Percoff

Duvido muito que algo vá mudar só pela doença do lula, é capaz de socarem remedios nele e falar que a ganja é que faz mal.

Pré-candidata à prefeitura de São Paulo pelo PPS, ela afirma que não tem medo de mostrar a sua opinião e fala dos projetos para 2012 Aos 44 anos, Soninha Francine disputará pela segunda vez as eleições para a prefeitura de São Paulo. Depois de um quinto lugar no primeiro turno em 2008 (cerca de 270 mil votos), a ex-vereadora afirmou que espera um resultado bem diferente em 2012. Para isso, ela promete não fugir dos temas polêmicos em sua campanha pelo PPS. E dentre os assuntos abordados está o uso da maconha. Em 2001, Soninha acabou demitida da TV Cultura após dar entrevista à revista Época e afirmar ser usuária de maconha, fato que teve grande repercussão na época. Dez anos depois, o assunto voltou a ganhar destaque na mídia em três frentes: o documentário com Fernando Henrique Cardoso na defesa da descriminalização, marcha da maconha em São Paulo e a recente confusão envolvendo alunos da USP com policiais. Soninha, aliás, afirmou com exclusividade ao Portal da Band que ver FHC defender a descriminalização da maconha foi “um sonho” realizado. A candidata também defendeu o kit-homofobia planejado por Fernando Haddad, ministro da Educação e provável candidato do PT às eleições em São Paulo. Soninha, o que te motivou a disputar a prefeitura de São Paulo mais uma vez? Entrei para a política porque as outras formas de tentar lutar para mudar o mundo não me satisfaziam mais. Quis ser vereadora, e consegui. Foi uma experiência incrível do ponto de vista didático. Aprendi em uma semana de mandato muito mais sobre política do que uma vida inteira. Quando terminei, tive duas conclusões. Não queria sair mais da política, mas queria ter mais poder. Por isso estou me candidatando novamente para a prefeitura [em 2008 ela também concorreu pelo PPS]. Qual será o foco de sua campanha em 2012? A principal proposta é melhorar a distribuição na relação entre casa e trabalho. São Paulo é uma cidade muito desigual. A gente olha para a Oscar Freire e vê teatro, cinema e biblioteca. Já Guaianazes é um mundo totalmente diferente. Cada vez menos gente mora nos locais de emprego. Então se você não criar condições para que a população more na região central, onde existem os empregos, você nunca vai resolver a questão do transporte, porque elas vão morar longe e levarão horas para chegar ao trabalho. Não dá para transportar 2,5 milhões de pessoas da Zona Leste para o Centro com qualidade, com todo mundo saindo no mesmo horário. PT e PSDB ainda não definiram candidatos. Porém, existem outros partidos com nomes já encaminhados. Você acredita que pode surpreender? Acho que tenho uma chance melhor agora. Se os partidos favoritos [PT e PSDB] vierem com nomes desconhecidos, talvez consiga brigar pelo segundo turno. É verdade que não fui candidata em 2010, e outros concorrentes tiveram mais exposição, como o Netinho [PCdoB] e o Russomano [hoje no PRB]. Mas começo as pesquisas num patamar maior do que da outra vez, com 6% dos votos, e até 11% em alguns cenários. Isso é muito entusiasmante. Na campanha presidencial de 2010, você coordenou o site do Serra. Espera por um apoio dele, apesar de o PSDB provavelmente ter candidato próprio? Eu gostaria muito, mas acho impossível. Ele até pode ter alguma simpatia pela minha candidatura, mas o PSDB mesmo está tão complicado... Você coordenou a subprefeitura da Lapa em 2009, na gestão de Gilberto Kassab. O que você destaca de positivo e negativo no atual governo? Destaco a atuação no meio-ambiente, com Eduardo Jorge [secretário do Verde e Meio Ambiente]. Ele é o melhor da pasta no Brasil. Claro que contou com o apoio do Kassab para tomar medidas muitas vezes impopulares, como a inspeção veicular, que já estava prevista há séculos, mas ninguém fazia. As áreas da Cultura e Educação também tiveram bons programas. De negativo, aponto a Saúde. Eu fui marcar uma consulta na UBS (Unidade Básica de Saúde) e consegui uma data para fevereiro. Ou seja, é melhor você adivinhar que vai ficar doente e marcar agora para poder ser atendida. Também demorou muito para o Kassab mexer no transporte coletivo. Eu fui subprefeita, e todos os tipos de problemas chegavam até mim. Porém, na gestão Kassab os subprefeitos não tiveram muita autonomia. Eu tenho uma visão diferente dele neste ponto. Você chegou à política em 2004, portanto já tem uma boa vivência de como funciona as coisas. Atualmente, os eleitores não estão confiantes nos políticos devido aos diversos escândalos. É realmente possível fazer política sem corrupção? É possível, mas é difícil. A corrupção é muito variada. Ela é criativa, enraizada. Os próprios cidadãos se acostumam. Seja político, empresário ou morador carente. Só muda a escala. É superdifícil fazer a máquina pública funcionar. É preciso liderança. O prefeito tem de cobrar, fazer as coisas acontecerem. Se não existir uma coisa muito bem coordenada, vinda de cima, e as chefias não forem bem determinadas, a corrupção vai tomar conta. Outro ponto importante é acabar com o campo fértil da corrupção. Nós temos um sistema muito complicado. Muitas vezes, um engenheiro busca algo de um decreto de 1937 para impedir uma aprovação de uma planta, e isso faz com que uma pessoa, por exemplo, busque uma alternativa para uma aprovação rápida. Existe muita burocracia. A própria lei cria condições para um abuso de autoridade, em vários setores. É preciso facilitar o sistema. Alguém já lhe ofereceu suborno? Um suborno direto não. Mas eu já vi coisas estranhas. Logo quando eu me elegi vereadora [em 2004], participei de uma reunião com minha bancada, eu era do PT [ficou no partido de Lula até 2007, quando foi para o PPS]. Fazíamos oposição ao Serra. E um vereador da oposição disse que seria da base, numa conversa bem estranha. Eu pedi desculpas, levantei e saí. Nas outras reuniões, as coisas pararam de ser discutidas na minha frente, eu virei uma persona non grata. Outra coisa é com relação às doações de campanha. Teve um empresário uma vez que queria fazer uma doação para minha campanha de vereadora, mas ele não queria ser identificado. Pois ele não queria dar brecha para que dissessem depois ‘tá doando porque quer vantagem depois’. Na campanha presidencial de 2010, vimos uma constante preocupação dos políticos com as opiniões diante de temas polêmicos. Você sempre foi aberta e deixou clara sua posição. Não teme que isso possa causar algum prejuízo? Sei que isso pode me prejudicar. Mas eu não temo. Essas coisas que eu defendo têm relação com o fato de eu querer estar na política. Se eu preciso abrir mão do que acredito, então para que eu vou estar na política? Eu vejo que as pessoas respeitam quem é sincero e coerente. Uma senhora bem idosa uma vez disse que me admirava, apesar de não concordar com alguns pontos. Isso foi muito positivo. Claro que existem pessoas que rejeitam completamente a minha opinião. Se eu digo que sou favorável à maconha, muitos acham que eu estou incentivando que todos fumem sem problemas... Você acabou demitida em 2001 da TV Cultura por ter admitido o uso de maconha. Ver atualmente pessoas como o Fernando Henrique Cardozo defendendo a descriminalização foi uma vitória pessoal? A fala do FHC foi o meu sonho. Já em 2001 eu sabia de muita gente importante que tinha uma opinião formada e não tinha o perfil do Marcelo D2. Eram médicos, advogados, pais de família. Eram fumantes ou não fumantes favoráveis à legalização. Acharam um absurdo na época. E, caramba... Eu trabalhava pra cacete, sustentava meus filhos... Então, achei que era importante dizer que fumava maconha e que não era retardada. Fiquei muito feliz em ver o FHC falando do assunto, de ver pessoas como o Dráuzio [Varella, médico, colunista da Band]. A questão da descriminalização da maconha voltou à tona nesta semana com o ocorrido na USP, em que estudantes protestaram após a prisão de três universitários... A polícia é obrigada a agir. Ou fingir que não estava ali. Mas veja como é curioso. Se os moleques tivessem em coma alcoólico, eles seriam levados para o pronto socorro. Mas como era maconha, não... O fato é que beber é estimulado. E fumar maconha é crime. Comprar maconha é crime. Vender maconha é crime... Só os criminosos lucram, e quem quiser fazer tudo dentro da lei, pagando imposto, não pode. Você sempre foi uma defensora dos direitos dos homossexuais. Concorda também com o kit-homofobia que o Haddad, seu possível adversário, queria distribuir nas escolas? Nunca cheguei a ver o tal kit. Mas se existia algum problema, você tinha de corrigir, não suspender. Escola não serve para ensinar apenas química, matemática ou história, de forma ultrapassada e enciclopédica. Tanto é que existem inúmeros projetos legislativos para educação ambiental, política, de trânsito e social. Tudo isso tem de passar pela escola, e violência contra homofobia também. As pessoas que criticaram, disseram que o kit faria apologia. A própria Dilma disse... Meu Deus, isso é um tremendo absurdo. Esse conteúdo não seria mostrado para crianças, mas para adolescentes, que estão numa fase da vida em que começam a ter a vivência sexual. Se não tiver essa educação na escola, vai ter aonde? Fonte: http://www.band.com.br/noticias/brasil/noticia/?id=100000465088

è assim que as mudanças vao acontecendo mano, aos poucos tudo mudara com informação baseada em dados reais e cientificos mudamos a historia, quando minha mae descobriu que eu fumava foi maior xororo hoje ela nem liga ate acha melhor eu plantar do que contribuir com o trafico

Ai Faxo valew por compartilhar com a galera Brasuca!!!!

A replica matou a pau todos argumentos dos proibicionistas com base em dados reais, até aqui no GR poderiamos pinçar coisas dali e colocar em nossas campanhas

em nenhum momento foi citado algo referente a ganja, a midia que fez virar a guerra dos makonheiro loko contra os coxa.

Quem não compreender 100% em ingles joga o link no tradutor do google num fica 100% mas da pra entender de boa

Mudei a rotina agora sempre que vou queimar um banza ja como uma manga meia hora antes, muito bom minha esposa ate estranhou pois nunca fui de comer frutas e agora toda vez que tem feira ja vou logo na banca da manga.

Brasil Norml é um verdadeiro lixo num faz porra nenhuma só goza co pau dos outros , desculpem o termo chulo mas é a mais pura verdade. Ja mandei e-mail pra Norml verdadeira pra reclamar dessa filial brasileira e sugiro que todos o façam

Quem não compreender 100% em ingles joga o link no tradutor do google num fica 100% mas da pra entender de boa

Quem não compreender 100% em ingles joga o link no tradutor do google num fica 100% mas da pra entender de boa

poe os links da 2 materias no google tradutor fica meio tosco mas da pra entender de boa

Canadian Coalition Calls for Pot Legalization to End Prohibition Violence Prohibition has been linked with violent crime since the bootlegging mob shoot-out days of Al Capone’s Chicago in the 1920’s. In recent years, it’s drugs like cocaine, heroin and even marijuana whose illegality has resulted in an endless cycle of nonstop violence among various traffickers and gangs competing for big-time, tax-free, black-market drug bucks. Despite the fact that Canada is rarely associated with the kind of drug violence experienced in America or Mexico, a newly formed British Columbia organization called Stop the Violence B.C. has come together to advocate the outright legalization and regulation of cannabis on the premise that the black market of pot prohibition is a prime catalyst for gang violence in Western Canada. Stop the Violence B.C. is a coalition of legal experts, law enforcement officials, university professors and physicians that have issued a report to substantiate their position entitled Breaking the Silence, which delineates the high profit margins that locally grown cannabis provide to traffickers as opposed to imported heroin and cocaine. Couple that with an estimated 430,000-plus pot smokers in the B.C. province, and you have the formula for local drug gangs to commit mayhem and murder (as they did during a notoriously bloody gang war in Vancouver in 2009, which was partly instigated by competition over smuggling of the strain “B.C. Bud” from Canada into the U.S. by drug gang traffickers). The report also incorporated a specially commissioned Angus Reid poll of 800 B.C. residents in September. Among the findings; a whopping 87 percent of those surveyed associated gang violence with the illicit pot market and 69 percent were of the opinion that their province should legalize and tax pot. Canadian government response was muted; Shirley Bond, Solicitor-General for B.C., said Thursday, “Any thought of decriminalizing marijuana is certainly a federal issue. I can simply say that it is not on our agenda, we are not looking at any changes in British Columbia.” Though she did admit: “…very often we do see a relationship between large marijuana grow ops and organized crime.” The Breaking the Silence report concluded that the social harms significantly reduced by a strictly regulated and severely taxed (this is Canada, after all) pot distribution system would outweigh the potential harms wrought by such legalization. FONTE http://hightimes.com/news/mmiller/7378

Marijuana: Half the Nation Believes It Should Be Legal In 1969, a Gallup poll found that a whopping 84% of Americans believed that marijuana should be illegal. This year, for the first time, according to its latest poll, the majority sentiment on this issue has changed. 50% of those polled thought that the drug should be legalized, while 46% thought otherwise; not quite “one toke over the line” for proponents, but very close. Even better news for those who favor legalization is that the slope of the line is growing steeper, meaning that views are shifting much more quickly than they did in the previous century. Just five years ago, 60% were against legalization. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2010, marijuana was the most used illicit drug, with 17.4 million past-month users. Use is on the rise, too, it found; from 2007 to 2010, up from 5.8% to 6.9%. Among youths 12 to 17, the rate has grown from 6.7% in 2007 to 7.4%. The age at which people first turn on has gone up, though, on average from 17 years of age in 2002 to 18.4 years in 2010. For sake of comparison, 21% of Americans currently smoke tobacco, and the percentage of high school students who smoked cigarettes in the past month, according to the Centers for Disease Control, was 19.5%. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse claims that “those who drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the past month are 30 times more likely to smoke marijuana than those who didn’t.” Talk about gateway drugs! Last year another Gallup survey found that 70% of respondents felt that doctors should be allowed to use the drug for pain and suffering. Support for legalization is a function of age, with 18- to 29-year-olds registering 62% approval. Among the greatest generation only 31% agree. More men (55%) than women (46%) favor legalization. Those in the West (55%), Midwest (54%) and East (51%) are pro-legalization; only in the South does a minority (44%) believe it’s a good idea. The BBC recently estimated that 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug-related violence. Many of these deaths have to be laid at the feet of U.S. citizens’ thirst for illicit drugs. In contrast to the softening in American’s attitudes to legalizing marijuana is the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent actions to challenge state’s rights to allow medical marijuana sales. The battle lines seems drawn in California, after the department sent pot clinics a notice that they have 45 days to shut down. Is the time right to have a national conversation about legalizing marijuana? I don’t see it, despite the Gallup poll trends. Few politicians are willing to get out in front of this issue, and the health industry continues to oppose it. And we’ve witnessed one battle after another in D.C. during this administration where an evenly-split populace leads to nothing but gridlock. Give it a few more years and, if the trend lines continue, the absurd financial cost to taxpayers for enforcing marijuana laws will put such pressure on the federal budget that such a discussion will be inevitable. In the meantime, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws will no doubt continue its work to change public opinion, one toke at a time. Fonte: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tombarlow/2011/10/28/marijuana-half-the-nation-believes-it-should-be-legal/

Vamos mandar pra Dilma alguns exemplares

Essa foi a Petição e a resposta do Governo Norte Americano Sobre a causa: This petition has been responded to by the White House. See the response below. we petition the obama administration to: Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol. We the people want to know when we can have our "perfectly legitimate" discussion on marijuana legalization. Marijuana prohibition has resulted in the arrest of over 20 million Americans since 1965, countless lives ruined and hundreds of billions of tax dollars squandered and yet this policy has still failed to achieve its stated goals of lowering use rates, limiting the drug's access, and creating safer communities. Isn't it time to legalize and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol? If not, please explain why you feel that the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past? total signatures 74,169 Official White House Response to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol. What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana Thank you for signing the petition “Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol” We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov. By: Gil Kerlikowske When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects. According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug. Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition. As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use. That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment. Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S. Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more. Resources: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Marijuana Facts (ONDCP) Drug Abuse Warning Network (HHS) Treatment Episode Data Set (HHS) National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS) Monitoring the Future Survey, University of Michigan Gil Kerlikowske is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy FONTE https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/legalize-and-regulate-marijuana-manner-similar-alcohol/y8l45gb1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTRA RESPOSTA DA NORML SOBRE AS MENTIRAS DA ADM OBAMA White House response to NORML’s “We the People” marijuana legalization petition By Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator The Obama White House has released its official response to the “We the People” online petition for marijuana legalization submitted by NORML. The petition, which garnered 74,169 signatures, was by far the most popular petition submitted. The government response (released late on a Friday to avoid news cycles, we’ll note) repeats the same tired lies and classic misdirections. Most of all, it fails to answer NORML’s actual petition, which asked: Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol. We the people want to know when we can have our “perfectly legitimate” discussion on marijuana legalization. Marijuana prohibition has resulted in the arrest of over 20 million Americans since 1965, countless lives ruined and hundreds of billions of tax dollars squandered and yet this policy has still failed to achieve its stated goals of lowering use rates, limiting the drug’s access, and creating safer communities. Isn’t it time to legalize and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol? If not, please explain why you feel that the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past? Following is the full official White House response, with NORML’s comments interspersed… What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana By: Gil Kerlikowske When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug’s effects. Oh, good. Then we’ll look forward to implementation the 1972 Shafer Commission Report or any of the other government and scientific studies that recommend the decriminalization of cannabis. According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world’s largest source of drug abuse research – marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. “Addiction” links to a NIDA page noting the lifetime dependence rate of cannabis to be 9% – that is, 9 in 100 people who try cannabis will develop a dependence. NIDA does not mention that caffeine has the same 9% rate, alcohol is a 15% rate, and tobacco is a 32% rate. NIDA scientists also rated the addictive qualities of those substances and rated cannabis about equal to caffeine in risk. The withdrawal from this rare dependence is characterized by the Institute of Medicine as “mild and short lived” and “includes restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbance, nausea, and cramping.” (Speaking of withdrawal, Mr. Drug Czar, you do know withdrawal from alcohol can kill a person and it’s legal, right?) “Respiratory disease” links to a 2008 Science Daily article on a study entitled “Bullous Lung Disease due to Marijuana” which looked at the cases of ten people who came in already complaining of lung problems, who admitted they smoked pot over a year. The subject was featured in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine as it found “insufficient evidence for a causative link“. In 2011, Matthew Naughton, author of the 2008 study, co-authored a 2011 study which noted “unfortunately, it is difficult to separate marijuana use from tobacco smoking which does confound these reports“. (Speaking of tobacco, Mr. Drug Czar, you do know it’s much worse for the lungs and it’s legal, right?) “Cognitive impairment” links to a 1996 NIDA fact sheet on studies of cognitive impairment involving card sorting. Since then… A 2001 study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found chronic users who quit for a week “showed no significant differences from control subjects”. A 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal determined, “Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.” A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society also “failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated.” A 2004 study of twins published in the journal Psychological Medicine reported “an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities.” A 2005 study published in the American Journal of Addictions used magnetic resonance imaging and found “no significant differences” between heavy cannabis smokers compared to controls. A 2006 study published in the German journal Psychopharmacology found no “long-term deficits in working memory and selective attention in frequent cannabis users after 1 week of abstinence”. A 2009 study published in Human Psychopharmacology found “little indication of differences in executive functioning” for mild to moderate cannabis users. And a 2010 study published in Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior found regular cannabis users’ performance accuracy on episodic memory and working memory tasks “was not significantly altered by marijuana.” Forgive the overkill, but as an organization that is honored to have regular cannabis consumer Carl Sagan’s widow, Ann Druyan, as an Advisory Board Member, we’re particularly offended by claiming science says that regular cannabis consumers are stupid. (Speaking of cognitive impairment, Mr. Drug Czar, are you aware that frequent alcohol use is shown to have incredibly deleterious effects on cognition and it’s legal?) But our petition wasn’t about whether or not cannabis is harmful, it was whether we should consider regulating cannabis like the far more harmful substances, alcohol and tobacco. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. “Voluntary drug treatment admissions” links to 2007 TEDS data tables showing that 37% of the people admitted to treatment for marijuana hadn’t used it in the past thirty days. These tables are based on admissions data that show 57% of marijuana treatment admissions were coerced by law enforcement (drug courts) and only 15% of such admissions are actually “voluntary drug treatment admissions”. (This is much easier to debunk when the Drug Czar links to the government tables that make our point. Thanks, Gil!) “Visits to emergency rooms” links to 2009 DAWN data which contains this interesting bit of fine print, “Within DAWN, the drug misuse or abuse category is a group of [emergency room] visits defined broadly to include all visits associated with illicit drugs.” That is, if you mention pot, have pot on you, or your urine or blood tests positive for pot, that’s a drug-related emergency room visit. If you smoked a bowl last night, broke your leg skiing today, went to the ER, and they found metabolites of THC in your pee, that’s going into the DAWN stats as a pot-related ER visit. Meanwhile, a 2011 study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine found “marijuana dependence was associated with the lowest rates” of emergency room admittance compared to other drugs. So we have illegal marijuana which lets government arrest people and make them choose jail or rehab, then those rising rehab numbers are an indication that we need to keep arresting people. And we have emergency room data that tells us that some sick and injured people, like some Americans generally, smoke pot. Can you tell us why we shouldn’t end those charades and consider regulating cannabis like alcohol and tobacco? Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20’s. Simply put, it is not a benign drug. “Marijuana potency has tripled” links to a paper (“Potancy [sic] Paper 2010″) at Ole Miss’s US Pot Farm showing potency tables from 1993 to 2008 (15 years, 20 years, whatever). These figures include hashish and hash oil (concentrated preparations of cannabis), which is like throwing three Rhodes scholar into an eighth grade social studies class and then grading on a curve. Figures for all samples (including the hash) show a rise from 3.4% to 8.8% THC (2.5x, not even “almost triple”), but what they call “marijuana” goes from 3.4% to 5.8% THC (1.7x, not even double) and “sinsemilla” goes from 5.8% to 11.5% THC (2x, double). So today’s average marijuana is as good as yesteryear’s sinsemilla and today’s average sinsemilla is twice as good as yesteryear’s sensimilla. Anybody recall any deaths, riots, or serious social disorder due to the sensimilla of 1993? As we’ve said before, potency is irrelevant as cannabis smoking is a self-titrating behavior. You smoke to get high. If you have ditchweed, you smoke a lot to get high. If you have kind bud you smoke a little to get high. Less smoke in your lungs is a good thing and by that measure, smoking more potent marijuana may be a harm reduction strategy. Besides, it’s hard to take seriously any concerns about non-toxic 11.5% THC sensimilla when the government approves of 100% synthetic THC Marinol and marijuana of any potency has never killed anybody. But nobody here said cannabis was a benign drug, only that it is far safer than the two current choices of legal substances, alcohol and tobacco, and we’re wondering why we couldn’t just regulate cannabis like them? Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition. That “ardent support” consists of six ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials (two of which have already been completed) worldwide involving subjects’ use of actual cannabis and fourteen researchers allowed to study inhaled cannabis on human subjects. It does not include a recent FDA-approved study of medical marijuana use to treat post-traumatic stress in our returning combat veterans. That study was ardently opposed by NIDA, which wouldn’t sell any Ole Miss US Pot Farm marijuana for the researchers to study. Furthermore, a NIDA spokesperson admitted to the New York Times in 2010, “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use. We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.” The FDA and Institute of Medicine links take you to papers from 2006 and 1999, respectively. The American Medical Association in 2009 issued a position paper stating, “smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” It’s too bad our petition wasn’t about carving exceptions in federal law to allow medical use of marijuana, as 70% of Americans support. It was whether we should regulate marijuana like we do alcohol and tobacco, like 50% of Americans support. As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. So you’re going to ignore our petition to end the strategy of arresting our way out of the problem by regulating marijuana like we do alcohol and tobacco? We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use. Right, legalizing marijuana won’t address drug use. It will address marijuana use by regulating it like we do alcohol and tobacco. That is why the President’s National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. The president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and international law enforcement) versus “Demand Reduction” (treatment and prevention). Which takes us to the second part of our petition asking how the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past? Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we’ve seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We’re also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment. See our rebuttal above to TEDS treatment admission statistics and forcing cannabis consumers into rehab via drug courts. Bless the millions of Americans in successful recovery for drug (?) and alcoholism who didn’t miss out on an open bed because it was taken up by a coerced cannabis consumer who hadn’t smoked weed in a month. Those drug courts only work thanks to arrests of cannabis consumers and we were wondering how the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past? Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S. Which is fuzzy math and see our rebuttal to President’s National Drug Control Strategy, which, as we mentioned, differs little from President Bush’s before him. So how is the continued criminalization of cannabis going to achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past? Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President’s approach to drug control to learn more. Thank you for wasting America’s time ignoring her wishes. I encourage you to take a moment to actually read and answer the questions on these petitions. Every answer you gave to “whether we should consider regulating cannabis like the far more harmful substances, alcohol and tobacco” was an excuse to make alcohol and tobacco prohibited like marijuana. Every answer you gave to “how will the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?” illustrated that you’re continuing the same failed strategies as your predecessors. We the People were hoping for some change. FONTE http://cannabis.hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-norml%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cwe-the-people%E2%80%9D-marijuana-legalization-petition/ Contra fatos sempre há argumentos e agora Obama vão falar o que?

Isso não devia estar na area de videos? move algum moderador desse board pra lá por favor

Obama Flips Script with Crackdown on Mary Jane Back in 2008, Candidate Obama that medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or cancer was legitimate – much like a doctor prescribes morphine for an ill patient. He also said that he would not devote Justice Department resources to the medical cannabis issue because he didn’t want to circumvent state law on the matter. At the time, then that he wanted federal law enforcement to focus on violent crime and thwarting terrorism … among other things. Two years ago, fresh in office, the Obama Administration announced its plan to call on federal prosecutors to respect state marijuana laws. In October 2009, Phillip Smith of StoptheDrugWar.org wrote: “In a new federal medical marijuana policy memo issued this morning to the DEA, FBI, and US Attorneys around the country, the Justice Department told prosecutors that medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal should not be targeted for federal prosecution. The memo formalizes statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder in February and March that going after pot-smoking patients and their suppliers would not be a high Justice Department priority. The memo marks a sharp break with federal policy under the Clinton and Bush administrations, both of which aggressively targeted medical marijuana operations, especially in California, the state that has the broadest law and the highest number of medical marijuana patients.” However, in a strange turn of events earlier this month, four California U.S. attorneys announced a new crackdown on medical marijuana. The Administration now asserts that large marijuana dispensaries in California are profiteers and have hijacked the state’s medical marijuana law. The IRS also joined in, claiming that medical marijuana dispensaries owe back taxes because they were taking illicit deductions. And the crackdown even extends to media entities advertising for medical marijuana dispensaries. The recent about-face actions by the Administration are leaving medical marijuana advocates perplexed, especially as President Obama ventured west for fundraisers in California and Colorado, two states that have had legalized medical cannabis for over a decade. On Monday, the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) announced a planned protest against the Department of Justice’s crackdown outside of the San Francisco W Hotel – right where President Obama was headlining a fundraiser. Some 1,000 protesters showed up. “With the federal budget on empty, the economy in disarray, our prisons overflowing, and prohibition-related violence raging across the border, it’s an outrageous misuse of federal resources to wage war on medical marijuana,” California NORML director Dale Gieringer charged during an interview with The Daily Grito. “Federal anti-drug bureaucrats are afraid because the dispensaries are proving that it’s possible for marijuana to become a safe, legal, tax-paying industry and so expose their own last-century policies as bankrupt and obsolete.” Last week, trustees of the California Medical Association (CMA) adopted a new position calling for legalization of marijuana, even though there are disputes as to how effective a treatment it is. Dr. Donald Lyman, a Sacramento physician who wrote the new policy for the CMA told The Los Angeles Times: “It is an open question whether cannabis is useful or not. That question can only be answered when it is legalized and more research is done. Then, and only then, can we know what it is useful for.” A Gallup poll released this month also found that a plurality of Americans support marijuana legalization. Polling for medicinal uses of cannabis consistently shows higher favorability ratings. National support for medical marijuana is at about 70%. And in a rough economy, medical cannabis and its associated business have been thriving. Nationally, the medical marijuana market is estimated at $1.7 billion. Last year in Oakland, California, the City Council granted industrial cultivation licenses to four businesses hoping that revenue from the growers could net $38 million in annual tax revenue. Some observers argue that President Obama would not suffer much political fallout from scaling back the medical marijuana crackdown and/or abandoning it altogether given public support for herb use. Dr. David Bearman, an expert clinician in the medical cannabis field, tells the The Daily Grito that he’s “puzzled by the actions of the administration and the President” and noted that there are a few things that the President could have done to signal he is in congruence with public opinion. According to Dr. Bearman, the President should have stayed away from appointing Bush administration holdover, Michele Leonhart to head up the DEA. Bearman also suggested that President Obama could have asked that his Drug Czar meet with the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine and that the administration follow the recommendation of the American Medical Association to review its classification of marijuana. Given the support for legalization of marijuana, the Administration could prioritize law enforcement efforts in a way that doesn’t harm a growing and fairly legitimate industry. But, if the President refuses, he risks isolating those within his base who expected much more progressive drug policies. fonte: http://politic365.com/2011/10/28/obama-flips-script-with-crackdown-on-mary-jane/ Geral quer Obama bora fazer

Obama Flips Script with Crackdown on Mary Jane Back in 2008, Candidate Obama that medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or cancer was legitimate – much like a doctor prescribes morphine for an ill patient. He also said that he would not devote Justice Department resources to the medical cannabis issue because he didn’t want to circumvent state law on the matter. At the time, then that he wanted federal law enforcement to focus on violent crime and thwarting terrorism … among other things. Two years ago, fresh in office, the Obama Administration announced its plan to call on federal prosecutors to respect state marijuana laws. In October 2009, Phillip Smith of StoptheDrugWar.org wrote: “In a new federal medical marijuana policy memo issued this morning to the DEA, FBI, and US Attorneys around the country, the Justice Department told prosecutors that medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal should not be targeted for federal prosecution. The memo formalizes statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder in February and March that going after pot-smoking patients and their suppliers would not be a high Justice Department priority. The memo marks a sharp break with federal policy under the Clinton and Bush administrations, both of which aggressively targeted medical marijuana operations, especially in California, the state that has the broadest law and the highest number of medical marijuana patients.” However, in a strange turn of events earlier this month, four California U.S. attorneys announced a new crackdown on medical marijuana. The Administration now asserts that large marijuana dispensaries in California are profiteers and have hijacked the state’s medical marijuana law. The IRS also joined in, claiming that medical marijuana dispensaries owe back taxes because they were taking illicit deductions. And the crackdown even extends to media entities advertising for medical marijuana dispensaries. The recent about-face actions by the Administration are leaving medical marijuana advocates perplexed, especially as President Obama ventured west for fundraisers in California and Colorado, two states that have had legalized medical cannabis for over a decade. On Monday, the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) announced a planned protest against the Department of Justice’s crackdown outside of the San Francisco W Hotel – right where President Obama was headlining a fundraiser. Some 1,000 protesters showed up. “With the federal budget on empty, the economy in disarray, our prisons overflowing, and prohibition-related violence raging across the border, it’s an outrageous misuse of federal resources to wage war on medical marijuana,” California NORML director Dale Gieringer charged during an interview with The Daily Grito. “Federal anti-drug bureaucrats are afraid because the dispensaries are proving that it’s possible for marijuana to become a safe, legal, tax-paying industry and so expose their own last-century policies as bankrupt and obsolete.” Last week, trustees of the California Medical Association (CMA) adopted a new position calling for legalization of marijuana, even though there are disputes as to how effective a treatment it is. Dr. Donald Lyman, a Sacramento physician who wrote the new policy for the CMA told The Los Angeles Times: “It is an open question whether cannabis is useful or not. That question can only be answered when it is legalized and more research is done. Then, and only then, can we know what it is useful for.” A Gallup poll released this month also found that a plurality of Americans support marijuana legalization. Polling for medicinal uses of cannabis consistently shows higher favorability ratings. National support for medical marijuana is at about 70%. And in a rough economy, medical cannabis and its associated business have been thriving. Nationally, the medical marijuana market is estimated at $1.7 billion. Last year in Oakland, California, the City Council granted industrial cultivation licenses to four businesses hoping that revenue from the growers could net $38 million in annual tax revenue. Some observers argue that President Obama would not suffer much political fallout from scaling back the medical marijuana crackdown and/or abandoning it altogether given public support for herb use. Dr. David Bearman, an expert clinician in the medical cannabis field, tells the The Daily Grito that he’s “puzzled by the actions of the administration and the President” and noted that there are a few things that the President could have done to signal he is in congruence with public opinion. According to Dr. Bearman, the President should have stayed away from appointing Bush administration holdover, Michele Leonhart to head up the DEA. Bearman also suggested that President Obama could have asked that his Drug Czar meet with the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine and that the administration follow the recommendation of the American Medical Association to review its classification of marijuana. Given the support for legalization of marijuana, the Administration could prioritize law enforcement efforts in a way that doesn’t harm a growing and fairly legitimate industry. But, if the President refuses, he risks isolating those within his base who expected much more progressive drug policies. fonte: http://politic365.com/2011/10/28/obama-flips-script-with-crackdown-on-mary-jane/ Geral quer Obama bora fazer

ta todo mundo na expectativa só falta um por pra valer algum projeto de legalização, muito foda mesmo o artigo

Given how relentlessly and ceaselessly we are told that Britain is on the verge of debt crisis – and that this can only be remedied with a programme of deep rapid public spending cuts – it’s a staggering fact that David Cameron is in fact exacerbating the very problems he claims he wants to solve. The coalition have had to downgrade growth forecasts several times over the past three quarters, began this financial year with increased borrowing, and unemployment has hit a 17-year-high at 2.57 million. If taxed, the cannabis trade could bring in a billion Cameronomics has been tried and tested in Ireland, Greece and Portugal: and it hasn’t worked. It ain’t working for us either. A far better way out of this financial hole may lie in an unexpected place: the drugs trade and its legalisation. No, you didn’t misread that - the answer to this problem may really lie in sparking up a spliff on the pavement outside your local café, Dutch-style. But first, let’s get back to basics. Every debate about drugs policy must begin by acknowledging one hard, solid fact: the market for drugs is ineradicable. Thirty five per cent of the British population admit they have taken an illicit substance. Lothian and Borders Police have admitted that they have successfully hauled just 1% of all available heroin in their patch. (And that’s not a typo). The human desire to be intoxicated seems to be something deep and permanent within us – we apparently have an inherent hunger to lift our minds and bodies to an altered state. By criminalizing these substances, what you do is transfer a huge, lucrative market into the black-market, where they become drastically more dangerous. Take Britain’s most widely used drug, for instance: cannabis. At least two independent scientific studies – by the Institute of Psychiatry and University College London respectively – have found that, while it is indeed true THC (the chemical that causes the high, giggly feeling) does cause psychosis in a small number of cases, cannabis contains another chemical, CBD, which has a powerful anti-psychotic effect (more powerful than many anti-psychotics, in fact). In the unregulated anarchy of the illicit drugs trade, however, cannabis is, according to FRANK, routinely cut with such things as boot polish and henna. At the more hardcore end of the spectrum – heroin – the investigative journalist Nick Davies has argued that many of the negative consequences of heroin use are in fact consequences of prohibition - bar, importantly, addiction itself. In order to maximise profits, the drug is cut with such things as brick dust (which causes the venous gangrene so familiar in heroin addicts) and drain cleaner (which poisons). Clean opium can be seen as 'safe', and he gives plentiful historical examples to support the point. Indeed, Margaret Thatcher’s health advisor, Dr Clive Froggatt, was a heroin addict. And, because drug dealers cannot appeal to an army of accountants, lawyers and police officers to protect their property rights, they do it themselves, with guns, knives, and machetes. For an illustration of this phenomenon, look over the Atlantic, at Mexico, which one Wall Street Journal writer says makes ‘Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park’. The answer is to legalise: to take drugs away from armed criminal gangs, and hand them over to doctors, pharmacists, and off-licenses. Far from being a commercial free-for-all, a legal model would have in place solid consumer protections, production-controls, and marketing-laws. The administrative costs would be negligible. And here’s where the economics comes in. The first and most obvious saving to the Treasury would be in the tax revenue generated by cannabis sales: The Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimates that combining the resin and herbal ‘skunk’ markets, based on a tax of £1 - £2 per gram, could generate around 1 billion of tax revenue annually. Transform Drugs Policy Foundation report that 4.036 billion goes on the criminal justice system every year (at least 50% of Britain’s prison population are in for drug offences) – a sum that would collapse under legalisation. The UK drugs trade constitutes a giant 6.6 billion pound market: an un-taxed vacuum in to which money is sucked. Yet more savings could be found in a place in the world where the War on Drugs collides headfirst with the War on Terror: the war in Afghanistan. NATO is there – ostensibly at least – to dismantle Al Qaeda and prevent jihadist attacks on the streets of the west. Afghanistan – one of the poorest countries in the world, where 45% of the population suffer from malnutrition – relies on the opium trade for at least a third of its GDP. The west, as part of its strategy to cut off the supply of opium, destroys this vital source of income. Research by the International Council on Security and Development (formerly known as the Senlis Council) has shown that this radicalises the population, driving them straight into the brutal arms of the Taliban, thus making NATO’s objective of countering the insurgency significantly harder. ICOS, in their must-read report – ‘Countering the Insurgency in Afghanistan: Losing Friends and Making Enemies’ – show how, even within the framework of prohibition, Afghanistan could – along with Turkey and India - be granted a licence to produce and sell opiates to a world currently in acute medical shortage, thus putting Afghanistan on the road to economic stability. So, while the potential savings incurred may not be a magic formula for cutting the deficit, together, they take us a significant way towards the 81 billion that David Cameron is hacking off the public sector. There would be a historical precedent for this. It is no coincidence that Alcohol Prohibition was ended in America in 1933, just four years after the Great Crash of 1929. US tax revenues collapsed by 60% over three years, and they desperately needed revenues to fund a Keynesian stimulus. Of course, many people have understandable concerns that, under legalisation, we will see a rise in addiction. What every advocate of legalisation needs to explain is how exactly it helps the bruised, broken human beings who we all see stumbling and shaking their way down the streets of Britain’s cities. Many parents who have, tragically, seen their children descend in a spiral of addiction are aghast at calls to legalise: their anxieties must be answered with a convincing response. The facts demonstrate that legalisation precipitates a dramatic fall in hard drug use. When personal possession of drugs was decriminalised in Portugal in 2001, use of heroin dropped by 50%. The EU country with the lowest level of heroin addiction is… yep, you guessed it: the Netherlands, a country where clean, safe heroin is prescribed by the health service, and cannabis is enjoyed recreationally in the legal market. Since 1971 when the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in Britain, use of heroin has increased by 1000%. Sociologists have long recognised this phenomenon - called the Iron Law of Prohibition: criminalize a substance, and its use intensifies. Just like 1920s America; people stopped drinking beer and wine, and instead consumed the far more dangerous moonshine. It isn’t legalisation that acts as a ‘slippery slope’ towards the gutter – it’s prohibition. Most politicians know all this. Countless former Home Office ministers admit that the war on drugs is a counter-productive failure after leaving office. Indeed, David Cameron himself, when he sat on the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2002, co-authored a report on drugs policy which stated that ‘there may come a day when the balance may tip in favour of legalising and regulating’. (Dave, that day has come). So why don’t they do it? Simple: politicians believe it to be politically impossible. They think the tabloids will shriek and howl, and there would be a public outcry. But that’s why you, me, and everybody reading this have a responsibility to join the growing ranks of people – from former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to Dr Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal – in helping turn the tide in the opposite direction. This year marks the fortieth anniversary since President Richard Nixon launched the global war on drugs. Its forty years have been marked by an astronomical rise in addiction, brutal gang violence, and epidemics of disease and political corruption – hardly a cause for celebration. But the global financial crisis also gives us an opportunity: great crises can spur great changes. It isn’t going to happen by magic: politicians have almost never benevolently handed down progressive change. Progress is campaigned for, fought for, and won. The great paradox at the heart of all this is that we really can win the war on drugs – but only if we cease to fight it. The onus is on you to make that happen. Fonte: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-rodger/how-drug-legalisation-could-save-britains-economy Daqui 2 dias sai no terra. uaahahahu

Converseo com o Malcher hj ele nem sabia desse evento, que piada, disse que ficou sabendo por mim e vai se informar sobre a possivel data

Parabenes a comunidade GR