September 27th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
01:51 pm - on banning public smoking...

8-19-06
Originally uploaded by chrismaverick.
I was going to wait til after work to rant on this when I could sit down and really think it through to get down a good 1000 words of free flowing hostility, but since I've already addressed it a few times in sonbanon's post and its the superhot topic of discussion of the moment in my office, I figured I might as well take a break and jot down my thoughts.

Today, the Allgheny County Council voted to ban smoking in all bars, restaurants and similar establishments. This sucks. And not just because I am a smokter. It sucks because it is a complete denial of rights of the establishment. It is the same as Prohibition. This is not an issue of second hand smoke. People like to write it up like it is. But it isn't. Its an issue of where the public has a right to enforce its will. Is my local bar a public place or not? I say it isn't. It is a private establishment owned by a private owner. Not owned by the people. The owner makes the decision to allow me to come in and buy alcolhol from him. He should be able to decide whether he wants to allow me to smoke or not. The problem is that non-smokers like to say that they have the right to go to the bar and not be exposed to smoke. They do not. They have the right to go somewhere that is smoke free. The bar doesn't belong to them.

If someone wanted to propose a bill that banned smoking in outdoor public parks, I'd actually be all for it. Do I believe second hand smoke is harmful? Honestly, I do. I don't know that it is. But I'm willing to make the assumption that it probably isn't good for you, so you shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But there is no reason you shouldn't be able to open a bar that doesn't allow smoking. And there is no reason you shouldn't be able to open a bar that does. Do I think explicit rap lyrics are harmful? Not at all, but I support Walmart's decision to not sell them. Similarly, I support Target's decision to not sell cigarrettes. But I don't think we should stop Target from selling Eminem's CDs and I don't think we should stop Walmart from selling Marlboros. They each made their decision, and I think the world has dealt with it just fine. I know plenty of people who won't shop at Walmart because they have a problem with some policy of theirs or another. And I think that's a fine way to feel. The Squirell Hill Cafe (or the Cage, as its Patrons like to call it) exists for one reason and one reason only. Its a place where people can go and have a beer, a coffee and a cigarette. If you take any of that away, its not the same place and I don't want to be there anymore.

As one of the bar owners who was interviewed about this pointed out, its really sad because this is going to cost people jobs. Smoking is an indulgance. As is drinking. And if the 18th Ammendment taught us anything, its that people aren't going to stop doing something they want to do just because you made it inconvenient. They're just going to do it somewhere where you can't see it, and things are going to get bad.

Unilateral banning is just stupid. If someone really wanted to solve the problem, then why not suggest this solution. 50% (or 40 or 60 or whatever seems right) of Allegheny County licquor licenses must be awarded to non-smoking establishments. If that were the case, then there is suddenly no issue at all. If we did this then one of two things would happen. Either everyone would have what they wanted, or you'd have a whole bunch of really popular smoking bars and some lame non-smoking bars (or vice versa). But isn't having choice always good?

My big problem with this is that its an obvious slippery slope problem. If you're a non-smoker, its easy to say "oh wow, this will be great." But then what happens if someone wants to ban pro-wrestling because watching it might be harmful to children. Or they want to ban Howard Stern. Or abortion. They are all exactly the same issue. Do I like that there are country clubs that don't allow black people, or golf clubs that don't allow women? No, but I also don't like that there are all black fraternities or all women gyms. But I acknowledge that without those places being allowed to exist then we also can't have all jewish houses of worship or rated R movies, and that's what I think we're dealing with here.

Ok, there's my two cents. Let me know where you fall on this?

(88 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on banning public smoking... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
From: (Anonymous) Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:02 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: jameel Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:42 pm (Link)
Yeah, I can't get behind the banning of trans fats. It's not like there's such a thing as second-hand trans fats. I'm all about requiring the nutritional information on food to be readily available.
From: marmal8 Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:25 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:10 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: apestyle Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:03 pm (Link)
Well WA state passed a similar smoking ban, and I'm as happy as a clam. As a non-smoker, whenever I went out to nightclubs and watched live shows I'd dread the aftermath: the clothes stinking, the inhalents of crappy smoke, the coughing up of the phlegmn, I think you see where I'm going with this.

Sure, the downside is that the business owner doesn't get to set certain rules in his/her establishment, but I dunno, so what? There's plenty of things that are restricted in businesses. People can't smoke in movie theatres either, but no one complains about that.

Lastly, the real winners are the people who work in these establishments, their health bill just took a dramatic drop. Kudos to Seattle!
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:14 pm (Link)
the bug issue is your "so what" claim. So what is that its a loss of personal choice. Removal of rights always starts small and then it gets big. First you fine Howard Stern and everyone says "who cares, Howard Stern is an ass" but the same people who issued the complaints against Stern also issued complaints against WIll & Grace for homosexuality on the air. First you have to take your shoes off to get on the airplane, then you aren't allowed to bring on babyfood or bottle water. I do complain that you can't smoke in movie theaters. i think its wrong. And people used to complain. Same thing with planes. Same thing with bars in California. There were huge complaints. Yes people got over it. But that isn't the point. I will get over it when they make abortion illegal. That doesn't make it right.
From: apestyle Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:42 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:53 pm (Link)
From: apestyle Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:55 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:59 pm (Link)
From: apestyle Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:06 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:31 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: pyrtolin Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:10 pm (Link)
The argument from the customer standpoint is bullshit. Action from non-smokers who aren't willing to suck it up and not patronize smoking establishments that they otherwise enjoy, till market pressure works on thier side.

On the other hand, there's a lot to said about the employee angle. Some consideratin has to be made for the fact that there are people who are stuck working in that environment (and opting out of whatever employment you can get, for most people that would be working hhere is just plain dumb)

On the whole, I think it's an overstep of legislative power. If anything Id be happy to see direct licensing, just like alcohol. Your plan is good to.

I've heard one claim that a not well publicized exemption is establishments that do less than 20% of their business in food- so your regular bar is exempt, only ones that are more pub/restaurant style are affected. A touch more reasonable, but even so, it's not the right way to acheive the end, I think.
[User Picture]From: pyrtolin Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:13 pm (Link)
It's probably worth qualifying that I'm saying this as a complete non-smoker. I'll definitely appreciate the results, but I think that this wasn't the right way to achieve them.
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:16 pm (Link)
From: pyrtolin Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:20 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:18 pm (Link)
Hang on... I know that I have the little tiny violin around here somewhere...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:17 pm (Link)
the problem with apathy is that its all well and good until they get to an issue you care about. When someone starts banning bald people from bars because the glare off their foreheads is annoying, you'll say "that unfair, I have just as much right to be here as anyone else" and they'll say "hey, we banned the smokers, we cab ban you. If you really want to be here, you'll grow hair or wear a toupe"
From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:22 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:25 pm (Link)
From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:28 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:49 pm (Link)
From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:51 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:55 pm (Link)
From: drspooky Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:01 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:24 pm (Link)
From: froggiesocks Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:17 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:59 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: bryguypgh Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:21 pm (Link)
"They're just going to do it somewhere where you can't see it, and things are going to get bad."

How would that be bad? That's kind of what we were aiming for in the first place.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:20 pm (Link)
Because prohibition caused a huge deathtoll as suddenly the only ways to drink were the illegal ways to do so. The same reason that the illegalization of drugs and prostitution make things millions of times more dangerous from those who want to do them than just decriminalizing them would in the first place.

And that's not what "we're aiming for" if we were then we would accept my solution instead of a total ban.
[User Picture]From: jameel Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:28 pm (Link)
Fuck smokers. If they can ban public nudity, then they can sure as hell ban smoking in public establishments. After all, if I'm smoking and walk by someone, they get to inhale second-hand smoke. If I'm naked and walk by someone, they don't get second-hand nudity like their pants flying off or someshit.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:31 pm (Link)
I'll answer everyone else's comments later.... but yours is easy, so i'll do it now.

Ummm, I am also against the banning of "public nudity" along similar lines. If they want to say you can't be naked in the park, museum or library, fine. But I totally think there should be clothing optional bars, restuarants, bowling alleys, etc.
From: jameel Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:40 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:26 pm (Link)
From: blk Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:36 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2006 - 02:44 am (Link)
From: jameel Date: September 28th, 2006 - 11:59 am (Link)
From: johnmeier1 Date: September 29th, 2006 - 03:43 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: hardkoreferrari Date: September 27th, 2006 - 06:41 pm (Link)
As a non-smoker, I have to say I do thoroughly and selfishly enjoy being able to go to any establishment in NY State and not be overwhelmed with smoke.

As someone who believes in human rights, I do agree that if you want to clog your lungs with cancer, you should be able to do so wherever you please.

In NY state, bar owners can apply for a license that allows them to have smoking in their bar. I'm sure it's more expensive. But at least it's an option.

I do like that the government would like everyone to think that they are "making the air cleaner and keeping everyone healthy", but really it's just something to distract the people from more important issues.

:)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:23 pm (Link)
As I have stated years ago, anyone who wants dance clubs to be smoke free has never been in a smoke free dance club. I've never been in a place so full of B.O. in my life.

If there were smoking lincenses for clubs, I'd be fine with that too. But why should it be reduced to that? How come I don't have to get a license to allow black people or gay people or heavy metal music? Separate but equal is inherantly unequal.
[User Picture]From: zare_k Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:02 pm (Link)
I'm a lifelong non-smoker. California has banned smoking in restaurants and bars for some time now. In principle I think this is in fact a case of the government overstepping its proper sphere. It is entirely possible for a restaurant to set a no-smoking policy on its own and for customers to vote for or against that with their dollars. I eat out a lot and I appreciate nonsmoking establishments, but a guarantee that all restaurants will be smoke-free doesn't exactly rank as a fundamental human right.
That said, at least in California some of the doomsday predictions about what would happen if a smoking ban went into effect simply haven't, to my knowledge, turned out to be true. Restaurants, bars, and clubs are still as busy as ever, not shutting down en masse as some people predicted.
I'm actually more sympathetic to the argument for banning smoking in restaurants because of the harm to employee health. A waiter who breathes secondhand smoke for many hours a week will experience a far greater negative impact on health that a customer who eats out for a few hours each week. Of course, you can still make the same argument that the waiter should simply choose to work elsewhere.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:06 pm (Link)
Sure... I'm not really predicting doom. I'm saying its an unfair law. To pick something closer to home for you, I can ban homosexuality and abortion for the same reasons, and the world won't fall apart. But that doesn't make it right.
From: zare_k Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:18 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:42 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: cuddlyd00m Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:37 pm (Link)
I'm slightly torn on this. I'm a (small l) libertarian. I am in favor of businesses being able to do what they want - if people don't want to breath in noxious choking fumes, they can take their business elsewhere. On the other hand, I am going to enjoy going to a bar and not coming home feeling like I drank from the ashtray.

Was there a public vote on this? If there is to be one, I'd vote against it. But if it passes, I'll enjoy the benefits.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:01 pm (Link)
There was no vote of which I am aware. There was a county hearing where people were allowed to come and speak for and against. They did and then there was a vote by the 15 council members. The vote was 14-1.
From: cuddlyd00m Date: September 30th, 2006 - 02:48 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 30th, 2006 - 03:00 am (Link)
From: cuddlyd00m Date: September 30th, 2006 - 04:12 am (Link)
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:39 pm (Link)
Like the other non-smokers who have posted comments, I'm quite happy to be able to go to a bar these days and not inhale second-hand smoke. It used to be a shock for me to return from my non-smoking haven of New York to smoky Pittsburgh. Though Pittsburgh without the smoke seems a little less Pittsburgh to me, like Pittsburgh without "yinz" or with "to be" inserted in the middle of "needs exterminated." I remember coming home from the Beehive on a Thursday night and dumping all my clothes into the basement, not wanting the cigarette smell in my bedroom. I was willing to put up with the smoke, because dammit it was the Beehive on a Thursday night!

The problem is that "you can smoke in bars and restaurants" or "you can not smoke in bars and restaurants" both amount to the same thing in terms of individual rights. They are both extremes. So the solution of awarding 50% of liquor/restaurant/boob-display licenses to each camp is reasonable if problematic. Ultimately, where is the cool new local band going to hold their show? What if all the non-smoking bars suck? Solution: complain to the owner or buy one and make it not suck.

What I really want is a law about how far away smokers have to stand from the doors of non-smoking establishments. Because that's the real problem here. Not the fact that they can't smoke inside but the fact that they stand right in front of the effing door and I get my second-hand smoke that way.

Alternately restaurants could have real smoking/non-smoking sections with walls and adequate ventilation rather than just different sides of the room, like the smoke is going to stay on one side.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:15 pm (Link)
the answer to the band question is simple. The band chooses which venue's they want to perform in. If the band doesn't care, they go to both venues. If the band does care they choose the one they like. This is totally not an issue. A hip hop band plays clubs with lots of black patrons, a metal band plays clubs with lots of white people.

The point is, allowing both smoking and non-smoking establishments allows for choice. Yesterday in Pittsburgh, a patron had the choice of going to a non-smoking establishment or a smoking one. It was not the case that bars were FORCED to allow smoking. Tomorrow that choice is gone. Bars CANNOT allow smoking. That is the difference. If we leave it completely up to the bar, then maybe they'll all allow smoking. Well, tough shit. That's called free enterprise. If there are so many people who are so against being around smoke, then someone should have opened up a bar where they didn't allow it and made a fortune. Sort of like when you open a bar that markets to gay people or white people or whatever. But in reality what happens is when you open a club like that, it does poorly because none of the smokers go, and most people don't care and would rather go to the place that allows choice, so the non-smoking places fail. If there were a really awesome bar that didn't allow smoking, guess what, I'd go and not smoke while I was there. Or I'd say, I want to smoke, so I guess I just miss out. Its like saying Hooters shouldn't be allowed to hire busty waitresses, because its offensive. If you really want greasy wings and deep fried everything and are offended by boobies, then go to TGIFridays and leave the rest of us alone.
From: marmal8 Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:30 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:47 pm (Link)
From: marmal8 Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:02 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:10 pm (Link)
From: jameel Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:26 pm (Link)
From: (Anonymous) Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:11 pm (Link)

Casino

You do know, of course, that the state passed or is in the midst of passing a law that all casinos are exempt from any local smoking bans? Unless the gaming board decides to vote to let the local law prevail, which they probably won't.

I guess the health of the casino employees isn't important.

[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:37 pm (Link)

Re: Casino

Hello, Mr. Anonymous person. Yeah, that's because as I was telling jameel, it isn't about public health, its about bowing to special interest groups. I hate freedom.
From: jameel Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:30 pm (Link)

Re: Casino

[User Picture]From: random_vamp Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:55 pm (Link)
Since there's already been a lot of argument on this topic I'm not going to rehash things from above, just make a couple of points:

- I agree that this is a further restriction by the state that in a perfect world would be bropught about by market pressures. However its also well within the realm of what precedent allows the state to do. Bar owners certainly don't choose to stop selling liquor at 2AM (or whatever it is in PA).

- Additionally, market pressure has been ineffective at producing change while most studies (a couple links were posted to DPB last time this came up) of pre/post ban business show flat or increased profits after the ban. From the view point of the business owner this is logical, in that their current smoking customers will be highly against a ban and the increase revenue would primarily come from new customers.

Anyway, I love the lack of smoke and stinking clothes at CA night clubs...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 10:11 pm (Link)
I'll address the issues in turn:

1) I agree that its well within precedent. For instance, other states, like say California or New York or Washington have made similar bans. The point being I disagree with those as well. And to take this outside the artificial pigeon hole of smoking, I also disagree with laws that stop the bar from selling alcohol at 2am or bans against selling alcohol on Sundays.

2) My argument isn't really based on finances, hence my suggestion of the 50-50 split among liquor licenses. That said, California is a different state than PA. Gore would argue that increase reliance on public transportation and raising the price of gas would be good for us too as it works in other countries, but we aren't other countries, we're the United States. The point is a matter of personal freedom. Yesterday, I had the option, if I so desired, of opening a non-smoking bar and capitalizing on the aggressively anti-smoking clientele. Tomorrow I do not have the option of opening a bar and capitalizing on the aggressive smoker clientele. That market is simply lost. Furthermore, as I stated several other places. If tomorrow we illegalize abortion, it won't be the end of the world (despite what the pro-choice camps might say). People will adjust. For the most part people adjusted to the 18th ammendment. I have adjusted to living in PA and not being able to buy beer at the grocery store. That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean I agree with it.

3) And see, that's fine, as a personal choice you are welcome to go to non-smoking clubs. I for one (even when I was a non-smoker) hate the aggressive B.O. smell that came from dance clubs where no one was smoking and welcomed the tobacco-esque incense that cigarettes provided. My solution allows both of us options. A ban only allows you one.
From: rottgrub Date: September 27th, 2006 - 10:29 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 10:45 pm (Link)
hey... at least that opinion is consistent. Fascist, but consistent.
[User Picture]From: zyrain Date: September 27th, 2006 - 10:46 pm (Link)
A big part of the problem is that most people don't decide what they want: They're influenced (brainwashed) by things like advertising, which with wide dissemination is enhanced by societial pressure. A clear example of this is the marketing campaign that introduced the diamond engagement ring. Given this, what is a responsible government supposed to do to protect the welfare of its citizens, when a company (tobacco companies) have successfully marketed something bad for people? There are many problems with an outright ban, but influencing the public in similar ways (making smoking less cool, easy to do, etc.) can encourage people in healthier ways (especially children). I see this ALL THE TIME in restaurants. People who wouldn't otherwise have or want a cigarette, smoking up because other people are.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 11:05 pm (Link)
See, you probably think I am going to disagree here. I don't. I agree with everything you said except for the usage of the word "problem".

The tobacco companies should have just as much a right to make a living and run a successful business as anyone else. Your diamond engagement ring example is excellent. Yes, the De Beers diamond cartel invented that tradition, but I would be just as against the government stepping in and stopping the diamond cartel from sucessfully selling advertising. I don't want the government to protect my welfare, because if they can decide that I can't kill myself by smoking then they also can decide that I can't bind myself for eternal damnation by having an abortion or entering a monogomus relationship with a homosexual partner. Its just not their place. On the other hand, I am all for advertising against the dangers of smoking by private parties or even government subsidized ones. The fact that the cigarette manufactuers are better at advertising than The Truth is, is just tough shit. There are a lot of social pressures. And you're right, one of the hardest things to block out when I want to quit smoking is other smokers. But social pressure also makes me interested in pro-wrestling, video games, comic books and sex with hot women, and it would be immoral to want to ban me from liking those as well.
From: zyrain Date: September 27th, 2006 - 11:39 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:28 am (Link)
From: zyrain Date: September 28th, 2006 - 06:00 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2006 - 07:22 am (Link)
From: max1975 Date: September 28th, 2006 - 07:46 am (Link)
From: zyrain Date: September 28th, 2006 - 08:03 am (Link)
[User Picture]From: limpingpigeon Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:43 am (Link)
I'm a non-smoker (tried it once. Hated it entirely). I generally hate cigarettes with every fiber of my being. I think they smell bad, they make me cough, and I find guys who smoke completely unkissable because they taste like a warm, wet ashtray.

That said, I don't like this ban. If I don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, I don't go to places in which I'll be exposed. It's as simple as that. I don't think any of us has a specific, given right to go everywhere and anywhere we please with the assurance that nothing will ever bother/annoy/offend us. If I decide to go into a smoking establishment, and come out coughing and smelling like cigarettes, I'm not a victim. I went in knowing there would be smoke, and chose to deal with it. The only time it might be "forced" on me is if someone is deliberately blowing the smoke in my face. But that has less to do with the person being a smoker, and more to do with them being an asshole.

And it seems people have lost the backbone to, if they don't like the way an establishment runs things, just not support that establishment. I know people who complain frequently about how Wal-Mart is "taking over" everything in this area and , but shop there anyway because they get better prices there than other retailers. I don't think many people really "boycott" anything anymore.

I think your idea for distributing licenses between smoking and non-smoking establishments.

However, I have to admit that the argument for the employees of an establishment is a worthy one. Many people don't have the means to get out of their shitty jobs when they'd like to, so it blurs the line on "choice" a bit. Though, most occupations come with known health and safety hazards. As a cashier, it is not unlikely that I could be shot in a robbery at work. I don't like the fact that I could be shot at work, but I take the risk so I can pay the bills.

Overall, I still think the ban is a stupid idea.
[User Picture]From: limpingpigeon Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:45 am (Link)
"I think your idea for distributing licenses between smoking and non-smoking establishments."

I'm pretty sure I meant to type "like" instead of "think".
From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2006 - 02:46 am (Link)
From: jameel Date: September 28th, 2006 - 12:47 pm (Link)

An aside

From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2006 - 02:48 pm (Link)

Re: An aside

From: jameel Date: September 28th, 2006 - 02:50 pm (Link)

Re: An aside

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com