Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Why Marijuana should be Legalized


Tystick

Recommended Posts

First of all man, not everyone that smokes it is immediately labelled as a "pothead". I don't know if your trying to use that word as some sort of an attack against people smoking to make yourself feel better, but people who smoke 24/7 are people that have had and/or still have issues in their life, so their using it to make the situation better. Some people smoke every once in a while just because it's a fun thing to do, just like getting a little drunk every now and then. Anyway, aside from that you do have a good point, some people really don't like the smell. I for one have really grown to hate the smell of cigarettes, and so have many others. Well guess what happened? Laws came into place making it illegal to smoke in different areas such as public parks, beaches, bars, restaurants, etc. There are even designated smoking pits in lots of areas. I feel the same thing can be done with Marijuana.

With your last statement in mind, this is why people who smoke it "don't care what people against it think" as you say. If you've never tried it, and at the very least never done research on it, then it's pretty obvious why you want it to remain illegal. It is something you have never tried and don't care too (which is fine), but that doesn't mean you have to be sour about it.

Please dude, listen to either video I posted, and get back to me. You will gain some knowledge on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, it smells awful. Of course pothead and losers as such don't care as long as they can get baked legally as much as they want. Just imagine if it was legalized, cities and towns would smell like a dump. And I'm not making that choice for potheads. Like I said, if you're an idiot, you're an idiot, continue to be one by abusing it. Legal or not, you're going to do it if you want to bad enough. Regardless of the pros and cons of legalization, I and those against pot win and the potheads wanting legalization lose. Too bad, so sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with this part of that post, but I actually think the penalty for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" in regards to pot should be as stiff as allowing underage kids to drink at a party if you get caught doing it. And the whole "second-hand smoke" bs you referenced is little more than a myth...as a cigarette smoker for 16 years now, at least here in the US, I have seen smokers' rights dwindle to the point where we're not even allowed to smoke in bars anymore, and in some places around not even on the sidewalk...if you ask me, that's getting really out of hand, but that's a topic for another thread. In my experience...the only people who have ever been charged with driving under the influence of pot are those who have been pulled over for a normal traffic violation, and then some overzealous cop searches their glove compartment with no probable cause. The effects of pot are not the same as alcohol, in the least, and no one I know, even with a buzz, swerves all over the road or at all, to the point that there is a concern they are endangering the lives of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DOT HS 808 078 NOVEMBER 1993

MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE

EFFECTS OF THC ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE

One of the issues addressed by the first driving study was whether it would be safe to continue using the same approach for subsequent on-road studies in traffic. The first group complied with all instructions, even after high doses of THC. Changes in mood were often reported but changes in personality were never observed. Most importantly, the subjects were always able to complete every ride without major interventions by the driving instructors and their safety was never compromised. The same occurred in the subsequent studies showing that it is possible to safely study marijuana's effects on actual driving performance in the presence of other traffic. In this respect, the drug is no different from many others studied by the same investigators and their colleagues.

The standard test measured the subjects' ability to maintain a constant speed and a steady lateral position between the lane boundaries. Standard deviation of lateral position, SDLP, increased after marijuana smoking in a dose-related manner. The lowest dose, i.e. 100 ug/kg THC, produced a slight elevation in mean SDLP, albeit significant in the first driving study. The intermediate dose, i.e. 200 ug/kg THC, increased SDLP moderately; and, the highest, i.e. 300 ug/kg THC, substantially. It is remarkable how well the changes in SDLP following THC in the first driving study were replicated in the second, in spite of the many differences in the ways they were designed. The replication of THC's effects on SDLP substantiates the generality of these results. Other objective measures obtained by this test were much less affected by THC. Mean speed was somewhat reduced following the higher THC doses, but the effects were relatively small (max. 1.1 km/hr or 0.7 mph). Standard deviations of speed and steering wheel movements were unaffected by the drug. Subjective ratings of perceived driving quality followed a similar pattern as SDLP indicating that the subjects were well aware of their diminished ability to control the vehicle after marijuana smoking.

The car following test measured the subjects' ability to follow a leading car with varying speed at a constant distance. All THC doses increased mean headway, but according to an inverse dose-response relationship. This type of relationship was unexpected and probably due to the particular design of the second driving study, i.e. the ascending dose series. It means that subjects were very cautious the first time they undertook the test under the influence of THC (i.e. after the lowest dose) and progressively less thereafter. As a consequence of this phenomenon, mean reaction time to changes in the preceding car's speed also followed an inverse dose-response relationship. Statistical adjustment for this confounding by analysis of covariance indicated that reaction times would not have increased significantly if the mean headway were constant. Coefficient of headway variation increased slightly following THC. Together, these data indicate that there is no more than a slight tendency towards impairment in car following performance after marijuana smoking. They also show that subjects try to compensate for anticipated adverse effects of the drug buy increasing headway, especially when they are uncertain of what these might be. As in the standard test, subjects' ratings of driving quality corresponded to the objective changes in their performance.

The city driving study measured the subjects' ability to operate a vehicle in urban traffic. for reasons mentioned in the respective chapter the THC dose in that study was restricted to 100 ug/kg. For comparative purposes another group of subjects was treated with a modest dose of alcohol, producing a mean BAC of about 0.04g%. Results of the study showed that the modest dose of alcohol, but not THC, produced a significant impairment in driving performance, relative to placebo. Alcohol impaired driving performance but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. After alcohol, there was a tendency towards faster driving and after THC, slower.

The results of these studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 ug/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. They contrast with results from many laboratory tests, reviewed by Moskowitz (1985), which show that even low doses of THC impair skills deemed important for driving, such as perception, coordination, tracking and vigilance. The present studies also demonstrated that marijuana can have greater effects in laboratory than driving tests. The last study, for example, showed a highly significant effect of THC on hand unsteadiness but not on driving in urban traffic.

It is a natural question why the effects of marijuana on actual driving performance appear to be so small. As in many previous investigations, subjects attempted to compensate for anticipated adverse effects of marijuana smoking. Our subjects were aware of the impairing effects of THC as shown by lower ratings of perceived driving quality. Consequently, they invested more effort to accomplish the driving tests following THC than placebo. Furthermore, in the car following test, they drove at a greater headway after marijuana smoking; and, in both road tracking and city driving tests, they slightly reduced their driving speed. yet despite their effort, subjects were unable to fully compensate for THC's adverse effects on lateral position variability. This is because SDLP is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control. The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes, as shown by the high reliability of SDLP under repeated placebo conditions, but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts SDLP, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accessible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely.

That still leaves the question open why performance appears to be more affected by THC in laboratory than actual driving tests. many researchers defend the primacy of laboratory performance tests for measuring drug effects on skills related to driving on the basis of superior experimental control. Certainly some control is always necessary to reduce the confounding influence of extraneous factors that would otherwise so increase measurement error as to totally obscure the drug's effects. however, only some extraneous factors are truly sources of measurement error and others either attenuate or amplify drug effects in real driving and must be considered as relevant to a test's predictive validity. Simply eliminating all of them, first, removes their normal mediating influence on the drug effect, and secondly, affects the subject's motivation to perform the test by making it appear "unreal". Controlling the test usually involves drastic simplification and restriction of response options. The desire in doing this is to isolate a particular driving skill and determine how it changes under the influence of drugs. However, drivers always apply numerous skills in parallel and series. Should one become deficient, they are often able to compensate in a number of ways to achieve a satisfactory level of proficiency. Thus the demonstration of some particular skill decrement in the laboratory in no way indicates that this would ultimately reduce driving safety in reality. Finally there are some skills that simply can not be measured in laboratory tests, at least not easily enough to make it a routine matter. The acquisition of any skill which depends upon automatic information processing requires practice over weeks or months. After learning to drive, subjects possess such skills in abundance and one can only demonstrate how they vary with drug effects in the real task or a very close approximation thereof.

Profound drug impairment constituting an obvious traffic safety hazard could as easily be demonstrated in a laboratory performance test as anywhere else. But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving. In short, it would appear as if over-control in laboratory performance tests has resulted in a misimpression of THC's effect, incomplete in some respects and exaggerated in others. The actual driving tests may provide a more realistic impression of the drug's effects, albeit still incomplete and perhaps tending to minimize them with respect to more complex driving situations that come closer to "worst case".

www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all man, not everyone that smokes it is immediately labelled as a "pothead". I don't know if your trying to use that word as some sort of an attack against people smoking to make yourself feel better, but people who smoke 24/7 are people that have had and/or still have issues in their life, so their using it to make the situation better. Some people smoke every once in a while just because it's a fun thing to do, just like getting a little drunk every now and then. Anyway, aside from that you do have a good point, some people really don't like the smell. I for one have really grown to hate the smell of cigarettes, and so have many others. Well guess what happened? Laws came into place making it illegal to smoke in different areas such as public parks, beaches, bars, restaurants, etc. There are even designated smoking pits in lots of areas. I feel the same thing can be done with Marijuana.

With your last statement in mind, this is why people who smoke it "don't care what people against it think" as you say. If you've never tried it, and at the very least never done research on it, then it's pretty obvious why you want it to remain illegal. It is something you have never tried and don't care too (which is fine), but that doesn't mean you have to be sour about it.

Please dude, listen to either video I posted, and get back to me. You will gain some knowledge on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But I think the term is fitting given that some people here are advocating it strongly. I'm not being sour about anything. At least you acknowledge the odor issue of it instead of dismissing it as 'too bad, deal with it'. Okay, well, your drug is illegal and it's going to stay that way for quite some time, too bad. How do you like that? Of course you don't, but anyway. Respect people's rights not to breath in that crap. I don't want to smell and breath in your cigarettes. I don't want to smell and breath in your pot. Of course those smoking don't care about that. KoreanHockeyFan just backed that up. Like I said, if the pros outweigh the cons then perhaps it should be legal. A quick Google search looks like that is the case. "It would be implemented much like drinking laws. Make it illegal to consume in public. Legal in private or in licensed establishments." If that were the case, then I guess I would be fine with that. I will also watch those videos later and respond because no doubt those in favor of legalization will come to its aid as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DOT HS 808 078 NOVEMBER 1993

MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE

EFFECTS OF THC ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE

One of the issues addressed by the first driving study was whether it would be safe to continue using the same approach for subsequent on-road studies in traffic. The first group complied with all instructions, even after high doses of THC. Changes in mood were often reported but changes in personality were never observed. Most importantly, the subjects were always able to complete every ride without major interventions by the driving instructors and their safety was never compromised. The same occurred in the subsequent studies showing that it is possible to safely study marijuana's effects on actual driving performance in the presence of other traffic. In this respect, the drug is no different from many others studied by the same investigators and their colleagues.

The standard test measured the subjects' ability to maintain a constant speed and a steady lateral position between the lane boundaries. Standard deviation of lateral position, SDLP, increased after marijuana smoking in a dose-related manner. The lowest dose, i.e. 100 ug/kg THC, produced a slight elevation in mean SDLP, albeit significant in the first driving study. The intermediate dose, i.e. 200 ug/kg THC, increased SDLP moderately; and, the highest, i.e. 300 ug/kg THC, substantially. It is remarkable how well the changes in SDLP following THC in the first driving study were replicated in the second, in spite of the many differences in the ways they were designed. The replication of THC's effects on SDLP substantiates the generality of these results. Other objective measures obtained by this test were much less affected by THC. Mean speed was somewhat reduced following the higher THC doses, but the effects were relatively small (max. 1.1 km/hr or 0.7 mph). Standard deviations of speed and steering wheel movements were unaffected by the drug. Subjective ratings of perceived driving quality followed a similar pattern as SDLP indicating that the subjects were well aware of their diminished ability to control the vehicle after marijuana smoking.

The car following test measured the subjects' ability to follow a leading car with varying speed at a constant distance. All THC doses increased mean headway, but according to an inverse dose-response relationship. This type of relationship was unexpected and probably due to the particular design of the second driving study, i.e. the ascending dose series. It means that subjects were very cautious the first time they undertook the test under the influence of THC (i.e. after the lowest dose) and progressively less thereafter. As a consequence of this phenomenon, mean reaction time to changes in the preceding car's speed also followed an inverse dose-response relationship. Statistical adjustment for this confounding by analysis of covariance indicated that reaction times would not have increased significantly if the mean headway were constant. Coefficient of headway variation increased slightly following THC. Together, these data indicate that there is no more than a slight tendency towards impairment in car following performance after marijuana smoking. They also show that subjects try to compensate for anticipated adverse effects of the drug buy increasing headway, especially when they are uncertain of what these might be. As in the standard test, subjects' ratings of driving quality corresponded to the objective changes in their performance.

The city driving study measured the subjects' ability to operate a vehicle in urban traffic. for reasons mentioned in the respective chapter the THC dose in that study was restricted to 100 ug/kg. For comparative purposes another group of subjects was treated with a modest dose of alcohol, producing a mean BAC of about 0.04g%. Results of the study showed that the modest dose of alcohol, but not THC, produced a significant impairment in driving performance, relative to placebo. Alcohol impaired driving performance but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. After alcohol, there was a tendency towards faster driving and after THC, slower.

The results of these studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 ug/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. They contrast with results from many laboratory tests, reviewed by Moskowitz (1985), which show that even low doses of THC impair skills deemed important for driving, such as perception, coordination, tracking and vigilance. The present studies also demonstrated that marijuana can have greater effects in laboratory than driving tests. The last study, for example, showed a highly significant effect of THC on hand unsteadiness but not on driving in urban traffic.

It is a natural question why the effects of marijuana on actual driving performance appear to be so small. As in many previous investigations, subjects attempted to compensate for anticipated adverse effects of marijuana smoking. Our subjects were aware of the impairing effects of THC as shown by lower ratings of perceived driving quality. Consequently, they invested more effort to accomplish the driving tests following THC than placebo. Furthermore, in the car following test, they drove at a greater headway after marijuana smoking; and, in both road tracking and city driving tests, they slightly reduced their driving speed. yet despite their effort, subjects were unable to fully compensate for THC's adverse effects on lateral position variability. This is because SDLP is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control. The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes, as shown by the high reliability of SDLP under repeated placebo conditions, but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts SDLP, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accessible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely.

That still leaves the question open why performance appears to be more affected by THC in laboratory than actual driving tests. many researchers defend the primacy of laboratory performance tests for measuring drug effects on skills related to driving on the basis of superior experimental control. Certainly some control is always necessary to reduce the confounding influence of extraneous factors that would otherwise so increase measurement error as to totally obscure the drug's effects. however, only some extraneous factors are truly sources of measurement error and others either attenuate or amplify drug effects in real driving and must be considered as relevant to a test's predictive validity. Simply eliminating all of them, first, removes their normal mediating influence on the drug effect, and secondly, affects the subject's motivation to perform the test by making it appear "unreal". Controlling the test usually involves drastic simplification and restriction of response options. The desire in doing this is to isolate a particular driving skill and determine how it changes under the influence of drugs. However, drivers always apply numerous skills in parallel and series. Should one become deficient, they are often able to compensate in a number of ways to achieve a satisfactory level of proficiency. Thus the demonstration of some particular skill decrement in the laboratory in no way indicates that this would ultimately reduce driving safety in reality. Finally there are some skills that simply can not be measured in laboratory tests, at least not easily enough to make it a routine matter. The acquisition of any skill which depends upon automatic information processing requires practice over weeks or months. After learning to drive, subjects possess such skills in abundance and one can only demonstrate how they vary with drug effects in the real task or a very close approximation thereof.

Profound drug impairment constituting an obvious traffic safety hazard could as easily be demonstrated in a laboratory performance test as anywhere else. But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving. In short, it would appear as if over-control in laboratory performance tests has resulted in a misimpression of THC's effect, incomplete in some respects and exaggerated in others. The actual driving tests may provide a more realistic impression of the drug's effects, albeit still incomplete and perhaps tending to minimize them with respect to more complex driving situations that come closer to "worst case".

www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But I think the term is fitting given that some people here are advocating it strongly. I'm not being sour about anything. At least you acknowledge the odor issue of it instead of dismissing it as 'too bad, deal with it'. Okay, well, your drug is illegal and it's going to stay that way for quite some time, too bad. How do you like that? Of course you don't, but anyway. Respect people's rights not to breath in that crap. I don't want to smell and breath in your cigarettes. I don't want to smell and breath in your pot. Of course those smoking don't care about that. KoreanHockeyFan just backed that up. Like I said, if the pros outweigh the cons then perhaps it should be legal. A quick Google search looks like that is the case. "It would be implemented much like drinking laws. Make it illegal to consume in public. Legal in private or in licensed establishments." If that were the case, then I guess I would be fine with that. I will also watch those videos later and respond because no doubt those in favor of legalization will come to its aid as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i think the govnt should legalize it. All drugs in fact.

For MJ they should create a system where there are certified providers like the liquor store. They should then double the price in taxes to make up for any costs plus profit. So a $25 bag would give the grower his he profit. The $25 in tax would give the government theirs.

Only people who get done for are those growing or selling it outside the approved channels.

Seems reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should MJ price double when legalized if most of its price is due to its illegal status? Weed grows like a... weed. It grows everywhere, it's easy to grow, and realistically a pound of weed shouldn't cost much more than a pound of tomatoes. It isn't nearly as harmful as either alcohol or cigarettes, and when consumed properly can be virtually harmless. It does not increase medical spending, it does not lead to liver and heart disease. It is not a significant cause of vehicle accidents, and is on par with being very tired (are we going to text people for lack of sleep?). I would wager cellphones can account for more accidents than marijuana smoked prior to driving.

I am yet to hear an argument for taxing marijuana highly. Usually it's "it should be taxed and treated like alcohol" and that's that. Why should it be taxed highly? Sugar is a drug and affects the body and over-consumption can lead to diabetes, do we tax sugar on a similar level? How about coffee?

Finally people who have never smoked don't understand what it is they're arguing against, beyond that it's a "drug" and

drugs-are-bad-420.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But I think the term is fitting given that some people here are advocating it strongly. I'm not being sour about anything. At least you acknowledge the odor issue of it instead of dismissing it as 'too bad, deal with it'. Okay, well, your drug is illegal and it's going to stay that way for quite some time, too bad. How do you like that? Of course you don't, but anyway. Respect people's rights not to breath in that crap. I don't want to smell and breath in your cigarettes. I don't want to smell and breath in your pot. Of course those smoking don't care about that. KoreanHockeyFan just backed that up. Like I said, if the pros outweigh the cons then perhaps it should be legal. A quick Google search looks like that is the case. "It would be implemented much like drinking laws. Make it illegal to consume in public. Legal in private or in licensed establishments." If that were the case, then I guess I would be fine with that. I will also watch those videos later and respond because no doubt those in favor of legalization will come to its aid as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But I think the term is fitting given that some people here are advocating it strongly. I'm not being sour about anything. At least you acknowledge the odor issue of it instead of dismissing it as 'too bad, deal with it'. Okay, well, your drug is illegal and it's going to stay that way for quite some time, too bad. How do you like that? Of course you don't, but anyway. Respect people's rights not to breath in that crap. I don't want to smell and breath in your cigarettes. I don't want to smell and breath in your pot. Of course those smoking don't care about that. KoreanHockeyFan just backed that up. Like I said, if the pros outweigh the cons then perhaps it should be legal. A quick Google search looks like that is the case. "It would be implemented much like drinking laws. Make it illegal to consume in public. Legal in private or in licensed establishments." If that were the case, then I guess I would be fine with that. I will also watch those videos later and respond because no doubt those in favor of legalization will come to its aid as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of the point of citing something 20 years old but it's well established and common sense not only from a scientific perspective but even a perspective of actually getting high that it impairs your ability to operate machinery and a vehicle. There's no real degree of "highness" one knows is enough to be safe to use such things per person that they could actually calculate so much like with alcohol it simply has to come with experience.. which let's hope doesn't end badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked at some more studies. Marijuana marginally increased crashes but does have an effect on judgement of speed (your own and other cars), lateral road movement (swerving) and increased reaction time. However, it is no where near the effects of even a slight intoxication of alcohol. Most studies say that half a joint of marijuana (around 10-12 mg of THC) does not even produce the same results of a BAC of 0.04.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A giant :picard: goes to this thread collectively. I don't even know where to start...

I guess I just want to thank the prohibitionists for coming out and taking such interest in what others do with their lives. It must be nice to have all that free time. I would suggest, however, that you spend some of that extra time researching the facts, rather than regurgitating the same tired, old propaganda. Honestly, you sound like this lady:

And unless you're working for the mafia government, whose job it is to lie, arrest hippies and protect the profits of drug dealers at all costs, it's totally unacceptable. If marijuana really is as dangerous as some make it out to be, then I say it definitely should be legalized and regulated. Why give control of something so destructive to underground organizations with no regulation whatsoever? The prohibition argument doesn't make a lick of sense.

And I certainly wouldn't turn it over to the government like others have suggested. They can't seem to do anything right. The medical cannabis program is so mismanaged, most people prefer the pusher man. That's the real tragedy.

Some people have a tendency to look at the problems associated with drugs(real or imaginary) and incorrectly attribute them to the drugs themselves, rather than unfortunate consequences of a failed "war on drugs." The fact that we're still having this discussion in 2012 is ludicrous and I want no part of it anymore.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So its cheap weed that your really interested in eh?

That tax money like any tax money can be used for all sorts of things.

Could help feed homeless people for example.

Think of it as ethical weed.

And cigarettes and alcohol are taxed to the max in canada. A pack of smoke in many countries costs less that 2 sometimes one dollar for the same pack you pay $14 for in canada.

I pay 30% tax on booze in the middle east and its about the same price as canada. Not to mention the cost of exportingbto the middle east and the fact that everything is a monopoly here.

Im all for a sugar tax as well. Coffee has no health affects so bad example.

Dont see why you are complaining about paying more taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...