The Case For Legalisation Time for Puff of Sanity

  The Case For Legalisation Time for Puff of Sanity

Posted by FoM on July 26, 2001 at 14:21:52 PT
From The Economist Print Edition  
Source: The Economist 

It is every parent's nightmare. A youngster slithers inexorably from a few puffs on a joint, to a snort of cocaine, to the needle and addiction. It was the flesh-creeping heart of “Traffic”, a film about the descent into heroin hell of a pretty young middle-class girl, and it is the terror that keeps drug laws in place. It explains why even those politicians who puffed at a joint or two in their youth hesitate to put the case for legalising drugs. 
The terror is not irrational. For the first thing that must be said about legalising drugs, a cause The Economist has long advocated and returns to this week, is that it would lead to a rise in their use, and therefore to a rise in the number of people dependent on them. Some argue that drug laws have no impact, because drugs are widely available. Untrue: drugs are expensive—a kilo of heroin sells in America for as much as a new Rolls-Royce—partly because their price reflects the dangers involved in distributing and buying them. It is much harder and riskier to pick up a dose of cocaine than it is to buy a bottle of whisky. Remove such constraints, make drugs accessible and very much cheaper, and more people will experiment with them.A rise in drug-taking will inevitably mean that more people will become dependent—inevitably, because drugs offer a pleasurable experience that people seek to repeat. In the case of most drugs, that dependency may be no more than a psychological craving and affect fewer than one in five users; in the case of heroin, it is physical and affects maybe one in three. Even a psychological craving can be debilitating. Addicted gamblers and drinkers bring misery to themselves and their families. In addition, drugs have lasting physical effects and some, taken incompetently, can kill. This is true both for some “hard” drugs and for some that people think of as “soft”: too much heroin can trigger a strong adverse reaction, but so can ecstasy. The same goes for gin or aspirin, of course: but many voters reasonably wonder whether it would be right to add to the list of harmful substances that are legally available. Of Mill and Morality The case for doing so rests on two arguments: one of principle, one practical. The principles were set out, a century and a half ago, by John Stuart Mill, a British liberal philosopher, who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” Mill famously proclaimed. This is a view that The Economist has always espoused, and one to which most democratic governments adhere, up to a point. They allow the individual to undertake all manner of dangerous activities unchallenged, from mountaineering to smoking to riding bicycles through city streets. Such pursuits alarm insurance companies and mothers, but are rightly tolerated by the state. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.True, Mill argued that some social groups, especially children, required extra protection. And some argue that drug-takers are also a special class: once addicted, they can no longer make rational choices about whether to continue to harm themselves. Yet not only are dependent users a minority of all users; in addition, society has rejected this argument in the case of alcohol—and of nicotine (whose addictive power is greater than that of heroin). The important thing here is for governments to spend adequately on health education.The practical case for a liberal approach rests on the harms that spring from drug bans, and the benefits that would accompany legalisation. At present, the harms fall disproportionately on poor countries and on poor people in rich countries. In producer and entrepot countries, the drugs trade finances powerful gangs who threaten the state and corrupt political institutions. Colombia is the most egregious example, but Mexico too wrestles with the threat to the police and political honesty. The attempt to kill illicit crops poisons land and people. Drug money helps to prop up vile regimes in Myanmar and Afghanistan. And drug production encourages local drug-taking, which (in the case of heroin) gives a helping hand to the spread of HIV/AIDS.In the rich world, it is the poor who are most likely to become involved in the drugs trade (the risks may be high, but drug-dealers tend to be equal-opportunity employers), and therefore end up in jail. Nowhere is this more shamefully true than in the United States, where roughly one in four prisoners is locked up for a (mainly non-violent) drugs offence. America's imprisonment rate for drugs offences now exceeds that for all crimes in most West European countries. Moreover, although whites take drugs almost as freely as blacks and Hispanics, a vastly disproportionate number of those arrested, sentenced and imprisoned are non-white. Drugs policy in the United States is thus breeding a generation of men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds whose main training for life has been in the violence of prison.Legalise To RegulateRemoving these harms would bring with it another benefit. Precisely because the drugs market is illegal, it cannot be regulated. Laws cannot discriminate between availability to children and adults. Governments cannot insist on minimum quality standards for cocaine; or warn asthma sufferers to avoid ecstasy; or demand that distributors take responsibility for the way their products are sold. With alcohol and tobacco, such restrictions are possible; with drugs, not. This increases the dangers to users, and especially to young or incompetent users. Illegality also puts a premium on selling strength: if each purchase is risky, then it makes sense to buy drugs in concentrated form. In the same way, Prohibition in the United States in the 1920s led to a fall in beer consumption but a rise in the drinking of hard liquor. It took years of education for gin to cease to be a social threat. How, if governments accepted the case for legalisation, to get from here to there? When, in the 18th century, a powerful new intoxicant became available, the impact was disastrous: it took years of education for gin to cease to be a social threat. That is a strong reason to proceed gradually: it will take time for conventions governing sensible drug-taking to develop. Meanwhile, a century of illegality has deprived governments of much information that good policy requires. Impartial academic research is difficult. As a result, nobody knows how demand may respond to lower prices, and understanding of the physical effects of most drugs is hazy. And how, if drugs were legal, might they be distributed? The thought of heroin on supermarket shelves understandably adds to the terror of the prospect. Just as legal drugs are available through different channels—caffeine from any cafe, alcohol only with proof of age, Prozac only on prescription—so the drugs that are now illegal might one day be distributed in different ways, based on knowledge about their potential for harm. Moreover, different countries should experiment with different solutions: at present, many are bound by a United Nations convention that hampers even the most modest moves towards liberalisation, and that clearly needs amendment. To legalise will not be easy. Drug-taking entails risks, and societies are increasingly risk-averse. But the role of government should be to prevent the most chaotic drug-users from harming others—by robbing or by driving while drugged, for instance—and to regulate drug markets to ensure minimum quality and safe distribution. The first task is hard if law enforcers are preoccupied with stopping all drug use; the second, impossible as long as drugs are illegal. A legal market is the best guarantee that drug-taking will be no more dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. And, just as countries rightly tolerate those two vices, so they should tolerate those who sell and take drugs.Extra Feature:Stumbling In The Dark Moral outrage has proved a bad basis for policy on illegal drugs, says Frances Cairncross. Time for governments to go back to first principles. If only it were legitimate, there would be much to admire about the drugs industry. It is, to start with, highly profitable. It produces goods for a small fraction of the price its customers are willing to pay. It has skilfully taken advantage of globalisation, deftly responding to changing markets and transport routes. It is global but dispersed, built upon a high level of trust, and markets its wares to the young with no spending on conventional advertising. It brings rewards to some of the world's poorer countries, and employs many of the rich world's minorities and unskilled.However, it is an odd business. Its products, simple agricultural extracts and chemical compounds, sell for astonishing prices. A kilo of heroin, 40% pure, sells (in units of less than 100 milligrams) for up to $290,000 on the streets of the United States—enough to buy a Rolls-Royce car. These prices directly reflect the ferocious efforts by the rich countries to suppress drugs. The effect is to drive a massive wedge between import and retail prices. The import prices of both heroin and cocaine are about 10-15% of retail prices in rich countries. In poor countries, the ratio may be more like 25%. Add a little more for seizures, valued at import prices, and the grand total is probably about $20 billion. That would put the industry in the same league as Coca-Cola's world revenues. Taken at retail prices, it is almost certainly the world's largest illicit market, although probably smaller than the widely quoted estimate by the United Nations Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention of $400 billion, which would put it ahead of the global petroleum industry. Every number about the production, consumption and price of drugs involves much guesswork, a warning that applies all through this survey. But global retail sales are probably around $150 billion, about half the sales of the (legitimate) world pharmaceutical industry and in the same league as consumer spending on tobacco ($204 billion) and alcohol ($252 billion). The estimate of world drug sales comes from Peter Reuter, an economist at the University of Maryland and co-author (with Robert MacCoun) of a comprehensive new study of illegal drugs on which this survey frequently draws. He notes that the official estimate of retail drug sales in the United States is $60 billion, making America easily the world's most valuable market. European sales are at most the same again, probably less. Pakistan, Thailand, Iran and China account for most of the world's heroin consumption, but prices are low, and so sales in total are probably worth no more than $10 billion. Add in Australia and Canada; add, too, Eastern Europe and Russia, where sales are growing fast, but probably still make up less than 10% of the world's total. Exclude European marijuana, much of which is domestically produced.It may seem distasteful to think of drugs as a business, responding to normal economic signals. To do so, however, is not to deny the fact that the drugs trade rewards some of the world's nastiest people and most disagreeable countries. Nor is it to underestimate the harm that misuse of drugs can do to the health of individuals, or the moral fury that drug-taking can arouse. For many people, indeed, the debate is a moral one, akin to debates about allowing divorce, say, or abortion. But moral outrage has turned out to be a poor basis for policy. America's illegal-drugs policy is a dismal re-run of its attempt to prohibit the sale of alcohol.Nowhere is that more evident than in the United States. Here is the world's most expensive drugs policy, absorbing $35 billion-40 billion a year of taxpayers' cash. It has eroded civil liberties, locked up unprecedented numbers of young blacks and Hispanics, and corroded foreign policy. It has proved a dismal rerun of America's attempt, in 1920-33, to prohibit the sale of alcohol. That experiment—not copied in any other big country—inflated alcohol prices, promoted bootleg suppliers, encouraged the spread of guns and crime, increased hard-liquor drinking and corrupted a quarter of the federal enforcement agents, all within a decade. Half a century from now, America's current drugs policy may seem just as perverse as Prohibition.For the moment, though, even having an honest debate about the policy is extremely difficult there. Official publications are full of patently false claims. A recent report on the National Drug Control Strategy announced: “National anti-drug policy is working.” In evidence, it cited a further rise in the budget for drugs control; a decline in cocaine production in Peru and Bolivia (no mention of Colombia); and the fact that the proportion of 12th-grade youngsters who have used marijuana in the past month appears to have levelled off at around 25%. If these demonstrate success, what can failure be like?Nearer the truth is the picture portrayed in “Traffic”, a recent film that vividly demonstrated the futility of fighting supply and ignoring demand. In its most telling scene, the film's drugs tsar, played by Michael Douglas, asks his staff to think creatively about new ideas for tackling the problem. An embarrassed silence ensues.This survey will concentrate largely (but not exclusively) on the American market, partly because it is the biggest. Americans probably consume more drugs per head, especially cocaine and amphetamines, than most other countries. In addition, the effects of America's misdirected policies spill across the world. Other rich countries that try to change their policies meet fierce American resistance; poor countries that ship drugs come (as Latin American experience shows) under huge pressure to prevent the trade, whatever the cost to civil liberties or the environment.Moreover, America's experience demonstrates the awkward reality that there is little connection between the severity of a drugs policy on the one hand and prevalence of use on the other. Almost a third of Americans over 12 years old admit to having tried drugs at some point, almost one in ten (26.2m) in the past year. Drugs continue to pour into the country, prices have fallen and purity has risen. Cocaine costs half of what it did in the early 1980s and heroin sells for three-fifths of its price a decade ago. Greater purity means that heroin does not have to be injected to produce a high, but can be smoked or sniffed.A Matter of Fashion However, American experience also suggests that the pattern of drug consumption is altering, arguably for the better. Casual use seems to have fallen; heavy use has stabilised. More American teenagers are using cannabis (which, strictly speaking, includes not just the herb—marijuana—but the resin), but the number of youngsters experimenting with cocaine or heroin has stayed fairly steady. The American heroin epidemic peaked around 1973, since when the number of new addicts has dropped back to the levels of the mid-1960s. The average age of heroin addicts is rising in many countries—indeed, the Dutch have just opened the first home for elderly junkies in Rotterdam. America's hideous crack epidemic has also long passed, and cocaine use has retreated from its 1970s peak. And a recent study shows that the likelihood of proceeding from cannabis to harder drugs such as cocaine or heroin has fallen consistently for a decade. “We are largely dealing with history,” says Mr Reuter. “The total population of drug users has been pretty stable since the late 1980s.”This is not an unmixed blessing: heavy users seem to be using more drugs, and to be injuring and killing themselves more often. As with cigarette-smoking, drug-taking is increasingly concentrated among the poor. And in some rich countries other than America, such as Britain, the number of both casual and heavy users of most drugs is still rising. In the poorer countries and in Central and Eastern Europe too, drugs markets are flourishing. India and China are probably the fastest-growing large markets for heroin. In rich countries, the drugs that increasingly attract young users are those that are typically taken sporadically. But in the rich countries, the drugs that increasingly attract young users are those that are typically taken sporadically, not continuously: cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines and cocaine. In that sense, they are more like alcohol than tobacco: users may binge one or two nights a week or indulge every so often with friends, but most do not crave a dose every day, year in, year out, as smokers generally do. That does not mean that these drugs are harmless, but it should raise questions about whether current policies are still appropriate. Today's policies took shape mainly in the mid-1980s, when an epidemic of crack cocaine use proved a perfect issue around which President Ronald Reagan could rally “middle America”. His vice-president, George Bush, called for a “real war on drugs”, which caught the mood of the time: opinion polls showed that drugs were at the top of people's lists of worries. By the early 1990s the crack scare had faded, but a series of increasingly ferocious laws, passed in the second half of the 1980s, set the framework within which Mr Bush's war on drugs is still waged today. This framework is not immutable, although formidable vested interests—including the police and prison officers—now back tough drugs laws. Attitudes to policy change over time (see article), and drugs policies in many countries are changing with them. Governments are gradually putting more emphasis on treatment rather than punishment. Last autumn, in a referendum, California voted to send first- and second-time drug offenders for treatment rather than to prison. And the law on possessing cannabis is being relaxed, even in parts of the United States, where several states now permit the possession of small amounts of it for medical use. In Europe and Australia, governments have relaxed the enforcement of laws on possessing “soft” drugs. In Switzerland, farmers who grow cannabis for commercial sale within the country will be protected from prosecution if a new government proposal goes through. In Britain, Michael Portillo, a top opposition politician, advocates legalisation. But it is hard for an individual country to set its own course without becoming a net exporter, as the experience of Europe's more liberal countries shows. Ultimately, the policies of the world's biggest drugs importer will limit the freedom of others to act.At the heart of the debate on drugs lies a moral question: what duty does the state have to protect individual citizens from harming themselves? The Economist has always taken a libertarian approach. It stands with John Stuart Mill, whose famous essay “On Liberty” argued that:The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.This survey broadly endorses that view. But it tempers liberalism with pragmatism. Mill was not running for election. Attitudes towards drug-taking may be changing, but it will be a long time before most voters are comfortable with a policy that involves only remonstration and reason. People fret about protecting youngsters, a group that Mill himself accepted might need special protection. They fret, too, that drug-takers may not be truly “sovereign” if they become addicted. And some aspects of drug-taking do indeed harm others. So a first priority is to look for measures that reduce the harm drugs do, both to users and to society at large. Source: Economist, The (UK) Published: July 26-28 2001 Copyright: 2001 The Economist Newspaper Limited Contact: letters Website: Related Articles:MPs To Launch Inquiry Into Decriminalisation Review of Drug Policy Planned Articles - UK 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #10 posted by Gary50 on July 28, 2001 at 05:07:45 PT:
Well, ..well...,well.......
"although whites take drugs almost as freely as blacks and Hispanics, a vastly disproportionate number of those arrested, sentenced and imprisoned are non-white. Drugs policy in the United States is thus breeding a generation of men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds whose main training for life has been in the violence of prison".  I've seen them on TV lately,...White ladies, White guys, George Bush even, deploring the sections of our cities where crime runs rampant, due to fatherless black families, (with the inference that this is caused by "cultural values" different from "our own". As if black men have a tendency to just knock up their women and take off, to get their kicks somewhere else, free of the burden of providing for a wife and kids...As if black men somehow don't love their families as much as white folks do. I believe this "disproportionate" number of "absent fathers" are actually just LOCKED UP!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Pontifex on July 27, 2001 at 13:07:31 PT:
Cotton candy statistics
Very good point, dddd. The statistics can be used to argue any point. Because if they're sufficiently complex, 90% of readers will take the analyst's word for it. And self-reported drug use statistics are indeed total hogwash.But even if we forced antis to use the correct statistics, they can still be spun like cotton candy. A classic example:"This study shows that [drug] use among [group] in [location] has increased -- therefore we need more law enforcement resources to fight the drug scourge."vs."This study shows that [drug] use among [group] in [location] has decreased -- therefore we need more law enforcement resources to shore up our successes and eradicate the drug scourge for good."Both arguments are frequently employed by government mouthpieces and dutifully reported by the national media.We have our statistics -- the effect of cannabis use on drivers, as studied in UK, Australia and Canada -- but without a government mouthpiece, arguments based on these studies will not be reported.Thank god for the Internet and foreign press.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by dddd on July 27, 2001 at 09:49:00 PT
It seems to me,Doug
...That the "statistics" can be skewed and customized toshore up any side of the issue.....One set of statistics is usedto increase the drug war,,and then when they are defendingthe absolute failure of their "War",,they will come up withnumbers that prove their success..........After all,,,I've always thought it rather absurd when numbers,and statistics are tossed about,with no question as to the sourceof these "numbers",,,and whenever they do claim to have crediblestatistics,,,,then they say,,that the PDFA,,or SAMSHA,or theondcp,,FDA,,,,etc..has provided the "proof" from there,we have to wonder where the hell these government XXAs' gettheir numbers?????....what?? they hire undercover agents,to infiltrate a bunch of drug usin' folks,,,and take count of whothe drug users are,and how much they do?.....or perhaps the famous questionairs that are given to students.....What a joke!.... only a turkey would fill those out,,,and of course,,when asked,most of these students would either embellish their knowledge,or use of drugs,,,or others would grossly underestimate the massive quanitys they consume...dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Doug on July 27, 2001 at 09:08:50 PT
However, American experience also suggests that the pattern of drug consumption is altering, arguably for the better. Casual use seems to have fallen; heavy use has stabilised. More American teenagers are using cannabis (which, strictly speaking, includes not just the herb— marijuana but the resin), but the number of youngsters experimenting with cocaine or heroin has stayed fairly steady. The American heroin epidemic peaked around 1973, since when the number of new addicts has dropped back to the levels of the mid-1960s.This paragraph seens to me misguided. Is it just the British impression of America that causes this statement. When I read this, it gave me the impression that yes, the American experiment with banning drugs has worked, and here is the evidence. Casual use is down, the heroin epidemic of the 70's is over, no more crack epidemic. Things seem to be going pretty well in America. To me, it undercuts the whole rest of the article.I disaggree with most of that paragraph. They don't mention increased availablity of smokable heroin, meth turning up everywhere, designer drugs becoming more popular, items I read about daily. And there are always new drug menaces around the corner.So which is it? The American programs are  slowly working, or the American policy is failing big time?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by dddd on July 27, 2001 at 03:10:06 PT
...Health Education,,Drug Awareness...
Pontifex brings up an excellent point,"Hey Economist, maybe national governments have too  much of a conflict of interest to dispense unbiased "health education"."I'm afraid that "maybe",is too mild of a term...In the case of the US government,,,,to suggest there isa conflict of interest,or an 'unbiased' approach,,,,,is aboutthe equivelent of suggesting that perhaps shit smells bad.....The main reason the government has a stranglehold onthe publics perception of drugs,is due to what they term"health ",or "drug" education/awareness....It's true thatthere are some well intentioned programs,,the problem isthat all of them are conducted,or supervised by the sick,obsessive overlords of the political drug war empire,andtheir cartel of gravy train passengers...These are the peoplewho are solely responsible for the witch-hunt/prison industrypart of the War,,,and they remain in control of the racket...andthey will fight,and resort to the lowest of devious tactics tomaintain their multi-Billion dollar cash cow monster....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by bruce42 on July 26, 2001 at 23:53:38 PT
superb reading
A great article. I definitely agree that the onlt way to combat the black market is through economics. The only way to regulate a market is by making the market legal and thus subject to government and public scrutiny. As much as the governments likes to tout our free market economy, it really seems to be turning a blind eye towards potential millions in tax revenue here. Why should they care about a few addicts? Its not their friggin job, that's why. The government needs to get their nose out of the private lives of it's citizens and back into the books...As for government spending on drug education, they do indeed funnel a lot of funds toward groups like DARE, but the quality of the education is poor at best. "Drug-education" programs are simply means of conveying anti-drug propaganda to impressionable young minds. Consider propaganda films and posters from World War II. By instilling a strong sense of fear and loathing of the enemy in the minds of the public, it was easy to get people to completely rearrange their lives in the name of patriotism and freedom to rebuild the American war machine.Fear and hatred are powerful motivators that can easily blind a person to the truth.fight for your right to control your body, after all, this is a war.peace
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Pontifex on July 26, 2001 at 17:32:27 PT:
Economist weighs in, tipping the scales
How excellent that the world's best weekly newsmagazine is firing all guns in support of legalization!Dr. Russo, your facts are airtight as usual. There are a couple of good theoretical reasons, missed by the Economist, why drug use might decline with legalizations:1) FORBIDDEN FRUIT FACTOR. When cannabis is legal and even mundane, teenagers and contrarians will have to find another way to rebel.2) DOSAGE CONTROL. When you're not sure of the dosage you're getting, it makes sense to buy larger quantities in case the drug turns out to be weak.3) SMALL QUANTITIES CHEAPLY AVAILABLE. Legalization makes it easier to buy small doses. Imagine, for example, buying sticks of THC gum, instead of having to burn at least 1g every time you fire up the three-footer.I'm too lazy to look up the stats now, and they may not even exist, but I believe alcohol consumption (and definitely problem alcoholism) declined after Prohibition. Certainly the murder rate declined for seven straight years (cf. "Ain't Nobody's Business if you Do", Peter McWilliams)But this is a forgivable omission for the Economist.However, as a libertarian, it really gets my goat when they leave the back door wide open for government mischief. To wit:The important thing here is for governments to spend adequately on health education.In fact, the US Gov't spends lavishly on health education. After all, what about all those taxpayer $$$ headed to CDC, DARE, PDFA etc.?Hey Economist, maybe national governments have too much of a conflict of interest to dispense unbiased "health education".The Economist is comfortingly liberal, but don't mistake them for libertarians.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on July 26, 2001 at 15:46:48 PT:
It's a Start, but They're British, You Know
I agree with the vast majority of this excellent piece.However, it is inaccurate on a couple of points. Legal access does not ensure greater experimentation and usage rates. Look at Dutch use of cannabis vs. that in the UK by teens. More is used in the UK by a fair measure. The fact is that most people who wish to try drugs do so in spite of the illegality. Unfortunately, this also ensures that risk is maximal: unknown quality, possibility of adulteration, violence on the street, or violence by law enforcement. We have a fair measure of that here in the USA, where DWB (Driving While Black) remains a serious hazard.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dave in Florida on July 26, 2001 at 14:54:50 PT

A Keeper
for sure. Another great editorial from people with reason and common sense. Now if all the papers in the USA would reprint it, for those that don't visit Cannabis News!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by aocp on July 26, 2001 at 14:50:37 PT

to sum up...
Great article, but i believe this to be one of, if not the most, important point...Precisely because the drugs market is illegal, it cannot be regulated.We're talking base definitions here, folks. By actively NOT taking control of the illicit substance market, the gov't is passively GIVING organized criminals a cash cow. What unmitigated brilliance for social catastrophe. A great guy in the talk.politics.drugs newsgroup, Michael Hess, once said drug prohibition is like putting a candy basket in the middle of the street and then telling sugar lovers everywhere, "Don't touch the damn thing!!...or else!!" The antis don't like to admit this, but i also heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.As Newton told us so many centuries ago, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's past time for the antis to look at the blatant harm their zealotry is causing. Get 'em in a public forum and let the forensic dogs loose on 'em. Should be fun to watch/participate in. I can't wait.
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment