the nation's first law ordering police to make enforcement of marijuana laws their very lowest priority?A paradox indeed: The clampdown was set in motion by the entire state of California barreling down the path Mendocino blazed. In a Rube Goldberg sequence of cause and effect, growing acceptance of marijuana elsewhere in the Golden State unleashed a confluence of demand, tolerance and legal ambiguity rooted in political cowardice.The result set in motion forces that seriously harshed the mellow here and brought the "war on drugs" to the one place in America it had never really reached.Pebbles Trippet arrived in Mendocino in 1970, escaping the drug laws of New York state. "California beckoned," said Trippet, an activist, columnist and grower who has been heard to ask, "Can I pay you in bud?"The year she arrived, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, which ranked all drugs by capacity for harm. Marijuana landed alongside PCP and heroin on "Schedule 1," a ranking even the establishment found reason to revisit just two years later. A commission appointed by President Richard Nixon recommended lightening up."Damn near puked," Nixon said of this on the White House tapes, where he was heard ordering up a pot law "that just tears the [posterior] out of them." Meaning the longhaired, antiwar, free-love counterculture that was as much the object of the original war on drugs as any substance was.But in the years ahead more and more Americans sampled marijuana, and the republic remained standing. Then doctors defied the premise of the Schedule 1 holding of "no medicinal value" by reporting that marijuana alleviated conditions from glaucoma to asthma.Today, Trippet, 66, is president of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Patients Union, a title that tidily sums up the current state of play on the issue: In 1996 California's voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing pot for medical use.Lawmakers in Sacramento took a few years to gauge the politics of the required implementing legislation. When they finally did, it was a wink: They decreed in 2003 that marijuana could be used to treat "any . . . illness."And if that wasn't clear enough, the bill was numbered SB420 -- 420 being a code phrase in the pot subculture. 420 Magazine competes with High Times.In May, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed the new reality: Anyone with a doctor's card can smoke dope. What remains woefully unclear is where they are supposed to find it. Mendocino was an obvious place to look.In 2001, two years before the wink from Sacramento, Mendocino residents approved Measure G, permitting the holder of a medical card to grow 25 plants.It was a strong signal to city dwellers hard-pressed for the space to grow their own. Indeed, the county's growers were superbly positioned. Aside from the let-it-grow culture, the high-end strains originally cultivated in Mendocino became the preferred stock for the storefront "dispensaries" that began opening elsewhere in the state."Things just took off," Trippet said. "Just about everyone felt they could grow. By then it was half the county. Now it's probably two-thirds."The money was easy. At the service window of a dispensary, patients page through binders of bagged snippets of Purple Kush and Train Reck. The tag says $50 for an eighth of an ounce. Growers could expect $4,000 for a pound, and get four harvests a year, growing indoors."What a difference a couple of years make!" proclaimed the emcee at the Emerald Cup. "We all have medical permits. Everyone grows in the full sun. Marijuana is blooming right into mainstream America. The judging gets harder every year. And it's only going to get better!"But it didn't.As growers lost sight of limits, things somehow got worse. The money changed people.Now some growers planted in town, considered declasse because flowering buds put up a powerful stink. In Ukiah, the county seat, a man was shot after climbing into a fenced pot patch. Another suffered a heart attack halfway over."It's a huge problem in our schools," said Meredith Lintott, the district attorney. "Children come in reeking of marijuana."Worse, outsiders poured in, some armed. In September, three carloads of men aged 18 to 24 arrived from Sacramento carrying guns, radios and pruning shears. They had read about Mendocino in High Times. Home invasions rose to 40 from 24 the previous year.None of this was the Mendocino way. Mexican cartels grow pot in Northern California, but off in the national forests in huge grows that produce inferior herb. Locals brought a specific sensibility to their work, one in the spirit of the "New Settlers" who produced the nation's first organic commercial wine, at Frey Vineyards, and the first organic microbrew, at Ukiah Brewing Co.The outsiders, "these are people who had no pride of ownership," said Tom Allman, who was elected sheriff amid the tumult. "They don't care what they do to our land. A guy with a Caterpillar took off tops of two hills. . . . This is where government has to step in and do compliance checks.""I think after 2007, people started to look around and say, you know what? This isn't great the way it is going down," said Scott Zeramby, who runs a small garden supply store in Fort Bragg. "We've all seen it go from back-to-the-landers, where people wanted to get away from it all, to people who came here to get it all. Property values got so high, the only way you could afford it was to break the law."And so, in November, a measure passed to scale back Mendocino's legal limit to the state's suggested six-plant minimum. The sheriff sensed a mandate. Tips rolled in, and deputies saddled up.On Feb. 20, they busted the younger sister of a student shot dead at Kent State in 1970. Allison Krause was the young woman who said of the flowers in the barrels of the National Guardsmen who would shoot her and four others: "Flowers are better than bullets.""I thought this was a community that was forward-thinking, progressive -- that thought marijuana was a good thing!" said Laurel Krause, who was accused of having too many plants.Her doctor's card recommended pot to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder occasioned by Allison's death.The social dynamics of small towns played a role in the backlash. Krause, who arrived from Silicon Valley, counts as an outsider. Her 24 plants grew under lights in a shipping container -- outsized PG&E bills are a reliable tip-off to cultivation -- but it vented onto the land of a neighbor, who called the sheriff."They'd be growing 75 plants in their back yard," Craver said. "It'd be stinking -- and it does in the summer, while your neighbor's trying to have a barbecue."But there are greater forces at work as well. When state lawmakers legalized medical marijuana, they left the supply chain in the shadows. Drug dealers got to call themselves dispensary operators. But what were growers?Baffled."When you come out, you have confused notions about what's possible," said Trippet, who grew 100 plants on her property a couple of years ago, but is down to 60 out of prudence. "You're not used to working at this end of the envelope. Many didn't know about the limits."Jerry Brown, known as Gov. Moonbeam in the '80s, is California's attorney general. His office last year took a stab at the open question of supply, publishing guidelines for enforcement of SB420. The guidelines hewed to the notion that suppliers of medical marijuana are "caregivers" and allowed "patients" to organize themselves as collectives."The AG's new guidelines basically require the industry be vertically integrated. And to do that, you've got to get big. And that comes with risks," said a Fort Bragg resident, hollow-eyed from lack of sleep after her arrest. She was swept up with her boyfriend's huge grow, taken down even though it was supplying dispensaries."I wouldn't have gotten involved if I didn't think it was legal," she said.A San Francisco Assembly member, Tom Ammiano, has introduced a bill taking what he calls the logical next step: legalizing marijuana, regulating it and taxing it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged a serious debate, now unfolding in the state's media."If everybody doesn't do it together -- state, federal, county -- it doesn't work," said Zeramby, the garden shop owner. "The communities with the most liberal standards are going to be inundated with the most opportunistic people."Legalization might well serve the consumer. "There is no way it costs $3,000 to $4,000 a pound to cultivate marijuana," said Keith Faulder, a former prosecutor who now defends pot cases in Ukiah. "These are the costs of keeping it underground."Growers, however, may well prefer the status quo, even with the risks. That would put them in a rare alliance with the police and prosecutors who back in 1996 campaigned against Proposition 215, warning against precisely what has come to pass."It's going, definitely, in a direction that I don't believe in," said Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition. His last, best case against: "Even if it's no worse than alcohol, we all know of people who lost their livelihood and their lives. Why would we admit legal respectability to another powerful drug?"In Mendocino, though, the quest is only for the clarity ducked by lawmakers, and emerging from courts at a pace that does little to help Sheriff Allman. Constituents pepper him with questions.Down at the courthouse, the district attorney sighs."It's extremely confusing, even for those who work in it every single day," Lintott said. "Clearly when the law was passed the cover was cancer, glaucoma -- real distinct health issues. We're not there anymore."She sagged a bit behind her desk."Quite frankly, I might benefit from a card. This is a high-stress job. It would probably do me good to go home and smoke some pot in the evening."Source: Washington Post (DC)Author:   Karl Vick, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Monday, July 27, 2009Copyright: 2009 Washington Post Contact: letters URL: CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #33 posted by museman on July 29, 2009 at 12:05:50 PT
i wanted to comment on this article
but i know all too well some of the reactions I would get, But after seeing it for days, I have to."The money changed people"Sums it all up. And the applicationn of that phrase, along with the 'Suddenly Righteous Dudes' concept just opens the door to a pandoras box of information and opinion that is totally unpopular within the ranks.Though the 'pot culture' associated with mendocino and humboldt certainly has some traceable 'roots' in the 'hippy' counterculture and the 'back to the land movement',... at the point where the money started rolling in, as far back as the 70's, the 'change' that this article tries to pin on recent developments in medicinal laws in California happened first over 3 decades ago.The phenomenon of the 'Pot Land Baron'- the ability to grow pot in great amounts, at prohibition prices- produced a 'new' class of 'hippies.' In the holistic and idealistic concept of 'hippidom' I submit that the 'hippy' consiousness was replaced by the 'landowner' consiousness, which in my knowledge and experience bears little to no resemblance to true hippiness.Oh yes, the long hair was still present, the pot was still being smoked, and great music was being played from the newly aquired high-tech sound systems these new 'upper class hippies' were able to afford with their bootlegged profits, but they were/are just as greedy and corrupted as the established 'legal' robbers and thieves who posessed the majority of the wealth before the pot land barons got it.But if these people had actually maintained the ethics and standards of 'hipness' while raking in their profits, there would have actually been some strong communities that came together. But capitalism, and profit drove those communites -with a strong support for appearances (long hair, colors) but very little manifestation of the higher aspects that made the 'hippies' (the REAL ones) what they were/are.The 'Suddenly Righteous Dudes' didn't just appear day before yesterday, they've been out there getting rich off of prohibition since the 70's.If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask any of the many thousands of poor hippies who were 'employed' by these rich hippy-look-alikes for minimum wage or less as a pretentious gesture on the part of the Pot Barons to keep appearances, and get cheap labor at the same time.Personally, I got no respect for these people, any more than any other exclusive club that thinks itself special.Give me an honest redneck any day over a pretentious hippy.Sorry if I've offended anyones fantasies about the purity of the motivations of these kinds of people, and of course it doesn't apply to EVERY pot grower who bought land with their profits, but unfortunately it does apply to the majority.FREE -as in FREE, NON_GRATIS CANNABIS FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by afterburner on July 28, 2009 at 22:38:15 PT
LTE Trio
Re: Senate delay on drug bill risks lives: Justice minister, July 23:CN BC: PUB LTE: Senators and Anti-Prohibitionists Take Minister to Task, Vancouver Sun, (27 Jul 2009) Russell Barth BC: PUB LTE: Senators and Anti-Prohibitionists Take Minister to Task, Vancouver Sun, (27 Jul 2009) Kirk Tousaw BC: PUB LTE: Senators and Anti-Prohibitionists Take Minister to Task, Vancouver Sun, (27 Jul 2009) Colin Walker
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by afterburner on July 28, 2009 at 21:48:05 PT
lombar #30 
You are probably right about the Senate. Hopefully, they could stall long enough with fact-finding citizen input until the winds of change bring about a more progressive government and parliament. The study mentioned in the following article may have already been posted in another thread at cannabisnews:Marijuana Has Anti-Cancer Properties. 
Saturday, July 25, 2009 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer.
Key concepts: Marijuana, Cancer and Health
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by lombar on July 28, 2009 at 09:33:29 PT
afterburner - The Senate
The senate may stall but I doubt they would reject the legislation. I'm surprised that the government can operate with all the dysfunction in it. Senators serve until the age of 75 after which time the PM appoints a new one from the same region. So if any liberals are on the way out, we can expect more conservatives, and vice versa when there's a liberal pm. Lets hope the chamber of sober second thought lives up to its name. I'm not sure what the current proportions are but I believe it's majority conservative.Until we address the 'democratic deficit' I dont think the people will ever get to be truly represented. For us one aspect that is never addressed is parties voting along party lines or face expulsion from the party (ie the $ a major RICH national party). Also the first past the post winner take all electoral system ensures large swaths of people not being represented at alll. A majority government can be elected by Voter turnouts are plummeting because people see that no matter what clown they pick, the circus remains the same. If we toot the horns in the right order they might toss us a fish.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by Had Enough on July 28, 2009 at 08:42:03 PT
 Link to Poll
Here is the link to the poll The GCW posted in comment #4
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by Hope on July 28, 2009 at 08:11:30 PT
Thank you, Christ...
I appreciate that you answered my query.Lombar, Afterburner... that Canadian PM... I can't imagine what he is seeing that is so good in the US style program of prohibition that he wants to emulate. It's just strange, but I'm thankful, for Canada's sake, that there are some rational minds holding the line against his desire to copy-cat the disaster of US style sentencing and mayhem. Apparently he wants Canada to move up in the ranks of nations that have the highest imprisonment rates of its citizens. Maybe he's a wheeler dealer seeing future profits in the prison business. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by ekim on July 28, 2009 at 06:30:05 PT
good going Storm Crow
could you look at comment #45 
thank you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by christ on July 28, 2009 at 03:34:48 PT
afterburner, Hope, Had Enough, Storm Crow...
#10 afterburner - 
I absolutely agree... "the currency of organized crime." What a quote by Vancouver police Insp. Brad Desmarais, head of the gang squad, "We are focused in reducing the impact, reducing the profitably of these operations, as well as ensuring the public safety is taken care of." 
I could swear he's claiming that more prohibition will bring the benefits of legalization.#13 Hope - 
No offense taken. I'm neither Peter nor a cop. Just someone against prohibition. I WAS kind of offended that that person never answered FoM's question on the Barney Frank thread a week or two ago.#15 Had Enough - 
I couldn't find the poll on the summit link. Could you provide directions?#17 Storm Crow - 
Good point; the problem is not cannabis, but the prohibition of cannabis. When I hear people talk about "the drug problem", I just assume that what they mean is "the drug (prohibition) problem."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Paint with light on July 27, 2009 at 23:18:19 PT
Good comments Storm Crow.I immediately had the same thoughts when reading the article.Thanks for concisely and clearly stating the truth. The lost and ruined lives are caused by the enforcement of the insane drug like alcohol
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by afterburner on July 27, 2009 at 20:52:06 PT
lombar #11
Props to the Senators for refusing so far to even debate Bill c-15. They know from their own Senate Report that C-15 is not in Canada's best interests. I hope they can continue to stand their ground.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 11:49:17 PT
When can you vote in a better more tolerant Prime Minister? When you won the right to have the Olympics I thought drug issues but mostly marijuana laws in your country would get tougher.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by lombar on July 27, 2009 at 11:40:25 PT
our only real hope 
I've always believed that Canadas only hope of seeing reform has been for the USA to come to its senses about the issue of drugs. We saw plainly what happened to the liberals attempts to decriminalize cannabis. Fake threats of closing the border. I just hope it doesnt take 20 years to undo the damage these 'conservatives' are attempting to do.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 11:35:08 PT
Thank you. I did a google search and found out who he was. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 11:29:13 PT
Breaking Our Addiction To Prison
By Gen. Barry McCaffreyJuly 27, 2009 URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Hope on July 27, 2009 at 11:25:12 PT
Comment 17 Storm Crow
Exactly!It's the prohibition of the substance, cannabis, that is far, far more harmful to life and livelihood, than the actual prohibited substance, in this case, cannabis... for absolute, certainly sure!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Hope on July 27, 2009 at 11:20:43 PT
Thanks, FoM
Peter Christ is a drug policy reformer that is a retired police officer.He used to join us occasionally, in the DrugSense chat. The way that chat was set up, as you may recall, it said "Christ has entered the room" when he signed in and "Christ has left the room" when he left. It always had a little bit of a poignant ache to see that "Christ has left the room" message. :0)He's the only person I've ever known of with the actual surname Christ. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Storm Crow on July 27, 2009 at 10:29:30 PT
Lost lives and livelihoods! 
"Even if it's no worse than alcohol, we all know of people who lost their livelihood and their lives." To what exactly have they lost their lives and livelihood? Prohibitionist laws! Enforcing those laws, and their results (the high price of cannabis due to prohibition) are how people have died "from cannabis". And those same laws are the ONLY way I have seen people lose their livelihood, when they are broken by court costs and confiscation of their homes! Sir, you tear families apart for no good reason. You steal their homes and property. You drive up the price of a useful, simple-to-grow, medicinal herb. You KILL us over using a non-toxic plant! The problem lies with YOUR attitude, upholding archaic, racist laws that the majority of the people are against, not ours! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 10:19:12 PT
That's ok to ask. I don't have any idea who Peter Christ is actually. I vaguely recognize the name but that's all for me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Had Enough on July 27, 2009 at 10:15:08 PT
Poll in #4
What do you think of medical/decriminalized marijuana?Good idea... Should be legal for all. 	 	56.76%(428)Mixed......... Ok with medicinal but not outright decriminalization. 	 	33.29%(251)Bad idea...... It should stay illegal for all. 	 	9.95%(75)754 total votes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Hope on July 27, 2009 at 10:08:22 PT
Comment 13
I'm sorry. Forget it.I really shouldn't ask such questions and I know better.Sorry.FoM... you can remove both of these posts if it's not too much trouble.Silly curiousity got the best of me!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by Hope on July 27, 2009 at 09:38:06 PT
Mr. Christ... assuming you are a "Mister".
Since you are so bold as to ask Unlikelyally a personal question... might I be so bold, too? Of course you don't have to answer, and I'm loathe to offend anyone... especially our allies, but I've been wondering and assuming, perhaps, too much.Are you not Peter?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 09:29:41 PT
I've watched your country follow in the footsteps of the last administration. If only you had a liberal if that is what they are called in Canada instead of a conservative. You are getting in deeper and we are finally seeing the light of day down here. I wish you the best of luck. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by lombar on July 27, 2009 at 08:08:13 PT
Real piece of work
The current conservative government in canada is attempting to lead us down the garden path. It's the same way the narco-police state started up down in the USA. Crank up penalties, leaving only 'organized crime' involved for the most part in drug production and supply. Then use that as a justification for harsher penalties. They are lying sacks of fecal matter and need to be gone. They don't even have the decency to pay for their bad policies, they fully intend for the costs to be handled by the provinces. No money for hospitals but there's money for prisons? Sadly our broken parlimentary system will likely ensure we get them for longer.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by afterburner on July 27, 2009 at 07:52:15 PT
christ #3 
Check out how Canadian Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson uses the criminal element to justify harsher crackdown on "grow-ops"!CN BC: Senate Delay On Drug Bill Risks Lives: Justice Minister, Vancouver Sun, (23 Jul 2009) course, "marijuana is the currency of organized crime." How could it be otherwise when the government continues to fight legalization?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Sam Adams on July 27, 2009 at 06:23:10 PT
Sold Out
Keep in mind the Post just got caught selling editorial opinions to the highest bidder
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by christ on July 27, 2009 at 06:14:46 PT
Do you work in the field of criminal justice?Are you a cop?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 06:04:22 PT
Time for Conversation About Medical Marijuana
July 27, 2009Iowa is about to explore whether sick residents should be allowed to use marijuana to treat health problems, including pain and nausea. The Iowa Board of Pharmacy, which regulates pharmacy practices and the distribution of prescription drugs, has voted unanimously to hold public hearings around the state.Though the Iowa Legislature would have to approve any changes to the law regarding the medical use of marijuana, the pharmacy board deserves credit for initiating a statewide conversation.Snipped:URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 05:48:10 PT
Sounds good. I wish you the best of luck.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by anunlikelyally on July 27, 2009 at 05:40:21 PT:
#2, where is the conflict?
In the article it states that the city ordinance would still violate state and Federal law, but cannabis is already decriminalized in Colorado. The only difference I can see is that the city's law only applies to those 21 and over whereas the state law (I assume from NORML's website) pertains to everyone 18 and over. Clarification?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by The GCW on July 27, 2009 at 05:22:10 PT
That poll is still being taken.What do you think of medical/decriminalized marijuana?___Bad idea. It should stay illegal for all.___Good idea. Should be legal for all.___Mixed: Ok with medicinal but not outright decriminalization. 750 votes so far, 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by christ on July 27, 2009 at 05:16:49 PT
Great quote by Keith Faulder...
Legalization might well serve the consumer. "There is no way it costs $3,000 to $4,000 a pound to cultivate marijuana," said Keith Faulder, a former prosecutor who now defends pot cases in Ukiah. "These are the costs of keeping it underground."Yeah, I think lower prices would serve cannabis consuming citizens. But it would also serve Public Safety. Leaving cannabis unregulated and illegal means high business risk and market enforcement by violent gangs. Some influence-bearing politicians don't seem to recognize that prohibition is an implicit acceptance of the violent underground market. Does that concern anyone else?That's what I was getting at at the thread below (comment#37)... 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by The GCW on July 27, 2009 at 05:08:43 PT
It's on in Breck
Marijuana petition in Breckenridge leads to likely spot on November ballotPetitioners smoke through signature quota — Breckenridge voters may decide in November whether to decriminalize marijuana after a successful petition for the initiative was certified Friday.Reform group Sensible Breckenridge needed 500 signatures for the petition, and nearly 700 were accepted out of about 1,400.“Obviously it's very satisfying to have large numbers of Breckenridge residents asking the town to change this law,” said Breckenridge attorney Sean McAllister, chairman of Sensible Breckenridge. Following the petition's certification, Breckenridge Town Council has an opportunity to enact the law at its Aug. 11 meeting, or the decision will go to the voters on a Nov. 3 ballot. CONT.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 27, 2009 at 04:49:26 PT
Just a Song
This article made me think of what was a wonderful dream of times that now sadly have changed.The Byrds - I Wasn't Born To Follow (Easy Rider)
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment