Canadense

bora fazer um jantar pos natal e uma session max... trago meu BPO (Butane Prensado Oil) e o dome...

tem que ter no minimo um comprovante de residencia... mas é um puta processo demorado.

eles tb só testaram o THC... CBD é o que realmente age para combater dores e inflamações

Pain Management and CBD CBD (Cannabidiol). It is one of approximately 70 Cannabinoids, the most well known being THC. CBD is an amazing compound, it can be used to treat chronic pain, anxiety and other mood disorders, as well as being a neuro-protectant and a very promising anti-cancer drug. CBD’s value in treating chronic pain is enhanced over THC because it is non-psychoactive. CBD works against pain primarily in the peripheral nervous system. It does not work like typical pain meds by effecting the central nervous system; it works at the neuro-synapse. When we sustain injuries, often the pain is acute and disappears completely. Other times we have persistent or intermittent pain, however, with many disorders the pain is either part of the underlying problem itself (Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Disease, etc ) or the pain becomes a syndrome of it’s own. In other words, the pain takes on a life of it’s own and is now crippling the patient. In a recent Scientific American article, chronic pain and CBD's are discussed citing when an injury takes place, increased Glial cell production forms around the neuro junctions. These Glial cells produce Cytokines which are chemical transmitters spreading inflammation and signaling pain. When a molecule of CBD binds to the Glial cell, the cytokine production decreases and the patient feels a marked decrease in pain. This would also explain why some patients have pain relief that lasts way beyond the theoretical effect of the CBD. http://canchewbiotech.com/pain-management-and-cbd

http://blogs.smithso...mithsonian.com) A new study indicates that marijuana isn’t a painkiller, but a pain distracter: Under the influence of THC, the same levels of pain are simply less bothersome. Image via Wikimedia Commons/Cannabis Training University One of the chief arguments for the legalization of medicinal marijuana is its usefulness as a pain reliever. For many cancer and AIDS patients across the 19 states where medicinal use of the drug has been legalized, it has proven to be a valuable tool in managing chronic pain—in some cases working for patients for which conventional painkillers are ineffective. To determine exactly how cannabis relieves pain, a group of Oxford researchers used healthy volunteers, an MRI machine and doses of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Their findings, published today in the journal Pain, suggest something counterintuitive: that the drug doesn’t so much reduce pain as make the same level of pain more bearable. “Cannabis does not seem to act like a conventional pain medicine,” Michael Lee, an Oxford neuroscientist and lead author of the paper, said in a statement. “Brain imaging shows little reduction in the brain regions that code for the sensation of pain, which is what we tend to see with drugs like opiates. Instead, cannabis appears to mainly affect the emotional reaction to pain in a highly variable way.” As part of the study, Lee and colleagues recruited 12 healthy volunteers who said they’d never used marijuana before and gave each one either a THC tablet or a placebo. Then, to trigger a consistent level of pain, they rubbed a cream on the volunteers’ legs that included 1% capsaicin, the compound found that makes chili peppers spicy; in this case, it caused a burning sensation on the skin. When the researchers asked each person to report both the intensity and the unpleasantness of the pain—in other words, how much it physically burned and how much this level of burning bothered them—they came to the surprising finding. “We found that with THC, on average people didn’t report any change in the burn, but the pain bothered them less,” Lee said. This indicates that marijuana doesn’t function as a pain killer as much as a pain distracter: Objectively, levels of pain remain the same for someone under the influence of THC, but it simply bothers the person less. It’s difficult to draw especially broad conclusions from a study with a sample size of just 12 participants, but the results were still surprising. Each of the participants was also put in an MRI machine—so the researchers could try to pinpoint which areas of the brain seemed to be involved in THC’s pain relieving processes—and the results backed up the theory. Changes in brain activity due to THC involved areas such as the anterior mid-cingulate cortex, believed to be involved in the emotional aspects of pain, rather than other areas implicated in the direct physical perception of it. Additionally, the researchers found that THC’s effectiveness in reducing the unpleasantness of pain varied greatly between individuals—another characteristic that sets it apart from typical painkillers. For some participants, it made the capsaicin cream much less bothersome, while for others, it had little effect. The MRI scans supported this observation, too: Those more affected by the THC demonstrated more brain activity connecting their right amydala and a part of the cortex known as the primary sensorimotor area. The researchers say that this finding could perhaps be used as a diagnostic tool, indicating for which patients THC could be most effective as a pain treatment medicine. Read more: http://blogs.smithso.../#ixzz2Fi6LCc7c Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

http://sentencing.ty...-drug-laws.html December 20, 2012 "Empirical evidence suggests a sure fire way to dramatically lower gun homicides: repeal drug laws" The title of this post is drawn from the title of this lengthy must-read post by Dan Kahan over at The Cultural Cognition Project blog. The post not only satiates my desire to have some distinct (and seemingly more productive) discussions about gun violence in the wake of the Newtown massacre than being provided by traditional media outlets, but it also makes a bunch of points that ought to be of interest to all persons on all sides of the tired-old gun-control debates. Dan's terrific post should be read in full, and I hope this taste (with some of his many links) will encourage everyone to click through to it: I now want to point out that in fact, while the empirical evidence on the relationship between gun control and homicide is (at this time at least) utterly inconclusive, there certainly are policies out there that we have very solid evidence to believe would reduce gun-related homicides very substantially. The one at the top of the list, in my view, is to legalize recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. The theory behind this policy prescription is that illegal markets breed competition-driven violence among suppliers by offering the prospect of monopoly profits and by denying them lawful means for enforcing commercial obligations. The evidence is ample. In addition to empirical studies of drug-law enforcement and crime rates, it includes the marked increase in homicide rates that attended alcohol prohibition and the subsequent, dramatic deline of it after repeal of the 18th Amendment. Actually, it's pretty interesting to look at homicide rates over a broader historical time frame than typically is brought into view by those who opportunistically crop the picture in one way or another to support their position for or against gun control. What you see is that there is a pretty steady historical trend toward decline in the US punctuated by expected noisy interludes but also by what appear to be some genuine, and genuinely dramatic, jumps & declines. One of the jumps appears to have occurred with the onset of prohibition and one of the declines with repeal of prohibition. Social scientists doing their best to understand the evidence generally have concluded that that those are real shifts, and that they really were caused by prohibition and repeal. Criminologists looking at the impact of drug prohibition can use the models developed in connection with alcohol prohibition and other modeling strategies to try to assess the impact of drug prohibition on crime. Obviously the evidence needs to be interpreted, supports reasonable competing interpretations, and can never do more than justify provisional conclusions, ones that are necessarily subject to revision in light of new evidence, new analyses, and so forth. But I'd say the weight of the evidence pretty convincingly shows that drug-related homicides generated as a consequence of drug prohibition are tremendously high and account for much of the difference in the homicide rates in the U.S. and those in comparable liberal market societies.... There is a very interesting empirical study, though, by economist Jeffrey Miron, who concludes that the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that the difference in homicide rates in the US and in other liberal market societies is attributable to our drug prohibition policies. Gun availability in the US, according to this hypothesis, doesn't directly account for the difference in homicide rates between the US and these countries; rather, gun availability mediates the impact between drug prohibition and homicide rates in the US, because the criminogenic properties of drug prohibition create both a demand to murder competitors and a demand for guns to use for that purpose.... Repealing drug laws would do more -- much, much, much more -- than banning assault rifles (a measure I would agree is quite appropriate); barring carrying of concealed handguns in public (I'd vote for that in my state, if after hearing from people who felt differently from me, I could give an account of my position that fairly meets their points and doesn't trade on tacit hostility toward or mere incomprehension of whatever contribution owning a gun makes to their experience of a meaningful free life); closing the "gun show" loophole; extending waiting periods etc. Or at least there is evidence for believing that, and we are entitled to make policy on the best understanding we can form of how the world works so long as we are open to new evidence and aren't otherwise interfering with liberties that we ought, in a liberal society, to respect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/politics/stigma-fading-marijuana-common-in-california.html?_r=0 LOS ANGELES — Let Colorado and Washington be the marijuanatrailblazers. Let them struggle with the messy details of what it means to actually legalize the drug. Marijuana is, as a practical matter, already legal in much of California. Related Counting the Days Till Marijuana’s Legal (November 18, 2012) Times Topic: Marijuana and Medical Marijuana Enlarge This Image Monica Almeida/The New York Times A man panhandled for pot recently on the boardwalk in Venice Beach, Calif., where a variety of marijuana-themed items are for sale. Readers’ Comments Share your thoughts. Post a Comment » Read All Comments (4) » No matter that its recreational use remains technically against the law. Marijuana has, in many parts of this state, become the equivalent of a beer in a paper bag on the streets of Greenwich Village. It is losing whatever stigma it ever had and still has in many parts of the country, including New York City, where the kind of open marijuana use that is common here would attract the attention of any passing law officer. “It’s shocking, from my perspective, the number of people that we all know who are recreational marijuana users,” said Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor. “These are incredibly upstanding citizens: Leaders in our community, and exceptional people. Increasingly, people are willing to share how they use it and not be ashamed of it.” Marijuana can be smelled in suburban backyards in neighborhoods from Hollywood to Topanga Canyon as dusk falls — what in other places is known as the cocktail hour — often wafting in from three sides. In some homes in Beverly Hills and San Francisco, it is offered at the start of a dinner party with the customary ease of a host offering a chilled Bombay Sapphire martini. Lighting up a cigarette (the tobacco kind) can get you booted from many venues in this rigorously antitobacco state. But no one seemed to mind as marijuana smoke filled the air at an outdoor concert at the Hollywood Bowl in September or even in the much more intimate, enclosed atmosphere of the Troubadour in West Hollywood during a Mountain Goats concert last week. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Republican governor, ticked off the acceptance of open marijuana smoking in a list of reasons he thought Venice was such a wonderful place for his morning bicycle rides. With so many people smoking in so many places, he said in an interview this year, there was no reason to light up one’s own joint. “You just inhale, and you live off everyone else,” said Mr. Schwarzenegger, who as governor signed a law decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Some Californians react disdainfully to anyone from out of state who still harbors illicit associations with the drug. Bill Maher, the television host, was speaking about the prevalence of marijuana smoking at dinner parties hosted by Sue Mengers, a retired Hollywood agent famous for her high-powered gatherings of actors and journalists, in an interview after her death last year. “I used to bring her pot,” he said. “And I wasn’t the only one.” When a reporter sought to ascertain whether this was an on-the-record conversation, Mr. Maher responded tartly: “Where do you think you are? This is California in the year 2011.” John Burton, the state Democratic chairman, said he recalled an era when the drug was stigmatized under tough antidrug laws. He called the changes in thinking toward marijuana one of the two most striking shifts in public attitude he had seen in 40 years here (the other was gay rights). “I can remember when your second conviction of having a single marijuana cigarette would get you two to 20 in San Quentin,” he said. In a Field Poll of California voters conducted in October 2010, 47 percent of respondents said they had smoked marijuana at least once, and 50 percent said it should be legalized. The poll was taken shortly before Californians voted down, by a narrow margin, an initiative to decriminalize marijuana. “In a Republican year, the legalization came within two points,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant who worked on the campaign in favor of the initiative. He said that was evidence of the “fact that the public has evolved on the issue and is ahead of the pols.” A study by the California Office of Traffic Safety last month found that motorists were more likely to be driving under the influence of marijuana than under the influence of alcohol. Still, there are limits. No matter how much attitudes in California may have changed, it remains illegal in most of the country — as Californians have been reminded by a series of crackdowns by the Justice Department on medical marijuana here. People who use the drug recreationally, who said they would think nothing of offering a visitor a joint upon walking through the door, declined to be quoted by name, citing the risks to career and professional concerns. Enlarge This Image Associated Press People rolled joints at a party in Berkeley in 1966. Related Counting the Days Till Marijuana’s Legal (November 18, 2012) Times Topic: Marijuana and Medical Marijuana Readers’ Comments Share your thoughts. Post a Comment » Read All Comments (4) » That was the case even as they talked about marijuana becoming commonly consumed by professionals and not just, as one person put it, activists and aging hippies. Descriptions of marijuana being offered to arriving guests at parties, as an alternative to a beer, are common. In places like Venice and Berkeley, marijuana has been a cultural presence, albeit an underground one, since the 1960s. It began moving from the edges after voters approved the legalization of medical marijuana in 1996. That has clearly been a major contributor to the mainstreaming of marijuana. There is no longer any need for distasteful and legally compromising entanglements with old-fashioned drug dealers, several marijuana users said, because it is now possible to buy from a medical marijuana shop or a friend, or a friend of a friend growing it for ostensibly medical purposes. That has also meant, several users said,¸that the quality of marijuana is more reliable and varied, and there are fewer concerns about subsidizing a criminal network. It also means, it seems, prices here are lower than they are in many parts of the country. Mr. Newsom — who said he did not smoke marijuana himself — said that the ubiquity of the drug had led him to believe that laws against it were counterproductive and archaic. He supports its legalization, a notable position for a Democrat widely considered one of the leading contenders to be the next governor. “These laws just don’t make sense anymore,” he said. “It’s time for politicians to come out of the closet on this.”

pelo menos num foi preso...

louco foi ver um dab nervoso... preciso comprar um trem desses...

mano quero me mudar pra portland

mais um??? meu deus... e a culpa é sempre da maconha...

o quente é esse cara... December 17, 2012 by Matt Mernagh If you think the Harper government is going to do something positive for med pot – what are you toking because I want some. Plenty of people have opinions and worry about the proposed changes to Health Canada medical marihuana program. I’m not sure how these changes are going to play out. However if you think the Harper government will do something positive for med pot – what are you toking because I want some. My favorite document is Harper Government Announces Proposed New Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. I do know the proposed changes will not suddenly go before Ontario Court of Appeal in R v. Mernagh because only evidence at trial is reviewed. The court of appeal wasn’t waiting for the feds to make changes to come to their conclusions. Unlike civil cases like R v. Hitzig this is a criminal case and my freedom is at stake here. The justices can uphold R v Mernagh ruling or not. There’s little wiggle room to come up with a third option. Many months ago one my biggest fears was a mysterious third option. At trial we were unable to furnish the court with our ideas (ie evidence) on how to improve Health Canada’s medical marihuana program because this would violate R v. Little Sisters Art Emporium case law. Yet during our May 2012 Ontario Court of Appeal hearing, to me, it appeared Justice Doherty was seeking solutions from the crown and intervenors. Something more akin to a civil ligation like R v. Hitzig. However, this is criminal and there can be no middle ground. We are warriors and both sides are out for blood. ‘What should he have done?’ Justice Doherty asked the crown. ‘He should have sued the government.’ The crown responded. ‘That’s your solution – he should have sued.’ Justice Doherty, who didn’t look too impressed by their answer retorted. Suing the federal government is no solution and its cheaper to grow marijuana and ask for forgiveness than hire lawyers to go on the offensive. The costs of civil litigation against your government are prohibitive. Think of it this way, Big Tobacco (who have floors of lawyers) sued over the labeling of ciggies and lost. If the feds want you to sue them as they suggested I do, you can bet your bottom dollar (and you will have too) that they intend to come out on top. Given no viable third option, I doubt the Ontario Court of Appeal would create a happy middle ground. They could continue to stay my charge and wrap Health Canada on the knuckles for not doing a better job. Then create some suggestions on how to improve, which may or may not violate R v. Little Sisters. I read Canada Gazette and believe Health Canada is preparing for a loss in my case. Once again losing, but getting a happy middle ground ruling that they can ignore. I get my stay and they get to keep their program with slight changes. Unfortunately for Health Canada a stay would force the prosecutors to seek an appeal because I should be in prison for growing personal pot. The prosecutor’s handbook guided prosecutors in their appeal decision last time. Therefore another stay – one would presume following their logic and handbook – would force them to appeal again. I just want to laugh at prospects of a salvage a program only to be forced to appeal because they couldn’t get a conviction. Now let’s say I get my stay and the feds are happy too and opt not to appeal for a criminal conviction. Highly doubtful, but it’s my worst nightmare. I asked my counsel over lunch months ago and was informed a ruling that differs from the original Ontario Superior court ruling is grounds for appeal – even if I got a stay. Making me possibly the first criminal to appeal a stay. Nurse Practitioners Possibly Sign For Med Pot Nurse practitioners would be permitted to prescribe med pot if the corresponding provincial legislation governing nurse practitioners is changed. Considering it took 25 years to allow Nurse Practitioners in Ontario to be legislated (lobbying from 1973 to 1997 when the law was passed) don’t hold your inhale waiting for something to happen. Behold my favorite example. The McGuinty Libs allowed Nurse Practitioners to sign special diet allowances for Ontario Disability Support Program people. Clinics were set up by poverty groups who hired Nurse Practitioners to fill out forms. The McGuinty Libs seeing the tidal wave response quickly stopped allowing Nurse Practitioners sign for ODSP special diet allowances. The governance of Nurse Practitioners is provincial not federal – possibly allowing Health Canada to say ‘its not us – its the province’ in future court cases. Another hint Health Canada is preparing for a loss is the introduction of the new program. It’s timely and they might be able to beat the 90 day Stoner Sword of Damocles imposed in R v. Mernagh ruling. The reality is the feds are actually readying a new medical marijuana program for a person who opts to use R v Mernagh case law. Then a crown somewhere will say, ‘We made dramatic changes. It’s a whole new program. We improved access since R v. Mernagh. Here’s our stats that show more people than ever are in the program. We’ve added nurse practitioners and we are working with our provincial counterparts to implement, but this takes time.’

hey aglukkag come suck on my aglukkag SUA VACA

Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke Taibblog by: Matt Taibbi Assistant US Attorney General Lanny Breuer Ramin Talaie/Getty Images If you've ever been arrested on a drug charge, if you've ever spent even a day in jail for having a stem of marijuana in your pocket or "drug paraphernalia" in your gym bag, Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer has a message for you: Bite me. Breuer this week signed off on a settlement dealwith the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank. The banks' laundering transactions were so brazen that the NSA probably could have spotted them from space. Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows." This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the "legitimate" banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank's teller windows. Tony Montana's henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional "American City Bank" in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain's most storied financial institutions. Though this was not stated explicitly, the government's rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a "systemically important institution" in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way: Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. It doesn't take a genius to see that the reasoning here is beyond flawed. When you decide not to prosecute bankers for billion-dollar crimes connected to drug-dealing and terrorism (some of HSBC's Saudi and Bangladeshi clients had terrorist ties, according to a Senate investigation), it doesn't protect the banking system, it does exactly the opposite. It terrifies investors and depositors everywhere, leaving them with the clear impression that even the most "reputable" banks may in fact be captured institutions whose senior executives are in the employ of (this can't be repeated often enough) murderers and terrorists. Even more shocking, the Justice Department's response to learning about all of this was to do exactly the same thing that the HSBC executives did in the first place to get themselves in trouble – they took money to look the other way. And not only did they sell out to drug dealers, they sold out cheap. You'll hear bragging this week by the Obama administration that they wrested a record penalty from HSBC, but it's a joke. Some of the penalties involved will literally make you laugh out loud. This is from Breuer's announcement: As a result of the government's investigation, HSBC has . . . "clawed back" deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement. Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the punishment? The government's negotiators couldn't hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them "partially" wait? Every honest prosecutor in America has to be puking his guts out at such bargaining tactics. What was the Justice Department's opening offer – asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year? So you might ask, what's the appropriate financial penalty for a bank in HSBC's position? Exactly how much money should one extract from a firm that has been shamelessly profiting from business with criminals for years and years? Remember, we're talking about a company that has admitted to a smorgasbord of serious banking crimes. If you're the prosecutor, you've got this bank by the balls. So how much money should you take? How about all of it? How about every last dollar the bank has made since it started its illegal activity? How about you dive into every bank account of every single executive involved in this mess and take every last bonus dollar they've ever earned? Then take their houses, their cars, the paintings they bought at Sotheby's auctions, the clothes in their closets, the loose change in the jars on their kitchen counters, every last freaking thing. Take it all and don't think twice. And then throw them in jail. Sound harsh? It does, doesn't it? The only problem is, that's exactly what the government does just about every day to ordinary people involved in ordinary drug cases. It'd be interesting, for instance, to ask the residents of Tenaha, Texas what they think about the HSBC settlement. That's the town where local police routinely pulled over (mostly black) motorists and, whenever they found cash, offered motorists a choice: They could either allow police to seize the money, or face drug and money laundering charges. Or we could ask Anthony Smelley, the Indiana resident who won $50,000 in a car accident settlement and was carrying about $17K of that in cash in his car when he got pulled over. Cops searched his car and had drug dogs sniff around: The dogs alerted twice. No drugs were found, but police took the money anyway. Even after Smelley produced documentation proving where he got the money from, Putnam County officials tried to keep the money on the grounds that he could have used the cash to buy drugs in the future. Seriously, that happened. It happens all the time, and even Lanny Breuer's own Justice Deparment gets into the act. In 2010 alone, U.S. Attorneys' offices deposited nearly $1.8 billion into government accounts as a result of forfeiture cases, most of them drug cases. You can see the Justice Department's own statistics right here: Justice DepartmentIf you get pulled over in America with cash and the government even thinks it's drug money, that cash is going to be buying your local sheriff or police chief a new Ford Expedition tomorrow afternoon. And that's just the icing on the cake. The real prize you get for interacting with a law enforcement officer, if you happen to be connected in any way with drugs, is a preposterous, outsized criminal penalty. Right here in New York, one out of every seven cases that ends up in court is a marijuana case. Just the other day, while Breuer was announcing his slap on the wrist for the world's most prolific drug-launderers, I was in arraignment court in Brooklyn watching how they deal with actual people. A public defender explained the absurdity of drug arrests in this city. New York actually has fairly liberal laws about pot – police aren't supposed to bust you if you possess the drug in private. So how do police work around that to make 50,377 pot-related arrests in a single year, just in this city? Tthat was 2010; the 2009 number was 46,492.) "What they do is, they stop you on the street and tell you to empty your pockets," the public defender explained. "Then the instant a pipe or a seed is out of the pocket – boom, it's 'public use.' And you get arrested." People spend nights in jail, or worse. In New York, even if they let you off with a misdemeanor and time served, you have to pay $200 and have your DNA extracted – a process that you have to pay for (it costs 50 bucks). But even beyond that, you won't have search very far for stories of draconian, idiotic sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Just ask Cameron Douglas, the son of Michael Douglas, who got five years in jail for simple possession. His jailers kept him in solitary for 23 hours a day for 11 months and denied him visits with family and friends. Although your typical non-violent drug inmate isn't the white child of a celebrity, he's usually a minority user who gets far stiffer sentences than rich white kids would for committing the same crimes – we all remember the crack-versus-coke controversy in which federal and state sentencing guidelines left (predominantly minority) crack users serving sentences up to 100 times harsher than those meted out to the predominantly white users of powdered coke. The institutional bias in the crack sentencing guidelines was a racist outrage, but this HSBC settlement blows even that away. By eschewing criminal prosecutions of major drug launderers on the grounds (the patently absurd grounds, incidentally) that their prosecution might imperil the world financial system, the government has now formalized the double standard. They're now saying that if you're not an important cog in the global financial system, you can't get away with anything, not even simple possession. You will be jailed and whatever cash they find on you they'll seize on the spot, and convert into new cruisers or toys for your local SWAT team, which will be deployed to kick in the doors of houses where more such inessential economic cogs as you live. If you don't have a systemically important job, in other words, the government's position is that your assets may be used to finance your own political disenfranchisement. On the other hand, if you are an important person, and you work for a big international bank, you won't be prosecuted even if you launder nine billion dollars. Even if you actively collude with the people at the very top of the international narcotics trade, your punishment will be far smaller than that of the person at the very bottom of the world drug pyramid. You will be treated with more deference and sympathy than a junkie passing out on a subway car in Manhattan (using two seats of a subway car is a common prosecutable offense in this city). An international drug trafficker is a criminal and usually a murderer; the drug addict walking the street is one of his victims. But thanks to Breuer, we're now in the business, officially, of jailing the victims and enabling the criminals. This is the disgrace to end all disgraces. It doesn't even make any sense. There is no reason why the Justice Department couldn't have snatched up everybody at HSBC involved with the trafficking, prosecuted them criminally, and worked with banking regulators to make sure that the bank survived the transition to new management. As it is, HSBC has had to replace virtually all of its senior management. The guilty parties were apparently not so important to the stability of the world economy that they all had to be left at their desks. So there is absolutely no reason they couldn't all face criminal penalties. That they are not being prosecuted is cowardice and pure corruption, nothing else. And by approving this settlement, Breuer removed the government's moral authority to prosecute anyone for any other drug offense. Not that most people didn't already know that the drug war is a joke, but this makes it official. http://www.rollingst...1213?print=true

Drugs ‘Magic Mushroom’ Drug Shows Promise in Treating Addictions and Cancer Anxiety CORBIS Suspended for decades after controversial results, research on the hallucinogen psilocybin is showing early promise in a new series of small studies. In research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), scientists highlighted the latest findings on the use of psilocybin, the synthetic version of the active compound in “magic mushrooms,” as a treatment for anxiety in terminal cancer patients, in smoking cessation and as a treatment for alcoholism. Some of the studies are not complete and have not yet been reviewed by other experts, but they provide new information on psilocybin’s effects. Psilocybin is the active ingredient in over 100 species of mushrooms in the Psilocybe class, used for hundreds of years in shamanic ceremonies and other rituals in South America. (MORE: ‘Magic Mushrooms’ Trigger Lasting Personality Change) Research conducted during the 1950s and early ’60s into possible therapeutic uses of drugs like LSD, another hallucinogen, and psilocybin suffered from their popularity in the counterculture of the time, which led to both the ban of recreational use of psilocybin and an end to virtually all the medical studies on its effects on people. Early studies suggested the compounds might help to fight addictions and ease end-of-life fears. Pharmacologists continued to study the drugs, however, primarily in animal models, leading to the recognition in the 1950s that LSD was similar to the brain chemical serotonin (indeed, LSD was later found to act on certain serotonin receptors) and providing one of the first hints that drugs could affect behavior by affecting particular brain chemicals. “[so] much of modern neurobiological chemistry results from studying psychedelics,” said Dr. Charles Grob, director of child psychiatry at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, who is studying the effects of psilocybin on anxiety in terminal cancer patients. (MORE: ‘An Anti-Inflammatory for the Ego’: Psychedelic Drugs Produce Lasting Positive Change) In Johns Hopkins’ ongoing program of psilocybin research, scientists have treated over 150 volunteers in 350 drug-trial sessions. Although many participants experienced at least some type of anxiety reaction while on the drug, none of them reported lasting harm, and 70% rated the experience as one of the top five most meaningful events of their lives, comparable to the birth of a first child or the loss of a parent. Like previous psychedelic experimenters, today’s volunteers often report profoundly mystical experiences. But modern researchers are far more careful about documenting what the drugs actually do, avoiding the exaggerated claims of early pioneers in the field (including Harvard University’s Timothy Leary), which led to more skepticism and criticism than productive investigation. (MORE: Was Timothy Leary Right?) UCLA’s Grob studied 12 cancer patients with end-stage disease, ages 18 to 70, all of whom were highly anxious in facing death. They were given preparatory therapy sessions so that they would know what to expect while under the influence of psilocybin and then had two sessions a month apart, one with a placebo and one with psilocybin. The vitamin niacin was used in a high dose as the placebo because it produces a physiological sensation of burning or itching on the face that is harmless but produces some “drug” effect. During their drug sessions, participants listened to music on headphones in a hospital room that had been upgraded with fresh flowers and more colorful furnishings than the typical sterile decor. They were asked to bring pictures of their loved ones and of important life occasions or experiences as well. During the sessions, therapists sat with them but did not direct them to reflect on anything in particular and only monitored the session and helped them to calm down if they became anxious. “Nobody had a significant anxiety reaction or ‘bad trip,’” Grob reported, citing data he published in the Archives of General Psychiatry on the research in 2011. Six months later, participants showed significant reductions in depression symptoms. Curiously, however, although they didn’t report actually feeling anxious less of the time, they no longer considered themselves as being overly anxious or worried people. (MORE: LSD May Help Treat Alcoholism) The studies on smoking cessation and on alcoholism have only just begun, but they show encouraging results in a small group of volunteers. Says Paul Kenny, associate professor of neuroscience at the Scripps Research Institute in Florida and a member of the program committee for the ACNP meeting: “The potential beneficial effects of psilocybin on addiction is an important question that should [be] thoroughly explored. Nevertheless, it is important to sound a note of caution. Psilocybin is unlikely to be used to treat addiction. As with other hallucinogenic drugs, it can have worrying side effects such as psychological distress or even psychosis.” He adds, “Nevertheless, the renaissance in psilocybin research suggests that if we can understand the biological mechanisms underlying its therapeutic actions, then it may be possible to develop a new generation of drugs that lacks the notable hallucinogenic properties of psilocybin but that retains its beneficial effects. This assumes, of course, that the therapeutic and psychoactive properties of psilocybin can indeed be separated.” It remains to be seen, however, whether that will be possible. Kenny thinks it could be, noting that the drug is relatively “promiscuous” and activates multiple brain receptors but only causes hallucinatory effects by one of those actions. But in psychedelic therapy, it could alternatively turn out that the psychological experience of the mind is what matters for the brain changes seen after taking the drug. http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/07/magic-mushroom-drug-shows-promise-in-treating-addictions-and-cancer-anxiety/

po pes 13 é o melhor Pes que ja joguei... totalmente manual, animal, e olha que eu era viciado no WE 8 Livewear Evolution.

Mano, a jogabilidade do PES é infinitamente melhor que o FIFA o PES é organico e todos os jogos fluidos. O FIFA é mó quadradão e os gols são sempre iguais

JU segura uma #2 pra mim!

Até agora num joguei um PES13 aqui no brasil... galera só tem FIFA [sic]

mano.. vai botar a culpa da maconha em vc ser punheteiro com fobia social problemas de saude mental??? porra... volta pra mamae entao... cazzo #fcplm

mano.. se fosse eu, num assino nada... vai me enquadrar no 33 sem minha cooperação... sem medos... tomo porrada quanto for. ... e num ta? Só pra esclarecer a etimologia da palavra trabalho; vem de tripalium, um instrumento de tortura usado em animais de lavoura ou escravos. É mole??? E tem gente que acha que ser trabalhador é coisa honrosa....