SC

SC Lawmaker Proposes Decriminalizing Pot

S.C. Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-Columbia) is proposing reforms to South Carolina’s controlled substance laws that would decriminalize marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinol (a.k.a. THC) – the psychoactive agent found in cannabis. Ironically, Rutherford’s legalization push comes as an amendment to a “Republican” bill aimed at tightening regulations on a wider universe of…

S.C. Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-Columbia) is proposing reforms to South Carolina’s controlled substance laws that would decriminalize marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinol (a.k.a. THC) – the psychoactive agent found in cannabis.

Ironically, Rutherford’s legalization push comes as an amendment to a “Republican” bill aimed at tightening regulations on a wider universe of drugs.

That legislation – H. 3823 – is sponsored by S.C. Reps. Anne Thayer (R-Anderson) and Alan Clemmons (RINO-Myrtle Beach). It was supposed to be debated this week, but Rutherford threw the process for a loop when he introduced an amendment that would have forced the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to grow, harvest and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes.

S.C. Speaker Bobby Harrell (RINO-Charleston) ruled Rutherford’s amendment out of order.

Rutherford’s justification for his medical marijuana bill? A 1980 statute uncovered by FITS which calls on the department to “obtain and distribute” pot to patients suffering from glaucoma and other chronic pain. We opposed that amendment, arguing state government should not intervene in the free market – “especially a portion of the market it is unnecessarily criminalizing.”

Even if running a pot ring was a core function of government (which it isn’t), taxpayers clearly can’t afford that …

Yet while we oppose government-run pot rings, we wholeheartedly support Rutherford’s efforts to remove marijuana and THC from South Carolina’s list of controlled substances. Pot should totally be legal, people. Totally.

We’re not alone in that thought, either …

The criminalization of marijuana – like America’s broader (and catastrophically failed) “War on Drugs” – is a joke. There is absolutely no compelling reason to restrict this individual liberty (which was enjoyed by the founding fathers, it’s worth noting). Yet for reasons surpassing understanding our government spends millions upon millions of dollars each year arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people for drug possession charges.

Stop the madness …

Legalize it. Don’t criticize it …

(Click to enlarge)

***

Related posts

SC

South Carolina’s 2012 Data Breach: Suspect Identified

Will Folks
SC

Roaches And Rats: Midlands, South Carolina Restaurants Battling Pests

Dylan Nolan
SC

Upstate South Carolina Police Investigating Animal Cruelty Allegation

Will Folks

78 comments

CNSYD May 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm

“individual liberty (which was enjoyed by the founding fathers, it’s worth noting)” The founding fathers had the “individual liberty” to own slaves, so that is OK also?

Reply
Comrade1917 May 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Slaves were property prior to emancipation.
The 13th Amendment freed blacks … the 14th Amendment made blacks human (legally).

Reply
CNSYD May 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm

The point was that prior to that the “founding fathers” were FREE to own slaves and many did. Sic Willie hates “picking and choosing” so if he wants to go back to the beginning then he needs to accept going all the way back. No votes for women and legislatures will pick Senators.

Reply
CNSYD May 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm

“individual liberty (which was enjoyed by the founding fathers, it’s worth noting)” The founding fathers had the “individual liberty” to own slaves, so that is OK also?

Reply
Comrade1917 May 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Slaves were property prior to emancipation.
The 13th Amendment freed blacks … the 14th Amendment made blacks human (legally).

Reply
CNSYD May 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm

The point was that prior to that the “founding fathers” were FREE to own slaves and many did. Sic Willie hates “picking and choosing” so if he wants to go back to the beginning then he needs to accept going all the way back. No votes for women and legislatures will pick Senators.

Reply
GrandTango May 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm

CORRECTION: SC DEMOCRAT proposes legalizing pot…You people always run from your handiwork…Never wnat to account for who and what you are, if you can help it…

Also: Most Dope-smokers I know are ragged-out thrift-store lookin’ old dudes, (or potentially that) who look like a roach is finta crawl out dey clothes…Doobie jockeys are not a bunch of meaty young girls, half of whom could get FITS busted on Child Pornography.

Reply
Que? May 23, 2013 at 4:23 pm

by meaty you are saying you like porn?

Reply
dwb619 May 23, 2013 at 6:22 pm

By contrast, most of the pot smokers I know are bankers, mortgage loan officers, doctors, dentists,lawyers,couple of POLITICIANS, Republicans no less, and several FINE MILF”s.
You seriously need to do n in depth analysis of your personal circle big idio”T”.
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

Reply
GrandTango May 23, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Sounds like er’body your Stupid @$$ knows is on dope…no wonder you ignorant MoFos vote for Obama…

Reply
dwb619 May 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Is it possible for you to pen any prose without all the keyboard kussing?
In reply , not everyone I know smokes dope, but I did provide you with the demographic of those that do.Try to ascertain the difference, you asinine idio”T”!
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

p.s., don’t fergit to promise and bitch slap me, I do luv it.

Reply
Hit It And Pass It May 24, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Same here…my lawyer friends have the best stuff.

Centristview May 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm

We live in a society and reside in communities. That means you pay for what others do. For example, there are road in your state, county, and community that you will likely never drive on. But, you pay taxes to build and maintain them.

A person overdoses on a legal drug, or Drives While Stoned (DUS) and wrecks their car, and ends up in the hospital because of their “personal choice”, but cannot afford the cost of the ambulance ride, hospital stay, physicians’ charges, and other medical expenses. Should we all have to pay the cost for the drug user’s “personal choice” or should be let them die and accept their “personal responsibility.”

With legalized pot where do you balance personal freedom with personal responsibility? The cost to taxpayers is prevention vs. intervention.

Reply
A Friend May 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Are you asking those same questions about alcohol, a drug which is legal and taxed?

Reply
Smirks May 23, 2013 at 4:32 pm

With legalized pot where do you balance personal freedom with personal responsibility?

Easy, you let people have their freedom and arrest them when they can’t use their freedom responsibly. It’s called enforcing the law. You outline what behavior is irresponsible or criminal and let the cops and courts handle those who can’t stay within the confines of the law.

It’s the same thing with alcohol, tobacco, guns, or just about anything else. You don’t punish someone for using it and not harming anyone or breaking any laws, you punish someone for actually doing something bad.

Reply
Tyrone B Supid May 23, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Well stated, sir! You sound downright Libertarian.

If we keep pot illegal to protect us from us, then by extension we must include alcohol, tobacco and guns in the list of outlawed.

Oh, and don’t forget automobiles which make more than 50 hp.

Reply
puffy May 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm

You cannot overdose from smoking pot. Trust me, I’ve tried on many occasions.

Reply
Centristview May 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm

We live in a society and reside in communities. That means you pay for what others do. For example, there are road in your state, county, and community that you will likely never drive on. But, you pay taxes to build and maintain them.

A person overdoses on a legal drug, or Drives While Stoned (DUS) and wrecks their car, and ends up in the hospital because of their “personal choice”, but cannot afford the cost of the ambulance ride, hospital stay, physicians’ charges, and other medical expenses. Should we all have to pay the cost for the drug user’s “personal choice” or should be let them die and accept their “personal responsibility.”

With legalized pot where do you balance personal freedom with personal responsibility? The cost to taxpayers is prevention vs. intervention.

Reply
A Friend May 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Are you asking those same questions about alcohol, a drug which is legal and taxed?

Reply
Smirks May 23, 2013 at 4:32 pm

With legalized pot where do you balance personal freedom with personal responsibility?

Easy, you let people have their freedom and arrest them when they can’t use their freedom responsibly. It’s called enforcing the law. You outline what behavior is irresponsible or criminal and let the cops and courts handle those who can’t stay within the confines of the law.

It’s the same thing with alcohol, tobacco, guns, or just about anything else. You don’t punish someone for using it and not harming anyone or breaking any laws, you punish someone for actually doing something bad.

Reply
Tyrone B Supid May 23, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Well stated, sir! You sound downright Libertarian.

If we keep pot illegal to protect us from us, then by extension we must include alcohol, tobacco and guns in the list of outlawed.

Oh, and don’t forget automobiles which make more than 50 hp.

Reply
puffy May 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm

You cannot overdose from smoking pot. Trust me, I’ve tried on many occasions.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia May 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm

God forbid we free police, courts, and prisons, up for more serious and harmful offenders. I support this idea. FWIW, I personally don’t have any use for pot. A lot of people believe that if it were legalized, the number of pot heads would instantly multiply, manyfold. If it were legalized today, I would not partake of it.

It might be nice to know that untold resources in our criminal justice system were not being wasted on prosecution (persecution) of people for growing or possessing something that can grow naturally in the wild.

Reply
Smirks May 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

God forbid we free police, courts, and prisons, up for more serious and harmful offenders.

Actually, there’s a lot of money in it for private prisons. States often get bonuses for keeping occupancy rates up, no easier way to fill cells than picking people off the streets for minor drug charges.

There’s a lot of money that goes to police departments and other groups to “combat drug dealers/users” too.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia May 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm

You are so right, Smirks. Can you imagine if the Sheriff’s Dept, instead of constantly raising taxes to hire more personnel, would instead say, “hey, this is a cumbersome set of laws we don’t need to enforce anymore and we are not going to need a budget increase for the foreseeable future since we no longer carry this burden”?

Yeah I know, It’ll never happen, but it would be nice.

Reply
The Dude May 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm

I have never heard of dhec having to clean up a pot grow. I have never seen a trailer with the roof blown out from a grow. I have never seen pot mouth. I have never heard of anyone going on a pot-crazed rampage. Yet, SC Is turning to Oregon to guide us in solving our METH problem. Free the weed man.

Reply
Smirks May 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Dude, the pic at the bottom of Willie’s clearly shows pot mouth.

Ganjavitis problems aren’t normal, but on weed it is. Not even once.

Reply
The Retired "Man" May 23, 2013 at 7:03 pm

DHEC was basically the only state agency that cleaned up pot grows before 1972. Occasionally Sludge would wander through one and pull it, usually without bothering to stake it out and at least try to find the growers.

In 1972 DHEC (then still the old State Board of Health) became the only state agency eligible to get a million bux from the feds to “enhance” street enforcement. When Sludge found this out, they got the General ASSy. to change the law to prevent DHEC to do “street work” or to enforce anything except the controlled substances act against “licensed professionals.” Needless to say, Sludge became eligible for the million. DHEC’s (SBOH’S) record of prosecutions between 1962 and 1972 may have had an effect, because an enforcement team of not more than 7 officers at any one time, locked up all the “guilty” that they could find. Including a few politicians’ chillunses who sold LSD, pot and Heroin (not to mention Quaaludes) to them.

Politics has reared its yoogley head again with the attempts to buy votes by “legalizing” pot in the state. Rosta Ruck Rutherford. It’s a nullity, just like the existing “medicinal marihuana” law. When (if ever) we get another honest and effective US Atty Gen, then maybe some of the crap can be overcome by effective Federal orcement. Certainly, the effectiveness of DEA was absolutely gutted by AG Janet Reno.

There is legal, prescribable (and refillable) “Marihuana Pills” [Marinol] containing the “active” medicinal tetrahydrocannabinols available. Nobody wants to use it recreatIonally, because you can’t get high. It does adequately treat nausea from cancer treatments – but it makes lumpy pot cookies.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia May 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm

God forbid we free police, courts, and prisons, up for more serious and harmful offenders. I support this idea. FWIW, I personally don’t have any use for pot. A lot of people believe that if it were legalized, the number of pot heads would instantly multiply, manyfold. If it were legalized today, I would not partake of it.

It might be nice to know that untold resources in our criminal justice system were not being wasted on prosecution (persecution) of people for growing or possessing something that can grow naturally in the wild.

Reply
Smirks May 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

God forbid we free police, courts, and prisons, up for more serious and harmful offenders.

Actually, there’s a lot of money in it for private prisons. States often get bonuses for keeping occupancy rates up, no easier way to fill cells than picking people off the streets for minor drug charges.

There’s a lot of money that goes to police departments and other groups to “combat drug dealers/users” too.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia May 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm

You are so right, Smirks. Can you imagine if the Sheriff’s Dept, instead of constantly raising taxes to hire more personnel, would instead say, “hey, this is a cumbersome set of laws we don’t need to enforce anymore and we are not going to need a budget increase for the foreseeable future since we no longer carry this burden”?

Yeah I know, It’ll never happen, but it would be nice.

Reply
The Dude May 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm

I have never heard of dhec having to clean up a pot grow. I have never seen a trailer with the roof blown out from a grow. I have never seen pot mouth. I have never heard of anyone going on a pot-crazed rampage. Yet, SC Is turning to Oregon to guide us in solving our METH problem. Free the weed man.

Reply
Smirks May 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Dude, the pic at the bottom of Willie’s clearly shows pot mouth.

Ganjavitis problems aren’t normal, but on weed it is. Not even once.

Reply
The Retired "Man" May 23, 2013 at 7:03 pm

DHEC was basically the only state agency that cleaned up pot grows before 1972. Occasionally Sludge would wander through one and pull it, usually without bothering to stake it out and at least try to find the growers.

In 1972 DHEC (then still the old State Board of Health) became the only state agency eligible to get a million bux from the feds to “enhance” street enforcement. When Sludge found this out, they got the General ASSy. to change the law to prevent DHEC to do “street work” or to enforce anything except the controlled substances act against “licensed professionals.” Needless to say, Sludge became eligible for the million. DHEC’s (SBOH’S) record of prosecutions between 1962 and 1972 may have had an effect, because an enforcement team of not more than 7 officers at any one time, locked up all the “guilty” that they could find. Including a few politicians’ chillunses who sold LSD, pot and Heroin (not to mention Quaaludes) to them.

Politics has reared its yoogley head again with the attempts to buy votes by “legalizing” pot in the state. Rosta Ruck Rutherford. It’s a nullity, just like the existing “medicinal marihuana” law. When (if ever) we get another honest and effective US Atty Gen, then maybe some of the crap can be overcome by effective Federal enforcement. Certainly, the effectiveness of DEA was absolutely gutted by AG Janet Reno.

There is legal, prescribable (and refillable) “Marihuana Pills” [Marinol] containing the “active” medicinal tetrahydrocannabinols available. Nobody wants to use it recreatIonally, because you can’t get high. It does adequately treat nausea from cancer treatments – but it makes lumpy pot cookies.

Reply
Traditional Southern Gentleman May 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm

1. I have never seen a woman smoking (anything) that made her more attractive. On the contrary, much like tattoos, both demonstrate a lack of self image and detract from her natural beauty.
2. Legalizing small amounts of grass makes sense, but only after a reliable blood test or breathalyzer test for intoxication while driving can be developed and laws passed that are similar to DUI laws.

Reply
GrandTango May 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm

I’ve found that Most dope smokin’ women are easy…

Reply
dwb619 May 23, 2013 at 7:35 pm

I would surmise that most women who would engage in sex with you must be STONED!
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!

Reply
Sailor May 23, 2013 at 9:29 pm

Yeah, but you forgot to blame that on Fits and Obama.

Reply
Traditional Southern Gentleman May 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm

1. I have never seen a woman smoking (anything) that made her more attractive. On the contrary, much like tattoos, both demonstrate a lack of self image and detract from her natural beauty.
2. Legalizing small amounts of grass makes sense, but only after a reliable blood test or breathalyzer test for intoxication while driving can be developed and laws passed that are similar to DUI laws.

Reply
Richard E. Nixon May 23, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Since no such law is going to pass the SC Legislature,whats the point of this little diatribe?

Reply
Richard E. Nixon May 23, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Since no such law is going to pass the SC Legislature,whats the point of this little diatribe?

Reply
? May 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm

I’m sure we could get most of our elected officials on board if they would simply smoke it once, preferably right before voting on it.

Better yet, I’ll stand outside the chambers and hand out bags of Doritos to anyone that voted “Yea” afterwards.

Reply
? May 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm

I’m sure we could get most of our elected officials on board if they would simply smoke it once, preferably right before voting on it.

Better yet, I’ll stand outside the chambers and hand out bags of Doritos to anyone that voted “Yea” afterwards.

Reply
cuvinny May 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Reminder that pot prohibition (and must drug laws) are because of racism

Reply
The Retired "Man" May 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm

I call bullshit. Most of those arrested between 1962 and 172 were white.

Reply
H.R. Puff N' Stuff May 24, 2013 at 11:54 am

The Gov. was just as currupt back then as it is now. Certain intrest groups dealing in cotton and other industries demonized weed by saying that it made “Negroes” crazy and violent, and want to rape white women…This was easily spread by the newsparer media. Like this shithead: William Randolf Hearst.

Reply
cuvinny May 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Examples: Crack vs Cocaine. Despite being the same crack will get you in more trouble because it is a ‘black’ drug

Weed was popular with black guys in the early part of the 20th century and for that was demonized and made illegal.

Opium was popular among Chinese immigrants who who were being targeted for stealing our jobs building rail ways. Making it illegal was a way to target them.

Reply
The Retired "Man" May 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm

“Crack” isn’t legal – in any form. Medicinal grade, lawfully manufactured cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine alkaloid are both legal if they are prescribed for a legitimate medical use by a person “authorized” to prescribe (MD, DMD, DVM, etc). Neither is used a lot, but both enjoy some lawful use in EENT practice and certain dental procedures.

Reply
Jay Ellington June 20, 2013 at 1:47 pm

So criminalizing marijuana had everything to do with screwing with “black guys” good time and nothing to do with paving the way for psychotropic pharmaceuticals? That’s one of the more hilarious theories I’ve heard in a while.

Reply
? May 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm

That’s definitely the case in looking at crack vs. cocaine.

Reply
cuvinny May 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Reminder that pot prohibition (and must drug laws) are because of racism

Reply
The Retired "Man" May 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm

I call bullshit. Most of those arrested between 1962 and 1972 were white.

Reply
H.R. Puff N' Stuff May 24, 2013 at 11:54 am

The Gov. was just as currupt back then as it is now. Certain intrest groups dealing in cotton and other industries demonized weed by saying that it made “Negroes” crazy and violent, and want to rape white women…This was easily spread by the newsparer media. Like this shithead: William Randolf Hearst.

Reply
cuvinny May 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Examples: Crack vs Cocaine. Despite being the same crack will get you in more trouble because it is a ‘black’ drug

Weed was popular with black guys in the early part of the 20th century and for that was demonized and made illegal.

Opium was popular among Chinese immigrants who who were being targeted for stealing our jobs building rail ways. Making it illegal was a way to target them.

Reply
The Retired "Man" May 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm

“Crack” isn’t legal – in any form. Medicinal grade, lawfully manufactured cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine alkaloid are both legal if they are prescribed for a legitimate medical use by a person “authorized” to prescribe (MD, DMD, DVM, etc). Neither is used a lot, but both enjoy some lawful use in EENT practice and certain dental procedures.
Wasn’t much crack around in 1962-72, but my Black friend “Blood” always had a little around – always hidden in his attic.

Reply
The Ghost of Fat Greg Dulli June 20, 2013 at 1:47 pm

So criminalizing marijuana had everything to do with screwing with “black guys” good time and nothing to do with paving the way for psychotropic pharmaceuticals? That’s one of the more hilarious theories I’ve heard in a while.

Reply
? May 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm

That’s definitely the case in looking at crack vs. cocaine.

Reply
Scrappy May 23, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Not all of our founding fathers smoked. I could only find the following;

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson

Andrew Jackson

James Monroe

Zachary Taylor

George Washington

But what did they know about liberty and freedom and that other crazy shit they had “back in the day”.

I have a strange feeling the world will end soon. I have agreed with Big T twice this week and agreed with Todd Rutherford! Scary I tell you…….

Reply
Scrappy May 23, 2013 at 6:16 pm

BTW Will. You probably don’t help the cause much with your picture choices….just saying

Reply
Scrappy May 23, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Not all of our founding fathers smoked. I could only find the following;

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson

Andrew Jackson

James Monroe

Zachary Taylor

George Washington

But what did they know about liberty and freedom and that other crazy shit they had “back in the day”.

I have a strange feeling the world will end soon. I have agreed with Big T twice this week and agreed with Todd Rutherford! Scary I tell you…….

Reply
Scrappy May 23, 2013 at 6:16 pm

BTW Will. You probably don’t help the cause much with your picture choices….just saying

Reply
Bill Clinton May 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm

A friend with weed is a friend indeed!

Reply
Bill Clinton May 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm

A friend with weed is a friend indeed!

Reply
BrigidBernadette May 24, 2013 at 7:18 am

Are you sure that isn’t Snooki, left side, five pics down?

Reply
dwb619 May 24, 2013 at 7:35 am

Legs are too long.

Reply
Brigid May 24, 2013 at 7:18 am

Are you sure that isn’t Snooki, left side, five pics down?

Reply
dwb619 May 24, 2013 at 7:35 am

Legs are too long.

Reply
kc May 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm

The law enforcement industrial complex will never allow this.

Reply
kc May 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm

The law enforcement industrial complex will never allow this.

Reply
Ralph Hightower May 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm

There’s a bill in the General Assembly to require a doctor’s prescription for a citizen to get cold medicines.

To make it more difficult for meth labs, state law requires that pharmacies move some over-the-counter medicine behind the counter and requires the handing over the driver license to scan in a statewide database and also requiring a signature.

Apparently, this hasn’t stopped the rise in meth labs, so some legislator thinks that it’s a good idea to require that all cold medicine requires a doctor’s prescription.

I don’t know about you. But I will not go to the doctor each and every time that I get a sniffle or a cold.

First, I don’t want to spend an hour in a doctor’s office to be seen less than five minutes for something trivial.
Second, this increases financial burdens on citizens requiring them to go see a doctor when they could self medicate themselves.

Third, this will increase the cost of insurance because of the increased demands for trivial illnesses.

Reply
Ralph Hightower May 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm

There’s a bill in the General Assembly to require a doctor’s prescription for a citizen to get cold medicines.

To make it more difficult for meth labs, state law requires that pharmacies move some over-the-counter medicine behind the counter and requires the handing over the driver license to scan in a statewide database and also requiring a signature.

Apparently, this hasn’t stopped the rise in meth labs, so some legislator thinks that it’s a good idea to require that all cold medicine requires a doctor’s prescription.

I don’t know about you. But I will not go to the doctor each and every time that I get a sniffle or a cold.

First, I don’t want to spend an hour in a doctor’s office to be seen less than five minutes for something trivial.
Second, this increases financial burdens on citizens requiring them to go see a doctor when they could self medicate themselves.

Third, this will increase the cost of insurance because of the increased demands for trivial illnesses.

Reply
Seriously August 27, 2013 at 5:56 am

If you support drug prohibition, then you support the very same thing the cartels and neighborhood gangs support. You might as well be standing next to them shaking their hands, because they don’t want an end to prohibition either.

Reply

Leave a Comment