The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a report this week detailing “The War on Marijuana in Black and White.” The report concluded that there is massive over-policing when it comes to marijuana, that there is a “staggering racial bias” prevalent in marijuana possession arrests, and that the government is wasting time and money in its failed effort to crack down on use of the drug.
Between 2001 and 2010, there were over 8 million arrests related to marijuana in the U.S., 88 percent of which were for possession. Approximately half of all drug arrests in 2010 and 2011 were on marijuana-related charges, according to data that was compiled from police records from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These arrests are happening despite the fact that 18 states now allow for medicinal marijuana use and 13 states have passed or expanded laws decriminalizing marijuana use in recent years.
In November, 2012 voters in Colorado and Washington State made it legal to smoke marijuana recreationally – without a prescription or medical excuse. Colorado’s marijuana law passed with 54 percent support, and Washington’s with 55 percent, reflecting the will of a people ready to decriminalize this drug. The federal government, however, still considers marijuana a Schedule I prohibited substance and has enforced federal marijuana laws in some states while leaving others alone.
But local police are still cracking down everywhere, and they are cracking down disproportionately on black people, even though the rate of marijuana use among white and black Americans is approximately the same. The ACLU’s report found that black Americans were 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites.
“We found that in virtually every county in the country, police have wasted taxpayer money enforcing marijuana laws in a racially biased manner,” said Ezekiel Edwards, the director of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project and lead author of the report, in a statement to The New York Times.
Racial bias and federal funding go hand in hand. The ACLU’s report found that federal programs give incentives for racial profiling by using arrest numbers to measure performance when distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to local law enforcement agencies annually. This results in local police departments focusing on poorer, mostly minority, neighborhoods to meet federally established quotas for funding. The police are making arrests for low-level offenses – like marijuana possession – that are easier and cheaper to process instead of serious felony crimes, such as drug trafficking.
Thus, taxpayer money is being used to waste taxpayer money to arrest people for simple possession of marijuana, a drug that more and more Americans are voting to legalize formedical and recreational use. Additionally, all of this enforcement is for naught. The rate of marijuana use among the American public has not decreased as a result of the billions in state and federal dollars spent on this effort. And for those caught in the marijuana dragnet, disproportionate numbers of whom are black, an arrest and conviction for marijuana possession can potentially ruin a future.
It is time for local and federal law enforcement and legislators to pay attention to the winds of change. Legalize marijuana, tax and regulate it in the same way that alcohol is taxed and regulated, and spend taxpayers dollars pursing and prosecuting serious criminals and crimes. Both the financial and human costs of this failed “war” are far too high to justify its continuation.
Amy Lazenby is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. She writes with a liberal world view on most issues, but enjoys exploring where the liberal and libertarian political axes intersect. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz.
***
87 comments
The brown people grow em’, the black people sell em’, the white people use em’. Prison reflects that, with the occasional outlier. Can’t disrupt that prison/industrial complex, too damn much money at stake.
I’m not so sure about the Negro influence here. I think that pot is usually grown by the white and sold by the same. Hispanics may have some influence but this is majority white.
Don’t know about who’s growing it, but it’s used equally by black and white people.
I don’t disagree with that. Probably use is same irregardless of race/ethnicity.
The brown people grow em’, the black people sell em’, the white people use em’. Prison reflects that, with the occasional outlier. Can’t disrupt that prison/industrial complex, too damn much money at stake.
I’m not so sure about the Negro influence here. I think that pot is usually grown by the white and sold by the same. Hispanics may have some influence but this is majority white.
Don’t know about who’s growing it, but it’s used equally by black and white people.
I don’t disagree with that. Probably use is same irregardless of race/ethnicity.
It is past time to end this ridiculous “War on Drugs” that we lost a long time ago, especially regarding marijuana. It has legitimate medical uses, is no more harmful than alcohol (and some would say less), and should be taxed and regulated.
Recent editorial in NEJM argues that the medical uses are being abused for persons who just want a little buzz
Yeah, and plenty of medical studies discuss legitimate uses for med marijuana – for cancer patients, AIDS patients, people in pain, palliative care. Also, two states have legalized it “for recreational use.” Marijuana is no worse than alcohol, and that’s legal “for recreational use.”
Excepting your taxation statement. +7/8
It is past time to end this ridiculous “War on Drugs” that we lost a long time ago, especially regarding marijuana. It has legitimate medical uses, is no more harmful than alcohol (and some would say less), and should be taxed and regulated.
Recent editorial in NEJM argues that the medical uses are being abused for persons who just want a little buzz
Yeah, and plenty of medical studies discuss legitimate uses for med marijuana – for cancer patients, AIDS patients, people in pain, palliative care. Also, two states have legalized it “for recreational use.” Marijuana is no worse than alcohol, and that’s legal “for recreational use.”
Excepting your taxation statement. +7/8
If they legalize wacky weed in this State, both the Senate and House Sergeants at Arms will have to order several more Suburbans to pick up the stoned cockroaches and their whores
No need to fret. This will be the last State in Union to legalize pot if ever. I put good money on that wager.
If they legalize wacky weed in this State, both the Senate and House Sergeants at Arms will have to order several more Suburbans to pick up the stoned cockroaches and their whores
No need to fret. This will be the last State in Union to legalize pot if ever. I put good money on that wager.
Who is this Amy Lazenby and who does she represent? Anyone know her?
The silent majority?
Who is this Amy Lazenby and who does she represent? Anyone know her?
The silent majority?
Cops nowadays are badged bureaucrats, little more. What looks good on paper is what is important, not actual performance on the claimed true mission of the force. Public protection? Go to!
Cops nowadays are badged bureaucrats, little more. What looks good on paper is what is important, not actual performance on the claimed true mission of the force. Public protection? Go to!
John Kaplin a professor and US Atty, in the 70’s did a review of the California penal codes and wrote a book “Marijuana the New Prohibition” where he discussed the monetary and social cost of marijuana laws. I read the book back then and was amazed at what it cost us then. Now it would totally be beyond belief in cost. Here are some comments on the book.
http://mutatismutandiskaulins.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-kaplans-marijuana-new-prohibition.html
John Kaplin a professor and US Atty, in the 70’s did a review of the California penal codes and wrote a book “Marijuana the New Prohibition” where he discussed the monetary and social cost of marijuana laws. I read the book back then and was amazed at what it cost us then. Now it would totally be beyond belief in cost. Here are some comments on the book. Might have to find a copy if it is still in print.
http://mutatismutandiskaulins.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-kaplans-marijuana-new-prohibition.html
Pot has nothing to do with it. You want Federal money then it’s the Federals terms. Like they give you money to hire more cops to do The Pot thing. It’s called the Federals create jobs. If you would ever had a chance to read this info, please do. You think you know what pork is. That is the thing that gets me is every elected official knows this and is chicken shit to tell the voting people. Heard it all my life “keep them stupid”.
Some people might not like FITSNews but it is honest and tells the story.
Okay, they could get the same pork for arresting child support dodgers. Just a matter of where you put the pork. Would do more good chasing down the people that don’t pay their child support. Especially if it would be the high dollar cases.
You could be right but pork is put in to dangle the carrot for the main bill. It’s the game that is played to get votes or I might say buying votes but that’s not legal. Is it. Is it?
Not it isn’t legal. Maybe if we get more involved, we could change the game. Could get the pols to change the dangle. Have to get the amendment put in the correct place when it is added into another piece of legislation.
Pot has nothing to do with it. You want Federal money then it’s the Federals terms. Like they give you money to hire more cops to do The Pot thing. It’s called the Federals create jobs. If you would ever had a chance to read this info, please do. You think you know what pork is. That is the thing that gets me is every elected official knows this and is chicken shit to tell the voting people. Heard it all my life “keep them stupid”.
Some people might not like FITSNews but it is honest and tells the story.
Okay, they could get the same pork for arresting child support dodgers. Just a matter of where you put the pork. Would do more good chasing down the people that don’t pay their child support. Especially if it would be the high dollar cases.
You could be right but pork is put in to dangle the carrot for the main bill. It’s the game that is played to get votes or I might say buying votes but that’s not legal. Is it. Is it?
Not it isn’t legal. Maybe if we get more involved, we could change the game. Could get the pols to change the dangle. Have to get the amendment put in the correct place when it is added into another piece of legislation.
I keep wanting to try it but I can’t get the shit to come out of the needle.
I keep wanting to try it but I can’t get the shit to come out of the needle.
Why I am doing this, I don’t know, but here goes…
Although the ACLU is quite the bastion of unbiased reporting and research when it comes to America’s drug war, I haven’t managed to read their report yet. I can tell you this this, though – like all stats drug arrest numbers can be skewed to read any way you like. I don’t have the energy to wade into the legalization debate and all of the differences between drunks and pot-types, but the whole premise of the report disregards some well-known sociological and criminological facts. LE agencies aren’t “cracking down” on poor black folks smoking a little weed. For a raft of reasons (only a few of which are racial), black suspects tend to get arrested for other (non-MJ) crimes at a higher rate than their white counterparts (especially certain types of violent crimes). Marijuana possession is a common secondary charge which gets added in these instances once the cops are in their pockets searching incident to arrest, as they say. Almost all data sets of offending and arrest statistics are multivariate in that they consist of several different (but related) variables that must be accounted for, controlled out of the equation, or analyzed. It’s great to simply look at aggregate numbers when writing inflammatory articles about the evil war on harmless weed, but it’s simply not accurate.
It requires standard multivariate analysis, and that changes everything. For example, at the height of the racial profiling debate, a Cal-State / VA Commonwealth U study looked at 2,673 traffic stops made by Richmond (VA) PD, and found that after all of the variables were thrown in to the mix white motorists were more likely to be ticketed or arrested than blacks, and were searched just as often. The same numbers (in the aggregate) had been used to crucify RPD prior to the study, which also found that officer race was not at all statistically predictive.
As for possession arrests versus dealing / trafficking arrests – no kidding. That’s true across the spectrum in every category of illegal dope. Most drug traffickers don’t hang out on a street corner drinking, go to loud dope parties that get busted, or generally commit other stupid, easy to detect crimes whilst toting large quantities of illegal drugs. Potheads. meth heads, and other idiots do…
Stat courses should be required in every degree program.
“I haven’t managed to read their report yet.”
Perhaps you should. It destroys your “argument.”
I doubt that, since I intentionally didn’t make an “argument.” I simply made a point about the misuse of statistics. I would rather poke myself in the eye with something sharp than argue about dope legalization on here, but stats are just kinda my thing…
I’d love to know how you think the statistics in this report could have been misused – if that’s what you think after you read it, of course.
Lies, damn lies, statistics.
Yeah, we all know that little ditty. I’m asking how it specifically applies in the case of this particular study. How were the stats misused or distorted?
Again, I am not positing a theory or position regarding the legalization of pot – I’ve watched that debate on here for years and it’s mind-numbingly predictable.
I lost an hour of my life I’ll never get back – I read the ACLU report and, shockingly, it uses the exact same methodology and politically-oriented, agenda driven tactics they often rely upon. First and foremost, the ENTIRE premise of the report is based upon their thesis that assumes that LE officers are targeting and profiling black offenders at a higher rate than white offenders.
As I mentioned before, that has been disproven many times in academic studies (not research from ideologically centered groups like the ACLU, Heritage, etc.). So, to make sure their premise “worked” as they churned through the number crunching, the ACLU simply changed the definition of “racial profiling.” Their expanded definition basically says that ANY arrests or other police actions that affect blacks disproportionately is de facto racial profiling.
This works out nicely for their thesis and statistical analysis, but is disingenuous at best. Why? I already mentioned some of the other sociological factors proven to impact drug arrests, but here’s a very simple and easy to understand example:
Black Americans are seven times more likely than those of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. Not an indictment of the race by any means because numerous factors contribute to this situation, but it is the situation nonetheless. In accordance with the disparate impact definition of racial profiling used by the ACLU, the fact that proportionally more black defendants are arrested and charged in these crimes (which, naturally, they are) means that in the ACLU’s eyes, the arrests are de facto racial profiling. You don’t have to be a sociologist to recognize the circular logic of reverse engineering a definition to fit the outcome you’re seeking.
There are many other issues and examples that would take even more space to adequately explain- the fact that UCR “arrests” are serial (they represent events, not people) which allows repeat offenders to skew numbers, the hierarchy rule (although it cuts both ways) that masks underlying arrest causes in many instances, the ACLU manipulation (and disregard) of data from counties with LE coverage rates below 50% (which skews data very heavily toward major metro areas, rendering the info unrepresentative), the use their flawed interpretation to discredit “Broken Windows” theories which the majority of academic studies still support (the ACLU case relies heavily upon the NYPD version of the program, which has serious issues), and the age-old misinterpretation of “crime” rates that aggregate all crime together when convenient and pulling violent crime out of the mix for analysis when convenient – one of the primary issues in doing so is that increase drug arrests = increased crime reporting = increased “crime.”
The bottom line (other than I should have just kept my suck closed and moved on) is that this report has a distinct ideological orientation not necessarily borne out by the research
methodology. That’s all. They even freely admit in the piece that they prefer “reactive” policing – officers should not attempt to clean up violent or street-crime ridden areas via proactive arrests. They should, literally, wait until they are called. That type of policing is why Five Points has turned into Little Chi-town here of late- Columbia PD pounds out beer tickets on the USC kids while criminal gangs roll unfettered all around. Alcohol beefs are easy and cheap to produce, and you can aggregate all of the numbers into your total and make the stats say whatever you want, just like the ACLU did…
For those of you still reading (both of you), I apologize for the length. That’s why I despise this format; these issues just can’t be dissected here. The good news is that I am DONE with this topic. We’ll have to rely on the old hackneyed “agreeing to disagree.”
So if we agree to disagree on the methodology of the report, what say you about federal incentives to make pot arrests, which I think is the most important part of this. You claimed that black Americans commit crimes at higher rates than whites, so wouldn’t it make sense, according to your theory, for cops to target the neighborhoods where black people live in order to meet quotas to get federal funding?
Dude, seriously… I am done this time. No, for real…
Read that section again – no hard data, no specific numbers; just generalized statements about the “reliance” upon JAG grants by some drug task forces. The reason they didn’t go into specifics? Those grants have been hacked almost to extinction in the past decade or two, and the vast majority of drug task forces are NOT funded via that mechanism anymore. Think about this- if this type of direct quid pro quo funding was the norm (or even halfway common), the numbers would be right there for easy pickin’ from DOJ. The reason the ACLU didn’t put hard numbers in to back up their claim is simple – the real numbers don’t back up their claim. Back before I was teaching Con Law I was living it as a police chief. I had to sign off on those reports every quarter, and very little of the money directly supported ANY kind of drug enforcement, task forces, or street-crime / “Broken Windows” stuff. I am out of date by only a few years, but in the last meeting I attended in Columbia I think the entire state of SC only received a couple of million bucks (to split among the hundreds of LE agencies across the state). Do the math on that and you’ll surely understand that Byrnes grants and JAG money are no cop lottery. Most of the money goes to support community policing stuff, cameras in cars, and infrastructure like It upgrades.
There is no conspiracy to fund an attack on black neighborhoods by local cops, and there is no funding mechanism that dramatically rewards mysterious federally funded task forces for doing so. The stat analysis in the report is biased (our original discussion, by the way) and your new “most important part” is also lacking in statistical proof (which is understandable since the premise is untrue).
I am not saying this is the case with you (so take deep breaths), but in my experience, the pot legalization / NORML crowd tends to be a single-issue fringe group. Depending upon which poll or study you look at, the number of MJ users (defined as those smoke at least once a year) in America falls between 6-14%, although the most respected polling shows that only about 3-5% are “regular users (smoking at least once per month). If the majority opinion (and the law) in the US changes and pot goes legal, so be it. For now, though, it’s illegal. Man up and get over it; I just don’t get the near-religious zeal.
Now, I’m done (lest we change the subject again). Peace, my friend; I’m out.
Let me guess.You’re stoned.
Why I am doing this, I don’t know, but here goes…
Although the ACLU is quite the bastion of unbiased reporting and research when it comes to America’s drug war, I haven’t managed to read their report yet. I can tell you this this, though – like all stats drug arrest numbers can be skewed to read any way you like. I don’t have the energy to wade into the legalization debate and all of the differences between drunks and pot-types, but the whole premise of the report disregards some well-known sociological and criminological facts. LE agencies aren’t “cracking down” on poor black folks smoking a little weed. For a raft of reasons (only a few of which are racial), black suspects tend to get arrested for other (non-MJ) crimes at a higher rate than their white counterparts (especially certain types of violent crimes). Marijuana possession is a common secondary charge which gets added in these instances once the cops are in their pockets searching incident to arrest, as they say. Almost all data sets of offending and arrest statistics are multivariate in that they consist of several different (but related) variables that must be accounted for, controlled out of the equation, or analyzed. It’s great to simply look at aggregate numbers when writing inflammatory articles about the evil war on harmless weed, but it’s simply not accurate.
It requires standard multivariate analysis, and that changes everything. For example, at the height of the racial profiling debate, a Cal-State / VA Commonwealth U study looked at 2,673 traffic stops made by Richmond (VA) PD, and found that after all of the variables were thrown in to the mix white motorists were more likely to be ticketed or arrested than blacks, and were searched just as often. The same numbers (in the aggregate) had been used to crucify RPD prior to the study, which also found that officer race was not at all statistically predictive.
As for possession arrests versus dealing / trafficking arrests – no kidding. That’s true across the spectrum in every category of illegal dope. Most drug traffickers don’t hang out on a street corner drinking, go to loud dope parties that get busted, or generally commit other stupid, easy to detect crimes whilst toting large quantities of illegal drugs. Potheads. meth heads, and other idiots do…
Stat courses should be required in every degree program.
“I haven’t managed to read their report yet.”
Perhaps you should. It destroys your “argument.”
I doubt that, since I intentionally didn’t make an “argument.” I simply made a point about the misuse of statistics. I would rather poke myself in the eye with something sharp than argue about dope legalization on here, but stats are just kinda my thing…
I’d love to know how you think the statistics in this report could have been misused – if that’s what you think after you read it, of course.
Lies, damn lies, statistics.
Yeah, we all know that little ditty. I’m asking how it specifically applies in the case of this particular study. How were the stats misused or distorted?
Again, I am not positing a theory or position regarding the legalization of pot – I’ve watched that debate on here for years and it’s mind-numbingly predictable.
I lost an hour of my life I’ll never get back – I read the ACLU report and, shockingly, it uses the exact same methodology and politically-oriented, agenda driven tactics they often rely upon. First and foremost, the ENTIRE premise of the report is based upon their thesis that assumes that LE officers are targeting and profiling black offenders at a higher rate than white offenders.
As I mentioned before, that has been disproven many times in academic studies (not research from ideologically centered groups like the ACLU, Heritage, etc.). So, to make sure their premise “worked” as they churned through the number crunching, the ACLU simply changed the definition of “racial profiling.” Their expanded definition basically says that ANY arrests or other police actions that affect blacks disproportionately is de facto racial profiling.
This works out nicely for their thesis and statistical analysis, but is disingenuous at best. Why? I already mentioned some of the other sociological factors proven to impact drug arrests, but here’s a very simple and easy to understand example:
Black Americans are seven times more likely than those of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. Not an indictment of the race by any means because numerous factors contribute to this situation, but it is the situation nonetheless. In accordance with the disparate impact definition of racial profiling used by the ACLU, the fact that proportionally more black defendants are arrested and charged in these crimes (which, naturally, they are) means that in the ACLU’s eyes, the arrests are de facto racial profiling. You don’t have to be a sociologist to recognize the circular logic of reverse engineering a definition to fit the outcome you’re seeking.
There are many other issues and examples that would take even more space to adequately explain- the fact that UCR “arrests” are serial (they represent events, not people) which allows repeat offenders to skew numbers, the hierarchy rule (although it cuts both ways) that masks underlying arrest causes in many instances, the ACLU manipulation (and disregard) of data from counties with LE coverage rates below 50% (which skews data very heavily toward major metro areas, rendering the info unrepresentative), the use their flawed interpretation to discredit “Broken Windows” theories which the majority of academic studies still support (the ACLU case relies heavily upon the NYPD version of the program, which has serious issues), and the age-old misinterpretation of “crime” rates that aggregate all crime together when convenient and pulling violent crime out of the mix for analysis when convenient – one of the primary issues in doing so is that increase drug arrests = increased crime reporting = increased “crime.”
The bottom line (other than I should have just kept my suck closed and moved on) is that this report has a distinct ideological orientation not necessarily borne out by the research
methodology. That’s all. They even freely admit in the piece that they prefer “reactive” policing – officers should not attempt to clean up violent or street-crime ridden areas via proactive arrests. They should, literally, wait until they are called. That type of policing is why Five Points has turned into Little Chi-town here of late- Columbia PD pounds out beer tickets on the USC kids while criminal gangs roll unfettered all around. Alcohol beefs are easy and cheap to produce, and you can aggregate all of the numbers into your total and make the stats say whatever you want, just like the ACLU did…
For those of you still reading (both of you), I apologize for the length. That’s why I despise this format; these issues just can’t be dissected here. The good news is that I am DONE with this topic. We’ll have to rely on the old hackneyed “agreeing to disagree.”
So if we agree to disagree on the methodology of the report, what say you about federal incentives to make pot arrests, which I think is the most important part of this. You claimed that black Americans commit crimes at higher rates than whites, so wouldn’t it make sense, according to your theory, for cops to target the neighborhoods where black people live in order to meet quotas to get federal funding?
Dude, seriously… I am done this time. No, for real…
Read that section again – no hard data, no specific numbers; just generalized statements about the “reliance” upon JAG grants by some drug task forces. The reason they didn’t go into specifics? Those grants have been hacked almost to extinction in the past decade or two, and the vast majority of drug task forces are NOT funded via that mechanism anymore. Think about this- if this type of direct quid pro quo funding was the norm (or even halfway common), the numbers would be right there for easy pickin’ from DOJ. The reason the ACLU didn’t put hard numbers in to back up their claim is simple – the real numbers don’t back up their claim. Back before I was teaching Con Law I was living it as a police chief. I had to sign off on those reports every quarter, and very little of the money directly supported ANY kind of drug enforcement, task forces, or street-crime / “Broken Windows” stuff. I am out of date by only a few years, but in the last meeting I attended in Columbia I think the entire state of SC only received a couple of million bucks (to split among the hundreds of LE agencies across the state). Do the math on that and you’ll surely understand that Byrnes grants and JAG money are no cop lottery. Most of the money goes to support community policing stuff, cameras in cars, and infrastructure like It upgrades.
There is no conspiracy to fund an attack on black neighborhoods by local cops, and there is no funding mechanism that dramatically rewards mysterious federally funded task forces for doing so. The stat analysis in the report is biased (our original discussion, by the way) and your new “most important part” is also lacking in statistical proof (which is understandable since the premise is untrue).
I am not saying this is the case with you (so take deep breaths), but in my experience, the pot legalization / NORML crowd tends to be a single-issue fringe group. Depending upon which poll or study you look at, the number of MJ users (defined as those smoke at least once a year) in America falls between 6-14%, although the most respected polling shows that only about 3-5% are “regular users (smoking at least once per month). If the majority opinion (and the law) in the US changes and pot goes legal, so be it. For now, though, it’s illegal. Man up and get over it; I just don’t get the near-religious zeal.
Now, I’m done (lest we change the subject again). Peace, my friend; I’m out.
Let me guess.You’re stoned.
I knew it! There is a quota! The incentive for which is federal dollars.
I knew it! There is a quota! The incentive for which is federal dollars.
Just give the liberals what they want: and Utopia will follow:
Be it Obama-Care, Welfare; QE; Long-term Unemployment Checks; Gun-Control; TARP; Abortion-on-Demand; Immigration; Easy-Divorce; Women’s’ Studies degrees,…
Your track record so SO GREAT: Why would we not give you anything you ask for???
You don’t care for Women’s’ Studies degrees, huh? That’s a new one for your usual cut and paste list. So you hate women, but you love apostrophes. Got it. Maybe you should get an actual degree. Better yet, call upstairs and have your mom come down to proofread your comments. She might also be able to tell you how to stay on topic.
I hate seeing your puppet masters using gender to exploit the Stupid, like you, and polarize the sexes so they’ll vote for leftwing-NAZIs like Obama…Dumb@$$…
And Godwin’s Law strikes again…
Muddy Waters said it best…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30HDrfEX30g
Muddy Waters said it best…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30HDrfEX30g
The only laws strengthened, have been against cigarettes…and that is the only vice less used because of stricker laws…That should tell your Stupid @$$ something….
That said, liberals have gotten anti-vice legislation relaxed for decades: and society has just become more coarse and more murderous, w/ less respect for human life…
Take a bow, you jockeys of FILTH and Decadence. Good work…
You inow, T, sucking cock on Two Notch is more noble than shit like yourself trolling all day.
You are a PERFECT Representative for Lizenby and the Radical Leftwing Extremist Movement…You (and they) should be real proud…
Get a job, bitch.
“stricker laws”
Yeah, that thing that Greenville Lawyer said about going back to English class…
“stricker laws” …What are you talking about you F*^kin Leftwing idiot???
I’m talking about your post before I commented on it and you edited it. You know we can get screen grabs before you change things, right?
Looky, looky…it’s tin foil beanie time, again…LMAO…Dumb@$$…
Yeah… because you’re here. So many people have corrected your grammar on here, and you are constantly going back and changing your posts. I think FITS put in the editing feature just for you. Too bad he doesn’t have spell check.
I’m betting you don’t have an ass,but one of those ironing board butts,like the men of wal mart
That’s a deal breaker
The homosexuals I know, usually don’t fixate on physical attributes. They’ll do anything anytime. It’s about flesh and numbers. And it seems it’s more of a mental, security (or insecurity) fear thing…than it is preference or quality…
I totally agree with you.
I totally agree with you.