dicksi

mda cum sa faci bani

not math again:D next time stick with meth

pai logic ar fi daca exista o infinitate de universuri paralele iar mintea umana e defapt capabila a "trece",contempla prin ele deci a le considera reale normal ca e un prag foarte fin intre real si "fals".se poate intelege astfel schizofrenia,autismul ...

^si el e din 2008 aici si are un singur post?! pw: TrojanForge.com

ar fi binevenit si un grup gen diickotu la donatie/noi chiar ne chinuim pe forumul asta sa fim ascultati

pe speed.cd each 1MB you upload will be reported as 505.91 MB upload greedyshit:D bineinteles max upload rate 15 kB/s utorrent 3.3

parintele iustin si extraterestii:)) toate posibilitatile de creatie fiind realizate in existenta mai "lipsea" regula importanta Love Conquers All!!!

lovitura de imagine ring a bell?! pare totusi un bug important

google play in-app purchase hacking: freedom: http://system.in-appstore.com/freedom/ lista jocurilor si aplicatiilor compatibile cu freedom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoz9rJKp8kcHdE1SZV9ic2xUVV9fRmhiREVwYUZMSGc#gid=106 poti sa-ti cumperi cate monezi and shit vrei

https://localbitcoins.com/ Wm-center: buy, sell, exchange EgoPay, Perfect Money, Bitcoin etc 24/7/365

mda

era mai bine daca nu se "afla",acum se vor gasi metode mult mai subversive

Resolve _ Unlimit PayPal Guide.pdf cateva sfaturi

veche faza,am pus-o de caterinca de valentine shit who wants to fuck me?

Everything Americans Think They Know About Drugs Is Wrong: A Scientist Explodes the Myths Columbia University scientist Carl Hart combines research and anecdotes from his life to explain how false assumptions have created a disastrous drug policy. What many Americans, including many scientists, think they know about drugs is turning out to be totally wrong. For decades, drug war propaganda has brainwashed Americans into blaming drugs for problems ranging from crime to economic deprivation. In his new book High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society, Carl Hart blows apart the most common myths about drugs and their impact on society, drawing in part on his personal experience growing up in an impoverished Miami neighborhood. Hart has used marijuana and cocaine, carried guns, sold drugs, and participated in other petty crime, like shoplifting. A combination of what he calls choice and chance brought him to the AIr Force and college, and finally made him the first black, tenured professor of sciences at Columbia University. Intertwined with his story about the struggles of families and communities stressed by lack of capital and power over their surroundings is striking new research on substance use. Hart uses his life and work to reveal that drugs are not nearly as harmful as many think. For example, most people who use the most “addicting” drugs do not develop a problem. Rather, Hart says, drugs are scapegoated for problems related to poverty. The policies that result from this misconception are catastrophically misguided. AlterNet spoke with Hart about his life and research. Kristen Gynne: What are some of the false conclusions about drugs you are challenging? Carl Hart: There are multiple false conclusions. There is a belief, for example, that crack cocaine is so addictive it only took one hit to get hooked, and that it is impossible to use heroin without becoming addicted. There was another belief that methamphetamine users are cognitively impaired. All of these are myths that have have been perpetuated primarily by law enforcement, and law enforcement deals with a limited, select group of people—people who are, in many cases, behaving badly. But to generalize that to all drug users is not only shortsighted and naive, it’s also irresponsible. The impact of that irresponsible behavior has been borne primarily by black communities. Nobody really cares about black communities, and that's why this irresponsible behavior has been allowed to continue. It's also true that we've missed critical opportunities to challenge our basic assumptions about drugs. If drugs really were as damaging as we are led to believe, a respectable society should do something to address that problem. But the thing is, the very assumptions driving our drug policy are wrong, and must be questioned. KG:How does the lack of people of color in academia or research affect our understanding of drugs? CH: I'd just like to be clear, I don't say people of color, I say black people, because people of color can mean a number of other [races]. I'm talking about black people who, like me, when we go back to our communities and we ask about people who we grew up with, the response is, "Well, they got caught up with a drug charge, they're upstate. They're doing some time” or, “Oh, he's doing better now that he got out of jail. He can't really find a good job, but he's doing his best.” It would be nice if we had black scientists, more black people in science, to incorporate these kinds of experiences as they think about the questions they investigate. The problem is it’s so homogenous that critical questions about our community are ignored because they're not seen as being important. KG:And the result is that they don't comprehend environment, or the other variables that are affecting someone's decisions or behavior, and miss the mark? CH: That's exactly right. It's that if you don't contextualize what is happening with drugs in the country you might get the impression that drugs are so bad they're causing all these people to go to jail: “Let's find out how drugs are exerting these awful effects.” Now, you have just completely disregarded context in which all of these things occur, and that is what has happened in science. If you don't fully appreciate the context, and you think that drug users are awful, then you don't think about how a person takes care of their kid, takes care of their family, goes to work, but they also use drugs. If you don't think about all of those contextual factors, you limit the picture and that's what we've done. It's not that science lies. Science doesn't lie. But when you look at your research with a limited view, you may erroneously draw conclusions about drugs, when in fact other variables you might not understand are what's really at play. KG:You talk about how people are always blaming problems on drugs, when those issues really spring from the stress of poverty. What are some examples? CH: I think crack cocaine is the easiest example In the 1980s, as I was coming of age in my teens and my early 20s, people—black people, white folks, a number of people in the country—said crack was so awful it was causing women to give up their babies and neglect their children such that grandmothers had to raise another generation of children. Now, if you look at the history in poor communities—my community, my family—long before crack ever hit the scene, that sort of thing happened in my house. We were raised by my grandmother. My mother went away because she and my father split up. She went away in search of better jobs and left the state, but it wasn't just her. This sort of thing, this pathology that is attributed to drugs, happened to immigrant communities like the Eastern European Jews when they came to the Lower East SIde, but people simply blamed crack in the 1980s and the 1990s. Another example is that, since the crack era, multiple studies have found that the effects of crack cocaine use during pregnancy do not create an epidemic of doomed black "crack babies." Instead, crack-exposed children are growing up to lead normal lives, and studies have repeatedly found that the diferences between them and babies who were not exposed cannot be isolated from the health effects of growing up poor, without a stable, safe environment or access to healthcare. KG:What about the idea that drugs can turn people into criminals? CH: The pharmalogical effects of drugs rarely lead to crime, but the public conflates these issues regardless. If we were going to look at how pharmalogical drugs influence crime, we should probably look at alcohol. We know sometimes people get unruly when they drink, but the vast majority of people don't. Certainly, we have given thousands of doses of crack cocaine and methamphetamine to people in our lab, and never had any problems with violence or anything like that. That tells you it's not the pharmacology of the drug, but some interaction with the environment or environmental conditions, that would probably happen without the drug. Sure, new markets of illegal activity are often or sometimes associated with increased violence, or some other illegal activity, but it is not specific to drugs like people try to make it out to be. Other than crime, you have myths that drugs cause cognitive impairment, make people unable to be productive members of society, or tear families apart. If the vast majority of people are using these drugs without problems—and a smaller proportion of users do have problems—what that tells you if you're thinking critically is it can't be only the drug, or mainly the drug. It tells you it is something about the individual situations, environmental conditions, a wide range of factors. KG:What about addiction? Won't some people who use drugs inevitably become dependent on drugs? CH: Given the large percentage of people who are not addicted and try these drugs, it's something other than the pharmacology of the drugs that's causing addiction. We find that 85% of the people, for example, who use cocaine are not addicted, even though they use the same cosmetological substance as those who are. Somebody could say there may be something biologically predisposing people who get addicted, but there is no evidence to support that position. Certainly, that idea should be investigated, but there is far more evidence to support the view that there are other things going in the lives of people who are predisposed to addiction, that can predict their addiction as well as other problems. KG:What kinds of environmental factors matter? CH: Well, let's think about drug use. Drug effects are predictable, and some drugs are really good at increasing euphoria and feelings of positive reinforcement. Now, if you don't have anything competing with drugs for pleasure and happiness, all you have is deprivation. Why wouldn't you get high? If you have competing reinforcers or alternatives, like the ability to earn income, learn a skill, or receive some respect based on your performance in some sort of way, those things compete with potentially destructive behavior. And so as a psychologist, you just want to make sure people have a variety of potential reinforcers. If you don't have that, you increase the likelihood of people engaging in behaviors that society does not condone. Skills that are employable or marketable, education, having a stake or meaningful role in society, not being marginalized—all of those things are very important. Instead of ensuring that all of our members have these things, our society has blamed drugs, said drugs are the reasons that people don't have a stake in society, and that's simply not true. KG:So if drugs aren't the problem, why do we say they are? CH: They’re just an easy scapegoat. You can imagine if so few people have engaged in an activity, you can make up some incredible stories about that activity, and be believed. And that's what's happened with drugs. Note that you can't make up those incredible stories about marijuana today, but there was a time when we could: the 1930s. That has passed because more people have tried marijuana, but you can make up those incredible stories about methamphetamine because so few people have used methamphetamine. Well, I should say so few people actually know that they use methamphetamine. All those people who use Adderall and those kinds of drugs, they are using methamphetamine, basically. It is the amphetamine, not the "D" [like Adderall] or "meth" in front of it, that creates the effects. KG:What is actually responsible for problems often linked to drugs? CH: Poverty. And there are policies that have played a role, too. Policies like placing a large percentage of our law enforcment resources in those communities, so that when people get charged with some petty crime, they have a blemish on their record that further decreases their ability to join mainstream, get a job that's meaningful, and that sort of thing. The policy decisions that we make play a far bigger role than the drugs themselves. When I turned 14, for example, there was a federal government program that, in order to keep kids like me out of the streets, gave us jobs. Under these federal government programs, we had money for the summer, for clothing—it was great. When we cut these types of programs and kids have nowhere to go what do you expect to happen? It doesn't take rocket scientists to figure this out. Now, I have an 18-year-old who, this summer, won't have anything to do. I'm trying to find him some sort of work. Having a federal government program for underpriveleged children, that was great. That let kids know that the society might care about you. We teach them work skills, we teach them something about responsibility, we make sure they have money in their pockets. Now, you take away all of this, and you miss the chance to teach them about responsibility. You miss the opportunity to help them put food on the table, to put clothes on their backs. KG:What would policy that reflects reality look like, and how do we get there? CH: That is complex, but quite simple to start. The first thing is we decriminalize all drugs. More than 80% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for simple possession. Wen you decriminalize, now you have that huge number of people—we're talking 1.5 million people arrested every year—that no longer have that blemish on their record. That increases the likelihood that they can get jobs, participate in the mainstream. Number two is dramatically increase realistic education about drugs—none of this "this is your brain on drugs" stuff, but real education, which looks like making sure people understand effects of drugs they're using, particularly potentially medical affects. Don't use heroin with another sedative because it increases the likelihood of respiratory depression. Realistic education, telling people what to do, how to prevent negative effects associated with drugs. We do it with alcohol—you shouldn't binge drink, don't drink on an empty stomach—and could do it with other drugs. Minds | Everything Americans Think They Know About Drugs Is Wrong: A Scientist Explodes the Myths Ranking 20 Drugs and Alcohol by Overall Harm The British peer-reviewed journal Lancet published a study titled "Drug Harms in the UK: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis" on Nov. 1, 2010 which ranked 20 drugs from alcohol to marijuana to tobacco based on harm factors. Individual harm (such as dependence, mortality, and impairment of mental functioning) was considered under "harm to users," while "harm to others" (such as crime, environmental damage, and international damage) took into account the number and extent of others harmed by individual drug use. The two charts below illustrate the study’s conclusions using a 100 point scale where 100 is the maximum harm and zero indicates no harm. The first chart broadly illustrates all 20 drugs by "harm to users” and harm to others” while the second chart illustrates those drugs on 16 criteria from drug-specific mortality to dependence to family adversities. The study concluded that alcohol was the most harmful drug overall (72 out of 100), followed by heroin (55 out of 100), and crack cocaine (54 out of 100). The most harmful drugs to users were crack cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine (scores 37, 34, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Cannabis (aka marijuana) had an overall harm score of 20, putting it in eighth place behind amphetamine (aka speed) and before GHB (aka liquid ecstasy). Ranking 20 Drugs and Alcohol by Overall Harm - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org

strong magnets | eBay

Ukraine freezes $7.5 million in Web Money-linked companies' bank accounts KIEV, June 13 (RAPSI) - The Ukrainian tax authorities have frozen $7.5 million held in the bank accounts of local companies which are part of the WebMoney payment system, the Ukrainian Ministry of Incomes and Fees said in a statement. The tax authorities had already searched the company's Kiev office and revealed a high number of violations committed by the company which acts as the guarantor of the payment system's work. In particular, the company failed to coordinate its work with the national Bank of Ukraine. The authorities have seized a large amount of computer equipment which was used for the system's operation. "Over 60 million Hryvnas ($7.5 million) held in the bank accounts of companies which were part of in the illegal system have been frozen," the ministry said. An investigation is underway and the case will be forwarded to court once it has been completed. WebMoney representatives have not been available for comment. WebMoney Transfer is a global settlement system and environment for online business activities, established in 1998. WebMoney Transfer Technology is based on providing all its users with unique interfaces which allow them to operate and control individual property rights for valuables (assets) stored at specialized entities, the Guarantors. Ukraine freezes $7.5 million in Web Money-linked companies' bank accounts | Russian Legal Information Agency (RAPSI).

e cam invechita faza propun mata-i lesby

SecurityKISS - Free VPN Service

prea multi nefututi aici autonomous sensory meridian response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJmMCnlGAmU

rot in hell !!! cu metoda ta:P

hard reset lasa mult gunoi in urma GS2ROMNuke 2.11 GS2ROMWipe 2.09 [CWM UTIL] GS2ROMNuke/Wipe/Reset Scripts (22/05/2013) - xda-developers

nimeni nu observa ironia situatiei?! daca s-ar dona suma respectiva, aproape 1 miliard de dolari, copiilor muritori de foame din lumea a treia...in schimb au strans americanii la loterie pana la urma ...pentru o fututa de baba,inca o data ce fututa natie,de fapt ce fututa lume!wake up !