Canadense

entre o capitalista e o conservador...... vixe, 2014 começou com elas descontroladas.........

ou seja, tu é contrario só por ser contrario... mano, bane esse menor....

Ai meu deus.... declaradamente ateu! é o fim dos tempos.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA se bobiar, a maioria é ateu... dizaê.... EDIT: Meu, tem que deixar esse topico vivo... e passar pro APPP

Comment: The Home Office admits it has no idea if the war on drugs is working Ian Dunt: 'They're pouring money down the drain and they've got nothing to show for it' They sneaked it out in December. The Home Office report is called 'Drug Strategy 2010 Evaluation Framework – evaluating costs and benefits'. It is not the sort of title which seduces the attention, but inside you can find a fascinating, topsy-turvy, down-the-looking-glass world of hopeless causes. The purpose of the document is to set out the kind of evidence you'd need if you wanted to work out whether the government was getting value for money with its anti-drugs programme. On its own, that's a creditable aim. The more we look into the spending on anti-drug programmes the more we highlight the chasm of financial and human waste which constitutes prohibition. What we get, of course, is nothing of the sort. Instead, lodged innocuously in the middle of the report and couched in impenetrable language, there is a startling admission. It reads: There are challenges in other areas, however, particularly around developing a suitable counterfactual, or measuring impact on actual behaviour. For example, establishing the conditions for a robust counterfactual for enforcement is difficult and as a result, little robust evidence of impact is available either nationally or internationally. What this adds up to is that the Home Office has no idea whether it has achieved anything with its enforcement programme against drugs. That's a remarkable thing to say given independent estimates suggest it spends up to £3.655 billion a year on enforcement alone. The figure rises sharply when you include initiatives such as early intervention or treatment. Imagine any other area of life – in public service or the free market - where you were spending billions a year and were unable to show any evidence of achieving your objective. Even when it comes to areas such as early intervention ("a lack of evidence of long-term outcomes") or information services like FRANK ("little is known about how this translates into behaviour change") the Home Office has no idea what, if anything, it is achieving. The hypocrisy is astonishing. For 'education and information approaches', the document says: These interventions centre on the logic that if rational individuals are aware of the dangers associated with drugs, they will choose not to take them. That must ring hollow with former Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs boss David Nutt, who was sacked from his position when he dared to speak the statistical reality about the minimal dangers of ecstasy use. But the Home Office pleas about the difficulty of collecting accurate data ring particularly hollow given that they have previously tried to cover up evidence about how useless their policy is. When Transform tried to gets its hands on the Home Office's value for money study in 2010, officials discussed keeping it out the public eye because it would help those campaigning to end prohibition. Luckily - and with the Home Office's usual capacity for incompetence – they accidentally sent the internal memo to BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum. It read: The release of the report entails the risk of Transform, or other supporters of legalisation, using information from the report to criticise the government's drug policy, or to support their call for the legalisation of drugs and the introduction of a regulated system of supply. These risks should be considered in reaching a decision on whether to release the report, as recommended. It was a particularly disgraceful affair, given it went against guidelines saying that FoI requests should be dealt with 'blind' – not considering who was requesting the information. Instead, civil servants were making FoI decisions on the basis of how damaging they thought the information would be to ministers. If the Home Office really cared about establishing the financial costs of the war on drugs, they would have paid rather more attention to the home affairs committee's request that a royal commission be set up which could evaluate the wealth of evidence flowing in from experiments overseas. We are in a prime position to see how various systems of drug reform work, with Portugal replacing criminal penalties for a new emphasis on treatment, the legalisation of cannabis in Washington and Colorado, and the introduction of a state monopoly cannabis production system in Uruguay. Lib Dem Home Office minister Norman Baker is visiting some of these areas, but the opportunity for full-scale monitoring of the experiments being conducted around the world has been ignored. There's plenty of pre-existing international evidence as well, from governments who still think it sensible to sometimes base their actions on evidence rather than mania. The Czech Republic removed punishment for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs towards the start of the post-Communist era. In 1999, it reintroduced criminal penalties for certain amounts of drugs, but the controversy around the law meant the government actually studied the impact of the measures. Why isn't the Home Office interested in it? Probably because it found that criminal penalties did not decrease the availability of illegal drugs, or the number of current users, or the number of new users. There was no improvement in 'negative health consequences' or 'social costs' and the policy was economically loss-making. With a level of progressive insight evidently beyond the abilities of the Home Office, the Czech government consequently decriminalised possession again. Of course, Portugal, Uruguay and the Czech Republic are not the same as Britain, but that does not mean we can't learn from them, rather than closing our ears to experiences overseas. The Home Office won't look at these historic examples or assess the current ones because its attitude to drugs is based not on evidence but on quasi-religious anti-drugs fervour and total capitulation to the Daily Mail. Instead, it will publish more despairing evaluation reports, into which it will sneak in the indisputable truth: They're pouring money down the drain and they've got nothing to show for it. The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.

ai meu deulssss...... tu chegou ontem, e quer cagar regra??? mermão, cultivador fala de preço sim; cultivando maconha, ou uva, ou cana, ou laranja etc... agora quer censurar falar de preços??? por que seria estimular a pessoas??? pooorra, ninguem ta apontando arma pra ninguem pra vender maconha (que seria bom)... apenas debatemos preços na atual conjectura. se vc foi seduzido pelo dinheiro sinto muito.... engraçado isso devido ao seu avatar

porra... era só que faltava, sem BO, vai o manoel voluntariar-se pra pra pagar o pato? esses novatos na maconha viu... muuuuita inocencia...

morre geriatrico inutil!

atualmente estou fazendo isso...

400 numa onca é mo facada

maluco barato??? do jeito q americano ta duro....??? barato num ta não, comparando com aqui, ta cara. Mas americano é cheio de se endividar por merreca...

no meu caso é o oposto

oloko man... e o green ta quanto?

ounce é 28 g

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/04/report-cuomo-to-legalize-medical-marijuana-in-ny-/4321637/ The governor will make the announcement during his State of the State address on Wednesday, the New York Times reported. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo arrives before Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio takes the oath of office in on the steps of City Hall Jan. 1, 2014, in New York.(Photo: Frank Franklin II, AP) ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will announce plans to legalize medical marijuana through an executive order, according to a published report Saturday. Cuomo is expected to legalize medical marijuana on a limited basis at 20 hospitals for specific conditions, the New York Times reported Saturday evening. Cuomo will make the announcement during his State of the State address on Wednesday, the newspaper said, citing unnamed state officials. The move would be a shift for Cuomo, who is up for re-election in November. As recently as April, he voiced opposition to the idea, questioning whether it could be properly regulated. But he also has said that he would keep an open mind on the issue, saying it is an "evolving one." "I do not support medical marijuana. I understand the pros and cons. I understand the argument," the Democratic governor told reporters then. "We are looking at it, but at this point, I don't support medical marijuana." Twenty states have legalized medical marijuana, and Colorado on Wednesday began allowing recreational marijuana use. There was no immediate comment from Cuomo's office on the report. The legalization of medical marijuana has repeatedly passed the Democratic-led Assembly, but has failed in the Republican-controlled Senate. Democratic state Sen. Diane Savino said Saturday she was aware that Cuomo was expected to take a pro-medical marijuana stance in his address. She hailed his change in position. "I think under his leadership, we can probably have the best, most-regulated, tightest-controlled system in the nation that provides real help for patients," she said. The Times reported Cuomo is expected to use a provision in the public health law that allows the state health commissioner to approve controlled substances for patients with certain diseases. State Conservative Party chairman Mike Long knocked Cuomo's stance, saying he should focus on the economy and the weak growth in the state's population. "Instead of dealing with social issues that appeal to his liberal base, he would be best doing all New Yorkers a favor and get New York back on track," Long said Saturday. Spector reports for the Gannett Albany (N.Y.) Bureau

http://rt.com/news/peru-calls-marijuana-legalization-165/ Peru calls for debate on the legalization of marijuana Peru should consider legalizing marijuana, the former head of the country’s National Drug Control Commission has said. Uruguay recently became Latin America’s first nation to legalize the marijuana industry, encouraging its neighbors to follow suit. Former director of the Peruvian National Drug Control Commission (DEVIDA) Ricardo Soberon appealed to the government to consider the legalization of marijuana in an interview. “We must open the debate with Carmen Masias, the President of DEVIDA, and the Peruvian Medical School. Let’s open a forum that deals, first and foremost, with the health issues and secondly with safety and the implications of its [marijuana] use,” Ricard Soberon told news website Terra. He said that the legalization of the marijuana market could be a solution to the illegal drugs trade in Peru. “The possibility of removing the criminal element from the cannabis trade – a drug that is a lot less dangerous than others – is the answer to 50 years of repeating the same strategies with no results,” said Soberon. In December, Soberon applauded the Uruguayan decision to legalize both the sale and production of the drug, calling it “a good experience.” Later that month, Uruguayan President Jose Mujica signed into law the legislation that will bring the production and sale of marijuana under state control. Mujica, who proposed the legislation, maintains that the measure will help to eradicate the illegal drugs market in Uruguay. With this in mind, the initial price of marijuana will be set at $1 a gram, undercutting the black market price of $1.40. In Peru the consumption of marijuana is legal and a citizen may carry up to 8 grams of the drug without being penalized. However, the production and sale of cannabis is still illegal under Peruvian law. Uruguay was criticized following the move to legalize cannabis by International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) who lashed out at the country, accusing it of violating international law. “Uruguay is breaking the international conventions on drug control with the cannabis legislation approved by its congress,” said the INCB, citing several reasons why it thinks Uruguay has made a mistake, among them the purported health risks associated with the plant’s use. Raymond Yans, president of the INCB, said he was surprised that the government “knowingly deciding to break the universally agreed and internationally endorsed provisions of the treaty.” Yans’ comments provoked a sharp reaction from Uruguay’s president, who condemned the criticism as “lies,” accusing the INCB of double standards: “One for Uruguay and another for the world’s strong countries.” The US has also taken steps to legalize the consumption and sale of the drug in some states. Colorado opened the doors of the US’s first legal pot store at the start of 2014 and Washington is expected to follow suit later this year.

maluco, ganha teu dinheiro, vai rodar o mundo... esse discursso soa como quem nunca viu so ouviu... po, me perguntar qual o partido aqui de direita que ta em poder... onde uma simples googleada te dara a resposta. Ser maconheiro no uruguai me parece bem melhor do que ser maconheiro na cingapura (cingapura e muculmano e tu vai morto), na belgica, na suia, na australia, nova zelandia... mano se informa.... so em 3 estados americanos os eua e melhor, que o uruguay, e o resto e bem pior que colombia, argentina, ate a china o green come solto la... faz assim, ganhe teu dinheirinho, sai do teu quarteirao, vai conhecer o mundo.... num fica falando pelos cotovelos, por q ai fica que nem os comunistas imbecis de plantao aqui no GR. e achar china comunista... ... que seculo vc esta????? se a china e comunista com Mcdonalds e KFC??? a revlon quase falindo la por falta de competencia... pensar assim e bom na sala de aula, na vida real a coisa e bem diferente. zé neguinho adora um idealismo de ambos os lados.... agora vai falar que a melhor coisa pra saude é ter hospitais privados... e seguros competindo pra te da o melhor valor.... se vc acredita nisso, meu, Eu sou dono da ponte rio/niteroi que eu faço um preço camarada... tu bota um pedagio no meio enche o bolso da grana EDIT: quer modelo pra ser seguidos??? Modelo nordico que o canada até esse ultimo governo era compativel. Impostos total, salario minimo 15 dola a hr, saude publica pra todos, e sao os povos mais bem educados, com um puta qualidade de vida, e com um senso social altissimo.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH tou que nem a banda do Ronaldo.. sempre impedido puta bosta

NAO, VC ESTA ERRADO aonde vc pesquisou isso? Canada é um pais social/democrata, ta na nossa constitiução... .... so por essa besteira, considero TODO seu argumento inapto. E num sou comunista, msm pq meu pai nasceu num pais comunista e sabemos qual a condições da realidade. Porem do jeito que é hj, com 90% do dinheiro nas mãos de 10% do publico, É ERRADO. lembrando, que extremistas tem da direita,(como o cara ai que precisa estudar mais ) e da esquerda (como os idealistas que tem a rodo aqui no forum) VCS estao TODOS ERRADOS..... E outra coisa. Aqui, o governo direitista do canada, proibiu a plantação e todos os dispensarios a partir do dia 2 de abril. só 3 empresas poderão mandar via correio com perscrição. Uma merda... vc compraria frutas online??? eu nao... E errou denovo, porque eu sou sudito ingles, e la num pode plantar nem um pé..... Gostaria de saber onde o senhor tirou tanta asneira??? e se o socialismo é o primeiro passo para o comunismo, quando o canadá vai se tornar um pais comunista? pq eu saio correndo amiguinho. EDIT: Se vc num sabe num precisa inventar...

o seguro morreu de velho, o paranoico de enfarte!

mesclado nao existe pra venda!

nao fume prensado

duplicata