Your browser is no longer supported.

Please upgrade to a modern browser.

Top Menu

5% Discount on Legal Highs, Salvia Divinorum and Everything Else From The Coffeesh0p

Can I Get High Legally?

By John Clarke
Legal Highs

Yep!

Last Thursday at 9pm, a pro­gramme being shown on BBC3 called “Can I get High Legally?” caught my interest. Not having a TV ourselves, we patiently waited for it to become avail­able on iPlayer whilst the orders poured in — a massive amount, far more than usual. Some­thing in the pro­gramme had obvi­ously made legal highs seem pretty appealing. Or had it?

Our orders per day. Guess when the documentary was on.

Our orders per day. Guess when the doc­u­mentary was on.

George Lamb was presenting, which made me wary from the outset. What can this über-​​trendy, slightly poncy met­ro­sexual remin­is­cent of other Camden boys like Noël Fielding and Russell Brand have to say about the science and safety of legal highs? Well, as it turns out, nothing. The descrip­tion of the pro­gramme on the BBC website claims that “George Lamb dives into the world of legal highs, meeting users and sellers, finding out why they are legal and if this means they can also be called safe”. In actual fact, the pro­gramme con­sisted mainly of Lamby boy wan­dering round Camden (where else?) looking shocked. You can buy legal highs in shops? There’s proper web­sites selling them? It all actu­ally looks pro­fes­sional? That’s because they’re legal, idiot. We’ve already estab­lished that. Unless he feels that the purpose of the pro­gramme was to answer the ques­tion in the title, which seems pretty point­less — “Can I get high legally?” — well yes, of course you can.

This brings me on to my first major issue with the pro­gramme (and believe me, there were many, but I’ll only rant about a select few here); where were the men­tions of alcohol and tobacco? They lit­er­ally did not get men­tioned once, which I think is pretty appalling. Holy shit George, did you know you can just wander in off the street and buy a pint? And there’s proper shops selling it? Regard­less of one’s opinion about the “dif­fer­ences” between drugs and alcohol, it is a mind altering sub­stance that you can buy legally and with minimal restric­tions, just like the legal highs George Lamb is hor­ri­fied to see avail­able, dis­played in attractive ways and with nice pic­tures on the packets to entice cus­tomers. What about the Martini advert with George Clooney and all the sexy women? Why is that dif­ferent? What about all the casual ref­er­ences equating getting drunk with having a good time in popular media? Why is all of that OK, in fact so OK that it doesn’t even get a mention? People just do not see that intox­ic­a­tion is intox­ic­a­tion, and if one kind is accept­able then we need to think about why. George Lamb voices his con­cerns throughout the pro­gramme that legal highs are so dan­gerous pre­cisely because they’re legal — because that means everyone thinks they’re safe and isn’t careful enough. I think that is a valid point, but where it applies most strongly is with alcohol and tobacco, sub­stances that most people don’t even con­sider to be “drugs”. How many deaths are there per year from legal highs, George, com­pared to alcohol and tobacco?

These are the kinds of ques­tions he should have been answering, which brings me onto my second point. It’s hard to pin down, but there was just a general lack of sub­stance. Where were the stat­istics, the graphs, the inter­views lasting more than 20 seconds, the facts? This pro­gramme, these ques­tions, had such poten­tial, but it just wasn’t in depth enough. He doesn’t ask the right ques­tions, he mis­un­der­stands or mis­rep­res­ents (or both) the points made by the experts and he whizzes through the whole thing not really cov­ering any­thing. They set up a night out, for example, where a group of three stu­dents were to take some legal highs and record their exper­i­ences throughout the night. What we in fact got was three sweaty faced goons grin­ning into the camera, edited with some generic “rave” footage. What did they take? Pretty basic ques­tion. How much did they take? Were they drinking alcohol? How long after inges­tion was the footage filmed? Why didn’t the BBC choose to show more than 3 or 4 seconds of footage at a time so that we could actu­ally get a look at them — were they sweating, slur­ring, deli­rious? We didn’t get the answer to any of these ques­tions and con­sid­ering that this was presented as a case study of people taking legal highs, I think it’s pretty shocking journ­alism. But perhaps I’m being unfair — we did learn during a meeting with Lamby in a greasy spoon the next day that they felt a bit rough. Well big woop.

Another massive mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion was the case study involving Guernsey. Guernsey, for those of you who don’t know, is mega strict on illegal drugs. This legis­la­tion has obvi­ously been highly suc­cessful as they now have a massive problem with legal highs, as the teen­agers and young adults (because it is mostly them) can’t get hold of the real stuff. George Lamb didn’t quite seem to be able to make his mind up here — whilst he explains how unusual the situ­ation is there and seems pretty sure that it’s because of the super tough drug laws, he then ques­tions teen­agers on the street and expects us to be shocked that they’ve all tried legal highs. Of course they’ve all tried legal highs, they all take them there, that’s the whole point and why you went Guernsey! It’s not rep­res­ent­a­tional of the pop­u­la­tion at large so I really didn’t get the point of this section at all. His con­des­cending atti­tude towards users of legal highs also really pissed me off. He got down with the kids and joined them in their car whilst they smoked some kind of legal smoking mix (prob­ably Spice) from their hand-​​crafted Coke bottle bong (we’ve all been there) and ques­tioned them about the safety of what they were doing. When they replied that they were aware that it was risky, he was incred­u­lous — fancy knowing that some­thing you’re doing is risky and doing it anyway, how stupid, right? Right? Well, no. Unless Lamby boy’s never crossed the road, got in a car, lit up a fag or basic­ally done any­thing ever, he’s being a total hypo­crite. As it turns out, he actu­ally admits to having taken cocaine and ecstasy during the program, making his hypo­crisy even more apparent. Being aware of the risks of some­thing and doing it anyway doesn’t make you an idiot, it means you’ve con­sidered the risks and decided they’re minimal, or at least minimal com­pared to the bene­fits. Yes, an aero­plane might crash, but you want to go on holiday, and it’ll prob­ably be fine. People make these kind of decisions every day.

Another aspect of the pro­gramme boasted about in the descrip­tion is that Lamb talks to “sellers”. Well, he actu­ally talks to one, and he was a com­plete arse­hole about it. He wanders into shops and rings people up wanting to talk to them on camera right now, and then treats it as some kind of admis­sion of wrong-​​doing when they say no. Finally, Chris from Pot​seeds​.co​.uk, a friend of ours, agrees to talk to him and George is off to Pot­seeds HQ in Totnes. The way it is edited makes Chris look like a lone man who sells drugs out of a shed, rather than the manager of a busy, suc­cessful and com­pletely above board busi­ness, and Lamb’s tone is mocking throughout. He picks up packets off the shelves, laughing at their funny names, in a scene akin to a crap drugs edu­ca­tion lesson at school where you’re warned off drugs as “only dopes smoke dope”. The worst bit though is when Lamb chooses to assess what Chris has said in the voi­ceover, recorded after he’s left Totnes, rather than addressing his cri­ti­cisms to him when he has a chance to reply. Chris hes­it­ated, we are told, which obvi­ously makes him a bastard and a liar and a down­right hor­rible human being (or words to that effect). Or, it just makes him a normal man who isn’t trained for TV, who knows every single syl­lable he utters will be ana­lysed to death and used against himself and the entire legal highs industry.

The final bit of the pro­gramme that really got my goat actu­ally had the poten­tial to be very inter­esting. Lamb goes to speak to an actual sci­entist (just one though — tox­ic­o­lo­gist Dr. John Ramsey from St George’s College at the Uni­ver­sity of London) about legal highs and he is told that MDMA is prob­ably safer than many legal highs as it’s been around for such a long time we know how to deal with it. Well, I totally agree — pure, pharmaceutical-​​grade MDMA is almost def­in­itely safer than legal highs. In fact, it’s one of the safest drugs around, so saying that it’s safer than legal highs is kind of a non point — it’s also safer than alcohol. But, more import­antly, pure, pharmaceutical-​​grade MDMA is not what we should be talking about here — it’s not what is avail­able in clubs or pubs or whatever to the average cus­tomer. Ecstasy, MDMA’s dirty little sister, is what must be con­sidered when you compare illegal drugs to legal drugs, as that is the altern­ative. Even street bought MDMA is nowhere near 100% MDMA. This leads me on to the final, and in my opinion, worst moment of this doc­u­mentary, where George Lamb fucks up yet another incred­ible chance to actu­ally learn some­thing from someone who knows what they’re talking about. He’s talking to Matt Bowden (who we also spoke to later for comment), the guy who made BZP big in New Zealand, as a reac­tion to the massive crystal meth problem they have there. Matt cat­egor­ic­ally says that BZP is not “safe”, it’s “safer”, but if people are going to do it, “safer” is better than nothing — my sen­ti­ment exactly. At this point Lamb demon­strates a display of ignor­ance of Brass Eye pro­por­tions when he says that he’s been told that “taking an ecstasy” is safer than taking legal highs. F.U.K.D. & B.O.M.B.D. By this point I was prac­tic­ally screaming at the screen, and I bet I don’t need to tell you why as I’m sure you all have a much higher IQ than Lamby evid­ently does — the sci­entist said MDMA, for christ’s sake, not ecstasy, and that’s a pretty fucking important dif­fer­ence. After this, Lamb takes salvia and makes a total tit of himself but I was sick of his bull­shit by then (although I did notice that he didn’t even explain what salvia was… con­sid­ering that he’d been talking about syn­thetic legal highs all the way through it might be important to mention that salvia is a plant, and is in no way a legal high).

I had many more com­plaints about this pro­gramme, from the trivial (like Lamby’s stupid highlights/​streaks/​whatever the hell they are) to the not-​​so-​​trivial (what about all the legal highs out there that aren’t syn­thetic? They didn’t get a mention at all, other than salvia which he didn’t dif­fer­en­tiate from everything else he’d been talking about), but those are the main ones. I wouldn’t mind if the pro­gramme had con­cluded that legal highs were all bad, as long as it was based on some inter­esting, reli­able evid­ence. As it was, there wasn’t really a con­clu­sion at all, and I felt like I hadn’t learned any­thing. There were some inter­esting ideas (fol­lowing users on a night out, for example) and some very inter­esting con­trib­utors. It’s a great topic and, as legal highs become more pre­valent, some­thing that needs to be dis­cussed, but unin­formed dirge like this con­trib­utes nothing other than yet more mis­un­der­stand­ings. Given the BBC’s track record, with pro­grammes like Horizon defin­it­ively stating that popular legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are more dan­gerous than MDMA and can­nabis (watch that episode here), I had high hopes that this pro­gramme would give a well researched, bal­anced insight into the legal highs industry. Instead, we got a over­grown gawky teen­ager mar­vel­ling at “drug­gies” and con­sist­ently boasting about his own sup­posed exper­i­ence with illegal drugs (which did nothing but make him look like a hypo­crite), topped off with an image of salvia use no more insightful than “woah, man”. Dis­ap­pointing work, BBC (But thanks for the extra sales ;-))

Hope­fully I can find a video of this some­where to post up here, but no luck yet.

UPDATE: Here it is! Unfor­tu­nately, the site it’s hosted on will prob­ably try and sell you a girl­friend or some­thing before you can actu­ally watch the video. Click the red play button and close the pop up window if one appears. Then, the play button turns green. Click it again and you can watch the entire thing:

20 Responses to Can I Get High Legally?

  1. PoisonedV says:

    I can’t say I’m too sur­prised after seeing an ‘invest­ig­ative’ report on salvia every other week, or reports pro­claiming the danger of spice gold (Before it was illegal in the US, of course)

  2. happyhigh says:

    I suppose there was no way that any­thing good was going to come from this ‘doc­u­mentary’ (except for your extra sales ;) ), if the BBC were to say any­thing good about legal highs it would be all over the news the next day that the BBC wants your kids to get high.

    The bit about Salvia was what annoyed me most, I hardly ever see Salvia mar­keted as a legal high, and on the web­sites I have come across, they nor­mally state the effects and what to expect.

    I have tried Salvia myself and I would never describe the high as a ‘buzzy buzz’ like Lamb did. He also says 5x is the least potent when plain leaf is.

    And the con­stant com­par­ison of legal highs to sweets, I think sweets are easier for a child to get hold of.

    Here is the link to iPlayer if that is what you are looking for.
    http://​bbc​.co​.uk/​i​/​l​j​x​k3/

  3. Ken says:

    Hi Sync

    Hope you are doing well..

    In a world that is dis­con­nected from spir­itual roots, soul truth, and phys­ical evid­ence, this blog is very good.

    Greed, power and indi­vidual ego import­ance have created a skew in how the “afraid mind” reports evid­ence. ?? Evid­ence? Hard to come by when you don’t under­stand the animal.

    Legal highs? WTF is legal highs? A group of money grub­bing low moral gang bangers? Is this the world we live in? YES !!!

    Well I say F*** legal and F*** the vampires.

    No tax, no law, and no BS. Time to break on through to the other side and ride the snake to the unchangeble shift of time coming to drown this current train of thought based on Network gay fag mentality.

  4. Synchronium says:

    Happy­High: Thanks for the link. Totally agree about the salvia thing. That was ridicu­lous. I guess that was about as pos­itive as it could be con­sid­ering how neg­li­gible the neg­at­ives were.

    Ken: are you legally high right now?! That post was by the misses btw, not myself. :)

  5. Ken says:

    Hi Sync,

    Actu­ally I have main­tained an ongoing legal high for over a year to exper­i­ence and exper­i­ment daily to find any changes in mindset, etc.

    I have found I am very calm and at peace, yet I do get very dis­turbed that the vast majority of the pop­u­la­tion is still being fed vomit as the truth.

    If I could learn to share my opin­ions and exper­i­ences with better writing (good journ­alism), then I am sure these embar­rising posts would cease. ;)

  6. Al says:

    Thanks for this blog! Very inform­ative, let’s hope Salvia remains legal! The situ­ation in the US is kinda 50/​50, which is a lot better than 1000 lol Basic­ally, some states are banning it out­right, while other are saying, no way, we are keeping the herb legal because of its medi­cinal poten­tial and low abuse poten­tial. I wish they’d just ban it to those under 18, that way there won’t be any outrage and the herb will remain legal for the rest of us. That’s how they did in Cali­fornia and Maine, con­sid­ering it in Arizona, Texas and Maryland.

    Just wanted to add, for those in the US, look into the K2 herbal mix, it’s truly an incred­ible blend: http://​www​.salviaso​ciety​.org/​k2/

    And for those in the UK, Cof​feeSh0p​.com is your best bet! Excel­lent company!!

  7. sam (I know you off drugs forum btw synchronium) says:

    I think the one good point made in this program was that legal highs are fairly unreg­u­lated, as much so as I’d say some street drugs. Because (and I con­tribute this to pro­hib­i­tion itself) is because these aren’t sold for human con­sump­tion the reg­u­la­tion them around them is pretty lax, and because of the grey area leg­ality of such chem­icals often the chem­ical often isn’t listed on the packet. which could bring prob­lems in certain situ­ations i.e para­medics needing to know what someone has taken. I’m in two minds as to whether legal highs are such a safe altern­at­ives. I think research chem­icals are the safer option, becase although the chem­icals are fairly new we at least know what chem­ical we’re taking whereas when I buy a legal high all I know that I’m taking is “Doves” or “strong as hell” I’ve got know Idea whether these contain mephed­rone or some MDMA ana­logue I’ve never heard of. If I bought a research chem­ical I at least know I’m getting BK-​​MDMA or 2-​​ci.

    I agree lamb spouted some utter shite throughout and at one point sat with a girl talking about why legal highs should be banned while a bar was serving a legal high to cus­tomers without george and irrit­ating, kill joy chubby girl paying an atten­tion whatsoever.

    On the point about MDMA being safer than legal highs, I found it hypo­cryt­ical later when George say “Ecstasy is safer than legal highs” I actu­ally laughed because he doesn’t know that at least half if not more Ecstasy tablets contain no MDMA and infact mCPP, BZP etc just cut down legal highs.

    Obvi­ously as far as guernsey goes even with the unkown safety of JWH-​​018 etc smoking that has got to be better than the nasty con­coc­tion of chem­icals and crap that make up the altern­ative to Spice: Soapbar. AFIK guernsey rarely if ever see’s decent skunk.

    I don’t think out­lawing these legal highs is at all what’s required what we need is tighter reg­u­la­tion not the com­plete unreg­u­la­tion that pro­hib­i­tion would entail.

    It would be nice, in an ideal world, that we could walk into a chemist and buy MDMA/​MDxx, Mephed­rone, and the rest made by pharmecutical com­panies with an ingre­di­ants list, exact dosages, wieght of pills and a little booklet to tell us all the risk and side effects to look out for.

    Did anyone notice that during the inter­view with the “psy­chonaught” that the edit came just as the guy men­tioned reg­u­la­tion. Infact the editing throughout the show as syn­chronium says was awful and com­pletely mis­rep­res­ented the people who gave opions other than “legal highs are bad lets ban them”

    Finally goerge lamb can’t pull bongs for shit, he barely even inhaled any smoke (and the one where he felt some effect the bong was still full of smoke, my girl­friend can pull bongs better than he can), I think if I took ecstasy with goerge lamb I’d end up twat­ting him, he’s so irrit­ating he makes my skin crawl.

  8. Synchronium says:

    Sam: Inter­esting points about the rarity of good weed in Guernsey and the editing.

    One point that pissed me off espe­cially was around the same time as that inter­view. They cut to some footage of patients with a con­di­tion similar to Parkinson’s. As far as I know, the only drug to ever cause rapid-​​onset Par­kin­so­nian symp­toms is MPTP, which is a com­pletely dif­ferent kettle of fish. For anyone that doesn’t know, here’s a quote from my essay on Species Dif­fer­ences:

    One final example would be the varying MPTP tox­icity between species. MPTP can be formed as an unin­tended byproduct in the man­u­fac­ture of MPPP, a syn­thetic opioid with great poten­tial for abuse. MPTP on its own is not harmful, but MPP+, the natural meta­bolite of MPTP, is a potent neur­o­toxin. MPP+ is pro­duced via MonoAmine Oxidase B in neuroglia and the capil­lary endothelia com­prising the blood-​​brain barrier, and results in rapid-​​onset Par­kin­so­nian symp­toms barely indis­tin­guish­able from typical Parkinson’s disease. These symp­toms are also reduced by L-​​DOPA, a drug com­monly used in Parkinson’s disease. Rats, however, are almost entirely immune to MPTP tox­icity, most likely due to a dif­ferent level of expres­sion of MAO B. Mice, on the other hand, do produce MPP+, but clear it from their brain in a matter of hours, unlike the primate brain, in which clear­ance can take days.

    In my opinion, the illegal man­u­fac­ture of an opioid agonist to feed an addic­tion is quite dif­ferent from the stim­u­lant and hal­lu­cino­genic research chem­icals which are com­monly avail­able. While no actual medical research has been done, a lot of usage data is avail­able from which we can estimate their rel­ative dangers. Long term data might not be avail­able but what about recently mar­keted phar­ma­ceut­icals? A lot of these research chem­icals have more long term data asso­ci­ated with them than the latest medicines.

  9. PUFF420 says:

    I live in Aus­tralia, and Salvia is illegal here, but I can buy PUFF, a com­pletely HERBAL based con­coc­tion of Zornia lati­folia, Lagochilus inebrians, Scu­tel­laria nana, Pedicu­laris Densi­flora and Eschscholzia lem­monii. I do not know what these herbs are, though I know some are Skullcap, Indian Warrior and Wild Lettuce (I think). I just want to know that although herbal, this product is safer than can­nabis…
    Haha I sound like a fuck­head, but I am just curious, and para­noid i guess. Could anyone help me out?
    Thanks buds,
    Ciao!

  10. PUFF420 says:

    Haha love it though :-)

  11. yourmum says:

    he didnt say boshing random mdma pills is safer, he said mdma is safer.
    it is
    if its pure, it is safer, its been doc­u­mented more, researched more.
    to be honest there was a lot of waffle, but he is right, people have no idea what are in them, and the worst thing is
    they are the reason why the pill market have gone to ShiT. because people are making them legally and them passing them off as ecstacy.

  12. Krissy Mckale says:

    I think here are better things to do with a life than examine the minu­tiae of a pro­gramme about legal highs.
    Why have all this shit in your head at all?
    Any sub­stance with the poten­tial and user based like­li­hood of dam­aging brain­cells is plain bumb, legal highs, illegal highs, excess alcohol the lot.who’s kidding who here? behind the ‘legal drug friendly’ approaches and opin­ions are lots of nasty little cap­it­al­ists with either a dis­regard for ethical beha­viour or a damaged vision of what is ‘ok’ due to sub­stance abuse.

  13. Jen says:

    I think every one needs to stop talking shit about some ones thoughts.

  14. J-LOC says:

    I smoke a lot of what is called in Southern Idaho as Hey­smoke or Hamster, due to its hamster bedding like appear­ence. I’m sure it con­tains the chem­ical JWH-​​018, but looks a bit dif­ferent than a few brands like Spice, Triad, and Euphoria. Basic­ally it looks more… healthy and herbal? I dont know if thats what I want to say, but with study of my side effects and per­sonal health, I’d have to say it might be better than all the other brands. Syn­thetic can­naboid is a syn­thetic drug, but still.….

  15. Tamara says:

    awwwe yes you can get high legally.. i f-​​ing loooooove K2.

  16. "Sam" says:

    [ Syn­chronium: Read “sam’s” full story Here]

    I was the last guy on the show. the para­noid delu­sional one yeh?

    What a fucking farse. I sat there an hour giving them a detailed inter­view about the state of affairs in the industry and they cut it down to fuck all and made me look like a fool.

    I warned people how dan­gerous Mephed­rone could be due to stuc­ture and dan­gerous impurities.

    I explained about GSMS /​ HPLC testing and such.

    Explained why people like me use drugs and what it can help with and guide people.

    he was very under­sanding and suprised I had an answer for _​everything_​

    Yet they cut me down and put in ONE reply to a ques­tion which was not even the correct answer to it.

    They cut me down so much cause they KNEW I was rite. They couldnt use the material in there show it made too much sense. I tried to get the recording after­wrads but no luck.

    Fucking — Farse

    I have lost faith in the BBC they can go fuck themselves.

  17. Jack says:

    Haha, just watched this, it’s dis­graceful…
    Ironic how some of the inter­views were filmed in pubs…
    Rant rant rant…

  18. Paton says:

    Ah I’m not gonna bother watching it.

    I was thinking, “hmmm who is george lamb anyway…google…oh no”.

    Let’s not bother, I’ve seen him on tv before and the way he presents himself and stuff is awful.

    You summed up the show for me in that post anyway, what was said and what should’ve been said.

    Sounds like all it needed was a better presenter.

  19. The DSR(difinitive spice recipe) says:

    The D.S.R.(definitive spice recipe)

    P=J/H

    p=potency
    j=jw18
    h=filler herb

    Tools and ingredi­ents:
    jwh-018(1 gram)
    HDPE small spray bottle(walmart)
    Scale that meas­ures mil­li­grams accurately(mine does not)
    pyrex meas­uring cup(walmart)
    long, glass bowl or glass baking dish(anything will do if you can spread your herbs out.
    100% pure acetone(I used walmart nail polish remover)
    Herb or filler(I used damiana)
    [you can pick up damiana at your local mexican store, they have racks with a whole bunch of spices and powders. It costs about $1 per 7grams(quarter oz)] I also found worm­wood but i do not recom­mend it, it smells and tastes nasty or, order it online which is alot cheaper if you can find
    a vendor with no or low ship­ping rates.

    Pre­paring to make your own blend:
    first you must measure out your amounts of herb and jw.
    I figured out P=J/H

    p=potency
    j=jw18
    h=filler herb

    the ratio of jwh-​​018 to herb is the key to how potent you like your spice. If your a newbie, maybe .025 potency is okay.
    1÷39=0.025 if your an advanced smoker and have a high tol­er­ance to jwh 1÷22=0.045, Its not for the beginner.

    I dis­solved .3mg of jw into 10-​​15ml of ace. I put the ace into my pyrex meas­uring cup and then put in the jw in and mixed it, i didnt mix it for very long just long enough for it to dis­solve, about 2 – 3 minutes
    then I put the mix into my little HDPE(walmart)spray bottle
    I spread my 14 grams of herb in my long glass baking dish(i dont know what the sig­ni­fic­ance of glass as the dish but I decided to use glass).
    I tried to spread it as flat as pos­sible and then I started spraying it with the solu­tion.
    you really dont want to sat­urate it, so thats why its important to use a minimal amount of acetone. my spray bottle will not work prop­erly with less than about 20ml.
    some .025 will provoke a buzz in anybody so dont overdo it
    If your going to use a whole gram or more, try to use as little ace as pos­sible. just enough to coat your herbs. I know other posts say 4ml but ive found that impossible.
    15-​​25ml max per gram. and thats still a little much but many
    spray bottles cannot work prop­erly without at least 20ml of liquid.

  20. amy says:

    i found, after watching the video and real­izing all your points for myself, that you are com­pletely and utterly right about the pro­gramme. its basic­ally george lamb repeating himself over and over again. not good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

%d bloggers like this: