Jump to content

Ban on e-cigarettes under study after enforcement problems emerge


webfact

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I'm not aware of any CREDIBLE science -- as opposed what you may find on pro vaping or vaping industry websites -- that supports the claim you're making above.

 

The vaping products contain nicotine, which is an addictive drug, just as it is in regular cigarettes. Then, depending on the product, there may be various chemicals added to the mix that aren't good or healthy for people to be inhaling. 

 

There's also the potential for vaping products, which are very popular with the young because of their flavors, to end up serving as a gateway drug into regular cigarette smoking.

 

I'm not saying vaping is more dangerous than regular cigarette smoking. But the professional public health agencies are hardly convinced it's either safe or healthy.

 

Health England are convinced, as is Cancer Research UK.  They have mirror organisations in NZ for instance, and throughout Europe.  

 

The consensus is that vaping is 97% safer than smoking, but is not completely safe because nicotine can produce adverse health effects. And of course no longitudinal studies are available at this time.  Nobody is ever going to say it is safe or healthy when compared to fresh air (if you can find it).  However, significant health bodies will now say it is much less dangerous than smoking, and this is surely the most salient comparison, isn't it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply
44 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Health England are convinced, as is Cancer Research UK.  They have mirror organisations in NZ for instance, and throughout Europe.  

 

The consensus is that vaping is 97% safer than smoking,

 

 

You want to offer a citation where any of those government health organizations are actually saying that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

You want to offer a citation where any of those government health organizations are actually saying that?

 

This is from the UK Government website: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/

 

To quote some of it:

'Despite the sometimes confused, and confusing, media reporting around the safety of e-cigarettes, there is growing consensus around the evidence. While not without some risk, when compared to smoking e-cigarettes are far less harmful.

This view is supported by a number of key bodies, including Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and recently, a major US science body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'

 

Note: Most of the links provided by others that allege potential dangers are in vitro and speculative designed only to show a theoretical risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is from the UK Government website: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/

 

To quote some of it:

'Despite the sometimes confused, and confusing, media reporting around the safety of e-cigarettes, there is growing consensus around the evidence. While not without some risk, when compared to smoking e-cigarettes are far less harmful.

This view is supported by a number of key bodies, including Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and recently, a major US science body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'

 

Note: Most of the links provided by others that allege potential dangers are in vitro and speculative designed only to show a theoretical risk. 

 

Is there your 97% figure in there anywhere?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has a less favorable view of e-cigs:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/pdfs/Electronic-Cigarettes-Infographic-508.pdf
 

Quote

 

A recent CDC study found that many adults are using e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking. However, most adult e-cigarette users do not stop smoking cigarettes and are instead continuing to use both products (“dual use”). Because smoking even a few cigarettes a day can be dangerous, quitting smoking completely is very important to protect your health.

 

 

431708084_2019-01-1623_25_07.jpg.5cb99d6a8dbcfbc2587e9e4be96a72aa.jpg

 

2097235330_2019-01-1623_25_27.jpg.6eec3ca17af6a01fb79bf64c15644b5e.jpg

 

1823475848_2019-01-1623_25_45.jpg.fbdd21e8695c9372667fcb0657d84b97.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Is there your 97% figure in there anywhere?

 

Sorry I thought it was 97 but is in fact 95%.  Here it is:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review

 

This is just one public health body, albeit a very well respected one.  But others have acted on it, for instance New Zealand, and Norway. 

 

The studies you are relying on are small, prospective studies that are essentially lab tests.  One such study was totally groundless because it burned the liquid at unfeasibly high temperatures. Others often use impossible concentrates to show human cells are damaged- one even used industrial chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

'The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has a less favorable view of e-cigs:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/pdfs/Electronic-Cigarettes-Infographic-508.pdf'

 

Outdated info: every reliable study shows that the trace chemicals in e-cig liquid are in much, much lower concentrations than in cigarettes.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The studies you are relying on are small, prospective studies that are essentially lab tests.  One such study was totally groundless because it burned the liquid at unfeasibly high temperatures. Others often use impossible concentrates to show human cells are damaged- one even used industrial chemicals.

 

I'm not relying on/offering any studies... I'm simply sharing what is the official position and assessment of the U.S. Centers from Disease Control -- which is obviously different than the Public Health England views you posted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I'm not relying on/offering any studies... I'm simply sharing what is the official position and assessment of the U.S. Centers from Disease Control -- which is obviously different than the Public Health England views you posted.

 

In truth, markedly different from most western countries. Ok, I understand.  I guess that I would rather go with the other authorities which of course include the major US science body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'

 

So lets keep it banned and carry on smoking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you asked me if I can read as well? Then giving me one link, so speaking for one voice, one point of view on the subject.

So I will send you + - a dozen of studies published all on Pubmed in other words the "US

National Library of Medicine" where almost all studies in the world are bound to be published to be known by the scientific community worldwide. You will need/one will need to copy/paste the line under Abstract Source: to access it.

You will grant me that I do not take you for a donkey I would be grateful if you did not do so by asking me if I can read[emoji3] I found exactly 304 negatives studies about e-cigarets. It was part of my job (finding studies) years ago but I won't bother anyone with so many LOL. On the other hand, if some members still believed it is only  a funny past-time I hope it will change their minds. 

 

 

 Electronic Cigarettes Contain Higher Levels of Toxic Metal Nanopartices Than Tobacco Smoke 

The study authors concluded that "The presence of metal and silicate particles in cartomizer [atomizer/cartridge connecting to the battery] aerosol demonstrates the need for improved quality control in EC design and manufacture and studies on how EC aerosol impacts the health of users and bystanders."

 

image.png.5e6ec20afa2f5d78c8248c25a0c68707.png&key=e5695ccd165743826f594a314d254f3badcc3e3fc2551b567ddee930deb191fc

 

 

E-cigarettes and their delivered toxicants appear harmful to multiple organ systems.

Abstract Source:

Respir Care. 2018 Nov 6. Epub 2018 Nov 6. PMID: 30401756

 

The use of e-cigarettes significantly impaired various lung function parameters.

Abstract Source:

Am J Mens Health. 2018 Oct 15:1557988318806073. Epub 2018 Oct  15.PMID: 30318975

 

Cinnamaldehyde in e-cigarette liquids temporarily suppresses bronchial epithelial cell ciliary motility by dysregulation of mitochondrial function.

Abstract Source:

Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2019 Jan 3. Epub 2019 Jan 3. PMID: 30604630

 

 

 

Secondhand exposure to aerosol from electronic cigarettes: pilot study of assessment of tobacco-specific nitrosamine (NNAL) in urine.

Abstract Source:

Gac Sanit. 2018 Oct 27. Epub 2018 Oct 27. PMID: 30377020

 

Pro-inflammatory effects of e-cigarette vapour condensate on human alveolar macrophages.

Abstract Source:

Thorax. 2018 Aug 13. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 30104262

 

Electronic cigarettes can cause perceptible changes in tooth color, altering dental esthetics.

Abstract Source:

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Oct 27. Epub 2018 Oct 27. PMID: 30367714

 

E-cigarette vapor, both with and without nicotine, is cytotoxic to epithelial cell lines and is a DNA strand break-inducing agent.

Abstract Source:

Oral Oncol. 2015 Nov 4. Epub 2015 Nov 4. PMID: 26547127

 

These findings suggest that both electronic cigarettes and tobacco smoking negatively impact vascular function.

Abstract Source:

J Hypertens. 2018 Jul 30. Epub 2018 Jul 30. PMID: 30063637

 

Exposure to E-cig vapor accelerates aortic stiffness, significantly impairs aortic endothelial function, and may lead to impaired cardiac function.

 Abstract Source:

J Appl Physiol (1985). 2017 Nov 2:jap.00713.2017. Epub 2017 Nov 2. PMID: 29097631

 

Pro-inflammatory effects of e-cigarette vapour condensate on human alveolar macrophages.

Abstract Source:

Thorax. 2018 Aug 13. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 30104262

 

Chronic vaping exerts marked biological effects on the lung.

Abstract Source:

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Feb 26. Epub 2018 Feb 26. PMID: 29481290

 

Depressive symptoms were positively associated with e-cig use in both cross-sectionna and longitudinal analyses with a dose-dependent relationship. 

Abstract Source:

Addict Behav. 2018 Oct 16 ;90:85-91. Epub 2018 Oct 16. PMID: 30368023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem is most of the studies in the US are sponsored by US tobacco giants who stand to loose millions of $. Better find some unbias research done outside the Us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Go to Health England (that's the body representing the National Health Service in England, UK) and Cancer Research UK, both actively endorse the use of vapes as a smoking alternative in helping people quit smoking. 

 

The viewpoint you espouse is the one that is regarded as needing justification, so I am not spending my time posting what is already well known, and common knowledge.  But you could check the following: 

 

 You do not read anything I have 304 studies for many countries had you clicked on the few links I sent, you had seen it was published in the USA because every country has to do so but it comes from everywhere so I do not lose my time with bad faith people:lock:

 

1 Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

 

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

Analytical Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Group of Evaluation of Health Determinants and Health Policies, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès (Barcelona), Spain; Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain. Electronic address: [email protected].

Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Addictions Unit, Institute of Neurosciences, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

3Social and Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Group, School of Medicine, University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), Spain.

4Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

5Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Social and Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Group, School of Medicine, University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), Spain.

6Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute - IMIM, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Experimental and Life Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.

7Tobacco Free Initiatives, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

8

Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

 

4)1

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

2

College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

3

Analytical Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

4

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Abstract

 

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Oct 27. Epub 2018 Oct 27. PMID: 30367714

 

Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

2

Division of Cancer Research, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

  1.  

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

2

College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

3

Analytical Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

4

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France.

2

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Centre Ambulatoire d'Addictologie, Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France. Electronic address: [email protected].

3

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France.

4

Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 06, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP UMRS 1136), F75012 Paris, France.

5

AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Centre Ambulatoire d'Addictologie, Paris, France.

6

Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Service de Psychiatrie de l'adulte et du sujet âgé, Paris, France; Inserm, U894, Centre Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, Paris, France.

7

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.

8

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

 You do not read anything I have 304 studies for many countries had you clicked on the few links I sent, you had seen it was published in the USA because every country has to do so but it comes from everywhere so I do not lose my time with bad faith people:lock:

 

 

To take the following, which is the one regarded as credible because it has been peer reviewed:

 

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

2France.

 

This was nevertheless a lab study (in vitro) which merely determined that under certain lab conditions human cells could exhibit changes.  In vitro studies are speculative, small studies used to determine a possible relationship.  They tend not to prove anything, and indeed the authors make no such claim.  Indeed this is what the claim direct from their website:

 

'The researchers conclude that the vaping process itself can damage vital immune system cells, at least under laboratory conditions.'

 

The problem is the media in particular take a could and turn it in to can, and does, in an instant.

 

So in 20 years, when likely vaping is deemed the wonderful invention we think it probably is, and countless thousands have died unnecessarily through scare stories dissuading them from switching, or from bans, how exactly will that be explained?

 

Health England employs leading experts in their respective fields.  They claim to have reviewed over 800 peer reviewed studies, allowing them to come to their conclusions.  Why do you feel better qualified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, outsider said:

As usual, not thought through properly before implementation. This, plus (I think) the fact that Big Tobacco isn't ready with any viable initiatives or countermeasures i.e. new products, to counter e-ciggies eating into their sales.

Actually they are and have successfully launched in Japan, Korea and a few other countries and it’s a huge success , from memory it’s called qxiss or something like that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BestB said:

Actually they are and have successfully launched in Japan, Korea and a few other countries and it’s a huge success , from memory it’s called qxiss or something like that 

 

Ah yes, I am aware of that in other countries. Even tried the one by Philip Morris (forgot its name) - an ashless ciggy or something like that, I can't remember. My comment was in the context of the Thai market, and Big Tobacco's delay (or is it something else?) in bringing those alternative products into this market, and this half-baked ban being the result of Big Tobacco's lobby.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/16/2019 at 7:20 AM, AhFarangJa said:

So my guess is that after four years the Thai Tobacco Monopoly has finally got all its ducks in a row. They have probably tied up all manufacture and distribution systems, made sure there is no competition, ensured hefty taxes for imports, etc, thereby leaving the road clear for them to monopolise the product.

And now the ban on smoking in public places and an external radius around them, poor tobacco/cigarette producers, whilst the government will lose significant revenue too. But it is good it puts health above revenue. Guess though it spends the same or more on smoking related diseases. Is vaping ( incorrectly called e-cigarettes, they produce an ethanol vapour. They do not produce smoke let alone tobacco smoke) covered by this new law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2019 at 10:23 PM, mommysboy said:

Health England are convinced, as is Cancer Research UK.  They have mirror organisations in NZ for instance, and throughout Europe.  

 

The consensus is that vaping is 97% safer than smoking, but is not completely safe because nicotine can produce adverse health effects. And of course no longitudinal studies are available at this time.  Nobody is ever going to say it is safe or healthy when compared to fresh air (if you can find it).  However, significant health bodies will now say it is much less dangerous than smoking, and this is surely the most salient comparison, isn't it?

 

 

Nicotine is an added option to vaping liquids, which are usually ethanol based and yes possibly with other additives, or "juice" as the liquid is known by vapers. Reputable brands of juice will list what is in it and the amounts. Cartridge devices which are close to the size of a true cigarette can be either disposable and come pre loaded or reusable with replaceable separately bought cartridges of liquid, containing nicotine or not as you wish.  And if you do wish, with the same amount of  nicotine as mild, medium or strong cigarette brands, your choice. The larger devices have tanks you fill yourself buying the flavoured juice separately  ( I really like forest fruits and apple flavours but there is an enormous range, wider than  ice cream flavours!) to which nicotine in a premeasured dose is added if you wish at the vaping shop. These shops often have a socialising area too. ( sadly in my view none here!). Again these nicotine doses correspond to the amount of nicotine found in cigarettes. So your choice again, from none to strong. Many young vapers, not previously smokers, do not want nicotine added. Personally ,and if legal as in some US states and Canada I'd like to see cannabis oil as an option.

 

If you are a smoker trying  to change from tobacco or wanting something that is far less offensive indeed not offensive at all to non smokers ( as my friends and family confirm) and thus already addicted to nicotine ( that would be me with a 20 a day, over 40 year habit!) then you buy the dose appropriate  to your habitual need. Nicotine is colourless, odourless and of course too much is lethal, so it is important not to tamper with the dose yourself. The tank of the device is quite small. The large body is not the tank as I first thought when I started seeing these being used but a battery pack with an electronic controller with which you vary and set the elctric charge level to the heating coil and so the quantity of vapour it generates.

 

Respected research in to health risks of vaping is not yet 100% clear, but  it is accepted by NHS UK and the French Assurance Maladie to be close to 100% harmless compared to tobacco products, as an active user and certainly for a passive bystander. Both recommend vaping as a way to help stop smoking tobacco. And it is NOT smoke but a vapour which quickly dissipates even in enclosed spaces and contains no carcinogenic tar. Apart from the nicotine addiction produced by smoking tobacco tar is the real health risk. Vaping risks, if any, are not from the liquid but from the metals etc used in the heating coil. So cheap knockoffs are far more likely to have a higher risk than a recognised quality brand.

 

It is also completely clean. There is no ash, no other deposits or by products.

 

I have confessed I am smoker and it is certainly very difficult to kick the habit, especially here in Thailand where cigarettes are still very cheap compared to Europe, Australia, NZ etc. I started vaping mostly out of consideration for non smoking family, friends, and those around me in social gatherings ( now in the majority in most countries ) and in public places, partly to try and kick cigarettes for health reasons, partly cost ( in Europe, although governments are moving towards taxing the nicotine element where purchased to make up lost revenues as the number of die hard smokers declines), and finally because I can vape indoors and out without stinking the place out for hours, days, weeks, without me and my clothes smelling like a walking ashtray and without damaging clothes, fabrics and paintwork from smoke deposits and ash.

 

I have no commercial axe to grind, even though this post may sound like an ad for vaping. I assure you it is not. I DO think vaping is getting a bad and unfair press because of its association with tobacco smoking and as a substitute for that  ( the tobacco lobby have been hard at work there and governments don't like the loss of tobacco revenues much either) and because the vapour has a superficial similarity in appearance  to tobacco smoke to non smokers. I hope I may have convinced some of you that vaping is actually a good thing for a cleaner healthier environmental.

 

I wish anti smoking laws and the lobbyists who push for them would differentiate between smoking tobacco and vaping and the latter not lumped in with smoking bans and the incorrect use of the expression e- cigarettes when no tobacco is  involved. I wish Thailand would at least make clear that importation of devices and liquids for purely personal use is not a crime nor indeed should licenced importation, sales and servicing be, as the act of vaping except when lumped in with anti smoking prohibitions here apparently is not.

 

The current laws and cheap cigarettes here only push me back to cigarettes when I am here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2019 at 8:14 PM, outsider said:

As usual, not thought through properly before implementation. This, plus (I think) the fact that Big Tobacco isn't ready with any viable initiatives or countermeasures i.e. new products, to counter e-ciggies eating into their sales.

Big tobacco in Europe and US is buying up and buying in to the vaping industry ( I don't like the term e-cigarettes as neither tobacco nor smoke is involved, and even nicotine is only an option ). They see where the future lies. In Europe governments are considering taxing the nicotine element of vaping liquids. What goes around always comes around! Here in Thailand, you are almost certainly right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...