There is really only one source of all the strife: Paul Stanford.
As NAO keeps chugging along, Stanford's ego endures a bruising as it becomes ever more obvious that he will be but a footnote should pot become legalized.
Should NAO qualify for the ballot, will Stanford's petulence rise to the fore, and will he pull some stunt to scuttle the vote?
The only thing I support is legalization of personal use. I'm not at all interested in some new OLCC jacking up the prices, setting lousy store hours, and pretending to save wild land and schools.
It's unfortunate that instead of judging these proposals on their relative merits, we're reduced to arguing personalities. Who do I dislike more, Paul Sanford or Wiener and Kauffman?
There is really only one source of all the strife: Paul Stanford.
As NAO keeps chugging along, Stanford's ego endures a bruising as it becomes ever more obvious that he will be but a footnote should pot become legalized.
Should NAO qualify for the ballot, will Stanford's petulence rise to the fore, and will he pull some stunt to scuttle the vote?
http://www.worldwide-marijuana-seeds.com/