Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Drug Testing at Work


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#51 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:18 PM

Once again, my argument is not based upon current U.S. law. It is painstakingly obvious that it is legal in its current form. The problem I have with this argument is that just because someone stops using drugs long enough to take the UA, does not preclude them from using drugs while at work AFTER they pass their drug screening. As a former drug user, I can assure you that I was employed throughout every day of each of those years....



There is nothing there to stop that (Save for random drug screenings), but it is a fair enough test of their responsibility. Its a minimal level of responsibility test. They want to see if you are capable of sobering up long enough to get a job. Its a simple and basic test, and filters out thousands of applicants every day. Its much less likely that someone who will stop doing drugs long enough to pass a test, would be stupid/irresponsible enough to do it at work. While someone who will smoke weed or other drugs, knowing that they had a test coming up, shouldn't be trusted in the slightest bit to be smart enough to not do it at work.

#52 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:19 PM

Facebook... hmmm. Is it an invasion of privacy if you are posting personal things publicly? While I suppose it is possible to discover criminal activity by looking through the photos they post on Facebook, your piss in a little cup is a bit more scientific than them trying to figure out what you're smoking in those pictures from Halloween.

Where I work, there are periodically random drug tests. Are these also invasion of privacy, or is it just morally wrong when you haven't gotten the job yet?



#53 Sage

Sage
  • 692 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:20 PM

Once again, my argument is not based upon current U.S. law. It is painstakingly obvious that it is legal in its current form. The problem I have with this argument is that just because someone stops using drugs long enough to take the UA, does not preclude them from using drugs while at work AFTER they pass their drug screening. As a former drug user, I can assure you that I was employed throughout every day of each of those years....


So what would you rather a company did to preclude an employee from doing drugs at work, if not suggesting that they will be watched for odd behavior at all times and tested at the first indication that they're using (by, you know, testing them before they're even hired)?


Edit: Also, if you're going to nitpick at others' spelling, I'd recommend you not use 'painstakingly' where you mean 'painfully.'

Edited by cuddlydemon, 11 April 2012 - 09:24 PM.


#54 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:22 PM

Facebook... hmmm. Is it an invasion of privacy if you are posting personal things publicly? While I suppose it is possible to discover criminal activity by looking through the photos they post on Facebook, your piss in a little cup is a bit more scientific than them trying to figure out what you're smoking in those pictures from Halloween.



If you post it publicly, it cannot possibly be an invasion of privacy, as there is not implied privacy when doing things publicly. Asking for a password is a breach of privacy. A password is a key, and asking for a key breaches their privacy. (Even the courts agree with it, even when its criminal hiding their child pron with a password)

#55 WharfRat

WharfRat
  • 11157 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:25 PM

Writers who are paid -millions- of dollars make spelling mistakes.
Scientist who are far smarter then either of us, make spelling mistakes.
Even Einstein made spelling mistakes. Fuck off with a spelling mistake being a reason for an entire persons argument being invalid.

How can you take something as simple as a drug test, to something as absurd as giving away passwords?

A drug test is intended to check for a single thing that is illegal. It does not check for anything else, and it cannot and will not provide you with any information outside of what drugs they are using. Anyone who gives a drug test is trained and tested by the government, and face strict legal penalties if they use anything for something beyond a drug test. Drug use (Coke/meth/etc) can quickly degrade job performance (Even if you want to deny it, there are thousands of studies that show that continued drug use will kill brain cells etc, which makes the excellent employee you hired, turn into shit over time)

Whereas there is no basis for requiring, asking for, or requesting a password to a private matter. For instance, your basis of "potential employees don't post moronic and obscene things for the whole world to see" is invalid, because if you cannot see that information without a password, then neither could the rest of the world. Anything that you can see with password protection, is personal (Hence why its protected with a password). Nothing that you can do on Facebook would show any sign of decreased performance at work (Except for getting on Facebook at work, which can easily be countered/identified WITHOUT the need for a password).

Please leave the fallacies out of this, and focus on the fact.

The only thing that you have shown as even a partially valid excuse is "Innocent until proven guilty". That only applies to the law, and nothing else. No private sector companies are required to follow that (Hundreds of employees are fired upon suspicion only). If we had it where only people we suspected of doing drugs take the test (There are plenty of people I would swear did drugs, who have never touched it) then they would scream discrimination and take a nice fat paycheck. Thus we cannot have "probably cause" be applied in this case (Like it is with all drug screening by law enforcement). I would personally rather take a test and prove I'm not a drug dealer, then be denied 100% on suspicion, as would every single person in the nation who does not do drugs.

A) Only three drug types have actual proven neurotoxicity; alcohol, methamphetamine, and MDMA. (I suppose you could include inhalants but they are not neurotoxic in their own regard, simply in the reduction of oxygen to the brain.) I implore you to find a legitimate study indicating otherwise. Please check YOUR facts prior to making a generalized claim.

The facebook analogy is to demonstrate that an employer is seeking to find personal information regarding decisions you make in your personal life. I actually do manage a large business and I understand and deal with the legal ramifications for discriminatory termination of employment. If you had read my first post, I state explicitly that if an employee appears to be a drug user, that is absolutely NO grounds for termination... The grounds for termination can very easily be performance based. If all recreational drug users as you claim have diminished performances, then it is very simple to fire someone for inadequate performance.

Yes, for the fifth time, I understand that it is legal under U.S. law. Segregation was also legal... as was slavery... as were Jim Crow laws. The point of having such a discussion is to question the morality and/or validity of said practices, not to determine if they are constitutional.

Also, you are incorrect in your 100% of people who do not do drugs statement as well... I would not prefer that and I do not use drugs. However, somehow, your broad generalization isn't surprising to me. Please bring some facts into the argument. If you'd like to bring up statistics, try finding some from a valid study and not numbers that you have arbitrarily assigned to prove a point.

#56 Yung

Yung
  • Codexian

  • 3361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:28 PM

Facebook... hmmm. Is it an invasion of privacy if you are posting personal things publicly?


Considering Facebook does offer the option to make everything you post as private as you want it to be this should never be considered an invasion of privacy. I agree with you completely on that one, if you are posting it publicly then it is public and therefore can NOT be considered invasion of privacy.

#57 WharfRat

WharfRat
  • 11157 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:30 PM

So what would you rather a company did to preclude an employee from doing drugs at work, if not suggesting that they will be watched for odd behavior at all times and tested at the first indication that they're using (by, you know, testing them before they're even hired)?


Edit: Also, if you're going to nitpick at others' spelling, I'd recommend you not use 'painstakingly' where you mean 'painfully.'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/painstaking

I meant painstakingly. ;)

Also, if you read my original post, I indicate my current business practice. Odd behavior does not warrant a UA to be requested. Only through someone physically seeing, smelling, or otherwise observing someone using drugs/alcohol at work will a UA be requested. If there are performance issues at hand, you will terminate employment for those performance issues. It is a much better indicator if an employee will fit the requirements of a job through the interviewing process than a UA.


I also JUST mentioned the poor spelling of the word "legal" for effect. I have underlined several spelling and grammatical errors below as well.
Spoiler


#58 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:31 PM

Considering Facebook does offer the option to make everything you post as private as you want it to be this should never be considered an invasion of privacy. I agree with you completely on that one, if you are posting it publicly then it is public and therefore can NOT be considered invasion of privacy.


The furor is over employers asking for applicants' Facebook passwords.

#59 Sage

Sage
  • 692 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:39 PM

Also, if you read my original post, I indicate my current business practice. Odd behavior does not warrant a UA to be requested. Only through someone physically seeing, smelling, or otherwise observing someone using drugs/alcohol at work will a UA be requested. If there are performance issues at hand, you will terminate employment for those performance issues. It is a much better indicator if an employee will fit the requirements of a job through the interviewing process than a UA.


It seems as though you're separating things by semantics rather than the actual problem involved. Their poor performance in the hypothetical copy room situation is caused by drug use on the job. That you fire them "for their poor performance" does not in any way change that they were using on the job, whether it was directly observed or tested for, or not.

It also doesn't help the company anymore if copy room guy causes someone to get hurt at work. In fact, if the injured party sued the high employee and it came to light that he was high when it happened, the company stands to lose a LOT more than copy room guy.

#60 Romy

Romy
  • Neocodex Elite Four Member


  • 4876 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:50 PM

[quote name='iargue' timestamp='1334207537' post='1572463']
Drug use (Coke/meth/etc) can quickly degrade job performance (Even if you want to deny it, there are thousands of studies that show that continued drug use will kill brain cells etc, which makes the excellent employee you hired, turn into shit over time)
[/quote]

[quotename='WharfRat' timestamp='1334208305' post='1572472']
A) Only three drug types have actual provenneurotoxicity; alcohol, methamphetamine, and MDMA. (I suppose you could includeinhalants but they are not neurotoxic in their own regard, simply in thereduction of oxygen to the brain.) I implore you to find a legitimate studyindicating otherwise. Please check YOUR facts prior to making a generalizedclaim.
[/quote]


Sorry...I had to say something...

Cocaine decimates thenucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex (otherwise known as the PleasureCenter). It basically messes with the brains' chemistry.
MPTP (MPPP: it's an opiate similar to morphine) causes Parkinsons-like symptoms and damages the mid-brain.
Oxycodone is rumored to cause brain damage if abused.
PCP can cause schizophrenia.
Heroin accelerates brainaging and can cause "Alzheimer-like" damage if used long term.
just sayin...Posted Image

Edited by Pikachuu, 11 April 2012 - 10:52 PM.


#61 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:45 AM

I'm against it. What you do in your free time is completely up to you. Now if you're high at work or it's affecting your job performance, than that's completely different (and there should be safety nets in place to weed out the poor workers anyway).

Bottom line, I wouldn't work for a company who subjected you to that level of scrutiny.

#62 Dazz

Dazz
  • Musicyclopedia

  • 3242 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:54 AM

lol i know stoners that are more hard working and less clumsy than the other workers, of course they don't do it on the job, because that would be stupid. People who assume that someone who does drugs will end up doing them at work are just stupid, i've not known of anyone being high whilst at work. At the end of the day if the job gets done fine and the performance levels are more than good then what's the problem with what they do in their spare time?

#63 chini

chini
  • 67 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:45 AM

Out of all the places I've worked at they never did drug testing. Wasn't worth it to them to spend money on people who would pass otherwise.

I've had background check done when I became a respite provider for special needs children, but no drug testing. I don't think it's my place of work's business of what I do outside of work. As long as my activities do not affect my workload and I don't come in under such influences.

#64 Norava

Norava
  • Pro Can Cran

  • 547 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:53 AM

If you have to drug test to get a job, you need to have to drug test to get on welfare.

#65 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:11 PM

If you have to drug test to get a job, you need to have to drug test to get on welfare.


This is my biggest problem with drug testing. You have to get screened to make money, but can get resources with no screening? It makes no sense.

Out of all the places I've worked at they never did drug testing. Wasn't worth it to them to spend money on people who would pass otherwise.

I've had background check done when I became a respite provider for special needs children, but no drug testing. I don't think it's my place of work's business of what I do outside of work. As long as my activities do not affect my workload and I don't come in under such influences.


I've never been drug tested for work, but I have for other things. I've had a background check every place I've worked though. In most of the jobs I've had, it was fast food and if they drug tested they wouldn't have employees. At the job I hold now, they consider it an invasion of privacy and expensive and test as necessary.

#66 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:09 PM

I'm against it. What you do in your free time is completely up to you. Now if you're high at work or it's affecting your job performance, than that's completely different (and there should be safety nets in place to weed out the poor workers anyway).

Bottom line, I wouldn't work for a company who subjected you to that level of scrutiny.



Thank god you don't live in america then. Over 50% of employees do that, and all skilled level jobs do that (that might be a very small amount that don't, but I haven't heard of any).

A) Only three drug types have actual proven neurotoxicity; alcohol, methamphetamine, and MDMA. (I suppose you could include inhalants but they are not neurotoxic in their own regard, simply in the reduction of oxygen to the brain.) I implore you to find a legitimate study indicating otherwise. Please check YOUR facts prior to making a generalized claim.

The facebook analogy is to demonstrate that an employer is seeking to find personal information regarding decisions you make in your personal life. I actually do manage a large business and I understand and deal with the legal ramifications for discriminatory termination of employment. If you had read my first post, I state explicitly that if an employee appears to be a drug user, that is absolutely NO grounds for termination... The grounds for termination can very easily be performance based. If all recreational drug users as you claim have diminished performances, then it is very simple to fire someone for inadequate performance.

Yes, for the fifth time, I understand that it is legal under U.S. law. Segregation was also legal... as was slavery... as were Jim Crow laws. The point of having such a discussion is to question the morality and/or validity of said practices, not to determine if they are constitutional.

Also, you are incorrect in your 100% of people who do not do drugs statement as well... I would not prefer that and I do not use drugs. However, somehow, your broad generalization isn't surprising to me. Please bring some facts into the argument. If you'd like to bring up statistics, try finding some from a valid study and not numbers that you have arbitrarily assigned to prove a point.


I'm not going to spend any time to prove something that is already proven. How stupid is that? Drugs are illegal because of their serious health risks, which have been proven. Cigarettes would be illegal too, but they lobbyist where smart enough to drop a shitfuck ton of money from the start. Now there are too many legal users to make it illegal. There are many many many drugs that cause brain deterioration. As long as you are arguing that drugs are safe to use, this argument is completely pointless. If drugs where safe to use, then they wouldn't be illegal, and everyone would take them and enjoy the high.


The facebook thing is 100% different. If they asked for permission to view only your illegal activity that is on facebook. Then sure, that makes sense. They are not asking only to see illegal activity and nothing else. They are asking to see EVERYTHING you have ever done on facebook. Every personal message. Every personal wall post. Every picture that is hidden. Every poke that you currently have. They are given complete and utter access to your personal life. THAT IS A BREACH.

On the other hand, all that a drug test does is check for illegal activity. It doesn't tell you anything about the person except if they do drugs. It doesn't tell if you are pregnant, it doesn't tell if you have std's, it doesn't tell if you are gay. It reveals nothing whatsoever beyond what they are asking to see. Your facebook example is a terrible fucking example, because you comparing a simple test that only checks for one single thing, that happens to be against the law, to complete and utter access to someones personal information. Thus you are providing a fallacy, which has no place in this argument. I will no longer respond to any mention at all of this facebook bs. Its nothing even close to a drug test, and should never have been mentioned.

First of all. Hiring an employee who has shit for performance and firing them a week later gives you an immediate loss of profit. Why would you deny a company a very basic test for responsibility? It looses you money to fire an employee within the first 30 days of him being hired (Given that you follow all of the tax laws and everything). So you are saying that a company shouldn't have the right to make a basic test that proves the person at least wants the job?

And the fact that you would like to be denied a job for a reason that doesn't exist, then take a simple test, makes this argument 100% meaningless. You do not take employment serious.

That's why employers should be able to randomly drug test their employees. Someone who stops using to get a job then starts using again obviously doesn't care too much for their job.

The issue that WharfRat and some others seem to bring up is that employers should only be able to drug test after an incident in the workplace occurs (at least from the way their previous posts are written this is what it seems like). That to me is the most idiotic way of doing things. The idea is to prevent incidents from occuring, not find a reason to blame someone after its already happened... In laymans terms that's like only fueling your car up after it has stopped because the tank is empty (mild incident) or only attempting to put oil in the engine after the light comes on and the motor is making strange noises.

Prevention by random screening and subsequent firing of users as they may pose a serious safety hazard is a much better solution then waiting for them to cause an accident.

With that being said, I don't really think it is necessary that all employers need to drug test their employees. Those who are in critical thinking jobs, those who are operating transport, heavy machinery, builders / manual laborers yes they should. Low level employees / sales assistants / checkout chicks etc don't pose a huge danger to anyone unless they are required to drive somewhere / operate equipment.


The act of not smoking until you get a job shows you at least want to have a job. An employee that doesn't want to have a job, will never performance an employee wants. I think its critical to at least know if the person you are hiring wants to have the job (Meaning they can resist picking up a blunt for a month).


lol i know stoners that are more hard working and less clumsy than the other workers, of course they don't do it on the job, because that would be stupid. People who assume that someone who does drugs will end up doing them at work are just stupid, i've not known of anyone being high whilst at work. At the end of the day if the job gets done fine and the performance levels are more than good then what's the problem with what they do in their spare time?


So say you have been doing drugs for 8 years. And you apply for a job at a company. You work for them six months, and then develop a mental defect because of the drugs you've been taking for years. You then go to work like that, and screw up, costing the company thousands of dollars. All of this could have been prevented because of a simple test, At what point is that fair to the employer? It doesn't matter if they are hard working, responsible, and only do it at home. The majority of illegal drugs have multiple studies that PROVE they cause serious effects on the body. Those effects can easily cost a company thousands of dollars in damages. Especially if you are driving someone somewhere and have a stroke at the age of 30 because of your drug usage.

#67 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:21 PM

Good grief. Someone repped that clusterfuck?

#68 Dazz

Dazz
  • Musicyclopedia

  • 3242 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:04 AM

So say you have been doing drugs for 8 years. And you apply for a job at a company. You work for them six months, and then develop a mental defect because of the drugs you've been taking for years. You then go to work like that, and screw up, costing the company thousands of dollars. All of this could have been prevented because of a simple test, At what point is that fair to the employer? It doesn't matter if they are hard working, responsible, and only do it at home. The majority of illegal drugs have multiple studies that PROVE they cause serious effects on the body. Those effects can easily cost a company thousands of dollars in damages. Especially if you are driving someone somewhere and have a stroke at the age of 30 because of your drug usage.

If someone smoked a blunt or 2 every weekend what's to say they will even develop a mental defect? If you screw up that's down to you, not the drugs you took a few days ago. That's like someone screwing up and saying "oh it's because he's an alcoholic, gives him mental problems and shit". I work at a high end company and have not once been drug tested, not even at the start, why? Because over here companies have a little thing called trust ;)

#69 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:00 AM

Because over here companies have a little thing called trust ;)

Not really, it's more that the British are a lot better at not giving up their freedoms in the name of security, to paraphrase the ol' Ben Franklin.

#70 Guest_Kate_*

Guest_Kate_*

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:03 AM

I think it's great. My only annoyance is that there's no drug testing for people on income assistance (welfare).
Here in Eastern Canada half the people on welfare spend the government's money on getting high, rather than bettering themselves.
Meanwhile hard working citizens are being drug tested and violated.

#71 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:07 AM

Meanwhile, CCTV on every corner.

Well, not quite.

#72 Yung

Yung
  • Codexian

  • 3361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:00 PM

Well, not quite.


BBC seems to disagree with you, clearly stating that the average U.K. Citizen is captured 300 times a day on CCTV.

CCTV: Does it Work?

The average citizen in the UK is caught on CCTV cameras 300 times a day.



#73 Dazz

Dazz
  • Musicyclopedia

  • 3242 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:11 PM

BBC seems to disagree with you, clearly stating that the average U.K. Citizen is captured 300 times a day on CCTV.

CCTV: Does it Work?

BBC doesn't disagree with Sweeney because they haven't proven that CCTV is on every corner...
That and i know for a fact it's not on every corner because i've seen some without it.

#74 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:19 PM

BBC seems to disagree with you, clearly stating that the average U.K. Citizen is captured 300 times a day on CCTV.

CCTV: Does it Work?

As Darren said, that doesn't refute my reply at all, you craven imbecile.

#75 WharfRat

WharfRat
  • 11157 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

Thank god you don't live in america then. Over 50% of employees do that, and all skilled level jobs do that (that might be a very small amount that don't, but I haven't heard of any).



I'm not going to spend any time to prove something that is already proven. How stupid is that? Drugs are illegal because of their serious health risks, which have been proven. Cigarettes would be illegal too, but they lobbyist where smart enough to drop a shitfuck ton of money from the start. Now there are too many legal users to make it illegal. There are many many many drugs that cause brain deterioration. As long as you are arguing that drugs are safe to use, this argument is completely pointless. If drugs where safe to use, then they wouldn't be illegal, and everyone would take them and enjoy the high.


The facebook thing is 100% different. If they asked for permission to view only your illegal activity that is on facebook. Then sure, that makes sense. They are not asking only to see illegal activity and nothing else. They are asking to see EVERYTHING you have ever done on facebook. Every personal message. Every personal wall post. Every picture that is hidden. Every poke that you currently have. They are given complete and utter access to your personal life. THAT IS A BREACH.

On the other hand, all that a drug test does is check for illegal activity. It doesn't tell you anything about the person except if they do drugs. It doesn't tell if you are pregnant, it doesn't tell if you have std's, it doesn't tell if you are gay. It reveals nothing whatsoever beyond what they are asking to see. Your facebook example is a terrible fucking example, because you comparing a simple test that only checks for one single thing, that happens to be against the law, to complete and utter access to someones personal information. Thus you are providing a fallacy, which has no place in this argument. I will no longer respond to any mention at all of this facebook bs. Its nothing even close to a drug test, and should never have been mentioned.

First of all. Hiring an employee who has shit for performance and firing them a week later gives you an immediate loss of profit. Why would you deny a company a very basic test for responsibility? It looses you money to fire an employee within the first 30 days of him being hired (Given that you follow all of the tax laws and everything). So you are saying that a company shouldn't have the right to make a basic test that proves the person at least wants the job?

And the fact that you would like to be denied a job for a reason that doesn't exist, then take a simple test, makes this argument 100% meaningless. You do not take employment serious.



The act of not smoking until you get a job shows you at least want to have a job. An employee that doesn't want to have a job, will never performance an employee wants. I think its critical to at least know if the person you are hiring wants to have the job (Meaning they can resist picking up a blunt for a month).




So say you have been doing drugs for 8 years. And you apply for a job at a company. You work for them six months, and then develop a mental defect because of the drugs you've been taking for years. You then go to work like that, and screw up, costing the company thousands of dollars. All of this could have been prevented because of a simple test, At what point is that fair to the employer? It doesn't matter if they are hard working, responsible, and only do it at home. The majority of illegal drugs have multiple studies that PROVE they cause serious effects on the body. Those effects can easily cost a company thousands of dollars in damages. Especially if you are driving someone somewhere and have a stroke at the age of 30 because of your drug usage.

Umm.. Except I didn't say that drugs don't have health effects, I said very few drugs are truly neurotoxic. There is a vast difference in those two statements. It's simple to not waste the companies resource in hiring shitty employees without issuing a drug screening. It's called an interview. If using drugs does so much damage to someone that they will be incompetent to work properly, then you will find that out in the interview if your HR is worth a damn. It's a very simple process... I'm not against "random drug testing" as you agree to it once you have agreed to employment. However, I do think that requiring a UA prior to being hired is an invasion of privacy. Sure, they may be looking for only "illegal stuff" in your urine... but what's to stop them from looking for pregnancy, etc.? Just like they want to just look at your FB to see for illegal stuff.... blah blah blah... I'm going to eat now. Good luck. Have Fun. Don't Die.

-Cody


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users