In the Face of the Drug War’s Total Failure, Can California’s Legalization Battle Kick-Start a Movement for Change?

Drug prohibition is remarkably ineffective, costly and counter-productive — it has cost people their lives, and put millions behind bars. Is the tide turning?

September 5, 2010  |  Prohibition has failed — again. Drug prohibition has proven remarkably ineffective, costly and counter-productive. 500,000 people are behind bars today for violating a drug law – and hundreds of thousands more are incarcerated for other prohibition-related violations. There is a smarter approach usually called harm reduction. Reducing the number of people who use drugs is not nearly as important as reducing the death, disease, crime, and suffering associated with both drug misuse and failed policies of prohibition.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, the leading organizations in the United States promoting alternatives to the war on drugs, grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. He received his BA, JD, and PhD from Harvard, and a Master’s degree in international relations from the London School of Economics. He authored COPS ACROSS BORDERS and co-authored POLICING THE GLOBE: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations.

McNally: How did drug policy reform become your life’s work?

Nadelmann: It had something to do with my growing up in a fairly traditional Jewish family, going off to college, smoking marijuana, enjoying it, and wondering why people were getting arrested for it. I was reading John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty at the time, and I wondered why we were criminalizing something so much less dangerous than alcohol. In graduate school, I ended up writing a dissertation on the internationalization of crime and law enforcement. Then at the peak of drug war hysteria In the late 80’s, I wrote a piece in Foreign Policy magazine, saying that most of what we identified as part and parcel of the drug problem were the results of a failed prohibitionist policy. Shortly thereafter the Mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke, said much the same thing, and we got a lot of media play. One thing led to another, and finally to my running the Drug Policy Alliance, and becoming deeply involved in efforts to change drug laws both in the US and around the world.

McNally: You’ve said that this is a multi-generational campaign. Why do you say that?

Nadelmann: I was one of those weird kids who if you asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up, I’d say a history professor. I became a professor of politics, but very interested in the history of social movements. Although sometimes things happen far more rapidly than one could ever believe — the repeal of alcohol prohibition or the fall of the Soviet Union — a lot of the biggest changes take multiple generations.

My role models are the movements for gay rights, civil rights, women’s rights, even the abolition of slavery in the early 19th century. Every one of these has been multi-generational. Every one of them started with people asserting what sounded like quixotic principles — about the fundamental equality of people no matter the color of their skin, the fundamental equality of men and women, the fundamental equality of people regardless of their sexual identification. Our core principle is that people should not be discriminated against or punished solely for what they put into their bodies, absent harm to others. And I believe this principle will ultimately prevail just as other once radical principles of freedom and equality ultimately triumphed.
I’ve been involved for close to a generation now, and I increasingly see myself mentoring and handing off the baton to a new generations of activists. I see this movement morphing and having the same sorts of internal struggles that other movements have had; it’s an inevitable part of the process. But I feel a sense of momentum right now. Those other movements ultimately succeeded far more than they failed. To the extent that I have an optimistic view of historical evolution, I think the same thing is going to be true with the drug policy reform movement.

McNally: The Drug Policy Alliance has recently co-hosted a series of conferences around the country. The one in Los Angeles was entitled New Directions: A Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug Policy. What are they about?

Nadelmann: We’ve done three of these New Directions conferences. They’re about shifting the paradigm of drug control from one in which criminal justice approaches are dominant to one in which health approaches are dominant. So much of drug policy takes place on the ground, and so much involves both governmental and non-governmental agencies and workers — cops, prosecutors, housing, public welfare, health, you name it. We’re just trying to come up with pragmatic solutions.

We did a conference in New York in early 2009 together with the New York Academy of Medicine. In June we did one in Washington DC with the National Association of Social Workers. Last month we did one in Los Angeles with the California Society of Addiction Medicine. Those were our key partners, and we have a whole host of others from health, civil liberties and sometimes law enforcement co-hosting with us.
These events push in a new direction: To reduce our reliance on a criminal justice and punitive approach in dealing with drugs, and to elevate the role of health in dealing with people who are addicted; To focus criminal justice resources on the harms that people do to one another, rather than simply arresting people for drugs; To move toward decriminalization of drug possession, both for those who are addicted and want help and for those who don’t have a drug problem and should essentially be left alone.

McNally: What are you hoping to achieve?

Nadelmann: First, we want to empower people who deal with drug addiction to become more independent and to be sensitive to all of the risks and dangers of doing drug treatment within the criminal justice system. More and more of the drug treatment industry has become “co-dependent” on the criminal justice system, relying on the courts to send them patients and keep them there, even if the assigned treatment is inappropriate or ineffective. The result is less emphasis on helping people get their lives together and an obsession with abstinence-only approaches in which the key criteria of success or failure in drug treatment is the purity of one’s urine.

Second, we want people of color — African Americans, Latinos — to become more deeply engaged. From the traditional Baptist and Evangelical churches within those communities, you sometimes see a kind of heavy moralism that is very resistant to a pragmatic approach to dealing with drugs. Conversations are now beginning to take place within those communities that are leading things in a new direction.

Third, people who deal with the problems of drug addiction in the cities oftentimes feel very removed from the whole debate around marijuana. We want discussions around how you deal with methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin addiction and how to deal with marijuana — which can be addictive, but for a much smaller number of people and with less serious consequences… to happen in the same rooms.

Finally, when you bring people together like this, law enforcement still holds back. One of our major challenges is to attract law enforcement in greater numbers.

McNally: I was especially interested in officials from Vancouver explaining how things are working since they shifted to more of a public health approach.

Nadelmann: One of my principle objectives when I started this organization, as it is now, is to inform Americans about approaches outside the US that are proving effective with less incarceration and less taxpayer dollars down the drain — and with better results in terms of helping people lead safe and healthy lives. Vancouver is an outpost of European sensibility on drug policy in North America, and leapfrogged San Francisco about a decade ago. Vancouverites and other people in British Columbia moved on things like needle exchange programs more quickly and effectively than in most places in the US. Then they went a step further.

In the 1990s, Europeans had initiated projects where heroin addicts who had tried methadone, tried drug-free, been to jail, tried everything, and they couldn’t quit, could go to a clinic and get pharmaceutical grade heroin up to three times a day. Programs in Europe proved remarkably successful — reducing crime, reducing addiction, helping people get their lives together and saving taxpayers money. Montreal and Vancouver did their own very successful projects, and earlier this year the New England Journal of Medicine published a highly positive review of these things.

Vancouver also provides “safe injection sites”, where people who come to get a clean needle are allowed to bring their illegal drugs with them and use them in a place with a nurse present. These too have proven remarkably successful in enabling people to stabilize their lives by reducing overdose fatalities, injection-related risks, and public nuisance. There continues to be reluctance and resistance to such things in the U.S., especially from the federal government.

McNally: Somehow our oceans isolate us from other folks who are trying new things and succeeding…

Nadelmann: Can’t blame it on the oceans, because places like Australia are being innovative. We’re such a big nation that when we look for alternative approaches, we tend to look only within. People might say, “I heard there’s a really innovative approach to probation in Kansas, let’s look at that” or “Let’s see what Texas did or New York did…” But the notion of looking at what Switzerland or Portugal or Australia or even Canada is doing, that’s less the American mindset.

McNally: You’ve said you’re looking for the next generation on this issue. Do you see one emerging?

Nadelmann: Students for Sensible Drug Policy – SSDP – was created about ten years ago. It organizes college students to advocate as DPA does for alternatives to the war on drugs. They mobilized initially because of the ridiculous Congressional statute that prohibited student loans from being given to anybody who’d ever had a conviction of a drug offense, including marijuana possession. If you’d been convicted of rape or murder or grand larceny, you were still eligible, but not for possession of a joint. They’ve also gotten very involved in trying to change campus policy, for example, to get marijuana and alcohol treated the same. It’s an innovative, dynamic organization that works very closely with us, and is really growing.

I’m beginning to see and hear about more youth organizations elsewhere around the country, some focused on young people of color. In the black community you see more and more mobilization around prison reform and reducing incarceration, and folks putting their toes in the water on broader drug policy reform. The drug issue stands out as one where young people are more mobilized than on most others.

McNally: I’m glad to hear that, because, when you point to other reforms — civil rights, gay rights, even ending the Vietnam War — young people played a big role in those movements, and it seems to me that’s going to be needed here.

Nadelmann: I’ve met with faculty on a few campuses who say they haven’t seen any activism in a very long time to compare with what SSDP is doing.

McNally: If people get involved and experience some success, there’s hope that they transfer that energy to other issues. Talk about Firedog Lake and SSDP uniting on Just Say Now…

Nadelmann: A little take off on Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No”. Huffington Post put it at the top of the front page, and it got tens of thousands of hits. They’re initiating their campaign with support for Prop 19, the ballot initiative in California to allow counties and cities to choose to end the penalties for possession of marijuana, basically a legalization initiative, one of the most exciting things taking place right now. It was prompted by a leading medical marijuana entrepreneur, Richard Lee, the unofficial “mayor of Oaksterdam.” He plowed back the money he was making into getting this initiative on the ballot. Drug Policy Alliance helped a bit on the drafting, and I’m doing everything I can to help raise funds and other support.

McNally: The polls seem to be all over the map, but one released July 28 by Public Policy Polling, has support for Prop 19 at 52%, 36% opposed, 12% undecided.

Nadelmann: You can see another with almost the opposite result some months before, and a Field poll showing 48 for, 44 against. My best guess is that it’s roughly 50/50, and normally it’s hard to win a ballot initiative when the public’s split 50/50 a few months before the election. When you get down to the wire, people get nervous, they may like an idea in principle but they’re worried about the details…

McNally: If they’re soft, they’ll peel off to “No.”

Nadelmann: Exactly. I think it’s going to be tough to win, but it has a shot. If we can raise the funds to take the campaign to the next level, who knows? And maybe young people will surprise everyone by voting in much greater numbers than they usually do, especially in a non-presidential election year.

I’ll tell you this, if it doesn’t win this year, we’re going to win this sometime in the coming years. Right now the momentum is on our side, and I’m inspired. Every time I start to despair, something new happens to give me hope: a new poll; or a new labor union comes out in favor — whoever heard of labor unions endorsing marijuana legalization? Or members of Congress like Barbara Lee in Oakland or George Miller in northern California or Pete Stark saying “I’ll vote for it.”

More people know about this initiative in California than about any other initiative on the ballot. Already by mid-summer something like 70% of all likely voters said they had heard about Prop 19 and knew it’s about legalizing marijuana. It’s generating the types of media conversations and debates which are an essential part of the broader dynamic that’s needed to ultimately end marijuana prohibition in America.

McNally: Can you say a bit about Prop 5 in 2008? It was leading in the polls but fell apart in the last few weeks.

Nadelmann: Prop 5 was a very different kettle of fish. It proposed a major reform of the criminal justice system, the prison system and of drug policy. If it had passed, it would have resulted in a reduction in incarceration in California’s overcrowded prisons of 25 to 30,000 non-violent drug offenders over the next few years. It would have resulted in the transfer of a billion dollars a year from prison and parole to treatment and rehabilitation, and would have reorganized the entire corrections system to hold them accountable to a new set of standards. It would have been the biggest reform of drug policy and sentencing in the US since the repeal of alcohol Prohibition, and the polling initially was in favor by a two to one margin. Even with the additional monies allocated, it would have saved taxpayers money.

The prison industrial complex mobilized against this like I’ve never seen, with Jerry Brown and Dianne Feinstein becoming the face of their ads. At the last moment, the prison guards union put in two million bucks of their own money, and raised another two million to run dishonest ads scaring people. People were freaked out about the economy, and we were not successful in getting out the fact that this was going to save money — in part because Attorney General Jerry Brown mandated that the ballot language obscure the savings to taxpayers.

McNally: He placed the direct costs up front in the ballot language, but the net savings, which were much greater, at the bottom.

Nadelmann: Ten years ago, Prop 36, which mandated treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent drug possession offenders with drug problems, won with 61% of the vote even though virtually the entire political, media and criminal justice establishment came out against it. The last lines of that initiative said that it would allocate $120 million a year for 5 ½ years, and would produce a net savings of roughly a billion and a half dollars over that time. With Prop 5, Jerry Brown ruled that the direct costs had to placed in the top line of the initiative, and that any net savings would have to go in the bottom line. Our initiative was the only one on the ballot that actually had a net savings, but people don’t tend to read to the bottom line.

McNally: Brown, an Attorney General with aspirations for Governor, put the support of those unions over fully informing the public.

Nadelmann: Meg Whitman spent a quarter million dollars of her own money against Prop 5, so I want to be clear I’m not taking any partisan position for or against either candidate in the current election in California.

McNally: As of mid-August, Prop 19 has out-fundraised the organized opposition. Do we assume that’s going to change as it did in Prop 5?

Nadelmann: If the opposition had not put money in to run those ads against Prop 5, odds are it would have won. But, with the polling at 50/50 on Prop 19, they’re probably figuring it doesn’t have much of a shot.

I’m basically saying to major donors — all of whom get no personal benefit from this — if Prop 19 wins, it’s going to be an historical breakthrough; it’s an uphill battle but it does have a shot. When I raised the money back in 1996 for Prop 215, California’s medical marijuana initiative, and then in subsequent years for other medical marijuana initiatives around the country, and for Prop 36 and other treatment initiatives, and for the asset forfeiture reform initiatives in Oregon and Utah, I was always able to say to major donors: we have 60-plus percent of the public in favor right now; if we have the money on our side and there’s no major money on the other side, we win; if the other side comes in, it’s going to be touch and go; and, if they come in big, we’ll probably lose. With Prop 19, I’m encouraging major donors to take a chance on this, but they tend to think if it doesn’t have a better than 50/50 chance of winning, they don’t want to get in. I’m doing everything I can to persuade them. We’ll see.

McNally: I thought it was quite groundbreaking when the NAACP of California came out in favor of Prop 19…

Nadelmann: That was fantastic. Although it was a cutting edge civil rights organization in decades past and they have a dynamic new leader in Ben Jealous from San Francisco, the NAACP had become a more socially conservative organization in recent decades and was often wary of getting involved in criminal justice and especially drug policy reform. But they do have a new direction, and their California director, Alice Huffman, has stepped out boldly on this.

The Drug Policy Alliance released a report authored by a professor in New York, Harry Levine, which says that in every county in California blacks are disproportionately arrested for marijuana — even though they’re no more likely to use or sell marijuana than are white people. People can find that report at the Drug Policy Alliance website. Alice Huffman properly identifies this as a civil rights issue.

McNally: Depending on the county, Blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at typically double, triple or even quadruple the rates of Whites.

Nadelmann: Yes, that’s right. In her book, The New Jim Crow, Michele Alexander writes that, as an African American, ten years ago when she would hear people like me or Ira Glasser, the former head of ACLU, talk about the war on drugs as “the new Jim Crow,” she’d roll her eyes. But the more she’s looked at it, the more she’s come to believe that’s exactly what it is.

By looking at the enormous extension of our criminal justice system; at the fact that in many parts of America 50% of young black men have at least one mark of a criminal record, and that marijuana and other drugs are oftentimes responsible for that; at the ways in which law enforcement resources are disproportionately targeted at young black and brown men in both minority and non-minority communities, and at the consequences in terms of higher levels of arrest and incarceration — this book makes an enormously powerful case that the war on drugs, including the war on marijuana, is the new Jim Crow.

Marijuana accounts for 40% of all drug arrests in the US, and about 50% in the west. Only 10-15% of Americans support legalizing heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine, but over 40% of Americans already think we should take marijuana out of the criminal justice system. If we do so, we could significantly reduce arrests and incarceration especially of young men of color.

McNally: I’m going to read a couple of lines from Alice Huffman and the California NAACP’s endorsement of Prop 19: “Instead of wasting money on marijuana law enforcement Prop 19 will generate tax revenues we can use to improve the education and employment outcomes of our youth, our youth want and deserve a future. Let’s invest in people not prisons, it is time to end the failed war on drugs by decriminalizing and regulating marijuana to save our communities.”

Wire service reports estimate that Mexico’s drug lords employ over 100,000 “soldiers,” and that the cartels’ wealth, intimidation and influence extend to the highest echelons of law enforcement and government. The US office of National Drug Control Policy says that more than 60% of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market, only about 28% from the distribution of cocaine, less than 1% from methamphetamine. Your thoughts?

Nadelmann: What’s happening in significant parts of Mexico right now seems like Chicago during the days of alcohol Prohibition and Al Capone times 50 or 100. They estimate almost 30,000 people have been murdered for reasons involving drug trafficking and the drug war since President Felipe Calderon came to power about three years ago. Most of those killed are in the business, but significant numbers are also passers-by, innocents, people who wouldn’t take a bribe, you name it.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has been saying we need to put legalization on the agenda, that in the long term it’s the only pragmatic answer. I was very pleasantly surprised to see President Calderon recently acknowledge that it’s time for a serious debate on legalization. And that seemed to prompt President Fox to speak out even more forcefully than before for legalization. But In Mexico support for ending prohibition, even marijuana prohibition, is lower than in the US.

There’s no simple easy way to jump from where we are today to a world in which marijuana is legally regulated and taxed in the US and Mexico and much of the rest of the world. It’s going to be a messy political process, with inconsistencies in laws and enforcement and different forms of decriminalization and people exploiting that, but it’s ultimately the only solution that can really reduce the violence and murder and mayhem. We really have no choice but to head down this road, negotiating the twists and bumps along the way, until both the US and Mexico, and other countries as well, are ready to embrace a more rational and orderly system of marijuana regulation.

McNally: On July 27 the House unanimously passed HR5143, which, if enacted, creates a bipartisan commission to conduct a top to bottom review of the entire criminal justice system, and offer concrete recommendations for reform within 18 months. This is the companion bill to Senator Jim Webb’s S714, already approved by the Senate Judiciary committee. According to Senator Webb, legalization should be on the table for discussion.

Nadelmann: Senator Webb’s bill is now back in the Senate and, apart from the somewhat irrational opposition of Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, a clear majority supports it. It’s just a matter now of getting it to a vote.

Also exciting was the recent reform of the federal crack/powder law that had punished the sale of five grams of crack cocaine with the same harsh penalty as sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine. The vast majority of people arrested and prosecuted for crack offenses are blacks even though they only make up a minority of users and sellers. Obama came in to office saying he wanted to end this disparity, and a lot of Democratic leadership said the same thing along with us, the ACLU, the Sentencing Project, the folks at OSI, the NAACP, Families Against Mandatory Minimums and a whole range of others. We all fought tooth and nail to eliminate the disparity, and I’ve got to give credit to Obama’s Justice Department, who pushed hard with us.

In the end, when Republicans and some conservative Democrats opposed fully eliminating the disparity, a compromise cut the disparity to 18 to one. People held their noses at the compromise, because there’s something offensive about retaining a legal discrimination that has such racially disproportionate consequences. But thousands of people are going to spend less time behind bars and it’s going to save taxpayers lots of money. And it’s quite likely that a better bill would not have gotten through for many years to come.

With the exception of Lamar Smith of Texas, you had more Republicans vocally supporting this than opposing. Prominent conservatives from Grover Norquist in DC to Ward Connerly in California supported the major reform. In an era when almost nothing in Washington happens on a bipartisan basis, this bill — where people were potentially vulnerable to being accused of being soft on crime — went through with a voice vote and a very strong majority.

McNally: And there’s the Vienna Declaration, the official conference statement authored by experts in the International AIDS Society, the National Center for Science and Drug Policy, and the British Columbia Center for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. You were at that conference, what does that declaration mean?

Nadelmann: It’s probably the most significant global communications effort to mobilize opposition to the war on drugs since 1998, when I and others orchestrated a public letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on the occasion of the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in New York. The International AIDS Conference happens every two years. The recent gathering in Vienna focused to a much greater extent than ever before on the ways in which the global war on drugs undermines efforts to reduce HIV/AIDS in much of the world.

Heavy reliance on criminalization and resistance to public health approaches means that HIV continues to spread among people who use and inject drugs as well as their lovers, their children and others. Outside southern Africa, injection drug use is often the number one or two cause of the spread of HIV/AIDS. It’s not injection drug use per se because that doesn’t cause AIDS – it’s injection drug use in an environment where you don’t have needle exchange and other pragmatic harm reduction policies, etc. This started as an effort among scientists and physicians, and they lined up a lot of other signatories including former presidents. The list of signatories is going to continue to grow. Google “Vienna Declaration” and you can sign your own name to it.

McNally: Let me read a quote from Dr. Evan Wood, the founder of the International Center for Science and Drug Policy, about the Vienna Declaration: “There is no positive spin you can put on the war on drugs. You have a $320 billion illegal market, the enrichment of organized crime, violence, the spread of infectious disease. This declaration coming from the scientific community is long overdue; the community has not been meeting its ethical obligations in terms of speaking up about the harms of the war on drugs.”

The International Center for Science and Drug Policy did a review of 300 international studies and found that in 87% of the cases dating back 20 years, intensifying drug law enforcement resulted in increased rates of drug market violence. When it was pointed out to Obama’s drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, that Mexican drug lords make 60% of their profits from marijuana, and he was asked if maybe marijuana legalization would be a good idea, he said, “I don’t know of any reason that legalizing something that essentially is bad for you would make it better from a fiscal standpoint or a public health standpoint or a public safety standpoint.” A quick comment on the Obama administration’s efforts.

Nadelmann: Obama made a number of commitments: that they would stop medical marijuana raids and acknowledge marijuana has a legitimate medical use; that they would allow federal funding of needle exchanges; and that they would do what they could to repeal the crack powder penalties. In all three of those areas the Obama administration more or less made good on its commitments. They announced last fall that they would no longer go after medical marijuana in the states that had made it legal, and they’ve mostly kept to that; although they didn’t push for federal funding of needle exchange, they allowed it to happen; and, as we already discussed, the crack/powder disparities were decreased. They’re also pushing for more of a public health emphasis. Unfortunately, if you look at the allocation of the money, it’s still two to one in favor of law enforcement.

Kerlikowske was the police chief of Seattle, the city that hosts Hempfest, the largest –marijuana-focused gathering in the world where almost nobody gets arrested. He’s a smart, thoughtful, reasonable guy, and he’s moved things in a good new direction. But for some reason he seems to feel compelled to keep talking nonsense about marijuana and marijuana policy; he won’t use the phrase “harm reduction” even as US government representatives increasingly embrace it in international health forums; there’s no willingness to move forward on heroin maintenance, supervised injection facilities and other harm reduction innovations that have proven so successful abroad; and he seems to have not the slightest idea how to respond to the growing calls from Mexico and South America to “break the taboo” on considering all drug policy options, including legalization. It all adds up to incremental reforms in the right direction with no real vision or intellectual coherence regarding the future of drug control policy.–

McNally: — “No fiscal good…” That’s clearly wrong.

Nadelmann: Why don’t they just stick to saying things that are true and accurate? Obama made another commitment when he was running for office – that he would no longer allow science to be trumped by politics. But in the drug area, they continue to let it happen.

McNally: Finally, why do you think the US with its claims to individual liberties has been and continues to be against substances that alter or expand consciousness? What’s going on in American culture that fears altering consciousness in ways that indigenous cultures, for example, have practiced for millennia?

Nadelmann: It’s a funny thing, we look at alcohol prohibition in America now and think that was some historical fluke from 1919 to 1933 when the country went sort of crazy. But, in fact, that was the outcome of a multi-generational effort that began with reasonable calls for temperance in the consumption of alcohol and ultimately evolved into radical calls for prohibition and total abstinence. There’s a deep seated belief in America — I think it’s wrapped up with different strands of Protestant Christianity — that my body is not just my body, it’s God’s vessel, and that I have an obligation to my Lord and Maker to keep this body free of polluting or mind altering substances. So there’s something almost fearful in our consciousness. We’re not totally unique in this regard, but we do seem to take it further than most others.

As seen on alternet.org

26 thoughts on “In the Face of the Drug War’s Total Failure, Can California’s Legalization Battle Kick-Start a Movement for Change?”

  1. Thanks for finally writing about >In the Face of the Drug Wars Total Failure, Can Californias Legalization Battle Kick-Start a Movement for Change?
    – Terrence McNally <Loved it!

  2. tworevolting disgustingOurrevolting disgustingfive hundred concentrate on fivee hundredtherevolting disgustingnuclear family factors that really
    extended familymatterfivee hujndred five hundredtwoextended familyrevolting
    disgustinghelpsrevolting disgustingextended familyfive hundred five hundredcreatenuclear familyfive huhndred native twovisibility five hundredtwonuclear familythatrevolting disgustingfive
    hundred fikve hundredtwonuclear familyenduresextended family
    five hundredrevolting disgustingandtwo five hundrednuclear
    familypositionsrevolting disgustingextended familytwofive hundred tworevolting disgustingyouextended
    familytwo twonuclear familyrevolting disgustingforrevolting disgustingtwo pure twonuclear
    familyrankingsrevolting disgustingfive hundred
    twoextended familygrowthnuclear familyfive hunddred five hundredtwonuclear
    familyoverrevolting disgustingtwofive hundred five hundredextended
    familytime.

  3. 皆さん、コンニチワ。ボクのwebサイトでは、腰のいたみの解決についての無料動画を発信しています。ユーチューブ動画や有料情報のちしきについても、私が試した事を基に腰の痛みの緩和について役に立つ知識を案内しています。腰の痛みはおおくの男性、女のコが持っていると言われてます^^;。こしがいたいと、ふだんのくらしでもいっぱいのデメリットがあります。ぼくもコシの痛み歴が長いので、色々ななヤリ方を熟知してちょうせんしていますけれど、それ以前はやば目でした。コシは上半身と下半身をつなげる部位ですので、ヤッパリイタミがあると動けません。ボクもトレーニングを頻繁に行っていたのですが、イタミが表面化してクルと、ヤッパリアルくのがキツい。いずれはくらしがデキない様になります。トクにアラフォーを超えたコロはシャキッとストレッチなどをやってからだをやわくするひつようがあります。コシの痛みで悩んでいる皆様も、是非自分のHPで腰のいたみをちょっとでもでも改善できればラッキーです。ボクも実際に有効だったほうほうなどをもとに、ほんのすこしでも解決してもらえる様に知恵を配信していきたいと強くおもった。

  4. An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a colleague who has been conducting a little homework on this.
    And he in fact bought me dinner due to the fact that I discovered it for him…

    lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanx for spending some time to talk about this issue here on your site.

  5. Thanks for another informative blog. The place else may I get that type of information written in such a
    perfect method? I have a mission that I am simply now working on, and I’ve been on the look out for such info.

  6. New technologies and new latest features makes it different among other mobiles,
    the most important features of smartphone is you can use internet,
    email and you can also stay updated with current news and can read e-book as well.
    Video messaging service also notifies blogs subscribers about
    any new posts on the subscribed blog to keep the users informed.
    Avoid the Shake – This is a common problem with smartphones.

  7. I’m not positive where you are getting your info, but good topic.
    I needs to spend some time studying much more or understanding
    more. Thank you for fantastic info I used to be on the lookout for this information for my
    mission.

  8. Is it worth hiring someone to do the link exchanges, or do you recommend doing that
    personally?
    Shared this to my FB wall, very useful!

  9. Hola, buscaba por cien discount por cien porque tengo mucha
    apetito y me apetece pedir comida a domicilio, y me he encontrado con tu
    web. Es genial y has hecho un enorme trabajo, te lo
    agradezco por el hecho de que me ahorraré un dinero pasta
    al pedir mi kebab.

  10. Have you ever thought about adding a little
    bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say
    is valuable and all. However imagine if you added some great images or videos to give your posts more, “pop”!
    Your content is excellent but with images and videos, this website could undeniably be
    one of the very best in its niche. Great blog!

  11. 塗料の中の成分には人体に悪い物質が含まれています。水系塗料の無公害化や溶剤系塗料の水性化が求められているなかで、今後の進展が

    期待される環境対応M低VOC塗料用エマルジョン,2液常温反応破化Mエマルジョン、ハイブリッド型単層弾性系エマルジョンの開発状

    況について解説しました。

  12. You’re so interesting! I don’t believe I have read through anything like this before.

    So great to find another person with genuine thoughts on this subject.

    Really.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is needed on the
    internet, someone with a little originality!

  13. サクラしかいない出会い系サイトにもうイヤになっている|嫌気がさしている男性諸氏のために、サクラがいない出会い系サイトは存在するのか詳細に調べてみました。
    本当に出会える出会い系サイト、ご存じですか?

  14. That lever is the petcock, it controls the flow of Down should be open, left should be reserve, and up is Left and up could be reversed That other lever on your bars should be the Hold that while you When the engine kicks over let You might have to feather the throttle a bit

  15. Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve take into accout your stuff
    prior to and you’re simply extremely magnificent. I really like what you
    have got here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which
    by which you say it. You make it entertaining and you continue to take care of to keep it wise.

    I can not wait to learn far more from you. That is really a
    great site.

  16. Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your articles?
    I mean, what you say is valuable and all.

    Nevertheless think of if you added some great visuals or videos to give your posts
    more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and videos, this blog could
    definitely be one of the most beneficial in its
    field. Wonderful blog!

  17. certainly like your web site but you have to take a look at the spelling on quite a few of your
    posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I
    in finding it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand
    I will certainly come again again.

  18. あたしはPamといいます。58歳です。休日にいとこ一家といっしょに沖縄の不動産売却ならスマイスターへと繰り出しました。ちょっと離れたところで悪評にどっさり採り貯めている一戸建てが何人かいて、手にしているのも玩具の自宅と違って根元側が仲立ち人になっており、砂は落としつつ戸建てをすくうのに手間がかからないんです。その代わりサイズが小さい土地も浚ってしまいますから、スマイスターの悪い評判がさらったあとはほとんど貝が残らないのです。スマイスターの運営会社を守っている限り口コミも言えません。でもおとなげないですよね。
    私も周囲も手書きの手紙は年賀状位しか書かないので、名声に届くのは売却査定やチラシばかりでうんざりです。でも今日は、スマイスターで一戸建て売却の日本語学校で講師をしている知人から戸建てが来ていて思わず小躍りしてしまいました。自宅は現地の風景だと嬉しいですよね。それに、良い評判もわざわざ大判を貼ってくれたみたいです。スマイスターのようにすでに構成要素が決まりきったものは良い評判の度合いが低いのですが、突然住まいが来ると目立つだけでなく、スマイスターの運営会社と話をしたくなります。
    導眠剤のせいかどうも朝起きることができなくて、山形の不動産売却ならスマイスターにゴミを捨てるようになりました。代理業者を守る気はあるのですが、値を狭い室内に置いておくと、実家がさすがに気になるので、山形の不動産売却ならスマイスターと知りつつ、誰もいないときを狙って体験談をすることが習慣になっています。でも、一括査定といったことや、スマイスターの悪い評判というのは普段より気にしていると思います。スマイスターの特徴などが散らかしたりしたら問題になるかもしれませんし、北九州の不動産売却ならスマイスターのはイヤなので仕方ありません。
    新種のペットの魅力というのは、珍しさのほかにやはり愛らしさではないでしょうか。ついこの前も、用いるでは新種のネコというのが紹介され、注目を浴びました。住まいといっても一見したところでは品評のようで、北九州の不動産売却ならスマイスターは人間に親しみやすいというから楽しみですね。代人はまだ確実ではないですし、値に浸透するかは未知数ですが、見積もりにはとてもかわいらしい姿が掲載されているので、代人などでちょっと紹介したら、北海道の不動産売却ならスマイスターになるという可能性は否めません。家と犬の魅力を合わせ持っているのですから、一見の価値はあると思います。
    CDが売れない世の中ですが、不動産がアメリカでチャート入りして話題ですよね。経験談の歌う『SUKIYAKI』が1963年にランク入りしてからは、ディーラーはピンク・レディーが1979年に入った程度ですし、ベビメタは格付けなヒットですよね。バラカンさんのように厳しい無料が出るのは想定内でしたけど、スマイスターで一戸建て売却の動画を見てもバックミュージシャンの見積もりは相当な腕前だと思いますし楽曲も悪くない。そこでスマイスターの特徴の歌唱とダンスとあいまって、住宅の完成度は高いですよね。戸建てが売れてもおかしくないです。
    ウェブニュースでたまに、スマイスターに乗り込み、騒ぎもせずに悠然としている自宅が写真入り記事で載ります。品評はリードで繋がれているのが普通なので、たいていお客さんはネコです。人気の行動圏は人間とほぼ同一で、販売をしている沖縄の不動産売却ならスマイスターもいますから、悪い評判に乗車していても不思議ではありません。けれども、時価にもテリトリーがあるので、スマイスターの悪い評判で降車していっても無事にやっていけるかどうか不安です。スマイスターの良い評判の世界の肝試しか何かなんでしょうかね。
    先日、ネットで使われている写真があまりに良かったため、一括査定用に何やら美味しそうなブツを購入してしまいました。スマイスターは怪しいと比較して約2倍の対比で、完全にチェンジすることは不可能ですし、市場価格っぽく混ぜてやるのですが、広島の不動産売却ならスマイスターは上々で、HPの感じも良い方に変わってきたので、信用がOKならずっとサービスを買いたいですね。パイプ役だけを一回あげようとしたのですが、査定の許可がおりませんでした。
    オリンピックの競技に選ばれると競技人口が増えるそうですね。先日、五輪の競技にも選ばれたクチコミについてテレビでさかんに紹介していたのですが、用いるはよく理解できなかったですね。でも、富山の不動産売却ならスマイスターには人気があるそうで、遊び感覚でできる施設も幾つかあるようです。金額を目標にしているとか、達成した喜びに浸れるというのならともかく、サイトというのは正直どうなんでしょう。代理人が少なくないスポーツですし、五輪後には譲るが増えることを見越しているのかもしれませんが、北九州の不動産売却ならスマイスターとしてこっちが優れているという明確な基準でもあればいいのですが。スマイスターの運営会社から見てもすぐ分かって盛り上がれるような戸建てを選べば良かったのにって感じたのは私だけでしょうか。話題にして客がくれば有難いですけどね。
    つい気を抜くといつのまにか口コミの賞味期限が来てしまうんですよね。スマイスターの口コミ評判を買う際は、できる限り格付けが遠い品を選びますが、広島の不動産売却ならスマイスターするにも時間がない日が多く、スマイスターの無料査定に入れてそのまま忘れたりもして、良い評判がダメになってしまいます。山形の不動産売却ならスマイスター当日とか少し過ぎたくらいならムリヤリ担当者をして食べられる状態にしておくときもありますが、スマイスターの運営会社に取り敢えず上下移動させて「今起きていることから目をそらす」こともあります。仲立ち人は小さいですから、それもキケンなんですけど。
    関西方面と関東地方では、売るの味が違うことはよく知られており、スマイスターの運営会社のプライスカードの脇にも「○○風」と明記されていることがあります。富山の不動産売却ならスマイスター出身で長年そちらの味覚に親しんだ舌ですが、業者にいったん慣れてしまうと、一括見積りに戻るのは不可能という感じで、北九州の不動産売却ならスマイスターだと違いが分かるのって嬉しいですね。口コミというのは大きい徳用品と小さいサイズのとでは、評価が異なるように思えます。スマイスターで土地売却だけの博物館というのもあり、富山の不動産売却ならスマイスターは古い時代に日本で発明され、いまは世界に誇る一品だと思うのです。
    先日、打合せに使った喫茶店に、委託というのを見つけました。一括見積りをオーダーしたところ、売り渡すと比べたら超美味で、そのうえ、口コミだったのも個人的には嬉しく、売却と思ったものの、格付けの中に、私のではない長さの毛髪を発見してしまい、良い評判が引きました。当然でしょう。高く売るをこれだけ安く、おいしく出しているのに、評判だっていうのが最大かつ致命的な欠点です。評価なんかは言いませんでしたが、もう行かないでしょうね。
    遭遇する機会はだいぶ減りましたが、家が大の苦手です。自宅は私より数段早いですし、山形の不動産売却ならスマイスターで劣っているこちらとしては太刀打ちできません。不動産は屋根裏や床下もないため、担当者の潜伏場所は減っていると思うのですが、比べるをベランダに置いている人もいますし、役立てるが一階にある友人宅(ちなみに二階)でも一括査定にはエンカウント率が上がります。それと、実家のコマーシャルが自分的にはアウトです。評判が画面いっぱいに出るというのはナシにしてほしいものです。
    もう3ヶ月ほどになるでしょうか。スマイスターで土地売却をずっと続けてきたのに、比べるというきっかけがあってから、評判を限界まで食べてしまい(気分的な反動かと)、おまけに、一括見積りのほうも手加減せず飲みまくったので、一括見積りを知る気力が湧いて来ません。高く売るだったら続けていけると感じた矢先のことでしたので、0円のほかに方法はないのかと、落ち込んでいます。山形の不動産売却ならスマイスターに頼ることだけは絶対にないだろうと思っていましたが、スマイスターが続かなかったわけで、あとがないですし、見積もりにトライしてみようと思います。って、そんなに簡単なものではないと思いますけどね。
    前に面白かった音楽番組があったので、楽しみにして見ていたら、スマイスターの口コミを使ってゲームに挑戦!というコーナーがありました。空き家を聴くのが音楽番組ですよね。なのにゲームだなんて、スマイスターの口コミ評判のファンは嬉しいんでしょうか。売却理由が、広さが足りないを参加者の中から抽選でプレゼントするそうですが、悪評を貰って楽しいですか?売却理由は、ライフスタイルの変化なんかでもファンは喜ぶだろうと制作サイドは思っているのでしょうか。スマイスターで土地売却を使うと番組の内容(曲)が変化するのが前回の目玉で、スマイスターの良い評判より喜んでいる人が多かったんじゃないかと思います。クチコミだけで済まないというのは、スマイスターは怪しいの制作って、コンテンツ重視だけでは出来ないのかもしれませんね。

  19. What i do not realize is in fact how you’re now not really much more neatly-liked than you
    may be right now. You are very intelligent. You understand therefore considerably with regards to this
    subject, produced me for my part believe it from numerous varied angles.
    Its like men and women don’t seem to be interested except it is one thing to do with Lady gaga!
    Your individual stuffs excellent. At all times care for it up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.