Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 6 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How could you regulate it?

The one problem with allowing its growth just anywhere comes to children - there are enough problems with children and drugs. I don't care who you are, you can't claim that its good for people to do drugs - its not... period.

Alcohol and tobacco are not products that can just be purchased anyplace, because they are vices - and if they were left to be consumed, produced by just anyone anytime, there would be serious societal consequences(like the ones of the past).

You see the ending of prohibition as some miracle cure to the country(possibly the world's) problems. That just isn't the case..

Could ending prohibition work? possibly..

but what are the consequences if it fails? Catastrophic..
We have only to look at the effects opium had on societies of the past.. or cocaine on the southern states...(this was a drug which many claimed was introduced to the United States in order to keep the african american population down)..
You must remember that these laws were brought into place because these drugs caused social problems that deeply affected society as a whole.

I agree to some extent that marijauna has become caught up in this, and its not entirely fair. That is why I'm willing to take a half-way stance on the subject.. If we allow marijuana, we can't prohibit drugs like opiates, halucinagens, or amphetamines.
How could I say to someone "it's ok to smoke weed, but you can't smoke meth" ?
and if we say it's ok to smoke meth, then we run into a new opium...

all you have to do is meet someone who is using meth, and its easy to tell that that's not a road society wants to go down.

Perhaps ending prohibition would reduce the number of inmates in the jails - but would those in there who were in fact dangerous people, then be loose on the streets to perpetrate worse acts? Would those who rely on petty marijuana sale to survive currently, have to turn to worse things (theft, robbery, extortion, guns?). As it is, marijuana acts as an interesting intermediary. On one hand, it is the cause of a great deal of criminal activity - but on the other, it moderates that criminal activity. Eliminate that element, and you leave a good deal of people without means of support(even if they are a burden on society in that they contribute to the underground economy.).

Now those people rely on the social safety net.. an institution which is already suffering from over-use. Not to mention, government would have to increase funding for drug addiction centres.

Lets just think about the ramifications to motorists - we don't have conclusive, reliable roadside tests for marijuana.. Anyone claiming that its ok to drive high, must be high - its not...

I think that we need to take a middle of the line approach here - to sway too far on either side is irresponsible. It is impossible to ignore that a good deal of Canadians smoke marijuana, and most have at one point. It is also impossible to ignore that it is becoming an increasingly common occurance.
However, it is also impossible to ignore the massive social implications in fully legalizing the substance.

Again, I advocate decriminalizing posession. Allow individual provinces choose whether or not to create provincial offenses for posession. Keep the criminal code definition of Trafficking, and implement steep penalties for the offense.
This solution offers the best of both worlds;

1. it regulates the usage, still sends the message that drugs are bad, but doesn't ruin lives by establishing a criminal record for mere posession.

2. it reduces the burden on the prison system, opening space and funding for real criminals.

3. it still curbs the proliferation, by enabling harsher sentences, and getting the real criminals off the streets.

4. it increases revenue - this is always helpful.

5. if certain parts of the country see fit to have legalization(I'm eyeing those crazy BC'ers ;) ), then that part of the country could opt out of provincial legislation banning it's use/posession.

pertaining to 5 - many will say that these laws counter each other. I am in disagreement. It simply says that it is illegal to grow and distribute marijuana - but doesn't punish those who come in possession of it. I suspect you would see most provincial governments opt in on the provincial legislation.

I also think that this solution would appease the greatest number of Canadians. Those on both sides can accept most of the consessions, and those in the middle who don't care can accept it because it's middle-of-the-road. For conservatives - its tough on crime. For Leftists - it's fair to those who are not hurting society.

As much as I can appreciate your desire for legalized marijuana, I think your thoughts on it are short-sighted, and perhaps clouded by your own interest in the substance. You continually see it as some sort of "god's gift", but fail to see the downsides of the drug... admitting that smoking weed every day is a problem, is a good part of the solution..
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Sorry, I don't ascribe to any political philosophy that involves forfeiting rights


Is smoking dope a right now too?!? First gay marriage and now doing drugs.

Quote:
If this is truly your vision of Canada... a country where the government takes away all individual liberties


Where did I say I wanted to take away "all individual liberties". I don't have time to debate with someone who puts words into my mouth.

Quote:
freedoms and choice and socialism is accepted and embraced, why do you call your forum "Blogging Tories" since Tories oppose socialism?


I'm not a libertarian. In fact, most conservatives in this country are not libertarians. I'm not sure where you got the impression that to be conservative one must be libertarian.

Quote:
The Liberals since Trudeau have been trying to warp our democracy into socialism but they haven't completely succeeded yet.


YOU ARE CONFUSING THE TERMS "LIBERTARIAN" WITH "SOCIALISM". SOCIALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM TO SMOKE DOPE - IT IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM!!!

Quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Muslim extremists rejoice!!! Too bad Mr. Franklin didn't have to deal with them or he might have had second thoughts.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Is smoking dope a right now too?!? First gay marriage and now doing drugs.


Who is putting words in whose mouth? Where did I say smoking dope was a right? Incidentally, marriage is not a right but the right to not be discriminating against on the basis of sexual orientation means disallowing same sex couples to marry is contrary to the Charter of Rights. Itís a fine point but one which many people choose to ignore.

Craig wrote:
Where did I say I wanted to take away "all individual liberties". I don't have time to debate with someone who puts words into my mouth.


You said it right here & here:

Craig wrote:
The moment someone uses public health care they forfeit the right to do whatever the hell they want to their bodies.


Craig wrote:
I'm talking about forfeiting your right to do whatever you want to your body IF I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES.


The message seems pretty clear to me. Do personal freedoms and liberties mean so little to you?

Craig wrote:
I'm not a libertarian. In fact, most conservatives in this country are not libertarians. I'm not sure where you got the impression that to be conservative one must be libertarian.


It is obvious youíre authoritarian, not libertarian, and you are right the majority of Conservatives are not libertarian. CPC has values which resemble mine more closely than LPC or NDP- smaller government, less ďnanny stateĒ laws, less taxes, etc. Tory (or Tories) is generally associated with the old PCPC which was more libertarian than the current incarnation. Iíve been around for a while. Most Canadians havenít heard of libertarianism which says something about our public school systems.

Craig wrote:
YOU ARE CONFUSING THE TERMS "LIBERTARIAN" WITH "SOCIALISM". SOCIALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM TO SMOKE DOPE - IT IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM!!!


Iím not sure why youíre shouting. I havenít mentioned the term ďlibertarianĒ anywhere in this thread until this post. Check if you like.

Socialism is more than simply an economic system; likewise with libertarianism is more than a philosophy. Socialism is the welfare state. Socialists place the rights of the group above the rights of the individual which means socialists will not hesitate to extinguish the rights of individuals. How would you like to have your daily life ordered by government from cradle to grave, where your choices arenít desired or respected? Thatís what the noneconomic side of socialism is all about.

Libertarians advocate that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong and ultimately counterproductive.

It appears youíre frustrated you canít find flaws in my points but my values are different than yours and youíre hoping to discourage me from debating. I hope Iím misreading this but thatís how it looks from here.

-Mac
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
Buddy Kat wrote:

The demonization factor alone has caused virtually anything comeing out of a government or police tongue to be considered a big lie.


Perhaps this is YOUR take... but this is not society's thinking by any stretch of the imagination. Prohibition hasn't caused that phenomenon anyhow...

Distrusting police is caused by people being criminals, or involved in criminal activity, nothing else. And distrusting politicians comes from one after another failing to keep their promises (its nice to have a good change to that pattern, isn't it ;) )


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/e.....lth_1.html

http://www.marijuana-addiction.....angers.htm

http://www.educatingvoices.org.....angers.asp

http://www.salvos.org.au/need-.....rijuana%22

anyone can slap down a bunch of URLs.... ;)





It doesn't take a criminal to see where the police and government have failed misrerabley, or to see thru a facade. Most studies that show "long bottom leaf" to be a bad thing are funded by government or contaminated by conflict of intrest ..re : NGO'S , non government organization that are partisan or rely on government for funding. Even so called independant studies are questionable.

The phrase "speed kills" was adopted by the cullture of the 60's to combat this distrust people had for government and police. As people learnt first hand that demonizing and lieing was rampant when it came to "long bottom leaf". They also learnt the only danger was the government and police.

However , when government and police came out painting meth as a bad thing the status quo was to say "there they go again, lieing and demonizeing", but they were telling the truth this time. Hence the warning speed kills..and that's what people believe and have learnt to believe..other people.

They didn't like that so they demonized the culture. Congratulations now instead of a culture of peace and love , you have one based on guns and fear and innocent people are paying with there lives because of it. Doesn't take a criminal to see thru that. That is also why despite massive anti meth efforts, they lose the battle, and innocent children die. Because of corrupt and hatefull government and police.

It doesn't take a criminal to know ..when you see police spending 1 hour combing thru a students car on graduation day just looking for a joint so they can ruin that persons life , there is something rotten going on. Or when a family has to leave there son behind when they leave the country because there kid had a juvenile pot smokeing record .You don't have to be criminal to see thru that nonsense. Or when they use UN declarations as excuses..when everyone knows declarations are not legally binding. The government and police lie all the time when it comes to "long bottom leaf"..after a while you just have to ask yorself ..Why?


I can't buy into the government is looking after your health and the police really give a crap. There are just to many examples of government allowing corporations to poison and kill and police protecting them to convince me of that.

However tell me the government uses "long bottom leaf" as a tool and excuse to violate peoples rights. To arm themselves to the hilt so they can protect political criminals from you the victim .To intimidate threaten and kill people. To demonize cultures and create hate. To create a tax free underground for there money laundering schemes. Oh I can buy into that lock, stock and barrel. Home grown terror in spades.

The fellow that posted "Lying sacks of shit"...is more right than you can imagine. If they told you the truth..belive me , you wouldn't vote for them. Before people jump on the band wagon saying "harper is telling the truth"..just wait and see how much beer and popcorn money you get after you pay yer tax's.

If the liberals are smart they will time a non confidence vote and force an election in March or April. It should be intresting to see what kind of garden path Harper paves for them, and how badly he gets walloped. Not that they would be any better..but it would be good to see Harper get walloped.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How could you regulate it?


pretty much like we regulate alcohol or cigarettes, even though Cannabis is not nearly as unhealthy or dangerous as either one.



Quote:
The one problem with allowing its growth just anywhere comes to children - there are enough problems with children and drugs. I don't care who you are, you can't claim that its good for people to do drugs - its not... period.


Oh please, by the time kids want to try pot, prohibition surely is not going to stop them. If you are referring to little children, not teenagers, then the argument is even more lame. Do you actually think any kid is going to try to eat raw cannabis? Are you that dense? Dried or not Cannabis does not taste good and is actually quite difficult to eat. Even if a kid somehow managed to consume some cannabis it would do them no harm anyway. Cannabis is NON-TOXIC. Do you know what non-toxic means? Read the label on almost any over the counter pain medicine, or prescription drug and you will almost always find the disclaimer "This bottle contains enough medicine to seriously harm a child" I wonder if a kid is going to be more likely to accidentally OD on some pills that look like peppermints, some cherry flavoured cold syrup or something that looks like dried lawn clippings? Try to think these arguments through before just repeating the same old reefer madness crap because these are lame and shooting ducks in a barrel is not any fun for me.



Quote:
Alcohol and tobacco are not products that can just be purchased anyplace, because they are vices - and if they were left to be consumed, produced by just anyone anytime, there would be serious societal consequences(like the ones of the past).


I guess you havn't heard that anyone CAN grow their own tobacco, or brew their own beer, make their own wine? Try to do a little reading, you only look foolish when you make uninformed statements like that. BTW that statement actually reads like it is against prohibition. Alcohol and Tobacco cannot be just purchased anyplace, because they are regulated, Cannabis can be bought pretty much anywhere, anytime by anyone, because it is not regulated.

Quote:
You see the ending of prohibition as some miracle cure to the country(possibly the world's) problems. That just isn't the case..


You have yet to provide even a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. I guess we should all just take your word for it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your aspirations of becoming employed by prohibition. You make the local green team yet Biggie?




Quote:
You must remember that these laws were brought into place because these drugs caused social problems that deeply affected society as a whole.


You need to study your prohibition history bud because you couldn't be more far off.

"Reefer makes the darky feel he is as good as the white man"-Harry Anslinger-father of prohibition

Is that the type of societal problem you are refering to? Can't say it would surprise me much. That was about the only line of reasoning that lead to prohibition. In Canada it was white supremecist Emily Murphy of the anti-chinese league who championed cannabis prohibition while writing under the pseudonym Janey Canuck for Macleans Magazine. There were never any societal harms caused by drugs that prohibition hasn't made worse. Even if you repeat a lie 1000 times biggie it won't make it magically become truth.

As for the rest of your post, and your recomendations, considering you are completely ignorant of the relevant facts, I'm not going to waste any more of my time picking it apart piece by piece. Suffice it to say taking your advice on setting up a sensible drug policy would be like asking a ditch digger how to perform open heart surgery.


Last edited by DrGreenthumb on Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
Suffice it to say taking your advice on setting up a sensible drug policy would be like asking a ditch digger how to perform open heart surgery.

You're about as subtle as a kick in the pants. I was going to jibe something to the effect of "tell us how you really feel" but you might... :lol:

-Mac
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually I'm supposed to be ignoring biggie, but he's just so irritating, it's like trying to ignore a hemhorroid or a stone in your shoe, lol
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, well... We're supposed to have fun, aren't we? It's too bad some folks get emotionally involved in their posts. :roll:

-Mac
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh please, by the time kids want to try pot, prohibition surely is not going to stop them. If you are referring to little children, not teenagers, then the argument is even more lame. Do you actually think any kid is going to try to eat raw cannabis? Are you that dense? Dried or not Cannabis does not taste good and is actually quite difficult to eat. Even if a kid somehow managed to consume some cannabis it would do them no harm anyway. Cannabis is NON-TOXIC. Do you know what non-toxic means? Read the label on almost any over the counter pain medicine, or prescription drug and you will almost always find the disclaimer "This bottle contains enough medicine to seriously harm a child" I wonder if a kid is going to be more likely to accidentally OD on some pills that look like peppermints, some cherry flavoured cold syrup or something that looks like dried lawn clippings? Try to think these arguments through before just repeating the same old reefer madness crap because these are lame and shooting ducks in a barrel is not any fun for me


You've started an argument here on words i never even said... I wasn't talking about kids eating it! hahaha not one of your points even adressed one of mine.

Quote:
As for the rest of your post, and your recomendations, considering you are completely ignorant of the relevant facts, I'm not going to waste any more of my time picking it apart piece by piece. Suffice it to say taking your advice on setting up a sensible drug policy would be like asking a ditch digger how to perform open heart surgery.


Question my facts all you want.. If you refuse to have a constructive argument thats fine as well... you're not doing yourself any favours.

Quote:

You need to study your prohibition history bud because you couldn't be more far off.


likewise, obviously..

Quote:
You have yet to provide even a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. I guess we should all just take your word for it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your aspirations of becoming employed by prohibition. You make the local green team yet Biggie?


and you have yet to provide any evidence supporting your claim.. and give it up, i have no desire to be busting drug users, just like most cops... your ad hominem remarks highlight the strength of your argument beautifully.

Quote:
I guess you havn't heard that anyone CAN grow their own tobacco, or brew their own beer, make their own wine? Try to do a little reading, you only look foolish when you make uninformed statements like that. BTW that statement actually reads like it is against prohibition. Alcohol and Tobacco cannot be just purchased anyplace, because they are regulated, Cannabis can be bought pretty much anywhere, anytime by anyone, because it is not regulated.


Perhaps you need to read up on your provincial offenses... i suggest for ontario the Liquor License Act. ;) you'll see what i mean..
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Ah, well... We're supposed to have fun, aren't we? It's too bad some folks get emotionally involved in their posts. :roll:

-Mac


it is, yes...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm guilty of that but I can't emotionally detatch myself from all the needless suffering caused by prohibition. How many more lives must be destroyed? How many families torn apart? All to prevent the people from accessing free medicine? To let some people feel superior to others by allowing them to scapegoat a blameless minority for their problems? It is sick, and wrong, and can't be allowed to continue. If Canada allows the United Snakes to take Marc Emery and lock him up for the rest of his life for selling plant seeds there will be HELL to pay. Mark my words. Canadian justice system for Canadian citizens. We do not have to obey America. This is a soveriegn nation.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:

If the liberals are smart they will time a non confidence vote and force an election in March or April. It should be intresting to see what kind of garden path Harper paves for them, and how badly he gets walloped. Not that they would be any better..but it would be good to see Harper get walloped.


keep dreaming..
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
I'm guilty of that but I can't emotionally detatch myself from all the needless suffering caused by prohibition. How many more lives must be destroyed? How many families torn apart? All to prevent the people from accessing free medicine? To let some people feel superior to others by allowing them to scapegoat a blameless minority for their problems? It is sick, and wrong, and can't be allowed to continue. If Canada allows the United Snakes to take Marc Emery and lock him up for the rest of his life for selling plant seeds there will be HELL to pay. Mark my words. Canadian justice system for Canadian citizens. We do not have to obey America. This is a soveriegn nation.


crazy "i don't trust anyone" remarks like that are precisely why none of us take you seriously...

notice the reception Mac receives... its because he doesn't sound like a raving lunatic. Perhaps you could have a discussion that doesn't come down to you getting high legally and we'de be more likely to take you seriously.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Craig wrote:
Where did I say I wanted to take away "all individual liberties". I don't have time to debate with someone who puts words into my mouth.


You said it right here & here:

Craig wrote:
The moment someone uses public health care they forfeit the right to do whatever the hell they want to their bodies.


Craig wrote:
I'm talking about forfeiting your right to do whatever you want to your body IF I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES.


The message seems pretty clear to me. Do personal freedoms and liberties mean so little to you?


Again. Where did I say I wanted to take away "ALL individual liberties". You cited one liberty I suggested should be taken away ONLY if I have to pay for their health care. If I don't have to pay for their health care they can do whatever they want.

IN OTHER WORDS. GET RID OF SOCIALISM AND YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. But instead you call me a socialist and say I want to "take away ALL liberties".

I have no time for you.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Again. Where did I say I wanted to take away "ALL individual liberties". You cited one liberty I suggested should be taken away ONLY if I have to pay for their health care. If I don't have to pay for their health care they can do whatever they want.


You didn't say "all individual liberties" word-for-word. Apparently this point is very important to you. It's yours. You win. You're willing to give up a liberty; I am not. Does that make you feel better?

Craig wrote:
IN OTHER WORDS. GET RID OF SOCIALISM AND YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. But instead you call me a socialist and say I want to "take away ALL liberties".


You're shouting again and you're putting words in my mouth which seems rather ironic considering the foregoing paragraphs. At risk of enraging you further, may I quote your statement from an earlier post?

Craig wrote:
We DO live in a socialist society.


At no point have I called you socialist. I've said you were authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) but not socialist.

Craig wrote:
I have no time for you.


How sad.

biggie rection wrote:
notice the reception Mac receives... its because he doesn't sound like a raving lunatic.


I appreciate the thought, biggie, but apparently Craig disagrees. Luckily, my skin is pretty thick.

-Mac
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 6 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


A lot of money

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB