Tuesday, August 19, 2008

College Presidents Urge Consideration of Lowered Drinking Age

Hey, President Wright's getting one thing right. Link to the news story can be found here. The full list of signatories can be seen here.

21 comments:

John said...

I can see how sophomores might support a policy like this, but that college and university presidents would is simply astonishing -- James Wright in particular in 1999 was going to crack down hard on alcohol at Dartmouth and seems since to have found it convenient to become super-tolerant, if that's the right word.

An MIT study says this:

A higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the MLDA is increased, death and injury rates decline (Wagenaar, 1993).

A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993).

A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and purchase alcohol, the policy doesn't work. The evidence shows, however, that although many youth still consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths (Wagenaar, 1993).

Research shows that when the MLDA is 21, people under age 21 drink less overall and continue to do so through their early twenties (O'Malley & Wagenaar, 1991).


Sounds to me as though Wright and the others seem to want to define the problem away, at the cost of their students' lives.

By the way, Dartlog is continuing to ignore the Forbes ratings. Why? Ignoring things, whether drinking problems or disastrous rankings, doesn't make them go away.

Ben said...

Until I hear an objective, rational response to this question, I will consistently support a lowering of the drinking age to 18:

"Why do we allow 18-year olds to vote, join the military, and be drafted, but not drink?"

Frankly, it strikes me as hypocritical to allow people to kill and die for their country, but not allow them to imbibe.

John said...

Why do we allow 5 year olds to go to school but not drive?

Why to we allow 16 yeqar olds to drive but not vote, join the military, and be drafted?

Why do we allow 18-year olds to vote, join the military, and be drafted, but not drink?

Why do we allow 21 year olds to drink but not be elected President?

I love the thinking skills that Dartmouth instills in its sons and daughters.

Anonymous said...

John,

It's the summer. Kids aren't in school. They have better things to do than deal with a whiny, disgruntled alumnus who is demanding a response so that he can summarily skewer it because he has nothing better to do.

For what it's worth, I think the criticism of ratemyprofessors.com, which the D pointed out today is a pretty valid point. Dartmouth students just don't use that website, and the ones who do probably have a chip on their shoulder about such-and-such prof and want to get the word out. That's already 1/5th of your score that is slanted heavily negative. Add on to this the fact that you can get listed in "Who's Who" by paying the subscription fee, and it just doesn't strike me as a terribly scientific ranking.

Ben said...

Both 5 and 16 year-olds are minors of the state and given special protection by the state.

18-year olds are full-fledged adults and not afforded such special protections.

The age requirements for certain Federal elected offices are Constitutionally mandated. The nationwide drinking age is a Congressional blackmailing of the Several States under the guise of the Commerce Clause.

Try again, John. Your arguement, as with many of your others, is completely lacking.

John said...

Your reasoning is tautological. If the Constitution mandates a minimum age to be elected President, isn't this for a reason, which few people question? If someone is an adult, we nevertheless assume additional maturity in certain areas is a good thing.

Clearly empirical data (cited above) shows that even if someone can sign a contract at 18, they're less able to handle liquor. And this applies in other areas, too: some states require additional testing for drivers licenses for those over 65, also with good reason, even if they're legally adults. This is because mental development and biology don't necessarily obey the law. People don't reach full maturity at 18 or even 35, and sometimes this makes a difference, which lawmakers are entitled to observe as a matter of social policy. Indeed, Ben, Andy, or anyone else is entitled to petition for redress in this matter -- good luck.

And this still doesn't explain the Dartmouth administration's apparent reversal on these matters within less than 10 years.

John said...

Many states and municipalities require a minimum age of 21 to be a police officer, too. Same reasoning applies: 3 years additional maturity makes a difference where public safety is involved. It's worth pointing out that these minima have been imposed (mainly) via the legislative process. I very much doubt many legislators will change their minds because the president of the local moonbat enclave thinks more 18 year olds should drink legally just to save the institution from various legal vulnerabilities -- which is the main motive, I think.

A.S. Erickson said...

As far as I know, this has been President Wright's position for a while (see this article from last year).

A couple of observations:

(1) When the drinking age is lower, one learns more about drinking from one's parents than would happen otherwise. This isn't better in every single case, but on the whole it's probably a healthier environment to learn about alcohol than a frat basement is.

(2) The MIT study is interesting, but I'd like to see more studies than just one. For instance, I know that Alberta's age is 18 and BC's age is 19. What are the stats like there as compared to Montana, Idaho, and Washington?

(3) I acknowledge the danger of anecdotal evidence, but I will use it nonetheless. I spent a year in Europe as an exchange student, and, as the MIT study alluded to, young Europeans drink as much as young Americans do. But young Americans do much, much more destructive kinds of drinking. The drinking in the U.S. must be furtive, so when they finally get the opportunity most young Americans go way overboard.

(4) The MIT study compared youth alcohol related deaths before and after changes in the age. I've heard a stat bantied around that a higher percentage of cops are arrested for DUIs than underage drivers are. If underage drivers are more responsible than cops, doesn't that throw out the whole 'get wiser with age' argument? I don't know if that statistic is true though.

(5) It doesn't seem as though age should matter for a lot of things. I can think of a lot of people under the age of 35 for whom I'd vote for President before voting for either McCain or Obama. For sure, there is some correlation with age, but the correlation seems to rough to base any policy off of. For example, if African-Americans are 25% less likely to get in a car accident than Caucasians, would you ban Caucasians from driving? Aren't 80 year olds some of the most dangerous drivers out there? Yet they can still drive. Maybe we should citizens choice when they hit 65: either we make it illegal for you to drink alcohol, or you have to give up your driver's license. Again, I think there probably is a rough correlation with age, but it's not sufficient enough to make policy off of. If the government trusts you as an 18 year old to pick its leaders and protect its borders, why doesn't it trust you with alcohol? You can be charged for a crime as an adult when you are 18. Why is it that adults only have partial rights?

(6) I've crossed the magic line; I have nothing riding on this argument, so I'm open to persuasion one way or the other. It seems to me, though, in murky situations (like this one), the government should err on the side of freedom. But since DUIs are potentially dangerous to others, if I see more conclusive data I could change my mind.

A.S. Erickson said...

Sorry, my link did not work. Here's the article I pointed to above:

http://thedartmouth.com/2007/04/25/news/drinkingtime/

Anonymous said...

John said: "I very much doubt many legislators will change their minds because the president of the local moonbat enclave..."

Then you probably have no influence whatsoever with many legislators as the local president of the moonbat enclave, right?

(When you leave a hanger like that over the middle of the plate, you're asking for someone to take a swing)

John said...

Andy, you ask plaintively, "why is it that adults only have partial rights?" I'm not sure what year you're in at Dartmouth, but I'm a little worried that this question is still puzzling you. We can start with the limited right to shout fire in a crowded theater and move on from there. If this is your point -- and you acknowledge your argument is a trifle shaky -- you haven't said much of anything. All rights are qualified. If you're over 18 and on probation and somebody sees you crack open a beer, you're back in the slammer, for instance. Locomotive engineers and airline pilots, even if over 18, must refrain from drinking at least 8 hours before going on duty. There is a general recognition that the benefits of liquor must be closely circumscribed in many areas.

I saw a debate on The News Hour last night on this subject between Joe Califano and the President of Kenyon College. Califano reinforced my point from another thread that the drinking problem on campuses arises in large part from students who've been drinking as long as since age 12. Califano cites a study that puts this problem at 75% of entering first-year classes. It seems to me that lowering the drinking age to 18 would have no effect on those who began drinking earlier still.

I don't think you can get away from the empirical data that came from the US experience of lowering the drinking age to 18 and then raising it: when the age was lowered, it resulted in 1000 more drinking related auto accident fatalities per year.

Do you think the college and university presidents would endorse any policy (especially if Republican sponsored) that resulted in 1000 additional fatalities per year for any other reason? Let's lower the arsenic standard in drinking water. Let's fight a war someplace. Let's do away with air bags in cars. They'd have a fit! Yet they're perfectly fine with advocating a policy that flat-out increases the number of auto accident fatalities.

This isn't just you, Andy -- Jeffery Hart is getting pretty strange -- but I'm seeing a certain drift in The Dartmouth Review. It's supporting James Wright, who's getting to be as big a weathervane as Hart's darling, Barry O. It's supporting the consortium of academic moonbats who want to increase a totally avoidable death rate.

And it has nothing to say about Dartmouth's remarkable upset in the Forbes college rankings. There was a time when Hart and his proteges would have had something worthwhile to contribute in this area.

John said...

I think, by the way, that the idea that European youth are more responsible drinkers because they get an earlier start is urban myth. I've also heard that cirrhosis is pretty common in France and Italy -- and keep in mind that sports event hooliganism is a much, much bigger problem over there. We almost never have riots over here if the Dodgers lose a close one; over there, seems like a couple people routinely get killed in equivalent cases.

Califano also cited a UK problem with vandalism after pubs close, with a social experiment of closing pubs later in hopes the vandals would get drunker and not trash stuff if they could drink longer. Nope. The vandalism just increased.

A.S. Erickson said...

We can start with the limited right to shout fire in a crowded theater and move on from there. If this is your point -- and you acknowledge your argument is a trifle shaky -- you haven't said much of anything.

This wasn't my point. In your example, no adult has the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. It's like countering my argument by saying that no one the right to do cocaine. What I'm talking about is variability in rights. I'm arguing that, to use your example, it wouldn't be okay for people over 21 to shout fire in a theater while illegal for those under 21. It should be illegal for every adult to do so.

It seems to me that lowering the drinking age to 18 would have no effect on those who began drinking earlier still.

This is a subtle point. If the age is lowered to 18 (which is what is probably would be) then I agree with you. If you lowered the age still further, then I think you would get the mediating influence of family that I witnessed first hand in Europe. The reasons teens have terrible drinking habits is mostly, I claim, because they have to do it on the sly. This also brings me to your point about cirrhosis. Cirrhosis is caused by total intake of alcohol, and, as i acknowledged in my previous comment, the Europeans don't drink less than Americans, but they do far less binge drinking. As far as hooliganism goes, it's tied again to binge drinking. From what I'm aware, this is more or less confined to the British Isles; I'm not sure why.

Let's lower the arsenic standard in drinking water.

Another good point since alcohol is essentially a poison, it just depends on whether you drink enough to kill yourself. One of the predominant reasons for banning alcohol consumption amongst minors is the bad effects it has on development and because kids generally have a smaller body mass to absorb the alcohol. So if we want our arsenic laws in line with our alcohol laws, perhaps we should have stricter requirements for water sources that will be used by minors than for the sources used by adults.

I'm seeing a certain drift in The Dartmouth Review.

That could be, you've certainly been reading it longer than I have. As far as supporting President Wright goes, it really has very little to do with him. If we was on the opposite side of the issue then I would disagree with him. This strain of thinking has been present at the Review since I've been here—and probably further back. Take a look at this excellent article by TDR Editor Emeritus Ben Wallace-Wells:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs


And it has nothing to say about Dartmouth's remarkable upset in the Forbes college rankings. There was a time when Hart and his proteges would have had something worthwhile to contribute in this area.


I'm sorry you find us so lacking.

As far as the Forbes thing goes, I'm completely uninterested in college rankings and feel little need to defend the college from a study with seriously flawed criteria. It just seems like sour grapes to me. But, if you're curious, I'll tell you what I think was wrong with the Forbes study. The methodology assigned 25% of its weight to how good the school's professor's are. The problem? They used a website called ratemyprofessors.com, which, quite simply, Dartmouth students don't use. I didn't even know of its existence until this Forbes report. We have a separate website set up through the Student Assembly that gives professor feedback. Here's the Dartmouth page on ratemyprofessors:

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/SelectTeacher.jsp?sid=1339

As you can see, most professors have about 2 ratings total—if they are listed at all (looking through several departmental lists, I would guess that about 1/5 of the profs have at least one rating). In total there are about 230 ratings—in 2007 the College employed 540 professors. That means every other professor gets less than one rating, and most of the ratings are more than 2 or 3 years old. In their summary article they particularly pointed to Dartmouth as a place that was penalized for its professor rating. They clearly don't have the resources to check out every school in depth, but red lights should have been flashing when they saw so few ratings on the website.

The study also relied heavily on "who's who". The College scored well here, but by all accounts this list is a joke, which only further undermines the validity of the study. See this article, (ironically, from Forbes):

http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0308/063.html

Another factor was undoubtedly the amount of debt students graduate with. Two points: the study's data was taken before the College changed its financial aid priorities from loans to grants. Second, Forbes just recently reported that Dartmouth alums make more money 10 years our of school than anyone else, so if you graduated from Dartmouth with $100,000 in debt and from some other school with the same amount of debt, presumably, on average, Dartmouth alums can pay off their debt quicker than alums of other schools.

In my mind though, the biggest factor by far was the study's methodology for rating professors. The lead person in the study told the Daily D that if Dartmouth had had similar professor scores to its peer institutions then it would have been in the top 10 or 15. I just don't see why this is worth talking about though. USNews has a flawed but lucrative rating system and Forbes clearly wanted in on the action, but they needed to make their outcomes different enough in order to justify its existence. Neither system is perfect, but USNews seems far more empirically sound than the Forbes study does.

John said...

Let's take your comments about ratemyprofessors.com first. I've followed this site for several years, in part because I like to track how academic bloggers wind up on the ratings, as well as looking up former graduate school classmates, ex-profs, and the like.

The fact is that far less than 100% of the profs at any school are rated on the site. And potential abuses, such as non-students putting in ratings for whatever reason, go across the board. On the other hand, even if Forbes had access to the Student Assembly ratings, they wouldn't be consistent with ratings anywhere else. And the fact is that, as you say, many Dartmouth profs are in fact rated on the site. It's not a good system on the whole, but it's better than anything else available, since it has the merit of being consistent across schools.

I have more to say about the Forbes rating and what the few Dartmouth commenters have said about it here.

My impression, though, is that English profs like Thomas Luxon (see ratemyprofessors) and Donald Pease (an overrated windbag) must be among the reason Dartmouth rated poorly, and if I were TDR, I'd want to look at the poor overall academic quality of such profs. Instead, you kiss Pease's butt in an interview in the current TDR. (I can't imagine any purpose for the MALS program other than attracting rich dilettantes who have no intention of pursuing a serious career in any field, but have the resources to fund themselves.)

This is the sort of thing TDR should be pursuing. I think the unwillingness of TDR (other than an individual staffer in your comment) and indeed other organs like Joe's Dartblog even to mention the Forbes development is indicative of a dangerous complacency.

As to Europeans drinking, it seems to me that you're simply repeating the "why can't Americans be more European" meme. (A big reason is that Americans have to support an economy and a set of national policies that assure the Europeans as well as themselves of an adequate defense.) Again, this is the sort of unexamined assumption that many folks take for granted -- but it should be TDR staffers who question such things, especially since TDR is at least nominally a conservative organ.

But to be a conservative organ implies interests beyond the narcissistic, and TDR is no different from the rest of Dartmouth these days, it seems to me. One of your main interests over the past year was the return of Beta and the entitlement of the sorority that leased the house to a bigger one than the one the administration found them. Now you're on the injustice of the drinking laws. Next you'll be commiserating with Michelle Obama on the need to pay your college loans back.

Don't you think this set of attitudes might be why some folks are skeptical of the value of an Ivy degree? You guys on TDR probably have more in common with the Obamas than even Jeffrey Hart could imagine.

A.S. Erickson said...

This is the sort of thing TDR should be pursuing.

I disagree. It's just another publication trying to break into the college rankings racket.

that factor is worth only 25% overall. Is that enough to knock Dartmouth from 11 to 127? I can’t imagine so.

The study's designer disagrees here:

http://thedartmouth.com/2008/08/19/news/forbes/

And the fact is that, as you say, many Dartmouth profs are in fact rated on the site.

But the numbers are laughably small, with 146 professors listed and 230 total ratings. Let me put this another way. If you take the last five years, the average Dartmouth professor (there are 540 at the College) has received about 0.01 ratings per year. To say this is statistically significant or reliable sampling would be ludicrous.

since it has the merit of being consistent across schools.

If some schools use it and others don't then it's not consistent.

(I can't imagine any purpose for the MALS program other than attracting rich dilettantes who have no intention of pursuing a serious career in any field, but have the resources to fund themselves.)

A significant portion of MALS students are high school teachers who take one term per year (in the summer) over several years to complete the degree. I doubt they're rich dilettantes, but who knows?

Instead, you kiss Pease's butt in an interview in the current TDR.

If you say so. I was mostly just interested in what MALS was and how it had changed over the years. I can picture what grad students in biology are doing; I couldn't for MALS, so I wanted to find out.

is indicative of a dangerous complacency.


I would say its indicative of people realizing that spilling ink on a new (and, as it turned out, flawed) college ranking system was not a high priority.

On to the drinking age again. How did we go from when is it best to introduce people to alcohol to national defense? Your point about how much more America must spend on defense is obviously true, but I don't see how that is connected to this particular debate.

it seems to me that you're simply repeating the "why can't Americans be more European" meme.

I certainly didn't intend to give that impression. I was merely pointing out that, in terms of alcohol, the continent seems to have lower drinking ages without adverse side effects. Obviously there are differences (in transportation and whatnot), but, nevertheless, all hell has yet to break loose over there.

One of your main interests over the past year was the return of Beta and the entitlement of the sorority that leased the house to a bigger one than the one the administration found them.

I'm surprised you think so. I think we definitely followed the return of Beta closely, as well as the ensuing campus controversy, but I don't think we said that AZD was entitled to a bigger house than the College offered them.

Don't you think this set of attitudes might be why some folks are skeptical of the value of an Ivy degree?

I'm not sure what set of attitudes you've decisively demonstrated I possess. Especially since I more often than not disagree with what you attribute to me.

I want to go back to your main claim though, which is something like 1,000 lives are saved every year by having the drinking age at 21 rather than 18. For now, I'll assume that's the case. How many lives would be saved if we raised the age to 25, or 30? It doesn't seem like there would be any reason why at least another 1,000 lives wouldn't be saved. I know! To save the maximum number of lives let's ban alcohol altogether. There will always be trade-offs. Are 1,000 lives worth lowering the drinking age? If not, why aren't 1,000 lives worth raising the age to 25? You would probably save many times that number of lives by making the speed limit on freeways 45 mph, but you don't hear anyone advocating that. If we're in the business of saving the max number of lives, then why not?

Now as far as the numbers argument goes, it looks like it might not be as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Here is a more recent study by a Harvard economist that casts doubts on the claims that over 20,000 lives have been saved by the law passed in 1984.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/13257.html

Mr. Roboto said...

Forbes

25% of the score comes from ratemyprofessors.com

Another 25% is based on alumni listed in Who's Who of America. I was offered a listing and declined because I didn't want to buy their book. Had I know that Forbes would use that to devalue Dartmouth, I might have made a different decision.

In my view, 50% of the data is nearly worthless. For the high school seniors who intend to choose colleges based on which ones are most likely to get them a Who's Who invitation and which ones look best on ratemyprofessors.com, perhaps Forbes is providing a valuable service. I suspect that those people are a small minority.

Dartmouth isn't perfect, nor is it the best at everything, but I don't understand what John would have us take away from this. Do Dartmouth students need to make more use of ratemyprofessors.com? Do we need to encourage alumni to accept invitations from Who's Who?

John argues that ratemyprofessors.com is flawed data, but it's data nonetheless and there's no reason to believe that it's any more flawed with respect to Dartmouth than with respect to other institutions. Fair enough, but some data is so flawed as to be unreliable. Suppose that Forbes counted up the number of alumni who won state lotteries or the number of "friends" per capita among facebook-using alumni. That would be "data," but it would be useless. So it is for 50% of the stuff Forbes relies upon.

More broadly, the idea of composite rankings is a little silly. Take a bunch of data, give them arbitrary weights, put them through an algorithm, tabulate what the algorithm spits out, and then sit back and watch your magazines sell like crazy and watch the college administrators call for your head.

Different people want different things out of college, and specific rankings with more rigorous data collection methods are much more useful. For example, in law school, a professor at Texas has done a good job of measuring different desirable attributes of law schools in different ways and presenting the data in a useful format. http://leiterrankings.com/

Compared to that, this Forbes stuff is a joke.

Drinking Age

I think Anfin has it about covered. Drinking is dangerous, some people will always do it irresponsibly, and the question is where we strike the balance between freedom and safety. It would probably save lives if we required people to wear helmets at all times, particularly while driving, but for some reason we don't.

On this point, John is guilty of the same lazy thinking he accuses others of. There are important differences between the US, Canada and Europe such that we can't expect the same results here from the same laws over there. However, the experience of other countries is useful information, certainly more useful to setting alcohol policy than ratemyprofessors.com is to measuring teaching quality across schools.

Similarly, there is nothing sacred about the 21-years-old baseline drinking age, just as there is nothing sacred about the 35-yo minimum age for being President. Just as John urges people to question why 35, it's equally valid to question why 21 for drinking.

Some of the posts on this thread are better than others, but I don't see why John has to get personal. He's certainly throwing stones from a glass house.

anontysix said...

--- John wrote:
Califano reinforced my point from another thread that the drinking problem on campuses arises in large part from students who've been drinking as long as since age 12.
--- End of quote ---

I saw the inverse problem in my years. The students who grew up with alcohol generally knew their limits. Freshman from more sheltered environments seemed to more problems, especially early on, with drinking to the point of needing intervention past help walking home.

Of course, I didn't see the interview, so I don't know Califano's definition of "drinking problem" - be it any underage drinking (where students who have past drinking experience would continue in college as a matter of fact), or drinking that leads to medical or legal trouble.

madd lib said...

John wrote: "data (cited above) shows."

How good was Dartmouth at teaching conjugation 40 years ago? Not very good, apparently.

Anonymous said...

There are two very distinct threads here. They should be split.

Regarding drinking age:

The 100 college presidents are expressing their experience-based opinions on the effect of higher drinking age on their students and campuses, not on the overall effect on society. MADD, and others, get this wrong.

I think the facts are clear: higher drinking age results in fewer high school injuries and deaths.

But, higher drinking age creates new problems on college campuses. I can speak only personally and anecdotally: but, between when I was an UG, and when my kids attended, things changed. And, it happened during the mid-to-late 80s. The drinking games and 'traditions' became more diverse, more intense, and more consumptive. There are probably statistics at Dick's House which could be gotten, which show a clear trend and correlation, and I'm willing to bet Wright is relying at least partially on such data.

IMO, the 'answer' is a change in the law coupling drinking and driving: lower the drinking age, but make far more harsh, the penalties for drinking and driving. The high school carnage in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was from the combination of drinking and driving. The combination remains lethal at any age, at a measurable rate. We need to change that rate.

And, probably, that rate ought to be changed, before the drinking age is lowered.

Anonymous said...

warhammer gold warhammer money warhammer accounts tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape money runescape gold runescape gp runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling cheap rs2 powerleveling runescape equipment buy rs equipment runescape runes cheap rs2 runes runescape logs cheap rs2 logs runescape items buy runescape items runescape quest point rs2 quest point cheap runescape questpoint runescape gold runescape items runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp runescape accounts runescape money runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling tibia gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling runescape questpoint rs2 questpoint Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling Hellgate money Hellgate gold buy runescape logs buy rs2 items cheap runescape items Hellgate London gold Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape items rs2 accounts cheap rs2 equipments lotro gold buy lotro gold buy runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape runes lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling eve isk eve online isk buy runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold Scions of Fate Gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium SOF Gold Age Of Conan Gold AOC Gold ArchLord gold tibia money tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling buy ArchLord gold DDO Plat Dungeons and Dragons Online Plat

Anonymous said...

A片,aio,av女優,av,av片,aio交友愛情館,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,視訊聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,上班族聊天室,成人聊天室,中部人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,情色視訊,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,視訊,免費視訊,美女交友,成人交友,聊天室交友,微風論壇,微風成人,sex,成人,情色,情色貼圖,色情,微風,聊天室尋夢園,交友,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊辣妹,一夜情

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購,A片,視訊聊天室

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室