Loaded-Gun.Com - Anti-Social.Com's Rejects!
General Category => Politics, Philosophy, News and/or Current Affairs => Topic started by: drxgs on May 11, 2009, 10:25:36 AM
-
Do you believe it will happen and if you do, when do you think it shall and what are some logical views that help influence your opinion?
And if you're anti-drug and/or believing it won't be legalized, explain your reason just the same as above - with logic.
I believe it may happen, as a matter of when I cannot concept, only thing I believe slowing down the process is the entire "taxing" situation on weed.
Discuss.
-
I don't smoke weed much at all. Not really my thing. But it should be legalized.
-
It should be legalized but taxing it is bullshit. I'd rather see it illegal and untaxed than legal and taxed.
It's a non addictive PLANT that grows all over the world.
-
It's addictive to the personality.
-
So is TV, video games, and the Internet. Should we ban those too then?
-
Weed isnt baned now. ~shrug.
-
the other day on a talk radio marijuana discussion, i heard this argument:
if marijuana is legalized, the pot dealers may not jump right up and go get themselves a job as a greeter at walmart. what if they turn to selling something harder, and help to encourage the gatewaying of his friends/custumers/others into darker drug territories? basically more bad drugs, seedier world, kids shooting up instead of toking up, etcetera.
this guy was a pothead, and he sounded seriously irate about the whole thing, but i hadn't thought of things that way before. i'm always first to say "hell yes! decrim pot!" but the fact is, i never have trouble getting it, and the people i do deal with (forgive the pun) ARE the type to turn to selling other things if pot wasn't on the menu, namely cocaine and scrip pills. both of which i've dabbled in, and both of which i think can be serious people ruiners.
It should be legalized but taxing it is bullshit. I'd rather see it illegal and untaxed than legal and taxed.
definitely.
-
It's taxed now.
-
Shut up, you are a fucking idiot.
-
It's taxed now.
where are you talking about please? your posts have little to no direction, unless you count the fact that you expressed that you physically or metaphorically shrugged a little while ago, which i don't think anyone needed to be informed of.
-
Rather than express in a cohesive manner whatever his point is he'd rather try to goad us into typing it out for him by provoking us with his usual nonsense.
-
I think it should be legalised but I doubt it ever will. The Government in the UK made Cannabis a Class B drugs in January. Apparently against the advise of their advisors. I don't really see it getting any better. They said it was because of the fear of Skunk, not the actual drugs.
Eh, I'd rather do weed than alcohol or cigs.
-
How about, we don't all live on fucking planet America. There are places where it is legal and is taxed.
not to mention, its taxed all down the supply line in the places its not legal. All the products used to make it are taxed aswell.
Krapsna, fuck you, point to some of the usual nonsense asshole.
-
-
the u. s. of america is a country, not a planet.
silly.
-
SO. How hard was the English lit section of your barmaid application hip ?
-
here in america i'm called a bartender. a few years ago, the application process for my current job was fairly standard. i'm pretty, young, and drew a big smiley face next to the portion that asked me what i would bring to the job (besides my nice ass). i also scribbled out: "i love people and i love waitressing!"
that's all actually quite true. my boss called me and said "i can't believe you drew a smiley face and wrote that you love waitressing. you are definitely hired." i'm now restaurant and bar manager and probably making a lot more money than a lot of people on this board, including you. career success can be measured in many different ways, not just how one can apply themselves best. i'm good at what i do, enjoy it, and make shitpiles of money. in the evenings, i usually get a little weed, smoke with my friends, and wax poetic on the awesomeness of being me.
-
really, alot more money and still you bitch about not being able to pay a 1000 dollar bill. oh and barmiad was the word you used for the job. and you also said you were working 4 nights a week.
oh, and your not making more than i sweetheart.
-
you can't seem to let the issue of my overdue electric bill from this past winter drop. financially, it was a rough winter for a lot of americans, especially my roommate, who had to move out, leaving me with double the bills, and considering it was so deep in the off-season here, my income was less than it is now. plus, i have an expensive weed habit, remember?
four or five nights, but who's keeping track? oh yeah, you are. i'm currently averaging about $400-$500 a night. is this a problem? i'm confused.
-
Its the only time ive mentioned the bill since you frist posted of it.
Yes, it is a problem, you cant afford to buy a house. You cant afford a cheap ass drug like weed. You have a job that is seasonal ( pay wise). Theres alot of problems there.
-
i can afford cheap ass weed. i can even afford expensive ass weed. when did i say that was a problem?
you don't know me, but if you did, you would know i don't want to buy a house. so whether or not i can afford it is a moot point. for the sake of argument, if i did want to buy a house tomorrow, you're absolutely right. i couldn't afford it. but the bank who gives me the mortgage loan could, and i'd give them some money every month to pay them back. i'd even give them more than they gave me. there's a name for this...interest, maybe? but this makes my point more solid. i don't want to deal with the hazards of loans and interest rates and all that mumbo jumbo. i'm free of those responsibilities and ties, which is exactly how i want it right now.
there are no problems. i'm happier with my life than i have ever been. now i'm about to get happier by smoking a bowl and driving out on the beach to work on my tan and read a good book. did i mention how hot i look today, everyone? AND that the red sox won last night?! life is wonderful.
-
Krapsna, fuck you, point to some of the usual nonsense asshole.
Okay, how's this?
Weed isnt baned now. ~shrug.
It's taxed now.
There's some of your ignorant rhetorical nonsense.
Here's some of your usual nonsense. How about, we don't all live on fucking planet America. There are places where it is legal and is taxed.
not to mention, its taxed all down the supply line in the places its not legal. All the products used to make it are taxed aswell.
That second sentence makes NO sense. You're literally saying that marijuana is taxed in the places that it's illegal and that the products used to make marijuana are taxed too, which would be what, like shovels and fertilizers and stuff?
I'm guessing that's not what you meant to type, but since you are borderline illiterate I'm not surprised.
As for your planet America snideness, sorry asshole, but you DO live on planet America when it comes to drug laws. See, there's this little thing called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs) (a treaty) that the US strong arms everyone else into ratifying which outlines what drugs are and aren't legal. According to it, marijuana is illegal. Since pretty much everyone is on board with this treaty, marijuana is illegal pretty much everywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country).
Now, the penalties and enforcement may vary from country to country and even within the US state by state, but the bottom line is that you're a dumb fuck who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and a failure at even expressing your own ignorant rhetoric.
So, if you'd like to do so, go ahead and prove me wrong by showing me somewhere (other than India) where marijuana is 100% legal (not decriminalized) AND taxed DIRECTLY by the government. Or, you can just admit that you're an asshole.
-
Yes. Shovels and fetilizers. And down the supply chian. You think youre getting you weed for the cost price ? You want to ignore indirect taxing just to make a pont no form of taxes exists right now ?
and the fact laws differ from counrty to counrty and state to state does suggest it is not banned (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban).
-
Okay, see, when you start posting stuff like that it makes me begin to feel like I'm kicking a puppy dog or something. Hojo, the second definition of the word banned is "to prohibit expressly by legal means".
Marijuana is quite plainly banned.
Yes. Shovels and fetilizers. And down the supply chian. You think youre getting you weed for the cost price ? You want to ignore indirect taxing just to make a pont no form of taxes exists right now ?
Yes, exactly. There is no tax levied on any item simply because it might be used to cultivate or sell marijuana. I am not "ignoring" indirect taxes simply to make a point, you are over emphasizing indirect taxes in order to back up a very petty and futile argument. Marijuana is not taxed.
-
Yes, and given there IS different rules state to state, country to country and places/situations where possession IS 100% legal ( western australia ) use of the word banned is pointless.
"In Western Australia, possession of up to 30 grams or two plants is accepted for private use." and thats no decriminalized thats 100% legal.
I would assume weed IS taxed when medical. I don't know.
-
Nothing should be banned.
California has trouble taxing medical marijuana because of record keeping issues. Medical marijuana dispensaries have been fucked over so many times by the DEA & dick cops that they keep little, if anything in the way of records.
-
Also, just legalizing weed and not taxing it would be a net savings of millions of dollars per year. I think California is estimated to spend ~200 million US dollars on just policing, prosecuting, and jailing, people for weed.
-
Wasn't there just some announcement that the DEA will no longer raid dispensaries?
-
There was an announcement of that sort, but do you really suspect that a bunch of people selling weed are going to really believe it?
-
Exit DEA enter IRS.
-
Not for a minute. But it did sound encouraging enough to me that I was thinking about trying out the dispensaries when I'm in California this summer.
-
Yes, and given there IS different rules state to state, country to country and places/situations where possession IS 100% legal ( western australia ) use of the word banned is pointless.
"In Western Australia, possession of up to 30 grams or two plants is accepted for private use." and thats no decriminalized thats 100% legal.
I would assume weed IS taxed when medical. I don't know.
In the US even though a particular state may declare marijuana legal, it is still illegal federally and the federal government still conducts raids and arrests of marijuana dispensaries whenever they feel like it. No matter what an individual state may decide, marijuana is without a doubt banned here in the USA.
In Western Australia posession of up to 30 grams is a ticketable offense. Posession of up to two plants is also a ticketable offense, as long as you're growing them in soil. If you're growing hydroponicly any number of plants in your posession is a criminal offense.
Prior to when the above laws went into effect Western Australia considered growing in excess of 25 plants to be a "serious offense" (felony level), with the new laws in effect that number has been reduced to 10.
It has been decriminilized for personal use, which doesn't mean it is now legal, it means that the penalties have been lowered. Just so you know, the word ticketable means just that. If you have 5 grams of marijuana it's up to the Officer and the court's discression of whether you recieve a ticket or a more severe punishment.
Marijuana is still banned in Western Australia. Sorry, you lose again.
-
Clearly you have a different measure of what banned means. To mean it means finger prints and photos. End of fucking story.
-
Clearly you have a different measure of what banned means. To mean it means finger prints and photos. End of fucking story.
what
-
Jesus fuck me in the ass.
-
Clearly you have a different measure of what banned means. To mean it means finger prints and photos. End of fucking story.
It is still illegal, you can still be fingerprinted and photographed if the authorities decide to, it is still banned, and you are still a jackass.
-
No, you cant. You don't get fingerprints and photos for fines.
-
How about you two shut the fuck up. Krsna: You're just a dick. Hojo: You will never agree with anyone
-
did he call you in for reinforcements?
-
Danzig, I'm not just a dick, I'm also right. Hojo is a dick but he's wrong, and that's bad.
-
No, I wasent.
I got you on taxes with med weed.
And I wasent allowed to mention anything about the counrties where weed is 100% legal, most likely due to you wanting to improve the odds of winning 'cause lets face it, it's legal in places.
-
Hojo, you never got me with taxes on med weed, it's not taxed. Find me legislation taxing marijuana and I'll admit that you're right. Unlike yourself, I find logic, reason, and facts very persuasive.
And what are you talking about with your 100% legal comment? It's either legal, or it's illegal. Giving the police the option to give you a ticket instead of arresting you doesn't make it legal. For example, murder is illegal. You go to prison, and in some areas can be given the death penalty. Compare that to driving with a broken tail light, for which you would get a ticket. Does the fact that you got only a ticket mean that driving with a broken tail light is NOT illegal? Do you really think that you could go in front of a court and get your ticket dismissed based on the argument that since it's only a ticket that driving with a broken tail light couldn't possibly be illegal?
I'll tell you what. Why don't you go smoke a joint in a Western Australia police station. After you're done paying your fines (if indeed you don't get outright arrested, it's still their option) you can tell me whether you consider marijuana banned or not.
-
Weed ain't even fully legal in Amsterdam. It's just tolerated.
-
BTW that reminds me of something. New thread.
-
People are going to use it whether or not it's legal.
I'm not decided on this topic yet.
I think it is stupid that people get sent to prison for marijuana, when they let people off that do far worse crimes.
Yet if it was legalized, it may just become a bigger problem, people would probably abuse it more since it'd be legal.
I guess if it does become legal, I think people should only be able to legally have a certain amount on them.
-
Sales tax
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=204 (http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=204)
and i already mentioned we have a different benchmark of banned. The reason for that is most likely i have smoked infront of police before, and not been arrested in a town, in a state that is a "banned" zone, that has people openly selling weed on the street 24/7.
-
I think banned is a bad word for this topic.
I realize that something you can get away with doing in front of a cop can be considered literally banned, but banned does call to mind the sort of thing you'd be arrested on sight for doing. Pissing in public is banned, but in London last summer I just got a quick verbal warning from a cop for doing it at about 4am somewhere or other (seriously, no fucking idea where I was at the time - I was plastered and lost). I've smoked joints in front of cops in Spain, and had them not even give me a second look. Same in Holland. Yet technically weed is illegal in both places, therefore "banned".
I think we're arguing over semantics, and honestly it's getting boring.
-
I'm currently in public policy school, so hopefully I can try to articulate why I think the policy is the way it is and why it should or shouldn't change. If I can't do this well obviously I need to practice my skills more.
First, I myself grew up with a strong sense of individual liberty, my mom died when I was really young, my dad worked all the time and rarely supervised me, and from about the age of 8 on to my present age of 24 I have had pretty much no one telling me what to do except what I myself thought was right and wrong. I had guidance, but my dad left me a lot of freedom to decide things for myself, he has his own views on religion but never indoctrinated me with any of them, he has own views of politics, drugs, guns, etc. but let me make up my own mind. Because of that, I'm now an adult and I value that individual freedom highly -- higher than pretty much any other principle for declaring the value of something in relation to the ways of government.
Therefore, personally, I believe that not only weed, but all drugs should be legal all the way up to heroin and crack and that each individual person should be responsible for themselves and what they choose to put in their own body and that the government should have no right to interfere in any way (except to possibly educate citizens on the merits and consequences of any possible drug consumption in an intelligent and informative way); however most people and most governments find this view horrific and irrational and I can understand why.
People our age (I'll say 30 and under without intentionally excluding the older members of the forums) grew up in an era much different from previous generations. Our generation places individualism in a much higher regard than community by virtually everyone. In the past a lot of things about your life were pre-determined based on where you came from, who you ran with, who your family was, etc. etc. (group and communal identity). A few months ago before I started graduate school I was teaching math, and I was teaching kids as young as 7 years old who had their own cellular phones - you can hit up the mobile of a first grader now and its normal for kids to have their own phone number.
A lot of people who are older tend to view community and social values much higher than we do today and think that they should be something definite. I am from Placeville, USA we don't do that here that's not who we are and it actually means something of tangible moral value. I personally don't value that kind of thinking at all, but that is the majority held value for most people in all societies today still. I am of the mind that I am some dude and I'll do this or that based on how I think it will effect me and it's none of your fucking business one way or the other. The thing is, that most people who are growing up today are of my type of people, they are hyper-individualized and they will come to voting age and decide that the government has absolutely no business telling me what I can and cannot do when it does not legitimately affect them one way or the other. That is the social/people angle.
The government angle, I see in the same way I see most other laws. The United States (and to be fair to Ho-Jo and others -- Any other Western-style government overseeing a loosely capitalist economy) has every incentive to create laws in such a way that they maximize productivity. Legalizing marijuana in our country would certainly increase consumption of marijuana in our country. We'd certainly have more quality music being produced here, but would we have more widgets being produced at the widget factory if everyone was getting high all the time? Not likely. On the plus side maybe it would reduce stress and overall be a net gain in healthy living, maybe it would replace other more destructive vices and improve quality of life. I don't know, and people who design policy don't have the luxury of seeing all of the positive and negative consequences until after it is enacted. It's not always good enough to say "Look at the Netherlands, they are top tits, let's just copy their policy." In the United States there is a culture of big everything and high consumption, super size me, give me a grande latte, fucking give me a 80" TV that sucks my cock. I'm not really sure if moderation is even in the collective U.S. cultural vocabulary. On top of that you want to say "this drug is now legal, go hog wild." The consequences for a lot of people would probably be very substantially negative.
It is not in a capitalist country's incentive to create laws which decrease its productivity, because it gets tax revenue from productivity, it gets economic strength from productivity, and in our country virtually every aspect of your life is somehow influenced by what you do for money. Unless the net legalized income gain (and it would most certainly be taxed) from legalizing marijuana or (anything else) outstrips the net production loss from encouraging more citizens to actively consume drugs, it is not in the government's incentive to do so.
Eventually, enough of us (strong individuals) will outstrip them (moralizing communitarians) at the voting booths that marijuana will be legalized -- I don't know when but I don't think it will be too far down the line, and I think the same about gay marriage too, that it should be legal, (but a lot of the same arguments would apply in an anti-gay marriage defense of current government policy).
Please criticize any of my claims that don't make sense or are outright wrong. I'm in policy school trying to actually work in government some day -- MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS FOR A LIVING -- so the way I develop and defend these arguments matters to me quite a bit.
-
good luck getting a government jobs with those views
-
All I can say right now is good post. I'm gonna read it again when not high as shit and give you a more detailed answer.
-
good luck getting a government jobs with those views
I'll probably end up working in defense/economic policy (that's what I'm studying mainly) so my political/individual views won't really clash with that at all. That's how I reconcile it.
That's why I chose not to work at all in social policy or law because my views are so completely divergent, etc. like you said.
Also I think I reconciled it in my post. Obviously my views are much more individualistic than most, but I also recognize that I have the privilege of much better education and much better upbringing than a lot of other people. Policy effecting drug laws would effect all people including most who are less educated and less privileged than myself and thus I don't think that my own personal view on this matter would make for good policy because it doesn't square rightly with the way people behave.
-
Well, besides what you want to do individually...
The "white" US is going to lose out to other cultures who value education higher. This is what your government sees. It sees that a large % the top students in most fields are immigrants or first generation immigrants, and that other countries are getting richer relative to the US as globalization spreads. Curbing drug use in it's own back yard is a governments way of protecting it's future.
That and as you said, Americans don't believe that "moderation" applies to them.
-
Good find on the sales tax hojo. I would argue that it's only one town in one state and only a general sales tax and therefore not a specific marijuana tax, but then you would argue that a tax is a tax and have less slippery footing than the "shovels are taxed so marijuana is taxed" argument.
I imagine that sales tax is what marijuana advocates had in mind when they first started trying to tempt gov't into legalizing it with dollar signs, but never underestimate the a politician's greed. California has had a bill introduced that if passed would make marijuana legal for persons age 21 or over. Growers would have to pay a $5,000 dollar "franchise" fee that would be renewed at $2,500 per year. Additionally, there would be a $50 per ounce tax which is pretty steep considering that top of the line weed wholesales at about $4000 per pound. It's a nearly 25% tax at the wholesale level and roughly 12.5% tax at the retail level assuming a selling price of $400 per ounce. If the per ounce price is less than that (which it surely would be once large commercial operations were growing) you could easily be looking at 1/3 of the total cost of marijuana being taxes. That's robbery.
-
argument ? I havent even tried to argue. I dont come here to be serious. Which you should of twigged to from the first post.
-
Yes, and given there IS different rules state to state, country to country and places/situations where possession IS 100% legal ( western australia ) use of the word banned is pointless.
"In Western Australia, possession of up to 30 grams or two plants is accepted for private use." and thats no decriminalized thats 100% legal.
I would assume weed IS taxed when medical. I don't know.
I thought it was SA, not WA. WA's way to conservative for that.
-
Naa. WA copied SA. Last I heard it's 50g and 2 plants for WA. As for SA i remember they changed the growing rules to cut down on crop size.
I think the 50g has been cut back. The big difference is WA has bigger fines. SA is still like hands out it's fines like a parking ticket. Can't remember the price you pay though.
and then there's Nimbin, which is on a different planet.
-
Danzig, you should live in Nimbin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbin,_New_South_Wales)
-
Right. Didnt know that.
Anyways, there's no way in hell that any government is going to end the prohibition on marijuana. Its that simple. Governments by and large are socially conservative in the way they conduct themselves, show me a socially radical government that has lasted (even Castro's government in Cuba is socially conservative).
Listen to Okie from Muskogee, even though it was writen and recorded 40something years ago, pretty much sums up the general community attitude to marijuana. These are the people that the governments of the world actively pander to, because these are the people that actually vote.
Decriminalisation was introduced to free the court system of the kind of dumb fucks that are stupid enough to repeatedly get caught with a gram or two of weed. It has never meant a lifting of the prohibition.
Ok, all that said, there are commerically grown hemp crops in Australia, artificially selected and bred to have extrememly low levels of THC. Thing is, the people working these crops are also subject to very strict vetting, and work under very strict controls. So, very loosely, I guess there is taxation on marijuana.
-
i'm now restaurant and bar manager and probably making a lot more money than a lot of people on this board, including you.
A: $30K-$45K
B: $45K-$60K
C: $60K-$75K
D: $75K+
E: none of the above
???
-
Serious, but potentially uninformed, post:
I think the original criminalization of marijuana was one of the first moves by big tobacco in Washington.
I also think that the potency of the drug has increased radically in the last century, as breeding programs have been put in place to increase strength and yield.
so, if the weak-ass, ditch-weed cannabis from a century ago was made illegal, I can't see how we'll end up with any of the current, more potent, stock legalized.
-
It's either legal, or it's illegal. Giving the police the option to give you a ticket instead of arresting you doesn't make it legal. For example, murder is illegal. You go to prison, and in some areas can be given the death penalty. Compare that to driving with a broken tail light, for which you would get a ticket. Does the fact that you got only a ticket mean that driving with a broken tail light is NOT illegal? Do you really think that you could go in front of a court and get your ticket dismissed based on the argument that since it's only a ticket that driving with a broken tail light couldn't possibly be illegal?
Beyond the other rhetoric, I think this is an important distinction, and I applaud your analogy skills.
-
Serious, but potentially uninformed, post:
I think the original criminalization of marijuana was one of the first moves by big tobacco in Washington.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the real driver behind hemp being prohibited was cotton. In particular, Hearsts cotton. Big tobacco probably wouldnt have cared, or more likely, gotten in on the act.
-
Serious, but potentially uninformed, post:
I think the original criminalization of marijuana was one of the first moves by big tobacco in Washington.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the real driver behind hemp being prohibited was cotton. In particular, Hearsts cotton. Big tobacco probably wouldnt have cared, or more likely, gotten in on the act.
I actually had a whole rant in there about commercial lobbies messing around with the government since the beginning of the USA, but I took it out in favor of conciseness.
-
argument ? I havent even tried to argue. I dont come here to be serious. Which you should of twigged to from the first post.
what the fuck.
i feel like i'm on fucking crazy pills.
-
Serious, but potentially uninformed, post:
I think the original criminalization of marijuana was one of the first moves by big tobacco in Washington.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the real driver behind hemp being prohibited was cotton. In particular, Hearsts cotton. Big tobacco probably wouldnt have cared, or more likely, gotten in on the act.
I actually had a whole rant in there about commercial lobbies messing around with the government since the beginning of the USA, but I took it out in favor of conciseness.
I think corporate charters should be rewritten to deny corporations the right to lobby congress. They should also generally be denied the same rights as individuals, which they enjoy now. The legal protections offered by incorporating should also include a fuck load of responsibilities and limitations.
-
But only "true" private sector. ? Extra limitations on townships could backfire. ? We don't have the issue here so I dont know.
-
Government: What? It makes you feel good? ILLEGAL!
-
Government: What? It makes you feel good? ILLEGAL!
Chocolate should've been outlawed oh so long ago.
Anyway, I think if marijuana gets legalized people'll go mad for a while with the stuff, users everywhere but then in like ten years time no one will care at all. It'll just fade into the background and less people will use it anyway.
-
But only "true" private sector. ? Extra limitations on townships could backfire. ? We don't have the issue here so I dont know.
Yeah, a distinction between municipal corporations and private corporations is important.
-
Government: What? It makes you feel good? ILLEGAL!
Chocolate should've been outlawed oh so long ago.
Anyway, I think if marijuana gets legalized people'll go mad for a while with the stuff, users everywhere but then in like ten years time no one will care at all. It'll just fade into the background and less people will use it anyway.
As a matter of fact a recent poll showed that there are fewer regular users (per capita) of weed in Amsterdam then there are in America.
-
Yep. And I read somewhere (although this was a while ago) that there's much less alcohol abuse in Mediterranean countries where having a little wine with a meal is no big deal, and the drinking age is much younger. It makes senes - when things are forbidden they're especially enticing, and every kid loves to feel like a badass who's getting away with something he shouldn't.
-
argument ? I havent even tried to argue. I dont come here to be serious. Which you should of twigged to from the first post.
what the fuck.
i feel like i'm on fucking crazy pills.
You are.