Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Your Tax Dollars On Drugs

By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted April 14, 2006.


The government's war on marijuana users has done real harm to our nation while chewing up billions of dollars every year.
Advertisement

Americans' annual day of reckoning with the IRS on April 15 is a good time to consider where our money is going -- and where it's being wasted. With the federal budget deficit ratcheting past $400 billion per year and the White House and Congress looking at cutting spending for Medicare, education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no excuse for squandering billions of dollars on programs that don't work.

No. 1 on the failure list is our government's war on marijuana users. This war has not only failed to curb marijuana use and availability, but it has done real harm to our nation while chewing up billions of dollars every year.

How many billions? Last year, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimated that the federal government spends about $2.4 billion annually on enforcing anti-marijuana laws, which is on top of about $5.3 billion that local and state governments spend annually. Under prohibition, we also forgo the roughly $6.2 billion in tax revenues that Prof. Miron says would be generated if marijuana were regulated and taxed like alcohol and tobacco.

But that's only part of the cost of marijuana prohibition. The federal government has spent over $1 billion since 1998 on TV, radio and print anti-drug ads that have focused overwhelmingly on marijuana, often neglecting far more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine. And the government spends millions of additional dollars conducting and publicizing research that's designed to justify marijuana prohibition -- and an unknown amount campaigning against state and local efforts to reform marijuana laws.

The goal of all this is to choke off the marijuana supply and put a stop to marijuana use. Are we getting our money's worth?

In a word, no.

According to the U.S. Justice Department's 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment report, "Marijuana availability is high and stable or increasing slightly." In another recent federal government survey, 86 percent of high school seniors said that marijuana was "easy to get" -- a figure that has remained virtually constant since 1975.

All this, despite an all-time record marijuana "eradication" campaign in 2005, with over four million plants seized. Marijuana arrests have also set a record: 771,984 in one year. That's the equivalent of arresting every man, woman and child in the state of Wyoming plus St. Paul, Minnesota -- every year.

By cherry-picking the most favorable statistics, the White House has tried to convince us that marijuana use has dropped in a big way, but this simply isn't so.

Although changes in survey methodology make direct comparisons difficult, the latest edition of the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health, released last September, reports a higher percentage of 12- to 17-year-olds using marijuana at least monthly than when President Nixon first declared a "war on drugs" in 1971. The number of Americans who admit to having tried marijuana has reached an all-time record -- nearly 100 million.

Nearly 15 million say they use marijuana at least monthly. That's more people than attend all college and professional football games in a typical month, more than three times as many as buy Apple's red-hot iPod in a month, and eight times as many as attend rock concerts in a month.

The futile effort to "eradicate" marijuana has produced a harvest of misery. By forfeiting any chance to regulate the marijuana market -- you can't regulate what's illegal, after all -- we've given criminals and gangsters an exclusive franchise. We've guaranteed that marijuana will be grown in dangerous locations -- even hidden in wilderness areas or national parks -- instead of by regulated producers who are subject to environmental and labor standards. Unlike liquor merchants, who could lose their very lucrative liquor licenses if they sell to children, marijuana dealers have no incentive not to sell to kids.

Marijuana prohibition may be the most spectacular policy failure since -- well, since the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. It's time to stop wasting money on this boondoggle. It's time to tax and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol.

Digg!

Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Tax dollars wasted on pot users.
Posted by: kgs1947 on Apr 14, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we go again. The punishment outweighs the offense. As the government continues to wage another war on drugs, it puts it's money in a legal and punitive system where it is wasted. Pot? That's minor compared to crystal meth that can cause psychotic episodes, homicide, suicide. And, the money isn't being spent on rehab! Under this administration's watch, once again we are being duped to believe that our money is being well-spent. It's a lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What else can we expect?
Posted by: kgs1947 on Apr 14, 2006 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not surprising that all the money being wasted on punitive measures against pot-users, when we have an active alcoholic in the White House?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not mentioned
Posted by: WhatNow? on Apr 14, 2006 5:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These fascist, oppressive, and repressive drug laws also make the production hemp too much trouble in this country. Can you believe we import industrial hemp from China?

We should be using cannabis all the time for our clothes, our paper, building materials, food, and fuel. It is more durable than cotton and it is much less pesticide and insecticide intensive like cotton. It can produce much more fiber than pine. As a building material it resists water damage better than wood.

Marijuana laws are rooted in nothing but greed, racism, and hate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not mentioned Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Not mentioned Posted by: careowhack
It's cheaper to do it right -- because treatment works
Posted by: janvdb on Apr 14, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hasn't anyone read about California's excellent results with their treatment-not-incarceration program? It's saving taxpayers millions in unnecessary prison costs while reducing drug use and allowing users to rebuild their lives, get jobs, take care of their kids and pay taxes.

We need to respond to all drug-related charges with forced treatment.

We need to provide drug treatment on demand to all who request it.

We need to stop all international interdiction efforts and allow Latin American countries to legalize and tax their entire cocaine and marijuana cultivation and processing industries.

We need to provide adequate programs for the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-cons into productive lives.

We need to tax and sell marijuana in liquor stores.

We need to provide free or sliding-scale mental health treatment to ALL, including humane asylum facilities for those who need them.

We need to give family members the right, with professional supervision, to force family members into detox and mental health treatment without the involvement of the criminal justice system. Facilities for such treatment should be made affordable to all on a sliding-scale basis.

We need to provide, at government expense, prescription drug and talk therapy as necessary to all people with mental health issues, regardless of their financial circumstances. This should be part of single-payer national health insurance.

We need to put far more resources into Social Services and their attempts to intervene into dysfunctional familes and abused children. More children should be in foster care. More newborns should become wards of state and adopted into better circumstances immediately upon birth. The best interests of the child should far outweigh parental rights.

We need to put far more resources into the Office of the Public Defender, who should be equal in salary, power, office size, prestige and so on to the District Attorneys who so recklessly and wantonly destroy people's lives, frequently in an attempt to promote themselves into a conservative (viciousness-based) political career.

We should not be wasting taxpayers' money to harass those simply exercising their legitimate rights to use natural substances as they, as independent adults, should be free to do without interference.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quid Pro Quo of the Pushers
Posted by: waldenport on Apr 14, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Mr. Kampia would better have used his words to make clear cannabis continues to be illegal because the [legal] drug pushers in the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical corporations use their bribery money (aka lobbying dollars) to insure congress does not allow cannabis to be a legitimate competitor in the mind-altering substance arena.

That a lethal drug like alcohol can be legal and ubiquitous while a [virtually] non-toxic drug like cannabis is illegal is an absurd situation whose patent illogic needs to be exposed at every opportunity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Quid Pro Quo of the Pushers Posted by: aussidawg
Salads and sardines to stop drug addiction?
Posted by: Ms. Sardines on Apr 14, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it so hard for taxpayers to see the big savings that would come to public health, criminal rehabilitation, crime prevention, and millions of kids’ academic achievement if we would improve the national diet? Could this blind spot have anything to do with the ocean of junk food ads we swim through every day or the amount of campaign donations coming from food processing corporations?

Drug addictions, including the drugs of tobacco, alcohol and gambling, are basically “self medication” with whatever is available. The March 4 issue of Science News reported on studies by UCLA professor Fernando Gomez-Pinilla which show that the typical American diet significantly reduces rats ability to learn a water maze. Barbara Reed Stitt’s book about her work in probation (Food and Behavior) should have made the law-and-order folks sit up and pay attention, but because fixing school meals isn’t part of the sheriff department’s job, this promising lead was never followed. Namely, while the national recidivism rate is 70%, that was inverted with her 5000 probationers, who she educated in nutrition. Only 20% of them came back before the judge! (This story and others is at GoodSchoolFood.org.)

One specific group of nutrients, omega-3 fatty acids, has an especially important role in preventing addiction, as can be seen by their role in preventing and mediating depression (Andrew Stoll, M.D., Harvard). The foods containing omega-3s have dropped out of our diet (i.e. fish, greens, grass-fed beef), while the foods containing trans fats and omega-6s (which cancel omega-3s) have soared.

Maybe it’s like the tobacco time lag -- we knew for decades how harmful tobacco yet taxing, suing, and banning tobacco is a relatively recent response. But we need to be alert; Big Soda is claiming that they don’t need to be regulated because they are voluntarily cutting back on merchandizing in schools. If a “sport drink” contains almost as much corn syrup as a soda, does that make it better?

The twin epidemics in our children of obesity and diabetes are a wake-up call. What people don’t get is that these problems are connected to addiction and crime in our youth, and all relate to the junk we feed our children. It’s the old computer axiom: “garbage in, garbage out.” My little first graders know that 2 + 2 = 4, why can’t our public policy folks figure it out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Big soda and cancer. Posted by: Lauren
We need to recognize religious use.
Posted by: Lauren on Apr 14, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jan VanDenBerg's forced treatment is EXACTLY what my hubby tried to do to me! (So, #$@& you, Jan!)

Why? Because I decided to lead a ganja religious freedom movement, since I had had a religious experience. Like Jesus, but not nearly as dilusional as he is portrayed. I knew I could end the drug war that way, all I would have to do is be me, work dilligently, face the religious prejudice and then call them on it. Building a movement of allies first was the idea to ensure sucess.

It was the leadership part he couldn't stand so he called the police, tried to throw me out, galvanised my family against me, tried to divorce me, got Kaiser to help out in denying my religious experience. No end to the religious persecution I have entertained for being a Sufi and a practicing Native American. Then there was the harassment and evil Blueman attention.

Fortunately I always had the support of my people and when that failed me I would just think of the many innocent victums of the drug war. That always gave me the strenth to fight on.

I don't like your forced treatment approach. Take it back to your lousy dungions of Europe! THIS is the land of the free! Home of the Brave! This is America, land of religious freedom. God is Red. Stop telling people they are crazy just because they see things differently then you.

I've gotten lots of friends on board here, I do have lots of friends. My friends and I would like to have our cannabis religious freedom now, thank you.

THC Ministry, Cannabis Assembly

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We need to recognize religious use. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: We need to recognize religious use. Posted by: dawoud_almajid
» RE: We need to recognize religious use. Posted by: dawoud_almajid
Too Many Corporations Stirring The Soup
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Apr 14, 2006 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Face it: Marijuana has absolutely nothing going for it. Just ask any CEO, DA, "Constable Piggy", or Jeb Bush. They'll be glad to lie to you. Besides, in America, the perverts who run Corporate America are definitely more paranoid than pot users themselves.

It not an overexaggeration to state Corporate America holds one of the keys to unlock the door to legal marijuana use. Virtually every corp. in the country considers marijuana a challenge to their "corporate philosophy." And they're probably right -- from their point of view. They've long known that employees are a little more laid back from smoking pot -- nothing new here.

And what good company has resisted the temptation to blame their "management problems" of the 60's and 70's on employees's marijuana use? Never mind that businesses large and small will ever blame themselves -- or their predecessors -- for poor management decisions made 30 or 40 years ago. You know -- when America supposedly lost its competitive edge. That's just what happens when everybody's stoned.

Besides, who really gives a sh*t. Ronald Reagan rode into Washington with a mandate to raise corporate morale any way he saw fit. For working America, employees high and low were to become razor-edged, bong-chewing fanatics if they wanted to advance in the supercompetitive world made possible by RWR's messianic mandate. 'Course, he's deader than a senile doornail now but corporate America apparently won't not be changing their minds anytime soon.

Government agencies and law enforcement also hold keys to the door of legalization. Marijuana convictions of (mostly) black people remove them from the voting rolls in many places. Some GOP cokehead will have a better chance of being elected. And law enforcement -- at every level -- gets that relatively easy bust using them narcs who are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

What could be a better incentive for the Law than to get the right to sell off just about everything owned by the convicted? And it always makes the prosecution and doughout-addicts look like they're "on the job" -- even if one part of the job is taking payoffs from main suppliers who rarely get their hands dirty trafficking.

There's Big Pharma to consider, too. I mean...who needs a cheap substitute for an expensive drug? That's why big players like Eli Lily and Pfizer basically are The Partnership for a Drug Free America. It's in their best bottom line interests.

The other big obstacle is that pot somehow is still seen as representing the "Gringoes" Latino stereotypes. Our people of Central and South American ancestry are already "naturally" inclined to be really easy-going without smoking a doobee. This kind of thinking borders on the ludicrous, but very few of our legislators ever visit a border sweatshop.

I don't even smoke pot anymore. I'm a recovering alcoholic and I need pot to take the edge off of booze about as much as I need a shotgun that shoots backwords.

But for those that do -- this bud's for you!

pelle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» really? Posted by: WhatNow?
Cephalis
Posted by: cephalis on Apr 14, 2006 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing not mentioned as a factor in their rabid anti-marijuana war is the government's profiling of political dissidents. Number one on that list is marijuana use. If you have ever been interviewed by the FBI, as a reference for someone applying for a sensitve government job, you undoubtedly were asked if to your knowledge the applicant ever smoked pot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, the wisdom of prohibition!!!
Posted by: jeff2045 on Apr 14, 2006 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It costs fifty billion plus per year (very conservative estimate) to incarcerate drug-related offenders. DEA, Customs, state and local law enforcement, and prosecutorial costs far exceed the mere cost of incarceration. And let's not forget the cost of providing medical and social services to the families of those caught in the wide net cast in the so-called war on drugs. The social costs are enormous. Last but not least, many of these "offenders" could work, pay taxes, and otherwise contribute positively to their families and communities, if we but stopped to examine the cost vs. benefit of this "war".

Criminalization increases exponentially the very problems they seek to ameliorate. I'm a staunch liberal, and I'd love to see progressives retire from the politics of prohibition, whatever the form, including tobacco and gun prohibition. Intelligent regulation and control provide many answers, and coupled with education, treatment, and closely-monitored decriminalization (of drugs), the cost in taxpayer dollars and social degradation and demoralization would be far less than the alternatives.

If hard core drug addicts could access an affordable source, legally provided under strict medical supervision and regulation, and free education, counseling, and treatment (provided to the general public as well), drug-related crime and the associated costs would all but disappear.

We could shut down the half of our prisons, free up law enforcement and the courts to pursue real criminals committing real crimes, and fund universal health care and a living wage with the resources we'd have left.

Ultimately, the drug war serves only those who seek political careers which limit our civil liberties and eliminate social services.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Greatest Harm of Prohibition
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Apr 14, 2006 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Marijuana" prohibition has been used as an excuse to induce essential resource scarcity of Cannabis hemp, all over the world. The one plant that can produce everything we need has been taken away by legislation.

An abundance of fuels, essential fatty acid-rich protein, phytotherapeutics, paper, cloth, building materials, plant-based biocides, and oil - lots of oil, sustainably.

It's the most cruel and unusual punishment ever inflicted on mankind, the crime of two Centuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who benefits from selective enforcement?
Posted by: wli on Apr 15, 2006 2:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first thing about selective enforcement in a prohibition regime is that the competition which would otherwise be purely economic becomes a competition for control of the levers of power within the state for the sake of exemption from sanctions. Prohibition is then a method of enforcing monopoly.

The second thing to consider is against whom the sanctions are enforced. For all the hype about Pablo Escobar and his ilk, the bulk of the efforts by far go toward attacking the lower classes, particularly those of certain ethnicities and cultural persuasions associated with political stances. This is no coincidence. "Pot-smoking hippies" aren't likely to vote for Republicans. Blacks are the single most concentrated demographic voting bloc for Democrats. A quick rundown on the political effects of how blacks are specifically targeted can be found at the Prison Policy Institute and associated websites.

The third thing is to follow the money. You'll find intelligence agencies and their operatives staffing Wackenhut's board of directors, selling crack cocaine to bankroll death squads, and lining their own pockets along every step of the way from production to prison. The same and their associates can likewise be found lobbying Congress and running PR campaigns on behalf of such "policies" where they've not entered the halls of government directly to collusively promote such policies.

The fourth thing is to follow the macroeconomics. The "China price of labor" in the US is matched only by prison labor. The gargantuan numbers of those made homeless, dispossessed, and impoverished by right-wing economic policy, which can generally be described as wealth condensation, must be "beaten down" if they're to be prevented from engaging in such things as, say, armed uprisings. The right-wing solution is generally to dump them in concentration camps, a.k.a. prisons, where they can be contained. It would be inconsistent with right-wing ideology to do anything but attack, maim, and kill, regardless of the fact the targets are those most downtrodden, needy, and vulnerable. In fact, right-wing ideology essentially maintains that the most downtrodden, needy, and vulnerable are the most desirable targets to attack. There are ample precedents in the poor laws of Britain, debtors' prisons, peonage, and the like. The epitome of right-wing economics is, of course, where "Arbeit macht frei" appeared in wrought iron above the gate. The crucial thing is that the right wing so discredited itself 65 years ago that they must find a pretext for dumping the poor into concentration camps en masse instead of simply doing so outright. The "War on Drugs" and its concomitant selective enforcement have been that pretext for decades, only recently augmented, though not displaced, by the even more fraudulent "War on Terror."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mellow
Posted by: Burton on Apr 20, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Virtually every corp. in the country considers marijuana a challenge to their "corporate philosophy."

True enough--a point behind drug use in the 1960s was to get people to expand their minds and question what was going on about them. It's interesting that the rise of the war on (some) drugs parallels the rise of corporate power and globalization. At the same time, there is unprecedented apathy among Americans. Despite downsizing, layoffs, massive perks for CEOs, outsourcing, union-busting, etc., Americans sit and watch TV with its anti-drug messages and drop their pants to take their drug tests!

One thing about drug testing is that it says that your employer has the right to control your life off the job as well as on. So the worker is reduced to the status of de facto serf.

If the corporations support a "war" on drugs, then do people have a right to use armed resistance against them? How many drug testing employers are willing to fight and die for the drug war?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fight pot, let the kids shoot heroin instead
Posted by: dawoud_almajid on May 23, 2006 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i know for a fact that little and big suburban white kids do drugs, lots of them in fact, probably more than kids in the ghettos. i used to sell crack and i know the crack epidemic came from two causes and both of them were government sponsored. first the restriction of the jamiacan supplies of the weed, by way of the michael manley government created a vacuum in the cannabis market, which allowed cocaine to fill the void, cocaine was fashionable and urbane and expensive. there is not enough market share in only marketing to the elite, and as a result crack was created as an adulterated freebase which could be initally purchased very cheaply, but is far more addictive, and the "jones" that the addict has is intense, there was not a car stereo that was safe in any city in the country during the crack era 1985-1999. mandatory minimums and increased police presence changed the facts on the ground in the drug war and caused the ever clever capitalists (free market drug dealers) sought out new territory, suburban america. What a beautiful territory it was too, affluent, convienient to shopping and activities and above all, safe. The reletively homogenous makeup of suburban america, allowed local drug dealers to operate with impunity.
The white cops don't usually arrest the white kids, who's white parents have money, power and respect. Therefore, the modern suburban heroin epidemic is directly related to the racist drug war which has been instituted to disenfranchise first the African American and Latin communities, and then the rest of the American people. It's working like a charm, shoot if you throw in a little foreign terror threat and the American people will practically be begging for the government to step in and declare martial law. Oh sorry we already have martial law here in the U.S. Being as though we are no longer safe from unreasonable search, the presumtion of innocence and denial of our freedom of expression. You cannot be free if everything that you enjoy is illegal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fight pot, let the kids shoot heroin instead
Posted by: dawoud_almajid on May 23, 2006 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i know for a fact that little and big suburban white kids do drugs, lots of them in fact, probably more than kids in the ghettos. i used to sell crack and i know the crack epidemic came from two causes and both of them were government sponsored. first the restriction of the jamiacan supplies of the weed, by way of the michael manley government created a vacuum in the cannabis market, which allowed cocaine to fill the void, cocaine was fashionable and urbane and expensive. there is not enough market share in only marketing to the elite, and as a result crack was created as an adulterated freebase which could be initally purchased very cheaply, but is far more addictive, and the "jones" that the addict has is intense, there was not a car stereo that was safe in any city in the country during the crack era 1985-1999. mandatory minimums and increased police presence changed the facts on the ground in the drug war and caused the ever clever capitalists (free market drug dealers) to seek out new territory, suburban america. What a beautiful territory it was too, affluent, convienient to shopping and activities and above all, safe. The reletively homogenous makeup of suburban america, allowed local drug dealers to operate with impunity.
The white cops don't usually arrest the white kids, who's white parents have money, power and respect. Therefore, the modern suburban heroin epidemic is directly related to the racist drug war which has been instituted to disenfranchise first the African American and Latin communities, and then the rest of the American people. It's working like a charm, shoot if you throw in a little foreign terror threat and the American people will practically be begging for the government to step in and declare martial law. Oh sorry we already have martial law here in the U.S. Being as though we are no longer safe from unreasonable search, the presumtion of innocence and denial of our freedom of expression. You cannot be free if everything that you enjoy is illegal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bugagagaga
Posted by: jacky on Nov 12, 2006 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
asdasd
Posted by: jacky on Nov 24, 2006 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Viagra
Posted by: Pereira on Nov 25, 2006 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
buy viagra buy viagra
discount viagra discount viagra
natural viagra natural viagra
viagra viagra
viagra erection viagra erection
viagra online viagra online
viagra sample viagra sample
buy cialis buy cialis
buy cialis generic buy cialis generic
cialis cialis
cialis 20mg cialis 20mg
cialis online pharmacy cialis online pharmacy
cialis price cialis price
discount generic cialis discount generic cialis
buy levitra buy levitra
levitra levitra
levitra information levitra information
levitra order levitra order
levitra pill levitra pill
levitra prescription levitra prescription
levitra woman levitra woman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cialis
Posted by: Pereira on Nov 26, 2006 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
buy cialis buy cialis
canada cialis canada cialis
cheap cialis cheap cialis
cheap generic cialis cheap generic cialis
cheapest cialis cheapest cialis
cialis tablet cialis tablet
discount cialis discount cialis
cialis cialis
purchase cialis purchase cialis
why cialis why cialis
20mg levitra 20mg levitra
book guest levitra book guest levitra
buy levitra buy levitra
cheap levitra cheap levitra
levitra levitra
levitra order levitra order
levitra pill levitra pill
levitra sample levitra sample
levitra story levitra story
levitra woman levitra woman
buy viagra buy viagra
cheap viagra uk cheap viagra uk
free viagra sample free viagra sample
limbaugh viagra limbaugh viagra
viagra viagra
viagra alternative viagra alternative
viagra for woman viagra for woman
viagra online viagra online
viagra pill viagra pill
viagra price viagra price

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

irbic
Posted by: Pereira on Nov 27, 2006 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
buy cialis buy cialis
buy levitra buy levitra
buy levitra online buy levitra online
buy_phentermine buy_phentermine
buy phentermine online buy phentermine online
buy viagra buy viagra
cheap phentermine cheap phentermine
cheap tramadol online cheap tramadol online
cheapest phentermine cheapest phentermine
cialis cialis
cialis dosage cialis dosage
cialis drug cialis drug
cialis review cialis review
discount viagra discount viagra
generic cialis generic cialis
information levitra information levitra
levitra levitra
levitra news levitra news
levitra now online levitra now online
levitra order levitra order
order tramadol online order tramadol online
phentermine phentermine
phentermine online phentermine online
phentermine order phentermine order
purchase cialis purchase cialis
tramadol tramadol
tramadol 50mg tramadol 50mg
tramadol dosage tramadol dosage
tramadol sale tramadol sale
tramadol ultram tramadol ultram
viagra viagra
viagra for woman viagra for woman
viagra france viagra france
viagra online viagra online
viagra sale online viagra sale online
buy cialis buy cialis
buy levitra buy levitra
buy viagra buy viagra
cheap cialis cheap cialis

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

irbic
Posted by: Pereira on Nov 27, 2006 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
buy viagra cheap buy viagra cheap
cheap viagra online cheap viagra online
cialis compare levitra viagra cialis compare levitra viagra
discount viagra online discount viagra online
generic viagra generic viagra
lowest viagra price lowest viagra price
purchase viagra purchase viagra
super viagra super viagra
viagra viagra
viagra use viagra use
best cialis price best cialis price
buy cialis buy cialis
cialis cialis
cialis compare levitra viagra cialis compare levitra viagra
cialis comparison levitra cialis comparison levitra
cialis drug viagra vs cialis drug viagra vs
cialis sample cialis sample
cialis sample pack cialis sample pack
compare viagra to cialis compare viagra to cialis
free cialis free cialis
about levitra about levitra
bayer levitra bayer levitra
buy levitra buy levitra
buy levitra online buy levitra online
drug impotence levitra drug impotence levitra
free levitra free levitra
impotence drug levitra impotence drug levitra
levitra levitra
levitra review levitra review
levitra reviews levitra reviews

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jack
Posted by: jacky on Dec 11, 2006 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anavar Anavar
Replica Watches Replica Watches
Aciphex Aciphex
Lipitor Lipitor
Amoxicillin Amoxicillin
Ultram Ultram
Fluoxetine Fluoxetine
Clomid Clomid
Asian Sex Asian Sex
Gay Sex Gay Sex
Black Sex Black Sex
Bag Replica Bag Replica
Resume Resume
Zoloft Zoloft

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

asdd
Posted by: jacky on Dec 11, 2006 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]