Canadense

galera me enterpretou mal... fraco digo de cabeça... não fraqueza corporal...

! é isso ai, sindrome amotivacional é coisa de fracos e vagabundos... e botar culpa na maconha idem.

HAHAHHAA e vc acha que num tem???? porra man, abre os olhos... quem quer fazer vai fazer... meu broder cozinhava uns tarja preta fazia um extrato parecido com heroina de codeina. ... vc me soa como os proibicionistas... se tiver, todo mundo vai fazer... então quer dizer a unica razão por vc num usar heroina é por q é proibido, é isso??? afinal, temos que pensar nas criancinhas!!!!

por que isso ta na sessão de indoor?

tou chegando na hr certa!

cara libera tudo... pronto, simples assim...

maconha num é pra ficar fumando escondido... porra... esse é um forum de cultivo... esconder cultivo, só de pulissa e xeretas... agora esconder que fuma, num é coisa de homen

puts.. alem de menor é burro pracaraleo... aprenda com teus erros... num queremos falar que se fumar antes dos 18 num pode, é que se soubermos que vc tem 18, pelas regras do site, BAN. vc pode fazer fuckoff 3-4-5-∞ e iremos banir todos... vam ver se tu aprenderá, ou se chamaremos de burro.

uma tatuagem

da boca (e o bolso) pra fora

o pai daquele lá?

High Roller: How Billionaire Peter Lewis Is Bankrolling Marijuana Legalization 0 comments, 0 called-out+ Comment now Progressive billionaire Peter Lewis, legalized pot's biggest backer. When Massachusetts voters head to the polls this November, marijuana legalization will be high on the agenda. As long as advocates collect enough signatures by July — which looks likely — Bay Staters will be able to vote on whether pot can be used for medical purposes. If the cannabis reform ballot succeeds, one man will be able to take much of the credit: Peter Lewis, the billionaire behind insurance giant Progressive, who’s put forward almost every penny being spent on pro-legalization lobbying. Move up Move down In January the group behind the Mass. bill, the Committee for Compassionate Medicine, reported raising $526,000. Of that, $525,000 came from Peter Lewis. This isn’t the first time Lewis has effectively bankrolled a state’s entire pot legalization movement, usually to the tune of at least six digits. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws estimates that Lewis has spent between $40 million and $60 million funding the cause since the 1980s. This year, as well as the Mass. vote, he’s backing movements to get marijuana reform on the 2012 ballot in his home state Ohio as well as Colorado and Washington State. When I interviewed Lewis for last fall’s Forbes 400, he said he’d fund research and lobbying in any state where pot legalization looked likely to get to the voting stage. You might wonder why a super-rich insurance exec is concerning himself with the controversial politics of drug reform. Well, medical marijuana is personal, not just a pet cause: after chronic health problems, Lewis had part of his left leg amputated in 1998. Lewis never hid his pro-pot stance, but it took an arrest for drug possession in New Zealand in 2000 for his efforts to gain widespread attention (even the newspaper at his alma mater, Princeton, reported the crime). The lawyer representing him during his New Zealand possession case told the court that he smoked marijuana for pain relief, following his doctor’s advice. Since then, he’s put his money where his pipe is, taking an active role within the pro-marijuana lobby and planning to funnel his fortune into ensuring no-one else has to break the law to cure their pain. Luckily, a younger generation of super-rich drug reformers is following Lewis’ lead: in 2010, Facebook billionaires Sean Parker and Dustin Moskovitz gave $100,000 and $70,000 respectively towards California’s Prop 19 legalization bill, which eventually failed. Not to be outdone, Lewis kicked in more than $200,000. Read the full Forbes 400 story of Peter Lewis’ war on drug laws, in his own words, here. *** http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/20/high-roller-how-billionaire-peter-lewis-is-bankrolling-marijuana-legalization/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/ + Comment now 42012: Have you smoked dope today? (Image credit: Getty Images North America via @daylife) April 20 is the counter-culture “holiday” on which lots and lots of people come together to advocate marijuana legalization (or just get high). Should drugs—especially marijuana—be legal? The answer is “yes.” Immediately. Without hesitation. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 seized in a civil asset forfeiture. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure. It’s high time to end prohibition. Even if you aren’t willing to go whole-hog and legalize all drugs, at the very least we should legalize marijuana. For the sake of the argument, let’s go ahead and assume that everything you’ve heard about the dangers of drugs is completely true. That probably means that using drugs is a terrible idea. It doesn’t mean, however, that the drug war is a good idea. Prohibition is a textbook example of a policy with negative unintended consequences. Literally: it’s an example in the textbook I use in my introductory economics classes (Cowen and Tabarrok, Modern Principles of Economics if you’re curious) and in the most popular introductory economics textbook in the world (by N. Gregory Mankiw).The demand curve for drugs is extremely inelastic, meaning that people don’t change their drug consumption very much in response to changes in prices. Therefore, vigorous enforcement means higher prices and higher revenues for drug dealers. In fact, I’ll defer to Cowen and Tabarrok—page 60 of the first edition, if you’re still curious—for a discussion of the basic economic logic: Move up Move down The more effective prohibition is at raising costs, the greater are drug industry revenues. So, more effective prohibition means that drug sellers have more money to buy guns, pay bribes, fund the dealers, and even research and develop new technologies in drug delivery (like crack cocaine). It’s hard to beat an enemy that gets stronger the more you strike against him or her. People associate the drug trade with crime and violence; indeed, the newspapers occasionally feature stories about drug kingpins doing horrifying things to underlings and competitors. These aren’t caused by the drugs themselves but from the fact that they are illegal (which means the market is underground) and addictive (which means demanders aren’t very price sensitive). Those same newspapers will also occasionally feature articles about how this or that major dealer has been taken down or about how this or that quantity of drugs was taken off the streets. Apparently we’re to take from this the idea that we’re going to “win” the war on drugs. Apparently. It’s alleged that this is only a step toward getting “Mister Big,” but even if the government gets “Mister Big,” it’s not going to matter. Apple didn’t disappear after Steve Jobs died. Getting “Mr. Big” won’t win the drug war. As I pointed out almost a year ago, economist and drug policy expert Jeffrey Miron estimates that we would have a lot less violence without a war on drugs. At the recent Association of Private Enterprise Education conference, David Henderson from the Naval Postgraduate School pointed out the myriad ways in which government promises to make us safer in fact imperil our safety and security. The drug war is an obvious example: in the name of making us safer and protecting us from drugs, we are actually put in greater danger. Without meaning to, the drug warriors have turned American cities into war zones and eroded the very freedoms we hold dear. Freedom of contract has been abridged in the name of keeping us “safe” from drugs. Private property is less secure because it can be seized if it is implicated in a drug crime (this also flushes the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” out the window). The drug war has been used as a pretext for clamping down on immigration. Not surprisingly, the drug war has turned some of our neighborhoods into war zones. We are warehousing productive young people in prisons at an alarming rate all in the name of a war that cannot be won. Albert Einstein is reported to have said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By this definition, the drug war is insane. We are no safer, and we are certainly less free because of concerted efforts to wage war on drugs. It’s time to stop the insanity and end prohibition. ***

porra, o cara ta falando dos ink spots???? e o outro num conhece pq é velho demais??? PQP... ainda bem q TODOS vão morrer logo. PQP ink spots?

vc é portugues?

maconha recreacional é melhor ainda... po, nada melhor fumar um com a saude boa!

...

a então o brasil ta pronto pra putaria que está?

noruegues... alias, ele é tua cara...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/02/marijuana_suicide_medical_states_california.php Andrew Hecht A lifeline? Marijuana does many magical things, not the least of which is make dubstep listenable. In Los Angeles, we use it pretty much legally for back pain, nausea and hot tubbing. But a new study from Germany says that, in U.S. states like California where marijuana has become medically legit, rates of suicide have gone down. The researchers note that suicide is often triggered by "stressful life events." And you know what can take away the pain? No. Not Enrique Iglesias. Stress! Or rather, chronic. Depending. The academics note that "California includes anxiety as a qualifying condition" to obtain medical pot, "while Delaware and New Mexico both allow the use of medical marijuana for post traumatic stress disorder ... " The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn, with the help of American researchers such as Daniel I. Rees of the University of Colorado's Department of Economics, recently published their findings in a paper called High on Life? Medical Marijuana Laws and Suicide (PDF): Our results suggest that the passage of a medical marijuana law is associated with an almost 5 percent reduction in the total suicide rate, an 11 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 20- through 29-year-old males, and a 9 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 30- through 39-year-old males. The study takes some wild guesses, and one of them is that maybe medical marijuana users are cutting out the alcohol, which can be depressive: The strong association between alcohol consumption and suicide related outcomes found by previous researchers (Markowitz et al. 2003; Carpenter 2004; Sullivan et al. 2004; Rodriguez Andres 2005; Carpenter and Dobkin 2009) raises the possibility that medical marijuana laws reduce the risk of suicide by decreasing alcohol consumption. The academics cite research on animals where there was "a potent anti-depressant effect" when they were injected with low doses of synthetic cannabinoid. Of course this flies in the face of tons of research -- not to mention what Dr. Drew Pinsky has said several times -- that cannabis and depression go together like milk and cookies. And, it seems clear to us, the only solid argument to be made here is there might be a correlation between medical marijuana states and lower rates of suicides. Hmm. National suicide rates have been decreasing across the board. Researchers say they focused mostly on young men because most medical marijuana patients in states like Arizona, Colorado and Montana are males, and roughly half are under 40. Data on women, apparently, was weak. (Women are four times less likely to commit successful suicide in general). The German study's rosy conclusion: ... The legalization of medical marijuana leads to an improvement in the psychological well being of young adult males, an improvement that is reflected in fewer suicides. Believe that. Or not.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/15/pol-milewski-harper-war-on-drugs.html War on drugs 'not working,' Harper says Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks with the media following the closing of the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, Sunday. After listening to Latin American leaders, Harper conceded the war on drugs has not worked. (Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld) none Terry Milewski News conferences with Canada's Prime Minister don't happen every day — which, of course, increases the likelihood that, when he does hold one, he'll make news. But it's even rarer that you'll hear Stephen Harper concede that the war on drugs is a failure. It happened, though, after two days of listening to Latin American leaders explaining just how costly, and bloody, the war is. Harper met Canadian journalists at the summit in Cartagena, Colombia, on Sunday and readily admitted there are differences among the leaders over the exclusion of Cuba from the Latin America summit. He admitted, too, that there was a disagreement over British rule in the Falkland Islands. But Harper was not ready to agree that the division over drug policy is so clear-cut. Rather, he insisted that there is much agreement. Then came the most interesting quote of the day. "What I think everybody believes," Harper said, "is that the current approach is not working. But it is not clear what we should do." This would be intriguing from any prime minister. From Stephen Harper, whose government's crime bill ratchets up the penalties for drug possession, it was startling. Lest anyone think he'd undergone a conversion in Cartagena, Harper quickly added the other side of the story. Drugs, he said, "are illegal because they quickly and totally — with many of the drugs — destroy people's lives." Was marijuana the exception he had in mind? We never got to ask. But perhaps that was enough eyebrow-raising for one day.