Drug War

Beyond Bars

A new project has conservatives thinking more seriously about crime.


Last week I received an email press release directing me to a new public policy website. On that website is a quote from Reagan administration Attorney General Ed Meese, saying it's time to reconsider mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. There is also a quote from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, suggesting we consider rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.

They have my attention. Welcome to Right on Crime, a project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation aimed at changing the way conservatives think about criminal justice. Started by Texas attorney, author, and policy wonk Marc A. Levin, Right on Crime is a striking and welcome departure from the sloganeering that has moved conservative criminal justice policy for most of the last 40 years. "While the growth of incarceration took many dangerous offenders off the streets," says an introduction to the website, "research suggested that it reached a point of diminishing returns, as recidivism rates increased and more than one million nonviolent offenders filled the nation's prisons. In most states, prisons came to absorb more than 85 percent of the corrections budget, leaving limited resources for community supervision alternatives such as probation and parole, which cost less and could have better reduced recidivism among non-violent offenders."

There is more like that. From the site's section on prisons: "The United States has 5% of the world's population, but 23% of the world's reported prisoners. It is not clear, however, that these high rates of imprisonment are leading to safer communities." And here's an excerpt from the section on juvenile justice: "Cost-effective interventions that leverage the strengths of families and communities to reform troubled youths are critical to a successful juvenile justice system. Youths who 'slip through the cracks' may remain in the criminal justice system throughout their lives even though some could have been saved by effective policies during pivotal developmental stages." Right on Crime seems to be aimed at encouraging conservative pundits and politicians to look at data and academic research for guidance when formulating crime policy, instead of falling back on demagoguery and exploiting the fear of crime for political gain—the on-and-off Republican strategy that dates back to the 1968 Nixon campaign (not that the Democrats have been much better).

As a libertarian, I find some parts of Right on Crime problematic. While it's good to see conservatives factoring cost and unintended consequences into crime policy, the site largely leaves individual rights out of the discussion. For example, Right on Crime is big on drug courts, which require supervised treatment for nonviolent drug offenders instead of incarceration. Drug courts certainly are preferable to locking these offenders up with violent felons, but they are still a long way from recognizing the principle that the mind-altering substances we choose to ingest are none of the government's business. I realize that an endorsement of complete legalization is too much to expect from even a reform-minded conservative group, but legalization (or at least decriminalization) of marijuana is a step conservatives should be able to endorse as a way to make better use of criminal justice resources.

The site is also fond of religious rehabilitation programs such as Prison Fellowship, founded by former Nixon administration official Chuck Colson. It's true these programs have had success at rehabilitating ex-cons after release, and there is certainly nothing wrong with them when they are run privately. But an op-ed piece at the Right on Crime website, authored by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Prison Fellowship's Mark Earley, recommends a state role for these programs. They aren't clear about exactly what that would mean, but there would be serious First Amendment problems with a state-funded program that includes proselytizing to a literally captive audience. Illustrating those concerns, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield wonders on his blog whether Gingrich's support would be as enthusiastic if these groups were rehabilitating with Islam instead of Christianity.

But these are disagreements about how to rehabilitate convicted felons and how best to get drug offenders back into society—not whether we should bother rehabilitating them at all.  This is a marked improvement from the days when William Bennett, then the federal drug czar, deemed the beheading of drug dealers "morally plausible" and lamented that we still grant them habeas corpus rights. Right on Crime also seems to recognize the importance of keeping juveniles out of the criminal justice system, which breaks from traditional conservative scaremongering about juvenile "super predators" and support for "broken windows" policing, which introduced thousands of young people to the criminal justice system for petty offenses on the theory that tolerance for minor lawbreaking invites chaos. The site doesn't explicitly address the "broken windows" theory at all; a search for the phrase comes up empty.

Because of its interest in accountability, Right on Crime is enthusiastic about CompSTAT, the statistics-driven program that holds police captains responsible for crime in their precincts. But some recent reports from New York City suggest the program needs some tweaking to guard against the twin dangers of unnecessary police harassment and underreporting of serious crimes.

We also need accountability on the other side. There is plenty of pressure on police and prosecutors to arrest more, charge more, convict more, and incarcerate more. There is very little accountability when they go too far. There is a strong conservative case to be made for reform here. We need to make sure that the incentives for law enforcement personnel are properly structured. We also need to make sure there is enough transparency to identify abuses and enough accountability to ensure that the pressure to arrest and convict is properly balanced with fairness and a sense of justice.

One way to achieve this balance is by reforming the forensic science system so that forensic specialists are rewarded for good science and honest testimony, not necessarily for helping the state win convictions. We also need more checks on police and prosecutors, something that conservatives tend to resist. When it comes to politicians, bureaucrats, regulators, and public school teachers, conservatives have long recognized that a government job and paycheck don't magically transform ordinary people into high-minded altruists. Public choice theory tells us government employees tend to act in their own interests, and those interests often don't correspond with the interests of the public. Those same forces apply to police officers and prosecutors. Yet conservatives typically have argued for less supervision, scrutiny, and second-guessing of police officers, and more powers and less accountability for prosecutors. And if there is any interest group that rivals the teachers' unions when it comes to shielding public servants from accountability, it is the police unions.

These are more suggestions for Right on Crime than criticisms. The project has been up and running for only a week or so, so it's not fair to criticize it for what it isn't covering. The larger point here is that a generation of culture warring has locked much of the right into a mind-set that says the only principled criticism of the criminal justice system is from a position of more jails, more prisoners, more cops, and more executions. As a libertarian, I will always attach more value to individual rights than conservatives, who tend to put a premium on order. But a system that is alarmingly prone to wrongful convictions undermines order, both by incarcerating (or even executing) the innocent and by letting the guilty remain free to commit more crimes. Drug laws undermine order by creating criminal enterprises in low-income communities that wouldn't exist without a black market, by enticing cops into corruption, and by locking up millions of people for consensual crimes, imposing on them all the limitations that come with incarceration and a felony record. 

Libertarians and liberals won't agree with Right on Crime on all of these issues, but the project is driven by serious argument, thoughtful policies, and honest discussion. It's a refreshing and important addition to the public debate. I hope the big names who have lent the site quotes and endorsements will also provide some cover for Republican politicians and policy makers to consider heterodox positions. If that happens, for the first time in a generation we could have a real public discussion about crime.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

NEXT: First Nationwide Study Finds No Link Between Smoking Bans and Reductions in Heart Attacks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But where do they stand on shooting dogs?

    1. It’s OK as long as they are Muslim dogs.

      1. It’s OK as long as they are Muslim brown-furred dogs


        1. White-furred Muslim dogs are the most dangerous of all. They bark in perfect English and blend into the background. DHS estimates there might be as many a 12 homegrown terror kennels in America at this every moment.

          1. This tells me the tenor of the conversation has gone from witty to trippy…

          2. As we speak, FBI police dogs are infiltrating those kennels, inciting the Islamic dogs to attack Americans.

          3. I was going to make a wretched joke about terrierists, but my conscience got the best of me.

            1. My dog is highly incensed that I casually call him a Boston Terrorist.

              1. Tell your dog it’s time to kick the habit.

      2. Aren’t dogs considered unclean in Islam? Apparently you can’t wash Spot enough to get the stink of unbeliever off him.

        1. IIRC, only donkeys are more “unclean.”

          1. Are Camels believers?

            1. I don’t know, but I’ve heard their second hand farts cause cancer.

              1. Camels are halal. I had a nice link, but it got bounced as spam.

                1. Well that puts a spin on the meat from a halal food cart.

                2. This reminds me of a joke. Why are camels called “ships of the desert”?

                  1. Because they’re full of Arab semen.

            2. Camels are halal.

              Interestingly, mules are considered halal in light of the mother animal. If a mule is the result of a horse-father and a cow(?)-mother, it is OK to eat.


            3. No more than Virginia Slims.

    2. One more family pet dead. This wasn’t even a drug raid.


      1. Hilarious.

        I have really worked hard to teach my children about authority. I’ve also taught my children you take responsibility for everything you do,” Lawrene King said.

        Now your kids will see how authority avoids responsibility.

    3. “”But where do they stand on shooting dogs?””

      About 20 feet from the dog.

      1. Too far away, they would probably miss.

  2. Soon we may be needing all our prison space for political offenders! — From A Clockwork Orange

  3. “Last week I received an email press release directing me to a new public policy website. On that website is a quote from Reagan administration Attorney General Ed Meese, saying it’s time to reconsider mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. There is also a quote from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, suggesting we consider rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.”

    Mr. Perry, I wholeheartedly agree, but what about simply nullifying the anti-drug use laws per the 10th Amendment and simply tell the Fed and the DEA to go fuck themselves?

    1. What happens if I refuse to go to rehab? 😉

      Like I don’t know that answer.

      1. You stagger around London and screw no-talent Brits?

        1. A night with the Spice Girls, Yeah!!!

      2. That’s the whole problem with “alternative sentencing,” where someone is supposed to get some sort of treatment instead of spending time in jail. Since most treatment programs work no better than no treatment at all, “relapse” is common and the person ends up in jail. The only way to compel someone to get such treatment is to threaten them with incarceration if they don’t. Many addicts/alcoholics do not think they have a problem, and many realize they do but don’t want to change. Even the ones who do want to change generally receive canned, ineffective interventions. (Stanton Peele has lots of info on coerced treatment on his web site.)

        1. Re: Pablo,

          Agreed. Most addicts actually get off drugs or alcohol (or tobacco, for that matter) by themselves, and not through forced intervention.

          1. Yeah, Peele calls it “maturing out” and it is a good way to describe what happens with a lot of people. They just arrive at the point where the old habits dont work for them anymore. (Becoming a parent does it for a lot of people.) Sooner or later, most people’s health, career, and/or family come to matter more than being high or drunk all the time. I don’t think you can force someone to that point–it’s different for everyone.

            1. If only that happened with my ex. *sigh*

  4. Just checked out their page, pretty decent. A scary quote from the overcriminalization page:

    There are over 4,000 existing federal criminal laws. (The exact number of laws is unknown because the attorneys at Congressional Research Service who were assigned to count them ran out of resources before they could complete the herculean task.)

    1. Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.

      1. Holy crap, I actually understood the reference. I can’t remember the last time that happened.

  5. The right on crime:

    1. Decriminalize fraud committed by private institutions.

    2. Send truckloads of taxpayer money to religious fundamentalists (except those ones!) in the guise of crimefighting.

    3. Much more warrantless wiretaping, executions and prosecution of victimless crimes.

    4. Profit!

    1. you forgot the prison-industrial complex. putting people in prison is big money! HUGE!

    2. 1.Kill it with fire.

    3. Is there anything we haven’t made illegal yet?

      I’ll get right on top of it.

  6. That doesn’t sound very tuffgai-on-crime.

  7. Excellent article Balko. I hope they take your advice.

  8. I have difficulty taking seriously people who take Newt Gingrich seriously.

    1. Newcular Titties


  9. The classic liberal and traditional conservative


  10. On a related note, Mitch Daniels endorsed a prison study that calls for reducing the number of non-violent drug offenders in prison.

    1. …will include three proposed categories of policy change:

      ?Improvements to sentencing guidelines. This will ensure prison space for the worst offenders by creating a more precise set of drug and theft sentencing laws
      ?Improvements in community supervision programs such as work release
      ?Broader access to community-based substance abuse and mental health treatment.

      These are good starts. It’s awesome watching all the tuffgai-on-crime authoritarians backtracking after realizing they are broke and there’s a definite cost for overcriminalization.

    2. Yet another reason to vote for him in 2012.

  11. I need to beleive that despite all evidence to the contrary that Government gets criminal justice right.

  12. Part of the problem is the unintended consequences of our tort system. A local news station had a story about the problems former offenders getting jobs. The story told of a woman who had beat up one of her boyfriends and plead guilty to it and done a little bit of time for it. She was out of jail and had gotten a job at a local hair salon. After six months of being a good employee, she was summarily fired because corporate realized she had a criminal record. And her working there was against company policy.

    Now why is that company policy? Because their insurance company insisted on it. Why is that? Because if they ever have an employee attack a customer and it turns out that that customer had a criminal record, our tort system will hold them liable for it. So in expanding the tort system and liability, we don’t really help people, we just fuck over entire classes of people and make it impossible to get a job if you ever commit a crime.

    1. And since there’s 4,000+ crimes…it’s pretty easy to get caught in the net.

      Note: this net is not dolphin safe.

      1. Yes. And once you are caught you are totally fucked unless you have very strong family support, which most people don’t.

  13. One thing people need to be prepared for is the inevitable Nancy Grace story about some guy who gets out of jail early for some BS petty drug charge and goes out and whacks someone. Now, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been let out. But don’t think for a moment the media won’t love telling the story of how the pro drug hippies caused five children and their pet kitten’s death by not ensuring that he complete his full ten year sentence for having two joints.

  14. I could not agree more with many of the suggested reforms and approaches mentioned in this article. I am speaking from experience; I had a very rough childhood and was in and out of treatment centers, etc. Finally I ended up in prison for 4yrs as a young man. BUT it was the education and self help programs that gave me the tools to not end up going in out of prison for the rest of my life.

    While in jail I took a community college course and earned a certificate for electrical construction, an automotive certificate and worked in the library. So I read like a monk as well. Upon release I got jobs, some pretty good too and it enabled to never look back. It has not always been easy but I managed to never seriously violate the law again.

    Now almost 25 yrs. later I am about to earn a bachelors degree, just finished an associate program and want to get a teaching certificate. I have done well enough that I soon will probably apply for a pardon. All this has been possible because of opportunities that were available while I was in jail.
    Now it seems the mentality of lock them up and throw away the key has caused more damage to American society than many people want to realize or admit. It almost seems that there is no tolerance for the human condition whatsoever in today’s legal system. Everything is black and white and cut and dry. But real life is not so easy. The people who are being locked up often have children and families and incarceration has a cascading effect throughout all levels of society. We often make nonviolent offenders violent too by sending them into prisons where it is life and death and they are forced to violent things to survive. For instance putting a guy in jail for child support and he ends up with a nothing to lose death penalty eligible cellmate and he has to fight or get raped. These are the nuances that tough justice advocates must overlook because of this stance. Post traumatic stress in ex-offenders is a serious problem but it is rarely addressed as well.

    Historically locking up large or massive numbers of people has never ended well. Especially when justice is not applied fairly and certain classes of people receive harsher justice, while other classes get privileges and leniency from the law others do not.

    1. Damn, you got all that education in jail? How much did that cost ya?

  15. I have no problem with getting rid of drug laws … at the exact same time you get rid of welfare.

    1. Yeah because only poor people on welfare do drugs.

      1. Oh, John, I guess I need to be more explicit since you seem determined to misinterpret my remarks …

        I have no concern about your personal drug use, until you use MY money to fund it by using Government as your personal enabler.

        1. That is just horseshit logic. I don’t like people who watch MMA. Therefore, I will stop supporting laws to ban MMA at the exact same time you stop welfare. I am tired of my tax money going to pay for pay per view MMA garbage.

          It is the same logic you are using. What is so special about drugs as opposed to any other habit you or anyone else finds odious? Because you pay for welfare, doesn’t give you the right to tell everyone how to live, least of all those of us who are not on welfare, which of course are affected by by drug laws to.

          1. John, you want to adopt and take care of any person whose personal habits are so disabling they can’t take care of themselves … knock yourself out.

            Don’t make me pay for your personal charity.

            “Because you pay for welfare, doesn’t give you the right to tell everyone how to live”

            Yes it does. My dollar, my say. Otherwise support YOURSELF. Liberty ain’t free.

            1. Darlene, I am not on welfare. I do support myself. Yet, I am still subject to the drug laws you support because of your inability to separate the two issues.

              I don’t take your money, so get the fuck out of my life.

              1. Darleen seems to be saying that some people who use drugs end up on some form of subsidized government assistance. This could be Medicaid, treatment for substance abuse, or whatever. She then justifies the existence of penalties for drug use based on the fact that some users receive public assistance.

                The same logic would suggest that Darleen is ok with laws which would criminalize the choice to eat a food having possible negative repercussions to health. After all, some consumers of these foods will undoubtedly be receiving Medicaid or end up hospitalized on the taxpayer dime after eating.

                The logic is the same in both cases. So, Darleen needs to make a choice. Either she supports the proposition that governments may criminalize both drug use and food consumption, or she supports the proposition that governments should stay the fuck out of both areas.

                1. Darleens’s logic is failing because she’s under the impression that after the government get her tax money, it’s still her money. By extending that logic, your job can tell you want to buy with their money in what you think is your paycheck.

                  Yeah, it’s taxpayer funded, but it’s the government’s money to do as they wish once it changes hands.

            2. Clearly, everyone who has ever inadvertently been a recipient of one of her tax dollars due to government coersion deserves draconian punishment in retaliation.

              That’s like punching your boyfriend in the face because someone anonymously mails him lingerie.

            3. You’re really not doing liberty any favors by denying certain freedoms because of other, non-related policies.

              By the same logic, you could justify banning damn near anything because some people on food stamps may use the meager income they actually earn themselves on non-necessities (e.g. tobacco or alcohol) and surviving off of public assistance.

              One wrong (forcibly taking money from some to give to others) doesn’t justify another (criminalizing victimless, consensual activity).

        2. You’re missing the point. Drug users not on welfare would still risk incarceration for exercising their RIGHT to use drugs.

          It is immaterial whether you are concerned about someone else’s personal drug use since the government would be concerned in prohibition.

  16. BTW John, people use drugs everyday and never get arrested. Why? Because they don’t let it interfere with being productive, law-abiding (as in crimes against others and property) citizens. They pay for their own habits and don’t steal from my purse.

    Again … I don’t care about what you want to do privately; just keep it that way.

    1. So only the bad people get arrested for drugs? It is somehow okay to make the others into criminals because it is unlikely they will be caught? Yeah, that makes sense.

      Jesus Darlene, you need to put forth a better effort. That is just prime grade stupid.

      1. no, STOOPID people get arrested for drugs.

        Jesus on a Pony, are you like dense or what?

        1. So, explain to me how you have a problem with your tax money being used to pay for welfare that some ‘drug-users’ might receive, yet have NO problem with your tax dollars paying to lock these people up for several years?

        2. “”no, STOOPID people get arrested for drugs.””

          I think it’s a safe bet to say people smarter than you have been arrested for drugs.

  17. John, you want to adopt and take care of any person whose personal habits are so disabling they can’t take care of themselves … knock yourself out.

    Darleen, Darleen, Darleen.

    You do know that the vast majority of recreational drug use is not disabling in any way, right?

    And that those for who it is disabling, and are on welfare, are on welfare even though its illegal? So making drugs illegal does exactly nothing to prevent your welfare contribution being spent on stuff you don’t like?

    So you are, in effect, advocating punishing people even though it does nothing to achieve the goal you say you want?

    Remember the Iron Law, Darleen:

    You aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong.

    1. R C Dean

      Look, I’m not at all thrilled at much of the “War on Drugs”, but the fantasy of an immediate rescinding of all of them will mean butterflies and unicorn’s crapping rainbows is so mind-numbingly unreal it is what drove me away from the Libertarian party.

      You know that thing called “unintended consequences”? It works both ways, doncha know.

      The majority of recreational drug use is not disabling – sure, like I said, it’s private and smart people are discreet. No harm no foul. But you will get more addicts when drug use is legal and promoted. And when those people are enabled to stay addicts by having their food and shelter provided by The Government then count me out on the “let’s legalize Crack and Meth!” bandwagon.

      1. So the problem with allowing people to use drugs is that they will use drugs?

        And because some government dickwads forcibly take your money and give it to them, you want their individual rights taken away for several years, thus ending their ability to earn a living themselves, as the article points out?

        1. So, every debatable comment by Darleen is just taken to the most extreme interpretation or just plain distorted?

          Great debating tactics, fellas.

          1. I’ll get back to you after you actually read her comments.

            1. I already had read her comments, and the comments of others who twist her comments to the most extreme interpretation possible.

              So, what are you going to get back to me with?

        2. Sweet Jebas – If I can get it, why can’t you? Darleen seems to be saying that she wants drug users not to get welfare once drugs are decriminalized, on the grounds that she doesn’t want for people to get high on her dime. She doesn’t want people in prison for drugs, but she doesn’t want to subsidize their habits…

          1. I DO get it. I agree with your interpretation. It seems the others are determined to disagree with her no matter what.

          2. Ah, you were probably commenting to Sy.

          3. That’s actually not what Darleen is saying.

            “I have no problem with getting rid of drug laws … at the exact same time you get rid of welfare.”

            There’s not much reading between the lines necessary there. She’s effectively saying she’s okay with keeping drugs illegal for all Americans because of a subset of them may subsidize their drug use with public assistance (or, more accurately, that a greater number of them would subsidize their drug usage than currently do).

            Scrapping the welfare system entirely is as unlikely (if not more so) than complete legalization of all drugs.

            If you or she want to make a reality based argument in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients then okay, that’s at least a reasonable and debatable position.

            However, to simply say because we have one (welfare) we cannot have the other (drug legalization) is far too absolutist and does nothing to expand liberty.

  18. i cannot tell if darleen is a troll.

    1. having clicked onto his website, I think it is stupidity rather than trolling.

      1. I wouldn’t advise clicking on the site unless you want pop-up casino adverts

  19. I don’t think the government will be willing to reduce the prison population because that will increase the unemployment numbers.

  20. but they are still a long way from recognizing the principle that the mind-altering substances we choose to ingest are none of the government’s business.

    I couldn’t disagree more. If you want to lock yourself in a room until your mind unalters itself, that would be your business. But if you choose to main line some heroin and then get in a car and “run down all the green aliens” who are actually people, that is society’s business. We don’t live in a vacuum. We live all clustered together. If you’re walking around baked and not in control of yourself, the rest of us should have some say in that.

    1. Stop misrepresenting the argument.

      You should have right to use drugs. You have no right to endanger other’s lives with wreckless driving, heroin or not.

  21. If we’re never going to become rational about all this non-violent “crime”, here’s an idea: rattan caning.

    That’s right. We let non-violent offenders choose between getting a bloody ass-whipping or years in prison with the violent offenders.

    If you were framed for drug dealing, and had that choice…which would you choose for yourself?

    Which would you choose for your child or other loved one?

    Right. Oh, and of course it would also save us billions costs and permit these folks to be productive citizens rather than expenses.

  22. I am all for decriminalizing drugs. But believing that the system is the problem is ridiculous. Drugs and alcohol ruin people’s lives, for real. And it isn’t because they get incarcerated — it’s because they steal from their families, friends, and neighbors to supply the habit. Don’t tell me cheap supply is the answer — it hasn’t worked for alcohol, which is cheaper in the US than anywhere in the western world.

    1. Decriminalization isn’t enough. Decriminalization without legalization is in fact the worst alternative. It increases the demand without legalizing the supply, so organized crime becomes very powerful.

    2. “”it’s because they steal from their families, friends, and neighbors to supply the habit. “”

      Perhap they had loose morals from the start. Claiming drugs made you do it replaces the devil made you do it.

      1. “Perhap they had loose morals from the start. Claiming drugs made you do it replaces the devil made you do it.”

        Drug addiction is largely chemical and genetic. If it were not so, Native Americans would display similar rates of alcoholism to other groups. Instead, they are alcoholic at a near-100% rate when they drink.

    3. A core libertarian principle is that violent crimes against persons or property are justifiably punishable. If someone is stealing, for any reason, they should be punished.

      You seem to be misinterpreting support for legalization of drugs as encouragement of use. It is not.

      There are certain actions that are crimes due to their inherent nature as affronts to humanity (e.g. murder, rape, theft). These types of actions would be wrong regardless of whether or not the law says so.

      Other actions are crimes not in and of themselves, but purely because we have chosen to criminalize them. These types of actions aren’t inherently wrong, we just ascribe wrongness to them. This is the category under which drug usage falls.






  26. GPS monitoring bracelets and Work Release programs would be much more cost effective in many situations as opposed to imprisonment. While locking up offenders (non-violent) seems to be a great idea because they are no longer in your community, if it is only going to increase recidivism rates, we should at least try other options. The problem is convincing everyone to allow this to happen.

  27. How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

  28. How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

  29. Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

  30. impairment” that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are “impaired” in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits

  31. There are so many online shopping stores nowadays since the demand of people to shop online has increased.Isabel Marant Most Isabel Marant of the people avoid going to traditional stores to purchase products as per their likings and requirements. People prefer to shop online as it offers great benefits. Cheap Isabel Marant

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.