Obama Signs Anti-Smoking Bill, Cites Own Struggle

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Signs Anti-Smoking Bill, Cites Own Struggle stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

PHILIP ELLIOTT | June 22, 2009 11:46 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Barack Obama, surrounded by members of Congress, and others, signs the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Monday, June 22, 2009, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington.(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

WASHINGTON — Lamenting his first teenage cigarette, President Barack Obama ruefully admitted on Monday that he's spent his adult life fighting the habit. Then he signed the nation's toughest anti-smoking law, aiming to keep thousands of other teens from getting hooked.

Obama praised the historic legislation, which gives the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products, to make public the ingredients and to prohibit marketing campaigns geared toward children.

But he didn't say how his own struggle was coming since he moved into the White House. And aides were no more forthcoming.

As senator, candidate and now president, Obama has veered between frank and cagey about his personal battle with smoking.

He promised his wife, Michelle, more than two years ago that he would quit if she let him seek the White House.

He has often acknowledged since that he has "fallen off the wagon." But he hardly ever provides specifics. And though White House aides pack nicotine gum in their jackets to help him resist, they also refuse to give a clear answer to the question of whether the president still sneaks a smoke now and again.

"I hate it," Michelle Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" during the presidential campaign's early days. "That's why he doesn't do it anymore, I'm proud to say. I outed him _ I'm the one who outed him on the smoking. That was one of my prerequisites for, you know, entering this race is that, you know, he couldn't be a smoking president."

Well, not exactly.

Story continues below
advertisement

During Obama's two-year White House bid, he was known to occasionally bum a cigarette from a staff member _ while also making sure to emphasize his efforts to stop for good and his progress from his onetime five-smoke-a-day average.

During Monday's bill signing, Obama focused on how the new law would help keep future generations of kids away from the dangerous habit. The president mentioned his own experience very briefly _ just 30 words.

Almost 90 percent of people who smoke began at 18 or younger, he said.

"I know. I was one of these teenagers," he said. "And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."

And then he went back to the merits of the bill and the shortcomings of the tobacco industry, which he accused of targeting young people. One key provision in the new law bans candy-flavored cigarettes and the use of other flavored smokes that might appeal to teenagers. Ads aimed at young people also are banned.

Aides refused to elaborate on his own situation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn't asked Obama about his smoking and made plain that he didn't plan to. The presidential spokesman stuck to vague language that left the impression Obama still occasionally falls off the wagon, but he did not say so directly.

"I don't, honestly, see the need to get a whole lot more specific than the fact that it's a continuing struggle," Gibbs said. "He struggles with it every day."

Still, it's not as if Obama was ever even a pack-a-day puffer.

"I've never been a heavy smoker," Obama told The Chicago Tribune in 2007. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I don't succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously."

Loading...
 
Filed by Lila Shapiro
 
Comments
859
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
- OhgReaTone I'm a Fan of OhgReaTone 5 fans permalink

Finally - and this legislation does not go far enough. Tobacco should be banned equally with cocaine , meth, and heroine. ..........­.........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/06/22/tobacco-legislation-save-our-children/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 06/22/2009

What about alcohol? Marijuana has been part of the accepted culture in many countries many of whose people now live here. The ban on marijuana is culturally biased unless we also ban alcohol.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 06/22/2009

And to think that Joe Biden is a heartbeat or smoker's wheeze away from the oval office....­scary!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 06/22/2009
- kappa08 I'm a Fan of kappa08 79 fans permalink
photo

ahhhh the beauty of low hanging fruit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

Cigarettes should cost $20.00 per pack to off-set the cost of healthcare for smokers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 06/22/2009

Why not higher premiums for them for a pre-existing condition?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

Sure....bu­t it would be difficult to manage. Best to tax the heck out of smokers as an incentive to quit.

Even RJR has the following posted on their website: " Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. "

Knowing the risks...pe­ople still smoke. It's a powerful addiction.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 06/22/2009
- amdezurik I'm a Fan of amdezurik 36 fans permalink

you mean the way it already is?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 06/22/2009
- 3M Rocker I'm a Fan of 3M Rocker 3 fans permalink

Hey genius - smokers pay more than their share by the massive amounts of tax that is levied on every pack of cigs. Incidentally, that's real nice to tax the $hit out of people who are ADDICTED. Maybe we should tax your fatty food intake - that costs the health system even more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

We need to reach a point where smoking cessation therapy is the only choice....­otherwise folks will always find an excuse to keep on smoking...­..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 06/22/2009

We most definitely should tax the cr#p out of sodas, chips, ding dongs, etc.. As it is, the really healthy food, i.e., organic vegetables, are really expensive. Someone explain it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 PM on 06/22/2009
- Arkangel3 I'm a Fan of Arkangel3 3 fans permalink

Preface: I am currently a cigarette smoker and recovering alcoholic. That said, I've reduced my cigarette intake by using "snus", the smokeless tobacco which reduces my cravings and I smoke fewer cigarettes. I will smoke cigarettes in between, but at VASTLY reduced levels than before. I cannot take medications because they interfere with other meds I take, and prescribed cessation methods are expensive.

I'm 48; sober for 3 years. I kicked a very bad alcohol addiction, and quitting that was easier than trying to quit smoking. This can only be because of "enhanced" cigarettes which we now know the cigarette companies manufactured. I feel duped, and I feel held prisoner..­.but I DO enjoy tobacco (sometimes­...when it's for enjoyment rather than as a habit).

People smoke. We are not "evil" people. We pay more in taxes than most people do. We are adults, and should be treated as such; not with contempt or derision like so many of you treat us.

Do I think this is a good law? I honestly don't know. Perhaps it will allow pure tobacco to be distributed as opposed to the enhanced garbage that has been peddled for years. Perhaps now insurance companies will be forced to cover smoking cessation methods (inhalers, pills and the like) rather than cover our diseases as a result of smoking.

Perhaps one day, I will quit...but I want it of my own volition, not having the government tell me to stop.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 06/22/2009
- scotia626 I'm a Fan of scotia626 10 fans permalink
photo

the government isnt telling you to stop; its trying to prevent someone else from starting. it si a vile addiction. it is a drug. and as you know, more diffilcult to leave behind than alcohol. good luck- but please dont blame the 'government'- per haps you should revisit your 12 steps.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 06/22/2009
- PepeLepew I'm a Fan of PepeLepew 305 fans permalink
photo

Fair enough!
All good comments.G­ood luck quitting. Have you tried e-cigarettes?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 06/22/2009
- Arkangel3 I'm a Fan of Arkangel3 3 fans permalink

My wife and daughter saw an e-cigarette demonstration in the local mall two months ago and thought it might be something I should look into. I think that's my next step. Right now, "snus" is working pretty well. I always liked the taste of tobacco, and snus let's me taste tobacco again as well as satisfy my nicotine cravings.

I actually had a prescription for a Nicotrol Inhaler from my Doctor a few months ago, but the cost of that method (which is NOT covered by by Health Insurance) is prohibitive to the point of being more expensive than smoking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 PM on 06/23/2009
- pfrogger I'm a Fan of pfrogger 61 fans permalink

do you have brain injury? seriously? are you alright?
you wrote so well for the first few paragraphs, and yet you descend into the depths of stupidity with your last sentence.
You already admitted that smoking is harder to quit than alcohol. hell many say it's on par with heroine. then you talk about the "enhanced" tobacco. don't know what that is, but along with everything else the tobacco companies have put out, it probably is very harmful to your health.
and then you say, you want to quit of your own volition. based on all you said, don't you think it's better that the government is trying to help smokers and keep tobacco companies honest?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 06/22/2009
- Arkangel3 I'm a Fan of Arkangel3 3 fans permalink

"Enhanced" cigarettes have been the norm produced by the tobacco companies for YEARS. They boost the nicotine levels in cigarettes through various chemical means. This keeps smokers hooked. I've noticed I've smoked more as I got older...an­d most people used to either smoke the same or start to smoke less as they aged. As far as the technical process on how they do this, how they are allowed to say a cigarette contains "X" amount of nicotine when it contains more I cannot speculate on.

I may be a liberal on a lot of fronts, but i also say, I never liked my parents telling me what to do, and I don't like government telling me what to do either. Quitting smoking (and choosing to start, if one desires to be stupid about it) is an individual choice. Just as choosing to drink or quitting drinking is an individual choice. I'm in the same boat as The President here; although he appears to be having more success than I am at quitting.

And finally, yes I am brain damaged; I have acute PTSD from 9/11. I was in the WTC. So there are times when my thoughts are a bit scattered more than most people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 PM on 06/23/2009
- jbrantow I'm a Fan of jbrantow 39 fans permalink

won't this cause regulation so the tobacco corps can't introduce more crap into their product to increase the addictive nature and make it more difficult to quit. Their customers die and they need to replace. This is oversight not prohibition.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 06/22/2009

If America was all that it's cracked-up to be (freedom, prosperity, democracy, ect.), I might want to live longer. But as long as I'm an underpaid article of commerce, slaving-away my waking life behind a cubicle so someone else can enjoy a life of golf, yachts, and caviar, I don't care if my life sentence is cut short by smoking (one of the few pleasures that hasn't been criminalized). If this country were truly "free", I'd want to stick around until I'm 90, but since we aren't trying to solve all these longstanding problems (and are creating new problems daily through greed and the stupidity of religious nonsense), I'd rather choose my own exit. My American dream was to get the F#ck out of America and see the world. Bush ruined that for me in the ultimate c#ck-block move. Now I'd have to pretend to be Australian to have an edge on my male competition (and work on my accent). Even if I eventually save-up enough money for my world tour, Americans are universally despised or seen as stupid by the rest of the world (thanks to the idiot we didn't elect twice). I'd like to help the Iranians with their freedom, but if I went there, I'd be put on the no-fly list. I smoke, partially so I don't have to be surrounded by idiots as long as I would without smoking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 06/22/2009
- mrfreeze I'm a Fan of mrfreeze 140 fans permalink
photo

Instead of smoking you should consider anti-depressants. You're going to die of high blood pressure before the cigarettes kill you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 06/22/2009

I have low blood pressure, but thanks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 06/22/2009
- lpbj I'm a Fan of lpbj permalink

Do you have a family?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 06/22/2009

Of my own? Like a wife and kids? Nope. I can't afford a family on what I make. The dating scene is full of fake people and most just want someone else's money to be spent on them (temporarily). If I happen to meet a real person who isn't greed-obsessed, that's fine, but so far, I've found the dating pool shallow and polluted. I have very high expectations anyway (Republicans, Holy-rollers, people who jump from relationship to relationship, and people who blindly follow the herd are automatically taken out of the running). I'm happy flying solo, and I'm not going to ruin my life in one fail swoop as I've seen almost everyone around me do. I've ruined my life far less than anyone I know who has chosen the marriage/family route. In the rare cases where the relationships of those around me actually worked and are mutually symbiotic, I'm a little envious, but that's life. As far as my non-chosen family, most are non-smokers and are far less healthy than me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 PM on 06/22/2009

I am not a smoker, nor have I ever been. This is a great first step in bannishing smoking. It is my opinion that people are very ignorant of what goes into the cigarette making. Most people know about the various toxic chemicals, but most don't know what goes into the cigarette paper. It's not just nicotine that gets you hooked on cigarettes. Some cigarette companies have gone as far as making the paper with traces of heroin to get you hooked. Please read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3272600/Dr-John-Coleman-The-Conspirators-Hierarchy-The-Committee-of-300

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 06/22/2009

How about making tobacco companies use only tobacco and paper in their cigarettes? No additives, no preservatives, no flavors, no chemicals, just tobacco (and a filter). I think the added ingredients are what causes cancer, not the tobacco. Furthermore, how about regulating fast food? How about regulating the guano (bat poop) in Doritos and other chips? Disodium Guanylate is a clever name to disguise what it really is......ba­t poop......­..It helps the flavor stick to the chips.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 06/22/2009
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 222 fans permalink

Its the smoke entering the lungs that does the damage, but all of the poisons that they use as filler play a major role as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 06/22/2009
- Kuuba I'm a Fan of Kuuba 10 fans permalink

If that's true, that's pretty disgusting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

Cigs are LEGAL.

If they are so bad, why are they LEGAL?

Does that mean alcohol is bad too ?

Are cigs good and pot bad or vice versa?

How the hell does this society justify keeping such an 'evil' product legal? How does this society justify keeping the killer 'alcohol' legal then turn around and keep pot and other drugs illegal?

We are one screwed up bunch of moralizing fools.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 06/22/2009
- Shellly I'm a Fan of Shellly 9 fans permalink

they are addictive, and that's what make them bad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 06/22/2009
- PepeLepew I'm a Fan of PepeLepew 305 fans permalink
photo

Well, yes, and the formaldehyde, the benzene, the arsenic, the cyanide, the radioactive isotopes, etc., etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 06/22/2009
- JonShank I'm a Fan of JonShank 41 fans permalink
photo

I understand that after the announcement, President Obama took the speech, rolled it up, and SMOKED IT!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

I guess he has to quit now for lsure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 06/22/2009
- NoPCZone I'm a Fan of NoPCZone 17 fans permalink

Now, lets repackage all alcohol with pictures of alcoholics, victims of drunk drivers. This will be on every bottle of wine, beer or spirits. The same photos will be hung over every bar and on every menu serving alcohol. BTW- you will have to go outside to drink the wine you ordered with dinner. You will get busted if there is a kid in your house while anyone consumes any form of alcohol.

It's only fair, you have done all of this to smokers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 06/22/2009
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 222 fans permalink

Sounds fine with me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 PM on 06/22/2009
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 86 fans permalink

No, actually, the smokers did this to themselves with their contempt for others.

You might argue that this is the few ruining it for the many, however, my perception is that polite smokers are - and historically always have been - FAR in the minority. ...One simple measure is to look at how casually smokers throw the butts on the ground. How _rude._

That this community finally has been forced to behave with respect to non-smokers is in the eyes of non-smokers a REAL blessing. Too bad you had to bring it on yourselves but don't blame us.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 06/22/2009
- PepeLepew I'm a Fan of PepeLepew 305 fans permalink
photo

I've never run into too many overtly rude smokers ... at least not lately. (I do agree with you about the butts on the ground statement, though. That's why I don't feel any sympathy for smokers when they ban smoking at beaches -- they did it to themselves­.) My perception is that most smokers are pretty self-conscious about what they know is a bad habit and don't want to bother people with their smoke ... but I *do* think the smoke so kills their sense of taste and smell that many smokers genuinely just don't realize how irritating cigarette smoke is to a non-smokers. I've had ex-smokers tell me they just didn't have a clue about that until after they quit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

It is impossible to make a law to control behavior. Laws can only punish bad behavior. Speeding is illegal and yet people still speed. Murder is illegal and people still murder. Drugs are illegal and people still do drugs. So when you think passing a law will control peoples behavior think again because all your really doing is turning more people into criminals. Stop passing laws to control other people and get out there and do something about it. You don't like people smoking then help them quit. Start a quitting class. Pass out fliers to educate. You will never force them to quit buy you may be able to sell them on it. Good luck.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 06/22/2009

It's about reducing the harm. You have this idea that they are making tobacco illegal. They're doing the same things they did years ago when they put labels on the packs and prohibited Fred Flintstone from selling the stuff on TV. Was that a move to suppress our freedom? Should cartoon characters still be peddling smokes on TV to your kids?

Once again, you speak like you were born yesterday and think regulation has never done any good. Please tell me you want cigarette ads on your children's television and I will say you are not a hypocrite. And stop confusing this bill with your Ron Paul abolish-the-fed agenda, cause it's not really related.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

This is not the issue. People have the right to regulate especially to protect their children. However, this bill is about giving the government control over this product. They just made a deal with Phillip Morris to create a monopoly. This was easier then right out banning them. Since you were born yesterday I will patiently take the time to explain to you what is really going on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

So why not legalize all drugs and treat them in a similar manner?

Instead we create millions of criminals by making it illegal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 06/22/2009
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 222 fans permalink

[So when you think passing a law will control peoples behavior ]

If you bothered to read what the law actually does, you'll find it restricts cigarette companies from making their product as controlling of people's behavior..­..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

It's an attempt to give consumers a better idea of what they're inhaling. Maybe it will reduce the amount of health-related issues. I have severe breathing problems, not from smoking, and I don't believe smokers are prepared for the torture of trying to catch your breath all the time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 06/22/2009
- zipowitz I'm a Fan of zipowitz 36 fans permalink

On the topic but slightly off topic. It amuses me that they raise taxes 62 cents (over 150%) to raise $33 billion for SCHIP then do things like this. This was argued before that that a cigarette ax hurts the poor and will lose funds over the years when you pass laws like this. Of course they will need more money as they lose the tax revenue and will need to get it from somewhere else, and so on and so on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

Why would they lose any tax revenue? It seems to me that this legislation will go along with the new SCHIP tax and even increase the revenue from it, as smokers will be smoking more to compensate for less nicotine, and we'll all enjoy paying even more for their healthcare because they were encouraged to smoke more by the gov't/tobacco lobby.

If this bill passes, expect to never see the legalization of marijuana either :(

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 PM on 06/22/2009
- RSU I'm a Fan of RSU 88 fans permalink
photo

You should research what happened in New York.

They raised the state tax on the sale of cigarettes to help pay for the rising costs of healh care. They then passed legislation to increase the amount of money spent on health care to equal the projected revenues they would gain from the new sales taxes.

The fly in the ointment came when they realized that about half of New Yorkers quit smoking altogether. A good portion of those who continued smoking, traveled to Indian reservations or across state lines where taxes were non-existent or much cheaper.

Instead of seeing a net increase in tax revenues, they actually lost more than they were getting to begin with. To compound matters, the money they approved to spend on increased health care actually contributed to their deficit which they still can't pay off to this day.

And to make matters worse, the health situation hasn't improved appreciably and those who were aided with the increased spending are demanding that the money continues to flow despite the fact that the source of the new spending never materialized to begin with.

This is another perfect example of unintended consequences taking what was thought to be a good idea and proving it wrong from the start.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

If they decrease the nicotine content of cigarettes, won't most smokers just smoke alot more cigarrettes and thus get more tar and carcinogens in their lungs? Can't we think things through?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 06/22/2009
- PJay1 I'm a Fan of PJay1 50 fans permalink
photo

I think they DID think it through.
That is the tobacco industries and the govt together thought it through.
It will boost sales and associated taxes.

You're exactly right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

No they can't. They never do. If it sounds good then let's make it law. Change they can bereave in!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

You are exactly right. As a pack a week smoker I can tell you that if they were to half the amount of nicotine I would end up smoking two packs a week.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 06/22/2009
- JonShank I'm a Fan of JonShank 41 fans permalink
photo

How about stopping?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 PM on 06/22/2009

Or you could quit....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 06/22/2009
- ginny1920 I'm a Fan of ginny1920 5 fans permalink

A pack a WEEK? Are you sure your really an "addicted" smoker? Seems more like a bad habit at those smoking rates. Not sure you'd really notice the difference in nicotine. (Yes, I am a former smoker, up to a pack a DAY).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 06/22/2009
- PepeLepew I'm a Fan of PepeLepew 305 fans permalink
photo

That *has* been and is still being debated. No decision has been made yet to reduce nicotine.
By the same argument, if you reduce the level of nicotine, wouldn't it make it more difficult for young people to become physically addicted to cigarettes to begin with? It's a tough question.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 06/22/2009
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 222 fans permalink

I have thought it through, and I guarantee that the cigarette companies have as well. So why didn't they reduce nicotine themselves to charge you more?

Because it wouldn't work, that's why.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 06/22/2009
- ginny1920 I'm a Fan of ginny1920 5 fans permalink

Agree. If it was going to bring in more revenue, they'd have already done it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 06/22/2009
- PJay1 I'm a Fan of PJay1 50 fans permalink
photo

Do you know they didn't?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 06/22/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect