1. noname says:

    Monies from asset forfeitures allows local police departments to augment their salaries, expand payrolls, and purchase sophisticated surveillance equipment, high-powered weaponry, paramilitary gear. Indeed, the militarization of America’s police departments over the last 35 years has largely been a function of the drug war.

    In general the American sloth of citizenship and the conservatives rise to power with their purging and demonizing of their targets, group after group….

    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither

    • Hmeyers says:

      Dude, you are so uptight with your little rant there that you certainly haven’t smoked a dubbie in the last 24 hours.

      Not buying your rant.

    • MikeN says:

      Hey, you support taking money away from cops?

    • The big e says:

      You are misinformed. Money from drug forfeitures is not allowed to be used to increase salaries or provide bonuses. It can only be used to buy equipment and training.

  2. Hmeyers says:

    This video was total crap.

    And I am in favor of legalizing a fair share of drugs because I think the war on drugs is stupid.

    But that video was the lamest, brush facts under the table, stock dummy media piece I’ve bothered to watch.

    “Crime goes up with a prohibition?” — gee really?

    But you can use that lamer argument to say that we should legalize child prostitution or animal abuse.

    I am hoping Uncle Dave was posting something out of boredom, and isn’t think that was a good example of intellectualism, science or critical thought in action.

    I bet the Tobacco Lobby made more persuasive videos than this waste of time video back in the 1980s.

    • MikeN says:

      No, that is the extent of Uncle Dave. He once posted a defense of people who vandalize houses because they couldn’t possibly afford them under George Bush.

    • Sneezy, Grumpy and Dopey says:

      Watch it again DUMBASS!

      She’s IN FAVOR of legalization and makes some damn good points why all dope should be legal. I happen to agree too.

      Not that I would consume any dope. But then that’s my CHOICE too!

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      HMyers making a somewhat rare fail says: ““Crime goes up with a prohibition?” — gee really?

      But you can use that lamer argument to say that we should legalize child prostitution or animal abuse.” /// The issue is one of BALANCE HM. Yes–history shows us that when drugs/alcohol/prostitution/music/videos are made illegal the crime rates go up. That is just a recontextualization of the original statement. Now…is that increased crime rate/cost of enforcement WORTH what is being protected? For those I’ve listed, I’d say “no.”

      For child prostitution and animal abuse and litering etc–the HISTORICAL record is that Silly Hoomans are not so powerfully motivated to do that activity. Make it illegal, and it virtually stops==UNLIKE those other issues.

      See the difference? Its the difference between what makes a difference and what doesn’t. Sad you could miss such an obvious dividing line.

  3. Dallas says:

    Nancy Reagan declared the war on drugs. That was quite a while ago and at great cost. It’s time Obama pull America out of that fiasco Republican war as well.

  4. dusanmal says:

    Nonsense.
    Crux of any “War on…” is – do you run real war with real efforts and goals, like WWII or do you run a “War” like Vietnam, Iraq,Terrorism…
    Any War run as Real War can be won in short term by a superpower like USA. Really won. But that requires full and unrestricted power and effort. Is there a problem with banana republics affecting our law, order and peace? – Either be ready to use full and unrestricted power of our military, including nuclear weapons and including vast innocent collateral victims or do not do it.
    Nothing worse than “war”. As Yoda sez’ do it, or do it not.
    Properly executed real war on drugs can give us victory within a couple of years. With hundreds of thousands in USA jails, hundreds of thousands executed in the USA, tens of millions dead in South America and Asia and general World-wide devastation. Free market of drugs can’t sustain fight with real and determined military on such scale. Can’t.
    However, BS that they now call “war on drugs” is predestined to fail. Same as even the strongest man who sez’ “I’ll fight you with my back turned to you and only with my left leg big toe”.
    I am otherwise libertarian but with respect for consequences of drug culture. So, fight “war on drugs” but with a) Death penalty for anyone caught selling drugs. b) Life in prison for anyone caught having drugs c) Nuclear, chemical and precision weapons of mass destruction against countries, regions, groups and individuals producing and distributing drugs. (Is there a region producing and trafficking illegal drugs to USA? – vaporize it. Do others persist after that? – vaporize them…. Soon free market incentive is gone. You produce, sell of traffic – you are dead or you gave up and are growing coffee instead).
    But we don’t do that even for terrorism…

    • MWD78 says:

      this is totally why we have troops protecting the poppy fields in Trashcanistan…

    • Sneezy, Grumpy and Dopey says:

      You are a PERFECT example of a RIGHT WING NUT! And it takes a lot for me to say that because I’m a REPUBLICAN!

      You better re examine your motives since it sounds like you may have a bit of a GOD complex. (Really Bobbo, I DON’T need your help here.)

      Try telling that pile of crap rant you just spewed to someone in jail for the next 20 years because of a couple of joints! There are more of them than you may like to know – well over 50-percent, in fact.

      I bet you don’t even realize what it costs to keep relatively harmless dope addicts in jail – or even what it costs to prosecute them.

      This war on drugs is POINTLESS and it only benefits the assholes who like kicking ass and the POLITICIANS who support them.

      Do you get it? Those are the very same people who would break your arm (or worse) for spitting on the sidewalk or tax your ass to oblivion simply because you don’t make enough MONEY! And you say you support them with this trumped up war they keep promoting? I can only ask, what have you been smoking?!

      The facts are clear: this war on drugs benefits NO ONE but the ASSHOLES! Because keeping little Johnny in jail just because he likes to get high benefits NO ONE!

      Watch the video!

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Are you saying I often post against those with a god complex (I don’t think so) or who more simply vomit Dogma of one religious tripe or another “as if” they were speaking for God? (Yes, I’ll cop to that)

        …….OR….. do you mean I “resemble that remark” by my constant pontificating (but without resort to bumper sticker non-think aka Dogma)?

        I can’t tell if the odds here are 50/50 or 1/3? It Depends???

        Not a bad idea to think that morality should have laws enforcing it……. but ….. when they don’t work…..I PREACH YOU SHOULD BE ……pragmatic. And being a fiscal conservative, I hate seeing gubment revenue stolen from me and my fellow tax paying slaves wasted in such manner.

        God like……(this is for timmmmmay)… or good like? Good Luck with that???

        …but I dither.

  5. MikeN says:

    Tobacco is legal and pretty much harmless. Yet liberals go overboard in trying to ban it and sue the companies. Does this video make any mention of how liberals and trial lawyers will go after anyone who sells drugs with legalization?

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Lying Mike with the false equivalencies.

      Never miss a trick do you?

      Thank god for utter stupidity being totally transparent.

      Ha, ha.

      Stupid Human.

    • NikElectric says:

      I do not support banning tobacco, but it is not “pretty much harmless”. In fact, it is more addictive and harmful than most currently illegal drugs. Alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs are far deadlier than cocaine and heroin.

    • jpfitz says:

      Sure tobacco is fine from the earth. BUT, WAKE UP, it’s the added chemicals that are the problem. Do some reading for a change instead of always taking your moral high ground. I don’t mean to be nasty or condescending, it must be your comments just trigger my nasty side.

  6. Enemy_of_the_State says:

    Nancy smokes herb

  7. The big e says:

    You are misinformed. Money from drug forfeitures is not allowed to be used to increase salaries or provide bonuses. It can only be used to buy equipment and training.

    • Zero says:

      Excepting that the budgeted money that would go to equipment and training is now free to go to payroll, your statement makes sense. It’s basic economics, isn’t it? More money in the system, lip service to laws… Win-win in my boom!

    • Sneezy, Grumpy and Dopey says:

      Think about it. If they win this so called war, then what?! Let me give you a clue…

      But first, you need to understand one basic truth when it comes to (big) business or government: Once you enrich someone’s budget they will forever find way’s to KEEP IT! It’s basic common knowledge that’s akin to another natural law — survival!

      …So if this bullshit war ends, what do you think they will do when the all of the drug money and property dries up? Here’s your hint: watch a few nature films of innocent (slow) gazelles getting eaten.

    • Tim says:

      And building prisons. Municipalities are funding new prisons with bonds and the ‘collateral’ being promised future seized assets. Hmm. How convienient.

  8. Sneezy, Grumpy and Dopey says:

    It’s funny how many commentators here seem to just want to argue. (Yes, I do know where I am.)

    WATCH THE VIDEO!

    But more than that, LISTEN!!!

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Here is a good argument I never see made: when drugs are illegal many totally innocent people who want nothing to do with them get injured: not just limited to burglary victims so that the druggies can get the money but good folks like one of my managers who was beat for coming upon a drug deal doing down.

    Contra: when drugs are legal then only those who want to do drugs get their lives ruined. More innocents are left alone.

    This dispatches the argument that if drugs were legalized then more people would do them and ruin their own lives/become unproductive etc. I say in this existential existence of ours, that is a good thing. People making and suffering the consequences of their own choices RATHER THAN having to pay for the choices of others.

    Too many words? ie==more than yes or no?

    Hurts donuts.

    • MikeN says:

      So you think drugs were banned because people were just hurting themselves?

      And aren’t you a Bloomberg fan?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Lyin’ Mike===add up the pros and cons of both sides and make a judgement. In the end, its a value judgement BUT when you and Pedobreath do not support your conclusions with anything except bluster, you sound like you are just adding one more notch to your know nothing anti-science hypocritical bible thumping stupidity. You are in triple digits now===we are all convinced.

        Here another argument you see the basis of in many movies but not in the policy debate: When drugs are illegal you have assholes economically motivated to get others hooked. As pointed out above, you typical Big Gubment whiners ignore good basic capitalism as you try to force your morals on everyone else.

        If you don’t want to do drugs===THEN DON’T DO THEM. Leave the rest of us the f*ck alone.

        • MikeN says:

          I’ll give you credit for not letting your housing problems influence your thinking.

      • MikeN says:

        Can you at least tell the difference between a conclusion and a question. You were the one who made an argument that is unconvincing.

  10. Uncle Patso says:

    Over the decades I’ve tried enough drugs to know that some of them lead to social ills. Today’s speed freaks are different from the ones of 40 years ago, but in either era nurses, truck/bus drivers, pilots, etc. trying to make a few extra bucks leads/led to harm due to fried brains. Forty-some years ago I shared a joint with some folks, friends-of-a-friend, that was said to have a little heroin in it. That was about the best I have ever felt with my clothes on. If my girlfriend hadn’t gotten a little too much and gotten sick and dragged be away, I might still be lying on that floor, ooh-ing and aah-ing my life away. Except of course that by now I would probably have long since died from hepatitis or AIDS or an overdose. Crack has been shown to be so addictive that mothers will try to sell their children to get more.

    On the other hand, marijuana/hashish seems largely harmless, except for the impairment of social/emotional development it leads to in adolescents and the lack of energy/ambition it’s associated with.

    History shows that when intoxicants are too cheap and easily available, society can be harmed. So perhaps the “war on drugs” has gone overboard, but I believe there should be some deterrence; we should at least try to make some of them as hard to get as we can.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Just say no. The opposite of illegal is not heroin for breakfast.

      Make drugs legal and the expense/HORROR of putting casual users in jail can be used for mandatory rehab, half way houses and what not.

      Black/White and Stupid all over thinking is not a sound basis for social policy.

      Will certain lives be destroyed along with some innocents around them if drugs were legalized/de-criminalized???===Of course. Does the same occur now with them being illegal???===Of course.

      Add up the pros and cons of both sides. Give a value to people being free to make mistakes and to learn from them without the heavy hand of gubment becoming an asswipe intrusive nanny.

      Right Wing hypocritical moralists. Think of the tax revenue!!! Tax MJ and you could give Millionaires another tax break. Whats wrong with you?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Hey Patso—I thought that was from Mickey.

        Same ideas apply. Tweak the opprobrium.

    • MikeN says:

      If it is legal, then what is the justification for mandatory rehab?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Because some people can’t make such decisions for themselves==ie, multiple offenders.

        Mickey==like Pedro===your “problem” is quite obvious. You think in terms of black and white, right vs wrong, left/right. While these conditions certainly exist in our ying/yang moral universe, such moral failure does not recognize the many many cases of gray.

        ….For the same reasons that drugs, gambling, smoking, should be legal but not promoted for use by advertising.

        …..For the same reason that the Castle Doctrine should not be extended via Stand your Ground to the Public Square.

        Ha, ha. Yes….. we can all learn from this public forum. I never realized just how much of being conservative was based on near blind inflexibility of mind.

        Silly Hoomans. How do the flowers smell?

  11. raintrees says:

    Too many entrenched interests derive much of their funding due to the war on *….

    They have way too much to lose to give up on a bad idea. Top down is not very likely, especially in this day and age of toxic war on the Reuplicrats/Demicans.

    Better to approach it from the bottom up, legalize it locally, tax it locally, succeed locally, strengthen and grow more healthy locally, and let the top change or atrophy.

    • Tim says:

      tax, tax, tax.

      Here is a substance which is actively banned/irradicated as it is stated in the law that it causes people to pay less poppybush tax. Hmm.

      Kratom

      “”M. speciosa is indigenous to Thailand and, despite growing naturally in the country, has been outlawed for 70 years and was originally banned because it was reducing the Thai government’s tax revenue from opium distribution.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitragyna_speciosa

      “…and now, we would like another shrubbery here; with a path…”

  12. Captain Obvious says:

    We should have a war on alcohol. And tobacco. Right?

  13. Captain Obvious says:

    Proof positive that smoking kills.

  14. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    The news is fascinating right now about the deal with Iran. It presents another very good example of the challenge to think being trumped by the ease of conservative inflexibility to do so.

    The central failure is the same: taking a complex layered issue that comes down to choices being made only between BAD options, ==OR== failing to engage the real issue by resorting to more simple but wrong Good vs Bad formulation of the issues.

    Fascinating.

    How do we think what we think, and how do we change our minds?

    There really is NO REASON AT ALL to talk to Iran if we are going to play the military card. But can we (the USA) change this War as a First Option mentality in a world that will too soon enough be dominated by China?

    Drugs are Bad. Nukes are Bad. People want to use them nonetheless. What to do?

    Ha, ha….. so much more likely to drive into a ditch when all you read are bumper stickers. Obama was masterful and a real DEMOCRATIC leader an hour ago on the Tube==letting a heckler stay in the crowd when talking about immigration reform. He said we have to think about these issues and work on real solutions rather than just shout out of understandable but ultimately only emotional frustration. Bush had similar dissenters escorted out of the room to free speech assembly zones. Hmmmm…. makes me want to give Obama slack on all the other issues on which I disagree. I hate having to do that.

    Know what I mean Pedro?

  15. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    By coincidence–here is the Obama video.

    Facts.

    Facts are niggly things.

    The crowd yells for Obama to issue an executive order to stop the deportations. Obama says he doesn’t have that power. /// Really? I could accept that “practically” ((or is it practicabley?==I can’t get the difference straight in my logophile obsessed mind. Embarassing really)) he would not and should not issue a total ban… but… since he has deported more illegals than any other president, sure seems like he could ask INS to emphasize some other time/money wasting effort (like enforcement against Employers????) that would have the effect requested by our illegal brothers and sisters. Can people be illegal the advocates challenge?===Ha, ha. Why yes——just look.

    http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513417/Obama-doubles-immigration-reform-pressure-stares-House-Republicans-token-speech-fundraising-swing.html?ICO=most_read_module

  16. jpfitz says:

    Any and all drugs are poison. It’s the biology of the user and the amount ingested, including the proclivity to addiction that causes damage. In a free market libertarian society this subject would be moot.

  17. jpfitz says:

    Ron Paul for President!

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Only one good idea does not a President make. In the same breath, he’s against a woman’s right to choose. He’s also against non discrimination laws.

      A total cafeteria plan of mixing and matching….

  18. Uncle Patso says:

    Recreational drug use in the U.S. is not a victimless crime.

    From
    http://motherjones.com/photoessays/2013/04/mexico-la-frontera/marisol-espinoza-2

    “According to government figures, there were 47,515 drug-related killings in Mexico between late 2006 and late 2011, though many experts put the death toll much higher. Almost every aspect of Mexican life is affected by organized crime and its endless battle to control the distribution of illicit drugs, most of which are destined for the United States and Canada. In just one month, photographer Louie Palu documented more than 110 murders in Mexico. There is no way of knowing how many of those deaths involved people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. As long as its justice system allows criminals to operate with impunity, Mexico will continue to be brutalized by the drug trade.”

    • orchidcup says:

      Alcohol is legal for adults, yet thousands are killed each year because of drunk driving, bar fights, etc.

      If we try to regulate everything that is known to kill people directly or indirectly, nobody would be allowed to do anything.

    • Tim says:

      Outlaw dandelions and you’ll have men trading and transporting them by the ton, scamming each other, killing each other, and kicking in your door to make sure you aren’t skimping on the Roundup.

      That’s not victimless either.

      What would those border wars be for then?? Why would anyone want to buy some crappy, seedy, squished, adulterated, blood-soaked bunk when they could either try their hand with home-grown or go clean and connoisseur from local vendors and growers who care.

      • Ken says:

        Even heroin costs only a few dollars per ounce to make. Why spend tons of money from an unreliable source that cuts the quality to gain even more profit, when a small lab can pump out the pure, clean stuff for next to nothing?

    • Captain Obvious says:

      I think you’re confusing illegal and legal recreational drug use. Read up on the history of crime associated with alcohol during prohibition.

      The problem is addiction. Talk to someone who has lived with it in their family – trust me you won’t have to go very far. Those are the real victims. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, etc. It’s all the same.

      5 million people in the US will die each year from tobacco use. Make it illegal and all you do is compound those numbers with senseless violence. Just like prohibition.

    • Ken says:

      If someone ingests a drug, who is the identifiable victim? If there is a victim, then the person who committed the alleged crime should be able to face his or her accuser.

      It is the government that is complicit in propping up drug lords who then perpetrate violence to keep their business going. If anyone should be put on trial, it’s those who are involved in the War on Drugs and perhaps even those who vote for them.

    • FSM says:

      I think all these drug-related murders in Mexico would not have happened if the stuff was not illegal to begin with.

  19. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Of course there are victims of drug use…. legal or illegal, casual or addicted.

    The question of the OP is based on that fact.

    Does anyone here think there are no victims of drug enforcement policy? THAT is the issue. Compare the harms created by both options. When your opinion is based on just one side of the equation you miss the point entirely.

    Darwin weeps.

  20. JimD says:

    “Follow the Money” !!! Who PROFITS FROM THE “WAR ON DRUGS” ??? All the PROFITEERS AND BUREAUCRATS OF “Incarceration Nation” !!! Legalize and Tax Drugs !!!

  21. MikeN says:

    No, that is the extent of Uncle Dave. He once posted a defense of people who vandalize houses because they couldn’t possibly afford them under George Bush.

    Uncle Dave says:
    What the hell are you talking about?

    My bad, it wasn’t just that they couldn’t afford them, but that Bush and Co were profiting from the War in Iraq. Sorry for the confusion. Indeed that post shows why the war on drugs is useful.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      With the same accuracy…. I’ll say Uncle Dave was/is correct on both counts. Just untwist your bobbleheaded understanding of what was said, and what is obvious should be apparent even to yourself.

      RICH = CRIMINAL

      Kennedys Dynasty was based on Prohibition alcohol.
      Bush Dynasty was based on Middle East Oil.

      Do either families profit today from this criminal activity? Other than carry forward interest and appreciation of capital assets…. probably not. Do the Bushies have overentwined family relations with the Oil Shieks sufficient for disqualify the whole family from holding high public office??

      I think so.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Bush and Co. If “Co” includes Cheney. Yes, Halliburton Exec could be prosecuted for war profiteering.

        I’m still waiting for who funded and profits from all the civilian contractors that are paid 10x market for services that aren’t even provided. How many of our over vaunted RICH do you think that would include. I don’t “know” but I would stfuf (forever) if those various orgs are composed and financed “only” by retired grunts and jarheads.

        Call me cynical.

      • MikeN says:

        Again your reading comprehension fails you. Let’s assume that you are correct. Then it is OK for people to come paint graffiti on your house as a result?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          You and Pedro should get together. Long serious exchanges on the topics of the day.

          ………….gee……………… how come you and Pedro DON’T talk to each other here?

          Heh, heh. Takes one to know one, and when you do, you avoid yourself?

          Thats heavy dude. Your OWN value system says talking to anyone like you is a waste of time.

          The rest of us need to pay like attention. Thats one thing about liberals—-always reaching down to give a hand to those in need. Wing nuts slappying it away happy with their own delusions.

          Silly Hoomans.

          Just got a book for Christmas, the squib looks good: “In his book, Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism, author and scholar Henry Giroux connects the dots to prove his theory that our current system is informed by a “machinery of social and civil death” that chills “any vestige of a robust democracy.”

          Interesting idea==there are social ills/challenges that require a SOCIAL response/program. The neo/religio/libertarin/NON Christian right by turning society over to the RICH have created a mind set that makes INDIVIDUALS responsible for these social programs. Sounds like the author has the same idea and has called in Zombie Politics. A bit too au current for me, but … you gotta get published.

          Embrace the Horror. Wallmart store with their one hour guarantee for 60” Vizio tv was closed. Guess I’ll wait until next year and call ahead?

          • Tim says:

            “”You and Pedro should get together.

            Ohh, but they kind of do–>

            “”Can you at least tell the difference between a conclusion and a question. You were the one who made an argument that is unconvincing.

            At least, they’ll circle the wagons together.

            As I believe that parts of the brain were physically damaged at birth pre 1950 vs. the more unreliable soft\slow chemical castration of the pineal (floride) and psycological abuse techniques though government ‘education’ that is not as effective on those who may stumble upon the prophylatic herbs, prohibition banter is going to be driven by their current stock portfolios.

            I’ve seen it too much. There is nothing but pain for them to hear the truth against what they were fed; That pain is significant and, for most of them, insurmountable. They tend to just watch lots of sports and yell at the tv when not dressing up and going to church to prove that they love Jesus enough.

            My profiler-sense increasing confidence index for these two over this year has me guessing they are both heavy in Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and prison ‘services’. It’s God’s blessings that they, the riteous, are well-off.

            There is a word for that — neocons.

            Highly intelligent, engaging pwning discourse, clueless.

            “I weep for the species.”

          • Tim says:

            Yea. As a matter of fact, there is a problem. I probably should have waited for GRIDX II to conclude before attempting to flash the internet.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Ha, ha. “most war game scenarios” are wrong as they are premised on a set of instructions and “rules” that are followed.

            But real terrorists don’t play that game.

            They go all Kobayashi Maru and spoil everything for the right wing rule followers.

            I have had a nice time considering Pedro, Mickey, and right wing nuts. Am I just being egotistical thinking I am right and they are wrong and we both are doing the same thing? Do I actually really for shure love being shown I’m wrong???

            I think I am more right than wrong. When you grow up seeking the truth and learning from when you ARE wrong, you do become more accurate/truthful/honest. BUT as study after study shows, you psychology blanks out that which disagrees with you and you just cling to your dogma, how could the outcome be any different????

            Right Wing Nuts. Hardly ever correct, but totally convinced.

            Idiots. They have the smarts to be otherwise, but the switch is powered by psychology.

            Not Darwin===but the other great Jewish Thinker of our age: the one weeping is Freud.

          • Tim says:

            It’s not right wing v left wing — Yucky, licked-on boot-in-face is equally oxytocin-pumping, self esteem boosting, trust building, social adjusting, learning opportunities regardless of which team it belongs to; It’s The State against you.

            http://corbettreport.com/interview-778-james-corbett-discusses-morality-and-the-state/

  22. HGV cover says:

    An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who was
    conducting a little homework on this. And he actually ordered
    me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon
    it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanks for spending the time to discuss this topic here on your web site.

  23. Hector says:

    You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet to find out more about the issue and found most individuals
    will go along with your views on this website.

  24. Joel says:

    It’s an amazing piece of writing designed for all the online users;
    they will take benefit from it I am sure.

  25. Ƭhe propег daʏ for taking the urine test is aрproximatеly 2 weeks after having an unprotected sexual contact.

    You will nοt have to go through the hasslеs of ɡetting
    a doctor’s appoіntment, getting your testѕ done
    anԁ so on. People also say that afteг consumption of thesе drοps, they even
    witnessed considerable difference in the fatty regіon befߋre
    and after consumption.

  26. I rarely leave a response, however i did a few searching and wound up
    here Why The War on Drugs Is Worse Than Legalization Dvorak News Blog.

    And I actually do have 2 questions for you if you usually do not mind.
    Is it only me or does it look like a few of the remarks come across like they are coming from brain dead folks?

    😛 And, if you are writing at additional places, I’d like
    to keep up with anything new you have to post. Could you make a list of every one of your community pages like your
    Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13743 access attempts in the last 7 days.