Dude, as long as the feds don't recognize a state's right to regulate the sale and consumption of reefer within its borders, I would avoid it.

There are borders on the bottom, around the sink and up top (green leafy stuff going on). 

The proceeds may go to do good but it's the method of promoting gambling by a church that's rather questionable.

I equate it to gambling and have since my first investment in some comics at age 7 and my first gambling expedition at age 6 to south Lake Tahoe.

But with 25 years and about 6 different areas I still say it is a gamble that may not be worth the risk.

If you actually look into what Greg Rogers and Vincent Polisi are saying they are not only correct, they are trying to warn people about the possible legal ramifications of doing things illegally or even bordering on illegal. 

So it is a gamble but it is a gamble in your favor.  

At this point if you're banking on substantial appreciation you're taking a gamble.

Private loan packages are a gamble on whether a disclosure of this nature would be present.I think the more shocking concept here is the borrower denied you.

I've heard that it might've stemmed from a billboard near the border that said something to the effect, "Welcome to Oregon, now go home", but not sure if that's just an old rumor or if it was true?