E Cigarettes

by Major Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:12 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35216804

If they wanna alter things so sune it tells me they did not properly investigate in the beginning.

by Original Quill Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:45 pm

E-cigs are tobacco in another form. If people want to commit suicide, let them. They do the same to themselves with soda pop and candy.

But smoking involves others. Imagine if you forced your neighbor to down a Coca-Cola whenever you popped-a-top. When your reach touches your neighbor's nose, is when the law should get involved.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:09 pm

I've used an e-cig for about five years now. Judging from my own health, they are safer than smoking -- they pretty much can't help but be. We're not supposed to inhale smoke.

Does that mean they're perfectly safe? Of course not. But if you're unlucky enough to be addicted to nicotine, the world's most addictive substance, you're surely better off with an e-cig.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:E-cigs are tobacco in another form. If people want to commit suicide, let them. They do the same to themselves with soda pop and candy.

But smoking involves others. Imagine if you forced your neighbor to down a Coca-Cola whenever you popped-a-top. When your reach touches your neighbor's nose, is when the law should get involved.

Do you know when you smell someone else's farts, actual particles of feaces are being forced up your nose?

Perhaps you want a law for this also?

As for e-cigs, I can't inhale the damn things without coughing. Apparently I need a more VG blend, so I might try that.

by Victorismyhero Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:14 pm

Typical lefty response to someything people might "enjoy"

I DONT DO IT AND DONT SEE WHY YOU SHOULD EITHER

BAN IT BANIT BANITBANITBANIT (OR BETTER STILL TAX THE ARSE OFF IT)

Once...just for once. why dont the barstewards fcuk off and mind their own

BTW that mode of transport you all love so much that you dare not even impose reasonable ownership restrictions on and are happy to let kill and main 1000's every year.....

well that does more damage to folks health than sitting next to a "vape-er" Shocked

you know that new cheap furniture you bought, with that wonderful "new furniture smell"...its killing you quicker than 10 vaper-ers

That "new car smell" you might as well SMOKE 200 packs of 20 cigaretts as ride arond in that for a week....

But no....

I dont do it so neither should you ....

well......... E Cigarettes 4233679493

do one

by eddie Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:32 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Original Quill wrote:E-cigs are tobacco in another form. If people want to commit suicide, let them. They do the same to themselves with soda pop and candy.

But smoking involves others. Imagine if you forced your neighbor to down a Coca-Cola whenever you popped-a-top. When your reach touches your neighbor's nose, is when the law should get involved.

Do you know when you smell someone else's farts, actual particles of feaces are being forced up your nose?

Perhaps you want a law for this also?

As for e-cigs, I can't inhale the damn things without coughing. Apparently I need a more VG blend, so I might try that.

Hahahahahahahaha I actually laughed out loud at that fart comment!! E Cigarettes 2581891615

I use an ecig - I'm on the lowest mg of nicotine there is - I've never smoked cigarettes, I think they're horrible.
I prefer a weed joint though. I treat myself to one of these every so often

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:43 pm

eddie wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Do you know when you smell someone else's farts, actual particles of feaces are being forced up your nose?

Perhaps you want a law for this also?

As for e-cigs, I can't inhale the damn things without coughing. Apparently I need a more VG blend, so I might try that.

Hahahahahahahaha I actually laughed out loud at that fart comment!!

I use an ecig - I'm on the lowest mg of nicotine there is - I've never smoked cigarettes, I think they're horrible.
I prefer a weed joint though. I treat myself to one of these every so often

let's see which one Quill prefers. Nicotine or someone else's feaces.

I prefer weed too but I would prefer to cut the smoking. Only if they had a weed e-juice. I've seen a YouTube video on how to make some but need the time to actually do it.

by eddie Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:46 pm

Zack you can buy an ecig thing that you can put weed in or solid
Trouble is, it burns the weed too fast but you're cutting out the tobacco, not tried solid as can't seem to get any, but that would burn better IMO

I got mine for £40 but wish I'd got a dearer one that actually vapes the weed and not burn it?

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:48 pm

THC e-liquid is pretty readily available in the U.S. -- or at least that's what this guy I know told me Wink

by eddie Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:55 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:THC e-liquid is pretty readily available in the U.S. -- or at least that's what this guy I know told me

Divulge further...

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:09 pm

eddie wrote:Zack you can buy an ecig thing that you can put weed in or solid
Trouble is, it burns the weed too fast but you're cutting out the tobacco, not tried solid as can't seem to get any, but that would burn better IMO

I got mine for £40 but wish I'd got a dearer one that actually vapes the weed and not burn it?

There is a way to extract the thc from the solid - like canna-butter.

https://youtu.be/G0VirUkj8_4

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:10 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:THC e-liquid is pretty readily available in the U.S. -- or at least that's what this guy I know told me

In the states where it's legal, you can get all sorts of non-smoking alternatives.

Just waiting for New York to legalise it.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:49 pm

eddie wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:THC e-liquid is pretty readily available in the U.S. -- or at least that's what this guy I know told me

Divulge further...

Let's just say when I went to Colorado a few years back I got to sample some -- it's really powerful! Our medical marijuana patients all get THC liquid to vape now, for the same principle that the most unhealthy part of smoking is inhaling smoke.

Like many people, Daniel believes nicotine gum is far less harmful for him than smoking. Doctors worldwide agree. By giving up cigarettes, they say, Daniel has removed at least 90% of the health risks of his habit.

Even so, the possibility that people can be addicted to nicotine, but not die from it, is at the heart of a growing debate in the scientific community. Scientists don't doubt nicotine is addictive, but some wonder if a daily dose could be as benign as the caffeine many of us get from a morning coffee.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/

That's not to say the liquids don't also contain harmful chemicals, they just contain far fewer than cigarettes do.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:E-cigs are tobacco in another form. If people want to commit suicide, let them. They do the same to themselves with soda pop and candy.

But smoking involves others. Imagine if you forced your neighbor to down a Coca-Cola whenever you popped-a-top. When your reach touches your neighbor's nose, is when the law should get involved.

Diesel vehicles pollute my air... why should I suffer because some people want to do a few more miles to the gallon...! ?

by Victorismyhero Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:58 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
eddie wrote:

Hahahahahahahaha I actually laughed out loud at that fart comment!!

I use an ecig - I'm on the lowest mg of nicotine there is - I've never smoked cigarettes, I think they're horrible.
I prefer a weed joint though. I treat myself to one of these every so often

let's see which one Quill prefers. Nicotine or someone else's feaces.

I prefer weed too but I would prefer to cut the smoking. Only if they had a weed e-juice. I've seen a YouTube video on how to make some but need the time to actually do it.

quill will prefer the faeces fuzzy...cos he's used to it................................ all the brown nosing he does.....

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:22 am

eddie wrote:Zack you can buy an ecig thing that you can put weed in or solid
Trouble is, it burns the weed too fast but you're cutting out the tobacco, not tried solid as can't seem to get any, but that would burn better IMO

I got mine for £40 but wish I'd got a dearer one that actually vapes the weed and not burn it?

Should you be advising someone in that manner? Neutral

by Major Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:27 am

Next, someone will be giving advice on 'shooting up'.
afro

by Original Quill Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:37 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
eddie wrote:

Hahahahahahahaha I actually laughed out loud at that fart comment!!

I use an ecig - I'm on the lowest mg of nicotine there is - I've never smoked cigarettes, I think they're horrible.
I prefer a weed joint though. I treat myself to one of these every so often

let's see which one Quill prefers. Nicotine or someone else's feaces.

I prefer weed too but I would prefer to cut the smoking. Only if they had a weed e-juice. I've seen a YouTube video on how to make some but need the time to actually do it.

Lol. I read this decades ago in a Dear Abby column. The smell of feces and urine do contain molecules of itself. I no longer fart in bed. Rolling Eyes

But the plain fact is that some substances do harm and kill. That's why they evacuate whole villages when trains carrying toxic substances derail. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/us/train-carrying-toxic-substance-derails-in-tennessee.html?_r=0

And smoking prohibitions are not all about ruining the fun of a few scallywags. Smokers exhale carcinogens, and if you are pissed off about a few shooters in Paris or San Bernardino, you ought be equally pissed about that lady smoking next to you at the bus stop.

As I say, if you're looking for a high, inject some heroin into your left nut or labia. All you'll get is addicted.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:E-cigs are tobacco in another form. If people want to commit suicide, let them. They do the same to themselves with soda pop and candy.

But smoking involves others. Imagine if you forced your neighbor to down a Coca-Cola whenever you popped-a-top. When your reach touches your neighbor's nose, is when the law should get involved.

Diesel vehicles pollute my air... why should I suffer because some people want to do a few more miles to the gallon...! ?

Don't despair, Tommy -- in the U.S., there are right-wingers using that pollution to harm others they perceive as liberals:

by Original Quill Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:E-cigs are tobacco in another form. If people want to commit suicide, let them. They do the same to themselves with soda pop and candy.

But smoking involves others. Imagine if you forced your neighbor to down a Coca-Cola whenever you popped-a-top. When your reach touches your neighbor's nose, is when the law should get involved.

Diesel vehicles pollute my air... why should I suffer because some people want to do a few more miles to the gallon...! ?

If you've ever read any of my posts, I have long been an advocate of public transit. I've sat on the Boards of more than one transit agencies and regional transit authorities. This gets to why.

If you want extreme views, I would be in favor of outlawing the internal combustion engine for any and all frivolous or recreational use. Only commercial and public transit vehicles, TY.

So, rest assured, your argument about diesel vehicles gets my sympathy.

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:01 pm

so here's the lefty "extremist" on view...

never mind the freedom to "go where thou will.."

the freedom to travel

you will ONLY go where "we" (the lefties) choose to take you
moreover only WHEN we choose to take you

if you happen to be disabled then you will either have to sit and fester

or pay the extortionate fees of taxi hire....

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:12 pm

The most polluting being the busses and lorries...

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:15 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so here's the lefty "extremist" on view...

never mind the freedom to "go where thou will.."

the freedom to travel

you will ONLY go where "we" (the lefties) choose to take you
moreover only WHEN we choose to take you

if you happen to be disabled then you will either have to sit and fester

or pay the extortionate fees of taxi hire....

You are so full of shit. I (as a fairly typical member of the U.S. left) advocate for clean energy -- the notion of telling other people where they can and can't go is almost physically repulsive to me. (See my views on migration.)

Your problem is that you're quite provincial.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:15 pm

I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether.

by eddie Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether.

I live pretty much on the central line and have no need for a car.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:24 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether.

I live pretty much on the central line and have no need for a car.

Exactly. The central line is the best one. I almost always lived near it when I lived in London.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:43 pm

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londons-air-as-bad-as-smoking-6959600.html

http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article.aspx?id=11798

Eddie & Raggs... look up air pollution levels on the tube... all sorts of shit floating about down there...!!!

by eddie Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:49 pm

Yuck. God that's horrible!
I remember reading somewhere that a piece of fabric from the seat of a tube train was cut away and examined. There were so many different substances in there, including semen, spit, urine, cocaine...the list was long!

I travel around the overground bit as opposed to the underground unless I am going into central London.

by Syl Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:57 pm

eddie wrote:Yuck. God that's horrible!
I remember reading somewhere that a piece of fabric from the seat of a tube train was cut away and examined. There were so many different substances in there, including semen, spit, urine, cocaine...the list was long!

I travel around the overground bit as opposed to the underground unless I am going into central London.

And that's yet another reason why I would never give up the car and use public transport....it stinks.

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:34 pm

there ARE no "public transport linke to 80% of where I want to go

AND...why SHOULD i have to pay £20-50 for delivery of say a couple of tonne of stone or whatever when I have a vehicle in which to fetch it ....?

moreoever when I want ot go out...I want to go out NOW...not in an hour when some over priced bus operator can be bothered to turn up...if at all...
and when I've done.....

I've done....and require to get off home then...not, yet again in an hour or whatever

IF indeed there IS any transport...

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether.

presumably you live your life entirely "within the box" then, within self imposed boundaries ??

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:so here's the lefty "extremist" on view...

never mind the freedom to "go where thou will.."

the freedom to travel

you will ONLY go where "we" (the lefties) choose to take you
moreover only WHEN we choose to take you

if you happen to be disabled then you will either have to sit and fester

or pay the extortionate fees of taxi hire....

You are so full of shit. I (as a fairly typical member of the U.S. left) advocate for clean energy -- the notion of telling other people where they can and can't go is almost physically repulsive to me. (See my views on migration.)

Your problem is that you're quite provincial.

and YOUR problem is....

you want what is not...

there is no (affordable, if at all) replacement for either my big white van OR OH's land rover... that has the torque weight and speed of either...
electric vehicles are still little more than pussified shadows of the real thing , fit only for "rich mens playthings"

and of course...if you run low on charge thats you buggered for how many hours whilst it recharges...IF you can find a charging point.....

thats not saying progress hasnt been made...but...what progress HAS been made ISNT sufficient ...yet.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:43 pm

Have a look at air quality down there... asbestos, pm10's, loads of other shit too!

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:44 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:so here's the lefty "extremist" on view...

never mind the freedom to "go where thou will.."

the freedom to travel

you will ONLY go where "we" (the lefties) choose to take you
moreover only WHEN we choose to take you

if you happen to be disabled then you will either have to sit and fester

or pay the extortionate fees of taxi hire....

You are so full of shit. I (as a fairly typical member of the U.S. left) advocate for clean energy -- the notion of telling other people where they can and can't go is almost physically repulsive to me. (See my views on migration.)

but clearly not to quill...who also represents himself as a lefty

Your problem is that you're quite provincial.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether.
presumably you live your life entirely "within the box" then, within self imposed boundaries ??

What do you mean? I have a car.

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
presumably you live your life entirely "within the box" then, within self imposed boundaries ??

What do you mean? I have a car.

so why make the above absurd statement? in which you are, presumably "prescribing" life for others?

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:31 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What do you mean? I have a car.

so why make the above absurd statement? in which you are, presumably "prescribing" life for others?

I made the statement because I've lived in areas where there was good public transport and I didn't need a car. You might have only lived in one place all your life but I haven't.

by Major Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:48 pm

Hey Miss Ragga.

Where is your most favoured place you ever lived?

If ya don't want to answer tiz OK.

My favs were believe it or not, as a youngster Coventry, as an adult Portugal, but I feel sure I could settle in USA if it ever come about.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:00 pm

Stormee wrote:Hey Miss Ragga.

Where is your most favoured place you ever lived?

If ya don't want to answer tiz OK.

My favs were believe it or not, as a youngster Coventry, as an adult Portugal, but I feel sure I could settle in USA if it ever come about.

I've liked most places I've lived - until I got fed up and wanted to move somewhere else. Laughing

I'm not keen on flats by the way - I like an outside area, even if it's small, but I don't like ground floor flats.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:26 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
presumably you live your life entirely "within the box" then, within self imposed boundaries ??

What do you mean? I have a car.

so why make the above absurd statement? in which you are, presumably "prescribing" life for others?

This is what she actually said:

"I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether."

How do you go from "I'm in favour of more public transport" to "prescribing life for others"?

(I tell you how -- just become a paranoid, delusional monomaniac.)

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:53 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

so why make the above absurd statement? in which you are, presumably "prescribing" life for others?

This is what she actually said:

"I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether."

How do you go from "I'm in favour of more public transport" to "prescribing life for others"?

(I tell you how -- just become a paranoid, delusional monomaniac.)

one doesnt, unless one is a trapped lefty cornered like a rat

being in favour of more public transport does not resonate with "one can almost do without a car altogether"

such a statement is a "facilitator" for the greenie/leftie who would take such a statement to mean..if one can almost do without a car, then one can damn well do without one full stop(since clearly it would be only a minor inconvenience) this is how the political mind works, examples abound across ALL political view points, across many subjects.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:03 pm

In many places in London, and for many people, it is easy to do without a car... in fact a car cab be more of an inconvenience if saddled with the costs and responsibilities etc but rarely used... and even then only getting you somewhere that public transport could easily do...

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:04 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

This is what she actually said:

"I'm in favour of more public transport myself. In areas with good public transport, one can almost do without a car altogether."

How do you go from "I'm in favour of more public transport" to "prescribing life for others"?

(I tell you how -- just become a paranoid, delusional monomaniac.)

one doesnt, unless one is a trapped lefty cornered like a rat

being in favour of more public transport does not resonate with "one can almost do without a car altogether"

such a statement is a "facilitator" for the greenie/leftie who would take such a statement to mean..if one can almost do without a car, then one can damn well do without one full stop(since clearly it would be only a minor inconvenience) this is how the political mind works, examples abound across ALL political view points, across many subjects.

I didn't say that one could do without a car because I'm in favour of public transport. I said that in some areas with good public transport, one could almost do without a car. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand. If you can get a bus with very little trouble wherever you want to go, you might not need a car. What's wrong with doing without a car anyway? There's no law to say you must have one.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:In many places in London, and for many people, it is easy to do without a car... in fact a car cab be more of an inconvenience if saddled with the costs and responsibilities etc but rarely used... and even then only getting you somewhere that public transport could easily do...

Well yes, and then there's the issue of parking. In some ways, you're quite restricted because you have to drive somewhere at a certain time in order to be sure of getting parked.

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:09 pm

such a statement is a "facilitator" for the greenie/leftie who would take such a statement to mean..if one can almost do without a car, then one can damn well do without one full stop(since clearly it would be only a minor inconvenience) this is how the political mind works, examples abound across ALL political view points, across many subjects.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THAT...is the problem.......

its a bit like saying beetlejuice 3 times

you have formulated the greenies/lefties argument for NOT ALLOWING someone in an area with good public transport to have a car....

Its ok if someone DOESNT WANT a car, but its wrong to, as certain groups would love to, make it mandatory....

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:10 pm

Lord Foul wrote:such a statement is a "facilitator" for the greenie/leftie who would take such a statement to mean..if one can almost do without a car, then one can damn well do without one full stop(since clearly it would be only a minor inconvenience) this is how the political mind works, examples abound across ALL political view points, across many subjects.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THAT...is the problem.......

its a bit like saying beetlejuice 3 times

you have formulated the greenies/lefties argument for NOT ALLOWING someone in an area with good public transport to have a car....

Its ok if someone DOESNT WANT a car, but its wrong to, as certain groups would love to, make it mandatory....

What are you on about? It's absurd that you read so much into my post. I think you misread it and now you're trying to cover that up. Laughing

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:such a statement is a "facilitator" for the greenie/leftie who would take such a statement to mean..if one can almost do without a car, then one can damn well do without one full stop(since clearly it would be only a minor inconvenience) this is how the political mind works, examples abound across ALL political view points, across many subjects.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THAT...is the problem.......

its a bit like saying beetlejuice 3 times

you have formulated the greenies/lefties argument for NOT ALLOWING someone in an area with good public transport to have a car....

Its ok if someone DOESNT WANT a car, but its wrong to, as certain groups would love to, make it mandatory....

What are you on about? It's absurd that you read so much into my post. I think you misread it and now you're trying to cover that up.

no ragga I didnt "misread it" but I am guilty of perhaps crediting you with too much depth in your posting...

I shall attempt to match the shallowness you intend in future..... Razz

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:16 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What are you on about? It's absurd that you read so much into my post. I think you misread it and now you're trying to cover that up.

no ragga I didnt "misread it" but I am guilty of perhaps crediting you with too much depth in your posting...

I shall attempt to match the shallowness you intend in future.....

It was a perfectly straightforward post. If I didn't need a car, I wouldn't have one - what would be the point in that?

by Victorismyhero Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:24 pm

hmmm..."need" is a dubious "quality" if thats the right word...

you dont , strictly speaking, "need " tits.....

but you have two of em E Cigarettes 2190311264

yeah ok I know...thats a bit different...but you see my point... E Cigarettes 2984306523

by Ben Reilly Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:05 pm

Lord Foul wrote:hmmm..."need" is a dubious "quality" if thats the right word...

you dont , strictly speaking, "need " tits.....

but you have two of em
yeah ok I know...thats a bit different...but you see my point...

Ah, it's the dreaded SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!

If they're saying you could do without a car in some places ... pretty soon they'll be saying WE'RE TAKING YOUR CAR AWAY!!!

If they're saying gay people can get married now ... pretty soon they'll be letting MEN MARRY THEIR TOASTERS!!!

by Sponsored content