Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Hard Drugs and Society

18 replies to this topic
Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#1

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:38 AM

While I normally see many debates and discussions regarding the topic of marijuana legalization, I very rarely see anyone discussing the issue of legalizing 'hard' drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and the like. What do you personally believe should be done about these substances? 

 

Personally, and you may disagree with me, I believe all drugs should be legalized for personal use and for private sale. The reason for this is due to my firm belief that as long as what you are doing does not infringe upon another person's personal liberties then you should not be prosecuted for performing that action. 

 

I created this in order to stop us (mainly me) from derailing the "Have a question?" topic in General Chat.

 

 


Tyler
  • Tyler

    If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Unknown
  • Newcomer of the Year 2010

#2

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:51 AM

I'm of the mind that mind-altering substances should be given more place for discussions in society. In particular, hallucinogens deserve to be taken seriously for a multitude of reasons. Psilocybin has been shown to eliminate fear conditioning present in PTSD, in doses low enough to avoid mind-altering states. Ketamine can be used to alleviate depression in mere hours. LSD has potential use in treating anxiety and mood disorders. It's ridiculous that we continue to shun hallucinogenic substances because of counter-culture hippies and the reactionary, sensationalist propaganda supplied by their opponent in the 1960s. There are major potential benefits that should be looked into and could be more practical and less dangerous than current medical treatments.

 

 

More generally, I don't suggest legalizing drugs and letting them be dumped on the street by private interest and investment immediately. I'd much rather there be a body of knowledge and of awareness about drug synthesis or growth, safe use and potential hazards put into action before or at least hand-in-hand with legalization. Going from our current state to full on legalization of every drug would be a major cultural shift, and as it is many people are grossly-misinformed on most drugs. I've had countless conversations on the difference in physical versus psychological dependence, and how substances like psilocybin have no danger of physical dependence. Or how MDMA has little in the way of lasting effects on the body. These substances can be safely consumed and their dangers are often misattributed or overestimated due to a general ignorance of them.

 

Establishing safeguards for use through education is key. After we have that baseline, I'd be more than happy to push for legalization of academic and recreational application of drugs. My knowledge of narcotics and things like amphetamines is limited but ensuring there's places where people can have access to sterilized equipment would be especially important in the case of things like heroin. If you have faith in free markets then you could reasonably expect things like lounges for recreational opiate use or companies that provide safe spaces for hallucinogenic use. Home use is possible too of course, but once again the key to safe personal use is education and regulation of the materials, and the environment that you use in.

 

Anyway, a big reason I would push for legalization of all drugs and not just hallucinogens (which if you don't know by now is the category I have the most faith in as a legitimately useful assortment of drugs for varied use) is that it would mean we can end the War on Drugs. This would be an immense step for the U.S. in terms of creating a better place for its citizens. It allows business to thrive in a new industry, as well as bringing in the mandatory tax dollars for public interests. It allows justice and safety to be allocated to more immediate threats. It lowers congestion in prisons where non-violent offenders are stuffed together with murderers and lifetime gang members. It is a shift towards a better direction on multiple levels. The potential benefits are enough for me to be in favor of it provided we take precautions in introducing a more relaxed policy on drug use in our society, however I'd love to hear some opposing voices on this.

  • Mister Pink, Failure, El Zilcho and 4 others like this

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#3

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:58 PM Edited by D4 Damager, 22 January 2014 - 05:59 PM.

I would be completely in agreement with Tyler on this issue. Unfortunately the 'war on drugs' has been the background for a lot of sensationalism on the part of the government and the media. The most obvious example of this here in the UK is the 'talk to Frank' service that specialises in propaganda, and the spreading of misinformation about substances ranging from Nitrous Oxide to Heroin.

 

Unfortunately this has the (intended) side effect of poisoning the vast majority of my parent's generation against all drugs, meaning that while they remain the majority in this country there will be no chance of political change with respect to the war on drugs.

 

So with that in mind I think I would support a systematic campaign of education, using scientific papers and experiments on live subjects, to help to redress the balance of false information that has created this view of drug use as an evil choice. When that has been completed, I would then push to see drugs legalised slowly -- accessed through special pharmacies whose proprietors have received impartial training about the risks and effects of drug use. A government website could then be set up in order to help people get the best out of their high whilst remaining safe (containing information such as the recommended amount of fluid to ingest whilst on MDMA, and advice on sterilisation techniques for needles).

 

With all of that in mind I think it's time to get into arguments for why the war on drugs is a flawed one.

 

Drug Demand Is Inelastic

 

People (addicts) do not change their demands based on changes in price. That means that the more the governments of the world push to stamp out drug use, the higher the prices go, and more money goes to the drug dealers as a result. As a well-known economics textbook states:

 

'The more effective prohibition is at raising costs, the greater are drug industry revenues. So, more effective prohibition means that drug sellers have more money to buy guns, pay bribes, fund the dealers, and even research and develop new technologies in drug delivery (like crack cocaine). It’s hard to beat an enemy that gets stronger the more you strike against him or her.'

 

Indeed, prohibition era alcohol consumption statistics support this judgement.

 

Underground Markets Breed Violence

 

The problem with underground markets is that there is no legal right to own any of that illegal property, nor is there any means of recovery of said property if it is stolen. In other industries you have both criminal and civil court options to take if someone wrongs you through fraud or theft. However in the drug industry you have only one option: violence. That is why you see rival cartels killing each other in Mexico, and why major drug dealers always seem to be arrested with an arsenal of knives and guns at their disposal. You can see similar problems in other markets that have been both illegal and legal at various points in time. During the prohibition era in America crime increased and became organised, and the murder rate increased dramatically, before falling after the repeal of prohibition legislation.

 

For another comparison, compare legal gambling institutions with illegal ones, and see the difference in method.

 

And of course there is the fact that these drug revenues sometimes go directly into the pockets of insurgents and terrorists who maintain massive arsenals of weapons and who are capable of mass acts of terrorism.

 

The Cost

 

It is estimated that global prohibition costs $100billion or so per year to enforce (more than the nominal GDP of all but 59 of the countries in the world), but due to poor figures it could be well in excess of that. In spite of this the drug industry is still turning over upwards of $330billion, meaning that this money -- which could be spent on a myriad of useful things, especially in a time of such economic doom and gloom -- is going to waste.

 

Drug imprisonment also impacts on the productivity of a nation. The USA now has 13x the amount of people in jail for drug offences as it did just over 40 years ago. This causes estimated productivity losses of around $40billion each year. Here's a graph for illustration.

 

mass-imprisonment-of-drug-users-sacrific

 

Of course, if drugs were to be legalised then it would end in a windfall for the world's governments, in the form of taxes. Amsterdam's coffee houses generate about €400million in taxes, largely through the selling of cannabis. A fully legal market would open up even more potential revenue because the Amsterdam model is by no means an open market.

 

As drugs are filtered through numerous dealers and traffickers the prices at street level reach ridiculous levels. Here's an interesting infographic:

 

becoming-a-criminal-has-never-been-more-

 

This funnels money into the hands of rather nasty groups of people, and causes problems for users by making large habits financially unsustainable without resorting to crime. According to estimates, 56% of all UK street crime is committed by drug users, while between 80-95% of all street sex workers are drug addicts.

 

If governments were to mark up drugs at a much lower level it would still produce them a hefty profit whilst killing off the profit-making arms of some shady organisations, and probably reducing the amount of street crime committed by addicts to boot, whilst also making other industries, such as prostitution, safer to all parties.

 

Drugs and Tourism

 

Many LEDCs rely on tourist money to some extent to support local economies. These places are in danger of being 'collateral damage' as the war on drugs makes countries like Mexico infinitely more dangerous to both locals and tourists alike. This led to a 93% decrease in the number of American tourists visiting Acapulco over only one year.

 

This, of course is a smaller part of a larger problem. Because countries that are seen as dangerous or corrupt do lose significant outside investment.

 

Corruption

 

'The magnitude of funds under criminal control poses special threats to governments, particularly in developing countries, where the domestic security markets and capital markets are far too small to absorb such funds without quickly becoming dependent on them.'

 
So speak the UN. Wealthy drug dealers from poorer nations can easily buy votes and support at every level of government, but they can also become pillars of their communities -- local boys made good who now invest significantly in their hometowns. The relationship between Pablo Escobar and his local football team is a good example of this.
 
And of course, Pablo Escobar was not averse to using extreme violence against figures who opposed him, making being on the side of the government in the war a suicide mission.
 

Health Risks

 

Of course, the more people who are between the producer and the consumer, the more likely it is that the drugs are cut. Various cuts can be used, including relatively harmless ones such as talcum powder, but also carcinogens and other drugs which can interact with the original drug in many different ways. There is also the issue of a user receiving a high purity package of drugs whilst being used to a much lower level of purity, causing overdoses.

 

The lack of government advice and support for drug users means that needle-sharing and poor injecting practices are also commonplace -- which would obviously not be eradicated by drug legalisation, but could at least ameliorated somewhat from the current situation where 10% of all HIV infections are caused by unsafe injection practices.

 

The war on drugs has also had an effect on non-users wishing to access medicines for the purposes of palliative care, with an estimated 5 billion people having little or no access to prescription opiates because of drug politics.

 

The Criminalisation of the Poor

 

In many areas the only crop that has been grown throughout history has been opium. The eradication of poppy fields on Afghanistan by foreign forces must have only spread resentment and driven the poor farmers into the arms of the Taliban.

 

The Effect on the Environment

 

In Colombia aerial fumigation is often used to eradicate drug farms from the air. This is the spraying of a herbicide that indiscriminately kills every plant that it comes into contact with. This has been compared to the use of Agent Orange by the USA in Vietnam in that it destroys entire ecosystems, and could possibly cause serious ailments for any people caught up in it.

 

This simply drives cartels further into the forests, where they engage in illegal clearing in order to make space for their drug crops. Thus continuing the vicious circle of crop destruction in some of the most delicate and diverse areas in the world.

 

Toxic waste is also a clear problem, as more than 370,000 tonnes of waste will be dumped in Colombia alone this year. This waste will probably find its way into rivers and streams eventually, causing yet more damage to ecosystems and habitats.

 

Unfair Criminal Penalties

 

32 countries have the death penalty on their statute for drugs offences, including economically advanced countries such as Singapore and the United States.

 

On a more general level, in the United States a conviction for a drug offence in certain states can leave you ineligible for food stamps and health benefits -- something which released rapists do not have to face in some cases. This is in spite of the fact that your crime has no involved causing any harm to another person.

 

4 million American citizens are currently disenfranchised because of their past drugs convictions, making them unable to vote even following their release. This means that over 1/8 of all African American men do not have a say in the running of their own country. This is also a function of the fact that minorities are disproportionately likely to be indicted for drug-related crimes (over 10x more likely in fact) in spite of the fact that they are not that much more likely to deal or use drug, simply due to the fact that it is much easier to makes drug arrests in poor areas. 

 

Legal Theory

 

I personally don't believe that the police's job should extend past their duty to protect people from others. Drug possession arrests are punishing people for what is a personal choice that does not affect the rights of others.

 

The first recorded instance of prohibition being ineffective is probably in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve were told not to sonsume something but did it anyway. Religious or not (and I'm not) this story is a pretty powerful indicator of the power of free will...

 

In Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the war on drugs is a waste of lives and money, and it is needlessly criminalising a large proportion of the world's population whilst restricting access to drugs that are potentially useful in medical and psychological contexts. A gradual shift towards legalisation would have countless economic and social benefits.

  • Tyler, F4L?, RedDagger and 3 others like this

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#4

Posted 22 January 2014 - 10:08 PM

this is literally no different than the Marijuana legalization topic.

Tyler made the requisite points but he's just rehashing what has been said about Cannabis already - and yes - the argument remains the same.

 

the only way to combat issues of illicit drug use (of any drug) is to legalize all drugs.

whether someone legitimately has a problem or is legitimately using the drug in a controlled/recreational manner, legalization is the only way to
1) control and keep track of users

2) control the supply

3) control the economy

4) eliminate criminal enterprise

 

without legal regulation, you simply allow the criminal element to control the market and the economy of whatever drug is in question.

prohibition only means that users cannot get the help they might need and become more hardcore addicts/criminals, while otherwise petty street dealers are converted into multi-millionaire drug cartel mob bosses.


F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#5

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:29 AM

this is literally no different than the Marijuana legalization topic.

Tyler made the requisite points but he's just rehashing what has been said about Cannabis already - and yes - the argument remains the same.

 

the only way to combat issues of illicit drug use (of any drug) is to legalize all drugs.

whether someone legitimately has a problem or is legitimately using the drug in a controlled/recreational manner, legalization is the only way to
1) control and keep track of users

2) control the supply

3) control the economy

4) eliminate criminal enterprise

 

without legal regulation, you simply allow the criminal element to control the market and the economy of whatever drug is in question.

prohibition only means that users cannot get the help they might need and become more hardcore addicts/criminals, while otherwise petty street dealers are converted into multi-millionaire drug cartel mob bosses.

Criminals get trillions in funding yearly from illicit drugs, while America has funnelled trillions into the war on drugs. This post is simple yet effective Diablo.
Imagine the revenue from taxing and the use it could be put towards, imagine all the money saved within the prison systems, imagine all the people who wouldn't become hardened criminals, imagine all the people that could be saved with an addiction safety net! 

Do you think that the media truly is opposed to drugs? Do you really think all those smart people are all so naive? Or is it simply that by reinforcing a stereotype held by many people, they stand to profit from it? Probably the latter, the media doesn't do what's right, just what makes a good story.
 


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#6

Posted 31 January 2014 - 09:19 PM Edited by Melchior, 31 January 2014 - 09:21 PM.

I tend to sit these discussions out, mainly because there's literally never an intelligent counter-argument. Anyone who knows anything about the subject is familiar with the evidence in D4 Damager's post. Really, there's no debate about this issue, academics and even politicians don't seriously defend the war on drugs (Hilary Clinton famously admitted that it is a failed policy, but basically shrugged and said "whadaya gonna do?"). Like most issues today,the problem is that private industry has too much to gain from maintaining the status quo. Private prisons are a big industry that would literally disappear overnight if we were to end the war on drugs. I wonder what would happen to arms sales if the Mexican government wasn't fighting the cartels or police weren't regularly performing dangerous busts.


Mr Oraange
  • Mr Oraange

    Tim Roth has an alien skull for a forehead.

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2014
  • Botswana

#7

Posted 04 February 2014 - 03:11 AM

Legalize that sh*t, tear down that whole 'War on Drugs' thang, slap a tax on that b*tch, and boom, roasted.


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#8

Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:37 PM Edited by The Yokel, 05 February 2014 - 09:38 PM.

Every drug should be legalized. It's the best way to help the ones that are addicted and end the sh*tty war on drugs and everything that goes with it. Regulate it, tax it, sell it.

 

Another good reason to legalize it is the fact that rich white people don't actually suffer any real legal consequences of drug abuse. The laws are basically there to oppress the minorities and the poor who choose to do drugs to brighten up their sh*tty day a little. War on drugs is kind of racist.


Spider-Vice
  • Spider-Vice

    Let's Bounce

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006
  • Portugal

#9

Posted 05 February 2014 - 10:10 PM

I have a pretty controversial view on this. While I think marijuana could indeed be legalised because it's a lighter drug and it has several medicinal advantages, I think hallucinogens and heavy drugs should be kept not illegal but maybe restricted to a controlled environment. Obviously the current society backlash wouldn't stop this way, and the fact that it would be in a controlled environment probably would change nothing, but it would give a more free will in the possible medicinal use of these drugs. Instead of legalising them completely and allow distribution, restrict it to a very controlled medical scenario where it is absolutely needed and nothing more.

Even though they have medicinal advantages, long term issues of using these drugs will end up being more prejudicial than the original disorder/disease. One example is someone with a bipolar disorder having a controlled use of a heavy drug, but not a completely free use, very controlled by a psychiatrist, for example. Free use of such drugs would probably make more social damage long term than if they were illegal or controlled.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#10

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:20 AM

I have a pretty controversial view on this. While I think marijuana could indeed be legalised because it's a lighter drug and it has several medicinal advantages, I think hallucinogens and heavy drugs should be kept not illegal but maybe restricted to a controlled environment. Obviously the current society backlash wouldn't stop this way, and the fact that it would be in a controlled environment probably would change nothing, but it would give a more free will in the possible medicinal use of these drugs. Instead of legalising them completely and allow distribution, restrict it to a very controlled medical scenario where it is absolutely needed and nothing more.

Even though they have medicinal advantages, long term issues of using these drugs will end up being more prejudicial than the original disorder/disease. One example is someone with a bipolar disorder having a controlled use of a heavy drug, but not a completely free use, very controlled by a psychiatrist, for example. Free use of such drugs would probably make more social damage long term than if they were illegal or controlled.

You mentioned hallucinogens specifically. Tell me, what long term medical complications can arise from using hallucinogens? Name one.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#11

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:09 AM

Are you talking generally about hallucinogens or specifically about individual ones? PCP, Ketamine and a number of the other NMDA receptor antagonists are hypothesised, based on animal experimentation to cause Olney's Lesions- brain damage. There's also the causal link between frequent recreational use of Ketamine and serious damage to the bladder.
  • Tyler likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#12

Posted 06 February 2014 - 09:54 AM

I was referring to psychedelics specifically. I doubt anybody thinks that dissociatives are harmless. 


El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#13

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:13 AM

to be fair, any psychoactive intoxicant carries with it the possibility of inducing mental trauma in someone who is predisposed.

medical science still does not exactly understand the conditions which give onset to dementia such as schizophrenia or other permanent delusions. someone who is predisposed might go their entire life without triggering a traumatic episode. for others, the research seems to point to primary risk factors like exposure to intense terror, stress, or losing touch with reality. this could occur after someone goes to war and develops PTSD or simply does way too many drugs; we're talking anything from alcoholism to cocaine addiction and beyond.

 

I'm not sure how much serious research has been done on the theory of hallucinogenic trips causing people to become 'locked' in their psychosis.

you hear anecdotally about people who drop acid or do PCP one day and begin axe-murdering their friends, but I doubt the trip was really to blame.


Tyler
  • Tyler

    If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Unknown
  • Newcomer of the Year 2010

#14

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:20 AM

Existing mental illness is a key factor in injury concerning many hallucinogenic substances as it is. It's by far the most dangerous aspect of legalization of hallucinogenic substances, and should not be treated lightly. LSD can induce heavy psychosis in someone with schizotypal disorder -- even harming them enough psychologically to be more prone to schizophrenia later in life. The effects of these drugs are often profound on the mind, and your mental health has to be taken into concern if you're going to use any of this stuff. Without a regard for psychological disorders, hallucinogenic substances will seem to be a lot more volatile and harmful to the average user, because the instances of violence or severe psychosis will be much higher than they would otherwise.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#15

Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:27 AM

You're kind of shifting the goal post here. It's dangerous for people who are already ill, it's like saying we should re-evaluate alcohol's legal status because someone with a busted liver might drink some. I've never been convinced by evidence that hallucinogens like weed will speed up the onset of latent schizophrenia; the evidence basically boils down to "schizophrenics smoke pot all the time" yet every schizophrenic I've met is a chain smoker and a binge drinker as well (self-medication).

 

IMO, the biggest issue is that people have very few resources to help them navigate their trips. I've done lots of LSD with someone I'm positive has some kind of latent psychosis but he managed to think his way through it, but he did have to lay off the pot at the end of our binge. I've also seen people lose their sh*t on a little bit of MDA (barely a psychedelic to someone who's done LSD et al.), and I assume it's because they aren't as smart or together as my mate. I don't think schizophrenics should be banned from tripping, but we need more resources to support people who want to partake. 

  • Tyler likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#16

Posted 08 February 2014 - 12:34 AM

I always worry about what would happen if drugs were legalized and corporations got their hands on them and started to mass market them to the public at large. No one who supports "legalizing all drugs" seems to have an answer for that one.

  • Criѕtian likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#17

Posted 08 February 2014 - 02:24 AM Edited by Melchior, 08 February 2014 - 02:26 AM.

There'd have to be some kind of caveat like restricting advertising to certain publications. Pot can probably be advertised on TV, MDMA, cocaine (much more harmless than it gets a rep for) and LSD are a grey area*. Heroin, crack and meth should be heavily regulated and obviously promoting their use should be illegal.

 

* The issue is that there's quite a bit of information that needs to be given to a first time user. Although, I think it would be pretty funny to see an add for ecstasy and then hear someone say really fast at the end "drink water and chew gum all night, don't hug strangers, don't try and go to work like with pot."

  • Vlynor likes this

Gasmasks
  • Gasmasks

    Megalomaniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • England

#18

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:05 PM

Quite often I see reports about legalisation of harder drugs. The argument against is always 'BUT EVERY1 WILL START USIN + BECUM ADDICTZ'. I doubt this would be true due to the fact that most people who use hard drugs now would be able to get them in a safe place and ensure the drugs aren't mixed with any toxic substances which would decrease health care costs for these people. (Remember when heroin was laced with anthrax and loads of people became ill? That's what I mean.).

 

Nobody who doesn't already use hard drugs would suddenly turn around and say 'Oh, heroin is legal now? I may as well start shooting up'. The stigma that comes with using certain hard drugs would certainly stick regardless of availability and whether or not it is criminal to possess this substance.

 

I think all drugs should be legal anyway, why let criminals have this huge income when our governments could control it and safely distribute them and earn a tidy profit on the tax. It makes sense really because people will use drugs whether they are legal or not. It'd just be better for the money not to be lining the Taliban's pockets.


Bandalamente
  • Bandalamente

    Carbuncle Cleaner

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#19

Posted A week ago

It would certainly take a brave government to effect a change like this. That or a national crisis. 

 

One thing I wonder is the age of all of you, for wisdom is perceived to travel downwards. I assume none of you are 50 years old yet, and it is from this age onwards that the true control comes.

 

Yes it makes sense to me, and I question how can something so obviously beneficial for all parties not yet be nurtured into society? As such I wonder what the ruling minds decide between them. 

 

Can anyone provide a counter argument as compelling as Tylers or Damagers? 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users