Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mexico's Hopeless Drug War (Mexico Decriminalizes Narcotics "for Personal Use")
WSJ ^ | 9/15/2009 | Mary O'Grady

Posted on 09/15/2009 10:11:07 AM PDT by mojito

Mexico announced recently that it will decriminalize the possession of "small amounts of drugs"—marijuana, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamines, heroin and opium—"for personal use." Individuals who are caught by law enforcement with quantities below established thresholds will no longer face criminal prosecution. A person apprehended three times with amounts below the minimum, though, will face mandatory treatment.

For the government of President Felipe Calderón, which has spent the last three years locked in mortal combat with narcotrafficking cartels, this seems counterproductive. Is the government effectively surrendering to the realities of the market for mind-altering substances? Or could it be that the new policy is only a tactical shift by drug warriors still wedded to the quixotic belief that they can take out suppliers?

The answer is that it is a bit of both. But neither matters. Mexico's big problem—for that matter the most pressing security issue throughout the hemisphere—is organized crime's growth and expanded power, fed by drug profits. Mr. Calderón's new policy is unlikely to solve anything in that department.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Mexico
KEYWORDS: borders; drugwars; wod
Chalk up a victory for the Narcotraficantes.
1 posted on 09/15/2009 10:11:09 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mojito

Mexico’s just trying to get those spring breakers back...


2 posted on 09/15/2009 10:12:10 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Expect obambi’s next vacation to be in MEXICOKE


3 posted on 09/15/2009 10:13:30 AM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

OK drug warriors. If we did that here, some of the profitability that drives the traficantes would go away.


4 posted on 09/15/2009 10:14:10 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

I think 0 would like your idea.

It’s a whole new sector of the economy that could be nationalized, bureaucratized and run by the government. With millions of willing clients waiting for product and services.


5 posted on 09/15/2009 10:20:38 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mojito
---It is demand north of the border that is the primary driver of organized-crime terror. And that shows no signs of abating.--

--the key sentence--

6 posted on 09/15/2009 10:22:20 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

And expect the hospital bills to increase as the amount of “personal use” increases. I’ve known drug users in my time. They never get enough. Esp crack or coke. The amount just keeps going up until they hit a ceiling.


7 posted on 09/15/2009 10:23:45 AM PDT by Clock King (There's no way to fix D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mojito

“With millions of willing clients waiting for product and services.”

Which, for me, is much better than tens of millions of unwilling subjects forced to participate in collectivist schemes to ration healthcare and regulate CO2 emissions.


8 posted on 09/15/2009 10:25:41 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kenton

Like border pharmacy! Maybe they will start a new come on to get business at the “Boy’s Towns”!


9 posted on 09/15/2009 10:28:34 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (That's reicest you dirty rat dog Reicest you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mojito

And just think, if the Latino congressman from Illinois has his way and the One honors his payoff pledges to Latinos we can be more and more like Mexico.


10 posted on 09/15/2009 10:29:39 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

the policy has already been reversed or is in the process of being reversed.


11 posted on 09/15/2009 10:30:46 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Some of my high-school classmates from back in the Cheech and Chong era who started getting high never stopped, which today has left them in a state where they have no interest in getting a job.

So....on the bright side, this might eventually cure our Illegal Immigrant problem...


12 posted on 09/15/2009 10:31:05 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

“OK drug warriors. If we did that here, some of the profitability that drives the traficantes would go away.”

Only if you legalized the production and distribution. I could maybe see that happening for marijuana, but I don’t see anyone legalizing the production and sale of coke, meth, or heroin anytime soon, so there would still be lots of money to be made there.


13 posted on 09/15/2009 10:33:45 AM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Mexico has done lost the WOD.

Hope to God America does not follow Mexico.

Sad, but there are way too many Libertarians who want to see America in the same sorry shape as Mexico.


14 posted on 09/15/2009 10:37:27 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (I am Legend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Yep. This drug war is an “emperor has no clothes” situation. The government was swindled and now can’t turn back.

The only way out is to completely legalize and tax all drugs with standards for quality. Nobody would even think of buying from criminals if every drug was available from a store. The cartels will go the way of 1930s bootleggers.

Then require yearly physical/psychological/financial tests for all users with references from friends/family. Similar to the ‘medical’ program in CA with a ‘license’ to do drugs. If you mess up in any way, your access to drugs is taken away. If caught possessing without a license, there should be mandatory treatment and no jail time. Charging an addict with a crime and making them unemployable only guarantees they will leech off others and never return to a productive life.

The same requirements should apply for alcohol, which hurts and addicts more people than every illegal drug combined.


15 posted on 09/15/2009 10:38:10 AM PDT by varyouga (2 natural disasters, zerO action. Obama doesn't care about white people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
The amount just keeps going up until they hit a ceiling.

There is no ceiling.
A cocaine "addict" will do, practically, anything to get the next buzz. And it doesn't have to be mainlined, snorting is enough for some people.

With that said, there are some people that can "use" occasionally without becoming addicted.

With ALL that siad, I am a proponent of legalizing, or at least decriminilizing, just about every type of drug there is. If they OD and kill themselves, tough.
Survival of the fittest and all that.

16 posted on 09/15/2009 10:38:14 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Sad, but there are way too many Libertarians who want to see America in the same sorry shape as Mexico.

Excuse me, I am not a libertarian but I can see the merit of legalizing drugs. The sorry shape Mexico is in is due the the trafficking of drugs across the border into the US. They are just now legalizing drugs in Mexico so how could that have caused their "sorry mess"? Drugs in the US, all drugs, used to be legal, there were no more addicts per population than there are now and gangs weren't getting rich off of them.

Legalize them, it worked for alcohol and it will work with drugs. Plus we could get rid of the stupid laws that make us criminals for carrying our own money around and takes our property without due process, guilty or not.

What keeps people like you tied to the war on drugs, despite its obvious failure and it's blatant adding to drug use, is morality, not common sense. False morality I should say because you are trying to control other people's behavior.

17 posted on 09/15/2009 10:47:59 AM PDT by calex59 (FUBO, we want our constitution back and we intend to get it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
Someday America will understand that we are not given the choice of whether or not drugs are sold in our communities. The only choice we get to make is who sells them. We can chose a pharmacist in a white jacket selling known doses of known substances in a drug store or we can have a sixteen-year-old gangbanger with a Glock and a do rag selling God knows what on the corner.

I am getting increasingly pissed about my Second Amendment rights being under constant attack behind the excuse of the Drug War. What kind of society declares war on it's own people?

18 posted on 09/15/2009 10:53:46 AM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
"OK drug warriors. If we did that here, some of the profitability that drives the traficantes would go away."

OH B.S. When government gets involved, drug costs will go even higher. Nothing changes, except the government gets more revenues, YOU get government pot (probably a good thing) And smugglers, dealers, growers still go to prison on felony charges, just like tobacco and alcohol is still illegal to smuggle and distill/bootleg.

19 posted on 09/15/2009 11:03:00 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
"With millions of willing clients waiting for product and services.” Which, for me, is much better than tens of millions of unwilling subjects forced to participate in collectivist schemes to ration healthcare and regulate CO2 emissions.

That doesn't even make sense. What's one got to do with the other?

20 posted on 09/15/2009 11:06:34 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
"Some of my high-school classmates from back in the Cheech and Chong era who started getting high never stopped, which today has left them in a state where they have no interest in getting a job.

So....on the bright side, this might eventually cure our Illegal Immigrant problem...

First rational point made on this thread in favor of legalized drugs- IN MEXICO.

21 posted on 09/15/2009 11:08:47 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

You wrote, “What’s one got to do with the other?”

The short answer is that they are all areas where the government ought to butt out. But that’s just my tendency -limited government.

So, I was replying to the following post, which talks about the creation of a new national recreational drug bureaucracy.

“It’s a whole new sector of the economy that could be nationalized, bureaucratized and run by the government. With millions of willing clients waiting for product and services.”

I was pointing out that, at least, that new national bureaucracy, according to the poster, would have WILLING customers. Unlike the new bureaucracies actually being implemented.


22 posted on 09/15/2009 11:16:53 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
"Only if you legalized the production and distribution. I could maybe see that happening for marijuana,"

Not a chance. Too much opportunity for purity products. It would be regulated just like alcohol.

Potheads would be stuck with crappy "government weed". They'd still get felony raps for dealing and illegally growing and or selling spiced imported products.

They'd be forced to buy large amounts of "government weed" and making oil from that. or buying crack to make it more interesting, like they do now anyways.

Then they'd sit around depressed more than ever saying, "duuuuude, why did we push for legal weed? Duuuude..."

23 posted on 09/15/2009 11:18:52 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

You’re right. There can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’. It’s not the substance, it’s the people.

Addiction is a personality trait and happens no matter what drugs are available. A true addictive person will do anything to escape. Whether it is sniffing paint or choking themselves.

My holocaust survivor grand mom vividly recounted: In postwar Russia when there were no drugs and barely any food available, addicts would boil old shoes/belts/tires and inhale the vapor to get high. Many would also take unknown plants and eat them until they were intoxicated. Paint thinner and airplane de-icer were worth their weight in gold. Fermented tea leaves were highly addictive and potent.

The ‘war on drugs’ is really meant to be a ‘war on addiction’. And that makes as much sense as a ‘war on laziness’ or ‘war on stupidity’.


24 posted on 09/15/2009 11:20:03 AM PDT by varyouga (2 natural disasters, zerO action. Obama doesn't care about white people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
No, that not what you meant. You wrote:""With millions of willing clients waiting for product and services.” Which, for me, is much better than tens of millions of unwilling subjects forced to participate in collectivist schemes to ration healthcare and regulate CO2 emissions.

This means that it's ok for government to get involved in something people are willing to line up and pay for.

It just depends what it is, and whether you agree with it or not.

25 posted on 09/15/2009 11:25:29 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
"The ‘war on drugs’ is really meant to be a ‘war on addiction’. And that makes as much sense as a ‘war on laziness’ or ‘war on stupidity’."

Not really. Take away the substance, and you can't get addicted to it in the first place. Make it so ridiculously expensive, only a very few will go through the trouble of acquiring it. War on drugs makes sense to me. If it were more available than it is now, the social costs would multiply in proportion. Perhaps if you really made the effort to focus in on just how bad the social costs of drug addiction are, saw the misery it causes in peoples lives, not just those taking the drugs, but their families and victims as well, you'd probably change your views. If you keep it at arms length, and are only affected by the news of it, then you just become desensitized, and take on the "oh well, it's not happening to me" , so what harm can it do if a few more get high attitude.

26 posted on 09/15/2009 11:35:07 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
"I am getting increasingly pissed about my Second Amendment rights being under constant attack behind the excuse of the Drug War. What kind of society declares war on it's own people? "

nonsense. The second amendment was written within the framwork of a moral and just Christian society. It was never meant to apply in a free for all, lawless and godless society.

27 posted on 09/15/2009 11:38:04 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

The only problem with the war on drugs, is the judicial system, the liberal lawyers that infest this country. it just a revolving door, intentionally. It’s never ending cash cow that they can milk without ever worrying the cow will go dry.

THAT is what has to change. Dealers need to be put away permanently. Death penalty if they sell bad drugs that kill a bunch of stupid kids.
Work farms for permanent residents.


28 posted on 09/15/2009 11:52:03 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
nonsense. The second amendment was written within the framwork of a moral and just Christian society. It was never meant to apply in a free for all, lawless and godless society.

What is nonsense? I want to buy a Rock Island .45. My masters in Sacramento will not let me. Why? Because I purchased a SIG 9mm on September 1 and they have decided that one new gun a month is all that I will be allowed to buy. Why? They use the reason of keeping guns out of the hands of Nortenos, Surenos, La Eme, whatever senor. Yo no give a s*t. The only hands it's keeping a gun out of is mine. Is that not an infringement? Was it not done in response to the failed war on drugs? When you have lost the support of people like me you have lost the war. You can make book on that.

29 posted on 09/15/2009 11:54:48 AM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

You’re right. The social costs of addiction are staggering. They probably even approach the costs of laziness and stupidity.

I am the furthest thing from arm’s length. Volunteered at a rehab clinic and I saw the destruction every day. I speak to real addicts almost every week and they are just constantly seeking escape. It doesn’t matter what substances are available.

Addicts will ALWAYS be addicted to something no matter what substances are available. They tend to fixate on a few highs but ALWAYS move on when something is taken away. Drugs, alcohol, paint, sex, porn, murder, video games, asphyxiation, exercise, gambling, TV, vanity and food just to name a few. They are all the same in an addict’s mind and can destroy their lives and others’ lives just as much.

There should be no ‘war’ but a greater awareness of what addiction is and how to get people to positively change their lives. Many of the addicts I helped treat tried to return to society but were permanently blacklisted by being labeled criminals. Criminals for simply possessing a certain chemical. It’s no different than giving lazy people a rap sheet.


30 posted on 09/15/2009 12:01:36 PM PDT by varyouga (2 natural disasters, zerO action. Obama doesn't care about white people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Don’t you think we ought to include alcohol and cigarettes in the punitive prohibition?


31 posted on 09/15/2009 12:08:29 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Is the government effectively surrendering to the realities of the market for mind-altering substances?

You can't legislate morality.

Any attempt to do so will only limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens since criminals, by their very definition, don't obey laws.

32 posted on 09/15/2009 12:25:32 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
It’s a whole new sector of the economy that could be nationalized, bureaucratized and run by the government.

You can't even keep drugs out of prisons. How do you plan to keep them out of a 'free' society?

Or, is society already too free for your liking?

33 posted on 09/15/2009 12:27:45 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
Only if you legalized the production and distribution. I could maybe see that happening for marijuana

Why not just legalize marijuana and remove the never-enforced tax on it? Let those who want it just grow some in their backyards. That would take almost all of the profit out of it (I'm assuming there would still be some kind of market for the more potent "brands").

34 posted on 09/15/2009 12:31:34 PM PDT by dorothy ("Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
Addicts will ALWAYS be addicted to something no matter what substances are available. They tend to fixate on a few highs but ALWAYS move on when something is taken away. Drugs, alcohol, paint, sex, porn, murder, video games, asphyxiation, exercise, gambling, TV, vanity and food just to name a few. They are all the same in an addict’s mind and can destroy their lives and others’ lives just as much.

You've spent so much time among the trees you've forgotten what the forest looks like.

It is obvious that the problem is with the people, not the substance.

Or, should we have a War on Alcohol, Paint, Sex, Porn, Murder, Video Games, Asphyxiation, Exercise, Gambling, TV, Vanity and Food, too?

At what point do you hold people responsible for their own actions instead of blaming the inanimate object?

35 posted on 09/15/2009 12:38:05 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
At what point do you hold people responsible for their own actions instead of blaming the inanimate object?

We already do that for real crimes.

Not the stupid crime of simply possessing an intimate object. Since there is no victim and such a small burden of proof, it can be easily planted on you and turn you into a criminal.

For example:

Smoking crack and forgetting to feed your kids should be a crime. The starving of the kids is the crime, not smoking crack. The starving kids are the victim and proof of the crime.

Having a crack rock or any object in your possession should not be a crime. There is no victim and it can be easily planted on you by anyone. Think of someone jealous tossing a crack pipe under your seat. You get pulled over and simple indisputable possession can be a felony. That’s all it takes and I’ve seen it ruin people’s lives more than once.

36 posted on 09/15/2009 1:09:40 PM PDT by varyouga (2 natural disasters, zerO action. Obama doesn't care about white people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Prisons are full of convicted drug dealers and drug users. Why should it be surprising that there are drugs in prisons?

My comment was meant ironically. All countries that have “legalized” narcotics have done so through creating a huge state bureaucracy to administer to drug users. The results have not been particularly benign. And the state simply creates more dependents. Hardly the model of a “free” society.

Does a free society require everyone to be able to do anything that strikes their fancy of the moment, regardless of the consequences? My problem with libertarianism is that the social order they propose sounds more to me like an invitation to license rather than a preservation of liberty.


37 posted on 09/15/2009 3:45:08 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Prisons are full of convicted drug dealers and drug users. Why should it be surprising that there are drugs in prisons?

Exactly. So, how do you propose to keep them out of a supposedly free society?

My comment was meant ironically. All countries that have “legalized” narcotics have done so through creating a huge state bureaucracy to administer to drug users. The results have not been particularly benign. And the state simply creates more dependents. Hardly the model of a “free” society.

This isn't done to help the users, but to expand the size and scope of the government. Or, do you honestly believe that the government cares about the people?

Does a free society require everyone to be able to do anything that strikes their fancy of the moment, regardless of the consequences?

I never said this and your attempts to put such words in my mouth only make you out to be the fool.

I believe in holding people responsible for their actions. What do you believe?

38 posted on 09/15/2009 4:10:28 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

You believe that an adult should be “free” to manufacture, distribute and ingest as much methamphetamine as they would wish. As long as they don’t “hurt” anyone else.

How long do you think it will be before that happens?

I would be careful who you start calling a fool.


39 posted on 09/15/2009 4:46:02 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mojito
All countries that have "legalized" narcotics have done so through creating a huge state bureaucracy to administer to drug users. The results have not been particularly benign. And the state simply creates more dependents.

What countries are you talking about? Adjusted for population, Singapore had nearly twice the number of heroin addicts under treatment in rehab centers, versus the total number of heroin addicts in the Netherlands.

Does a free society require everyone to be able to do anything that strikes their fancy of the moment, regardless of the consequences?

No, but if fedgov is going to involve itself in such matters, then it needs to have the enumerated power to do so (see Tenth Amendment).

Do you think the Wickard decision is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... yes or no?

40 posted on 09/15/2009 5:28:19 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Wickard is clearly an expansion of the Commerce Clause far beyond any original intent.

And using Wickard to justify Federal prosecution of medical marijuanna growers is just plain bizarre.

As far as state bureaucracies go, just take a look at the “social services” scam that is methadone treatment here in the US. I remain opposed to legalizing narcotics, partly because the combination of big government and narcotics is potentially worse than the present situation, which is admittedly pretty awful.

41 posted on 09/16/2009 9:50:02 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mojito
You believe that an adult should be “free” to manufacture, distribute and ingest as much methamphetamine as they would wish. As long as they don’t “hurt” anyone else.

What is your definition of the word, 'hurt'?

Has the government placed any limitations on manufacture or distribution done by Anheuser-Busch? Jim Beam? Jack Daniels? RJ Reynolds? Please point me to any laws that prohibit anyone from doing the exact same thing with alcohol or tobacco.

Do you need to government to pass laws to keep you from becoming a crack addict? If it were legal, would you be powerless to prevent yourself from buying and abusing it?

Or, are you only seeking to control another's behavior because of what you perceive to be a harm to society?

How long do you think it will be before that happens?

It doesn't matter how long. What matters is the consequences for their actions.

Let's replace the word, 'banana cream pie' for 'methamphetamine ' and see how silly your arguments really are.

You believe that an adult should be "free" to manufacture, distribute and ingest as much banana cream pie as they would wish. As long as they don't "hurt" anyone else.

I would be careful who you start calling a fool.

I calls `em as I sees `em.

42 posted on 09/16/2009 9:57:54 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Of course. The pot would automatically be a lower strength. Just like alcohol, where it’s impossible to get Everclear or Bicardi 151 or other higher proof concoctions!


43 posted on 09/16/2009 10:21:41 AM PDT by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson