What if Superdrug lived up to its name?


2:27 pm - December 16th 2010

by Dave Osler    


      Share on Tumblr

What if Superdrug really did live up to its name, and you could pop in and pick up a gram of coke on the way home from work? Why not let anybody nipping into Boots to buy a hot water bottle cover and some Grecian 2000 purchase a bag of own-brand smack while they are about it?

Maybe Britain’s leading High Street chemist chain could consider offering ecstasy on a three for two promo, in the face of the inevitable deep discounting at Tesco.

Such are some of the intriguing possibilities that would open up if the call from erstwhile Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth for legalised intoxicants were ever to be heeded.

The supply of cannabis – possibly in the form of ready-rolled spliffs – would overnight become a major industry, with tobacco manufacturers likely to be quick off the mark to exploit the huge potential profits on offer.

Look, I am 50, and no longer have a self-interest in this question. I am now of an age where people very rarely raise the topic of ‘joints’ in polite conversation. But if they do, I smugly tell them that my knees and elbows are in good nick, thank you, because I have been taking fish oil supplements for some time. Just to make doubly sure, glucosamine sulphate long ago replaced all possible rivals as my sulphate of choice.

I haven’t got a clue about where to score anymore, and even if I could pick up some badass weed at my Sainsburys Local instead of my usual five quid plonk, I probably couldn’t be bothered to indulge. Well, not too often, anyway.

But I am one of many million adult voters – who include hundreds of thousands sufficiently advanced in years to be in receipt of a pension – who know from direct personal experience that it is indeed better to be a stoner than a lush. It has been said that some of the current cabinet fall into this category.

Ainsworth – not usually considered a bold and radical thinker – is absolutely on the money when he suggests that getting organised crime out of the picture should be the number one policy priority.

There are clear downsides to the proposal, of course. The last thing we need is more drivers on the road out of their heads on hallucinogenics. And making the stuff legal means that more of it will get into the hands of children, although the existing illegality is no guarantee against that, of course.

But on balance, Ainsworth’s position stacks up. Yet the problem is that politicians can only air these kinds of ideas when in opposition, and even then, can expect to be disavowed by their party’s leadership.

Look at Labour’s pathetic track record when in office.  Alan Johnson’s decision to sack Professor David Nutt as the government’s chief adviser on drugs, simply for pointing out that cannabis is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco defies logic.

Nutt did not say cannabis was harmless, and he did not even argue that it should be decriminalised. His point was simply to contextualise the harm the whacky baccy does do, by factoring in the social impact of totally deregulated 24/7 alcohol.

David Blunkett was perfectly right to downgrade cannabis from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Does anyone seriously contend that smoking marijuana should – even theoretically – be punished with five years’ imprisonment? Yet the last government went on to reclassify the stuff back to Class B.

As Peter Reynolds pointed out in a post on this blog earlier today, the commonsense solution is staring us in the face. Ainsworth should not be vilified for pointing it out.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Dave Osler is a regular contributor. He is a British journalist and author, ex-punk and ex-Trot. Also at: Dave's Part
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Health

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


The supply of cannabis – possibly in the form of ready-rolled spliffs – would overnight become a major industry, with tobacco manufacturers likely to be quick off the mark to exploit the huge potential profits on offer.

Or people would just grow their own and share with friends, just like they do with fruit and veg, as well as home cooking (chocolate hash brownies, etc.).

never mind private sector profits, think of the tax revenues. London’s coke consumption could fund the national welfare budget

An interesting question Dave points out – does anyone actually doubt that the tobacco industry (or rather its component companies) have contigency plans in case of legalisation of drugs.

And I have finally found a viable argument against legalisation – the transfer of greenhouse capacity to growing cannabis will cause the price of some common salad vegtables such as tomatoes to rise out of season, thus making it more difficult for people to afford their five a day…

Look, I said viable, not any good!

There’s a bit of an uphill struggle for those on the decriminalisation side of the debate.

The reason so few politicians and senior police officers are willing to go on the record against the current drug policy is that there’s no taste for a radical new approach within much of the wider public.

Anyone without an authoritarian, “harsh” stance on drugs is vilified by a lot of the mainstream media, and the public, for being “soft on drugs”. It’s difficult to have a proper, open and sensible debate about drugs policy when the public is continuously misinformed by the media’s anti-drugs moral panic.

That’s why I don’t think Ainsworth’s comments will necessarily lead to anything at all.

I think the best way to get mass opinion to shift is to focus on the large economic cost of the “war on drugs”. People care about how their money is spent and it’s being completely wasted on pursuing a ridiculous drugs policy.

“– the transfer of greenhouse capacity to growing cannabis will cause the price of some common salad vegtables such as tomatoes to rise out of season”

Not to mention the increased demand for pizza, crisps and various other munchies.

Planeshift,

God, I hadn’t thought of that – the increase in pizza sales will further lead to demand on limited tomato stocks. To ensure we don’t import too much, and therefore increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we cannot legalise cannabis.

Incidentally, if we did legalise drugs, what does the poor drug baron with half a ton (or whatever – I don’t transport drugs so have no idea of scale) of coke in a small boat in the Atlantic do with it?

@Watchman

Yes, but tomatoes have been proven to lower the risk of lung cancer so perhaps the health beneifts would outweigh any negatives…

We need to start looking at drugs in terms of quality control rather than prohibition.

When I was a student in the 80s everyone I knew was doing drugs and many of my friends said we’d have legalisation by the time our generation got to power. I said that’s what my Dad thought in the 60s. A sensible attitude to drugs seems to be a barrier to a political career.

Shatterface,

Give or take our prime minister and chancellor considering their youthful exploits (apparently)…

@Luis Enrique — “London’s coke consumption could fund the national welfare budget”

At last, a way to get something back from the City! A kind of stealth Robin Hood tax, if you will 🙂

@3

And I have finally found a viable argument against legalisation – the transfer of greenhouse capacity to growing cannabis will cause the price of some common salad vegtables such as tomatoes to rise out of season, thus making it more difficult for people to afford their five a day…

Although said in jest that would still be preferable to the current method for how some narcotics are farmed:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/inside-the-cocaine-kingdom/Content?oid=3053399

13. Chaise Guevara

@ 12

That’s one of the potential advantages of legalisation, of course. Fair-trade cannabis.

@13
Heh, very true.
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else think it’s a parlous state of affairs that in order to buy imported food where those collecting/preparing it have not been subjected to conditions and pay not all that far from slavery, you have to look for a special symbol? As though being an utter c**t to your workers is the accepted default position with which we should have no problem.

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 14

I’d support a law saying that all products not meeting agree standards of human and animal welfare should have to carry a big sticker announcing the fact: MADE FROM BATTERY CHICKEN; PRODUCED BY UNDERPAID THIRD-WORLD WORKERS.

Actually, I’d probably support a law banning these products full stop, but the stickers seem at least slightly more realistic.

Oh dear, I’m in danger of agreeing with a posting on LibCon for the second time in a month! I’m positively ancient compared to Dave Osler and could be construed as a flog ’em and hang ’em conservative (small ‘c’ as I couldn’t possibly vote for Cameron). But I cannot see the point of the ‘war on drugs’. Prohibition simply doesn’t work except for criminals. Check out history – the 20s and 30s in the US. Think about the $1 trillion the US has spent on the war on drugs and yet drug use grows. Think about the 28,000 people killed in Mexican drug wars. Oh dear, I think I’m just about to agree with an ex-NuLiebour minister too!

I accept that the present approach to drugs is an incoherent shambles and responsible for many of the problems associated with drug use. But I keep coming back to the glaring but usually-overlooked fact that the evidence suggests there are also huge problems associated with at least some recreational drugs being widely and legally available; that evidence coming from the cases of the two such drugs that are already widely and legally available, i.e. alcohol and tobacco. It may well be that the heroin model (criminalisation) and the alcohol model (legal, lightly-regulated availability) are both wrong and the right approach is some sort of decriminalisation rather than full legalisation.

18. Just Visiting

how about this combination:
i) decriminalised
ii) but not sold in chemists / supermarkets
iii) only available, for free (or some at-cost pricing), from your GP on prescription.

There would be a shift in costs from police – to more GP costs – GP surgeries would hire a ‘drugs person’ who would advise people of the risks/dangers – point out possible impact if there are family mental health problems.

Before getting your prescription, you’d have to sign up for a day’s course – to meet some folks who’s lives have been made worse by drugs (their own health impacted, their family members killed by stoned drivers or etc).
You’d have say annual check-ups etc.

That way the ‘profit motive’ does not drive a major marketing push….no one sells the stuff at profit.

? any good ?

Heh, I love discussions like this. It’s nice to feel that there are some actual liberals around these parts. How do you guys feel about legalising tobacco, by the way? I hear that a significant number of people still use it – should they be allowed to do so in public? Or perhaps in special “smoking rooms”? 🙂

I think the statement that “Ainsworth is not usually considered a bold and radical thinker” should be something of a clue as to how completely normal and obvious his ideas actually are within this government. No doubt Cameron and friends agree with his sentiments, and surely would legalise drugs if not for the fact that they would then be blamed for everything that happened afterwards, whether related or not.

Irrespective of that, the last government was right to sack Nutt, because his papers on this subject are junk science. He’s a publicity-seeking flim-flam merchant. Download one (it’s free), and as you read it, ask what James Randi or any other serious skeptic would make of it.

@Vladimir Tobacco is a good example of drug policy done right — minimise the harm to others while allowing the individual the right to choose to harm himself.

I downloaded and read Nutt’s latest article in the Lancet, and although I felt that his selection of experts could be improved upon, I didn’t find his methodology unscientific; it’s inherently difficult to approach this question because you can’t control your variables.

If Nutt’s papers have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals – i.e. if they’ve been rigorously checked over by experts in the field and found to be scientifically respectable – I don’t really see that any sceptic without serious scientific credentials (as opposed to a functioning baloney detection kit) is in a strong position to dismiss them as ‘junk’.

“it’s inherently difficult to approach this question because you can’t control your variables.”

Then how can it be science?

The methodology is junk. A group of experts got together and rated the harms caused by various drugs, in their opinions. What made their ratings any more valid (and any more objective) than those that might be produced by, say, a group of Daily Mail columnists? If it’s not falsifiable and not objective, then how is it science?

But at least you read it. Most people haven’t even bothered to do that; they’ve automatically defended Nutt without looking in to what he actually did and what evidence actually backs up his extraordinary claims. You really don’t need to be an expert to criticise this sort of flim-flam, any more than James Randi needed to become an expert on psychokinesis before he could criticise Uri Geller.

@Vladimir:

I don’t think that Nutt is claiming his approach is perfect science; merely that it is more evidence-based than any other approach. Would you disagree? If so, what is your proposed alternative?

I can’t say the Lancet is perfect (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8493753.stm) but it’s not some fly-by-night rag either.

The WebAppendix to the article lists the ISCD expert group and their credentials. This appendix formed part of the peer-reviewed material. Peer review is also inherently unscientific, but it’s the best we have.

Vladimir,

The methodology is junk. A group of experts got together and rated the harms caused by various drugs, in their opinions. What made their ratings any more valid (and any more objective) than those that might be produced by, say, a group of Daily Mail columnists? If it’s not falsifiable and not objective, then how is it science?

If that is the method that was claimed, and if it was justified as the best approach they had to the question being asked, then the methodology is not junk. It is just not scientifically rigorous (you could replicate the procedure with Daily Mail columnists incidentally – I wonder if it would not produce similiar responses, since they are clearly far more intelligent and thoughtful than many of their columns allow – it takes skill and knowledge to write that badly).

Science is not always falsifiable (take climate change for example – we can’t prove it definitevely right or wrong because we’ve only got one planet to play with (now there’s a grant application for you…)!), and is not always objective (because people cannot detach their brains when answering questions) – this means the results are not robust, not that they are not scientific. To a sociologist, Professor Nutt’s methodology, if properly reported and caveated, is in fact perfectly sound remember.

Vladimir

“You really don’t need to be an expert to criticise this sort of flim-flam, any more than James Randi needed to become an expert on psychokinesis before he could criticise Uri Geller.”

This analogy doesn’t hold water. What puts Randi in a good position to debunk Geller is the fact that, as a magician, he knows exactly how the effects Geller claims to produce through psychokinesis can be produced by other means that are more consistent with what we already know about how the world works. To be in an analogous position, Nutt and his ‘group of experts’ (and the experts reviewing his papers) just need to be sufficiently clued up about scientific methodology, and in possession of sufficient data, to make a provisional, revisable judgment about the degree to which certain phenomena are the result of drug use rather than other things. As an academic working in another discipline, I would be extremely reluctant to assert that all these ‘experts’ just don’t know how to do science. That’s something for their peers, and the senior academics who trained and examined them during their research training and PhDs, to judge.

It may well be that the heroin model (criminalisation) and the alcohol model (legal, lightly-regulated availability) are both wrong and the right approach is some sort of decriminalisation rather than full legalisation.

Decriminalisation is the “worst of both worlds” option – the supply chain is still unregulated, the vast majority of the profits still go to organised crime, and you still don’t get any tax revenue, but you lose whatever deterrent effect criminalisation has. The only thing it has going for it is a modest reduction in enforcement costs, but I’d expect that to be more than offset by the additional health / social costs incurred through increased use.

I would ague that we need legalisation with really very tight regulation of the market – much tighter than for alcohol at present. (I’d also argue that we really need to tighten up on alcohol, particularly with regard to advertising and below-cost-price promotions.) For the most dangerous drugs (opiates and the like), I’d say that JV’s suggestion @18 has quite a lot of merit.

If that is the method that was claimed, and if it was justified as the best approach they had to the question being asked, then the methodology is not junk.

Being the best available approach doesn’t preclude being it worthless junk. If a question is inherently hard to answer, then the scientific approach is to say ‘in order to find out, we would need to do X’. And if X is infeasible, and there is no clever alternative, say ‘we don’t know’.

‘We need to build a telescope’, not ‘we can’t afford a telescope, so just ask Mystic Meg, and treat the answer as Science’.

Which if you read his papers, or just his own summaries of them, Nutt generally does a pretty good job of stressing:

http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf

It’s only once they have passed through a journalism filter that all the information gets removed.

soru,

Fair enough – but you need to prove it is worthless junk. That is how science works – not through assumption.

And the caveat of ‘we don’t know’ is extremely important in any field…

@Soru

Whereas your argument seems to boil down to “Our telescope’s lens is made out of molecules; it is therefore imperfect, so we might as well use a pair of wellies for looking at the night sky”.

My alternative to Nutt’s “research” is similar to soru’s comment. It is to say, quite simply, “Scientists do not have enough information to answer this question.”

From your various responses, I get the impression that you recognise the flaws in the work, but you are nevertheless happy with it as the best available science. But what exactly makes it “science”, as opposed to “belief”? Well, Dawkins managed to stretch the answer to that one out to fill a whole book, but Penn Jilette managed it in two sentences:

“Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion.”

My point is that a second group of “drug experts” could have done what Nutt did and got completely different results, and (crucially) there would be no objective way to say that the second group was wrong and the Nutt group was right. This is because the *beliefs* of the experts define the study. This “science”, if destroyed, will *not* re-emerge exactly the same. Hence it is no science at all.

The very best you can do is argue that one group of experts are more expert than the other – and yet your only basis for comparison is your own belief. Again, not science.

Perhaps this paper would be acceptable to a sociologist. If so, that’s an damning indictment of sociology, because its practitioners are unable to make a distinction between belief and science. Apparently, the journalists who gushed over Nutt’s ludicrous psuedoscience share that problem.

@Vladimir

“My alternative to Nutt’s “research” is similar to soru’s comment. It is to say, quite simply, “Scientists do not have enough information to answer this question.””

I’m not asking you for an alternative that is scientifically perfect; I already know you can’t provide that. I’m asking you for an alternative way to answer questions about drug policy, given that not answering is not an option: you live in a world in which people take drugs, so we’re trying to minimise the harms done.

Well, I most certainly *wouldn’t* recommend dressing up my own policy recommendations as science, and then appearing in the national media as a scientific expert and allowing journalists to describe my paper as “a very serious scientifically-argued attack on current drugs legislation”.

I wouldn’t do this, because as a scientist I would care about my own credibility and reputation.

Rather I’d recommend openly addressing the moral questions involved. We should drop the pretense that this debate is about science, and admit that it is about right and wrong. The people who want drug prohibition to be enforced believe that drugtaking is wrong, the people who would like drugs legalised believe that drugtaking is right or morally neutral. *That* is where the debate should be centred.

We should drop the pretense that this debate is about science, and admit that it is about right and wrong.

Agreed.

The people who want drug prohibition to be enforced believe that drugtaking is wrong, the people who would like drugs legalised believe that drugtaking is right or morally neutral. *That* is where the debate should be centred.

Correction: the people who want drug prohibition to be enforced believe that drugtaking is wrong and that the state should therefore interfere with the freedom of other people to take drugs. Let us centre the debate around the “purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will”.

I thought you said

Ainsworth should not be vilified for pouring it out.

I was going to say I’ll ave a spoonful

@Vladimir

Great, so once we’ve framed the debate as over right and wrong, what methodology would you use to decide policy?

Anyone can say what they wouldn’t do. I’m asking you what you would.

36. Chaise Guevara

Agree with Vladamir’s last post. Agree with UKliberty’s response even more.

It is rather annoying when people act as if the fact that scientists support them means they must be right. Labour’s behaviour RE Nutt was shameful and pathetic, but that doesn’t mean they should change policy just because a scientist says (or even proves) that the science supporting that policy is solid. Morality and pragmatic issues need to be taken into account too.

@Chaise Guevara

I also agree with ukliberty, but it just moves the goalposts. I believe that the extent to which “power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will” relates directly to the harms of their actions. If you agree, we need to find some way of measuring harm, and Nutt’s is as good an attempt as any I’ve ever seen. If you don’t agree, what do you propose as an alternative?

Our telescope’s lens is made out of molecules; it is therefore imperfect

No. Nutt is pretty clear the telescope is not imperfect, it simply doesn’t exist. From link above:

We do not know the effects of
downgrading cannabis from B to C. There was
a fall in use but we do not know whether this
was related to reclassi?cation. The government
doesn’t systematically carry out research on the
consequences of changes in classi?cation so we
don’t know much about how classi?cation systems
impact on individuals’ desire to use or not to use a
drug.

3 sentences, 3 occurrences of the phrase ‘we do not know’.

There a lot of things in life you can’t, for purely practical reasons, decide by scientific means. Not just big and philosophically tricky ones like who to marry/snog/avoid, but pretty much 90% of everything you decide from day to day is not going to be usefully informed by any existing peer-reviewed study (obxkcd: http://xkcd.com/833/).

The remaining 10% being those things like ‘what to eat to stay healthy’, where science does actually have some things it has discovered, as opposed to an intention to have discovered some things at some point in the future.

Working scientists are almost always clear on the difference, journalistic reports of science seldom are.

39. Chaise Guevara

@ 37

I haven’t examined Nutt’s methods myself, and I’m not criticising them. I’m saying that science should inform policy rather than dictate it. It’s entirely possible that Nutt’s work is best placed to act in that informing capacity.

My point is that science doesn’t stand alone. For example, I could come up with an idea for NHS reform that had been scientifically shown to be the most effective way of prolonging and improving the quality of people’s lives, but that wouldn’t mean the policy should be enforced if it was horribly immoral or economically inviable.

40. Chaise Guevara

@ 38

Your xkcd link is broken. I find this disappointing.

@35. What, me, personally? Well naturally I would introduce a military dictatorship, martial law and summary executions for anyone even suspected of using a drug. That would be the only way to be sure :).

But seriously, I assume you are asking because you wish to reveal that there is no alternative to Nutt’s approach. Even so, that still doesn’t justify Nutt’s claims that his method is any sort of science, a claim which I have subsequently seen in many places online and in other media. Nutt’s findings are totally arbitrary, and thus no different in principle to the existing drug classification system, which is no more arbitrary and no less scientific.

Chaise Guevera @ 39,

Economics is a science too y’know? So this mega solution you have come up with would have to take it into account, would it not?

Immoral? Well it is a question of what culture and what era you live in. As far as I can tell Indians saw true love as commiting willing suicide when your husband died, some folk thought that eating dead ancestors was enhancing, and some that killing virgins was to their economic benefit. Hopefully, few of us see these ideas as major cultural markers nowadays. But societies survived and prospered, for a while, that contained these frankly outrageous ideas.

Science is, usually, our best guess at sense. For it changes it’s mind when the evidence changes. Which distinguishes it from politics where the reaction to changing circumstance is to ‘duck lads, and get the hard hats on’ or summat.

There are ways of being where you do not base your ideas on politics alone. You take other things into account, for good or ill.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 42

Economics isn’t all THAT scientific. At least not as applied to the real world as opposed to a theoretical system.

Morality is, of course, relative, but we do the best we can by our own lights, and I don’t expect that to change any time soon. So a policy could be solid from a scientific and economic perspective but still not be supported if people in general considered it to be immoral.

Chaise Guevera @ 43,

Well, I’m going to ask you a difficult question, but first:

So a policy could be solid from a scientific and economic perspective but still not be supported if people in general considered it to be immoral.

A bit of context.

There are ridiculous numbers of people that consider it their right, pre-natal or post-natal to see their own morality corrupted by the women they feel they have a right over. I consider that immoral. I would never argue for it, I would never countenance it. But it is what people do. That is our modern world.

The questions for you:

Is this because people are unable to learn? If so, why is it not prevelant in other societies. Why is honour killing not the norm? Why is disgust at honour killing not the norm in societies that have it? Who are these mad and bad bastards?

Why isn’t it driven out, much like sutttee, canibalism and murder for suppposed economic benefit?

The supplementary is why?

Explain how education may fail us in these circumstances and explain, exactly why prejudice and not science should be our benchmark.?

45. Chaise Guevara

The only way you could get the idea that I think prejudice should be our benchmark is if you’re defining all morality as prejudice (and that still wouldn’t be an accurate reflection of what I’m saying). That’s arguably true, but if so there’s no point us having conversations about what we “should” be doing, because “should” is not a scientific word.

All I’m talking about is the is/ought gap. You cannot reach a moral position purely from scientific evidence: at some point it’s necessary to pin your own personal moral angle on the data. So saying “this policy will kill thousands of people” might be purely scientific, but it becomes partially non-scientific when you add “and killing people is wrong”.

Chaise Guevera,

Of course you can’t:

reach a moral position purely from scientific evidence: at some point it’s necessary to pin your own personal moral angle on the data. So saying “this policy will kill thousands of people” might be purely scientific, but it becomes partially non-scientific when you add “and killing people is wrong.

That would be ridiculous.

My point is that science, in the round, is a far better measure of who and what we are than politics. Science has huge procedures around it to protect it, or correct it. To that extent it is a unique and valuable institution….

…The mere idea of peer review.

It seems to me that you are someone that is a bit against any sort of universal attempt to work stuff out.

That our morals follow – for most of us – from intelligence rather than idiocy. I’d like to think that we think that. I’d like to think that an informed position on any subject was not based on prejudice but was based on reason.

So. I suppose we depart, along different trajectrories of thought.

47. Chaise Guevara

@ 46

“I’d like to think that an informed position on any subject was not based on prejudice but was based on reason.”

Well, I’d agree. And reason can be applied to morality if you’re prepared to accept a few basic assumptions (that it’s better to help people than to harm them, for example).

Where are you getting this idea that I’m “against any sort of universal attempt to work stuff out”?

I think there is evidence to suggest that every politician is a flim-flam man. That man or woman, they are actors on a stage, and not one of them actually represent us.

Perhaps the few that have really commited political suicide. For the stage must never be broken, the mere idea that political thought is all, that it is an inclusive sort of humanity is what we are lead to believe, across all threads here, across all threads there.

It is a game they play, what with their precious secrets and their superiority.

Frankly, I don’t buy it.

There are other ways of thinking, and they do not butt into the idea that politics is the nexus of thought. ’cause it isn’t.

Politics is just a reaction to stuff that happens. It is, on it’s own prospectus, just that, a way of looking at stuff.

It is almost as daft as religion.

Link should have been:

http://xkcd.com/833/

50. Chaise Guevara

Ah, cool. XKCD FTW.

Chaise Guevera,

What does:

Ah, cool. XKCD FTW.

mean in English?

if you are agreeing with me or insulting me, I’d really like to know.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    What if Superdrug lived up to its name? http://bit.ly/h6Pug4

  2. Philip-Antony Smith

    RT @libcon: What if Superdrug lived up to its name? http://bit.ly/h6Pug4

  3. Jonathan Davis

    RT @libcon: What if Superdrug lived up to its name? http://bit.ly/h6Pug4

  4. Spir.Sotiropoulou

    RT @libcon: What if Superdrug lived up to its name? http://bit.ly/h6Pug4





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.