Mexican Gangs may be moving into Meth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a Quick Point..........

.........to those of you who keep bringing up legalizing pot. Thus far, I don't recall anyone saying that pot should remain illegal, not even the LEOs among us.
 
It's American style capitalism at it's best.


Money is the motivation...

There is a huge demand.

People will spend lots of money for it

So they bring it in.


Morals and laws are meaningless as long as money is spent correctly. Just like every other big business.
 
With all due respect, Marshall, you cherry pick the occasional line out of someone's post, "rebutt" it with a redirection, and ignore the rest of it. This is evidenced most directly by your repeated references to "all the poor women and children".
Click to expand...

.38 Special, you're a fine one in my books as well, TY. As for cherry picking, I don't understand where you're coming from. The quote I spoke of, and posted and answered from Pax, was the whole post, there was nothing else in it. Additionally, I have ever said "all the poor women and children". I spoke of our children and adults as well, men and women, brothers and sisters and grandkids.

Again with all due respect, every single one of your points has been dissected and dismantled at least half a dozen times and you have utterly ignored it, blithely repeating your same talking points over and over again. I can only believe you are either not reading these posts or are intentionally ignoring them.
Click to expand...

Let me explain. First of all, the only explanation that has come close to addressing my contention has been by Pax in her last post, I have not yet addressed it. The other replies have been along the sort of, "I don't care about the teeny boppers", or have addressed other points that I have no contention with. Different people are posting argument to points I have never contested but, since I don't think meth should be legalized, they post that I am for the WOD, which I am not in it's present state. They post about Pot and other drugs that I am not opposed to being legalized. They post about cold medicines that I agree should be available OTC without logging. They go into areas of debate that I have no need to debate. People want to debate this on an all or nothing basis, I'm not.

My area of contention is the legalization of this drug on our streets.


Pax,

I appreciate your response.

Let me start out by saying that I believe that how someones opinion is arrived at is directly related to what part of the US they are standing in. I believe that is partly why we have disagreement on some things.

I agree with you, I don't think most human beings are that stupid either but we sure do have our share of meth problemed people and families with a drug that is more difficult to come by now than if it were legal. As far as assuming most people are worse or weaker than myself, I don't. What I do assume, is that the drug takes an average person and makes them think irrationally. It turns a normally none addictive personality into a personality that takes on the drugs characteristics and is very addictive in the way of not letting go than most all, if not all other drugs. That is the problem. The other problem is how the person acts after taking this drug for short period of time. The aggressiveness is amazing, the paranoia is rampant and rational thought is quickly becomes a thing of the past. I'll live with pot heads, oxy heads, downer addicts, diet pill addicts and the like. A meth addict is different and someone I think is a danger to society far above and beyond alcoholics or other addicts I listed.

Shooting myself in the head if it was legal? Come now Pax, people don't get a high from that, they don't see it as cheap thrill, they don't party all night after shooting themselves, they don't become someone they think is invincible and therefore do the deed.

I understand you fundamental thought, you explained it well and it's really not a lot different than mine with some exceptions. This is one.

The cold medicine. Pax, maybe this is a regional thing, I don't know? Here in Oklahoma there are only certain cold medicines that reside in the pharmacy now. There are many more cold medicines that work just as well for all three of my kids, myself included, that are not subject to sign off in the pharmacy. If there were not, I would have the same amount of resentment as you do. I have resentment now toward that practice but at a different level evidently because it's effecting me differently than you. I had no idea that Washington State handled things in such a fashion.

As for the prices of prescription drugs, there is much more that goes into what price the consumer ends up paying the WOD. The research and development costs are staggering. Have you looked into acid reflux drugs lately, over the counter ones? Outrageous. But, that's the free market, supply and demand and collusion at it's finest. Matter of fact, you can buy many prescription drugs in generic form for less money than you can buy the OTC solutions. I do understand you point though and agree with it but not in absolute form.

As for illegal meth having unintended consequences on our legal system and individual human beings, so would legalizing meth. Divorce rises, abusiveness rises, a moral decay becomes more prevalent, and more. I think this drug would contribute heavily to the erosion of our country, in different ways than the WOD is. Neither are good! I think we need to address a middle ground as has been suggested. All or nothing is too encompassing in my opinion.

I hope this explaines my stance on this better. I don't have the inclination or time to debate this with everyone that replies. These are my views, right wrong or indifferent and, I appreciate the other views as well.
 
I've been following this thread a bit off and on, since no one else seems to have broached the subject I thought I would clarify something. We have some misplaced Cause/Effect statements abounding.

Meth or any amphetamine or stimulant for that matter does not normally in and of itself make people paranoid/violent/etc. It's the lack of sleep that does that. If someone forced themselved to stay up over 3 or 4 days on caffiene they would exhibit more or less the same behaviour. Meth is however much more effective than caffiene and most other stimulants at keeping someone up and actually going for that long.
 
Marshall doesn't want to talk to the rest of us.

I was going to try to reach some common ground with him since it appears that he has become more rational by reading Pax's posts.

I was going to try to reach a consensus, namely......

1) The Wod is a resounding failure.

2) Pot (at least) should be legalized, non prosecutable, even non citeable.

3) Even though we want to help the children (he calls them beautiful 18 yr. old Porsche drivers, I call them teenie boppers) who become enmeshed in the addiction to drugs, we cannot stop those children from becoming addicted.
The preferrable thing therefore, is to get them addicted to a less harmful drug, like pot.
Meth is the devil incarnate.

If there is someone out there who is a shape changer, perhaps he/she could become Mr. Marshall and see if we could reach consensus to at least these 3 points (for a beginning)

Later we can work on how to prevent the harm sometimes irreprable harm done to the innocent children such as those caught in crossfires.

Maybe we can agree that if our rulers had not done an unconstitutional Prohibition II, that our population may well still have been tokin' along on Marijuana and this evil Meth would not have been such a problem.

Perhaps we can begin to agree that the responsibility for all this death and mayhem lies not with just the dealers/smugglers, but in addition to, with at least, our rulers for getting us into this mess.
 
cdaddy said:
you'd be surprised what folks have to buy. besides the abomination of dying folks denied pain meds because some pencil pusher at the dea knows whats best i can cite my moms experience in 1976 she had run the whole gamut of legal chemo here. there was a drug legal for tb treatment here since the 50's. not yet approved for cancer treatment by the fda. we shipped her to japan where the treatment was legal and smuggled back a years worth when she returned, they gave her 6 months she made it 6 years with the treatment
Click to expand...
When I read this the first time, I though it read "...they [US Gov't] gave her 6 months [in prison]..."
 
cropcirclewalker,

:rolleyes: You've been hyped up, confrontational and rude throughout the thread with the exception of a post or two. I started off just making a point that I don't think meth should be legal. You immediately took it to the point of me being the reason for the WOD. You took it to the point of me, typing you, am the reason for all of this. You stated that the only people you care about the people that stand with you on the WOD". You said you don't care about the teeny boppers or anyone that has an addiction problem. You have tried two or three times to get out of what you typed. You can't handle someone that doesn't share you views. I called you on this one time in this thread, that hacked you off. I refused to take part in your unreasonable comparisons, that hacked you off. You finally have decided that you jumped to conclusions about me and now are trying to cover up by looking for common ground, cover up by calling me the one that is wound and, are wondering why I would think discussing any of this with you is worth it. Don't be hurt, I just prefer to talk with reasonable people that can have a discussion without resorting to your ways. Nothing personal.

BTW, I said nothing about 18yr old Porshe drivers, you have me confused with another.
 
Mr. Marshall, you are correct.

My Bad.

I got you mixed up with Mr. Powderman.

I will not try to justify this error by claiming that the string is too long or that Ms. Pax doesn't admonish too many people. I will just admit, sorry, I screwed up.

Now, how about a consensus? (items 1 and 2?)
 
Last edited:
CCW,

An outtake from my post above yours:

Different people are posting argument to points I have never contested but, since I don't think meth should be legalized, they post that I am for the WOD, which I am not in it's present state. They post about Pot and other drugs that I am not opposed to being legalized.
Click to expand...

Points 1 & 2 are both addressed. They were addressed in other area's of this thread also and were the same as above. That should answer you question.

Yes, we have some common ground and have all along.
 
What gets me are the number of folks who say "It's illegal, so it _should_ be illegal."

Guys, you do NOT want those folks sitting on your jury. "He got arrested, so he must be guilty."

Looking at what it costs to put someone in jail, keep them in jail, and then release them from jail, rehab is a LOT cheaper.

What is the budget for the WoD? How many people are arrested each year? How many are in the system already? Do the math, and I'll bet that if we gave them the same $$, a lot of them would voluntarily find something else to do...
 
Marshall ~

Thanks. :)

Probably covered as much ground as we realistically can; I'll let you have the last word after this.

Marshall said:
What I do assume, is that the drug takes an average person and makes them think irrationally.
Click to expand...

That would be after he tries it. It cannot do any of those things if he does not try it in the first place.

No one drinks bathtub gin or wood grain alcohol anymore. Wonder why not ...?

pax

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. -- Thomas Jefferson
 
Folks, there is a general consensus here, that the so-called "War On Drugs" has failed. Most of you, however, have no idea when this "War" actually started.

I don't believe that some of you have noticed that when the punishments for even simple possession of drugs was a LOT more severe, we didn't HAVE a recurring "drug problem". It's called deterrence theory--if the punishment or possible consequences of committing an act are severe, then the likelihood that the act will be committed is greatly reduced.

Some of you are confusing in your stances. You all advocate the carrying of concealed firearms for self defense. Quite often, the reason given is that, "If crooks know that everyone is carrying a firearm, they'll be less likely to rob or assault someone". And, in that statement, you all are utterly correct.

So, why do we not see the correlation in illicit drug use?

Why are so many of you willing to "roll over" and accept what is the most destructive drug to ever hit the streets?

And, let me go on the record--

Meth users do not need more treatment.
Meth users do not need more understanding.
Meth users do not need the legalization of the drug that is killing them.

The only thing that will help a meth user is the COMPLETE absence of the drug from their proximity. Keep the drug user away from the drug, and eventually they will not need it anymore.

Meth is now a national problem. It is an insidious drug, a life taker, a home wrecker. It can and does kill people.

The only treatment that will help a hardcore meth user is at LEAST 90 days in confinement, to get the drug out of their system. During that time, a diet rich in vegetables and protein to replace the nutrients that have been robbed from their system. Additional nutritional supplements as needed--more for the ones that have been on meth for any period of time.

But, the treatment can even begin earlier--with today's parents.

SET THE EXAMPLE. If you smoke around your kids, expect them to smoke.
If you drink around your kids, expect them to drink.
If you are weak willed about drug use, or too permissive, guess what?

Make sure that your children know that there is a RIGHT and a WRONG. Do NOT be permissive with them. Tell them that.

Do NOT raise a couch potato. Get outdoors with them. When they're young, go out and swing that bat, throw that ball, run with them! When they're a bit older, get them into the woods. Let them get their high from seeing the turning colors in the fall; hearing the wind in the trees; perhaps seeing a deer or a magnificent bull elk at a distance. Take them to where they can see mountains, canyons and prairies.

Get them to the range. Teach them the fun of recreational shooting, and emphasize to them that drug users don't get firearms. Teach them trust and responsibility.

And emphasize to them that the only truly safe stance on drugs is total abstinence, and total intolerance. Anything else is unacceptable.

As for drug dealers, the only acceptable rehabilitation for them is a bullet. On the spot. Unfortunately, the law will not allow that--but I'm still hoping.

I'll come right out and say it: If you tolerate drugs; if you advocate the use of drugs like meth, crack, even marijuana--you're a damned fool, and you're part of the problem. Flame away if you wish, I don't care. I'm willing to bet good money that the people who have the ho-hum attitude about meth have never tried it, and that the majority of you have never seen what it can do in the long run.

Until this country wakes up--hopefully, before it is lost in a wash of immorality and drug use--I'll just stay out of view, and I'll continue to pick up the wreckage of human lives, lost in a glass pipe, a needle, or rolled up papers.

I salute all of you who do realize how deadly this stuff is. Perhaps someone else will listen to us, before we are all overrun by tweakers.

See y'all later!
 
. . . rehab is cheaper . . .

Cha-ching!

Give the man a cigar!

There is a program being run in Mexico (called "Second Chance" or some such thing) that uses methods similar to those I worked with in Europe many years ago.

Success rate (off drugs, back in society, productive citizen, no return to drugs or crime) of over 75% for a cost of something like $20k per person.

Don't have exact numbers on that.

I listened to a couple of politicians in the recent election, where Droid A criticized Droid B because Droid B advocated implementing a similar system. Droid A ranted on about 1) some affiliation the program supposedly had, 2) the extreme cost of the program, and 3) the fact that the program (to paraphrase) wasn't harsh enough.

Never mind that the program is SUCCESSFUL. Never mind that keeping addicts in prison costs WAY MORE. Never mind that imprisoning people doesn't remedy addiction.

Droid A won by a very slim margin. Took great delight in being "right" about his stance. After all, we have to be tough on crime.

In the meantime, there's a program that beats addiction that's really producing real results with real people for a FRACTION of what it costs to imprison someone.

But we're gonna be tough on crime.

On your nickle.

Enjoy.

***
Edit: Having said all of that, I have to say that I'm on board with the bulk of Powderman's post above. The people who peddle the stuff need to be slapped hard. Kids need to be raised right. The "do what feels good" crowd should be removed from any kind of educational position. The drug itself needs to be eliminated. Inasmuch as obtaining any "absolute" in this context is likely impossible, nonetheless it's the thing for which to strive.
***
 
Do I smoke?

Yes. Not too much, but then it's not a harmless habit.

Do I drink?

No. Not even a little bit. Clean and sober now, for 26 years--thank the good Lord, and a wife that looked past the liquor and saw someone worth salvaging.
 
I do all those things with my kids, and more. My kids know that drug use is absolutely not acceptable. They are restrained from drug use not by an utterly useless law, but by their upbringing and the good moral foundations their father and I have taken pains to place underneath them.

But I'm a "damned fool" and "part of the problem" because I logically believe that the entire WoD is an abject failure which causes far more harm than good, and have said so.

Whatever. :scrutiny:

pax

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George
 
Prison industry is one of the fastest growing in the US=big money. Prison is not drug free, in fact, it's quite the reverse. You can get pretty much anything you want. The suppliers are the best smugglers on the planet, and, the guards aren't paid enough...
So, the 'solution' of locking addicts up, isn't a solution. Good news is they can't do much robbing and other stuff in prison, that won't get them killed.

There are a lot of things that are legal that I don't do. I don't jump out of perfectly good airplanes, while taking trips. I don't ride motorcycles. Do I think that people increase their chances of death by riding one? Sure, stats prove it. But, that's what freedom is about, being able to make your own choices.
The basis on which this country was designed was a minimum of government intervention,unlike the Euro governments, that run peoples lives, and allowing free choice. It's also built on the principle of natural selection, and free will. Yes, I have spent 20 years riding the biggest rideable waves on the planet. That would be fatal for 99% of the people on the planet. Should it be outlawed?

Guys surf giant waves towed in by jet skis up here, only pretty much on huge swells. Big brother is deciding this is a threat to our natural wildlife preserves, meanwhile allowing boats and ships that pollute more in 10 minutes then all jetskis will in 100 years, come in and out of the same areas.

What it comes down to is many want the right to tell others how to live their lives. I'm fine with meth addicts killing themselves. Their choice. I'm fine with San Franciscans killing themselves with aides. Their choice.
I'm fine with natural selection on this planet. We've got too many people as it is.

I'm NOT fine with people telling me how to live my life, and, creating a bunch of stupid laws that take away freedoms. Our legal system seems to make bad laws from extreme, or bad cases. Some terminal aides patient in San Francisco goes nuts, kills a bunch of people in an office building in San Francisco, and it's now the guns fault. Diane Fienstien, who has a CCW, now tells us all we aren't good enough to need one, only her, and, wants to stop all bad things from happening.

BAD THINGS HAPPEN. IT'S LIFE.

I'm getting a bit sick of the 'it's a really horrible drug the likes of which we have never scene before'. BULL. Crack, heroin, cocaine, all drugs I've been around, in one capacity or another, are just as bad as meth. Cocaine is the only drug, except perhaps meth, that an animal will take enough of to commit suicide. The prior three have been around since creation, it seems like. They are readily, and easily avaliable. Yet, our society isn't destroyed by the evil drugs. Didn't they have stuff like that in the 50's? The REAL problem is we curtail an illegal drug, then it goes away as a visible problem, and, the next generation is uneducated as to it's effects, and problems, and they get hooked. We need to accept drugs as a part of life, educate forever, as part of our school process, and curtail the problems for generations, not for short sited periods, like stupid WAR on Drugs political garbage.
Not to mention the 'cool' factor of doing something you are not supposed to do as a kid. Legalization takes all the fun out of drug use, for punk kids. Maybe they will do something more rebellious, like skydiving,...

Law is a balancing act. The Supreme Court regularly balances government
laws vs. our freedoms promised by the Bill of Rights. They limit free speech, saying yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a law worth making is for the greater good, and uphold a limitation on free speech. The result: a precedent is set, allowing MORE, slippery slope,
laws for 'the greater good', that result in less freedom, which is NOT in the greater good.

Truth is, if you are dumb enough to run when someone yells fire, and there isn't one, maybe it's a good thing a few of those folks get trampled.
I'd rather have that, then a limit on my free speech, or right to bear arms.

The bottom line is I believe in the founding father's position of a limited Federal and state governments. All of our ills in states, addressing firearms, and, our ills with the Federal government, with firearms laws, have resulted from the same free speech limitation arguments used by the Supreme Court,
in the fire illustration.

Drugs are no different. We've created a giant, War on Drugs machine, that's only REAL purpose, like nearly all government agencies, is self-perpetuation.

When's the last time you heard a government agency say,

"We did what we were designed to do. Our job is done, and, our agency should be terminated."

?????????????????

Scalia, and Hugo Black both were represented as judges who believed in the LITERAL MEANING OF THE PHRASES AND WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION. When it says 'government shall make NO LAW',
it means EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. The founding father's used such clear language because they understood how their freedoms had been erroded, and, look at what's happened to ours???
 
No Flames here either.

Now that we are all doing this big group hug, maybe one or more of you WoD apologists can answer a question that I put to Mr. Marshall several pages back.

He said if we legalize drugs then the criminals would turn to other crimes.

I ask again.

What is the line of crime that the meth dealer is going to turn to that does as much harm to the innocent public as drugs?
 
I'll quote myself:

I'll come right out and say it: If you tolerate drugs; if you advocate the use of drugs like meth, crack, even marijuana--you're a damned fool, and you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Please note the bolded part.

Pax, this leaves you squarely OUT of the damned fool category.

Sindawe, point well taken. No excuses. :)

However, I will point this out: the only way that evil takes hold is because good people step out of the way.

The numbers of drug dealers are VERY small, compared to the number of good citizens. What do you think would happen if the citizens of a community would band together, seize all the drug dealers they could find in their areas, march them out of town with all their belongings and told them to not come back? You think they'd get the hint?

Here's a imaginary scenario:

Homeboy the drug monkey is looking for new territory to sling. He's heard that in this little town about 50 miles away, there is a high school where some friends of his homies just transferred in to. Maybe another distribution hub.

So, Homeboy and his posse roll out, after telling the friends that they'll be in town with some goodies for samples.

They hit a service station outside of town, grab some munchies and ask for directions to the local high school. The clerk says that he doesn't know--he's from out of town himself. After Homeboy and his crew depart, the clerk--who has three kids in the local high school--picks up the phone.

As they roll in and get to the high school, they notice something kind of strange. There are a LOT of pick up trucks around--and almost all of them have gun racks in the back. There seem to be a disproportionate amount of these pick-up trucks around the high school.

As they get closer, they notice that there are a LOT of hard-eyed men and women--looking directly at THEM. As they drive toward the parking lot, they see three Crown Vics--the local police making an appearance. They are in the parking lot, the officers are out of the cars--and they're looking squarely at THEM.

Homeboy decides he's seen enough. After they cruise right on by, they head back to the big city. Homeboy thinks that maybe visiting that small town was not such a good idea after all.

So, think about it.

I'm willing to wager that some of you could put your finger right on someone who deals in drugs. Have you called the police, and sworn out a complaint? If some of these punks come around your house, have you made it VERY plain that you will not tolerate anyone slinging that garbage around you?

Have you made an acquaintance with the cops who patrol your neighborhoods, to assist them with fingering these people? And, could you go to court and describe what you witnessed, in sworn testimony?

You fight a war, not with useless rhetoric and empty promises, but with ACTION. Your community, banded together, forms an army. Armies fight wars.

The war is over when one side admits defeat. Don't be on the losing side!
 
I don't believe that some of you have noticed that when the punishments for even simple possession of drugs was a LOT more severe, we didn't HAVE a recurring "drug problem". It's called deterrence theory--if the punishment or possible consequences of committing an act are severe, then the likelihood that the act will be committed is greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

Can you cite any facts which back this up? New York's Rockefeller laws were (and are) some of the most severe drug laws on the books, and they've done nothing to curb drug abuse.
There's also a thriving drug trade in America's prisons, so there goes your deterrence theory.

Meth users do not need more treatment.
Meth users do not need more understanding.
Meth users do not need the legalization of the drug that is killing them.
Click to expand...
What are your qualifications that make you think you can state this as a fact?

The only thing that will help a meth user is the COMPLETE absence of the drug from their proximity. Keep the drug user away from the drug, and eventually they will not need it anymore.
Click to expand...

Please post one link to a proven, scientific study that supports this.
As a recovering addict, let me assure you that this is complete, 100%, total nonsense. Without any form of treatment, the only way addicts don't need it anymore is if they find another drug they like better.
Look at the stats on how many drug addicts return to drugs immediately after being released from prison.

Until this country wakes up--hopefully, before it is lost in a wash of immorality and drug use--I'll just stay out of view.
Click to expand...

I think this quote does a great job of summing up your stance. You've got a medical issue confused with a moral issue. Drug addiction is generally believed to be a disease. would you recommend a "moral solution" to cure cancer?

I salute all of you who do realize how deadly this stuff is. Perhaps someone else will listen to us, before we are all overrun by tweakers.
Click to expand...
In the near century that certain drugs have been illegal, we've been hearing the same "we're all going to be overrun" scare stories with every drug that's become popular. In every case, use has reached a certain peak, and leveled off (probably a result of most people becoming aware of the risks involved with use).
I doubt anybody here advocates drug use, they're just questioning continuing policies that have never worked.
 
Legalized Highs

Count me as another one who fully believes that pot should be legalized. It's been largely decriminalized since I *ahem* grew older and wiser. I remember the day when a single joint would land you in the slammer for 3 years. (Just ask Robert Mitchum.) Now, a beat cop that discovers 2 or 3 "fatties" in an adult's possession during a routine traffic stop generally just confiscates the contraband and...if the owner is deemed to be unimpaired...he goes about his business. Only when there is enough to fall into the "With intent to distribute" do things go south.

I...like many others here...went through a period of abuse and addiction...and full well understand what the serious drugs can do, and were it not for the fact that I swore completely off of recreational substances, if pot were legalized,I suppose that I'd be a little like Kevin Costner's "Eliot Ness" character who...when asked what he would do now that Prohibition had been repealed: "I think I'll go have a drink."

Meth, cocaine, and the opiate group? Not a chance. Too much potential for human wreckage there. Alcohol is probably the most destructive drug around. It just takes longer than the Big Three to show its long-term effects...so I leave'em all alone. Caffein and nicotine are my drugs of choice now...and I'm in the planning stages of gettin' the tobacco monkey off my back.

John Travis...Clean and sober since April of 1975. (And will NOT travel that road again.)

Coffee?
 
Powderman:
The irony of your scenario is, thanks to the inroads made by those slippery slope arguments, open display of firearms in my area, would cause the police to have to arrest everyone in the scenario, and, the druggies would be free to do whatever they want.

I'm kind of curious if your department stands up for the rights of CCW, and gun owners? If government employees actually fought for the freedoms in the Bill of
Rights, ours would be a different world...

S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Once Again a Legal Product is Misused..and it's the Manufacturer's Fault
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
atek3
atek3
J
  • Locked
Why is the solution to every one of society's problems, loss of freedom?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Foe[H]ammer
F
J
  • Locked
Buy cold tablets, get put in a computer database....
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Tom Servo
Tom Servo
R
  • Locked
Congress poised to pass anti-meth law
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
ArmedBear
A
J
  • Locked
Internet Registry of Meth Cooks?
Replies
15
Views
670
pax
P
Back
Top