As someone in the medical field, this article does a very good up job of restoring the balance and correcting some preconceptions regarding substance dependence and addiction - ie. that not all substances are going to lead to lifelong dependence and addiction, and in fact it only occurs to a small percentage.
This is established medical fact and is taught in all medical schools now.
However I worry that it might make people consider heroin as something that will be okay to have a crack at... There are very real psychosocial dangers of heroin should you end up being dependent and addicted - and the depths of despair that users end up in should not be ignored. No-one can predict ahead of time if you will be okay on it, or if you will follow the stereotypical pattern with which we are familiar with from popular culture.
The article also fails to mention that once addicted, and then having returned their lives to some base level where they are able to seek help (assuming they have not died of an overdose), 90% of patients that start on the methadone program are still on it 10 years later- in Australia the methadone program grows at about 4-6% per year, representing new people coming on and no-one really leaving.
Not cool, and not a good lifestyle!
This is really good to hear from someone in the field, thank you.
Those numbers for the methadone program could be purely from population growth, but then considering the state of the world its probably not entirely either. (Not that I'd know)
1. Is chronic methadone usage really that bad? It's never great to be dependent on a substance to function, but if all it takes is a trip to the methadone clinic for your daily dose, but the rest of your life is relatively normal, is that so bad considering the alternative?
2. I've heard methadone withdrawal is much worse than withdrawal from heroin. Heroin WD symptoms are very intense, but last about a week. Methadone WD symptoms aren't that intense, but they last for months. It take an impressive amount of willpower to put up with being tired, weak and "sick" for months.
Addiction is a weird beast. As I understand it is has two parts:
1. Physiological dependence as evidenced by tolerance and withdrawal symptoms; and
2. Psychological addiction.
(2) can manifest itself in many ways that go well beyond drugs--gambling, adrenalin junkies, even Farmville.
The danger of some hard drugs is that they can, for some unfortunate segment of the population, be a potent mix of (1) and (2).
Further to (1) is that genes seem to play a role [1]. My personal view is that like many complex "traits", genetics will give certain people a predisposition to addiction.
The real danger of certain hard drugs (IMHO) is that you often don't you're predisposed to something until it's too late. It's almost certainly the exception rather than the norm but (I believe) you can get addicted to certain drugs very very quickly.
You may be able to use them just fine and not get addicted. Or you may not. Is it really worth the risk in case you turn into one of those people who spends the rest of their (much shortened) lives chasing that initial high?
And yet, the exact same argument applies to alcohol and alcoholics. So, why take the risk of drinking and becoming an alcoholic? For some people who are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, this is exactly what prevents them from drinking, even though it's still legal. Yet, this small chance of being an alcoholic doesn't prevent anyone else from drinking alcohol, so why should it prevent people from doing drugs? It seems as though we run under the foolish assumption that being an alcoholic "isn't as bad", without realizing just how bad alcoholism can get. Double-standards like this are the entire point of the article.
Addiction is a valid folk concept: everyone is aware of someone who can't get off cigarettes or booze, for example, or gambling, or occasionally heroin or meth or crack - to the impairment of their life, past the point of ongoing pleasure. So there are real phenomena to study, of some social importance. And I don't dispute that many people lose control and mess up their lives in various ways, in addition to running afoul of the law. So be careful with drugs, not even once, blah blah blah.
But the term 'addiction' does not correspond to any natural scientific category. Because unless it is made impossibly rare and unlike our folk concept, any definition will drag in all routine motivated behavior to the point where a lot is included which we all like and find healthy and normal.
There is no actual distinction between 'physiological dependence' and 'psychological addiction.' The relevant phenomena are all psychological and all have biological basis - just as one's behavioral responses to hunger, dehydration, embarrassment or sexual arousal do. Avoiding withdrawal might be more or less motivating depending on the drug - for example, cocaine doesn't really have much of a withdrawal compared to heroin. But the fundamental reason people use heroin isn't because of withdrawal, it's because they love it. The situation where one takes heroin simply to avoid symptoms is just not the primary mechanism of heroin addiction. And since heroin is the paradigm case for this kind of explanation, it is just generally not a good one. We have confused the different phenomenology of the cravings with a spurious major distinction between physical and ghostly causes, when we should really be considering the specific neural systems which are engaged by the different drugs.
I appreciate that what I am saying sounds controversial. If what I say is true, why do people keep talking about addiction? Because the word has an important function OUTSIDE of science - it applies a specific kind of pressure, an important feature of which is the appearance of being scientific. It is an implicit value judgement said in a scientific tone of voice, making it more legally and secularly palatable.
Addiction is nothing more than the pathologized version of desire or enjoyment. If you wish to cast shadows on anything people enjoy doing, simply call it an addiction. In particular if you wish to conflate social disapproval of an activity with a scientific judgement of unhealthiness, call the activity an addiction.
Suppose, for example, that a certain person goes to a bondage club on a weekly basis... so easy to make this into an addiction. Doing the same thing with 'normal' sex is just significantly harder. (Though still possible - in a situation where someone has an interest in pathologizing sex)
i think this quote really sums it up, "I try very hard not to use when I'm miserable, because that's what gets me into trouble."
it all depends on your personality. if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that. i know several friends that have very addictive personalities and getting into junk would have ruined their lives.
a lot of it depends on how its taken as well. mainlining vs snorting vs smoking are all significantly different experiences, the amount taken as well. one can function when its only a small amount taken, increase the dose and you'll be lying around not being able or wanting to move.
i've tried everything under the moon though and i consider heroin pretty dangerous. i would not advise anyone to try it unless they have a very strong head. it is also one of the most amazing experiences i have ever had. the singer of sublime thought he could jump in and get out when he wanted, he overdosed, quite a sad story.
I think the problem that a lot of people get into is that your ability to maintain moderate use is not static.
If your life is going well and your not under a lot of stress, I could see certain people who could use heroin recreationally. Now have those same people lose their job, get divorced or have a depressive episode and watch their drug use spiral out of control. I've seen it before.
Never tried heroin, but I had to come off oxycodone cold turkey (from about 40mg a day). My pain doctor was trying to slowly bring my down from a peak in the hospital of 150mg of Demerol every 4 hours. It was going too slowly for my patience, so (out of the hospital) I just stopped. The withdrawal sucked--about 4 days of sweats, shaking, tachycardia, and a real hard time sleeping. I ended up using pot to help get me through it.
But ultimately, despite the physical dependance, it was easy to quit because I wanted to. Most people that fail to get off opiates fail because they don't entirely want to get off. They may think they want off, or think the need to get off, but at some level they still want the drug, and that is the essence of addiction.
40mg oxycodone is on a different level from 300mg of heroin; although the mechanism of action is pretty much the same, you are talking about radically different doses and time courses. As well as a prescribed, regularly taken drug vs. one taken ad lib for pleasure, building up a self-driven habit.
When drawing conclusions about why people have trouble getting off opiates, I'd suggest taking the same care comparing your experience to heroin addiction as you would take comparing your weird dreams to a schizophrenic's psychotic episodes.
Of my two friends who started using heroin as teenagers, both destroyed their pancreas by their early thirties. As of now (age 37), one of them has died from an overdose. The other is intermittently homeless.
According to this article[0] the street price of a dose of heroin is $10-$25 dollars. However, that street place is suffering 40-50 times inflation[1]. If heroin were relieved of price inflation, a dose would cost between 20 cents and 63 cents.
Compare that to cigarettes. I once heard from a foreign cigarette manufacture that the cost of manufacture for a pack of cigarettes if 50 cents. A pack of cigarettes contains 20 doses of nicotine and costs around 14 dollars (in New York City, American Spirit Brand). Each dose (cigarette) costs 70 cents inflated and took only two cents to produce. Nicotine suffers from a 35 times price inflation due to legalization.
These look like two industries that are ripe for disruption.
Worth noting that your 14 dollars varies widely by location. Here in the UK most brands are between $10 and $11, in Germany it's more like $6, and in countries like China, Egypt, Greece (or indeed on a flight between UK and USA) they can cost $3 or less. Even within America prices vary greatly, for example I think $10 is a pretty typical price in Chicago.
Having struggled with addiction off and on for more than half my life, I would say that the opiates are some of the more enjoyable drugs, though they can be quite difficult to kick, and the legal and financial risks are very high. Cigarettes are far harder to kick. And pot isn't nearly as harmless as most make it out to be, since it literally makes people stupid with regular long-term use.
I kicked everything except cigarettes for nearly 20 years, then went back to some of them during a difficult time. I was hooked again for longer than I intended, and it was much harder to kick again when I was older. (I've been abstinent again for some years now, including cigarettes (after 30 years ... finally!!).)
The vast majority of those who experiment never become addicted. But for those who do, it is very costly, and fatal frequently enough that it is not worth the risk, at least from my minority experience perspective. There are lots of other ways to relieve stress and/or alter your consciousness.
I have a libertarian bent, and think drug laws have mostly accomplished the militarization of the police forces in America. They certainly have not reduced the availability of high-quality drugs. But that does not mean I agree with the idea that using heroin is just some harmless fun to be had from time to time. Reserve that category for things like skydiving or working out in a gym or getting a massage or writing some code.
(What's that? Writing code isn't fun, it's something you have to do? Maybe it's time for you to kick the habit then.)
>The vast majority of those who experiment never become addicted. But for those who do, it is very costly, and fatal frequently enough that it is not worth the risk
Had a good friend who was educated, healthy and ran his own business. He died from an heroin overdose shortly after selling off most of his business assets to pay for his addiction.
Yes, this is one anecdote. But I bet you my anecdote is a fuck load more common than that of the successful New York business man cited in the article.
I used to work with someone who was a responsible, successful business man who nobody suspected might use heroin until a substantial change in heroin prices left him in panic chasing money to pay for his addiction. Had the drastic price change at the time not happened, chances are nobody would have found out. In other words:
You see the ones that ends up fucking up for one reason or another. You don't see the ones that manage, so you don't know whether nobody manages to deal with it, or if lots of people do.
(the other aspect of this is that his personal ruin, while facilitated by a heroin addiction, was triggered by the legal regime surrounding heroin that made it impossible for him to get at a low, predictable price; I've gradually come to believe that outlawing most drugs is ethically indefensible)
How would you possibly know how many of your friends use heroin responsibly and in secret with no effect on their lives (a la NY business man in the article)?
Disregarding the pro/con heroin issue, this article also illuminates that anti-drug campaigns are having a "facts crisis". If you say "x drug is bad for you", you should also be able to say why and how.
To memory-quote from a pregnancy leaflet we got a few years back:
- You should avoid drinking alcohol during pregnancy, because it can cause harm to the child's nervous system in the early stages.
- You should avoid smoking tobacco during pregnancy, because it can cause oxygen deficiency and low muscle mass in the child.
- You should avoid smoking hashish during pregnancy, because it is illegal.
I'm not exaggerating - that was literally all the evils of hashish they could list.
I think addiction has less to do with the 'drug' and more to do with the person. Be it heroin, pain killers, sex, gambling, smoking, or alcohol segments of society are able to use these in a way that does not interfere with their own life or those of people around them.
There are also people who use these as a means of escape or have limited coping resources. It is not that the cigarette is bad, or the pain killer is bad, or sex is bad.
In saying that, having a methadone dispensary four doors down from where I am sitting, I see first hand the obvious effects of drug addiction and how people struggle to escape it's grasp.
This experiment was not well-received in its day, but in recent years, the line of thought is becoming popular, as people who work in drug treatment realize that the paradigm is very helpful when treating people in recovery (ie, you have to identify the reason why people feel compelled to seek external relief, be it anorexia/bullemia/marijuana/alcohol/heroin, or else you're just patching over the symptoms).
As for your last point, I'd point out that what most people don't ever see are the people who use drugs responsibly and without any problem - there's a selection bias afoot which causes society to overestimate the harms associated with drugs (and underestimate the harms of the policies associated with them, since they also never see the people locked away).
Theordore Dalrymple, a prison doctor that writes under a pseudonym, has long maintaind that a) heroin isn't as addictive as people claim, and b) withdrawal symptoms are minor.
I can't see any good reason why someone would go to so much trouble to defend heroin, other than to assume that this is some kind of PR requested by establishment and/or intelligence groups which profit from heroin grown in places like Afghanistan (or, in the previous era, India).
Reason has an agenda they are trying to spread to you. They don't want to live in a world where something the government regulates, actually is dangerous. They want to have their cake and eat it to. "People should be able to destroy their bodies if they want. Oh yeah, and since that is not very convincing to you, here's some statistically insignificant reasons why heroin doesn't hurt you anyway, neener neener. Oh, and now the government can just get rid of the regulations."
Maybe libertarians sometimes feel silly telling people "I know this would destroy people's lives and society would decay but it is immoral for the government to do anything about anything." I don't know why ... :)
I am not a fan of marijuana (or any street drug) but it is incredibly hard to mess it up. It has a fantastic 'therapeutic index' - a big fat window between the dosages where it starts having useful effects and those where it starts potentially harming you.
(anecdotally I would wonder about impact on lifestyle, but killing yourself with pot would be pretty tough, and expensive)
This is a big contrast from serious downers which put the happy zone right next to the off switch, and build up tolerance...
Seeing as you can totally smoke heroine, I think it has less to do with the needles and more to do with the fact that it is one of the most addictive substances in the world and people regularly die from overdose.
Also, nearly all "normal" tasks can be done stoned on pot but you can hardly talk when you're on heroine.
[+] [-] robbiep|13 years ago|reply
The article also fails to mention that once addicted, and then having returned their lives to some base level where they are able to seek help (assuming they have not died of an overdose), 90% of patients that start on the methadone program are still on it 10 years later- in Australia the methadone program grows at about 4-6% per year, representing new people coming on and no-one really leaving. Not cool, and not a good lifestyle!
[+] [-] shousper|13 years ago|reply
Those numbers for the methadone program could be purely from population growth, but then considering the state of the world its probably not entirely either. (Not that I'd know)
[+] [-] refurb|13 years ago|reply
1. Is chronic methadone usage really that bad? It's never great to be dependent on a substance to function, but if all it takes is a trip to the methadone clinic for your daily dose, but the rest of your life is relatively normal, is that so bad considering the alternative?
2. I've heard methadone withdrawal is much worse than withdrawal from heroin. Heroin WD symptoms are very intense, but last about a week. Methadone WD symptoms aren't that intense, but they last for months. It take an impressive amount of willpower to put up with being tired, weak and "sick" for months.
[+] [-] pkulak|13 years ago|reply
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157665908/episode-...
[+] [-] cletus|13 years ago|reply
1. Physiological dependence as evidenced by tolerance and withdrawal symptoms; and
2. Psychological addiction.
(2) can manifest itself in many ways that go well beyond drugs--gambling, adrenalin junkies, even Farmville.
The danger of some hard drugs is that they can, for some unfortunate segment of the population, be a potent mix of (1) and (2).
Further to (1) is that genes seem to play a role [1]. My personal view is that like many complex "traits", genetics will give certain people a predisposition to addiction.
The real danger of certain hard drugs (IMHO) is that you often don't you're predisposed to something until it's too late. It's almost certainly the exception rather than the norm but (I believe) you can get addicted to certain drugs very very quickly.
You may be able to use them just fine and not get addicted. Or you may not. Is it really worth the risk in case you turn into one of those people who spends the rest of their (much shortened) lives chasing that initial high?
[1]: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genetics/
[+] [-] blackhole|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slurgfest|13 years ago|reply
But the term 'addiction' does not correspond to any natural scientific category. Because unless it is made impossibly rare and unlike our folk concept, any definition will drag in all routine motivated behavior to the point where a lot is included which we all like and find healthy and normal.
There is no actual distinction between 'physiological dependence' and 'psychological addiction.' The relevant phenomena are all psychological and all have biological basis - just as one's behavioral responses to hunger, dehydration, embarrassment or sexual arousal do. Avoiding withdrawal might be more or less motivating depending on the drug - for example, cocaine doesn't really have much of a withdrawal compared to heroin. But the fundamental reason people use heroin isn't because of withdrawal, it's because they love it. The situation where one takes heroin simply to avoid symptoms is just not the primary mechanism of heroin addiction. And since heroin is the paradigm case for this kind of explanation, it is just generally not a good one. We have confused the different phenomenology of the cravings with a spurious major distinction between physical and ghostly causes, when we should really be considering the specific neural systems which are engaged by the different drugs.
I appreciate that what I am saying sounds controversial. If what I say is true, why do people keep talking about addiction? Because the word has an important function OUTSIDE of science - it applies a specific kind of pressure, an important feature of which is the appearance of being scientific. It is an implicit value judgement said in a scientific tone of voice, making it more legally and secularly palatable.
Addiction is nothing more than the pathologized version of desire or enjoyment. If you wish to cast shadows on anything people enjoy doing, simply call it an addiction. In particular if you wish to conflate social disapproval of an activity with a scientific judgement of unhealthiness, call the activity an addiction.
Suppose, for example, that a certain person goes to a bondage club on a weekly basis... so easy to make this into an addiction. Doing the same thing with 'normal' sex is just significantly harder. (Though still possible - in a situation where someone has an interest in pathologizing sex)
[+] [-] papaver|13 years ago|reply
it all depends on your personality. if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that. i know several friends that have very addictive personalities and getting into junk would have ruined their lives.
a lot of it depends on how its taken as well. mainlining vs snorting vs smoking are all significantly different experiences, the amount taken as well. one can function when its only a small amount taken, increase the dose and you'll be lying around not being able or wanting to move.
i've tried everything under the moon though and i consider heroin pretty dangerous. i would not advise anyone to try it unless they have a very strong head. it is also one of the most amazing experiences i have ever had. the singer of sublime thought he could jump in and get out when he wanted, he overdosed, quite a sad story.
[+] [-] refurb|13 years ago|reply
If your life is going well and your not under a lot of stress, I could see certain people who could use heroin recreationally. Now have those same people lose their job, get divorced or have a depressive episode and watch their drug use spiral out of control. I've seen it before.
[+] [-] learc83|13 years ago|reply
The studies cited in the article seem to challenge that assumption.
[+] [-] abruzzi|13 years ago|reply
But ultimately, despite the physical dependance, it was easy to quit because I wanted to. Most people that fail to get off opiates fail because they don't entirely want to get off. They may think they want off, or think the need to get off, but at some level they still want the drug, and that is the essence of addiction.
[+] [-] slurgfest|13 years ago|reply
When drawing conclusions about why people have trouble getting off opiates, I'd suggest taking the same care comparing your experience to heroin addiction as you would take comparing your weird dreams to a schizophrenic's psychotic episodes.
[+] [-] alrs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewfelix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gee_totes|13 years ago|reply
Compare that to cigarettes. I once heard from a foreign cigarette manufacture that the cost of manufacture for a pack of cigarettes if 50 cents. A pack of cigarettes contains 20 doses of nicotine and costs around 14 dollars (in New York City, American Spirit Brand). Each dose (cigarette) costs 70 cents inflated and took only two cents to produce. Nicotine suffers from a 35 times price inflation due to legalization.
These look like two industries that are ripe for disruption.
[0]http://heroin.net/about/how-much-does-heroin-cost/
[1]http://reason.com/archives/2003/06/01/h/1
[+] [-] thucydides|13 years ago|reply
Heroin is expensive to compensate for the high risk of government punishment at each stage of the manufacturing/retail process.
[+] [-] lamby|13 years ago|reply
("Inflated" or "inflation" is the wrong term anyway but it makes no difference here)
[+] [-] corin_|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|13 years ago|reply
Please go on— how would one disrupt these industries?
[+] [-] sverige|13 years ago|reply
I kicked everything except cigarettes for nearly 20 years, then went back to some of them during a difficult time. I was hooked again for longer than I intended, and it was much harder to kick again when I was older. (I've been abstinent again for some years now, including cigarettes (after 30 years ... finally!!).)
The vast majority of those who experiment never become addicted. But for those who do, it is very costly, and fatal frequently enough that it is not worth the risk, at least from my minority experience perspective. There are lots of other ways to relieve stress and/or alter your consciousness.
I have a libertarian bent, and think drug laws have mostly accomplished the militarization of the police forces in America. They certainly have not reduced the availability of high-quality drugs. But that does not mean I agree with the idea that using heroin is just some harmless fun to be had from time to time. Reserve that category for things like skydiving or working out in a gym or getting a massage or writing some code.
(What's that? Writing code isn't fun, it's something you have to do? Maybe it's time for you to kick the habit then.)
[+] [-] john_flintstone|13 years ago|reply
Are you talking about heroin, or alcohol?
[+] [-] andrewfelix|13 years ago|reply
Yes, this is one anecdote. But I bet you my anecdote is a fuck load more common than that of the successful New York business man cited in the article.
[+] [-] njs12345|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lincolnq|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|13 years ago|reply
You see the ones that ends up fucking up for one reason or another. You don't see the ones that manage, so you don't know whether nobody manages to deal with it, or if lots of people do.
(the other aspect of this is that his personal ruin, while facilitated by a heroin addiction, was triggered by the legal regime surrounding heroin that made it impossible for him to get at a low, predictable price; I've gradually come to believe that outlawing most drugs is ethically indefensible)
[+] [-] ZoFreX|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Deestan|13 years ago|reply
To memory-quote from a pregnancy leaflet we got a few years back:
- You should avoid drinking alcohol during pregnancy, because it can cause harm to the child's nervous system in the early stages.
- You should avoid smoking tobacco during pregnancy, because it can cause oxygen deficiency and low muscle mass in the child.
- You should avoid smoking hashish during pregnancy, because it is illegal.
I'm not exaggerating - that was literally all the evils of hashish they could list.
[+] [-] shin_lao|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stratos2|13 years ago|reply
There are also people who use these as a means of escape or have limited coping resources. It is not that the cigarette is bad, or the pain killer is bad, or sex is bad.
In saying that, having a methadone dispensary four doors down from where I am sitting, I see first hand the obvious effects of drug addiction and how people struggle to escape it's grasp.
[+] [-] andrewfelix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|13 years ago|reply
This experiment was not well-received in its day, but in recent years, the line of thought is becoming popular, as people who work in drug treatment realize that the paradigm is very helpful when treating people in recovery (ie, you have to identify the reason why people feel compelled to seek external relief, be it anorexia/bullemia/marijuana/alcohol/heroin, or else you're just patching over the symptoms).
As for your last point, I'd point out that what most people don't ever see are the people who use drugs responsibly and without any problem - there's a selection bias afoot which causes society to overestimate the harms associated with drugs (and underestimate the harms of the policies associated with them, since they also never see the people locked away).
[+] [-] shin_lao|13 years ago|reply
I also wonder how his control of heroin would hold should he lose his job or his wife.
Isn't the danger of such drugs in the things they whisper to your ears when you're beholding the abyss?
[+] [-] ZoFreX|13 years ago|reply
Would uncut, correctly dosed heroin have an effect on those?
[+] [-] gadders|13 years ago|reply
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-poppycock.htm
[+] [-] nikatwork|13 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Saying-Yes-Defense-Drug-Use/dp/1585422...
[+] [-] ilaksh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|13 years ago|reply
Maybe libertarians sometimes feel silly telling people "I know this would destroy people's lives and society would decay but it is immoral for the government to do anything about anything." I don't know why ... :)
[+] [-] lincolnq|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesbritt|13 years ago|reply
Sounds like no one should defend H because no one defends H.
[+] [-] ngkabra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pchivers|13 years ago|reply
One possible reason is that people are squeamish about needles and uncomfortable consuming drugs intravenously.
[+] [-] slurgfest|13 years ago|reply
(anecdotally I would wonder about impact on lifestyle, but killing yourself with pot would be pretty tough, and expensive)
This is a big contrast from serious downers which put the happy zone right next to the off switch, and build up tolerance...
[+] [-] rgbrgb|13 years ago|reply
Also, nearly all "normal" tasks can be done stoned on pot but you can hardly talk when you're on heroine.
[+] [-] tacoboye|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfsdfsdfs|13 years ago|reply
But almost none of them stop using, ever.
[+] [-] nn2|13 years ago|reply