Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it proper to date a girl who smokes pot?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This sounds a little like Objectivism (because of the whole focused mind thing), but it isn't. Objectivism advocates for a focused mind as the means of achieving one's goals, making hard choices, creating great things, etc. However, that does not mean it calls for always lying in wait, like a damn deer or some kind of martial arts guru, ready to focus one's mind just in case something happens.

"When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man—in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being—an unfocused mind is not conscious."-VOS.

"“Focus” designates a quality of one’s mental state, a quality of active alertness. “Focus” means the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality. It’s the state of a mind committed to seeing, to grasping, to understanding, to knowing."-Peikoff, 'Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture', and a similar thing in OPAR. Both taken from the Lexicon article on focus.

I am quite confident that getting drunk or high will make it difficult or impossible to focus, that is, be capable of applying your mind or having a clear purpose (as well as be able to deal as effectively as possible with reality, which is also vitally important). Rationality requires a clear mind; rationality is the fundamental requirement of a human life, therefore, a clear mind is a fundamental requirement of a human life. As a consequence, getting drunk or high is immoral. By this I mean it hurts your life. So while you might like to feel good or whatever, it represents a breach of Objectivist morality. I don't see how one could justify getting high or drunk recreationally except if they attempted to reduce Objectivist morality to hedonism of some sort.

Plenty of people (like Miss Rand) have jobs that allow them to not worry about having to perform at full capacity 24/7. They can get off work and make the safe assumption that they can enjoy a good buzz without any negative consequences whatsoever.
Intentionally fogging up your mind is necessarily dangerous. One should always be able to deal with any situation that might arise, which requires a clear head. Fogging up your mind is necessarily dangerous.

Smoking pot has never caused me to have even a single hallucination.

One person said that there was nothing wrong with LSD. That was what I was referring to (I know that alcohol and marijuana do not cause hallucinations).
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a perfect example of the fallacy of using statistics in individual cases. The individual is the essential context for any question relating to the health and happiness of the individual.

Join her! What you have provided is not enough to pass any sort of moral judgment. Smoking pot is not necessarily wrong.

That equation is wrong. People who smoke a pack or more a day die ten years early on average (not 5-10, by the way, but 10). That doesn't mean you're guaranteed 25 good years, far from it. You could d

I am quite confident that getting drunk or high will make it difficult or impossible to focus, that is, be capable of applying your mind or having a clear purpose (as well as be able to deal as effectively as possible with reality, which is also vitally important). Rationality requires a clear mind; rationality is the fundamental requirement of a human life, therefore, a clear mind is a fundamental requirement of a human life. As a consequence, getting drunk or high is immoral. By this I mean it hurts your life.

I have two separate points, one regarding the actual argument, the other the Objectivist position on the issue. I'm interested in both, but they are two separate issues, so I'll address them one at a time:

1. I believe you that you're quite confident of all that, but you can't conclude something hurts my life without explaining how exactly it hurts my life. That "therefore" in the middle sound like an inference, but it's not really, your premise is the same statement as your conclusion, just phrased differently. So, what's your actual argument? How does the occasional buzz, at times when I have made sure I won't be required to work or make important decisions, hurt my life? Are you alleging it permanently affects my mind and rationality?

2. Your statements are not an accurate characterization of Objectivism, and the two quotes certainly don't amount to what you are saying. There is a significant difference between having a buzz and what Ayn Rand is talking about in the quote (an unconscious mind, in fact she's probably talking about a permanently unconscious mind). Just because someone has a buzz, that does not make them unconscious or unaware of reality. No one here is saying that drinking oneself into unconsciousness is fine.

Do you have a quote of Ayn Rand addressing the specific issue of relaxing one's mind, with alcohol (which I know she did), as opposed to drinking until you're unconscious? I don't, but I do remember Dr. Peikoff talk about it, and say that it is perfectly acceptable. No one can be fully focused at all time, we all need rest beyond just the time we spend sleeping, and he found nothing wrong with people who choose to relax with the help of a substance, because they find it easier and more enjoyable.

Intentionally fogging up your mind is necessarily dangerous. One should always be able to deal with any situation that might arise, which requires a clear head. Fogging up your mind is necessarily dangerous.

Deal with what? Ze Germans?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting this from? Of course they do, that's the only reason why anyone does statistical analysis.

No. Statistical measurements are of the past; they don't predict the future.

Easy exception in this case: what if someone develops a cure for whatever ailments cigarettes do cause me, and I avail myself of that cure, before chemical process irreversibility has set into my body? This is not so farfetched, is it? I had an ear infection that I might have died from 1000 years ago, but it was easy to deal with today. Otherwise, I might think ear wax was a deadly scourge.

Context!

- ico

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite confident that getting drunk or high will make it difficult or impossible to focus, that is, be capable of applying your mind or having a clear purpose (as well as be able to deal as effectively as possible with reality, which is also vitally important).

I can tell you from personal experience that your confidence is misplaced; for example, I play chess at a higher level with a little THC in my bloodstream, I have objectively measured this against other players repeatedly.

Context cannot be dropped in any context!

- ico

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Statistical measurements are of the past; they don't predict the future.

You shouldn't be using 'predict the future' and 'determine probabilities' interchangeably. No, Statistics doesn't predict the future. And I wasn't predicting your future either, I was giving you your odds of dying because of your habit.

Predicting the future would mean telling you that you are going to die from it. That is what you did, by the way (you predicted that smoking will take 5-10 years off the end of your life), and that's what started this discussion.

Easy exception in this case: what if someone develops a cure for whatever ailments cigarettes do cause me, and I avail myself of that cure, before chemical process irreversibility has set into my body? This is not so farfetched, is it?

It is wrong to assume cures for ailments caused by smoking are more likely to be developed than cures for other ailments. So that possibility doesn't affect the odds of you dying because of smoking in any way.

Sure, it could happen. But there is a very significant chance that it won't. That's not a prediction, it is a factual statement about our current knowledge. All (mathematically sound) estimates of the probabilities of future events are.

I had an ear infection that I might have died from 1000 years ago, but it was easy to deal with today. Otherwise, I might think ear wax was a deadly scourge.

Context!

That's not context, that's a false analogy.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the occasional buzz, at times when I have made sure I won't be required to work or make important decisions, hurt my life? Are you alleging it permanently affects my mind and rationality?

It is purposeful obstruction of your capacity to think. Unless you can guarantee there won't be any emergencies or anything like that while you are drinking, then intentionally getting drunk is dangerous and irrational. Since that standard is impossible to reach, one should not get drunk. I'm not saying it is wrong to have a drink, but it is wrong to get drunk (i.e. drink to observable impairment, which one standard drink per hour can't produce unless you weigh like 80 pounds).

There is a significant difference between having a buzz and what Ayn Rand is talking about in the quote (an unconscious mind, in fact she's probably talking about a permanently unconscious mind). Just because someone has a buzz, that does not make them unconscious or unaware of reality. No one here is saying that drinking oneself into unconsciousness is fine.

Getting drunk is immoral, because when you are drunk your judgment is impaired. I have never said that having a drink is wrong, as having a single standard drink in one's system produces no noticeable impairment in functioning (again, unless you are, upon actually looking it up 130 lbs for females and about 100 lbs for males). The average male won't have any negative effects if he limits himself to one drink per hour to 1.5 hour period.

No one can be fully focused at all time, we all need rest beyond just the time we spend sleeping, and he found nothing wrong with people who choose to relax with the help of a substance, because they find it easier and more enjoyable.

There is a difference between thinking and being focused. Being focused is really about having the capacity to think if the need arises, and having a purpose for your actions at the time. Being drunk (by impairing judgment) thereby inhibits focus. One CAN be focused at all times, as it doesn't preclude taking a break and doing something recreational, so long as one has the ability to think if the need arises and has a purpose for their actions. One cannot think all the time, I agree, which is where recreation comes in. But recreation should not interfere with focus (as it is required for all rational action, and since all action should be rational, is thereby required for all action whatsoever).

edit: misspellings and a misplaced word or two.

Edited by nanite1018
Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be using 'predict the future' and 'determine probabilities' interchangeably. No, Statistics doesn't predict the future. And I wasn't predicting your future either, I was giving you your odds of dying because of your habit.

Okay, let me say it again: statistics do NOT determine the FUTURE odds -- unless you assume that the future is going to be the same as the past. Which is naive at best.

- ico

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let me say it again: statistics do NOT determine the FUTURE odds -- unless you assume that the future is going to be the same as the past. Which is naive at best.

- ico

I feel compelled to point out that you're coming very close to denying the validity of induction here. It was Hume's argument that induction was not reliable unless you "assume" the future is like the past.

As to cigarettes, cigarettes contain many chemicals, the effects of which are known and intimately quantified, with LD50s and everything. So we're not "merely" talking statistics here. If you didn't believe cigarettes had an effect on your body, you wouldn't use them. Why are you accepting the causality of certain effects of cigarettes but not others?

Also it's ridiculous to say that people don't do things that are damaging with no positive effect on balance. It's called addiction. It sounds like you're rationalizing yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite confident that getting drunk or high will make it difficult or impossible to focus, that is, be capable of applying your mind or having a clear purpose (as well as be able to deal as effectively as possible with reality, which is also vitally important). Rationality requires a clear mind; rationality is the fundamental requirement of a human life, therefore, a clear mind is a fundamental requirement of a human life. As a consequence, getting drunk or high is immoral. By this I mean it hurts your life. So while you might like to feel good or whatever, it represents a breach of Objectivist morality. I don't see how one could justify getting high or drunk recreationally except if they attempted to reduce Objectivist morality to hedonism of some sort.

Oh my. I should finish up the notes from the last lecture of Peikoff's Unity series, on morality. This is a little on the puritanical side because you are not morally obligated to be in focus 24/7/365.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Focus and consciousness attain a general level, I've found, that remains pretty much constant . With the capability to 'turbo-boost', when you need it to.

Thankfully, in life, it is not essential to be on high alert - sink or swim, fight or flight, focus or blank-out - all the time. In fact, that's downright exhausting.

The main point is that I believe every individual knows their own limits of using relaxing substances, if he or she is fully honest. Those limits very much include how you feel about yourself, during and after their use.

For me, drinking has become only for social situations, to be more gregarious and out-going; I found I didn't really enjoy alcohol's extreme effects, and it's been a natural process over time to reduce it to this stage.

Pot, which was as far as I got in youth, I didn't much care about at all then - but just a few years ago discovered that it has genuine benefits for my creative thought and occasional insomnia, with no after effects, and zero addiction. Now I use only the smallest amount, irregularly, and when alone at home.

So it's all personal and individual in the end, ruled by one's own introspection and values.

(But definitely, I don't think Objectivism is Puritanical, Nanite ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel compelled to point out that you're coming very close to denying the validity of induction here. It was Hume's argument that induction was not reliable unless you "assume" the future is like the past.

As to cigarettes ...

As to cigarettes, let's drop that one for now, I am aware of the health risks and still choose to do it.

As for induction, I am very fond of that power and am not limiting it by, again, repeating: Statistics do not inform future probabilities, because statistics focus on correlation, whereas the future is based on cause and effect; correlation does not demonstrate causal linkage.

The fallacy of using past statistics to argue future outcomes, i.e., without understanding WHY the statistics come out as they do, and without having a model of the future that predicts the statistics (out of sample fit) is rampant and wrong. Keep it up, and I will keep shooting it down.

- ico

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fallacy of using past statistics to argue future outcomes, i.e., without understanding WHY the statistics come out as they do, and without having a model of the future that predicts the statistics (out of sample fit) is rampant and wrong. Keep it up, and I will keep shooting it down.

- ico

You are missing the point. In the particular case of cigarettes (and by no means ONLY in this particular case), we DO understand why the statistics come out as they do. We can identify the particular chemicals involved, and we know what they do. Do you deny that particular chemicals act according to their natures?

Just because a particular phenomenon behaves probabilistically does not mean it isn't predictable. I agree that correlation is not a substitute for causation but in this case we DO know causal mechanisms.

Radioactive decay occurs probabilistically. Does that mean we can't know half-life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point. In the particular case of cigarettes (and by no means ONLY in this particular case), we DO understand why the statistics come out as they do. We can identify the particular chemicals involved, and we know what they do. Do you deny that particular chemicals act according to their natures?

That is my point. When I do see the causal connection, then the observed facts (statistics) are linked to a causative model. For cigarettes, there is a good basis for a causal link. I am not disputing that -- although, the causal link is, as in many cases of applied medicine, more or less inconsiderate of individual context. That is the strength and the limitation of generic medicine. To say that cigarettes are in all cases not worth smoking is ignoring the specific, individual context; to say that cigarettes are generally bad for you is fine, as long as this view is not a parroting of cultural mores, but the individual understands enough about WHY cigarettes are bad to avoid (or choose) them consciously and with full intent.

Just because a particular phenomenon behaves probabilistically does not mean it isn't predictable. I agree that correlation is not a substitute for causation but in this case we DO know causal mechanisms.

Radioactive decay occurs probabilistically. Does that mean we can't know half-life?

And here again, you fuzz the line between history (observed outcomes across a statistically relevant sample), and future (relative probabilities of future outcomes). If you are saying that past statistics are a decent approximate predictor of future outcomes that we have in the absence of any other information, I agree; if you assume that past outcomes are a definitive predictor of future outcomes, then you are reading too much into statistical correlations.

As an absurd but relevant example, up until 1969, no human had ever set foot on the Moon. There were exactly 0% of past outcomes consistent with a man walking on the Moon. But the probability of such outcome was, in retrospect, greater than 0%.

Similarly, if you invest your money with mutual funds solely according to their past performance, you may be surprised to find yourself not obtaining the expected returns.

Statistics are of the past, and can only speak to the future if the past sample size is sufficiently complete, and, just as importantly, if the future is more or less contextually equivalent to prior experience.

The fact of man-made things, however, puts many future predictions based on past performance at risk of being rendered incorrect by future developments, up to and including developments that haven't yet been imagined.

Statistics do not lie, but people interpret them to imply causality in individual cases, which is overstating the connection between past and future.

As another case less definitive than direct smoking, how do you deal with the statistics around second hand smoke, and what do you make of them, in terms of power to predict the future?

Cholesterol is another boondoggle, scientifically, where statistical interpretations and "projections" have been used to motivate and generate a whole drug industry based on inconclusive empirical evidence, and without a proper model of the details. For example, try squeezing cholesterol at body temperature through a small latex tube, and you will see that it is dang oily and slippery and doesn't stick to the edges of the tube or build up plaque. The only way to get it to do so is to create "friction" in the tube to which the cholesterol molecule can stick. But the cholesterol doesn't create friction in and of itself, the tube must be modified in some way. Why is it different in the body's arteries, and what could be causing "roughness" of arteries?

There are enough questionable cases of half-baked forward "reasoning" based on past statistics that if I can't see the "why" behind the statistics, then I don't take them as predictive.

- ico

Edited by icosahedron
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here again, you fuzz the line between history (observed outcomes across a statistically relevant sample), and future (relative probabilities of future outcomes). If you are saying that past statistics are a decent approximate predictor of future outcomes that we have in the absence of any other information, I agree; if you assume that past outcomes are a definitive predictor of future outcomes, then you are reading too much into statistical correlations.

...

There are enough questionable cases of half-baked forward "reasoning" based on past statistics that if I can't see the "why" behind the statistics, then I don't take them as predictive.

- ico

I'm only going to reiterate this one more time: we DO know the direct causal mechanisms in many cases. Some very well-documented causal processes still act probabilistically. You virtually ignored my half-life example. We KNOW that carbon 14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Are you implying that could change at some future date? It won't. When carbon 14 acts according to its nature it decays at a rate of half gone every 5730 years, period, end of story.

I agree with you that medicine needs to be more individualized. However, in some respects people are people, and poison is poison. If you take cyanide in sufficient quantity you WILL die. It sounds like you want to argue something like "asbestos doesn't cause lung cancer simply because every single person ever exposed to asbestos didn't get lung cancer". That's ridiculous. How many of those people with lung cancer would have it if they weren't exposed to asbestos fibers? This correlation is not an artifact of the statistical analysis. Rather, we KNOW the nature of asbestos fibers and their interaction with lung tissue.

I still say that you are on the verge of radical skepticism here, but I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to reiterate this one more time: we DO know the direct causal mechanisms in many cases.

So we agree: without the causal mechanism being known, variable outcomes, and historical statistics of them, are not predictors of the future. That is what I thought you were disputing.

Some very well-documented causal processes still act probabilistically. You virtually ignored my half-life example. We KNOW that carbon 14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Are you implying that could change at some future date? It won't. When carbon 14 acts according to its nature it decays at a rate of half gone every 5730 years, period, end of story.

First, relativistic effects can cause the half-life to depend on the frame of reference, so you example is not as bullet-proof as you state.

More importantly, it is your apparent conflation of "probabilistic" with "statistically inferred" that I question. For causal process known to have variable outcomes with definite probabilities, the statistics can be guessed out of sample, i.e., a perfectly good causal model exists ... and while the suggestion of the pattern of that model was statistically evident in experiments prior to the formulation of the model, the statistics do not suffice to demonstrate that the apparent probabilities of future occurrence are regular rather than due to sample vagaries not discovered or filtered out by the experimenter.

And, your half-life example is not an example of statistics, because the same outcome occurs in any similar measurement. Statistics only happens when you have two or more outcomes. So, that the half-life of carbon-14 is definite is not a statistical result; how many atoms in a sample decay in a given time period is a statistical result. When there is a good probabilistic model, it will reproduce the known statistics, but without a model, statistics are just correlations of observed data, and the apparent correlations may be due to some as yet undiscovered underlying pattern that is more fundamental than the outcomes correlated by a statistical method.

I agree with you that medicine needs to be more individualized. However, in some respects people are people, and poison is poison. If you take cyanide in sufficient quantity you WILL die. It sounds like you want to argue something like "asbestos doesn't cause lung cancer simply because every single person ever exposed to asbestos didn't get lung cancer". That's ridiculous. How many of those people with lung cancer would have it if they weren't exposed to asbestos fibers? This correlation is not an artifact of the statistical analysis. Rather, we KNOW the nature of asbestos fibers and their interaction with lung tissue.

Again, this is a case where the functional model is more or less correct and pertinent, and the statistics are a reflection of that.

But to be devil's advocate, even in this case, it is true that ingestion of asbestos into the lungs of a given individual may or may not lead to cancer, usually does, but not always. So whatever the causation, it is not certainly predictable in this case either.

Cyanide is a better example; it is definitely deadly at high enough dosage for any human being, and the biological mechanism by which it destroys the body's living function is well known. There is no statistics in this case; no exceptions to death.

Not skeptical, but not naive either, and I think it is clear that many folk mis-interpret statistics to their detriment.

- ico

Edited by icosahedron
Link to post
Share on other sites

That equation is wrong. People who smoke a pack or more a day die ten years early on average (not 5-10, by the way, but 10) .............

The above facts

- On what basis are you claiming this to be facts?

What do you define as dying because of smoking?

If were talking about smokers in general there could be many other factors involved in such a statistic (smokers are on average poorer, drink more, etc) - that does not mean that the act of smoking itself puts you in the statistics.

As far as I know here in Norway there are about 2000 people who die from lounge cancer every year, and considering there are several reasons for lounge cancer lets assume 1500 got it because they where smoking. I'll estimate the smoking population on about 20%, and then im not even taking into consideration that it was closer to fifty just a few decades ago - which obviously would affect a majority of the people dying today.

20% comes to 900000 people - if we assume that there is on average a sixty year span beetween them (starting at 15, ending at 75), it would seem that the yearly casualty should be 7500 (900k/60/2)- five times the amount occouring at present.

Now im not great at math, so my analysis is probably flawed at some point (and purpusfully exaggerated) - there are people dying from KOLS for example, but these come to about 10% of those dying from loung cancer I belive. Even if it was the same rate, the numbers still dont match.

I would put the estimate of death closer to ten percent, or on average one-two years of the end of your life (that is the on-average risk you would be taking by smoking.)

Or do you have some documentation claiming otherwise? Keep in mind that research into tobacco is rarely objective - its either payd for by the Tobacco-companies, or by government agencies exclusively interested in material to back up legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(editorial that appears quite rational with respect to analyzing smoking and lung cancer)

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

(yea, wikipedia, but the stats are from WHO, so who am I to question? -- stats on causes of death, lung cancer not a top "vote" getter)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Bottom line: Lung cancer appears responsible for ~2% of deaths based on the measured statistics. And, lung cancer can be caused by many things, with cigarettes being only one (asbestos and other pollutants are examples of others).

If you are interested, check out the asthma rates in major US cities, as a trend; and compare to smoking rates. The latter are going down, but the asthma rates ... not so much.

If you live in or near a big, stinky city or other highly industrialized place with lots of air pollution, such as a truck stop or airport, the pollution from hydrocarbon exhaust is going to be more important, on average, than smoking, as a causative of lung cancer. Hydrocarbon combustion effluents are orders of magnitude more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke.

- ico

Edited by icosahedron
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom line: Lung cancer appears responsible for ~2% of deaths based on the measured statistics.

Frequency of lung cancer in the population (which would be a function of how many people in the population do not smoke - since that is the major factor) is irrelevant to one's chances of developing lung cancer from smoking.

Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.

And once you get it here are your adds:

Year: 2010 (CANADA)

Cases of lung cancer Males Females

12,900 11,200

Deaths 11,200 9,400

5-year survival (2002-2004) 13% 17%

US based: Of the 180,000 people diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States alone each year, 86% will die within 5 years of diagnosis.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to post
Share on other sites

If one is to rationally evaluate whether or not smoking is morally legitimate given your context, would it not be wise to take into consideration the odds of improvement in the medical care of loung cancer?

Even despite Obamacare, there is no reason to think medical evolution will simply freeze for the next fifty years - and certainly not regarding a disease claiming so many lives as loung cancer is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

This woman, while not being an Objectivist, has many great qualities like being smart, attractive, funny, pro-reason and pro-man in general. She, however, likes to smoke marijuana. She says that it provides a great pleasure and relaxes her body and mind after a long day of work.

In my opinion, relaxing ones body after a day of work is a legitimate reason to use low to moderate amounts of marijuana. That is, if one is legitimately relaxing and not obliterating their mind completely.

I have close family members whom I have grown up with, and witnessed them smoke a small amount of pot for 25 years after work, and occasionally before bed if they suffer from insomnia. These same people outperform all others they work with at their jobs and are genuinely rational and productive people, just like the man who has a glass of wine and cigar in the evening.

I'd like to note that I've witnessed one close person in particular absolutely improve in mood, energy, symptoms, and even the ability to think, going from prescription insomnia medication to marijuana. It is a moral crime that the more dangerous, side-effect ridden, expensive prescription drug is legally available but not the more effective cure.

I judge these type of people as morally good, because they are in fact doing what is in their self-interest. Part of life is about obtaining pleasure, and if it is harmless pleasure then it is a value. Most people obtain chemical pleasure by sweets and calorie dense processed foods, some from alcohol, others from alcohol, etc. The context and severity will determine whether it is in their interest or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...