Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Simplepowa
Socially Awkward
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 3,276
Loc: Canada 
|
 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War 
#16541205 - 07/16/12 09:12 PM (10 months, 28 days ago) |
|
|
"Since day one, President Obama has led the way in reforming our Nation's drug policies by, among other things, addressing drug use and its consequences as a public health problem,” reads a statement posted on We the People, the petition site started by the, er, Obama administration. If you've been the victim of a federal raid—one in which, say, your two-year-old was yanked out if his crib—or worked at one of the 500 California medical pot dispensaries the DEA and the IRS have shut down in the last year, you're probably rolling your eyes right now.
No way, no how, has Obama ended the war on drugs. So why does the drug czar insist that he has? Magical thinking helps, but so does magical accounting. Washington's drug warriors have relied for decades on wacky stats and context-free claims to justify banning some drugs while rubber-stamping the sale of others. Fuzzy campaign promises aside, the Obama administration is no different. Here are three accounting tricks federal agencies under Obama continue to use to justify the war on drugs and hide its true costs.
3.) Anti-drug agencies obscure alcohol abuse numbers in order to exagerrate the dangers of illegal drugs.
When veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan asked the Obama administration for legal cover to treat their PTSD with medical marijuana instead of heavy duty prescription narcotics, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske told them, "We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms."
How significant? Click the link in Kerlikowske's letter about emergency room visits and you get a report put together by DAWN, the Drug Abuse Warning Network, which documents emergency room visits by substance:
With 376,467 visits a year, marijuana seems like a big offender. But there are two problems with that figure. The first is that the data, which comes from the annual National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), doesn't distinguish between people who sought emergency care because of marijuana, and people who were high on marijuana when they sought care. Hence the careful wording at the top of DAWN's chart: "drugs most commonly involved in emergency department visits."
But let's say marijuana was actually responsible for all those marijuana-related ER visits. How does that compare to, say, alcohol? If you read the fine print, you'll notice that NIDA accounts for alcohol only when used in conjunction with other drugs or when used by minors. A footnote at the end of the report tells us why: "Underage use of alcohol only is considered to be drug misuse or abuse."
Put another way, the National Institute for Drug Abuse doesn't consider adults who go to the emergency room solely as a result of alcohol to be misusing or abusing a drug. But wouldn't alcohol, a ubiquitous and legal drug, provide a great benchmark for measuring the overall ER impact of other drugs?
Yes, but it would also undermine the drug czar's claims about the dangers of pot.
Here are the facts: Alcohol, when used alone, is "involved" in far more emergency department visits than every illegal drug combined. According to the Centers for Disease Control, "In the single year 2005, there were more than 1.6 million hospitalizations and more than 4 million emergency room visits for alcohol-related conditions." A study published this year in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, meanwhile, suggests that as many as 50 percent of emergency room visits could be alcohol-related. And that number is only going up. In New York City, for instance, "nearly 74,000 people wound up in hospitals in 2009 for alcohol-related reasons, compared with just 22,000 in 2003."
While NIDA has acknowledged that "ED [emergency department] visits involving alcohol among the general population is thought to be significantly higher than what is reported in DAWN," there's no need to say "thought to be." It's clear from the data that alcohol alone sends more people to the emergency room than marijuana and every other drug.
Furthermore, more people also seek addiction treatment for alcohol than for pot. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, nearly half of all substance abuse treatment center admissions "involving college or other post secondary school students ages 18 to 24 were primarily related to alcohol disorders." In fact, alcohol leads the pack in addiction treatment admissions across every age group.
There's enough data to put illicit drugs in context. Why does NIDA--"the world's largest source of drug abuse research," according to Kerilikowske--obscures them? Because NIDA's job isn't just documenting the effects of drugs that are illegal, but also providing the "scientific" justification for keeping them that way.
2.) The DEA wastes hundreds of millions eradicating hemp plants that can't be smoked, then omits the costs from its annual reports.
Since its inception, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program has spent roughly $200 million eradicating "ditchweed," or feral marijuana plants that contain no THC (the chemical in marijuana that gets you high). Even though feral marijuana can't give you a buzz, for years the DEA used it to hype the specter of domestic pot production and pad out its annual DCE/SP report. How much padding, exactly? Roughly 98 percent of the marijuana the DEA destroys in a given year is worthless as a drug (though not as industrial hemp, outlawed since the 1930s).
For years, marijuana reformers hammered the DEA for wasting money and exaggerating the amount of pot grown domestically (lay people—and journalists—seldom distinguish between ditchweed and the stuff that gets you high). Then the squares caught on. In 1998, the state auditor in Vermont released a report criticizing the DEA's focus on ditchweed. "It is noteworthy that the federal program specifically funds, and indeed, encourages the eradication of ditchweed," the auditor noted.
In 2006, NORML's Allen St. Pierre condemned the DEA's targeting of ditchweed, which could create jobs if industrial hemp were legal. "The irony, of course, is that industrial hemp is grown legally throughout most of the Western world as a commercial crop for its fiber content. Yet the U.S. government is spending taxpayers' money to target and eradicate this same agricultural commodity."
After getting beat about the head for years, the DEA suddenly stopped reporting ditchweed eradication after 2006. Since then, the total number of reported marijuana plants destroyed by the DEA each year has dropped from a quarter of a billion—again, 99 percent of that ditchweed—to around 10 million.
"The federal government seems to have misinterpreted criticism that the practice was a waste of resources," observed University of Illinois College of Law's Matthew Donigian in a 2011 report. "Critics were not upset with the government's reporting of 'ditchweed,' but rather the practice of seeking out and burning non-smokeable and non-cultivated cannabis plants."
"The current practice of non-reporting provides the American people with little information on where DEA resources are being utilized," Donigian concludes, "and effectively hides the amount of money spent on an unintelligible practice."
1.) The Obama administration and its supporters claim to be spending more on prevention than enforcement—they aren't.
On May 1, the Center for American Progress, which works closely with the Obama administration, hosted Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske to speak about Obama's 2012 National Drug Control Strategy. In her opening remarks, CAP President Neena Tanden said, "We welcome the...shifts in funding that have seen more money spent in the last three years on drug education and treatment than on law enforcement."
That shift, Obama supporters claim, is the first of its kind, and a strong indicator that Obama is serious about reforming (though not ending) the war on drugs. It's such an important talking point, in fact, that Kerlikowske, prominent leaders in the rehab community (beneficiaries, all), and mainstream journalists have all repeated it.
But is it true? Not even a little bit! John Walsh of the Washington Office on Latin America reviewed the Obama administration's 2012 strategy and concluded that while the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget allocated $10 billion for prevention and treatment and $9.3 billion for domestic enforcement, those two allocations don't tell the whole story.
"The federal government also spends billions of dollars each year on interdiction and overseas supply-reduction efforts," Walsh writes, "and state and local governments spend many billions more on drug law enforcement—especially incarceration—with the aim of constraining availability."
Furthermore, Walsh wrote, "Obama’s predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, could have made the same claim during his second term. From FY2005-FY2008, federal spending on demand reduction exceeded spending on domestic drug enforcement by an average of $1.2 billion per year, based on figures provided in the budget document accompanying the new strategy."
In fact, when it comes down to it, Obama's drug war looks a lot like Bush's:
When federal spending on interdiction and international drug control programs are also taken into account, it is clear that “supply reduction” efforts continue to receive the bulk of federal drug-control dollars. Again based on the historical budget figures provided in the new strategy, in FY2008, under Bush, 58.8 percent ($13.236 billion) of the federal drug budget was allocated to supply reduction (domestic enforcement, interdiction, and international programs), compared to 41.2 percent ($9.264 billion) allocated to demand reduction (treatment and prevention). Obama’s FY2013 request is $3.1 billion larger than Bush’s FY2008 budget, but shows an identical breakdown, with 58.8 percent ($15.062 billion) for supply reduction and 41.2 percent ($10.538 billion) for demand reduction.
Obama’s FY2013 strategy includes more than $5.6 billion for interdiction and overseas supply-control efforts, which even when adjusting for inflation is 6 percent more than Bush’s FY2008 spending on interdiction and overseas efforts.
Keep those figures in mind when Kerlikowske, Obama, or the administration's supporters claim Obama has radically changed drug policy.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/08/3-accounting-tricks-the-government-uses
--------------------
If you can't control drugs in a maximum security prison, then how can you control drugs in a free society?
---
If it's true that there was a Big Bang, everything that each of us are was once contained in that needle tip of highly condensed matter. Over time, the Universe grew in ways which enabled it to see and understand itself. We are the universe looking back at itself.
|
 sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 1,793
Last seen: 21 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Simplepowa]
#16541282 - 07/16/12 09:29 PM (10 months, 28 days ago) |
|
|
The thing that gets me about all these alcohol/weed harm comparisons is that alcohol is used far more often and by a far larger portion of the population. The stats aren't comparable.
--------------------
|
Celestial Traveler
Random Observer
 
Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 6,699
Loc: Idaho
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#16541515 - 07/16/12 10:29 PM (10 months, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
The thing that gets me about all these alcohol/weed harm comparisons is that alcohol is used far more often and by a far larger portion of the population. The stats aren't comparable.
This is good point. Although weed is probably still safer than alcohol.
I'm surprised this whole "Alcohol and tobacco kill more people than all illegal drugs" argument hasn't come back to bite legalization supporters in the ass yet.
It could be fairly easy to argue that the reason these kill more people than illegal drugs is because they're legal.
|
JacksonMetaller
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 5,749
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16541793 - 07/16/12 11:18 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
i've seen a few studies where they compare it based on a population of 100,000 users and the percentage of deaths from those 100,000 users is a lot of times still higher for alcohol than say cocaine (the one i looked at). of course, who knows what the real facts are. maybe a majority of the cocaine population were "tried it once" type of people whereas most people tend to drink alcohol habitually since it's socially acceptable. or maybe its just skewed. or maybe it's right.
--------------------
Drugs to try: Alcohol, Weed, LSD, Mushrooms, DMT , LSA, Ayahuasca, Changa, Mescaline, 2c-b, nbome, MDMA, DXM, Ketamine, N2O, MXE, Salvia, Kratom, and some day farrrr down the road Ibogaine
|
StygianKnight
A Mushroom
Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 440
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: JacksonMetaller]
#16542046 - 07/16/12 11:53 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
This isn't just the "Obama administration" but has been going along for quite awhile.
There's also a reason they report ED visits instead of ED deaths. The number would be 0 for pot, which doesn't look good when their trying to demonize it.
|
itchmynipple
;)
Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,278
Last seen: 1 day, 21 minutes
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16543941 - 07/17/12 12:24 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
The thing that gets me about all these alcohol/weed harm comparisons is that alcohol is used far more often and by a far larger portion of the population. The stats aren't comparable.
This is good point. Although weed is probably still safer than alcohol.
I'm surprised this whole "Alcohol and tobacco kill more people than all illegal drugs" argument hasn't come back to bite legalization supporters in the ass yet.
It could be fairly easy to argue that the reason these kill more people than illegal drugs is because they're legal.
No, the point is of all drugs being legal is:
saving money
producing money
less bloodshed
more responsible usage = less addiction = less deaths
the core focus education on drugs should be just goingto get the education on your own and briefly in school. this itself is teaching morals,lessons,idealistic approaches rather then having it forced down and not processing it. researching your drug of choice that you will be participating in, and having the backup necessary for bad outcomes without having to deal with the police.
im certainly not goingto shoot up heroin because it went from illegal to legal. if the person is educated, they will make there own decisions, many people can do heroin in controlled doses every now an then and don't get addicted. for that reason, if you try it, be responsible, know your body, have people know your taking it- to prevent addiction, overdosing.
--------------------
|
withoutawire
Bunny Lover
Registered: 08/16/09
Posts: 10,941
Loc: San Francisco
Last seen: 1 day, 34 minutes
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: itchmynipple]
#16544022 - 07/17/12 12:46 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
+1
We need to legalize all drugs at some level and end this senseless violence. The gang life needs to end.
--------------------
|
Celestial Traveler
Random Observer
Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 6,699
Loc: Idaho
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: itchmynipple]
#16544057 - 07/17/12 12:54 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
itchmynipple said:
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
The thing that gets me about all these alcohol/weed harm comparisons is that alcohol is used far more often and by a far larger portion of the population. The stats aren't comparable.
This is good point. Although weed is probably still safer than alcohol.
I'm surprised this whole "Alcohol and tobacco kill more people than all illegal drugs" argument hasn't come back to bite legalization supporters in the ass yet.
It could be fairly easy to argue that the reason these kill more people than illegal drugs is because they're legal.
No, the point is of all drugs being legal is:
saving money
producing money
less bloodshed
more responsible usage = less addiction = less deaths
the core focus education on drugs should be just goingto get the education on your own and briefly in school. this itself is teaching morals,lessons,idealistic approaches rather then having it forced down and not processing it. researching your drug of choice that you will be participating in, and having the backup necessary for bad outcomes without having to deal with the police.
im certainly not goingto shoot up heroin because it went from illegal to legal. if the person is educated, they will make there own decisions, many people can do heroin in controlled doses every now an then and don't get addicted. for that reason, if you try it, be responsible, know your body, have people know your taking it- to prevent addiction, overdosing.
I know all the arguments. The point is it doesn't help to say legalization reduces harm when you point out that the drugs that are legal kill far more people than those that are not legal.
If you are going to argue that legal drugs cause more harm, make sure that you can prove it is because of the drug and not their legality.
|
itchmynipple
;)
Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,278
Last seen: 1 day, 21 minutes
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16544123 - 07/17/12 01:19 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
the only thing that will reduce harm is personal responsibility and self-morals.
you cannot force these down someones throat like the current trend. where have you been?
there are systems in place in other countries where the focus is somewhat on the level of what i've listed above. point is, it works. there are less users, less deaths, less chaos
Quote:
If you are going to argue that legal drugs cause more harm, make sure that you can prove it is because of the drug and not their legality.
i understand what your saying, but still, my answer is- what? lets not pick and choose between reality, a drug being legal and having a different effect on society, to (in your case) bulshit, which is just viewing the drugs harm on its own.
the same conclusion comes out. if you care for your own body, you will research the drug of choice, and make the necessary arrangements (given its legal, and less looked down on) for your future safety.
--------------------
|
Celestial Traveler
Random Observer
Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 6,699
Loc: Idaho
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: itchmynipple]
#16544151 - 07/17/12 01:27 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
You're being really annoying. I'm not arguing against legalizing drugs, I think they should be legal. It's just a foolish argument to say "look, these drugs are legal and cause more harm" when it could easily be turned against you and argued that they cause more harm because they are legal, more available and widely used. This wouldn't necessarily be true, but it could potentially be argued from the opposite side.
Luckily Prohibitionists have not caught that yet.
|
StygianKnight
A Mushroom
Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 440
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16544195 - 07/17/12 01:36 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
It could be fairly easy to argue that the reason these kill more people than illegal drugs is because they're legal.
Could be, but it's wrong.
Deaths and illness related to alcohol actually increased during prohibitions. They are still high because alcohol has a high danger profile, but they could be worse.
|
Celestial Traveler
Random Observer
Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 6,699
Loc: Idaho
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: StygianKnight]
#16544212 - 07/17/12 01:40 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I agree that it's wrong. But what you people don't realize is that public opinion is really fragile on this issue. A lot of people are ever-so-slightly open to the idea of legalizing drugs, they're listening. But if they hear one argument that sounds faulty to them they'll turn away and act like they've just realized it was all bullshit to start out with.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 25,049
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: StygianKnight]
#16544221 - 07/17/12 01:43 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
StygianKnight said:
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
It could be fairly easy to argue that the reason these kill more people than illegal drugs is because they're legal.
Could be, but it's wrong.
Deaths and illness related to alcohol actually increased during prohibitions. They are still high because alcohol has a high danger profile, but they could be worse.
Since when has being wrong related to reality?
He's put out a reasonably valid response (from the average person). Yes... you know better. Many here do. The "average" person does not.
Perception can be harder to overcome than reality.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Celestial Traveler
Random Observer
Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 6,699
Loc: Idaho
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#16544223 - 07/17/12 01:44 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
StygianKnight said:
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
It could be fairly easy to argue that the reason these kill more people than illegal drugs is because they're legal.
Could be, but it's wrong.
Deaths and illness related to alcohol actually increased during prohibitions. They are still high because alcohol has a high danger profile, but they could be worse.
Since when has being wrong related to reality?
He's put out a reasonably valid response (from the average person). Yes... you know better. Many here do. The "average" person does not.
Perception can be harder to overcome than reality.
|
itchmynipple
;)
Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,278
Last seen: 1 day, 21 minutes
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16544266 - 07/17/12 01:55 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
You're being really annoying. I'm not arguing against legalizing drugs, I think they should be legal. It's just a foolish argument to say "look, these drugs are legal and cause more harm" when it could easily be turned against you and argued that they cause more harm because they are legal, more available and widely used. This wouldn't necessarily be true, but it could potentially be argued from the opposite side.
Luckily Prohibitionists have not caught that yet.
arrogant nobody--
like i stated above, other effective models in other countries show over-all drug usage to decrease when all drugs are legal. thats all you can hope for. can you scroll your mouse to a search function or must i do it for you?
thats the answer to your question. also you just won't truly know unless you experiment yourself with it.
--------------------
|
StygianKnight
A Mushroom
Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 440
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16544278 - 07/17/12 02:00 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Celestial Traveler said:
You're being really annoying. I'm not arguing against legalizing drugs, I think they should be legal. It's just a foolish argument to say "look, these drugs are legal and cause more harm" when it could easily be turned against you and argued that they cause more harm because they are legal, more available and widely used. This wouldn't necessarily be true, but it could potentially be argued from the opposite side.
Luckily Prohibitionists have not caught that yet.
I get what you are saying, and it's faulty logic. The prohibitions have already caught on to this and have been saying for hundreds of years that being legal causes more problems and it's just not true.
We are not giving them anymore ammo than they already have.
If we should be quiet because someone might twist our words, then we will be scared silent as any statement can be spun by the opposition.
|
Celestial Traveler
Random Observer
Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 6,699
Loc: Idaho
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: itchmynipple]
#16544285 - 07/17/12 02:02 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by Alan Rockefeller (07/19/12 11:22 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 25,049
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: Celestial Traveler]
#16544297 - 07/17/12 02:04 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 25,049
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: StygianKnight]
#16544306 - 07/17/12 02:06 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
StygianKnight said:
We are not giving them anymore ammo than they already have.
Of course you are. Human nature sucks, yet so many feed it.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
StygianKnight
A Mushroom
Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 440
|
Re: 3 Accounting Tricks the Obama Administration Uses to Hide the Cost of the Drug War [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#16544314 - 07/17/12 02:08 PM (10 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
StygianKnight said:
We are not giving them anymore ammo than they already have.
Of course you are. Human nature sucks, yet so many feed it.
How so? What Ammo is being given that prohibitionists haven't been saying for years?
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Alan Rockefeller
1,941 topic views. 0 members, 49 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
