|
Not quite. http://www.theweedblog.com/meet-the-plaintiffs-of-asa-v-dea/ The americans for safe access website is apparently getting hammered right now, since I guess this happened today. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...1ApaQrTFgivHHew It looks like a long drawn out legalese version of "hey you fuckers we asked in 2002 for you to look at marijuana again and you ignored us loving pay attention!"
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Asset forfeiture is awesome because you can spend it on whatever the gently caress you want. Like more drugs and hookers
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Why not, who's gonna stop them?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:cocaine 2016 Cocaine is already more legal than marijuana (Schedule II). Let that sink in: the government says that there is more medical use for cocaine (and less risk of addiction/harm) than marijuana.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:What I mean is that there's more exposure to liability for a company if you work with the public and you're stoned and let a pile of carts plow into someone's kid. Their insurance can deny their claim or they can get super sued. Accidents are fine, but accidents with stoned employees where insurance claims can be denied can royally gently caress them over. Why is the liability of a stoned cart-pusher more important than any other profession? Why doesn't anybody care about the programmer working on HIPPA-compliant hospital software or the accountant dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of investments? Their errors can affect far more than a runaway cart stack. The whole drug testing system is bullshit anyway. If you work 8 hours a day totally sober, but smoke 1 joint after work to fall asleep, you're hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:It would never occur to an employer that, because I am a recreational caffeine drinker, I might chug a dozen 5 hour energies on the job. Well now it will, thanks for cluing everybody in. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Xeom posted:Here is my prediction and people can make fun of me if they want. Really? I think the opposite will happen, but for the same reason. The existence of the internet (and to an extent, the ubiquity of smartphones) means that anyone can instantly verify claims about marijuana, or anything really. If someone tries to tell a teenager today that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine, they can click on google or wikipedia or countless other sites to check and see if that's correct. Before the internet, all kinds of bullshit was totally accepted as fact. Things that you can easily disprove with a single search, like LSD containing strychnine or ecstasy making holes in your brain. Now that we have a generation that's been weaned on wikipedia-backed research papers, combatting misinformation is easier than ever. Just tell the guy spreading factoid rumors to double-check his poo poo online.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've heard that all that really needs to happen is for cannabis to move to schedule II, thereby eliminating most funding and incentive for federal level drug enforcement. Is this true? The problem is that people don't know what the schedules actually mean; they just know that schedule I means super mega bad and illegal. Schedule I drugs (heroin, desomorphine/krokodil): high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use, lack of accepted safety under medical supervision Schedule II drugs (cocaine, fentanyl, morphine): high potential for abuse, accepted medical uses, abuse may lead to hardcore dependence Schedule III drugs (vicodin, anabolic steroids, ketamine): less potential for abuse than schedules I+II, medical uses, abuse can lead to low physical dependence or high psychological dependence Schedule IV drugs (shitload of benzodiazepines, valium, klonopin, etc): low potential abuse compared to other scheduled substances, accepted medical use, abuse has low potential for dependence At the very least, marijuana is absolutely not a schedule I drug because it has definite medical uses which the government has acknowledged by patenting the use of THC as a neuroprotectant and antioxidant that site posted:The following examples show that both nonpsychoactive cannabidiol, and psychoactive cannabinoids such as THC, can protect neurons from glutamate induced death, by a mechanism independent of cannabinoid receptors. Cannabinoids are also be shown to be potent antioxidants capable of preventing ROS toxicity in neurons. If I were forced to choose a schedule for marijuana, it would have to be schedule IV, but that would still be a stretch since marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Yeah that's all well and good for fantasy world, but here in reality we have a government that puts weed in the same category as heroin and MPPP. To change that, the government would have to admit that they were totally and utterly wrong, and that may well start some huge riots. People have had their lives destroyed from the illegality of marijuana, I doubt the family members of some stoner rotting in prison would take too kindly to big brother saying "oops our bad! guess weed's not such a life ruiner after all! (also we're not letting anyone out of jail because gently caress you)" I think the best we can hope for is making marijuana schedule IV. Everything else results in bloodshed and destruction.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...It's worth noting that claiming morphine as having accepted medical use while also claiming that heroin has no medical use is actually insane, because they are basically the same drug (opium-derived pain killers). Heroin in most applications is actually less addictive & less destructive than morphine is, but since politicians of the era were loving morphine junkies, heroin was labeled Schedule I while morphine was labeled Schedule II. It's also because the therapeutic index (the difference between effective dose and lethal dose) of heroin is waaay smaller than morphine, 10 vs 100. It's much more likely that a recreational user of heroin will overdose and die on heroin, mainly because of the uncertainty of the purity of street drugs, but also because of a handful of other factors like metabolism, tolerance, etc. Medically, there is little reason to use heroin over morphine since heroin is metabolized into morphine in the body anyway, and the risk of overdose is not worth the 10x risk of death. As far as I understand, heroin is only medically used in end-of-life cases such as terminal cancer patients for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
fade5 posted:On topic, can someone explain the big draw of smoking pot, legal or not? I may be weird, but I've just never seen the appeal of smoking (either marijuana or tobacco) at all. You can add drinking to that as well. I probably have a different perspective though; for a little background on my view, I'm enrolled in a physical conditioning class that emphasizes running and cardio exercise, and smoking anything, be it marijuana or tobacco, kills your distance running ability, so I look at it from a purely health perspective. To put it simply, it makes you feel good. The cannabinoids in marijuana start a chain reaction in the body that releases dopamine, one of the drug responsible for feeling "happy". My lung function actually improves after smoking marijuana. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the positive effects of smoking are enough to overcome both the harmful effects of smoking, and the condition I smoke for (asthma). I can absolutely breathe easier and run farther after using marijuana, which I wish I had known about 10 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:You cannot physically overdose (seriously, you can overdose on water, you literally cannot die from ingesting too much cannabis) Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. This would be horribly disgusting, and extremely expensive, so it's more of a theoretical mental exercise, but THC does have an LD50.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Pretty much all of those have to be refined in some form or fashion to become the product that is introduced to the body. Psylocybin and Mescaline easily fall into the same category as MJ and should be treated as such. My point is, what gives those rich assholes running the country any right to tell me that I can't pick up a plant growing out of the ground and ingest it. Why should refinement have anything to do with the legality of consuming the chemicals you like?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:It's a bit confusing because MJ is "prescribed" medically in a number of states. Not quite. Doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend its use. Prescribing it would mean you could go to a pharmacy and they'd have to give you some weed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:Pharmacists don't have to give you poo poo no matter what prescription you have. In Washington they do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Me buying the services of a gunman to assassinate someone is a perfectly consensual transaction. Except for the third party who didn't consent to being murdered, thus making it not perfectly consensual. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Do you want it to be legal to sell any kind of drug period or what? That's what 'selling drugs should not be a criminal offense' would tend to indicate. Not without regulation of course, but essentially yes. If you could go to a store and buy OTC heroin and be assured that it had passed FDA requirements for purity, labelling, dosage metering etc., I'm pretty sure the number of heroin-related deaths would plummet. In an ideal world where everybody becomes educated about the drugs they are going to consume, this would be the best way to combat actual crime. Unfortunately, we live in a world filled with idiots who think vaccinations cause autism and smoking pot will either kill you or cure cancer. If the US legalized all drugs, it'd probably be a week tops before some moron teenager tried to get high off of pradaxa or something and bled to death. Until we can reduce the overall stupidity of the nation, the punishment for doing drugs will be worse than the actual effects of the drug.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Sure the bible belt may take time to come around to marijuana use, but even here in Washington, land of gay weed, the vast majority of people do not want to see Krokodil available for sale at the grocery store. That's kind of a moot point because nobody would even consider using krokodil/desomorphine if heroin were legal, similar to how nobody drinks methanol since vodka is legal. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Sounds a lot closer than the schedule it's currently in? If somehow the DEA agreed to reschedule marijuana, and decided to be receptive to facts for the first time ever, marijuana would end up in schedule V. The way the controlled substances act is worded, schedule II is the baseline for comparing the abuse potential of all other substances. Schedule I drugs are totally forbidden, but schedule II drugs are listed as having "high potential for abuse". Schedule III is defined as being worse than schedule II, and schedule IV is worse than schedule III etc. The problem is that "potential for abuse" is a catchall bullshit phrase that lets the DEA define things however they want. If you look at the actual results of using marijuana, the risks compared to even the schedule V drugs are miniscule. You can gently caress up your body pretty bad if you chug a couple bottles of robitussin DAC (schedule V, codeine), if you take that much you'll probably die. If you massively overdose on pot brownies, you'll get a stomachache, puke, then pass out for like 12 hours. Marijuana is safer than all of the currently scheduled drugs. Going through some legal hoops to reclassify it as a non life-destroying substance (but still evil and bad  ) is unnecessarily authoritarian.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Legalizing weed is not a good enough reason to subscribe to the added craziness that libertarianism brings. "Yeah, we'll let states decide about important issues like marijuana!" sounds good until you realize that a good chunk of southern states would use this to set back social progress 100 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I agree. Good thing I never argued for that! My #1 priority is getting a viable 3rd party that is not steeped in the theater of politics and challenges the status quo. The Feds descheduling marijuana would be in no way a precedent for states overturning civil rights, I'm not sure where you think that part comes in. NathanScottPhillips posted:Libertarians are gaining political power and are the only party pushing to end the War on Drugs. You really think that a libertarian senator/representative wouldn't vote for other libertarian bills and push for things other than marijuana legalization? Have you actually looked into what the libertarian party says? Let me help you; here is a video from the official libertarian party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh1KzKURfVc Let's get rid of all those pesky regulations for farmers that supply the nation's food. Why should they be required to spend a bunch of money to guarantee there's no "bacteria" or "feces" in your food, when the free market will eventually bankrupt the people who sell tainted meat?  Legalizing weed is important, but jesus christ libertarians are crazy and shouldn't be encouraged.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:I really don't know how this is going to work out. Acknowledging tourism seems like and interstate commerce problem. I'm hoping that this specific agreement doesn't attract the attention of the feds. Keeping pot in your state, however much it's only on paper, at least seems to keep it a states rights issue. Telling people to come on in, while honest, will probably get a federal legal challenge. The alternative is to say "only residents can buy pot from the store", which will just open up the black market for native resellers. The government obviously won't get any sort of money from illegal transactions, and people are gonna loving buy marijuana anyway (same as they do in texas or illinois) so it's better to advocate the solution that lets them regulate+tax all sales within the state. They let the cat out of the bag, it's too late to go back now! 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm ok with Schedule V for now - zero money for enforcement, last priority for the DEA, and little to no jail time for anyone involved in distribution. Do you know what a Schedule V drug is? Tiny doses of higher scheduled drugs like opium (Schedule II), codeine (Schedule II), and defenoxin (Schedule I).. Again, what arguments are there to schedule marijuana at all? We don't schedule alcohol or tobacco and those are absolutely worse for you than marijuana, why should we feel compelled to place it in a schedule when there is no need to? If the federal government is going to actually seriously consider facts and scientific research when removing marijuana from schedule I, the only logical conclusion is to deschedule it completely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:ditching the CSA and letting Heroin stores open up in poor neighborhoods is going to be even more devastating than the lovely status quo. Yeah, god forbid the poor have a safe regulated substance to ease the pain of having a poo poo life. That'd be way worse than the status quo of going to the crazy dealer in the alley.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. Well, this problem goes away with legalization and regulation. Once the risk of going to jail forever for manufacturing/possessing drugs is gone, businesses and/or the government will be able to sell them in stores for far cheaper than street prices. Lower priced drugs, a reduced risk of overdose through standardized dose regulations, and reduced exposure to questionable dealers would mean the addict's children would have a much greater quality of life. The heroin-addicted mother would still shoot up when she needs to, but at a fraction of the cost and risk. Always keep in mind, people start doing drugs for a reason. Making drugs harder to get or life-destroyingly illegal doesn't alter that original reason. MacheteZombie posted:Are there some good links to the benefits of vaporizing? I have a few friends who refuse to take it up because they whole-heartedly believe its worse on their throats n lungs. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3274081 It's really nice. Like getting all of the benefits of smoking marijuana with 1/10 of the coughing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Not compared to, say, cigarettes or alcohol. Prohibition is not effective, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that legalization would not cause any increase in availability. That depends on the age group. It's definitely easier for a 15 year old to buy weed than it is for them to buy alcohol because Joe the dealer doesn't card you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:What do you mean by this? When the government tells the public "There's no medical use for marijuana; that's crazy talk!", but also acknowledges that marijuana does have proven medical uses (as long as the government makes money), that pretty much validates concerns that the US drug policies are created mostly by greed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I see the argument that you are trying to make, but the existence of medical uses for a Schedule I drug (regardless of who owns the patent), doesn't invalidate its scheduling. It should, just the way Marinol was bumped incrementally from schedule I to schedule III. Literally the only difference between a schedule I drug and a schedule II drug is whether it can be used medically, and all this childish "I'm not touching the bad cannabinoids!" dancing around is ludicrous. Everyone who has done even the most basic research into the topic knows that marijuana doesn't deserve its schedule I status. quote:The U.S. Supposedly owns the patent so it can issue licenses for studies and so it can get around schedule I. The reason that cannabis has no "accepted medical use" (which is a different thing than no medical use) has been outlined by the DEA before. Its perverse and almost catch 22ish, but it isn't evidence of some grand moneymaking conspiracy (especially given how much marijuana prosecutions/sentences cost in taxpayer money). Did you actually read that paper you linked? The "scientific authority" they cite is HHS - the department of health and human services. That basically says the US drug enforcement agency asked the US department of health and human services "Hey, is marijuana still bad? If you say no, me and all my friends on the 3rd floor no longer have our jobs." and HHS said "Pssh, you know it's bad *wink*. See ya at the bar later." Red_Mage posted:That said the logic still is there. Nicotine, Morphine and Imbibed Alcohol all have medical usages as well, but they are not issued by the medical community anymore (except maybe nicotine for quitting smoking), the logic is that Marijuana doesn't do anything that other drugs don't do better  Morphine is still used today, all the loving time.Besides, that "logic" isn't the issue at all; efficacy has no bearing on schedule status. The factors that qualify a substance for schedule I are: -high potential for abuse -no currently accepted medical use -lack of accepted safety under medical supervision Based on medical uses it should already be disqualified, though the other two points are worth rebutting as well. The third point, lack of safety even with medical supervision, is laughable. Even ignoring the countless celebrities who are smoking heavily well into their old age, the LD50 (approximately the lethal dose) of THC is absurdly high. There is no possible way to accidentally kill yourself with marijuana. It is theoretically possible, but it would require a prohibitively expensive quantity of concentrated marijuana extract. The first requirement, having a high potential for abuse, is marijuana's weakest point just because of the ambiguity of the word "abuse". Is someone who smokes every weekend abusing marijuana? How about every day after work? How much, and how often do you have to use cannabis for it to be considered abusing? How come alcohol is legal, but its potential for abuse is through the roof? How come loving methamphetamine is more legal than marijuana?! RichieWolk fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Setting aside how you are willing to cite HHS when they agree with you, then dismiss them when they don't, you missed the entire point of what I posted. You're making poo poo up again. quote:"Currently accepted medical use" is not the same as "is this being used medically/can it be used medically." Why the hell not? Why are doctors in parts of the US who advocate for medical marijuana being told that their opinions are irrelevant? quote:As long as marijuana is schedule 1 it pretty much cannot be in "accepted medical use." Again, this was the exact same situation with marinol. Why can't it happen to marijuana? quote:Its just that freaking out over the government acting like a government and screaming conspiracy is pretty wildly inaccurate. No, it's plain to everybody with half a brain that the government has lied about the risks of marijuana use for decades. Ask yourself why they would do that, see if you can find any possible motivations that would cause someone in power to lie about how dangerous something is. Red_Mage posted:Basically until the DEA or HHS goes "maybe this other country's use of this should count" or "maybe we were wrong about X" something doesn't have legit medical use. It looks like Marijuana might be headed that way. They have been presented with an abundance of credible and scientifically verifiable evidence that many drugs are not as bad as their classification suggests. They ignore it every time without giving a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:In your first post, you cited a HHS patent for why marijuana had "currently accepted medical use," then when I cite them (b way of the DEA) you blow them off as unreliable when they say that marijuana is extremely addictive. Please pick one. I cited that to highlight the hypocrisy of the government. Please try to keep up. quote:They could reschedule Marijuana, I've said as much repeatedly. It even looks like they are headed that way, what with them licensing out their patent on active agents, and popular support for medical marijuana well over 70% nationally. Yes, they could. But they don't. quote:I can tell you why the government would provide shoddy data about the risks of marijuana use with a fairly simple explanation, they didn't want people using marijuana. At this point, you're not even worth talking at. I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse or if you're just really that simpleminded. quote:If you want to ascribe them some other motivation (you said profit was involved), the burden's on you to prove it. The government doesn't need to operate on scientifically verifiable evidence of how bad drugs are, it needs to operate in accordance with the laws passed by representatives of the peopel. Its not proof of a shadowy conspiracy, its proof that the government & public at large doesn't always listen to scientists. Really? Have you even been reading this thread? I'm not going to retype poo poo because you're lazy. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:"Sorry officer, we're going issue you a citation for not being a big enough dick. You know better than to attempt to perform your job like a human being." If they wanted to do that, they would've taken the confiscated weed and tossed it. That would've scored brownie points with the senators, showing some compassion to a stoner, instead of looking like a badged jerk who thought he could score some free dope. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
kylejack posted:The real reason is, because they can, and asset forfeiture is very lucrative to the government as they don't even need to prove the person guilty to take the property. "Thousands of lawyers, jailers, guards, policemen etc. will lose their jobs, all for what, so you can get high on the drugs?! You really wanna plunge thousands into poverty just so you can light up a fat doober!? No sir, we're gonna take your drug-funded lucre and give it to those hardworking american citizens who keep the country running." Politics. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:It's so very easy to get weed right now. Dealers don't check ID. In places with medical/legal marijuana it is harder for minors to buy a pipe than it is to get the actual drugs because the headshop owners will card you. You'd have to bribe someone to buy a glass pipe for you to use the drugs you had no problems obtaining. But nobody's gonna do that once they realize there's a perfectly good pvc pipe sitting in their dad's garage that they could smoke out of!  The war on drugs is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:This makes no sense. You can't magic seeds out of nowhere. You can magic them off the internet. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:That's not "making weed" that's buying it. Uhh, how else do you procure goods in the US? I mean there are tons of places you can order cannabis seeds on the internet if you want to grow your own plants. Pre-feminized, auto-flowering, you name it the internet has it. Seriously, with google and a few pre-paid debit cards, I could have everything necessary to grow a couple high-yielding plants shipped directly to my front door in a matter of days. It's stupid easy to get drugs today in the US. I get a raging irony-boner when I think about how many government employees involuntarily commit drug trafficking felonies every day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You know, actually making a thing. Instead of buying it. "If you wish to grow some killer buds from scratch, you must first invent the universe."  Unless you mean people should go foraging for wild marijuana plants, buying the seeds and growing your own plant from start to finish is about as close to "making your own" as cannabis gets. You start with the same components as everyone else - light, water, seed, nutrients, etc. - but how you combine them directly affects the end product. There are infinite variations of tastes, effects, and colors from the different growing methods and strains. December Octopodes posted:It's still tough to get seeds without access to a dealer of some sort, it may change when states legalize. You need to get someone under 25 to teach you how to use google better because it's dead simple to find a place that has no moral qualms about supplying stealthy seeds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Like you can literally type "order marijuana seeds online USA" into google and find dozens of non-US websites willing to ship you seeds straight to your house. If you've ever received mail and can use the internet, you have access to marijuana.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
I disagree. All it takes is dollars. Hell, somethingawful has a thread dedicated to helping people cultivate their own marijuana called "growing cannabis made fun and easy". The risk of getting caught is inversely proportional to the education of the grower. If you think the high school biology chapter on botany is enough to do a stealth grow op in your attic, you're gonna get nailed immediately. If you do some research about the necessary equipment like charcoal filters and heat shielding and stuff, you increase your chances of remaining undetected by a considerable amount.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because alcohol is freely available to anyone with access to an adult that doesn't give a gently caress. The whole argument of "which drug is easier for kids to get" is stupid because they are both easy for different reasons. Marijuana is easy to get because it is illegal, and therefore completely unregulated. Alcohol is easy to get because adults succumb to bribery and ambivalence. Keeping marijuana illegal because you'll be able to give your older brother $20 to buy you some weed from the store is idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
And if you give a pint of moonshine to a toddler, they die! A substance's effect on a developing child is still no excuse for it being illegal for mature adults to consume.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 05:26
|
|