Here We Go Oregon, Measure 91 Passes

  • Thread starter Kendo
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Herb Forester

Herb Forester

766
143
Here they go…




Legislature seeks to tweak legal pot measure

By Hillary Borrud
Capital Bureau
Published:November 13, 2014 9:06AM

Legislators say they want to tweak provisions of Oregon's recreational marijuana law before the liquor commission writes regulations governing the production, sale and possession of pot.


Legislation regulating recreational marijuana could be among the first bills to come up in the 2015 session of the Oregon Legislature, as lawmakers work out details of the state’s new legal pot system.

When voters approved legal recreational pot on Nov. 4, they also signed off on a new regulatory, licensing and tax system overseen by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. The state agency plans to start writing those rules in early 2015, but lawmakers and representatives of cities and counties said Measure 91 created some issues that can only be addressed in the Legislature.

There also some parts of the measure that lawmakers simply want to change. These range from the date when adults will be able to legally possess recreational cannabis, to the timeline for voters to ban recreational pot businesses at the city and county level.

It’s important for lawmakers to bring up any legislation related to recreational pot early in the session, so Oregon Liquor Control Commission officials can include it when they write regulations.

“Some legislators have expressed interest in some tweaks (to Measure 91),” said Rob Patridge, Klamath County District Attorney and chairman of the OLCC Board of Commissioners. “That makes it difficult for us to move forward with our rule making processes, if they make substantial changes to (Measure 91).”

Nonetheless, Patridge said the OLCC will work diligently to meet the timeline that voters approved in Measure 91.

Anthony Johnson, chief petitioner and co-author of Measure 91, said that although “it’s understandable that legislators, cities and counties will seek some clarification during the legislative session,” it is also important for them to stick to the intent of voters who approved the measure.

State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said he is interested in moving up the date when adults age 21 and older can possess marijuana.

Under Measure 91, people can legally possess cannabis for recreational use starting July 1, 2015, although some law enforcement officials are already reconsidering possession cases. The Multnomah County District Attorney’s office announced on Monday it would dismiss pending cases that involved violation-level amounts of marijuana.

Prozanski said many people incorrectly believe that marijuana will become legal sooner than July. He would also like lawmakers to consider legislation to allow people convicted of marijuana possession prior to the passage of Measure 91 to have their records expunged.

Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, said much of the work by lawmakers and state employees to regulate Oregon’s medical marijuana program will carry over to recreational pot regulations. Buckley has been working with the cannabis industry on legislation that would give the Oregon Health Authority the ability to regulate medical marijuana growers and testing labs, and that could provide a template for OLCC regulations in 2015.

Measure 91 provided broad regulatory authority to the OLCC, so the agency already has the ability to regulate labs and growers. Buckley said he is also looking at opportunities to tighten the medical program, to prevent recreational pot consumers from using it to avoid taxes.

“Of the issues that relate to both medical marijuana and recreational, the Legislature is going to try to take a very early approach to vet those out, and then hand over early to OLCC in their rule making process what we’ve been able to figure out and they will take it from there.” Buckley said.

It’s also possible lawmakers will attempt to address concerns from the public about keeping edible marijuana products such as cookies and gummy bears out of the hands of children. Buckley had already received calls from other lawmakers who were concerned about the issue and interested in packaging requirements.

Prozanski is also interested in restrictions on the types of products for sale at recreational dispensaries.

“I think we need to have a discussion about what’s going to be available at a retail level for sale and consumption, as opposed to what’s available in the medical program,” Prozanski said. It might make sense to more strictly regulate the “shape and fashion” of edible marijuana products available for recreational use, so they do not appeal to children, as well as “some of the extremely high THC products,” Prozanski said.

In addition to constituent concerns, lawmakers can expect to hear from city and county officials who want more clarity on how to implement some parts of Measure 91 and change other sections.

Scott Winkels, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities who works on marijuana issues, said cities will probably work with counties and groups that represent other local government officials such as sheriffs, to reach a consensus on issues they think the Legislature should address.

One concern for cities and counties is that under Measure 91, voters can approve bans on recreational marijuana at the city and county level through the citizen initiative process. However, they cannot do so until the November 2016 election and by then, many marijuana businesses will already be open. Winkels said cities could be liable if they shut down businesses at that point.

Rob Bovett, legal counsel for the Association of Oregon, said the group shares this concern.

“Essentially we have a year gap,” Bovett said. “I think the Legislature can clean that piece of it up, and probably ought to.”

Bovett said Oregon is uniquely positioned to create a well-regulated system for both medical and recreational pot, and to have low enough prices to undercut the black market.

“To get both of those things is going to require a lot of hard work on some legislation and a lot of rules to do it right,” Bovett said.
 
Herb Forester

Herb Forester

766
143
District Attorney Who Opposed Oregon Legalization In Charge Of Implementing Marijuana Regulations
Posted: 11/17/2014 1:15 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 1:59 pm EST

Measure 91 to legalize marijuana passed with 55.9% of the votes in Oregon. Now the task of implementing the regulations falls to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, whose chair, Rob Patridge, pledged to "make this measure work Oregon's way" the day after the election.

But chairman of the OLCC isn't Patridge's only job. He's also the district attorney of Klamath County, where Measure 91 was opposed by 56 percent of the voters, including, presumably, Rob Patridge.

As part of my investigation into the Kevin Sabet Oregon Marijuana "Education" Tour, I uncovered emails from five counties' district attorney's offices, though, sadly, that did not include Klamath County. But it did include the Oregon District Attorneys listserve, where, on August 18, the Benton and Wasco County DAs voiced their opposition and the Crook County district attorney, Daina Vitolins, explained how she told the Bend Bulletin newspaper that "I told him ODAA had voted but that did not necessarily mean EVERY SINGLE DA opposed 91. I declined to tell him names or numbers but said the organization as a whole chose to oppose 91."

The Bulletin ended up reporting that the opposition to Measure 91 "consists mainly of the state's district attorneys and the state's sheriffs' association." The paper further commented, "The Bulletin asked the state's 36 district attorneys where they stand on Measure 91, and the group was unanimously against it, though they weren't lockstep in their reasons for opposing it. The district attorneys from Josephine, Union and Malheur counties didn't respond to the question."

In addition to being opposed to the measure he's now tasked with implementing, Rob Patridge lacks the fundamental understanding of both the science of cannabis use and the language of Measure 91. As a Southern Oregon TV station KTVL reported, Patridge opposed Measure 91 in part for its lack of an unscientific DUID standard. "Just like .08 is there for alcohol, that is not included in this particular measure," said Patridge, revealing his ignorance of how marijuana has no reliable equivalent to the 0.08 BAC used to determine alcohol impairment.

Patridge was also upset that there weren't any limits on licensing written into Measure 91. "You can be a producer, a distributor and a wholesaler and sell, so you can ... hold all four licenses," said Patridge, without any hint of the irony that he runs a commission that applies those same licensing procedures to alcohol - Measure 91 copied that language from the existing liquor laws Patridge's OLCC enforces.

Earlier in the year, Patridge was explaining to a Salem, Oregon TV station KDRV that he and the OLCC aren't competent to do the job. "We lack the training; we lack the testing that may have to go hand-in-hand with this. We lack, frankly some of the legal obligations that would have to go with this," said Patridge.

In a sit-down interview with The Oregonian in Portland shortly after the election, Patridge gave some insight on where he believes the legislature should step in to modify Measure 91. "We don't need excessive regulation," said Patridge. "By the same token, our goal is to protect public safety so we don't make edibles attractive to kids and we don't do things that other states have stumbled with because of the rapid nature of how they have had to" implement laws legalizing marijuana.

How will Oregon regulate edibles? How will the medical marijuana program co-exist with the recreational laws? Should there be a limit on the number of marijuana licenses? "All of that is on the table right now," Patridge told The Oregonian. "I certainly think it would be better to look at all approaches and keep the door open."

Guiding the measure through the legislature will be long-time allies to the state's medical marijuana lobbyists, State Sen. Floyd Prozanski and State Rep. Peter Buckley. But judging from comments the two made in The Daily Astorian newspaper on the north coast, advocates for marijuana legalization may not be happy with the legislative outcomes.

Regarding those THC-infused edibles that were the focus of the No on Measure 91 campaign and a concern to OLCC Chair / Klamath DA Patridge, Sen. Prozanski told the Daily Astorian, "I think we need to have a discussion about what's going to be available at a retail level for sale and consumption, as opposed to what's available in the medical program." It might make sense to more strictly regulate the "shape and fashion" of edible marijuana products available for recreational use, so they do not appeal to children, as well as "some of the extremely high THC products," Prozanski said.

Does that mean medical marijuana dispensaries might carry multi-colored infused gummi bears, but rec shops would have to carry beige-colored flavorless infused gummi discs? Those kinds of decisions will be made with the final approval of the Klamath County DA who opposed marijuana legalization and told Portland's TV station KOIN the day after the election, "Protecting kids is very important. The edibles piece is usually important."

Other considerations by the legislature mentioned in the Daily Astorian include Sen. Prozanski's call to move the date when personal possession and cultivation becomes legal from July 1, 2015, to a sooner date, as well as expunging the records of those convicted of marijuana crimes that became legal with the passage of Measure 91. Rep. Buckley mentioned streamlining the regulation of medical marijuana growers and testing facilities that could serve as a blueprint for Measure 91 recreational regulations.

Rep. Buckley also brought up consideration of tightening the qualifications for the medical marijuana program for preventing recreational users and illegal growers from using the program as a tax dodge or a trafficking cover.

Lobbyists for the cities and counties in Oregon have an issue with the local ban provisions of Measure 91. It allows for cities and counties to vote to ban marijuana licensees only through a vote of the people that cannot happen until November 2016. Those lobbyists complain that licensure will begin in January 2016, so cities and counties may already have functioning pot licensees up and running before they get a chance to band them, possibly opening the banning jurisdiction to lawsuits for restraint of trade.

Unmentioned in the Daily Astorian story are the 49 cities in Oregon that pre-emptively passed local taxes on marijuana prior to Measure 91's passage. While the measure explicitly vests taxation power at the state level, explicitly forbids taxation at the local level, and explicitly repeals and supersedes already-passed taxes, my sources tell me there will be a major push at the legislature to get those taxes "grandfathered in" by legislation. Such a move would go expressly against the will of the people, especially in cities like Portland where the measure passed by over 70 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/district-attorney-who-opp_b_6161346.html

Follow Russ Belville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RadicalRuss
 
Herb Forester

Herb Forester

766
143
Marijuana legalization: Oregon lawmakers will be asked to decide whether to allow local pot taxes

By Jeff Mapes | [email protected]
Follow on Twitter
on November 18, 2014 at 8:00 AM, updated November 18, 2014 at 8:17 PM

City officials seeking to levy local taxes on legal sales of marijuana in Oregon plan to take their fight to the state Legislature next year.

The League of Oregon Cities says it will ask legislators to amend the marijuana legalization measure passed by voters two weeks ago to explicitly allow local taxes being sought by at least 70 cities, including Portland and several of its suburban neighbors.

Sponsors of Measure 91 say they will fight the local taxes, which they argue could drive up the cost of legal marijuana to the point that it could encourage pot users to continue buying on the black market.

The fight over marijuana taxation is one of several thorny issues the Legislature may face next year following the passage of Measure 91.

Legislative leaders are considering establishing a special Senate-House committee to consider the regulatory and tax issues swirling around the coming of legal marijuana to Oregon.

"People are going to make all sorts of jokes about having a 'joint' committee," said Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, the House budget chief. "But I think it's the most efficient way to get some of these issues worked out."

Aides to both Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said they are considering requests from several legislators to establish a special marijuana committee.

"That's definitely something she is receptive to," said Kotek's spokesman, Jared Mason-Gere. "She thinks it is pretty important that the implementation of 91 is done properly."

In addition to the fight over local taxation, legislators may also be asked to decide:

  • How localities can opt out of allowing retail sales at all. Measure 91 allows a community to ban sales only through a vote of the people at a general election. The League of Oregon Cities would like to allow city councils and county commissions to make that decision.
  • Whether to set tight restrictions on marijuana-infused edibles, such as cookies and candies. Measure 91 leaves that task up to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which will regulate recreational sales of the drug.
Scott Winkels, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, said that while Measure 91 allocates some state marijuana taxes to local governments, it won't be enough for them to reimburse the costs of regulating legal marijuana.

"Nobody's going to call the state of Oregon if [marijuana] smoke is drifting into their yard from a neighbor's house," said Winkels, arguing that cities have also long claimed that alcohol tax revenues from the state don't cover their costs.

Anthony Johnson, the chief sponsor of Measure 91, said that, if anything, the Legislature needs to make it crystal clear that the taxes approved by so many Oregon cities shouldn't be allowed to stand.

"By discouraging retail sales" with high taxes, "you're then encouraging black-market sales," said Johnson.

Under Measure 91, producers will be taxed $35 an ounce for the most potent parts of a marijuana plant, $10 an ounce for leaves and $5 for plant starts sold to home growers. The tax rate was deliberately set lower than in Washington to better compete with the black market, Johnson said.

Most of the cities that have approved local taxes opted for a 10 percent sales tax, according to a tally from the League of Oregon Cities. One city, Fairview, approved a 40 percent sales tax with the aim of discouraging retailers from locating there.

Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said he thinks city officials for the most part know that Measure 91 is clear in outlawing local taxes. Instead, he said, "they're trying to position themselves to come into the Legislature in 2015 and say, 'Hey let us do it.'"

The league of cities also wants the Legislature to change the way localities are allowed to prohibit retail sales.

Now, the November 2016 general election is the first in which voters could ban retail sales in their city or county. That has upset some city officials, who note that the OLCC could start handing out retail licenses as early as January of that year.

Winkels said this sets up a scenario in which a city could face liability for shutting down an existing business. At a minimum, he'd like to allow earlier elections. Ideally, he said, city and county governing boards should be able to make the decision.

Dave Kopilak, a Portland lawyer who drafted Measure 91, said retailers would be hesitant to open up a business in a community if they knew there was strong political support for banning retail sales.

He said sponsors wanted to restrict votes on retail bans to general elections to ensure that it attracted a strong voter turnout.

Kopilak said he didn't think city or county officials should be able to act on their own to ban marijuana sales. After all, he said, only the voters can decide to ban local sales of alcohol.

-- Jeff Mapes
 
Medusa

Medusa

Trichome Engineer
Supporter
4,713
263
Interesting Herb. Thank you for posting. Just what I thought on the cities. To bad they can't be happy with 1 to 3 percent tax even 10. Have noticed a increase in city of Portland taxes lately they are really taxing for everything. Next a fee to walk on the street. Meters to walk across a crosswalk. 35 yrs business owner in Multnomah county. Never again. Think I will sit back incognito. M
 
Jboys3

Jboys3

236
43
Marijuana legalization: Oregon lawmakers will be asked to decide whether to allow local pot taxes

By Jeff Mapes | [email protected]
Follow on Twitter
on November 18, 2014 at 8:00 AM, updated November 18, 2014 at 8:17 PM

City officials seeking to levy local taxes on legal sales of marijuana in Oregon plan to take their fight to the state Legislature next year.

The League of Oregon Cities says it will ask legislators to amend the marijuana legalization measure passed by voters two weeks ago to explicitly allow local taxes being sought by at least 70 cities, including Portland and several of its suburban neighbors.

Sponsors of Measure 91 say they will fight the local taxes, which they argue could drive up the cost of legal marijuana to the point that it could encourage pot users to continue buying on the black market.

The fight over marijuana taxation is one of several thorny issues the Legislature may face next year following the passage of Measure 91.

Legislative leaders are considering establishing a special Senate-House committee to consider the regulatory and tax issues swirling around the coming of legal marijuana to Oregon.

"People are going to make all sorts of jokes about having a 'joint' committee," said Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, the House budget chief. "But I think it's the most efficient way to get some of these issues worked out."

Aides to both Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said they are considering requests from several legislators to establish a special marijuana committee.

"That's definitely something she is receptive to," said Kotek's spokesman, Jared Mason-Gere. "She thinks it is pretty important that the implementation of 91 is done properly."

In addition to the fight over local taxation, legislators may also be asked to decide:

  • How localities can opt out of allowing retail sales at all. Measure 91 allows a community to ban sales only through a vote of the people at a general election. The League of Oregon Cities would like to allow city councils and county commissions to make that decision.
  • Whether to set tight restrictions on marijuana-infused edibles, such as cookies and candies. Measure 91 leaves that task up to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which will regulate recreational sales of the drug.
Scott Winkels, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, said that while Measure 91 allocates some state marijuana taxes to local governments, it won't be enough for them to reimburse the costs of regulating legal marijuana.

"Nobody's going to call the state of Oregon if [marijuana] smoke is drifting into their yard from a neighbor's house," said Winkels, arguing that cities have also long claimed that alcohol tax revenues from the state don't cover their costs.

Anthony Johnson, the chief sponsor of Measure 91, said that, if anything, the Legislature needs to make it crystal clear that the taxes approved by so many Oregon cities shouldn't be allowed to stand.

"By discouraging retail sales" with high taxes, "you're then encouraging black-market sales," said Johnson.

Under Measure 91, producers will be taxed $35 an ounce for the most potent parts of a marijuana plant, $10 an ounce for leaves and $5 for plant starts sold to home growers. The tax rate was deliberately set lower than in Washington to better compete with the black market, Johnson said.

Most of the cities that have approved local taxes opted for a 10 percent sales tax, according to a tally from the League of Oregon Cities. One city, Fairview, approved a 40 percent sales tax with the aim of discouraging retailers from locating there.

Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said he thinks city officials for the most part know that Measure 91 is clear in outlawing local taxes. Instead, he said, "they're trying to position themselves to come into the Legislature in 2015 and say, 'Hey let us do it.'"

The league of cities also wants the Legislature to change the way localities are allowed to prohibit retail sales.

Now, the November 2016 general election is the first in which voters could ban retail sales in their city or county. That has upset some city officials, who note that the OLCC could start handing out retail licenses as early as January of that year.

Winkels said this sets up a scenario in which a city could face liability for shutting down an existing business. At a minimum, he'd like to allow earlier elections. Ideally, he said, city and county governing boards should be able to make the decision.

Dave Kopilak, a Portland lawyer who drafted Measure 91, said retailers would be hesitant to open up a business in a community if they knew there was strong political support for banning retail sales.

He said sponsors wanted to restrict votes on retail bans to general elections to ensure that it attracted a strong voter turnout.

Kopilak said he didn't think city or county officials should be able to act on their own to ban marijuana sales. After all, he said, only the voters can decide to ban local sales of alcohol.

-- Jeff Mapes

Irratating to say the least. I hope the legislature listens to the voters...No local taxes applied. The OLCC didn't allow it for alcohol so they should not even allow the suggestion to be broached.
 
Medusa

Medusa

Trichome Engineer
Supporter
4,713
263
Unfortunately if you don't let the counties make money they will disallow any disp ... perhaps after the us market opens a all out lawsuit will be filed on the illegal taxation they have done ...but alot of lawyers will be the ones with there pockets full .... Pers is creating quite the hole...no state should gaurantee 9% on retirement earnings it cannot be sustained ..so Oregon will plug along in the hole for another 20- 30 yrs while the state workers kick back making $125,000 a yr in retirement .....here lies your greed .. I would too ... keep electing those scum ... My Rant is over M
 
Last edited:
Kendo

Kendo

410
143
I have been telling my disp owner friends that they had not seen the final tally. They were celebrating the low state tax burden but had not considered the local tax burden that WILL be implemented. The localities have the upper hand, and lets face it,$$$ is the driving force, asking localities to open their doors to Cannabis will require the carrot of tax $$
 
bagseedwndrs

bagseedwndrs

150
63
Of course ... ... I know X will be there and hopefully CSI Humbolt... they said over 500 vendors ... in little old Oregon ...bout time ... :)
I really wanna go to meet bog or mrs. bog. a i ve never been to an event like that i bet its everything i dream of.all the people the product the ambiance i need to start looking for a ride. fuck i need a car...
 
bagseedwndrs

bagseedwndrs

150
63
Where are you at? I'm sure a ride can be managed by the time this rolls around!
Washington bro. yeah im sure ill make it there somehow. Ive just realized csi hum is another legend i would gladly talk to. imagine 500 vendors... where you at? @Coir
 
Coir

Coir

584
143
Washington bro. yeah im sure ill make it there somehow. Ive just realized csi hum is another legend i would gladly talk to. imagine 500 vendors... where you at? @Coir
SW WA about 45 minutes from Portland. I'm sure I will be heading to the cup when it happens if you need a ride and are anywhere close.
 
ETak

ETak

7
3
@Jboys3__Excellent point Jboys3, Thankyou,

Quote: Jboys3 said
"I hope the legislature listens to the voters...No local taxes applied. The OLCC didn't allow it for alcohol so they should not even allow the suggestion to be broached."

I agree with you, unfortunately the subject has been broached, those are the facts. and it will continue to be broached unless the legislators are reminded quickly and continuously in whatever terms are required to get the point across to them, (hopefully in a civil manner) that what the people voted for was Measure 91 and not Amendments to Measure 91.


Jboys3 said: "I Hope the legislature listens to the voters..."

Nothing personal Jboys3, because i'm on our side too, but if you "hope" in one hand and shit in the other hand what are you left with ? A hopeless shitty mess.

So, I believe another fact they need to be reminded of constantly is that the people still in fact do vote them into office and not the League of Oregon Cities, nor the Cities or Counties and it would behoove them to listen or they could find themselves out of a job............. (Hope, Hopeful, Hopefully)

Its OK to question Authority,
Throw out the bullshit propaganda that its unpatriotic to question authority, as its just the opposite of what the majority of us have been told and its usually done for self serving reasons $$$$
Democracy can work if we have the courage and want it badly enough.
We don't have to be afraid, its better to rock the boat now then to let it sink.
Just be clear, direct and to the point and do it respectfully and do it repeatedly until they get the message. Remember most of these people want to be re-elected, they thrive on power and authority.

Cause guess what, if we don't Question Authority now, to me it is the same thing as giving these so called Authority figures that are attempting to change the
Measure 91 majority vote with their greedy $$$$ Amendments our permission.
and if we just let them roll over us without challenging them, we deserve it, so we don't have valid reasons to come crying.
No one said it would be easy and this is just a continuation of a multi battle war.

The choice is ours to Win or Lose, just my opinion @ETak
 
ETak

ETak

7
3

@Medusa,
love your choice of words, certainly works for me @ETak

Medusa said:
Quote: "Unfortunately if you don't let the counties make money they will disallow any disp ... perhaps after the us market opens a all out lawsuit will be filed on the illegal taxation they have done" ...
....." keep electing those scum"


Definition of Scum
sourced from the Urban Dictionary
SCUM
(adj.) Possibly the worst word you can have your name associated with.


It is hard to define the word, but it is basically used to describe someone so disgraceful that they are seen as the lowest form of life. "Worthlessness", "waste of skin", "dirt". "Nothing". Far worse than most other insults, where the victim is often just referred to as genetalia.

The fact that "scum" is a non-swear, and seen as perfectly acceptable English, makes it even more demeaning and offensive. If you are condemned as a "cunt" or a "fucktard", then you are simply being attacked with cliché profanity, used spontaneously and with no particular venom or thought. "Scum", however, is usually only used in exclusive conditions where it is warranted the only word for the job, and is intended to make the recipient feel like the lowest of the low.

Examples:
"You are scum."
"Absolute scum."

_____________________________________________________


@Medusa, I welcome this type of "Rant" anytime, anywhere.___@ETak
That wasn't a rant to me, that was about intention, truth telling, facts & opinion.
.......Plain & Simple, direct and to the point.

Medusa said:
Quote: ... My Rant is over M

Definition of Rants
sourced from the Urban Dictionary
To suddenly give a long speech that usually results in rambling and repeating of nonsense.
I shall now tell you how awful rants are, they are the bain of humans. If rants were plentiful humans would become extinct! Extinct I say!! Humans also need to pick cherries with automated cherry pickers as this results in more plentiful harvests resulting in more people whos brains have been nourished by cherries and intelligent cherry nourished people are less likely to rant than those raised on blueberry farms, because they are subjected to blueberry fumes, and they are toxic, like non-toxic glue. Made of horse hooves. Horses can also help prevent rants as you cannot rant while riding a horse and you can't ride a horse if there aren't horses because they have all been made into non-toxic glue.

OK folks, Do we understand rants now?
Just my VHO_________ETak
 
Top Bottom