RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially here in the uk should alcohol not be given th

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially here in the uk should alcohol not be given th

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially here in the uk should alcohol not be given th

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 8:04:51 AM

RCdc

Posts: 8674
Status: offline

This is Darcy

With reference to the OP, the reason that nothing is being done about the spiralling alcohol problem is that we have a stubborn, inept government who are too impotent to admit that they screwed up in allowing 24 hour drinking given the inability of a large proportion of the population to treat it with the respect it should be afforded, and not used as an excuse to behave like animals.

I personally believe that given the something like 50% increase in drink-related hospital admissions and cases since round the clock drinking came into force, that every one of these idiots who are unable to gauge when they have had enough and end up needing medical attention should be charged for the priviledge.

I'm talking talking huge fines of £1,000+ ($2,000 USD) which they would never have a hope of paying, but rather say a £50 ($100 USD) charge for wasting medical resources that if needs be would be deducted from their salaries or benefits if they didn't pay in a reasonable amount of time.

This won't solve the problem, but it would at least help to pay for these irresponsible idiots care, and perhaps make them think twice if they know they're going to be £50 out of pocket each time. (Personally I'd let 'em choke to death on their own vomit, but human rights blah blah blah dictates that we have to at least try to save them.)

Plus, what about my human rights! If you're gay, or black, or Muslim, or disabled, or a refugee, or any other section of society that's deemed to be a minority or special case then it seems you're afforded dispensations for your particular needs. An example - gay only swimming sessions. So why not smokers only clubs? Are we not a minority, who are clearly mentally challenged because we want to pollute our own lungs? Where's our human rights?

Bah.

</rant>

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to beargonewild)

Post #: 21

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 9:25:59 AM

RealityLicks

Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

As an ex-smoker, I sympathise with much of the above. However, it took ages for me to jack it in, simply because I couldn't get away from the smell.
So, just for the sake of argument: bearing in mind that 70-80% of smokers want to stop, maybe nanny is right sometimes? I've known four people who died of lung cancer and it's a particularly nasty end, watching someone literally shrink. In pain. The problem is, I never had that at the front of my mind when I was smoking. I thought about being social; sharing; posing like a film star etc... But cig smoke is a toxic substance, containing ammonia and all sorts of crap, so surely it's wise to have rules governing where it can be released? You don't have to stop - just go outside.

Also, as far as traffic fumes are concerned, all cars have catalytic convertors by law and I can hardly remember using leaded petrol.

(in reply to RCdc)

Post #: 22

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 9:31:24 AM

Estring

Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

It is just amazing how easily people are willing to give up freedoms to the government. The slope gets ever more slippery.

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to wankerforuse)

Post #: 23

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 9:35:17 AM

RCdc

Posts: 8674
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

It is just amazing how easily people are willing to give up freedoms to the government. The slope gets ever more slippery.

This is Darcy

I am reminded of the famous poem attributed originally to Pastor Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Estring)

Post #: 24

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 9:41:49 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

It is just amazing how easily people are willing to give up freedoms to the government. The slope gets ever more slippery.

I dont see what willingness or lack thereof has to do with it?

We get to choose which coloured turd we'd like to send to Parliament every few years, and then thats that. They do as they damned well please or at least what theyre damned well told to do by their leaders and whoever finances them.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Estring)

Post #: 25

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 9:53:38 AM

RCdc

Posts: 8674
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I dont see what willingness or lack thereof has to do with it?

We get to choose which coloured turd we'd like to send to Parliament every few years, and then thats that. They do as they damned well please or at least what theyre damned well told to do by their leaders and whoever finances them.

E

This is Darcy

Sad, but true, Lady E.

Politicians these days no longer represent the thoughts, feelings and desires of the general population. They merely look out for themselves.

Case in point being the ridiculous fox-hunting fiasco - as a taxpayer and voter I was appalled that MPs spent ten times the amount of time in Parliament debating this issue than they did the invasion of Iraq.

< Message edited by Darcyandthedark -- 1/30/2008 9:54:38 AM >

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 26

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 9:57:53 AM

RealityLicks

Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

Can anyone explain how the smoking ban is in the interests of MP's ?

(in reply to RCdc)

Post #: 27

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 10:11:51 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Hi RL

I believe the smoking ban doesnt apply in the bars in Parliament? In which case it doesnt affect them too much.

I wouldnt expect a direct relationship here. I would rather suspect the everyday MP is told to vote for a certain thing because his leaders see some benefit. In this case perhaps the leaders dont want to see so much funding going towards cancer treatment because NHS overspending is bad for their image. Perhaps theyre being "lobbied" by anti-smoking groups. Perhaps they rather like the idea of preventing yobs (because as everyone knows, only yobs smoke) from being in the new 24 hour bars because then they can show how much less violence there is thanks to their new licensing policy?

Who knows?

The point is that its legal to purchase tobacco products and to inhale the resultant fumes when theyre set alight. The point is that it ought to be my choice whether I inhale such fumes and it ought to be my responsibility as to where and when I do that and in whose company.

What the ban actually means is that the government acknowledges the growth of the anti-social behaviour it would prefer was not the case - because it says that none of us can be trusted to smoke without causing distress to others. It says we're all of us, everyone, selfish pigs who dont give a monkey's about anyone else. After all, our MPs do represent us and must think we're like them.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to RealityLicks)

Post #: 28

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 10:40:42 AM

Aneirin

Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

As an ex-smoker, I sympathise with much of the above. However, it took ages for me to jack it in, simply because I couldn't get away from the smell.
So, just for the sake of argument: bearing in mind that 70-80% of smokers want to stop, maybe nanny is right sometimes? I've known four people who died of lung cancer and it's a particularly nasty end, watching someone literally shrink. In pain. The problem is, I never had that at the front of my mind when I was smoking. I thought about being social; sharing; posing like a film star etc... But cig smoke is a toxic substance, containing ammonia and all sorts of crap, so surely it's wise to have rules governing where it can be released? You don't have to stop - just go outside.

Also, as far as traffic fumes are concerned, all cars have catalytic convertors by law and I can hardly remember using leaded petrol.

This lung cancer thing, people have to remember, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer and by being a smoker it does not mean that you are going to get lung cancer. Until shit happens, if it happens, one is in more danger of getting wiped out by any other means before lung cancer has a chance to develop. It is a risk, much like any other pastime we enjoy, motorcycling, pot holing, hang gliding, sailing, whatever, it all carries the risk of death, we are aware of the risks but just get on with it and enjoy life.

I agree there are statistics to suggest smoking and lung cancer are linked, but then there are also people who have never smoked in their life, nor been around a smoker who get lung cancer.

As to vehicles, I am not sure about the change to unleaded fuel, as to whether that was a good thing or not. I had an old air cooled vehicle and the mechanic who looked after it on questioning about what fuel I could use now leaded fuel was banned told me that he is seeing more cars now which fail emission tests, and they run on unleaded.Something about the reason why lead was in fuel, it was to lubricate the upper cylinder and valve gear. Take the lubricant away and wear is accelerated thus leading to premature engine wear and there more pollutants exhausted. Plus the fact unleaded engines ran hotter. When I finally made the reluctant change to unleaded, by old van ran better, more mpg and better performance, but cracked cylinder heads.

Also, lead in exhaust fumes, by there being lead there, the pollutant gases headed downwards onto the road, unleaded gases having no lead hang about in the air.

As far as I am aware, Diesel engined vehicles do not have catalytic converters, and in the case of buses, they I believe are exempt the stringent emission checks private motor vehicles are subjected to.

Ever seen a diesel engined bus when it has to rev it's engine to either speed up or climb a hill, the dirty black soot that is blasted out of the exhaust, not to mention the rime of black soot around the exhaust opening.

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to RealityLicks)

Post #: 29

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 10:57:47 AM

RealityLicks

Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

Hello Lady Ellen,

Good point about the Member's bars. Maybe you should get to know your MP a bit better? lol

You're right that smoking is legal but I really don't agree that you have a right to administer your narcotic of choice in public enclosed space, trumping the right of a non-user to have first dibs on that air. Smoking in public might usefully be considered more of a privilege. You could then argue that should said non-user elect to be around when you smoke/jack-up, you both enjoy the privilege of hanging out in a public, enclosed space. But what happens when an un-consulted non-user walks in?

Are you really going to ask everyone who walks into the pub, while you're smoking, if you can finish it?

And while my view of MP's is just as cynical as your own, my views of what we call public opinion is, too. Like the debate on capital punishment, which many older people would adopt immediately if not sooner, sometimes (much as it galls me to admit this) the presence of a group with a more acute awareness of jurisprudence/public health issues/ European economics saves us having to go through long processes of evolution we ought to be smart enough to know are dead-ends. Like Prohibition in the US. Like having the stocks set up in the town square; smoking in public rooms doesn't work. Like a decent set of stocks, keep it at home where you can enjoy it without undue bother.

Also, no figures at hand but I'm pretty sure the amount paid in duty by smokers far exceeds the demands of cancer treatment. Its a disincentive recommended by doctors, simply married to spiralling health costs:- typical political sleight of hand and therefore shouldn't be regarded as a quid pro quo arrangement.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 30

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 11:46:06 AM

GoddessDustyGold

Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

CM,

Not trying to flame you.Just wondering.

Smoking is now banned in NY and NJ,but before that,it was almost impossible to find a smoke free place to eat.

One evening,I was enjoying my supper at a local bar.A mother of two had just finished her meal,and came over to the bar area(away from her UMs)to smoke,right next to me.

My thought was,"ok,you can`t smoke near your family,but I`m fair game for your stink`n smoke."

She was selfish as they come.

I`m ok with people enjoying their smokes,as long as it`s not getting in other people`s faces/lungs.

Same with drink and rich foods.As long as one doesn`t drive drunk or puke on me,eat and drink all you want.

Questions: And this may have already been addressed, as I have not finished reading the thread.

Was the woman who moved to the bar area to smoke coming into the bar since she was eating in a non-smoking area? Why were you in a bar enjoying your meal, if smoking was allowed and you abhor smoking? Even if she hadn't come in to smoke, I am sure others were smoking in this permissable area.
I am wondering if the woman came into the bar to smoke since she was not permitted to smoke in the area where she had the meal with her children. Or was she in a smoking area and elected to move away to light up?

(Either way, she was smoking in a permitted area, and you had agreed to be seated (or sit yourself) in the area that permits smoking. In My book, that made it your choice.)

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 31

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 11:51:21 AM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Banning all alcoholic beverages was tried in the United States many years ago. It was called Prohibition. As I recall, it really didn't work out so well, unless you were in the mafia...

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)

Post #: 32

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 12:12:41 PM

RealityLicks

Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

This lung cancer thing, people have to remember, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer and by being a smoker it does not mean that you are going to get lung cancer. Until shit happens, if it happens, one is in more danger of getting wiped out by any other means before lung cancer has a chance to develop. It is a risk, much like any other pastime we enjoy, motorcycling, pot holing, hang gliding, sailing, whatever, it all carries the risk of death, we are aware of the risks but just get on with it and enjoy life.

Check the stats out yourself: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/

In the UK, someone dies of lung cancer every 15 minutes. Bikes, climbing etc don't come close for risk but provide loads more buzz. And they require an act of volition prior to encountering risk. Passive smoking doesn't. I'm not one to advocate wrapping yourself in cotton wool and I do think we will see smoking bars and clubs here in time. But I don't see a poll tax type riot taking place over this one. Everyone's too knackered all the time!

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 33

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 12:42:12 PM

GoddessDustyGold

Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

~FR~

Well, after reading the entire thread I have to say, yet again, that there are far reaching consequneces to these bans. By enacting such laws, the governments are not only stepping on the freedoms of the smokers, but they are also stepping on the freedoms of the individual business owners. If the owner chooses to permit smoking or have smoking areas, as long as this is posted, it is up to the public to determine whether or not they will patronize that business (bar, hotel, pub, restaurant, etc.) If the individual owner determines that they do not wish to permit smoking in any capacity, then, again, it is up to the public to determine whether or not they will patronize that business.
There are many non-smokers (more than smokers these days) who are all for this since it does not affect them on a personal level, and they are pleased as punch that they can go anywhere and be smoke free. But just remember this when you are suddenly not allowed to eat your favorite fast food burger or have your scotch at the karaoke bar or walk into your favorite sex toy shop. And you should be honest and address the other pollutions you are breathing every single day. But most don't want to look at that since that would affect them very personally.
As an aside, I smoke all natural tobacco. So there are not other chemicals used for processing. I agree that there is a lot of bad stuff in tobacco. I prefer My tar and nicotine in pure form.

P.S. I agree with the OP. It is time to go after the alochol which is much
more dangerous and abused than cigarettes ever will be. Tit for Tat, anyone?

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom

(in reply to RealityLicks)

Post #: 34

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 12:51:20 PM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

its impossible to ban alcohol as a substance - its far too easy to make one's own if one had a need to

and we have to consider the significant number of alcoholics we've generated in recent times

but we can ban being under the influence

whats that? we already have an offence called drunk and disorderly? Who'd have guessed?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)

Post #: 35

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 1:15:28 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

There is a difference.

You smoke in my face, and you will damage my health.

You drink in my face, and you won't damage my health, unless you're incapable of having a few drinks without resorting to violence. In other words, the law abiding vast majority can drink 'til their hearts are content in public because they will not damage someone else's health.

That is the difference.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to wankerforuse)

Post #: 36

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 2:04:14 PM

GoddessDustyGold

Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

I am all for choice. You can choose to go to any number of places to avoid smoke. I should also be able to choose to go to a place where I can indulge and enjoy. If I chose to go to your favorite place, I would happily refrain. If you choose to go to My favorite place, you would agree to deal with it. It's the lack of a choice that has smoker's up in arms. Not that we cannot and will not respect that there are many non-smokers.
Cigarettes are legal and they are also heavily taxed. Make them illegal and then I will either quit for good or hide My habit.
And, as I already stated, I hate to think of all the stuff all the non-smokers are breathing that is hundreds of times heavier and more dangerous. *shrug*
I truly believe this is only the beginning of a very long, and very slippery slope.

Edited to add: No, NG...If I smoke in your face (which I would not do) I would not necessarily be damaging your health. I am sure it is unpleasant, but you believe your research and I will believe Mine. On the other hand, I hate it when a drunk throws up on My shoes (or anywhere in My nearby presence). That's rather unpleasant also. After he's (she's) thrown up, then they can go out and get behind the wheel to cause a fatal accident.

< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 1/30/2008 2:09:29 PM >

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 37

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/30/2008 6:18:53 PM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

Questions: And this may have already been addressed, as I have not finished reading the thread.

Was the woman who moved to the bar area to smoke coming into the bar since she was eating in a non-smoking area? Why were you in a bar enjoying your meal, if smoking was allowed and you abhor smoking? Even if she hadn't come in to smoke, I am sure others were smoking in this permissable area.
I am wondering if the woman came into the bar to smoke since she was not permitted to smoke in the area where she had the meal with her children. Or was she in a smoking area and elected to move away to light up?

(Either way, she was smoking in a permitted area, and you had agreed to be seated (or sit yourself) in the area that permits smoking. In My book, that made it your choice.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the time,this restaurant allowed smoking in all areas.
I ate there almost every night,after class and alone, so the bar was best most nights.

The woman I mentioned moved away from her UMs and hubster,so as not to smoke near them.

I was the lucky person next in line,I guess.

Technically your correct,I chose to eat in a place that permitted smoking.

My point was that this woman moved to avoid smoking near her family.I`m guessing for health reasons.

She plucked down next to me a poof,it`s clowns of noxious stink,right as I`m eating.

If smoking near the UMs is so bad,why is polluting my direct air ok?

I`m just glad the whole things over.

My friends and I can go to music events,clubs, bars and restaurants,without choking,getting a head ache or smelling like garbage after leaving.

I don`t feel like smokers are put upon or losing any rights.

They have had their way for way to long.It`s about time that non-smokers were allowed to breath.

It`s more of a case of non-smokers finally asserting their right to breath air without the crap cigarettes put out, in it.

The "cars,trucks,factories also pollute" argument is a bit silly.As if more toxins to breath in was somehow ok,b/c we also breath the ambient pollution that`s in the air.

Note to the anti-elf/hazard promotion lobby,more toxins---bad.

Less toxins---good.

Seeksfemslave,I`m ok with your suicide,as long as you don`t harm me or my loved ones in doing so.Deal?

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 1/30/2008 6:25:38 PM >

(in reply to beargonewild)

Post #: 38

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/31/2008 12:39:40 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is a difference.

You smoke in my face, and you will damage my health.

You drink in my face, and you won't damage my health, unless you're incapable of having a few drinks without resorting to violence. In other words, the law abiding vast majority can drink 'til their hearts are content in public because they will not damage someone else's health.

That is the difference.

Saturday nights in most British towns can seriously damage your health. Violent drinkers are a serious problem in Britain according to the police and are keeping none drinkers out of the city for fear of being attacked. The Drinking problems account for most police overtime at weekends. Ambulance services in Britian's cities have reported that 90% of their work over the weekend is drinking related, according to Newsnight and supported by their interviewees. About 350 road deaths a year are directly related to alcohol and thousands injured. (all availabe in government statistics. Statisstics indicate a significant link between drink and domestic violence.

So while responsible drinkers might not damage anyone's health, drink is a danger to none drinkers so its a meaningless argument that some anti-social smoker blowing smoke in your face is damaging your health but drink is not damaging someone else's health. If there was smoking and none smoking bars, none smokers would have no reason to complain. They could go to a none smoking bar and leave the smokers to their own bar.

As I said in a previous post, the last time I was in England, the local pub was empty as everyone was in the smoking tent at the back of the pub, none smokers too! I quite often came across none smokers standing with smokers in similar situations. The anti-smoking campaign is largely a power thing because other serious health concerns are not being addressed.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 39

RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially ... - 1/31/2008 5:11:03 AM

Aneirin

Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline

Pubs used to be civilised, they used to cater for both smokers and non smokers, in the past. Some pubs still bear evidence to that civility with the etchings on their windows, the etching; ' Smoking Room '.

I believe an enclosed and comfortable place in a pub where smokers could go and enjoy their smoke.

Now most pubs have lost their smoking rooms, turned into trendy lounges with tacky pseudo victorian decor.

If the past the problem was dealt with, why now are we so inept in being civilised.

Oh, and I believe at the time, landlords had the ultimate right to refuse the sale of alcohol to a person who in his oppinion had had enough.

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: With all the fuss over the smoking bans especially here in the uk should alcohol not be given th

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094