Saturday, June 21, 2014
EVAN COX used to deliver pizza. But 18 months ago, as he was running out of money at college in Seattle, he had a new business idea. The state of Washington was in the process of legalising the sale of marijuana, but he guessed it would take time for pot shops to open. So he set up Winterlife, a marijuana-delivery service.
Delivering dope is like delivering pizza, but easier. “You don’t need to keep your product warm, so you don’t need to return to base nearly as often,” says Mr Cox. “Your customers can peruse your menu but choose from your actual available selection at the time of arrival.” (And order a real pizza if they get the munchies afterwards.) Winterlife generates $1m a month, he says, and employs 50 people. Its website boasts that it is a “business with a conscience” that supports orphaned squirrels.
Mr Cox operates at the edge of the law. Although it is legal to buy marijuana in Washington state, the person who delivers it could be guilty of a felony. That hasn’t stopped Winterlife from attracting competitors. Mr Cox has registered as a business with the city and state, but he cannot open a bank account, thanks to federal rules. In April, he paid $167,000 in sales tax to the Washington State Department of Revenue—in cash.
Dope-delivery services are also popular in states with stricter laws. In New York, dealing is banned but possession has been decriminalised. More than a dozen illegal delivery services now serve tokers in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Anyone with a recommendation from an existing client can call a number and wait an hour or so for a clean-cut young man to show up, probably on a bike, with a backpack of different varieties. The messengers sell only marijuana and carry less than 25g, which makes them liable for a fine if stopped, not a misdemeanour charge. Police know about their operations but ignore them.
A typical 2.5g package costs $50 or more. This is much pricier than street dope, but you are less likely to be mugged. Affluent tokers are happy to pay more for safety and convenience. Home delivery works less well for hard drugs, says Peter Reuter, an economist at the University of Maryland, since the markets are smaller and the criminal penalties much stiffer.
Even in states where bricks-and-mortar pot shops are allowed, some firms just deliver. Wheresweed.com, an industry directory, lists dozens of delivery-only services in California, Oregon and Colorado. Many of San Diego’s storefront pot dispensaries became delivery services when county rules forced them to close temporarily.
Mark Kleiman of the University of California, Los Angeles, believes governments should favour delivery services over shops, which degrade neighbourhoods, are prone to robberies and attract “shoulder-tapping” minors who ask adults to buy for them, he says. Mr Kleiman also worries that storefronts, like liquor stores, provide a visual trigger, making it hard for drug abusers to give up.
Need online DOT and State compliant Supervisor Reasonable Suspicion or Employee Drug and Alcohol training? Click on HOME and then on PURCHASE to see a list of available courses.
From the print edition: United States
Posted By: STS First @ 4:48:51 PM
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Clinician Sues Hospital Over Medical-Marijuana Firing
Robert Lowes
June 18, 2014Topic Alert
Receive an email from Medscape whenever new articles on this topic are available.
DRUG & REFERENCE INFORMATION
A physician assistant (PA) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who was fired by a health system there for using medical marijuana, has sued her former employer for discriminating against her on medical grounds.
Like other job-holders fired over medical marijuana, PA Donna Smith finds herself in the vise of conflicting laws. New Mexico is one of 22 states, along with Washington, DC, that have legalized the comprehensive use of medical marijuana, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states such as Florida have approved it for a limited set of conditions, provided that it contains a low level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the plant's main active ingredient.
Whether it is state-sanctioned or not, however, marijuana in any form remains illegal on the federal level. Presbyterian Healthcare Services cited federal law after it fired Smith on February 21 after several days on the job. She had tested positive for THC in a urinalysis.
In her lawsuit, filed June 9 in a state district court, Smith said that Presbyterian Healthcare Services broke the New Mexico Human Rights Act by wrongfully firing her because of her medical condition. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) in 1997 while she was serving in the military. PTSD symptoms such as night terrors and insomnia continued to afflict her after she was honorably discharged in 1998, and traditional treatment regimens brought her no comfort.
In November 2013, her physician recommended that she begin treating her condition with medical marijuana, which New Mexico legalized in 2007.
After she tested positive for THC in February 2014, Smith told Presbyterian Healthcare Services that she was a legal medicinal user, according to the lawsuit. The organization's medical director later informed her that she was being fired "due to [its] policy of not allowing 'providers' to be medical marijuana patients."
The lawsuit also faulted her former employer with failure to accommodate her condition and other job-related miscues.
Shortly after Smith filed her lawsuit, Presbyterian Healthcare Services issued a statement saying that federal law did not recognize the use of medical marijuana.
"Presbyterian has a mandate under federal law to provide a drug-free workplace," the company said. "Presbyterian is committed to patient safety and we believe that a drug-free workplace is a key component of patient safety." It issued the same statement to Medscape Medical News in response to an interview request.
Smith told Medscape Medical News that the disagreement between state and federal law was "nonsensical."
"They put so many barriers in front of patients. Why even bother having medical marijuana?" said Smith, who explained that her PTSD stemmed from a sexual assault.
State Supreme Courts Have Sided With Employers
Posted By: STS First @ 1:36:31 PM
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Legislation Would Allow
Hair Testing for Federal Motor Carrier Testing Programs
|
|
In late October, a congressional delegation from Arkansas
introduced H.R. 3403 and S.1625,
a bill that would give trucking companies the option to use hair testing for
illegal drugs as an approved method of screening drivers.
Currently, only urine testing is recognized by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) for pre-employment testing of truck drivers. Many
trucking companies, however, utilize hair testing in their company programs
to further enhance their safety programs and find that this results in a
large increase in positive test results.
Congress authorized the creation of a drug and alcohol testing clearinghouse
last year by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Once this clearinghouse
is up next year, it will identify anyone who has previously tested positive
on pre-employment drug tests required by the federal government before being
employed as a truck driver. But until hair testing is an approved method of
testing, no positive hair tests will appear in the database. This legislation
would enable those drug test results to be reported to the clearinghouse.
DATIA will keep members informed on the status of this legislation.
In our Dec. 19 edition of eNews, find out how you can send your letter of support for these proposed bills!
|
Posted By: STS First @ 11:32:37 AM
Friday, November 15, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 15 13
Contact: DEA Public Affairs
(202) 307-7977
Press Release
|
|
THREE MORE SYNTHETIC DRUGS BECOME ILLEGAL FOR AT LEAST TWO
YEARSDEA tries to get a handle on Smiles.
NOV 15 - (Washington, D.C.) – Effective today, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made the synthetic phenethylamines 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe Schedule I, illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for the next two years. These drugs are marketed online and through illicit channels as illicit hallucinogens such as LSD. They have been encountered as powders; liquid solutions; soaked onto blotter paper; and laced on edible items.
The actual chemical names of today’s
controlled synthetic drugs are:
·
2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25I-NBOMe);
·
2-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25C-NBOMe);
and
·
2-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25B-NBOMe).
There is no approved medical use for
these particular synthetic drugs, nor has the Food and Drug Administration
approved them for human consumption. No published studies exist on
their safety for human use. The NBOMe compounds are substantially
more potent than other hallucinogenic compounds, and the data suggest that
extremely small amounts of these drugs can cause seizures, cardiac and
respiratory arrest, and death. Indeed, these compounds have been
linked to the deaths of at least 19 Americans aged 15 to 29 between March
of 2012 and August of 2013. In addition, synthetic drugs like these
have no consistent manufacturing and packaging processes and may contain
drastically differing dosage amounts, a mix of several drugs, and unknown
adulterants. Users are playing Russian roulette when they abuse them.
This action is based on a finding by DEA
Deputy Administrator Thomas Harrigan that the placement of these synthetic
drugs into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard
to public safety. The DEA published a Notice of Intent to do this on
October 10, giving makers, sellers, and other possessors of these drugs a
month to rid themselves of their current stocks and to cease making or
buying more. During the next two years, DEA will work with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to determine if these drugs should
be made permanently illegal.
|
|
Posted By: STS First @ 11:49:33 AM
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Utah's drug-screening
program Report
A year-old program to require welfare applicants to undergo drug
screening has saved about $350,000 in benefits that otherwise would have been
paid. That is a significant savings, but not reason in itself for officials to
declare the program successful.
A
year-old program to require welfare applicants to undergo drug screening has
saved about $350,000 in benefits that otherwise would have been paid. That is a
significant savings, but not reason in itself for officials to declare the
program successful.
The money saved was intended to help people in need. Not
disbursing it does not necessarily mean needs have been diminished, nor that
the number of people who could use the assistance is less. Nor will it
necessarily be a true savings, considering the social costs of drug dependency.
What it means is that an unknown number of people who may have drug dependency
problems aren't getting financial assistance.
Even if it would be wrong to give them such assistance, a
question remains as to whether they are getting help in overcoming their
substance abuse problems. If not, the drug-screening program is only
accomplishing part of what it ought.
Most certainly, the requirement that people seeking
public aid are not drug dependent is a reasonable policy. The state has no
interest in handing over money to people if there is evidence that it would go
only to support a drug-dependent lifestyle.
But a greater good is accomplished if the withholding of
assistance is coupled with an effort to steer those people into programs that
may lead to rehabilitation.
The
data on whether or not that is happening is cloudy. The Department of Workforce
Services, which administers the program, says 12 people were denied benefits
during the year after testing positive for drugs. An estimated 250 people were
either turned away from assistance programs or withdrew applications,
presumably because of drug issues.
The state does not disqualify people who test positive
for drugs from receiving assistance, but it requires them to undergo treatment.
Apparently, 250 people have drifted outside the state umbrella, and it's
important to find out why.
Public investment in
welfare assistance is not charity. The intention is to give people help while
they get back on their feet and eventually secure stable employment. The
drug-screening program is good policy to the extent it facilitates giving more
people access to treatment options.
Officials say they want to know more about those people
who have chosen to forego benefits, and that is precisely the kind of follow-up
the program deserves. Saving money is good, but the savings have occurred
because fewer people are getting help. That was not the original intent of the
screening program, and shouldn't be its legacy.
Posted By: STS First @ 10:11:28 AM
Friday, June 28, 2013
|
UPDATED RESULTS FROM DEA’S LARGEST-EVER GLOBAL SYNTHETIC
DRUG TAKEDOWN YESTERDAYExcerpts From Press Release
Background on
designer synthetic drugs
Designer synthetic drugs are often
marketed as herbal incense, bath salts, jewelry cleaner, or plant food, and
have caused significant abuse, addiction, overdoses, and emergency room
visits. Those who have abused synthetic drugs have suffered vomiting,
anxiety, agitation, irritability, seizures, hallucinations, tachycardia,
elevated blood pressure, and loss of consciousness. They have caused
significant organ damage as well as overdose deaths.
For the past several years, there has also been a growing use of, and interest in, synthetic cathinones (stimulants/hallucinogens) sold under the guise of “bath salts” or “plant food.” Marketed under names such as “Ivory Wave,” “Purple
Wave,” “Vanilla Sky,” or “Bliss,” these products are
comprised of a class of dangerous substances perceived to mimic cocaine,
LSD, MDMA, and/or methamphetamine. Users have reported impaired perception,
reduced motor control, disorientation, extreme paranoia, and violent
episodes. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 2,656
calls related to synthetic cathinone (“bath salts”) exposures in 2012 and
overdose deaths have been reported as well.
WASHINGTON – Yesterday the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its law enforcement partners announced enforcement operations in 35 states targeting the upper echelon of dangerous designer synthetic drug trafficking organizations that have operated without regard for the law or public safety. These series of enforcement actions included retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers. In addition, these investigations
uncovered the massive flow of drug-related proceeds back to countries in
the Middle East and elsewhere. Since Project Synergy began
December 1 of 2012, more than 227 arrests were made and 416 search warrants
served in 35 states, 49 cities and five countries, along with more than $51
million in cash and assets seized. Altogether, 9,445 kilograms
of individually packaged, ready-to-sell synthetic drugs, 299 kilograms of
cathinone drugs (the falsely labeled “bath salts”), 1,252 kilograms of
cannabinoid drugs (used to make the so-called “fake pot” or herbal incense
products), and 783 kilograms of treated plant material were seized.
Project Synergy was coordinated by
DEA’s Special Operations Division, working with the DEA Office of Diversion
Control, and included cases led by DEA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI), FBI, and IRS. In addition, law enforcement in Australia,
Barbados, Panama, and Canada participated, as well as countless state and
local law enforcement members.
On behalf of the Australian
Government, I congratulate the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Project Synergy. This is a significant
seizure of synthetic drugs and is a terrific result for our respective law
enforcement agencies”.Australia’s Acting Ambassador to the United States,
Graham Fletcher, said.
Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement
Act
DEA has used its emergency scheduling authority to combat both synthetic cathinones (the so-called “bath salts” with names like Ivory Wave, etc.) and synthetic cannabinoids (the so-called incense products like K2, Spice, etc.), temporarily placing several of these dangerous chemicals into Schedule I of the CSA. Congress has also acted, permanently placing 26 substances into Schedule I of the CSA in 2012.
|
|
Posted By: STS First @ 9:26:53 AM
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
June
23, 2013. Read
the entire article at
the NYTimes Web Site
Molly: Pure, but Not So Simple
Excerpts from The New York
Times Sunday Styles
‘Molly is the big thing now. Coke is sort of
grimy and passé. Weed smells too much and is also sort of low rent and junior
high.’
At a party not
long ago in Park Slope, Brooklyn, Kaitlin, a 22-year-old senior at Columbia
University, was recalling the first time she was offered a drug called Molly,
at the elegant Brooklyn home of a cultural figure she admired. “She was, like,
50, and she had been written about in the Talk of the Town,” said Kaitlin, who
was wearing black skinny jeans and a tank top. “This woman was very smart and
impressive.” Since that first experience, Kaitlin has
encountered Molly at a birthday celebration and at a dance party in
Williamsburg.
Molly is not new, exactly. MDMA, or
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, was patented by Merckpharmaceuticals in 1914 and did not make
much news until the 1970s, when psychotherapists began giving it to patients to
get them to open up. It arrived at New York nightclubs in the late 1980s, and
by the early ’90s it became the preferred drug.
Known for inducing feelings of euphoria, closeness and
diminished anxiety, Ecstasy ($20 to $50 a dose) was quickly embraced by Wall
Street traders and Chelsea gallerinas. But as demand increased, so did the
adulterants in each pill (caffeine, speed, ephedrine, ketamine, LSD, talcum
powder and aspirin, to name a few), and by the new millennium, the drug’s
reputation had soured. Then, sometime in the last decade, it returned to clubs
as Molly, a powder or crystalline form of MDMA that implied greater purity and
safety: MDMA has found a new following in a generation of conscientious
professionals who have never been to a rave and who are known for making
careful choices in regard to their food, coffee and clothing. Molly - the name
is thought to derive from “molecule”.
Robert Glatter, an emergency-room physician at Lenox Hill
Hospital on the Upper East Side, might disagree. Dr. Glatter used to go months
without hearing about Molly; now, he sees about four patients a month
exhibiting its common side effects, which include teeth grinding, dehydration, anxiety, insomnia, fever and loss of appetite. (More dangerous ones include
hyperthermia, uncontrollable seizures, high blood pressure and depression caused by a sudden drop in
serotonin levels in the days after use, nicknamed Suicide Tuesdays.)
“Typically in the past we’d see rave kids, but now we’re
seeing more people into their 30s and 40s experimenting with it,” Dr. Glatter
said. “MDMA use has increased dramatically. It’s really a global phenomenon
now.”
According to the United States Customs and Border
Protection, there were 2,670 confiscations of MDMA in 2012, up from 186 in
2008. But a greater worry for doctors
and law enforcement officials is the many substances that people might be
ingesting unknowingly. “Anyone can call something Molly to try to make sound
less harmful,” said Mr. Payne of the D.E.A. “But it can be anything.”
According to an NYC doctor, many of the powders sold as
Molly contain no MDMA whatsoever; others are synthetic concoctions designed to
mimic the drug’s effects, Mr. Payne said. Despite promises of greater purity
and potency, Molly, as its popularity had grown, is now thought to be as
contaminated as Ecstasy once was. “You’re
fooling yourself if you think it’s somehow safer because it’s sold in powdered
form.”
Writer, IRINA ALEKSANDER, New York Times, June 23 Edition
Posted By: STS First @ 2:31:55 PM
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Rep. Rene Oliveira (D-Brownsville) said 2.1 percent of Americans receive unemployment benefits.
That’s 815,000 in Texas alone.
Oliveira said those who are mainly affected are innocent children.
"Lets go back to the concept of unemployment wouldn’t we all rather have a good paying job with some health insurance and a retirement program than be getting a little bit of unemployment," Oliveira said
Under the current law those fired for cause, including failing an employer sponsored drug test, don’t qualify for benefits. The changes will require workers who lose their jobs to fill out state questionnaires. Answers considered suspicious lead to drug tests. Anyone failing their test would lose their benefits.
Some decision makers believe this bill will maintain a competent workplace. "Our system is designed to assist people through a difficult period of their lives not to subsidize those who misuse the assistance to abuse drugs," State of Texas Gov. Rick Perry said
From the Valley, Rep. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg), Rene Oliveira and Bobby Guerra (D-McAllen) voted against the drug screening bill.Rep. Oscar Longoria (D-La Joya) and Eddie Lucio III (D-Harlingen) were absent during voting.
"If people have a drug problem or alcohol problem then we should be doing treatment. They earned it it’s their money it’s just like social security you paid into that system," Oliveira said
Oliveira said he wants people to think about who is really being affected because this is not like food stamps or welfare. Oliveira said it just didn’t seem right to him and this is money that those who are working have earned. Adding he believes the state has never invested enough in mental health or substance abuse.
Rep. Eddie Lucio III issued a statement to Action 4 News:"A bill mandating drug-tests for former employees who have already lost their jobs through no fault of their own would only add insult to injury," said Lucio. "Requiring individuals to prove to the state that they were drug-free is not a fair demand."
There is no trend of increased drug use among those on unemployment. Information is lacking to infer that people in need of government assistance are more likely to consume drugs.
"Quite frankly this bill is in search of a problem that does not exist, and would have a significant effect ona small group of employers," Lucio remarked. "Losing a job is already a very traumatic experience.With the current unemployment rate we should not be
Rep. Canales issued a statement to Action 4 News:
“I voted no on SB 21 because of concerns about the effectiveness and legality of the bill. In 2011 Florida passed a similar law and it was struck down by a Federal Court for being an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. That outcome echoed a prior 1999 ruling in Michigan that struck down the nation’s first-ever law requiring drug tests for public aid recipients.”
“In the four months that Florida’s law was in place, only 2.6 percent of more than 4,000 applicants tested positive for illegal drugs – a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of Floridians who use illegal drugs according to a federal estimate. The Florida program actually ended up costing the government $45,000 more than the amount of aid that would have been given to people who failed their drug tests.”
Posted By: STS First @ 10:09:09 AM
Thursday, May 16, 2013
North Carolina Senate Passes Bill Requiring Welfare Applicants To Pay For
Their Own Mandatory Drug Tests
By Nicole Flatow on Apr 23, 2013 at 3:05 pm
A bill that passed the North Carolina Senate Monday night
would impose mandatory drug testing on all
welfare applicants, in spite of federal court rulings blocking similar state
provisions as likely unconstitutional. North Carolina’s proposal goes even
farther than Florida’s court-invalidated provision,
requiring all applicants to a program for the indigent to pay for the mandatory
test out of their own pockets. Only if they pass the test will they later be
reimbursed by the state for the tests, which average $100. The Senate measure
passed along party lines – without a proposed amendment to also subject
lawmakers to the invasive tests. Raw Story explains: At the same time, senators rejected an amendment offered
by Democratic state Sen. Gladys Robinson that would have drug tested lawmakers,
the governor and cabinet secretaries. “We
receive state funds, we represent the law, we institute policy,” Robinson told
senators on Monday night. “So, it
should not be above any of us to submit to drug screening.”
Republican State Sen. Jim Davis said that he did not mind
being tested, but insisted that he would vote against the amendment because it
had no mechanism to provide him with a reimbursement for the $100 test.
Instead of voting on Robinson’s amendment, state Senator Tom Apodaca (R) used a
substitute amendment as a parliamentary maneuver to kill the proposal. “The substitute amendment is offered to have
the effect of killing the other amendment,” Democratic state Sen. Martin Nesbitt
explained in a floor speech. “You
need to know that before you vote because you’ll be killing the one that
requires a drug test of the leaders of this state since we want to require it
for the followers of this state.” “And
we seem to be getting into a situation where we’re kind above the people,” he added.
At least eight other states have laws that test public benefit
recipients or applicants, and at least 29 introduced new proposals this year,
following on the ALEC and Big Pharma-backed movement to pass
drug-testing provisions. But like the Florida law struck down by a federal appeals court in
February, North Carolina’s law is particularly onerous and constitutionally
suspect, because it contains a blanket provision requiring all applicants to be
drug-tested. A drug test is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, and
“there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports
the conclusion that there is a ‘concrete danger’ that impoverished individuals
are prone to drug use” to justify the warrant-less search, that court held. In addition to imposing a potentially
unconstitutional requirement on applicants, North Carolina’s bill imposes what
would for many constitute an impassable barrier to entry. Those indigent enough
to qualify for Temporary Assistance For Needy Families likely do not have $100
to pay for a drug test up front – whether or not they are later reimbursed.
Posted By: STS First @ 5:14:07 PM
Thursday, May 16, 2013
DEA
Makes Three More “Fake Pot” Drugs Temporarily Illegal Today
MAY 16 (WASHINGTON) –Today the
United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made the synthetic
cannabinoids UR-144, XLR11, and AKB48 Schedule I, illegal drugs under the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for the next two years. These
cannabinoids are often seen in so-called “fake pot” products that are
falsely marketed and sold as “herbal incense” or “potpourri” products on the
Internet and by a variety of retail stores.
Synthetic cannabinoids refer to a
family of substances that act on the brain similar to delta-9 THC, the main
psychoactive constituent of cannabis. The actual chemical names of
today’s controlled cannabinoids are:
(1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
(UR-144);
[1-(5-fluoro-pentyl)-1H-
indol-3-yl](2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone (5-fluoro-UR-144, XLR11);
and,
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
(APINACA, AKB48).
This action is based on a finding by
DEA’s Deputy Administrator Thomas Harrigan that the placement of these
synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an
imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA published a notice of its
intent to do this and issued a press release about it on April 12, giving
makers, sellers, and other possessors of these drugs a month to rid themselves
of their current stocks and to cease making or buying more.
Over the past three years, smokable
herbal blends containing synthetic cannabinoids have been marketed under the
guise of being “legal” and have become increasingly popular, particularly among
teens and young adults. These products consist of plant material that has
been laced with these cannabinoids. These substances have not been
approved by the FDA for human consumption or for medical use. The
long-term physical and psychological effects of these substances and their
associated products are unknown but are potentially severe, and psychotic and
violent behavior has been observed in short-term users of these products.
During the next two years, DEA will
work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to determine
if these chemicals should be made permanently illegal.
Posted By: STS First @ 3:54:45 PM