White House Searches for Balance in Drug Fight

††White House Searches for Balance in Drug Fight

Posted by CN Staff on August 19, 2005 at 06:45:11 PT
By Kate Zernike†
Source: New York Times†

Nashville -- Seeking to defuse a growing confrontation with members of Congress and local officials over drug policy, the Bush administration dispatched the attorney general and two other top officials here on Thursday to promise that the government was committed to battling methamphetamine."You can tell President Bush considers it a serious threat that he had three of his cabinet members here today," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in a speech to judges, antidrug advocates and graduates of a treatment program at Davidson County Drug Court, adding, "I can tell you, as a father, I care about this."
The administration also vowed to make $16.2 million available in grants for treatment.For several years the White House has focused the national antidrug strategy on marijuana, arguing that it is the most widely used drug, particularly among high school students, and can be a gateway to more serious drug use. Officials have continued to emphasize that in recent months, even as law enforcement officials across the country pleaded for more help fighting meth, a drug made using chemicals commonly found in cold medicine or on farms.But local officials and members of Congress from both parties have argued increasingly loudly that meth, which is highly addictive, is the real problem. They say the administration has virtually ignored the problem despite the devastation it has caused in many parts of the middle of the country - increasing crime, crowding jails and leaving more children neglected or abandoned.The federal officials here Thursday insisted that no drug took precedence."We believe you can walk and chew gum at the same time," John Walters, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told reporters after the speeches. "The issue here is not meth or marijuana. We're concerned about substance abuse generally.""We are not ignoring problems," Mr. Walters added.The comments here were remarkably different from ones earlier this summer when a spokesman for the drug policy office told Newsweek that people were "crying meth." In addition, other officials have said it makes sense to focus on marijuana, because there are about 15 million users of it, compared with about 1 million users of meth.The debate is also percolating among drug policy experts. Some argue that meth is the preoccupation of the moment and should not drive policy; others say the administration should seize the opportunity to disrupt a relatively new drug market."It seems to be very unlikely that increasing attention to marijuana is going to greatly affect marijuana use, but getting out in front of meth while the epidemic is still in the nascent stages might," Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at U.C.L.A. and director of the university's drug policy analysis project, said in an interview.But Joseph A. Califano Jr., president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, said, "If you don't reduce the use of marijuana, you can't possibly reduce illegal drug use because marijuana is far and away the most used drug."Still, the administration provoked a political furor when officials with the drug policy office seemed to play down results of a National Association of Counties survey, released in July, in which 500 local law enforcement officials nationwide called meth their No. 1 scourge. When administration officials doubted the local officials' characterization of meth as an epidemic, the 100-member bipartisan meth caucus in Congress, as well as the rural caucus and members of districts particularly hard hit by the drug sent angry letters.The letter from the meth caucus noted that 58 percent of those surveyed by the county association said that meth was their biggest problem and that cocaine was a distant second at 19 percent, and marijuana third at 17 percent."Clearly, these results show our nation's drug control strategy should make methamphetamine a top priority," the letter said. At a House hearing in July, Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana, sharply criticized a deputy in the drug control policy office and demanded that the White House acknowledge meth as "the most dangerous drug in America.""This committee is trying desperately to say, 'Lead!' You're the executive branch," Mr. Souder said.Scott Burns, the drug policy deputy, argued that law enforcement officials in the Northeast would laugh if told that meth was an epidemic, because heroin was the bigger problem in their region. But Mr. Burns also promised to relay the message to the White House.Still, while the Bush administration billed the event on Thursday as both a spotlight on current efforts against meth and an announcement of new programs, the officials largely emphasized what they had already done. "We've been very, very active already," Mr. Gonzales said.The officials said they would support Congressional efforts to limit individual sales of pseudoephedrine, the cold medicine that is the key ingredient in methamphetamine, and to monitor the importing of that ingredient more closely. Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said his agency would grant $16.2 million in grants for treatment. Mr. Walters said the drug policy office would begin running new advertisements this fall for the first antimeth media campaign. (Of the 67 print advertisements in the current antidrug campaign, most focus on marijuana, and only one mentions methamphetamine.) And Mr. Gonzales said he would direct United States attorneys to seek "the harshest penalties possible" against meth cooks.But their new initiatives fell short of what members of Congress from states hit hard by meth have asked for - mostly, the restoration of federal money that the police have used to fight the drug. "While this is an improvement," Representative Ken Calvert, Republican of California and co-founder of the meth caucus, said, "we still need a better national and international strategy to stop meth production, smuggling, and reduce usage."Senator Jim Talent, Republican of Missouri and co-author of a bill to restrict sales of pseudoephedrine, said, "While the administration should be applauded for recognizing the need for additional resources to fight meth and to provide additional funding for treatment, their plan is inadequate because it doesn't go far enough to restrict products containing pseudoephedrine."Representative Brian Baird, Democrat of Washington, criticized the administration for cutting certain grants, which give money to the local police, to states that allow the use of medical marijuana."It's like you're focused on two kids having a wrestling match, meanwhile two guys are squaring off with sawed-off shotguns," Mr. Baird said. "That's how it's been with this administration."Katie Zezima contributing reporting from Boston for this article.Source: New York Times (NY)Author: Kate ZernikePublished: August 19, 2005Copyright: 2005 The New York Times Company Contact: letters Website: -- Justice Archives

Home †† Comment †† Email †† Register †† Recent Comments †† Help

Comment #23 posted by rchandar on August 22, 2005 at 15:46:01 PT:
charmed quark
yeah, I agree with you, meth sucks. And they're doing a huge disservice to everyone by not tackling meth instead of weed.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by Kozmo on August 22, 2005 at 09:41:01 PT
What he really means 
[quote]But Joseph A. Califano Jr., president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, said, "If you don't reduce the use of marijuana, you can't possibly reduce illegal drug use because marijuana is far and away the most used drug."[quote]What he really means is that if we stop making cannabis our main focus then our numbers start to look stupid. Then we would have no evidence to justify all the money we throw down the toilet on the Drug War every year.
They don't want to focus on anything other than cannabis because its way more difficult to make the justification numbers look good. Cooking the books to get more money is what its all about for the ONDCP.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Max Flowers on August 21, 2005 at 12:01:30 PT
John Tyler
The thing to realize is that for most chemical compounds, there are several if not many routes to synthesize it. You can go several different ways, but you end up at the same place. I have looked at an abstract of the old original German synthesis of methamphetamine, and it was quite different from what illicit chemists are doing now. Generally speaking, if you have the nearest precursor, you can get to the target compound in fewer steps. But if you can't get that precursor, you have to make the precuror itself, requiring a whole bunch more steps, or you can take a different route altogether. Take MDMA, for example---there are many different routes to synthesis of it, the longest of those are ones that start from sassafras oil itself and go forward with many steps. Meth is a much less complex molecule than MDMA, so it is even easier (WAY easier) to make. Not that I ever have---I would never make such a horrible drug (meth that is). But that's why you have so many people, including low-IQ criminals, able to make it (meth; most of your average crooks are just plain not smart enough to do the ecstasy synthesis).
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by John Tyler on August 20, 2005 at 12:46:48 PT
Meth formulas.
I was wondering. Is the current homemade ďmethĒ the same formula as the Smith Kline and French Pharmaceutical Black Beauty meth from the old days or is it something different? If it is not, then technically should'nt it not be called "meth" at all, but something else. I'm confused on this issue.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by 420 on August 20, 2005 at 07:57:59 PT
Whats up??
meth is such a lame word compared to "chrystal" it just sounds cool, its easily made, quickly sold, highly addicting and people that tweek like the high more compared to a marijuana high because it gives them "energy"consider it as battery acid right on your brain giving you fuel while it eats away your life,aging you fast and making you crazy(twacked), but besides that little fact its out of your system in like 3 days so now all the tweekers can pass the randoms to get government jobs controlling us.The last town I came from was full of it, so is the one im in now, if "they" think that theyre is more stoners than meth users well that may be world wide, but how would the government know unless you were truthfull or a very heavy user getting caught. Basicaly we are fighting a civil war with "them" to speek our minds freely and to let the TRUTH be heard.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by FoM on August 19, 2005 at 22:03:57 PT
Yes I can.It would solve serious problems like this article too.***San Leandro Pot Club Shoot-Out
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by cloud7 on August 19, 2005 at 22:00:00 PT
Helpful Hint 
The solution is also a Peter Tosh album!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by cloud7 on August 19, 2005 at 21:58:38 PT
Pot farms wreak havoc in Sequoia National Park anyone here think of an easy solution to this problem?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by runruff on August 19, 2005 at 19:20:33 PT:
DNA submission.
Pretty fancy wording, huh. That's what the judge calls
it. Anyway my court release officer sez that even though 
consumption of hemp products are now legal they ask that we do not consume them. He said that their method of testing is very aggressive and does not differentiate between 
trace amounts or high levels and it makes his job a lot
easier if he does not have to lab test every sample
to detemine the thc level in my system. He said he is willing to make an exception if I will get a perscription from my doctor. So this is what I'm dealing with. You Ask!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on August 19, 2005 at 18:53:30 PT
I would be worried too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by mayan on August 19, 2005 at 17:57:26 PT
"Meth" For Victory
If meth could provide food,fuel,fiber,paper,plastics,
building materials,medicine,etc. then it would have already been this administration's number one priority. It took a massive outcry from the folks on the front lines of the drug war to even get the Bushies to think about shifting their main focus to meth and away from cannabis. FoM, one of my best friends just landed a great job but now faces randoms. He says he has to quit the herb and that he will likely start doing cola on the weekends since it clears your system faster. I am worried for him and it's all because of this misguided war on an amazing plant! Dongenero, Moss is one of the elite receivers in the NFL. He supposedly said he still uses cannabis "once in a blue moon", but they face randoms also. I bet his name gets drawn real quick!THE WAY OUT...Hi-Res Scans of Major 9/11 Article in Daily Mail:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by FoM on August 19, 2005 at 16:29:08 PT
charmed quark 
I believe the more we do news about a drug the more the antis try to capitalize on making it an issue. I don't post many articles about certain topics because somethings seem best if left unsaid. Publicity can make the whole situation worse then it really is I think.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by charmed quark on August 19, 2005 at 16:14:48 PT
The refocus worries me
Meth really is a terrible drug. It caused a lot of damage last time it was popular back int he 70's. The cocaine became a fad. I remember commenting to a number of people, when the drug war focus was redirected on cocaine, that if they were ever able to suppress cocaine use, or more likely, if the fad for it died out, that people would start using "crystal meth" instead. A much worst drug. One you can't try to control by dropping weed killer on poor farmers in South America.And that's what worries me. Our current approach to drug control just seems to make the problem worst. Cocaine was not a very common drug until the government declared "war" on it. That seemed to popularize its use. The focus by the government made it seem likely everybody was already doing it. I think that gives rise to a herd mentality: "If everybody else is doing it, I ought to give it a try".And there is already a lot of violence surrounding the manufacturing and distribution of meth. This will ramp up the violence.I wish I knew what non-violent actions the government could take to help reduce meth use. I don't. I think these things just come and go as fads. But I sure know that our violent approach to drug use reduction just seems to make things much worst.Sigh-CQ
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by 420toker on August 19, 2005 at 13:51:59 PT
Yes Claritan D contains pseudoephedrine. My wife had been taking the 24 hour one for years, now in Texas they have taken them off the shelves and put them back in the pharmacy. Even the pharmacists are pissed, now they have to take time out of their already overloaded day and zerox the ID for everyone who has a freakin cold. They are also not allowed to sell more than a certain quantity of pseudoephedrine per box which is less than a 30 day supply. Now my wife and I trade off on who buys next box or they wont sell them to us. This is just retarded, Im tired of living in Nerf world where every sharp corner needs padding. You can synthesize almost anything out of anything and people will find a way. I had a buddy in college who for a project managed to synthesize an anabolic steroid from a type cholesterol he extracted from butter. Are they going to take away my buttered toast now?Dont get me wrong meth is terrible, its effects are easily seen in our small rural towns especially near the gulf coast where farm ammonia and iodine are plentiful. But policing people is not going to work nor will it ever work when the science of home brewing drugs gets better and better. I remember when you had to have P2P in order to make meth, and it smelled really gross when it was being cooked. When P2P became very regulated they started using pseudoephedrine which has much less smell. Now the cops have created better less stinky meth labs. If this is the kind of help the DEA is providing then soon they will be able to make meth from toenail clippings."America, What a country"
Yakov Smirnoff
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by dongenero on August 19, 2005 at 11:27:05 PT
snipped from
Moss smoking more than competition
Receiver didn't need to carry his honesty of marijuana use to extremes."The admission isnít a big one. If everyone in sports Ė or in any profession Ė answered that question honestly, youíd have tens of millions of responses similar to Mossí. Yes, marijuana is illegal. But letís be honest, itís not Satanís drug of choice."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Hope on August 19, 2005 at 10:42:37 PT
Newer allergy drugs?
They don't work for me...I've tried them on occasion...prescriptions. Many of the newer drugs have proven over the years to have some seriously dangerous side effects, I've considered myself lucky, more than once, to not be taking them.Now this. I can't believe this is happening.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Hope on August 19, 2005 at 10:34:53 PT
I am VERY worried about this situation. I have very severe allergic rhinitus and the only product that has ever worked, and it was originally a prescription, has pseudoephedrine in it. I cannot function without it. I've taken it twice a day since I was a teenager. I'm worried they are going to now condemn more people to misery and more dangerous drugs...again.They are talking about reformulating these things without the pseudoephedrine. Maybe it's not the pseudoephedrine in what I take though. I think pseudoephedrine is in Sudafed and Sudafed didn't help at all. But what I do take has pseudoephedrine in it, so I'm afraid. I'm very, very worried about it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by stoner spirit on August 19, 2005 at 09:05:54 PT:
Power through other's pain and suffering
I have one solution... legalize cannabis. Oh, wait, you enjoy killing people and you also gain power through other's pain and suffering. But, never the less, you blame it on drugs, when all along people's blood stain your hands. May you rot in hell, and may those that you've killed torture you in the spirit world.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on August 19, 2005 at 08:25:42 PT

Cannabis is Popular
The reason so many people use Cannabis is because it is a substance that doesn't turn around and bite a person in the back. Most legal and illegal drugs have serious side effects and many people have learned to steer clear of them. There is money for the antis to chase Cannabis but not other substances. It's really about how can they fund themselves so they can keep going in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by potpal on August 19, 2005 at 07:55:16 PT

this and that
But Joseph A. Califano Jr., president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, said, "If you don't reduce the use of marijuana, you can't possibly reduce illegal drug use because marijuana is far and away the most used drug." He left out the word 'illegal' drug. The use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, pain killers, pharmaceuticals in general far out weight cannabis. Cannabis doesn't kill ya. Make it legal.Will the Supreme Court deem my tomato garden for its effect on interstate commerce?There was plenty of meth around when I was a kid 30 years ago and all of a sudden the urgency. They just want to change the subject, the pot 'debate' is heating up and they know they'll lose all around, facts versus fiction, so let's dance around it. Meth is the new cry. Do it for the children. Send us your tax dollars to fight the scourge.Substance abuse is real, the substance is tax dollars.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by runderwo on August 19, 2005 at 07:30:56 PT

You know, it's funny. These employers are so careful to stamp out every pot smoker in their company, even going so far as to fire those who test positive for metabolites even though they do not smoke at work. But what would they do if someone came in after downing a half bottle of Robitussin? This person would essentially be tripping on the job, but they would be none the wiser. Meanwhile, the pot smoker, who is not measurably impaired by any objective metric, is discriminated against - even if he has a valid medical excuse. And this is seen as a necessary policy by these kind of analysts. It is not necessary in the least, but I guess it gives someone somewhere peace of mind...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by runderwo on August 19, 2005 at 07:20:41 PT

"The officials said they would support Congressional efforts to limit individual sales of pseudoephedrine"Oh? And under what authorization of power would Congress act in order to limit individual sales of pseudoephedrine? Another "interstate commerce" excuse? Let's see, meth could be sold across state borders (on a black market), and meth can be made from pseudoephedrine, so therefore Congress has the power to regulate any sale of pseudoephedrine, since it *may* be used to make an illegal product which *may* be sold across state lines.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 19, 2005 at 07:19:58 PT

News Article from Mondaq
United States: Employers Exhale: United States Supreme Court Medical Marijuana Decision Aids Employer Anti-Drug Programs By Nancy Delogu EsqAugust 19, 2005Employer drug and alcohol abuse prevention and testing programs recently received a boost when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1451 (June 6, 2005), that state laws authorizing the use of marijuana to treat illness do not insulate drug users from federal law making such behavior criminal. Had the Court ruled otherwise, pot-smoking workers would have been able to justify almost any marijuana use in those states with "compassionate use" laws, and the ruling would have required employers to permit workers to engage in such use, possibly on-duty. Justice Stevens authored the opinion for a 6-3 majority. The case was brought by two women with serious medical conditions who use marijuana daily pursuant to California's Compassionate Use Act and upon doctors' recommendations. A few years ago, state and federal officials raided the home of one of these women, Diane Monson. The California officers concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful under California law. Nevertheless, the federal officers seized and destroyed her six marijuana plants and charged her with possession. While no similar raid was conducted on the home of Angel Raich, who relies on two caregivers to provide her with the drug, Monson and Raich filed suit to avoid a similar occurrence in the future, and to ensure that they would be able to continue to use cannabis as medication.The women obtained relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act, which regulates all drug use in the United States, was unconstitutional to the extent it sought to regulate local cultivation and consumption of drugs not intended for sale or distribution. The appeals court also entered an injunction directing federal officials to cease prosecuting individuals who cultivated and used marijuana for personal medical use. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.Medical Uses of MarijuanaSetting aside political concerns about marijuana use -- and many who advocate legalization of marijuana see "medical marijuana" laws as a significant step toward legalizing the substance for everyone -- there is a body of medical literature finding that marijuana has some beneficial medicinal effects. Well-known benefits include easing nausea and stimulating hunger in those who suffer from wasting diseases.A form of marijuana is available in a prescription drug form (trade name Marinol), which can be legitimately prescribed by physicians. However, many people with serious health conditions complain that the prescription medication does not act quickly enough or is less effective than smoked marijuana. Federal health officials are reluctant to support efforts to legalize the use of the marijuana plant, however, since there is no way to control dosage and ensure quality and standardization. Moreover, there is an understandable reluctance among health experts to suggest that smoking marijuana is healthy, since marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, contains harmful compounds that can cause lung cancer and related diseases. There are side effects, too, that can be harmful, particularly if the drug is used regularly over time.Ten states have so-called "compassionate use" or "medical marijuana" laws, which typically permit individuals with health conditions to ease the pain of chronic conditions with marijuana if their doctor or health care practitioner suggests such use. In those states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington1 -- employers may be asked to hire or to continue to employ workers who test positive for marijuana use on the ground that such use is akin to prescription drug use. In fact, while doctors may recommend marijuana use, they are prohibited from prescribing marijuana, making it difficult for employers to verify whether such use is truly authorized for medical purposes. Before the decision, many employers found themselves forced to guess whether they were obligated to permit these workers to use marijuana at or before work in order to comply with state disability discrimination laws or whether they should prohibit such use, given its apparent unlawful character under federal law.Commerce Clause AnalysisMs. Raich's counsel argued that the Controlled Substances Act's prohibition on the manufacture, cultivation or use of a drug for personal use is overbroad when applied to individuals. Individuals, they argued, are not involved in "interstate commerce" -- the predicate for federal authority to legislate -- when they engage in these activities solely for their own use and the use of their families and friends. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, concluding that Congress, pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, has the right to regulate an entire class of economic activity (in this case, the sale and distribution of drugs) that substantially affects interstate commerce, even if the activity in and of itself is of a noncommercial nature. The fact that the ill women who brought the case cultivated the drug locally or obtained it from friends and used it only to treat themselves did not justify their exemption from the law. According to the Court, although the impact of an individual's use on the overall market would be small, the impact of many such users in the aggregate would undermine the efficacy of the regulatory scheme, particularly when 10 states already have laws authorizing such use. We have "never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude," wrote Justice Stevens. When Congress decides that the "total incidence" of a practice poses a threat to a national market, even an illegal market, it may regulate the entire class.The opinion, which five other Justices joined, points out that if Congress did not have the right to regulate the local cultivation and use of marijuana, it would also lack the right to regulate the production and consumption of any drug produced solely for personal use and/or limited distribution, regardless of whether a state had enacted a medical marijuana law. The Court noted that Congress' right to regulate economic activity by and between the states includes not only the right to regulate such activity, but also the right to prohibit the activity altogether, as it has elected to proscribe marijuana use and trafficking. In particular, the Court also considered the estimated $10 billion annual black market for marijuana and the risk that marijuana grown for home consumption would be drawn into that market as proof that significant interstate commerce issues exist. The Court candidly laments the fact that its ruling may deprive very ill persons from a drug that might ease their pain, but notes that since Congress has the authority to legislate in this area, only Congress may amend the federal law to permit marijuana use by certain individuals. The Court's opinion did not address other arguments advanced in the lower courts, such as medical necessity, but it appears that other arguments in favor of judicial, rather than legislative action are doomed to fail.2Accommodating Medical Marijuana UsersThe decision does not overturn the state medical marijuana laws, which primarily direct state law enforcement not to prosecute those who use marijuana in accordance with state limits on medical use and cultivation. Employers, however, can now feel confident in refusing to accommodate such use by affirming that this conduct remains illegal under federal law. Employers should understand that they may still have to consider accommodating an employee or applicant whose medical condition has led to a recommendation of marijuana use. Although federal anti-disability discrimination law permits employers to refuse to accommodate an individual who currently uses an illegal drug, state law in jurisdictions that permit medical marijuana may be more protective, if the drug use is related to the health condition. Even so, employers can refuse to consider accommodations that would acknowledge or support illegal activity; a "reasonable" accommodation is likely to include steps like allowing an employee the opportunity to transition to another medication (e.g., Marinol) or other treatment.Employers who wish to communicate clearly to employees and applicants should say that state-authorized marijuana use is not accepted as legitimate drug use under the employer's policy. (Marijuana use is not and never has been recognized as a legitimate excuse under U.S. Department of Transportation rules regulating drug use among transportation employees.) Policies also should carefully prohibit all illegal drug use, and not just drug use that occurs on work time or while at work, since most employer drug testing programs measure only the quantity of drug in a person's system, and cannot determine when the substance was ingested.Footnotes1 Maryland has a law that limits the sanction that a medical marijuana user may face if arrested by state or local authorities, and many other states, like Virginia, have laws that permit marijuana use by a doctor's permission, but which are not effective, because doctors may not lawfully prescribe marijuana. 2 See, e.g., United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 490 (2001) (refusing to read into the Controlled Substances Act an exception for medical necessity.)The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.Copyright: Mondaq 1994-2005
[ Post Comment ]

††Post Comment