by SUSAN MANN
Revisions to Dairy Farmers of Ontario’s quota policies could slow the rate for participants in the new entrant assistance program to acquire the quota they need to get started.
Each month, only one new entrant with assistance and one new producer without assistance will be allowed to bid on each quota exchange.
Moreover, their bids will be second behind licensed farmers with successful bids, according to the revisions outlined in a March 2 letter to farmers. And the process depends on there being sufficient quota on the exchange.
The revisions allocate 0.1 kilograms first to all licensed farmers with successful bids, then up to 23 kgs to one new entrant with assistance, up to 35 kgs for a new producer without assistance. Any leftover quota is pro-rated and allocated to the successful bidders.
The revisions take effect on this month’s exchange.
Bill Mitchell, assistant communications director, says when the board discussed revising its quota policies they agreed the first priority in terms of the quota exchange should be existing farmers with their ongoing need to make quota adjustments.
George MacNaughton, production division director, says they’ll make decisions about which new entrant would receive the quota based on the date of their application and the date they’re able to start producing from their own facility.
If there isn’t enough quota to do the allocations, MacNaughton says “we may not even be able to issue the 0.1 kgs (to all licensed producers). DFO would actually purchase the quota and carry it forward to the next exchange.”
There isn’t a guarantee a new entrant with assistance bidding for quota would get the quota they wanted to buy. “There would have to be sufficient quota offered for sale for them to be able to buy,” he says. “They don’t lose their order though if they’re not successful on an exchange or there’s insufficient quota for them to be successful.” Their place is held in line and they’re able to bid the next month.
Quota reviewed
Dairy Farmers reviewed its quota policies earlier this year to ensure most quota sales occur on the monthly exchange. The review included quota transfers, donations, shared facilities and relocation policies. Policy principles were effective Feb. 24 while the exact wording of the revised policies will be mailed to farmers in May.
The board’s objectives were to continue support for quota transfers on the same farm site, maximize the volume transferred on the quota exchange, and ensure all farmers have fair and equitable access to quota. The board also wanted to make sure quota from two licenses wasn’t merged and quota wasn’t rented.
MacNaughton says they were concerned some farmers may have found a way to merge quota by using a combination of policies. Dairy Farmers received requests from farmers to effectively merge their quota with “that of an ongoing operation” by using the family quota donation policy.
That meant that some farmers would have access to large parcels of quota that would otherwise have been available to all producers on the quota exchange, he says. Since some farmers thought they had found a way to merge quota “we wanted to make sure that our policies were clearly stated,” MacNaughton says.
Parents can only donate quota to a child if the child doesn’t hold any quota and is starting at a dairy facility where the parent wasn’t issued a license to produce and market milk in the last five years, according to the revised policy.
Rental concerns
Dairy Farmers always forbade quota renting and that continues. “We had some concerns that through the shared facility policy, quota may have been rented,” MacNaughton says. “We had producers looking for producers with medical challenges to be able to use their quota.”
Mitchell says there was a concern people might be using shared facilities basically to disguise a quota rental.
Officials at Dairy Farmers say several factors combined to reduce quota supply and increase demand since new quota policies became effective in August, 2009. The supply/demand equation was so imbalanced on the January quota exchange that it couldn’t run normally.
There wasn’t enough quota volume offered for sale in January and that meant that only three new entrants were issued quota.
Sale quota dwindles
Numbers in a chart on the Dairy Farmers web site showing quota sales results from March 2008 to February, 2010 indicate demand for quota in February was 7,966.60 kilograms, the highest it has been during the past two years. But just 151.68 kg were available for sale. The lowest demand was September 2008 at 449.18 kg. During that month, 383.544 kg were available for sale.
The lowest amount for sale during the past two years was in January with just 116.25 kg available; the demand for that month was for 7,189.90 kg. The highest amount for sale during the past two years, 1,289.15 kg, was in August. The amount bid for that month was 2,191.40 kg.
MacNaughton says on the supply side quota was being held back since the new policies, put in place to harmonize dairy policies in eastern Canadian provinces, became effective in August. Farmers wanted to sell it as part of an ongoing operation or as a block to another producer, he explains. Quota was being held back “until people are sure what the rules are and whether they can actually conduct that transaction.”
The quota demand is inflated because some farmers looking to expand in two to three years are starting to buy now. When quota demand exceeds supply in a month, Dairy Farmers prorates the available quota. Farmers may not get the entire quota they want in a month and have to buy smaller amounts over several months.
Mitchell says “people knowing that they’re only going to get a small percentage of what they bidding for are likely inflating that bid to try and get more.”
Ontario has 268,000 kilograms of quota. BF
Comments
DFO is, as always, completely ignoring the consumer, in this latest charade designed, and implemented, for the sole purpose of trying to perpetuate the myth that the world revolves around Ontario dairy farmers.
268,000 kilograms of quota at $25,000 per kilogram equals 6.7 billion dollars - and this, by definition, is the net present value of the wealth to be extracted from Ontario consumers, and given to dairy farmers, yet neither DFO, nor its equally-greedy farmer members, have any shame at all.
McGuinty gave 10 billion to the South for the car industry at the expense of who the dairy farmer or the Ontario consumers? it is your guess and your deficit in Ontario that now stands at 25 billion CAD and next the HST again at your expense, have a glass of milk on me.
Quotas on milk,eggs,chickens and turkeys should be done away with to allow all small farmers to supply as much product to consumers as they wish.
Milk,cheese,butter,eggs and meat prices would all come down to allow more people to afford to buy more and eat better. Meanwhile all kinds of farmers would be able to make an income in small scale farming.
A free and democratic country should not allow such controls to be imposed on the production of food for domestic and export purposes.
Sure, it's worked so well for beef and pork! Lower prices to farmers. More money for everybody else. Let's be smart and go for it.
BSE meant farmers lost millions but the retail price of steak hardly missed a beat. Packers, retailers and middlemen all made more money. Pork is losing $60 per hog but retail prices stay firm.
In milk, three dairy processors control 80 % of the market and three retailers control 90 % of the market. 4,000 dairy farms separately would be just as bad off as beef and pork. Supply management farmers have some market power, so they can be sure to cover their costs and make some money. Or, over supply the market by 10% and everybody loses money.
With your approach, all kinds of farmers would be able to LOSE money in any scale of farming they choose.
Even on this posting alone, and presumeably on a somewhat supportive farming-based site, supply management is out-numbered three-to-one.
If the best supply managed farmers can do to defend their existence, is this type of outright fearmongering, then we can't get rid of supply management soon enough.
If I live to be 100 years old, I doubt I will ever encounter such an ill thought out and crazy response such as this. The writer of this statement has obviously never spent any time on a real farm doing real farming. If the writer actually did know anything about agriculture he would surely realize that farners must control the prices they receive for their products. We can not control our costs or the price of our inputs therefore we MUST set the prices we receive for our milk, eggs, poultry etc... The retailers and processors have absolutely no compassion for farmers when it comes to prices they are willing to offer for produce. Do you think for one minute they would change they buying policies and offer a fair and competetive price if they were not forced to by the marketing boards and supply managed comissions. We have only to look at the beef and hog sectors to see how they are being treated by the processors in their industries. The writer is correct about one thing he said, prices would come down so low for the products that are now supply mangaged that very few if any farmers would survive. What good is a country full of bankrupt farmers?
It is indeed ironic to see claims that retailers and processors have no compassion, yet dairy and poultry farmers have never had any compassion for consumers, have never had any compassion for processors, have never had any compassion for their neighbouring non SM farmers, and have never had any compassion for the far-larger export reliant sector of the Canadian economy.
The simple fact of the matter is that by being dogs-in-the-manger, dairy and poultry farmers have long-since used up all the compassion anyone, especially their fellow farmers, might have once had for them.
Where is all this comtempt and hatred coming from towards dairy farmers and holders of quota. The system we have in Canada works well. It is not perfect and there is certainly room for improvement but all this talk about abolishing quota is par to burning down the barn because you think you have RATS. The alternative to supply management does NOT work! These comments and crys that supply managed farmers are spoiled babies are ill founded! Asking town and city people to rally around non quota farmers is DANGEROUS talk. Do you really know what it is you are asking for!!!
The inconvenient truth, which has been made abundantly clear by the postings on this topic, is that supply management isn't well liked, and won't be missed.
Yes, we do know what we're asking for, and it's only a matter of time before WTO gives it to us.
Are just talking about agricultural supply management?
One could argue that the supply management of doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, police, ambulance services, etc. are all supply managed also. All of the above are also licensed required.
Why can't we bring Cuban (as an example) doctors, teachers, etc into Ontario at Cuban wage rates? We know the level of care from Cuban doctors are every bit as good as Ontario doctors. Cuban doctors could give a certain amount of private health care for those willing to pay. We have a huge health care problem right now and many don't like it. So will our current system be missed?
Why are you just picking on a supply system that gives us safe, secure and reliable milk? Or do you believe it is just a matter of time the WTO harmonizes all standards of all products and services to the lowest common level of integrity?
I think you are very selective with your arguments.
Basic education, and medical care, don't cost the poorest group of Canadian consumers anything, In addition, our poorest citizens can get legal aid when they need legal advice, and can get volunteers to prepare their tax returns rather than hire an accountant.
However, our poorest group of consumers doesn't get any break at all when they go to the store to buy dairy and poultry products, yet supply managed farmers, the richest group of Canadian farmers, always trot out these flawed comparisons to defend their indefensible position.
The fact of the matter is that our poorest group of citizens gets a break on almost everything except food coming from supply managed farms. If supply managed farmers weren't shamelessly extracting money disproportionately from the poorest group of Canadian consumers, supply management might have some modest redeeming value, but it doesn't.
Anything the poorest group of consumers buy will be disproportionate to their disposal income.
Its simple basic math my little children know.
Poor rural consumers don't get breaks on price of vehicles. Most rural areas do not have public transit so a car is not a luxury.
Poor consumers do not get a break on a loaf of bread. Guess what? Grains are not supply managed in Ontario. Grain farmers don't have quota!
Don't blame farmers for the inadequacies of government policies concerning the most unfortunate of our society. Transferring blame onto some farmers laps is not constructive.
Do the poorest group of people get a break when they go to buy pork in the grocery store? That is not supply managed. Do the poorest group of people get a price break when they go to buy beef or lamb? That is not supply managed. Do the poorest group of people get a break on bread or fruit or a host of thousands of other items that are not supply managed? On the contrary, dairy farmers support local food banks by donating over quota milk. Dairy farmers support local schools and day cares by supporting the "feed the children" and breakfast campaigns. The spin off industries from the dairy business are too many to count. All rural communities rely on many farmers for their very survival and to shamelessly single out dairy producers and poultry producers seems rather ungreateful.
Dr. Peter Jarrett of the OECD supported a paper called MODERNISING CANADA'S AGRICULTURE POLICIES ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPER No. 629. He presented the paper June/08 in Toronto organized by the CD Howe Institute and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity and said the paper was very well received.
Dr. Jarrett was formerly an economist at the Bank of Canada.
When pressed about the source of farmers' licenses, he could not answer.
Considering agriculture licenses are security, it was very surprising to read his view of quota as he of all people should know about securities.
For all your attempts to source out letters and documents that will support the argument against quota and supply management there will be others who can produce qualified facts to the contrary. When one reads between the lines of all your entries onto this site, the overwhelming conclusion is that the writer of the "abolish quota" movement is angry and jealous! Perhaps you are already involved in an agricultural related business. Take a good look at what customers pay their accounts on time and what customers struggle. The writer of all these accusations belittling quota holders should not bite the hand that feeds him Desboro.
I hope my message did not cause ill towards supply management, if that is what you meant.
Dr. Jarrett supported a working paper about modernizing agriculture in Canada. The report is available on the web.
The report was very critical and in a sense belittling of the Canadian supply system. He makes no mention of some very important aspects in Ontario/Quebec agriculture.
It was obvious he has little to NO knowledge of how the agricultural system works in Canada and proposed a system that appears to harmonizes with other nations. He indicated his paper was well received in Toronto, by what I presume, was an elite urban business crowd. When one tell stories of Santa Claus with flying reindeer to the great unwashed, it is well received also.
As mentioned, when pressed about the source of farmers quotas, he could not respond. How can a man of that stature make recommendations when it was obvious he has little true knowledge of the system? Where is the creditability in his presentation? Here was a man of international stature giving recommendations that could ultimately negatively impact a sub-class of farmers. That paper of which I do not find creditable, is floating around and being used to substantiate open markets.
We have yet to learn who commissioned the paper and how much was paid for that biased rag. Follow the money and I think you will find a source of contempt against supply management.
Any political party who would choose to campaign on a platform to do away with all quota food production would be elected with the largest majority of any election ever. All consumers would vote for them and a huge number of farmers would vote for them. The quota holders are in the minority.
Many farmers are desperate to produce these quota products to get some needed income and they are outlawed from doing it. Many of the farmers starting to produce goat milk are only doing it because they can't afford cow milk quota. Wake up Canada and cater to the majority.
If beef and pork was as bad as some like to make out there could not possibly be any farmers left producing these commodities. That is just not the case. Consumers should be able to buy their food requirements directly from farmers and farmers should be allowed to produce as much as they want and sell to whomever they want. What is needed is more small processors who are allowed to custom process for small farmers so that the products can be filtered to the consumer without being trucked to and from a few mega plants. Mega plants do not assure safe food, just look at the past outbreaks at Maple Leaf.
On the same note, how much blame can quota holders be resposible for with the hog crisis? How many contract barns were erected by quota holders? Quite a few. Of the 3 hog farms in my direct vicinity, two of them only got into pigs because quota barred them from getting into dairy. Get rid of quotas.........it's doing too much harm to the rest of us (as if they care).
The people who believe in Quotas are exactly like the people who believe in Unions. They all want more than they are worth. Get rid of them and get back to true supply and demand. It is obvious that the country is full of farmers and workers who are willing and happy to do the same work for half the cost. Majority should rule. Come on politicians get busy.
Non quota farmers need to enlist the support of non farmers who are all consumers and educate them to this sham of a quota system. Once consumers realize what is going on in the country with this supply management they will rally around the non quota farmers and insist government end these quotas on all the foods. Non quota farmers need to write letters of outrage to the city papers and to members of parliament. Farmers must also insist that government encourage more community based local small food processors to set up shop so it is convenient for farmers to get their products prepared for sale to consumers.
I am a little surprised by some of the comments on this site. There appears to be a vocal group that think it would be beneficial to abolish agricultural quota. No one mentions that domestic teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc all belong to a domestic supply system also. Think a Mexican doctor/teacher (at Mexican wage levels) can come into Ontario and practice their trade without an approved license? Yet, so many think it is OK to deny farmers their rights.
The agricultural products that exercise a licensing system are regulated by a higher authority. Some agricultural boards are the trustees of marketing licenses of regulated commodities. In other words, the regulated commodities are managed by Public Trusts just like education, health, law, etc. for the benefit of the Public.
The difference between the Public Trusts most urban people understand and agricultural Public Trusts is the source of the licenses.
The source determines the nature of the rights and many of the farmers rights, such as marketing licenses as an example, do NOT come from the federal or provincial government.
If the urban population and some misguided farmers really want to give up agricultural sovereignty then the least we can have is a honest and open discussion about it. Those marketing licenses are protected by the Constitution and are part of our Sovereign right to domestic food.
Why would anyone simply give away Sovereign domestic rights without open and honest dialogue? And if farmers choose to give up their rights does that mean they will be released from Sovereign obligations? I think not!
Think twice, be informed before acting.
"I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
Thomas Carlyle
Firstly, there is absolutely no such thing as a Sovereign right to domestic food.
Secondly, your concept of who is being denied "rights", is completely backwards. Getting rid of supply management will, by definition, give equal rights to everyone, instead of unjustly favouring only the chosen few.
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Maybe you should do some homework and read the very fine print of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Better yet, ask our (former)Provincial Minister of Agriculture or the Federal Minister or even Mr. Harper.
The licenses to trade are buried in the constitution.
Why do you think the marketing boards were exempt from NAFTA?
The difference between the commodities is who still controls the marketing. The right to control most commodities have been revoked by the Crown over time but not all.
That is a very important distinction. Those licenses protect the interest of the Crown more than the interests of farmers.
Unfortunately for your position, it's the individual's right to choose which out-ranks all the nonsense about sovereign rights for some, but not for others.
Furthermore, you still don't seem to understand that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to enhance freedoms, and that includes the freedom to operate outside supply managed marketing boards.
By using arcane, and narrow points, of obscure, and irrelevant legislation, you are claiming that the rights of individuals are secondary to the supposed rights of certain groups of farmers.
Your argument is complete nonsense.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not irrelevant legislation. It is really a federal statute that gives certain rights that cannot be denied. Included in the Charter are older entrenched Royal Proclamations. Those laws may only be revoked by the Crown in conjunction with the people that are directly affected.
Buried in all of that is the right for farmers to obtain licenses "to trade". Those licenses are Sovereign. The marketing laws of some regulated commodities are also still Sovereign to protect the domestic peoples.
Mr. Harper stated in Davos recently "So I say, notions rooted in a narrow view of sovereignty and national self-interest must be reconsidered." Obviously you agree with Mr. Harper as your wording is consistent with his.
Mr. Harper is very aware of the entrenched right to domestic supply but he wants "seamless movement of goods on open roads".
The meeting in Toronto this June should give indications about his desire to finally try to dismantle the Sovereign marketing boards.
As Mr. Harper said at the Davos economic summit, its' "Less about narrow self-interest in sovereignty’s name, than an expanded view of mutual-interest in which there is room for all to grow and prosper. Enlightened sovereignty,then, the natural extension of enlightened self-interest."
Enlightened self-interest is bringing more private enterprise to light. Its about open free trade without barriers.
His strength is people like you that are willing to give up fellow farmers rights without compensation and without any consideration to right of the domestic peoples to their domestic production.
When you take candy away from spoiled children they howl to no end.
Quota holders are no different. They are not going to give up their gravy without a fight, but that does not mean the public should not insist that they give it up. There will be lots of screaming and shouting and propaganda spreading but so be it. In the end the result will be justified. The time has come to act so keep the comments coming.
It is shocking to read on this site that some quota holders have the nerve and ignorance to put themselves on a level higher than the very consumers,city and town folk, who buy the product they produce. The arrogance of these supply managed farmers is even worse than the arrogance of the trade unions. Whatever happened to individual self reliance and true free enterprise. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves at the sight of these shameless Canadians that hide behind government supported protection from down to earth competition. I hope the pioneering spirit of thousands of farmers on the back roads will unite and throw out these protectionist policies.
I am deeply saddened by the animosity, envy and vitriolic feelings being expressed here towards supply-managed farmers.
My family has farmed for generations. I have many family and friends in beef, pork, dairy and almost all types of cash crops and livestock.
I have never heard them say that dragging other farmers down will make them any better off. All farmers work hard to earn their money.
Getting rid of the power in the market that marketing boards create would lower farm incomes absolutely but consumer prices will not go down. At 10% of income, Canada already has the lowest food prices.
Farmers will lose. Packers, processors and retailers will gain.
Will this really make people feel better?
I agree with you. What people forget is that many commodities are regulated. That means the Government controls aspects of the product.
Getting rid of quota will just negatively impact farm financial statements. It does not mean the government will stop demanding licenses to produce and market regulated commodities.
On the contrary. The real losers will be the Public.
The only farmers who will lose, if supply management disappears, will be supply managed farmers, and few will be sorry to see them lose their wealth, and privelege.
Furthermore, you're still believing the fallacy that increased farm gate prices for dairy and poultry products never ever get passed through to the retail level, and that's a definitional impossibility. Of course consumers will benefit if supply management disappears. If they weren't going to benefit, why are the tariffs on dairy and poultry products so high?
In addition, for the first time in decades, processors of dairy and poultry products will be able to lower ther per-unit costs, by being able to export these items.
In short, everyone will win if supply management disappears, except those supply-managed farmers who refuse to admit that there are lots of farmers willing to produce what they produce, and do it for a lot less money.
You are partly right, “Don’t be sad”. Farmers would have to produce milk for a lot less because they would have no power over pricing, but there won’t be LOTS OF THEM.
Instead of 300,000 cows in total on 4,000 farms – the 300,000 cows Ontario needs would be on about 100 farms with 3,000 cows each.
Most of those 100 farms won’t be the same “lots of farmers willing to produce … for a lot less money” you are talking about but likely the largest 100 dairy farms out there right now milking between 250 and 1,000 cows. Why, because they are in the best position and have the tools, expertise and management skills to “win” the race to the bottom.
Perhaps the good news is that they will all need to hire a few employees ….willing to work for a lot less money. Or, they may bring them in from Mexico.
WELL SAID. The same writer who is making all the arguments in favour of getting rid of quotas becuase farmers, at least the supply managed ones are a bunch of over paid cry babies should read You are partly right, "Don't be sad" above. In fact, read it five or six times if you need to. The economies of the developed countries of which Canada and United States belong will not support or encourage small farmers who hope to milk a dozen cows and sell their milk to whoever drives in the laneway! If the writer who is making all these outlandish comments about abolishing quota really is serious about producing milk and meat and eggs and heaven knows what else at a cheaper price, then your only opportunity may be to move to a country where a dollar a day is all you can expect to be paid. From reading your comments over and over again, I think that is all you are worth!
There is no comparison between quota holders and doctors, teachers and lawyers. To enter these professions one needs certain education and qualifications but not the astronomical sums of money required to buy one's way into the dairy,chicken,turkey and egg farming.
There are huge comparisons between agriculture supply management and doctors lawyers, etc.
Limited enrollment when there is a surplus and approved licenses are required.
Quota is a license.
Why does some sectors of society have valued licenses but you treat agriculture licenses like dirt (no pun intended)
Don't expect bankers and FCC to promote getting rid of quotas. Of course they support them because their loans to these supply managed farmers are less risky and lenders are just like supply managed farmers;they like a sure thing. Getting rid of quotas will cause the biggest uproar the farming community has ever seen, so be prepared.
I agree with you completely on this point.Unfortunately i experienced this personally.I sold out in 1999,quota was a seven year payback,but my FCC lender said we couldnt pay our way so ,no more financing.Our DFO fieldman told me not to buy quota,for we could make more with exports now. Surprisingly quota then skyrocketed to 20000dollars, You can imagine how i felt after missing out on that payout. Two years later i got involved in exports,borrowed money from a bank to restart,the bank was supportive of it,,then when cattle values dropped and DFO turned against exports we were suddenly undesirable customers. A senior account rep even publicly called us a threat to her customers investments in quota.I enquired at FCC about buying some quota back,and was told by the young lady that it would never work,and she didnt know why farmers were going into so much debt anyway.Another FCC office was contacted and the young rep told me,,all we do is lend as much against the quota as we can,and a little bit for the farm. So yes,quota is the main source of financing on most dairy farms. I wish everyone would come out and admit it. Im not against that,it seems to have worked for many farm families very well. Supply management has been the best systemm for farmers,,but some change is inevitable. just sharing my experience.
Why did FCC start to support higher quota prices. Was it a calculated risk to tie so much debt to quota that OTTAWA has to keep it as is or face a huge bailout of farmers, or was it a case of building itself up to be a more prominent player in the market.The CORPORATION has evolved from a lender of last resort to a leader in the industry,and thats a good thing.
I have read the comments both for and against quota with utter fascination. By reading them several times, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments made in favour of abolishing quota are being made consistently by the same writer. Of all the negative and immature comments on this site, one can see a pattern start to develop. It seems like most if not all the arguments against supply management are coming from the same writer. I am NOT a quota holder. I missed my opportunity to milk cows and I subsequently missed my opportunity to get into feathers. I do not let my jealousy regarding my neighbours who do milk cows and have broilers taint my judgement on supply management. The truth is, not everyone who wants to milk can milk! Not everyone who wants to produce eggs or poultry can do so! This writer who is making all these comments against supply management is letting his anger and jealosy cloud his judgement! SM should think more and be careful what he asks for.
I've made a few, but definitely not all, of the comments and reasons to get rid of supply management. To claim one bad apple or one writer is poisioning the debate, is simply wrong.
It's quite interesting that while farmers are reluctant to go public with their criticisms of supply management, when they get a chance to do it anonymously, they certainly don't hesitate to tell it like it is.
Yet, there's no chance that DFO, or dairy farmers, will notice, or even care.
Wow!! These comments against the quota system sure got some people worked up. It sounds like they are running scared. Could it be that this supply management system might fall. One writer even wants consumers to eat bread instead of chicken,turkey,eggs,cheese,butter and milk. Bread and water sounds like what the prisoners used to get in jail.
Post new comment