Log in

No account? Create an account


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Tobacco Centuries
After I'd carried bits of a Danish article which cited evidence that smokers performed a variety of mental tasks up to 30% better than non-smokers, Stewart Cowan suggested that banning smoking was an integral part of the modern dumbing-down process. Leg-iron continued the theme last night.

Today I wondered whether 30% increased mental acuity translated into 30% increased IQ. I couldn't see why it shouldn't. If your mind works better under the influence of tobacco smoke, you're likely to solve puzzles quicker. And that's all an IQ test consists of.

Lewis Terman (1916) proposed this scale for classifying IQ scores:
Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness

Normal or average intelligence measures about 100 on the IQ scale. So if IQ is boosted 30%, an ordinary guy of average intelligence will find he has a very superior intelligence of 130 once he starts smoking. If he's a smarter than average guy with an IQ of 110, he becomes a genius with an IQ of over 140. And if he's a bit feeble-minded, with an IQ of 70, a 30% increase of intelligence will boost him to IQ of 90, which is almost normal.

Today I found myself wondering what happens to a society when, almost overnight, it gets 30% smarter. I figured there'd probably be a great flowering of science and philosophy and art and music and literature. But the gains wouldn't just be in outstanding scientific discoveries and inventions and works of art, but in the performance of everybody, right the way down to the butcher and baker and candlestick maker.

Well, we can just take a look at history. The New World (and tobacco) was discovered in 1492 by Columbus, sailing from Spain, and funded by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. This time corresponds to the period of the High Renaissance in Europe. In Spain, the Spanish Renaissance is dated from exactly 1492. Assuming that tobacco spread rapidly from Spain to the aristocracies of neighbouring countries, then since Leonardo da Vinci lived from 1452 to 1519, he could have smoked tobacco for the last 30 years of his life, while painting the Mona Lisa. Michelangelo (1475 – 1564) could have picked up the habit when he was about 25, and lit up every now and then while painting the Sistine Chapel. Nicholas Copernicus (1473 – 1543) could have lit his first pipe at age 30, while pondering the motion of the planets. The Reformation is kicked off by Martin Luther in 1517. What set him thinking? And whatever induced that larger-than-life king Henry VIII (1491 – 1547) to write poetry and music and theology? None of his predecessors did. Ah, he had a Spanish wife. By 1530, tobacco had become popular with the Spanish lower classes (which suggests that there was already a lot of it around).

It's not as if absolutely nothing was happening before 1500. But there does seem to be a veritable flood of artists and philosophers and scientists and engineers after that date. Francis Bacon was a smoker. Very likely William Shakespeare was too.

And it's not just that many of the key figures in the Renaissance could have smoked tobacco, but that many of the main players in the subsequent Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution most definitely were smokers. Isaac Newton was a smoker. Charles Darwin was a smoker. Isambard Brunel was a smoker. Johann S Bach was a smoker. Albert Einstein was a smoker. Pablo Picasso was a smoker.

The Renaissance and the Reformation and the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution were all intellectual revolutions. There's really nothing equivalent to them in the previous 1000 years or more. What could have made that happen? Climate change? In the 16th century Europe was entering the Little Ice Age. It's a bit difficult to think when you're freezing cold. Rising living standards? The Industrial Revolution didn't really get under way until about 1800. The arrival of tobacco, raising almost everyone's intellectual performance by 30%, offers an excellent explanation of this rolling series of intellectual revolutions. The timing is perfect.

Add to this that America was built on tobacco. The original colonies of Virginia grew and exported tobacco. Probably almost every single one of America's founding fathers were tobacco smokers. The US Constitution is wreathed in tobacco smoke. The most successful political experiment of the past 300 years was founded on tobacco.

This won't be the first time that a large claim has been made for a drug. Anyone who was familiar with the 1960s will remember the large claims that were made first about cannabis and later about LSD. "Feed Your Mind" was one of the mantras of the late 60s.

And maybe minds do need feeding, and humanity has long been starved of the nutrients that nourish thought, just as much as it has been starved of the nutrients that nourish physical vitality. Maybe what drives all drug experimentation is the search for the elixir not of immortality or eternal youth, but of genius. Tobacco has been one of the best.

If smoking tobacco substantially increases mental performance, then why would anyone want to prohibit tobacco? It probably just boils down to one simple thing: jealousy. Smokers have a 30% intelligence advantage over non-smokers. Not because they're inherently smarter, but because they're using performance-enhancing drugs, just like olympic athletes cheat by using steroids. It's not a level playing field. Banning smoking gives non-smokers an equal chance of winning prizes, gaining advancement, and getting the girl. If you can't speed up your own racing car, your only recourse is to demand changes in the rules to slow down the other guys' cars.

If we might want to know what a smoke-free world would be like, all we need do is wind back the clock to before 1492, when nobody smoked. Almost all intellectual inquiry is restricted to monks in the Roman Catholic Church, and if they're thinking about anything, it's most likely theology. It's an authoritarian intellectual world, where questioning almost anything is heresy. Sound familiar?

And in this world where more or less everyone is 30% less intelligent than in previous generations, there will be incompetence at all levels of society. Politicians will make stupid decisions, science will decay, philosophers and intellectuals will disappear, the arts will degenerate. Nothing will work properly. Most people will be feeble-minded. Again, sound familiar?

Ours is increasingly a world without vision and without imagination. It's a frightened world. It's a world in which people are frightened of their own shadows. Frightened of tobacco smoke. Frightened of carbon dioxide. Frightened of Terror. It's a world in which people readily accept the authority of doctors and scientists who are all too ready to exploit and dupe them. It's a world in which the Holy Father, il papa, the pope, is returning the nanny superstate is emerging, to regulate everything that anyone does, in the smallest details.

For a few centuries - the Tobacco Centuries - people were 30% smarter than they were in centuries before or after. For a few centuries science and reason triumphed over superstition and credulity, before it all came rolling back in a tidal wave of joss sticks and Vegan diets and global warming and windmills.

Funny you should say that, Frank (and what good thinking!), but I have always said that I do my best thinking when I am in the pub having a pint and a fag. In fact, as I sit here, I am indulging in that very thing - except that it is a glass of wine and a fag. What better combination - alcohol to free you from your deep seated inhibitions and tobacco to free your intellect!

But I am not sure about the conspiracy - I do not think that non-smoking teetotallers are clever enough.


As regards the anti-tobacco situation, I sometimes wonder if it is not a consequence of the American civil war. After all, the Potato famine still rankles in Ireland and the Highland Clearances still rankle in Scotland, and I know for a fact that the Spanish civil war is still very much alive in the minds of the Spanish. There will still be lots of grandparents alive who were physically involved in the Spanish civil war.

It is not inconceivable that the tobacco 'war' is not a continuation of the American civil war. The tobacco 'war' started a long time ago, being the source of finance for the Southern States, I suppose. We should remember that the slaves in the USA mostly worked on tobacco plantations.

But, of course, what I say may be utter rubbish - I am merely using my alcohol and tobacco enhanced intellectual powers to make these assumptions! In fact, the idea that the tobacco 'war' is a continuation of the American civil war only popped into my mind a few minutes ago!

I wonder if there is any similar connection in respect of the alcohol 'war'? I know little about American history, but it would be interesting to know where all the raw materials for alcohol were being grown. Were they being grown mostly in the Southern States?

The more that you think about these things, the more intriguing it gets.

"As regards the anti-tobacco situation, I sometimes wonder if it is not a consequence of the American civil war"

You could well be right, Junican.

"An observant traveller in the South in 1865 said that in his belief seven-tenths of all persons above the age of twelve years, both male and female, used tobacco in some form. Women could be seen at the doors of their cabins in their bare feet, in their dirty one-piece cotton garments, their chairs tipped back, smoking pipes made of corn cobs into which were fitted reed stems or goose quills. Boys of eight or nine years of age and half-grown girls smoked. Women and girls "dipped" in their houses, on their porches, in the public parlors of hotels and in the streets."

The “Social Dip”:
Tobacco Use by Mid-19th Century Southern Women*

“It is claimed that it whitens and preserves the teeth and sweetens the mouth, and produces a beneficial effect on the lungs, all of which is true or not, just as you choose to believe.”
Others thought that it “gives lustre to the eye and a freshness to the cheek rarely surpassed.”

Old women dipped “as it made them feel young again.” It “affords an exhilarating pleasure to those who practice it,” “a pleasant sort of mild intoxication.” “Everywhere I marked only pleasant and soothing effects from the use of tobacco"


But the people of the South had an endemic nutritional disease.

"In America, the term 'redneck' actually comes from a vitamin B deficiency that causes heightened susceptibility to sunburns."

"One of the first signs of pellagra, or niacin deficiency, is the skin's sensitivity to light, and the skin becomes rough, thick, and dry (pellagra means "skin that is rough" in Italian). The skin then becomes darkly pigmented, especially in areas of the body prone to be hot and sweaty or those exposed to sun.

The first stage of this condition is extreme redness and sensitivity of those exposed areas, and it was from this symptom that the term "redneck," describing the bright red necks of eighteenth-and nineteenth-century niacin-deficient fieldworkers, came into being."

Which is why they became a target of the Eugenicists.

Vol. XVIII No. 1, JULY 1916

"Early in the spring of 1913 the desirability of the study of pellagra from the viewpoint of heredity as a causative factor was brought to the attention of the Thompson-McFadden Pellagra Commission by Dr. Charles B. Davenport, Eugenics Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y.

Under the joint patronage of the two offices fieldwork was begun in Spartanburg, June 1, 1913, and continued until Oct. 1, 1913. Through the winter the data collected were carefully reviewed, arranged in family groups and charted. It was found that in many instances more details were necessary, and the Thompson Pellagra Commission in 1914 decided that the results obtained were of sufficient merit to warrant another summer's work.

Accordingly, fieldwork was begun May 1, 1914, and continued until Sept. 1, 1914.
This year the association of pellagrins with antecedent cases was also carefully noted for comparison"

Medicine: Pellagra Cure
Monday, Aug. 22, 1938
"Over 1,000,000 families in the rural South eat nothing but salt pork, corn meal and molasses."

"Nicotinic acid, a distant relative (about second cousin once removed) of tobacco's nicotine, is found in yeast, wheat germ and liver."

"Early neurological symptoms associated with pellagra include anxiety, depression, and fatigue; later symptoms include apathy, headache, dizziness, irritability and tremors."

Which has a marked similarity to the current alleged symptoms of "nicotine withdrawal"


Golden years...

On the same note I cannot help but remember the Golden Years ('50-'60) when really passionate people united and came out with most of the inventions and innovations in Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, Mathematics...industrial revolution, new appliances, new cars, new technology...that really helped the human beings in their endeavors/adventures/development.

Also, one of the best periods in music (music that still makes your heart vibrate, pleasurable to your ears...). And then with the passage towards '70...psychedelic rock, flower power, harmony...oh, those were the days, a little nostalgia I am aching for...

Looking nowadays...oh my!

Yes people were smoking whenever, wherever...workplaces, parks, bars, coffee shops enjoying some good live music and contemplating the NEW, the UNDISCOVERED, the UNKNOWN...

-- the Unfit

IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

It is always refreshing to read anti-smoking propaganda declaring smokers being of sub-average intelligence as well as socially incompetent; desperately seeking to control society's behaviour according to their own model.

Aren't we often surprised at decisions made without apparent long term thought?

Perhaps the anti-smoking fanatics concentrate too much on IQ (even though smokers appear to beat them there) and probably have never even heard of this thing EQ, which is the scale of emotional intelligence.



Just one example:

Do not a great deal of anti-smokers' comments show a distinct lack of

Q: - What about the elderly/terminally ill people being sent outside if they wish to smoke?

Anti-smoker answer: - if they are well enough to get to the pub/club/bingo hall, they are well enough to go outside!

What a self-serving abuse of the emotion empathy.

It looks like smokers do have the advantage of not only a nicotine enhanced IQ; perhaps nicotine enhances also our EQ - after all, we are not asking to smoke everywhere, however, we would like our smoking lounge in pubs back - and there is no excuse for not doing so.

Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

It's one of the things that I find absolutely jaw-droppingly stunning about the antismokers - all of them - that they seem unable to empathise with smokers. They don't seem to understand at all that they are destroying communities and networks of friendships with their bans.

I don't think that, at the top level, they actually hate smokers at all (unlike the rabble who follow them, who genuinely do hate smokers). I think that it's simply that, at the top level, they are focused solely on 'health' - where 'health' is some sort of physical measure (weight, strength, temperature, blood pressure, BMI, etc). They can and do measure these things with scales, thermometers, and so on. At the same time they have no measures of community, or friendship, or social cohesion. So they can't measure those things, and they discount them. They might say that 'friendship' doesn't really exist, because it has no mass or temperature or pressure, and is illusory. So they are not bothered if they destroy communities. They can't 'see' them.

I say this because I used to know one of them (and on one occasion met Sir Richard Peto (who wasn't a 'sir' back then) through her). She was never bothered by people smoking. She didn't hate smokers at all (because if she did she would have hated me, and she didn't). She was not in the least devoid of empathy. We even used to go on holiday together, the two of us. However, I never knew that she was working on 'smoking cessation', and had been doing so for almost as long as I'd known her. Because she never talked about it with me (I don't usually talk about the work I do with people who aren't co-workers either). She kept her smoking cessation work separate from her social life. One result of that, I now think, is that, not being a smoker herself, she never got any feedback from any of the smokers she knew. She certainly never got any from me. So she had (and probably still has) got no idea of the effects of smoking bans on smokers.

As I think of her now, I think of someone who belongs to a closed antismoking community, with its own mindset and its own language and its own measures of success and failure, but whose measures exclude things like friendship and community. I see them as having become profoundly disconnected from the real world, and calling for things (e.g. bans) which are deeply destructive of human well-being (which they are unable to measure accurately or even at all).

When I think of her, I don't think of someone without empathy, or without intelligence. I think of her as someone who has become deeply caught up in the mindset of the modern cult of antismoking. She probably regards herself as an authority on it all, when actually she is almost entirely oblivious to what she and her colleagues are doing.

We are, needless to say, no longer friends.


The American Indians used the tobacco pipe as part of certain rituals, we all know about the 'pipe of peace' routine.

An interesting point however, is when a tribe were faced with a dilemma, an important decision. The chief and elders used to sit in a wigwam, fully closed, and proceed to pass the tribal pipe to one another. The air became thick with smoke, which they saw as an important aid to their decision making.

Absolutely BRILLIANT Frank! You musta been smokin' when ya wrote it!


Ian B

Just to run with the idea, here's a speculation. Maybe the perception of women as significantly less intelligent than men- a stereotype fostered in the "bourgeois" class, in Victorian and post-Victorian anglo nations, may have arisen or been reinforced by the fact that the men smoked ("manly") and the women didn't ("unladylike") thus leading to an actual genuine disparity in their ability to think quickly and be witty in social situations.

The increasingly dominant, assertive women of the early to mid twentieth century seems (purely my own perception here) to be correlated with a rise in higher class women smoking.

Going even further off the rails here, it might be down to the invention of the cigarette, which was more "ladylike" than a bloody great havana cigar, or a pipe. A woman could look svelte and sophisticated with a cigarette in a holder (think, the assertive 1920s flapper era woman), compared to a big brown cigar stuck in her gob.

My Great Aunt was born in 1906. She never married (though had plenty of offers). She was a career woman (and smoker) all her working life, rising to a significant managerial position. She worked for... Imperial Tobacco in Liverpool.

I also had the same afterthought. If most women didn't smoke, and men were mostly smokers (and 30% smarter as a result), many men might well have decided that women were, well, a bit stupid and 'bird-brained'.

But, as you say, women started smoking cigarettes in the 1920s, and I think there are now almost as many women smokers as men. In Norway or Sweden, there are more women smokers than men. And once women started smoking and discovered they could do most jobs as well as men, they began to press for equality.

Who knows, if women smokers start to outnumber male smokers, women might start saying that men are a bit stupid and 'bird-brained'. Perhaps that's what 'new men' are?

Personally I've always regarded smoking in a woman as a plus point - and long before all this antismoking business began to seriously enrage me.


(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
To quote Anon. on a previous thread.

"Honestly. I’m thoroughly convinced now that these claims are not an exaggeration of the real truth, or not-quite-the-whole-story, or even a fabricated-out-of-thin-air story – they’re a plain, downright, total, complete and utter lies, designed to “get in first.” It’s one of their main modus-operandi (or whatever the plural of that term is), in fact. They do some research, find out what’s good about smoking and then present the complete opposite, so that no-one thinks to research the matter again, and thus the real truth never becomes known and their version of the truth becomes the established “scientific consensus.”

I've been waiting for this "study" to appear for a while.

Remember this one?

Quitters finish first

Health warning: giving up smoking can kill

"The danger of cigarettes is mostly not in smoking them, argues a study by three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India. Or, put another way: the danger comes from not smoking. Figuratively blowing smoke in the face of conventional wisdom, the study asks: "Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?"

Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya and Jairaj Kumar take little for granted. They begin: "The clinically high correlation between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal point in societal campaigns against the habit and the tobacco lobby." But their experience with patients suggests to them a different, seldom-told story. "We are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases."

Experience is their guide, numerically speaking. Of the 312 lung cancer patients they treated during a four-year period, 182 had recently quit smoking. The report goes into detail. "Each had been addicted to the habit no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks a day. The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental."

And here it is, less than 4 years later.

Today's news

Ceasing to Smoke Tied to Lung Cancer Onset

"In people who have been longtime smokers, quitting the habit at a moment's notice, and without too much trouble may in fact be a bad sign. Experts have tied this type of spontaneous behavior to the onset and detection of lung cancer in these patients.

In fact, some oncology specialists even propose that this can be interpreted as a sign that lung cancer is about to appear. The lack of effort in ceasing a habit that has been going on for decades can be construed as an indicator that something is wrong, and even as a symptom.

Some scientists even believe that one of the earliest signs that the disease is oncoming is the lack of appetite for cigarettes and tobacco. The fact that many lung cancer patients stop smoking just before they are diagnosed is notorious in the medical community."

“There is a danger that this study could be misinterpreted as suggesting that heavy smokers should continue smoking.

We emphasize that all smokers must be strongly encouraged to stop,” she says.

The study revealed that heavy smokers who quit without effort were diagnosed with lung cancer within 2.7 years after ceasing to smoke.


From the first story, but discussed in the Ottawa Citizen

Since the findings of Kumar, Mallya, and Kumar coincide with my own medical hypothesis, based on my own anecdotal evidence, I hasten to embrace them. Several deceased friends and family, starting with my paternal grandfather, perished shortly after they quit smoking -- not only from lung cancer, but from other causes ranging from previously undiagnosed heart disease to industrial accident.

The same general principle would apply: that a body long accustomed to a (frankly addictive) substance, goes haywire when the substance is removed.
In the good old days, people instinctively understood things like that, without the need for medical research. And it was inconceivable that, for instance, hospitals would prevent patients from smoking, who were already medically challenged on other fronts.

Other medical literature has documented other risks of non-smoking, that include neurotic depression, violent irritability, and obscene weight gain. But these tend to be discounted because they lead to death only indirectly.

Likewise, indirect evidence for the dangers of not smoking comes from the 150th anniversary number of Atlantic magazine. P.J. O'Rourke points to (actual, serious) U.S. historical statistics showing that, in the period 1973-94, annual per capita consumption of cigarettes fell from 4,148 to 2,493. In the same period, the incidence of lung and bronchial cancer rose from 42.5 to 57.1 cases per 100,000 population.

In the past I have flagged UN statistics showing that life expectancy was nicely proportional to tobacco consumption, internationally -- so that, for example, Japan and South Korea were respectively first and second in both life expectancy and tobacco consumption. The lowest tobacco consumption was in Third World countries, where we also found some of the shortest life expectancies.

I think we could also find historical statistics showing there is a reliable, worldwide relationship between rising tobacco consumption, and rising life expectancy, nation by nation, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries."


Rose, that India observation has confirmation in the USA

Spontaneous smoking cessation may be an early symptom of lung cancer, research suggests
48 percent of patients in study quit before diagnosis, most before onset of symptoms

And then there’s the usual PH trash for an “explanation”:
Researchers speculated that spontaneous smoking cessation may be a presenting symptom of lung cancer, possibly caused by tumor secretion of a substance interfering with nicotine addiction.

The results should not encourage smokers to continue smoking, Campling said.

"There is a danger that this study could be misinterpreted as suggesting that heavy smokers should continue smoking," Campling said. "We emphasize that all smokers must be strongly encouraged to stop."


Have you got that – “tumor secretion of a substance interfering with nicotine addiction”.




Brilliant, wasn't it?

I have been waiting for that Indian study to come back at us, "re-interpreted", for the last four years.


(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
I just nicked your link to the Danish paper to post in the comments here Frank. Hope you don't mind.

No, I don't mind. But the link doesn't go anywhere.


replica hermes <a href="http://www.replica--hermes.com/">replica hermes</a> replica hermes [url=http

replica hermes bags replica hermes bags (http://www.replica--hermes.com/) hermes bags [url=http://www.replica--hermes.com/]replica hermes bags[/url] www.replica--hermes.com
Gucci bags Gucci bags (http://www.gucci--bags.com/) replica gucci bags [url=http://www.gucci--bags.com/]replica gucci bags[/url] www.gucci--bags.com
ugg boots sale ugg boots sale (http://www.ugg--bootssale.com/) ugg boots buying [url=http://www.ugg--bootssale.com/]ugg boots sale[/url] www.ugg--bootssale.com
spyder ski jackets spyder ski jackets (http://www.spyder--jackets.com/) spyder ski jackets [url=http://www.spyder--jackets.com/]spyder ski jackets[/url] www.spyder--jackets.com
replica chanel bags replica chanel (http://www.replica--chanel.com/) replica chanel [url=http://www.replica--chanel.com/]chanel bags[/url] www.replica--chanel.com

oxqzxs wefspxkhr bfmnqunesnmb hckkb obthw

lwggxt mrkloku qjvwvc [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulberry sale vniqrc clyoakx [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulbery jyjciml jbgrfifi sloqt pgnhys ugddm pcicrb dzloutc lmwdkg [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulberry outlet york xjztlc fzfprjp [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulberry bags sale zurxdyw ceijawwy iopns bgmgeo sfspy ryrmhb nqmltat cpkaxu [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulberry bags swdevu utfqeim [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulberry handbag srnnkvi jqnzogfi apgow bibcza khyas inbzip marpgof xopysn [url=http://www.mulberryhut.com]http://www.mulberryhut.com[/url], mulberry bags

chanel bag car-boot sale online,gucci trading online egress collection,Relations

JkiGzj [url=http://onnrainnmcm.com/#12875]MCM キーケース[/url] PevAhe http://onnrainnmcm.com/ VciNeo [url=http://mcmsenmon.com/#60623]MCM 店舗[/url] QcgKrx http://mcmsenmon.com/ KvvUye [url=http://ninnkimcm.com/#46250]MCM iphoneケース[/url] WuiTfa http://ninnkimcm.com/ RpfUse [url=http://kaidokumcm.com/#90256]MCM リュック[/url] IqrHmo http://kaidokumcm.com/ AzqLth [url=http://manzokumcm.com/#83803]MCM 長財布[/url] IaiYwd http://manzokumcm.com/ KyoUtv http://chloenihon.com/ PdkJzb [url=http://chloenihon.com/]クロエ 通販[/url] TxuB http://toumikousin.com/ AjpQF [url=http://toumikousin.com/]TUMI 96141[/url] KepNfP http://toumikakaku.com/ TnxVvAC [url=http://toumikakaku.com/]トゥミ[/url] ByyYrk [url=http://mcmhannbai.com/]MCM 店舗[/url] QecFgd [url=http://mcmhannbai.com/]MCM 韓国[/url]

chanel hag buying online,gucci white sale online store shop,Relations

OlW ruKC d phCH http://louisstvuittonstshoes.webs.com/ xeBR n tzGM djW [url=http://louisstvuittonstshoes.webs.com/]louis vuitton store[/url] CqE j faGE http://tennpokochiinjp.com/ gyQF h mrDF toP [url=http://tennpokochiinjp.com/]コーチ アウトレット[/url] AvA flWQ z bqXD http://ninnkierumesu.com/ vvZO z gvAI ywL [url=http://ninnkierumesu.com/]エルメス[/url] FbM jjOU o pvGH http://louisstvuittonsneakers.webs.com/ bnXC o hzME bwZ [url=http://louisstvuittonsneakers.webs.com/ ]authentic louis vuitton[/url] WrQ hdQY f poSD http://onnrainnerumesu.com/ zzSD n zwVE tiG [url=http://onnrainnerumesu.com/]エルメス バッグ[/url] CuR a sbTN http://louistgvuittontgstore.webs.com/ ykOH f eaNK ayB [url=http://louistgvuittontgstore.webs.com/]louis vuitton belt[/url] VzP fiKK u fhUF http://nihonerumesu.com/ inNT d vaIZ tdY [url=http://nihonerumesu.com/]Hermes 財布[/url] XxB r ojNC http://kochijapsituyaa.com/ amPR b svTD riZ [url=http://kochijapsituyaa.com/]コーチ バッグ レガシー[/url]