Paying the Tab

by on August 16, 2007 at 7:40 am in Food and Drink | Permalink

The subtitle is The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control, and the book (here is its home page) has more on the latter than the former.  The author, economist Philip J. Cook, produces a wide range of reasonable arguments that alcohol is too cheap on the supply side, given its social costs.

The quality of the argumentation is high, but perhaps I have too much of a libertarian closed mind (more or less) on the issue.  I hold the following views:

1. I don’t have an a priori belief in uniform rates of taxation, and if you twist my arm I’ll admit bad things should be taxed at higher rates than good things, at least provided we can avoid slippery slopes of ever-encroaching government paternalism.

2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter.

3. I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped.  Admittedly drink cross-subsidizes quality food, so if there is any loser it might be me.

4. For reasons of ethics and morality, I don’t think governments should regulate adult substance consumption.

5. I see some role for governments to regulate substance consumption to prevent spillover effects onto minors.

I do understand that #1, #4, and #5 are not fully consistent, but this mix of views still seems right to me.  And unless I see the world coming to an end through booze — and I don’t — I’m still stuck on #4, no matter how good Cook’s evidence and arguments.  Alcohol is but one issue in the age-old battle between liberty and tyranny, a fight which I see as more important in the longer run than sobriety vs. stimulants. 

I do worry about more powerful drugs or neurostimulators.  I am struck at how weak a temptation alcohol is, relative to what the future will bring.  In the meantime, if alcohol restrictions fail on the grounds of liberty, I guess I am back to my closed libertarian mind.

michael webster August 16, 2007 at 8:02 am

The arguments for #4 should include the consequential costs of making the delivery of alchohol illegal – those contracts then are only enforceable by violence. The number of contracts may go down, but the spillover costs of enforcing them -usually by nasty little people- is too high.

jason voorhees August 16, 2007 at 8:11 am

Great. You just made me buy another book I probably don’t need. I haven’t even finished reading the other books you blogged about months ago!

jason voorhees August 16, 2007 at 8:18 am

There’s a substantial literature on the social costs of alcohol consumption, btw. Sara Markowitz, Michael Grossman, Henry Saffer, Thomas Dee, Bill Evans, Harrell Chesson, Robert Kaestner, and many others whose names I’m immediately forgetting, have papers in the AER, Journal of Public Economics, Journal of Health Economics, JLE and other such publications finding a causal relationship between beer taxes, drunk driving legislation, underage drinking legislation and other factors believed to reduce alcohol consumption, and many negative outcomes, such as child abuse, domestic violence, gonorrhea and syphilis, traffic fatalities, etc. Bill Evans even has an article arguing that the most effective way of reducing alcohol related traffic fatalities is beer taxes and seatbelt legislation, as opposed to higher penalties for drunk driving. All said, the problem is there, but the solutions proposed are somewhat blunt and fall upon individuals who are not imposing externalities on the rest of the population. Beer taxes affect everyone, and the deadweight loss compared to the increased social welfare is not known, to my knowledge. But until we come up with a better solution, higher taxes on alcohol combined with hefty restrictions on drunk driving seems to be a good second best solution to the problem.

Alex Tabarrok August 16, 2007 at 8:30 am

We should legalize marijuana. Marijuana is not connected with as many negative social consequences as alcohol and thus the substitution for alcohol would be a net social improvement.

Christopher Monnier August 16, 2007 at 9:19 am

> We should legalize marijuana. Marijuana is not connected with as many negative social consequences as alcohol and thus the substitution for alcohol would be a net social improvement.

If only people were so rational…

Richard Campbell August 16, 2007 at 9:22 am

“2. Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter.”

Are you combining this proposal with the same penalties for cell phone use, which produces the same impairment in studies, or is alcohol somehow magic?

Or are you going to separate the current cough-syrup-will-trigger BAC levels from some higher levels to be instituted?

Pat August 16, 2007 at 9:40 am

I think that drunk driving punishments should increase drastically with each additional drink. The punishments aren’t that different for driving after 5 drinks and driving after 15. but that guy with 15 drinks is much more dangerous. Once you have 5 drinks, might as well have 10 more, you’ll have more fun and you’re going to jail anyway. It’s a bit like rapists not getting the same punishments as murderers because we want to give the rapist an incentive to not murder the witness.

I think we punish the social drinkers who drive too much and the double vision stinking drunks too little.

bastiat August 16, 2007 at 9:45 am

If everyone stopped drinking, the birth rate would almost certainly fall.

The western world needs all the children it can get.

John El August 16, 2007 at 10:03 am

I was under the impression that most recreational drugs were complements to alcohol, namely. People tend to consume beer in conjunction with marijuana, cocaine and a host of drugs as opposed to substituting them. But minifig brings up a good point about ecstacy, what if people started substituting alcohol for a host for safer, non-complementary drugs. Furthermore, what if we allowed our pharma companies to create designer drugs? IE, a drug like marijuana without the memory effects. Or a drug like ethanol without the hangover / liver proplems.

Erik August 16, 2007 at 10:08 am

Nice to meet you last night, Professor.

To follow up on what we briefly discussed last night,

1) I am surprised that someone as ADDICTED to culture (both high and pop) as yourself hardly drinks. One would thing that the sheer variety of alcoholic drinks around the world (and the culture associated with them) would interest your voracious mind.

2) This may be getting a bit personal, but have you ever drank more regularly than you do now?

3) Shouldn’t the aspiring Cultural Billionaire WANT to experience many different forms of altered consciousness, specifically through alcohol and drug use?

Person August 16, 2007 at 10:27 am

Tyler_Cowen: people should stop drinking alcohol? Wouldn’t that include, you know, WINE?

How are people supposed to unscientifically show off their exquisite taste if they can’t drink wine, huh?

Mark H August 16, 2007 at 10:50 am

Tyler, It would be interesting to know if you feel that the smoking ban for bars (CA, NYC) is also paternalistic. Seems to fit point 3. Some people say the ban is necessary because smoking affects customers and workers.

robertdfeinman August 16, 2007 at 10:56 am

There are over 40,000 auto deaths each year. By some estimates half of all accidents involve alcohol consumption. So, leaving aside the much bigger figure of injuries we can estimate 20,000 people killed because of alcohol. This also leaves out all those who die or are impaired because of alcohol from other causes.

Now the number of people killed from one of the recently withdrawn arthritis pain medications is thought to be in the hundreds.

Obviously the way health and safety decisions are made is only partially related to rational cost-benefit analysis. So perhaps libertarians should focus more on getting existing procedures to be made more uniform and less on impossible to achieve ideas of “do what you will”.

Jim August 16, 2007 at 11:10 am

The alcohol excise tax falls in real terms every year, because it is not indexed to inflation. In real terms, the current federal excise tax is less than one-quarter of what it was in 1951. If we doubled the federal alcohol excise tax, it would be back at about the level it was at in 1973.

Incidentally, at least one scholar often thought to be a libertarian, John Stuart Mill, thought that it was perfectly appropriate for the government to impose higher tax rates on goods like alcohol.

linn August 16, 2007 at 11:30 am

I am struck at how weak a temptation alcohol is, relative to what the future will bring.

There’s nothing ‘weak’ about the ‘temptation’ of alcohol. It’s not an accident that it is far and away humanity’s favorite intoxicant, or that alcohol addiction is so prevalent and so difficult to overcome.

What, exactly, do you see the future bringing that would dwarf the temptation of alcohol?

Chi August 16, 2007 at 11:33 am

I think Tom is right. The Freakonomics blog began posting baiting posts a couple weeks (maybe a month?) before they went to the NYT, one particularly bad one asking why athiest books exist, leading to nearly 200 responses. My prediction: within a month, MR will have a corporate sponsor. [Maybe they’re jealous of Jane Galt]

nelsonal August 16, 2007 at 11:54 am

Bernard,
I lived in Montana while there was no speeding law and driving there was a pleasure. I think speeding laws are a waste anyway.

If you live in NoVa, what’s the point of a 50-60 mph speed limit on the beltway that’s rarely enforced? The real issue is the massive difference between people in the left lanes going 80 and in the right lanes who think that the limits are real. Not having a speed limit brings most people up to an average speed of 65-75 (leaving less distance between traffic and the speeders).

I’m all for stricter limits on who is allowed to drive (far better training than we currently give). I think a lower speed racing/driving school would be good. It would teach people a better understanding of the limits of their autos and it would add additional cost to losing the privledge of driving. I’d also be for raising the drunk driving levels or teiring to punish heavy offenders while giving strict warnings to light drinkers.

Bernard Yomtov August 16, 2007 at 12:17 pm

nelsonal,

You are essentially saying that speed limits do little or nothing to reduce the risks bad drivers impose on others. Even if that’s true in an environment like the Montana Interstates it’s certainly not true on city streets. But it really doesn’t matter. My point was not about speeding laws per se. It was about the reasonableness of government restricting risks we can impose on others. Since you favor stricter standards for driver licensing and punishments for drunk driving I take it we do not disagree on that idea.

Lee B.

I read Posner’s post and consider it absurd. It is utilitarian analysis gone mad. To begin with it presumes an interpersonal utility comparison. For another it argues something like “if 100 people drive drunk, and the result is one death and two people paralyzed that’s socially optimal.” (The numbers are for illustration purposes – I have no idea what actual figures Posner arrives at, nor do I care). This is economics?

Don Marti August 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm

How the USA regulates home-brewed beer: adults may brew a certain number of gallons each year and drink it or give it away, but may not offer it for sale. So there’s no financial incentive to persuade other people to drink it.

cfw August 16, 2007 at 1:02 pm

How does this fit in with smoking marijuana, cocaine, misusing prescription drugs, using inhalants (sniffing glue), etc.? Button up alcohol and we push teens into driving while using the other drugs, I suspect.

Ideal solution would legalize the drugs, but not for minors (under say 18 – or under marriage age with parental permission), and build fleets of jointly-owned vehicles, making it easier to get around while intoxicated.

We have a jointly-owned computer system (the internet) and can and should have jointly-owned vehicle systems.

Saying no to all intoxication, in this day and age, invites major suicide/depression issues (larger than the problems we now have).

Punishment for driving while intoxicated would then be easier to avoid and justify (for those who shun the available safe transit options).

Duke’s bus/van system is a decent example of a jointly owned vehicle system.

Put money into systems like that instead of Iraq.

Anna August 16, 2007 at 1:17 pm

3. I think the world would be a better place if most people simply stopped drinking, 100 percent plain, outright stopped.

What about the health benefits (reduced risk of heart attack and stroke) provided by moderate drinking, especially wine? I agree that the world would be a better place if everyone stuck to the 1-2 drinks per day recommended by doctors, but the evidence that moderate drinking is good for you is too clear to recommend that people give it up.

Keith August 16, 2007 at 1:43 pm

On a related note, I still believe that higher sin taxes drive the better health outcomes of countries with national health care, more so than the national health care itself.

Tim Gray August 16, 2007 at 1:55 pm

I drink–not excessively but I enjoy a good beer and consider sharing a round with close friends to be one of life’s simple pleasures. And while I’ve known the occasional drunk who’s ruined his life and the lives of those around him, I’ve known far more folks who drink only socially and responsibly. What’s more, I wouldn’t want to live in a place that tried to legislate potentially “harmful” activities into rarity, as I don’t see where it would stop. Sure, many people (but certainly not all) agree about cigarettes and handguns. But what about fatty foods and motorcycles. Is cheesecake or a Harley any more “socially necessary” than a pint of Thunderbird?

Keith August 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Let’s outline the ideal tax: You pay more based on the alcohol currently in your bloodstream.

Maybe bars should have breathalyzers and the tax is based on how high you blow.

liberty August 16, 2007 at 2:11 pm

“According to the same logic, it should be legal for one to carry a loaded machine gun around town. It’s only illegal if you kill someone with it.”

This is America. W believe that here! Its your 2nd amendment right, in fact. And out west, many people do carry concealed, loaded guns. Machine guns are a bit cumbersome, but certainly hand guns. And, of course, they do deter crime. But that’s another thread.

Bob Dobalina August 16, 2007 at 2:23 pm

There are over 40,000 auto deaths each year. By some estimates half of all accidents involve alcohol consumption. So, leaving aside the much bigger figure of injuries we can estimate 20,000 people killed because of alcohol. This also leaves out all those who die or are impaired because of alcohol from other causes.

That’s disinformation. Click on my name to see why.

nelsonal August 16, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Brenard,
My point was that you are not alone by a large part (most of the population didn’t drive through Montana and may not have had interstate speed limits increased) so they expect that higher speed limits (on the interstate) increase risk, which appears to be incorrect. Given that the perception of higher speed limit risks is very prevalent it’s possible that portions of our drunk driving crusade also are based on incorrect assumptions of what the actual risks are.

Keith August 16, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Actually, Bernard, it appears that alcohol affects driving mainly through its affect on aggression, and not as much through slower reaction times.

In the case of highly fatal accidents, the tendency of a seriously inebriated person (we’re likely talking beyond .12 to .15 here) to instinctively steer towards headlights generates fatal head-on crashes.

nelsonal August 16, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Oops I slipped a decimal. I meant 0.10 BAC.

thehova August 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I remember when I endlessly filed medical records at a family doctor, the high rate of anxiety and depression amongst patients (had to be around %50). Those with anxiety and depression had trouble keeping their jobs, faced various medical conditions, and substance abuse problem. All appeared to be on anti-depressants which didn’t work effectively.

Seth Roberts has a great post about this. he argues depression typically occurs before substance abuse. To solve alcoholism we need to deal with depression.

To me, this country has more problems from alcohol than from cigarettes.

Barkley Rosser August 16, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Well, there are two kinds of societies. There are those nice Mediterranean countries, France
and Italy, and Spain, etc., where people drink wine moderately with meals, with positive health benefits, and excellent wine. Then there are others where people tend to drink in excess, with this only being exacerbated when alcohol is forbidden, which simply encourages unhealthy and bad-for-driving bingeing.

Really, Tyler, you should be supporting moderate, social drinking as a norm, not prohibition.

As for some of these others, I tend to the libertarian camp for adult consumption, but some have health effects that are not recognized. Thus, the worst thing about marijuana after its potential effects on driving is that regular smoking of it is bad for the lungs. And, there have been reports of brain damage due to excessive consumption of ecstasy, although those may have been from anti-drug propagandists. Certainly, of course, many other illegal drugs have various negative health effects, especially for excessive use, although many are not as bad as those associated with excessive alcohol consumption, something I am aware of just having had an old friend die of alcoholism last week at age 51.

ponmel August 16, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Economics is neutral between ends.Let the drunkard get maximum satisfaction.

Bernard Yomtov August 16, 2007 at 9:22 pm

it appears that alcohol affects driving mainly through its affect on aggression, and not as much through slower reaction times.

OK. My point stands regardless.

Allison August 17, 2007 at 11:27 am

Somehow this issue has become so emotional for people (I would argue primarily due to shock advertising and early indoctrination by the likes of MADD, who were certainly active in my elementary school) that even normally rational people fail to think clearly about this issue. Imagine for one second that you will not be branded an insensitive, amoral a-hole for thinking that drinking might be a good thing and consider the following:

– The statistics they use to find the so-called “costs” of alcohol consuption are inherently flawed. They count an accident as “alcohol-related” if one party involved (regardless of whether they actually caused the accident) has a BAC over 0.01, which is so minimal that eating certain foods before taking the test can create a false positive. So an accident is “alcohol-related” if a sober driver kills a drunk pedestrian, or a negligent sober driver causes an accident with a drunk driver. Thus, these numbers are inflated if we are considering how many accidents are CAUSED by a drunk driver, and cannot be relied upon, yet they are widely cited as the “costs of drinking and driving”.

– DUI laws are justified because they allegedly deter a substantial and unjustifiable risk imposed on other drivers. Supporters of drunk driving laws attempt to prove that each driver imposes a substantial risk by referring to group level statistics, such as those above, and suggesting that they reflect the characteristics of individual drivers, when in fact every day, thousands of people drive home drunk without causing an accident. Certainly criminal laws should not be based on the notion that because a class of people create significant harm in the aggregate, the individuals in the class should be punished, regardless of whether they actually created some substantial risk to other drivers. If that is the case, then we should be punishing all CEOs, because in the aggregate they have caused billions of dollars of harm to society. But we don’t because that’s silly. Essentially, DUIs punish people for the behavior of their peers, which flies in the face of the Constitution and all sorts of Western thought about individual moral culpability.

– On an indivudual level, the amount of risk imposed by a drunk driver is infinitismally small and certainly does not support the substantial punishment that would be received. The risk of actually being involved in a fatal drunk driving accident is not significantly greater than the overall risk of being involved a fatal accident. And as has been widely noted, the risk you impose on your fellow drivers by being drunk is virtually the same as it is if you are on a cell phone. So on an individual level, no, a drunk driver does not impose a substantial and unjustifiable risk that would support the substantial punishments that are now imposed. To do so is essentially retroactive punishment on them and social vengeance for past situations where people were harmed by drunk drivers.

– When a proper cost-benefit analysis is performed, one must also look at the costs of overdeterrence that are usually ignored because they are harder to quantify. A significantly large group of people give a very high intrinsic value to consuming alcohol outside the home. Not only is this obvious by the number of alcohol-serving bars, restaurants and clubs in business, but as anyone who has been out drinking knows, people are willing to pay (at least) more than twice the price of alcohol to drink at an establishment as opposed to purchasing alcohol for home consumption. A conservative estimate of this premium would be an average $2.00 per drink price increase for buying at a bar vs. buying it at the store and mixing it yourself.

Assuming people value a drink at a bar to be worth at least $2.00 extra, this figure represents the value of the opportunity that is lost every time a person decides not to purchase a drink because they are afraid of being convicted of drunk driving. I know that I, personally, will very often forego that extra drink because of the mere chance that I might be slightly over the legal limit.

Although this number of times this has occurred would be difficult to quantify, as it would require delving into the minds of individuals, one can imagine that this figure is substantial. After all, many regularly cited cost-benefit analyses support conclusions with figures that are just as ambiguous, by estimating the price of a statistical human life or guessing about increases in medical care premiums. Even a conservative estimate of the opportunity costs could reason that this external cost would likely add up to millions of dollars and surely exceed the so called “costs” of alcohol consumption.

In other words, if you consider the intrinsic value that people place on drinking in a social setting and being able to drive home when they choose – which is apparently extremely high, considering the alcohol premium and that many people continue to do it in spite of the substantial punishments involved – it astronomically exceeds the inflated “costs” of alcohol consumption.

fustercluck August 17, 2007 at 3:08 pm

I would like to own a howitzer. One can never have too much firepower.

Ricardo August 17, 2007 at 10:52 pm

If it’s legit for the government to limit the “risk we impose on others”, I vote that the minimum driving age for men be raised to 25. Then we can talk about drunk driving.

Unfortunately, the counter-example offered to this claim was that of walking around town holding a machine gun. I say unfortunate because this is not quite analogous and brings up the whole gun control debate. A better analogy is the quaint habit some have in other cultures of firing guns off into the air during a celebration. Most of these bullets return to the ground quite harmlessly but every once in a while a bullet pierces an innocent bystander’s skull causing paralysis or death.

You could say that the government could prosecute this as manslaughter or even murder but consider how difficult it would be to trace the bullet to the person who fired it. Similarly, hit and run is relatively common (and probably more common when someone is drunk, partly due to impaired judgement and partly due to strict drunk driving laws). On the other hand, drunk drivers can often be identified during routine traffic stops and removed from the road before an accident happens.

I would also like to point out to even the hardest core libertarians that if drunk driving laws were repealed, insurance companies would likely start charging everyone much more money for insurance because a piece of information that helps companies determine who is a responsible driver and who is not (your DUI arrest record) is no longer available. Sober drivers would be subsidizing the stupid and irresponsible behavior of drunk drivers.

bds195 August 20, 2007 at 11:56 am

The main problem associated with drinking in adults is drunk driving. Perhaps a breathalyzer could be installed in a car and the driver would have to breath into it to start the car.

dsf November 22, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Small steps toward a much better world.

joinwe November 30, 2007 at 2:12 am

吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器

深圳翻译 January 24, 2008 at 3:28 am

ok

深圳翻译公司 February 13, 2008 at 8:30 am
鑽石 April 2, 2008 at 9:51 pm
havalandırma May 11, 2008 at 2:55 pm

thganss

Max August 23, 2008 at 12:45 am

Your site is great and I really appreciate it! I have always enjoyed reading your site.

Play at the leading casino on the web with Virtual online internet casino gambling

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: