UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> With MJ Legalized, City in WA Says, ‘Not So Fast'


6/12/14 1:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8854
andyloveshugs -

lakerup how do you feel on legalization re: soft drugs that have already been legalized in developed nations at various points, mainly psilocybin mushrooms and ecstacy (two non-addictive drugs you can't overdose on with no serious health risks like alcohol or tobacco has, which are shown to decrease violence while people are on them and your likelihood of having mental health disorders)? seems like it's not just weed that needs to be legalized, we need to reform the drug war so people who want to do a stimulant have something to do and don't have to pay gang members/drug dealers with the profits going to bad people in a lot of cases. 

I'm good with psylocibin and even LSD. I don't agree with MDMA not being addictive or harmful however. It's obviously not addictive like opiates or anything close to it, but it can cause physical dependence and it is most definitely harmful if abused. Phone Post 3.0
6/12/14 1:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MartialArtsMixed
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/3/10
Posts: 12514
itskrisdude - Eastern Washington is like a completely different country from western Washington. From the culture to the weather, the two sides couldn't be anymore different.
I'm guessing Seattle and Tacoma are west ? People tree were pretty chill Phone Post 3.0
6/12/14 1:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
rufus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/25/03
Posts: 48709
LakerUp - 
rufus -
LakerUp - 
rufus -
LakerUp - 
rufus -

Ms. Holcomb said the A.C.L.U. would seek to intervene in the case only if Wenatchee specifically claims federal protection for its position. “The federal pre-emption issue hasn’t been resolved,” she said.

Really? It sure seems like federal pre-emption was already resolved by the Supreme Court in a medicinal marijuana case.

Which case? Phone Post 3.0

Gonzales V. Raich, I believe.

That case is specific to the production and use of homegrown cannabis in states where MMJ is approved. Federal preemption has not been resolved as it relates to states that have legalized MJ for recreational use, production, and distribution. Phone Post 3.0

True, it's not exactly the same, but I think the states can actually make a stronger case for medicinal use rather than recreational, so I don't see why the result here would be any different. Same commerce clause reasoning would be used the the court.

There's also been a tremendous shift in the way this subject is viewed by the government and the public since that ruling as well. The attitude towards MJ today is not what it was in 2005. Phone Post 3.0

That might be true, but they haven't changed the law. Also, there were more federal raids of medical mj dispensaries in Obama's first term than there were during Bush's two terms.

6/12/14 2:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8855
Yeah, I know (re: Obama). The ambiguity from the Federal government surrounding this has never been greater than during this administration. But the MMJ industry is also a joke because of the confusion surrounding it. State legislators enact MJ laws that are meaningless and generalized because of the gray area created by federal law. Case law is then made necessary to define the ambiguity. But judges don't know what do either, so there is new case law that contradicts other new case law. It's a gigantic clusterfuck. And in the meantime, the MMJ industry has become thoroughly corrupt because it is not well regulated.

SCOTUS desperately needs to force the federal government to tell everyone where they stand. Phone Post 3.0
6/12/14 8:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andyloveshugs
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/13
Posts: 2125
LakerUp - 
andyloveshugs -

lakerup how do you feel on legalization re: soft drugs that have already been legalized in developed nations at various points, mainly psilocybin mushrooms and ecstacy (two non-addictive drugs you can't overdose on with no serious health risks like alcohol or tobacco has, which are shown to decrease violence while people are on them and your likelihood of having mental health disorders)? seems like it's not just weed that needs to be legalized, we need to reform the drug war so people who want to do a stimulant have something to do and don't have to pay gang members/drug dealers with the profits going to bad people in a lot of cases. 

I'm good with psylocibin and even LSD. I don't agree with MDMA not being addictive or harmful however. It's obviously not addictive like opiates or anything close to it, but it can cause physical dependence and it is most definitely harmful if abused. Phone Post 3.0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neill-franklin/mdma-legalization_b_4044755.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/14/ecstasy-can-be-safe-if-taken-in-its-purest-form-b-c-health-chief-says/

The British Columbia health chief said to legalize it, as it's very safe in pure form and legalizing it would guarantee purity, and goes on to list the possible health side effects of overuse and warns it is not totally safe even when pure, but is less damaging than alcohol, less addictive than alcohol, and people on ecstacy are far less violent. 

Seems like it helps no one to keep it illegal since it's killing more people due to it being illegal (due to impurities) than it did while legal, and no study has ever conclusively proven that making a drug illegal decreases usage, with some studies showing the opposite and some countries with legal marijuana having less use than countries with illegal marijuana. 

6/12/14 8:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andyloveshugs
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/13
Posts: 2126

Also, it is entirely not addictive, unless your definition of addiction would include people being addicted to marijuana and stuff like that. The meth in cut pills is addictive, but MDMA is not, the same way LSD isn't and psilocybin isn't. 

6/12/14 9:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06/12/14 9:53 PM
Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8860

To be frank, I doubt I've ever encountered pure MDMA andy.  It's exceedingly rare to find anything but methylone and bathsalts in SoCal these days. I'm sure the ecstasy I came across earlier in my career was more pure and contained more MDMA, but I think it's always been cut with other chemicals.  Anyway, the longtime users of ecstasy I evaluate exhibit behavior that is consistent with other addicts I have come across.  They also consistently struggle with depression.  This correlates to the many studies I have read, with results that indicate MDMA destroys seratonin producing neurons.  There are also many studies that show it is physically addictive for some users.  This makes sense due to the depletion of serotonin neurotransmitters MDMA causes. Anyway, this article is reflective of my experiences with ecstasy if you're interested.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-the-effects-of-t/

"It is believed that many of the negative consequences of MDMA are a the result of the destruction of serotonin-producing neurons in the brain [5]. Serotonin is a brain chemical that plays an important role in regulating mood, aggressive behavior, sexual activity, sleep, and pain sensitivity. Some research also has linked a decrease in serotonin activity to cognitive problems, such as memory processes [5].

Research studies on nonhuman primates have found decreases in serotinin activity for as long as seven years following MDMA exposure [5]. Some scientists think that humans may be more susceptible to brain damage than are other primates. Cumulative doses of MDMA that are taken by moderate users over a prolonged time period may have similar negative consequences to the high experimental doses given within short time periods to nonhuman primates[5].

Other naturalistic research studies that assess the psychological and cognitive functioning of people who abuse MDMA also find long-lasting impairments. A recent review of the major research studies on MDMA concluded that there is a body of evidence that links heavy and prolonged MDMA use to confusion, depression, sleep problems, severe anxiety, and aggressive and impulsive behavior [1].

Because many regular users of MDMA also use marijuana, a recent research study compared people who use both marijuana and MDMA with people who use only marijuana and to people who use neither drug. The study found that MDMA users performed worse than thether two groups on complex cognitive tasks of attention, memory, learning and general intelligence. People who heavily used MDMA and marijuana had lower levels of cognitive performance than lighter users [5]. Other research has confirmed that moderate to heavy use of MDMA is linked to impairments in memory [1].

Although MDMA generally is not considered to be an addictive substance, recent reports in the scientific literature suggest that some people may become dependent on or addicted to the drug. Most people who use MDMA restrict their use to weekends because frequent use quickly reduces the positive effects as tolerance to the drug develops [1]. Tolerance is a major symptom of drug dependence. Withdrawal symptoms are also among the necessary criteria for dependence. Another important symptom of drug dependence is difficulty in controlling or abstaining from drug use despite negative social, psychological or physical consequences.

A case study of three young, male, heavy and prolonged MDMA users identified these symptoms of dependence. All three realized that their daily functioning had become impaired as a result of MDMA; they each unsuccessfully attempted to abstain from the drug; and during detoxification, they experienced fatigue, low mood, anxiety and sleep disturbances as withdrawal symptoms. The authors concluded that each of the three cases met criteria for MDMA dependence [2].

MDMA is marketed by street drug dealers as a "safe," nonaddictive recreational drug that enhances a person¿s enjoyment and ability to interact with others. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even occasional light users of MDMA risk overdose and premature death. Moderate to heavy users risk addiction, as well as long-term impairments in psychological and cognitive functioning. All users of MDMA at least temporarily lose their ability to relate to and enjoy being with other people without the influence of a mind-altering, dangerous substance."
6/12/14 10:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Naderhood
809 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/27/08
Posts: 23074
Ban Kuntz! Phone Post 3.0
6/13/14 1:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andyloveshugs
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06/13/14 1:27 AM
Member Since: 12/7/13
Posts: 2129

"A case study of three young, male, heavy and prolonged MDMA users identified these symptoms of dependence. All three realized that their daily functioning had become impaired as a result of MDMA; they each unsuccessfully attempted to abstain from the drug; and during detoxification, they experienced fatigue, low mood, anxiety and sleep disturbances as withdrawal symptoms. The authors concluded that each of the three cases met criteria for MDMA dependence [2]."

 

^ so marijuana is addictive, and being addictive as a substance isn't that big of a deal and certainly not a reason to make a drug illegal as so many substances will fit that criteria.

re: it's rarity, basically every group of people have a connection for "molly" or powder mdma that is close to pure, i really can't imagine only finding pill ecstasy in socal. i'm sure that's your experience but that's probably some correlation with idiots. and i think that kind of furthers the point it should be legalized, as you would then no longer have experience with cut mdma. 

 

edit: are you familiar with the recent medical legalization of pure mdma for ptsd sufferers, and it's benefits for brain health re: ptsd? 

 

http://mdmaptsd.org/about.html

http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/01/18/brain-scans-hint-at-therapy-uses-of-ecstasy-for-anxiety-ptsd/64700.html

http://www.vice.com/read/can-mdma-cure-ptsd

6/13/14 1:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andyloveshugs
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/13
Posts: 2130

lol, this is oprah.com, but it's a really good article on it. 

 

http://www.oprah.com/health/PTSD-and-MDMA-Therapy-Medical-Uses-of-Ecstasy

 

"Supporters of legalized MDMA therapy believe it can be applied in couples counseling and in treatment for depression, body-image disorders, chronic pain management, and end-of-life anxiety. But many advocates think its best chance at mainstream acceptance is as a tool for people with PTSD. Later this year, Michael Mithoefer, MD, a psychiatrist in Charleston, South Carolina, will publish the long-term follow-up results of the small pilot study that Sarah first heard about six years ago. The outcome: Seventeen of 20 subjects no longer met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD after just two or three sessions of MDMA-aided therapy led by Mithoefer and his wife, Ann, a psychiatric nurse. "

6/13/14 1:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andyloveshugs
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/13
Posts: 2131

legalized mdma isn't the route to go, but it should be easily prescribable like ritalin and other low abuse (but still potential for abuse) drugs for treating mental issues like add and depression. 

6/13/14 3:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 30605
LakerUp - 

The bigger significance is that this may evenutally end up before SCOTUS and they could rule on how local government may proceed when Federal law and State law are contradictory.


since it federally illegal, i doubt they'd grant cert. I would send a message they're even consider it possibly legal.
6/13/14 3:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 30606
LakerUp - 
rufus -
LakerUp - 
rufus -

Ms. Holcomb said the A.C.L.U. would seek to intervene in the case only if Wenatchee specifically claims federal protection for its position. “The federal pre-emption issue hasn’t been resolved,” she said.

Really? It sure seems like federal pre-emption was already resolved by the Supreme Court in a medicinal marijuana case.

Which case? Phone Post 3.0

Gonzales V. Raich, I believe.

That case is specific to the production and use of homegrown cannabis in states where MMJ is approved. Federal preemption has not been resolved as it relates to states that have legalized MJ for recreational use, production, and distribution. Phone Post 3.0

Raich admitted she was going to sell it, and not just for personal use, so it was going to effect interstate commerce. Here, the use is ostensibly only within the state, and shouldn't be in the preview of the SCOTUS unless the fed law is being challenged
6/13/14 9:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8863
If the city fights the lawsuit and claims federal law as their reasoning, then it most definitely can go to SCOTUS. From the article:

"Wenatchee’s City Council is scheduled to meet on Thursday to decide whether to respond to the suit, which was filed in Chelan County Superior Court. A resolve to fight — especially if the city takes the position that federal law pre-empts state law — could ultimately take the suit to the United States Supreme Court, where the conflicts between federal and state laws on marijuana have never been addressed, legal experts said." Phone Post 3.0
6/13/14 10:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MattyECB
195 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06/13/14 10:37 AM
Member Since: 7/4/11
Posts: 4626
LotionInTheBasket - I can't wait till it's legal everywhere, not so much because I'm a massive weed head(haven't smoked in years), but because I want to see how much money it generates.

Not to mention the effect it has on illegal stuff from Mexico. Phone Post 3.0

 

I don't think legalizing drugs will affect the Cartels much, at least this article did a pretty good job setting up that argument imo

 

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/22/legalizing_drugs_wont_stop_mexicos_brutal_cartels

 

MEXICO CITY — When the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) releases its annual status report on the narcotics trade later this month, it will almost certainly show a decrease in the volume of cocaine traveling through Mexico into the United States. Last year's report did too -- a 40 percent drop in seizures between 2006 and 2008. Worldwide, the cocaine market today is worth about half as much as it was just 15 years ago -- $88 billion compared with $165 billion in 1995.

This would be excellent news -- if it weren't for some alarming trends going in the other direction. As the cocaine trade through Mexico has fallen dramatically, the violence here has risen remarkably. Whereas 2006 saw just over 2,000 deaths attributed to drug violence, in 2010 there were an estimated 11,000 such killings, according to data from Stratfor and local press accounts. Ciudad Juárez, a border city of approximately 2 million at the center of the ongoing violence, has seen a particularly sharp spike. In 2001, there were just 16 murders for every 100,000 Ciudad Juárez residents. In 2010, that number reached 93 -- an increase of nearly sixfold -- according to the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights.

In other words, the war on drugs may be taking its toll on the narcotics trade, but it hasn't done anything to end the violence -- a stubborn fact that runs counter to an emerging consensus about the drug war. Across Latin America, intellectuals, scholars, and even policymakers are increasingly arguing that there is just one thing that can bring an end to the narco-troubles: the decriminalization of the drug trade in the United States. Legalize and regulate use, proponents argue, and prices would drop and the illicit trade would disappear overnight. Cartels would be starved of their piece of the global illicit drug pie, which the UNODC has estimated at some $320 billion per year.

But would legalization really work? With each day that passes, it looks like it wouldn't be enough, for one overarching reason: The cartels are becoming less like traffickers and more like mafias. Their currency is no longer just cocaine, methamphetamines, or heroin, though they earn revenue from each of these products. As they have grown in size and ambition, like so many big multinational corporations, they have diversified. The cartels are now active in all types of illicit markets, not just drugs.

"Mexico is experiencing a change with the emergence of criminal organizations that, rather than being product-oriented -- drug trafficking -- are territorial based," says Antonio Mazzitelli, head of the UNODC office in Mexico City. They now specialize in running protection rackets of all kinds, he says, which might explain why the violence has gotten so bad: Mafias enforce their territorial control by force, killing anyone who resists or gets in the way.

"Before, we had organized crime, but operating strictly in narcotrafficking," adds Eduardo Guerrero Gutiérrez, a consultant and former advisor to the Mexican presidency. "Now we have a type of mafia violence ... and they are extorting from the people at levels that are incredibly high -- from the rich, from businesses." For this reason, Mazzitelli says, legalization would have "little effect."

Cartels such as the Zetas and La Familia, long categorized as drug-trafficking organizations, have transformed themselves into territorial overlords. With distinctive zones of influence, complex organizations, and a wealth of manpower on which to draw, they act as shadow governments in the areas they control, collecting "taxes" on local establishments and taking a cut of the profits from illegal immigration to the United States. "This fight is not solely or primarily to stop drug trafficking," Mexican President Felipe Calderón told the U.S. Congress in May 2010. "The aim is to ensure the safety of Mexican families, who are under threat of abuse and wanton acts of criminals."

..

 

 

Still totally for legalization as it's a great cash cow and marijuana has numerous peer reviewed and established journals like the Lancet declaring it safer, less harmful to society and less addictive than other legal and regulated narcotics such as tobacco or alcohol. And hell, if only to help stop the brutal racism in the war on drugs. It's pretty amazing drug use is essentially identical across latinos, whites and blacks, and yet nonviolent drug arrests are ridiculously skewed. Such a black hole for cash for govt cash too, and a ridiculous source of worsening recidivism

6/13/14 10:43 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8864
^I've been writing that legalization will not effect the cartels for years on this forum. The Mexican cartels are also heavily involved in the production and distribution of legally sold medical marijuana. And human trafficking is hugely profitable for them as well. Phone Post 3.0
6/13/14 10:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8865
andyloveshugs -

legalized mdma isn't the route to go, but it should be easily prescribable like ritalin and other low abuse (but still potential for abuse) drugs for treating mental issues like add and depression. 

If it is indeed medically viable, I don't have an issue with this. I disagree that Ritalin is not abused, however. It's methamphetamine in pill form and it's highly abused. Phone Post 3.0
6/13/14 11:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 30608
LakerUp - If the city fights the lawsuit and claims federal law as their reasoning, then it most definitely can go to SCOTUS. From the article:

"Wenatchee’s City Council is scheduled to meet on Thursday to decide whether to respond to the suit, which was filed in Chelan County Superior Court. A resolve to fight — especially if the city takes the position that federal law pre-empts state law — could ultimately take the suit to the United States Supreme Court, where the conflicts between federal and state laws on marijuana have never been addressed, legal experts said." Phone Post 3.0

it wont get past a circuit court - They'll lose in circuit court, if they appeal, SCOTUS wont grant Certiorari
6/13/14 11:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8866

Just to clarify, you're saying the city will lose, right?  And if so, what makes you certain about SCOTUS?

6/13/14 11:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Fake Pie
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/2/05
Posts: 43479
rufus - 
LakerUp - 
rufus -
LakerUp - 
rufus -

Ms. Holcomb said the A.C.L.U. would seek to intervene in the case only if Wenatchee specifically claims federal protection for its position. “The federal pre-emption issue hasn’t been resolved,” she said.

Really? It sure seems like federal pre-emption was already resolved by the Supreme Court in a medicinal marijuana case.

Which case? Phone Post 3.0

Gonzales V. Raich, I believe.

That case is specific to the production and use of homegrown cannabis in states where MMJ is approved. Federal preemption has not been resolved as it relates to states that have legalized MJ for recreational use, production, and distribution. Phone Post 3.0

True, it's not exactly the same, but I think the states can actually make a stronger case for medicinal use rather than recreational, so I don't see why the result here would be any different. Same commerce clause reasoning would be used the the court.


I can't see any distinction between this and Raich that makes a legal difference.
6/13/14 12:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Floppy Divac
218 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 64075
Mushrooms have been shown to decrease violence while people are on them? Really? Where can i read more of this study? And what about the effects on the brain from prolonged use? It hasn't all been violent, but i've seen people do some crazy/dumb/violent shit on mushrooms and lsd. Not so much on mdma, but with every high comes a low. Which is why most people i've known who mess with it are NOT in a good mood the next day.
6/13/14 12:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Floppy Divac
218 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 64076
And LakerUp, i can't believe how long it took me to figure out what your sn was before. Lol
6/13/14 12:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8867
Fake Pie -
rufus - 
LakerUp - 
rufus -
LakerUp - 
rufus -

Ms. Holcomb said the A.C.L.U. would seek to intervene in the case only if Wenatchee specifically claims federal protection for its position. “The federal pre-emption issue hasn’t been resolved,” she said.

Really? It sure seems like federal pre-emption was already resolved by the Supreme Court in a medicinal marijuana case.

Which case? Phone Post 3.0

Gonzales V. Raich, I believe.

That case is specific to the production and use of homegrown cannabis in states where MMJ is approved. Federal preemption has not been resolved as it relates to states that have legalized MJ for recreational use, production, and distribution. Phone Post 3.0

True, it's not exactly the same, but I think the states can actually make a stronger case for medicinal use rather than recreational, so I don't see why the result here would be any different. Same commerce clause reasoning would be used the the court.


I can't see any distinction between this and Raich that makes a legal difference.
I think the distinction between a large brick and mortar recreationally legal MJ business and individual medical marijuana production for sale is significant.

The federal government (DOJ) instituted new guidelines in February that make it legal for federally insured banks to provide banking services to legal marijuana business'. If that's not a strong indicator that the federal government is now deferring to state specific MJ laws, I don't know what is. If cities are going to use federal MJ law as a means to prohibit recreational MJ business in their municipality, then they are on shaky ground in my opinion. Phone Post 3.0
6/13/14 12:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8868
Floppy Divac - And LakerUp, i can't believe how long it took me to figure out what your sn was before. Lol
I list a bet on a playoff series between the Thunder and the Lakers a few years ago and had to change my SN to ThunderUp. When the bet expired I changed it to LakerUp. I was initially LMMAFan-is that what you just realized? Phone Post 3.0
6/13/14 12:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LakerUp
232 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/7/06
Posts: 8869
lost* Phone Post 3.0

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.