Join 3,516 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Nevada may be the first state to decriminalize marijuana.
July 31, 2002 8:58 PM   Subscribe

Nevada may be the first state to decriminalize marijuana. In the meantime Drug Czar John Walters believes that if drugs were decriminalized users shouldn't have the rights everyone else has.
posted by skallas (50 comments total)

 
I think the last part of the Nandotime's article misses the point entirely:
Rogers said nationwide, 750,000 arrests were made for marijuana possession in 2000, with each arrest taking four to eight hours in booking and court time.

Bell disagreed, saying "these cases are not clogging the system. A number of them go to Drug Court and others are settled with the payments of fines. They don't take up much time at all."
Who cares? How about all the lives ruined by long arm of the law reaching into victimless hedonism? We're filling prisons and gleefully building more in the name of this senseless 'war.' I'm more concerned about the lives this war is destroying on a daily basis. A drug conviction means no financial aid for college, legal fees, jailtime, and forever telling employers that you were caught with a joint.

I was reading about the current Bush proposal to reduce drug use by a whopping 25% in the next 5 years. Its practically laughable until you realize its possible if we lock up a sizeable portion of the american public.
posted by skallas at 9:11 PM on July 31, 2002


I hope they succeed in doing it, maybe the rest of the states will eventually follow suit. Eventually the feds would have to abandon a war that nobody wants to fight. I've been trying to convince my parents that pot (and all drugs) should be legal, but its very difficult to change the minds of people who can't deal with the idea of something they disdain so much being legal. The only hope is to convince them that there is a difference between legality and legitimacy, and to show them the utter failure of the drug war, and the idiocy of politicians like Walters:

"Can they be employed as school bus drivers? Nurses? What of a woman, legally addicted to cocaine, who becomes pregnant?"

Well, first of all, those things already happen. Besides, employers can set mandatory safety requirements and mandatory drug testing requiring their employees to stay clean. I don't see what the issue is, employment based on drug use is the prerogative of the employer, there is no civil liberties question. As for pregnant drug use, there may be precedent for it being some kind of crime (like when a killer kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged for two killings).

Will they have their full civil rights, such as voting?

This is the most incoherent, dodging-the-issue question that guy could come up with. Cut the crap Walters and admit your job is a scam (yeah, right).
posted by insomnyuk at 9:13 PM on July 31, 2002


"Will they have their full civil rights, such as voting?"

Would voters on crack have done any worse than the Supreme Court did?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:27 PM on July 31, 2002


Walters is speaking to 3,000 law enforcement officers attending the national DARE conference this week at the Las Vegas Hilton.

"Now, there are four states of being in the cannabis, or marijuana, society: Cool, Groovy, Hip, and Square." -->
posted by apostasy at 9:35 PM on July 31, 2002


"What the fuck is this guy talking about?  You'd have to be crazy on acid to think a joint looked like a goddamn cockroach!"

Now THERE's a guy who should be Drug Czar.

"Why is the drug czar-- well, let's back up for a minute, why do we have a drug czar-- but why is the drug czar a cop, and not a person who's been addicted to drugs and knows what it's like, so he can help people in the same situation and treat them with compassion and not condemnation?"
-Bill Hicks
posted by nath at 10:43 PM on July 31, 2002


I'm still waiting to hear from the Just Say No crowd why marijuana should be treated any differently from alcohol.

Of course you limit usage from the pilots and school bus drivers and forklift operators. Just like alcohol. Duh.

But raise your hand if you know anybody killed by a stoned driver? How about a drunk driver?

(What really galls me is banning hemp. We sure can't have the following: "Dude, if you smoke a pair of pants, you get this little buzz!")
posted by billder at 11:09 PM on July 31, 2002


"Nevada may be the first state to decriminalize marijuana". Not quite: Here are the ten states which have decriminalized Marijuana possession. My State, Oregon was the first, in 1973. Sounds like Nevada is actually talking Legalization. John Stuart Mill: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
posted by Mack Twain at 11:28 PM on July 31, 2002


Mack, perhaps I overstated, but if you'll goto norml.org and hit their handy laws by state drop down you'll see that a lot of 'decriminalization' is good for only x amount of offenses and vary greatly on how much pot you can have.

Currently in Nevada they give a generous 1oz to own but if caught its a fine of $100 and if they catch you twice its a misdemeanor.
posted by skallas at 11:51 PM on July 31, 2002


But raise your hand if you know anybody killed by a stoned driver? How about a drunk driver?

This is a little misleading. Alcohol in an apprehended driver's bloodstream can easily be tested for and even quantitated. However, almost none of scores of drugs of abuse can be easily tested for (i.e., roadside breathalyzer). The most readily available drug tests are on urine, are non-quantitative, and cannot detect whether the user has enough drug in his system to impair him at the time of testing. Drunk driving may seem more common than drug-impaired driving simply because it's easier to detect.

However, I agree with your larger point. Society already has ways of dealing with alcohol use, which would be applicable to legalized psychotropic drug use.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 11:56 PM on July 31, 2002


But raise your hand if you know anybody killed by a stoned driver? How about a drunk driver?

And just to add to my posting history as an interminable Bill Hicks quoter:

"Say you're in a car accident and you've been smoking pot. You're only going four miles an hour!
'Shit, we hit something.'
'Forgot to open the garage door, man.'
'We'd better get the garage door open so Domino's knows we're home.'"


And my favorite:

"Marijuana grows everywhere, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake."
posted by nath at 12:10 AM on August 1, 2002


Slithy_Tove, police in the UK can and do test for cannabis use at the road side.
posted by vbfg at 1:25 AM on August 1, 2002


Maybe being stoned would make Vegas bearable. I doubt it though.
posted by Optamystic at 1:39 AM on August 1, 2002


vbfg: But can they quantitate how much of the psychoactive chemical is in the bloodstream at the time of testing? That's what's critical to labeling/trying/convicting someone of driving under the influence of mind-altering substances. There are many urine tests that can detect the presence of cannabis, and other illicit drugs, or their metabolites, in the urine. But the person may have used a day or more ago, and now may be quite sober. There are tests that can quantitate drugs of abuse in the blood, such as gas chromatography, but that's cumbersome, expensive, and slow. It's definitely not a road-side test.

Do you know how the testing in the UK is done? What's the technology?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:43 AM on August 1, 2002


carson on alcohol:

"waugh! where the fuck is my car?!? i've gotta get home/i've gotta get some more alcohol! quick! drive! go! now!" --general belligerence--

carson on marijuana:

"woah. car? i don't think so. i'm staying right here on this lovely couch. delivery is where it's at, man."

i guess the point i'm trying to make is that the alterations to my mind are waaaay different between the two drugs. that whole reasoning/judgement/inhibitions thing goes right out the door with the consumption of alcohol. canniblood does not have nearly the same effect, and if i'm too stoned to drive (usually any stoned is too stoned to drive), then i have no trouble realizing that and coping--phone in hand and credit card in the other (domino's is on speed dial)
posted by carsonb at 2:31 AM on August 1, 2002


Rather than restricting the civil liberties of drug users (and I'm not one) I think it would be far more beneficial to restrict the civil liberties of politicians. Right to free speech? Not for you bub, you're a politician, the very fact that you find being a politician desirable tells me your free speech would be dedicated to restricting MY free speech and lining your pockets.

How about mandatory drug testing for all politicians? If anything turns up then the sentencing will be carried out based on that politicians public views on sentencing for drug users.
posted by substrate at 6:04 AM on August 1, 2002


I agree with you 100% substrate.
posted by goneill at 6:32 AM on August 1, 2002


Between this and the John Stossel special aired on ABC during prime time the other night called "War on Drugs: A War on Ourselves" [related story], you'd think the worm is beginning to turn.
posted by kmel at 6:46 AM on August 1, 2002


Go Nevada, still a frontier after all these years. It's an odd place to show up as a major front in the drug war; it has a square, conservative culture, not at all the sort of place you'd expect to see lots of pot smoking. Still, its conservatism tends toward libertarianism, and I'll bet there are a lot of people supporting these initiatives purely on the "it's none of the government's business if I do or don't" principle.
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:38 AM on August 1, 2002


I've been trying to convince my parents that pot (and all drugs) should be legal

Legalizing all drugs would be a big mistake I think. However, I would tend to agree there is not much reason anymore to keep pot illegal. Really, I think everyone who wants to use it already does anyway.

How drugs affect people is an extraordinarily complex issue and our current law does not reflect any understanding of this. Instead it defines an absurdly broad category of controlled substances and enforces (or not) based on that. There ought to be unique laws for each controlled substance and the level of control ought to reflect an understanding of how it affects the mind/body. As a chemist I know that it would be way too easy to undermine this type of drug-specific law but that is no excuse for law-makers (and their constiuents) to accept policy that is so obviously at odds with our culture. A new solution is required.

I would support a policy of legaliztion wherein all sales occur through gov't agencies who track users and correlate their use with criminal activity. This would be implemented in conjuction with user-specific criminalization, kind of like a court order. Suppose a known cocaine buyer is convicted of armed robbery, then he/she would subsequently barred by court order to use/buy cocaine ever again (in addition to the sentence for the robbery). The person would have to turn to illegal suppliers, but with so many fewer illegal customers these suppliers would be few and far between.
posted by plaino at 8:07 AM on August 1, 2002


I find it funny that alcohol, which is perfectly legal, would be just as dangerous (if not more so) for every situation the "Drug Czar" listed.

And, you know, I would rather be surrounded by stoned drivers than drunk drivers any day. There are about 12 colleges in a ten mile radius of where I live, I've seen plenty of both. A drunk driver nearly killed me, stoned drivers just annoy me (it's one of the only real excuses for someone under 70 to go thirty miles below the speed limit).
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:08 AM on August 1, 2002


We're filling prisons and gleefully building more in the name of this senseless 'war.' I'm more concerned about the lives this war is destroying on a daily basis

Not to mention that you throw someone in jail for possession who's got a whatever-sized, peaceful pot-habit, and he comes out a raving lunatic hopped up on heroin ready to knock up a Wendy's so he can get his next fix. Works real effectively, no?

Oh, and it seems everyone here is pro legalisation. Any dissenters out there? Just curious.

On preview, plaino almost made a dissention, but his idea, other than being a huge expense, and I'm not sure how selling something that grows very easily can be sold solely through gov't agencies.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:09 AM on August 1, 2002


I was with you for a bit, insomnyuk, re: legalization, until:

Besides, employers can set mandatory safety requirements and mandatory drug testing requiring their employees to stay clean. I don't see what the issue is . . .

Delightful. Prior restraint, corporate style! Why would you want to cede powers that you find (as do I) loathsome in the hands of government to the hands of your employers? Why cede them to anybody? Why am I pissing in a cup for anyone if I have shown no cause to question my competence for the job? I never have, and I wouldn't take a job that required me to.
posted by Skot at 8:10 AM on August 1, 2002


Oof. That was ThomCatSpike-ish. (no offense TCS, you know i got love). What I meant to say was...

That would be a huge expense. And, how can you regulate that when you have people that can grow it everywhere? This is what makes legalisation a little stranger. Something so profitable and (arguably) mentally addictive would entice the corporations. Yet, you have a consumer product that can easily be made at home. Not like Mr. Beer, but probably of higher quality and much cheaper. This is what democracy looks like.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:12 AM on August 1, 2002


Why am I pissing in a cup for anyone if I have shown no cause to question my competence for the job? I never have, and I wouldn't take a job that required me to.

Employers don't have to test people, it is their prerogative. If you don't want to take a piss-test, don't work for them.

Why would you want to cede powers that you find (as do I) loathsome in the hands of government to the hands of your employers?

There is a vast difference between an employer and the goverment. An employer is an entity who relies on voluntary exchange. You can enter a voluntary, contractual agreement with the employer stating that you will not ingest certain substances while an employee of their corporation. If you breach the contract, you get fired. In the case of the government, the mere possession of drugs in many states gives them license to kick your door in with a SWAT team, seize your property, and toss you in jail. Compared to the government, a corporate no-drug policy is perfectly reasonable, especially for companies who need employees to man heavy machinery or do other important functions. It would be madness for a construction company not to drug-test, or have some agreement, with the guy who operates the heavy machinery. Companies can't afford that kind of liability. Look at what that drunk screw-up captain did with the Exxon Valdez. If drugs are legal, you are free. Free to work for the employer you choose. I doubt most employers (at least in the private sector where safety is not an issue) will do drug-testing anyway.

I would support a policy of legaliztion wherein all sales occur through gov't agencies who track users and correlate their use with criminal activity.

I think this is a dangerous idea, just because someone engages in a private, non-violent activity, the government has license to spy on them?

How drugs affect people is an extraordinarily complex issue and our current law does not reflect any understanding of this.

This is true. In terms of practical reality, I think marijuana could easily be legally restricted about as much as alchohol (although I am ideologically opposed to legal restrictions of any kind on drugs), available to adults who want it. If anything, legality should be metered regarding the power of the drug, making something like marijuana easy to obtain, but something like cocaine more difficult (but still legal). This sort of thing would have a much better chance of happening rather than across-the-board legalization.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:28 AM on August 1, 2002


Skot, people whose jobs involving typing have to take tests of their typing skills when they apply for a job. People whose jobs involve art have to present portfolios. And people in many different jobs have to have pre-employment physicals to show they're healthy enough to do the work. If not being stoned is a requirement for your work (and it's going to be for most people except DJ's and those who work on consignment), why can't an employer check for psychoactive drug use?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:29 AM on August 1, 2002


I Rolled a Joint in Reno, Just to Get Me High...
posted by i_cola at 8:33 AM on August 1, 2002


Because, Slithy_Tove, for the most part, those aren't the kind of jobs that test for drug use. You get passed the cup when you're applying for a low paying, no skills required, here's your uniform sort of job. Blockbuster video (who actually hair test, and took a 1" patch from a friend when she applied, only to have it come back inconclusive due to hair dye), gas stations, retail, and so on are the most common jobs that drug test. I know people who operated forklifts and so on and were never once asked to take a drug test.

There are exceptions, no doubt, but I really don't see someone applying for a job with a corner office and a window being passed the plastic sample cup.

Oh, and thanks for the comment on DJs. Everyone thinks it's so easy until they're up in the booth looking at a packed dancefloor themselves. If it was something anyone can do people wouldn't often pick where they go based on the DJ. (guess what I used to do)
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:39 AM on August 1, 2002


You can enter a voluntary, contractual agreement with the employer stating that you will not ingest certain substances while an employee of their corporation.

I find this horrid. Am I beholden to my boss even when I'm not at work? I know what I want the answer to be, even while I have a creeping sense of the actual answer. What if said employer decides they don't want you to have a beer after work? Again, you seem to be more than happy to cough up a whole lot of power to your boss in terms of what you do on your free time.

And I'm not so much a fan of the "most employers won't do it anyway" argument. The fact that they could is rotten enough.

On preview:

If not being stoned is a requirement for your work (and it's going to be for most people except DJ's and those who work on consignment), why can't an employer check for psychoactive drug use?

Because unless I'm a complete loser, I'm not stoned on the freaking job. Should employers also be able to put monitors on my car to make sure I'm not a reckless driver or inspect my alarm clock to insure that I don't oversleep?
posted by Skot at 8:46 AM on August 1, 2002


slithy_tove, why do home depot and target and wallmart care if I smoke a joint on the weekend? If I can do my job and give them no reason to complain why do we tolerate the corporate invasion of privacy.
posted by chrismc at 8:53 AM on August 1, 2002


And Christ help me if my employer ever decides I can't write cranky screeds to Metafilter. What the hell would I do all day?
posted by Skot at 8:56 AM on August 1, 2002


Again, you seem to be more than happy to cough up a whole lot of power to your boss in terms of what you do on your free time.

I'm not happy to, and I wouldn't, given the choice. I'm personally not willing to work for someone who says I can't have a beer after work (Jerry Falwell comes to mind). But the fact is, there are plenty of people who are. Furthermore, most companies who want to already do drug-testing. They may or may not have good reasons, but that doesn't really matter, because if you agree to work for them, you are subject to the terms of the agreement (contract). Find someone with a laissez faire attitude, and work for them. Start your own business, and work for yourself. You have options. I believe there is a computer company in New Hampshire which will not hire people who smoke cigarettes. None of their employees seem to mind.

Should employers also be able to put monitors on my car to make sure I'm not a reckless driver or inspect my alarm clock to insure that I don't oversleep?

Only if you explicity agree to it. Should there be a law saying they never can? What if you have tattoos all over your arms, neck and head and you want to sell beauty products. Employers have the right to discriminate over such things, a no-drug policy would be the moral equivalent to a no-tattoo policy.

why do we tolerate the corporate invasion of privacy.

It's not an 'invasion' if it's completely voluntary. It's only an invasion of privacy when the government does it.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:00 AM on August 1, 2002


What if said employer decides they don't want you to have a beer after work?

Well, then, who will they hire?
posted by kindall at 9:07 AM on August 1, 2002


And, how can you regulate that when you have people that can grow it everywhere? This is what makes legalisation a little stranger.

I wasn't necessarily including pot in my big expensive scheme. As I said in the first comment, it's kinda dumb that it is illegal now. The expense of the system would be largely offset by a markup on the drugs sold. Afterall, we know the profit margin on street drugs is pretty high. Even a modest discount from street prices would bring in customers by the droves and still provide a lot of cash to cover operating expenses.

I think this is a dangerous idea, just because someone engages in a private, non-violent activity, the government has license to spy on them?

Buying gov't drugs would also be voluntary. It's not like the gov't would be forcing you to buy. I am sure a few illegal suppliers would still be around. If you absolutely had to have your fix and you absolutely had to avoid gov't tracking, you'd still be able to pay a little extra for the luxury.
posted by plaino at 9:08 AM on August 1, 2002


Uh, I don't think a DJ's job is easy. I certainly couldn't do it. I admire the person who can do it well. Nonetheless, people in 'arty' type professions get a lot more slack with respect to lifestyle issues in general than accountants and clerks. This includes performers of all kinds, models, artists, fashion industry folk, and so on.

Employers care about whether their employees use psychoactive drugs because they believe there's a correlation between drug use off the job and on the job, between breaking the law by buying weed and breaking the law by dipping into the till. And they know that if there's ever a problem, if their delivery boy hits someone with the company van, or runs over a customer's foot with a dolly, and his drug test is positive afterwards, it's his employer who will get lambasted in the press, and sued in the courts.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:11 AM on August 1, 2002


"You get passed the cup when you're applying for a low paying, no skills required, here's your uniform sort of job."

Or you get passed the cup if you work in the federal sector, for a goverment contractor (like where I work), and many IT and engineering companies.

When I was out of work last winter, and looking for a job, all three of the companies I looked at required a piss test, and they weren't blockbuster-style jobs. It happens more often than you think.

At least it's only a piss test, they can be messed with. If they give you a hair test, you're screwed. THC stays in the hair between 3 and 5 months.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:18 AM on August 1, 2002


What if said employer decides they don't want you to have a beer after work? Again, you seem to be more than happy to cough up a whole lot of power to your boss in terms of what you do on your free time.

Here is another issue that is intractably complicated. Most reasonable employers know that antagonizing their workforce is counterproductive and bad for business. But, they also know that drug users (in general) can be hazardous on the job, may have a tendency to steal or get arrested, and if nothing else, probably aren't working to the best of their ability. Of course, all these things are job-dependant as well. Obviously a "High-Times" writer ought to have more flexibility than a brain surgeon.

In my field, there is usually a few months' time between interview and job start date (to allow time for completing research projects) and it is routine for employers to send a surprise letter during this time stating: "report to [some facility] within 48hrs and supply a urine specimen for drug analysis."

I am not particularly looking forward to this, myself, but on the other hand I can see the employer's perspective also. A lot of money is invested in hiring, training, and paying someone. Employers are usually looking for easy-going team player types, not recalcitrant self-serving individualists. Someone who is trying too hard to hide their personal lives from others either has something to hide or has a chip on their shoulder. Either way, who wants an employee like that?? I certainly wouldn't, especially if there are any other applicants.
posted by plaino at 9:28 AM on August 1, 2002


Slithy_Tove: I don't know how the testing is done. I smoke myself but don't drive at all so didn't really pay to much attention to the people telling me about it. One of them is a pharmacist though so I trusted the information. All are smokers however and may have been in the advanced stages or paranoia. :)
posted by vbfg at 9:57 AM on August 1, 2002


"You can enter a voluntary, contractual agreement with the employer stating that you will not ingest certain substances while an employee of their corporation."

You shittin' us here? No employer has any right of any sort to decree what you can and can not do in your own free time.

Unless things are far, far worse in America than I thought, there ain't an employer around that can demand you attend church on Sundays. Ain't any that can demand you not have sex with your wife on Friday. None that can demand you not watch television, eat pizza, renovate your home, suntan, or even have a beer.

Further, there are no companies that can demand you *not* speed when driving, *not* jaywalk, *not* cheat on your taxes, and *not* copy audio CDs.

Why, then, should pot be the exception to all that companies can *not* dictate you not do?

IMO, anyone who supports corporate drug testing actively desires to live in a facist regime.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 AM on August 1, 2002


Employers drug test because they think it will result in lower absenteeism, less accidents, and higher productivity. They're probably wasting their money.
posted by keithl at 10:30 AM on August 1, 2002


I thought employers did drug testing to lower insurance premiums?
posted by TheLoneWolf at 10:56 AM on August 1, 2002


Does anyone know the history around why marijuana became illegal in the first place?
posted by pjgulliver at 11:01 AM on August 1, 2002


According to this study only 6% of companies that drug test receive lower insurance premiums. 50% of companies that test do so by government mandate.
posted by keithl at 11:10 AM on August 1, 2002


FFF,

All of the things you listed are things that SOME employers demand, particularly if the emplyee is a public representative of the company. Virtually all sports figures voluntarily enter into contracts containing morality clauses which broadly limit the employee from engaging in any activity at any time that might be perceived as "bad."

Believe it or not there are legitimate reasons to consider what an emplyee does in their "free time" when that employee has vital responsibilities at a company. I work in a lab, surrounded by dangerous toxic and flammable things, and certainly do not want to work next to someone who is hung-over all the time.
posted by plaino at 11:16 AM on August 1, 2002


Does anyone know the history around why marijuana became illegal in the first place?

Why, yes...yes I do. :) Here's some info:

Pot Luck: The Legal History of Marijuana

And for an in-depth look at how pot became illegal, I recommend:
The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer
posted by dejah420 at 11:17 AM on August 1, 2002


Interesting post and good links. Pretty one-sided to be a really great debate though :)

From what I've seen of pot, it doesn't seem that bad for the individual user. However, the only place I've seen first-hand that did decriminalize (Amsterdam) did not inspire confidence.
posted by Triplanetary at 11:44 AM on August 1, 2002


Walters is a fascist. For drug fuehrers... er, I mean czars, that seems to come with the territory -- or were they chosen for the job because of their extreme political views? I guess the jury's still out on that one.
posted by clevershark at 12:08 PM on August 1, 2002


Re pot becoming illegal... didn't Nixon's drug task force or whatever (the Schaffer Commission) do a study on the subject and conclude that making it illegal was not the best answer, and recommended decriminalization?  (Here's the link I found.)  Nixon ignored the results, because, after all, marijuana and Jews and homosexuals were destroying the moral foundation of the America he loved.  Something like that.
posted by nath at 12:39 PM on August 1, 2002


a raving lunatic hopped up on heroin

...is usually pretty docile. It's when they run out that they're a problem. You're probably thinking of PCP, or coke / speed / meth / booze / caffeine. Dunno about crack, from what I hear the high doesn't last particularly long, and like heroin, it's the withdrawal that's a problem. Acid and E users are either irritating or amusing, likewise shrooms, and 2cb. Stoners are usually incapable of getting off of the sofa.

From my (and friends) humble experience of other peoples drug habits.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:31 PM on August 1, 2002


Actually the worst thing about stoners is getting them to do any housework after that first toke of the day.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:33 PM on August 1, 2002


I don't really see the cries of fascism re company drug testing holding any water. We're not talking about jackboots coming and arresting you for possession of drugs (that happens now).

Either way, the fascism cries are unwarranted, because fascism is typically defined as State control of private property.

I think plaino's points on this topic are the most succinct, so stop reading and go re-read what he said.
posted by insomnyuk at 2:47 PM on August 1, 2002


« Older You've got jail? ...  |  Philip Glass, Late Twentieth-C... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments