Dekriminalizacija i legalizacija

[cedo]

da, da, " ko je probao nije se vratio " cuh jedared opasku za homoseksualizamevo cedo kolekcioniraj, kolko faktora je mjerodavno?

Probaj odgovoriti na ova pitanja.Kakove su posledice po radnu sposobnost, kakove su mogucnosti da umresh, kako utichesh na okolinu, da li je i jedno i drugo sloboda izbora. Evo ti josh jedna primedba: diskutujesh na ozbiljnoj temi a ne chitash postove forumasha sa kojim vodish diskusiju, chak ni ona post iznad tvoga a direktno se odnose na temu o kojoj kao diskutujesh.

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

prave raste ne namestaju krevet posto ih mrzi da to urade. <_<evo boba da demantuje moj prethodni post

Edited May 31, 2009 by kojot

[onamonamo]

Probaj odgovoriti na ova pitanja.Kakove su posledice po radnu sposobnost, kakove su mogucnosti da umresh, kako utichesh na okolinu, da li je i jedno i drugo sloboda izbora. Evo ti josh jedna primedba: diskutujesh na ozbiljnoj temi a ne chitash postove forumasha sa kojim vodish diskusiju, chak ni ona post iznad tvoga a direktno se odnose na temu o kojoj kao diskutujesh.

tebi i dalje nije jasno da me ne zanima dokazivanje one jednacine ? pa lepo sam ti napisao da sam skretao temu na svoju vodenicu.ko li to od nas dvojice ne cita tudje postove.

[cedo]

tebi i dalje nije jasno da me ne zanima dokazivanje one jednacine ? pa lepo sam ti napisao da sam skretao temu na svoju vodenicu.ko li to od nas dvojice ne cita tudje postove.

Meni nije vidljiva tvoja vodenica.Jel to neka ruska vodenica?Pitanje je retorichko, a ja te ovaj put definitivno pozdravljam.

[onamonamo]

aj pre nego sto odes ostavi mi svoju lozinku, pa cemo voditi malo smisleniji dijalog. a ti se naspavaj u medjuvremenu.

[cedo]

aj pre nego sto odes ostavi mi svoju lozinku, pa cemo voditi malo smisleniji dijalog. a ti se naspavaj u medjuvremenu.

username: ModeracijaKakoSeKazhnjavaNaprdjivanjeNaOzbiljnimTemamapasword: WarnomIliBananom

[Luka]

Ajd kad ste vec presli na youtube klipove ..

[Anduril]

i sta sad?a. heroin ne deluje isto kao alkoholb. jeee, otkrio si toplu vodu da operisemo po drustvenim konsenzusima.sta vam znaci to 'pratece pojave', 'nus-produkti', 'asociranost'? mislim, kako ste uspeli tako odlucno da razdvojite elemente celokupne slike, i na kojoj osnovi ste zasnovali to?

a. I kakve to ima sad veze kako deluje heroin a kako etanol? Ni amfetamin ne deluje kao heroin pa je ipak zabranjen. I od etanola mozes da umres ako se predoziras. Prema tome, ne postoji racionalna i konsekventna argumentacija za ove arbitrarne zabrane.b. Tkzv. drustveni konsenzusi su opasna stvar a posebno ukoliko zalaze na polje specificnih problema kao sto je arbitrarna zabrana droga itd. Konsenzusi mora da postoje kod opstih principa koji se ne odnose na specificne problematike jer se u suprotnom veoma lako mogu iskoristiti kao izgovor drzavnog aparata da vrsi represiju nad gradjanima, da izvlaci korist iz arbitrarnih odluka i da populisticki obecava nesto se ne moze obecati.Jos par argumenata za legalizaciju svih droga:

Failed states and failed policiesHow to stop the drug warsMar 5th 2009From The Economist print editionProhibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solutionIllustration by Noma BarA HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.The evidence of failureNowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has “stabilised”, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world’s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States.Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.Al Capone, but on a global scaleIndeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with “blow”). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to “crack” or “meth” are outside the law, with only their pushers to “treat” them. But it is countries in the emerging world that pay most of the price. Even a relatively developed democracy such as Mexico now finds itself in a life-or-death struggle against gangsters. American officials, including a former drug tsar, have publicly worried about having a “narco state” as their neighbour.The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” (such as encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts, and less on the harassment of peasants who grow coca and the punishment of consumers of “soft” drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organised crime out of the picture.Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago (see article). Reviewing the evidence again (see article), prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.

Druga mogucnost je, naravno, totalna zabrana i smrtna kazna kao u slucaju Singapura st ocigledno takodje funkcionise. Samo, prilicno sam siguran da samo mali broj ljudi zeli da krene tim putem. Edited May 31, 2009 by Anduril

[kgmr]

a. I kakve to ima sad veze kako deluje heroin a kako etanol?

ima veze, jer je to jedan od dogovornih parametara na osnovu kojih je jedno zabranjeno, a drugo nije.

Ni amfetamin ne deluje kao heroin pa je ipak zabranjen.

bespotreban analogni primer.

I od etanola mozes da umres ako se predoziras.

veoma si upucen u problematiku.

Prema tome, ne postoji racionalna i konsekventna argumentacija za ove arbitrarne zabrane.

'prema tome' > :lol: :lol:ne znam sta ti tacno podrazumevas pod 'racionalno', ali svakako je pogresno i neutemeljeno sto nuzno iskljucujes racionalnost iz arbitrarnosti.(kad bismo uzeli na gomilicu sve ljude koji koriste heroin i sve ljude koji koriste alkohol, medju prvom grupom bi bio daleko veci procenat zavisnika nego medju drugom. samo informacija, nemojte odmah da vristite o 'logici')

b. Tkzv. drustveni konsenzusi su opasna stvar

deep. 'nisu opasni po sebi, nego su opasne asocijacije'mislim, shvatam ja tvoju potrebu da sve lepo uoblicis u pregnanti logicki sistem, samo mi nije jasno kako nisi shvatio da i alternative koje predlazes pate od istih boljki koje zameras (i da je to tesko izvodljivo, osim ako nemas 13 godina ili si neki guru). sve u svemu, pristup silogistickog natezanja koji koristis ovde je dosta naivan, upravo zbog prirode problamatike.

a posebno ukoliko zalaze na polje specificnih problema kao sto je arbitrarna zabrana droga itd.

a koja tacno zabrana nije arbitrarna? bas si ti neki rigidan lik.elem, legalizacija je na temu uvedena na mala vrata, ovo sve sto sada pises je korisceno u raspravi o opravdanosti (racionalnosti i konsekventnosti) nasilnog tretmana zavisnosti.

[Аврам Гојић]

pwnd.

[Gonzo]

pwnd.

mejkerka to radi tako da ti prosto bude milo kad te pwnuje.

[SleeperSleep]

Polako pročitaj ponovo, onda ponovo. Ako ponovo razumeš da ja one koji se protive lopatanju nazivam seronjam, žao mi te je. Toliko-Ne, ja nazivam seratorima one koji se zalažu za legalizaciju heroina, jer zaboga to je slobodna volja. Kao što rekoh u to se slobodno ulazi, malo se teže izlazi. Lopata i heroin one koje hoće da izađu, samo tako.Dobro, a ako su otišli sami onda je iživljavanje nad njima OK? Ništa zakoni, ništa civilizacijske tekovine, sami su birali?Dok je kod heroinskih zavisnika slobodna volja itekako prisutna. <_<

vrlo je jasno sta si hteo da kazes. kao i onomad kad si sebi dozvolio da neistomisljenika optuzujes za nemar prema sopstvenom detetu samo zato sto ti se ne svidja ono sto on misli.nazvati tebe malogradjaninom je uvreda za malogradjanstinu.

[SleeperSleep]

Ikare, dok god u pitanju nije licno vredjanje zar ne mislis da je korisno imati uvid u takva razmisljanja?Koji bi bio smisao banovanja u ovom slucaju?

uvid u kakva razmisljanja? razmisljanja svakog malogradjanina su toliko slicna jedna drugom, da za njih vazi prosto pravilo - cuo si jedno, znas ih sve. uvek ista otuzna baljezgarija koja se moze svesti na puki strah od drugacijeg koji se, kod one malo slabije kontrolisane fele, ubrzo pretvara u poziv na disciplinovanje i/ili istrebljenje.ako hoces raspravu o tome da li je opravdano legalizovati sve droge, od gospodina malogradjanina na tu temu neces nista cuti. da se gospodin malogradjanin pitao, mi bismo jos uvek udarali kosku o kosku i cudili se dobijenom rezultatu.sto se teme o legalizaciji tice, predlazem da je moderatori odvoje od ove o nasilju u crnoj reci.

[Budja]

Dobro, a ako su otišli sami onda je iživljavanje nad njima OK? Ništa zakoni, ništa civilizacijske tekovine, sami su birali?Dok je kod heroinskih zavisnika slobodna volja itekako prisutna. <_<

Mozemo da se natezemo, nema problema. I ma koliko rastezao pricu na SBB KBB, opet neces naci opravdanje za popove, a sto ti i par ljudi uporno cini nastojeci da nekako poveze popove batinase i princip slobodne volje ne bi li, kao, porazili u diskusiji "liberale koje ne zive u stvarnom svetu".I da su otisli dobrovoljno, postojala bi jos jedna prepreka koja bi morala da se predje, a to je da su otisli slobodno jer su verovali u mogucnost izlecenja na osnovu dostupnih informacija. (Za razliku od vise puta pomenutih mazohista, oni ne uzivaju u bolu vec ga trpe misleci da ce ih izleciti.) S obzirom da je rec o sarlatanstvu, takve informacije su lazne, pa ta odluka po slobodnoj volji nije doneta na osnovu stvarnih informacija.Ovaj argument sarlatanstva i slobode volje je takav da se Zorka, Kleopatra, Jezda, Dafina i slicni nadju pred sudom.

[Budja]

Poshto je Venom istresao prilichnu kolichinu ad hominem argumenata i podmetanja voleo bih da netko istinski uporedi seksualnu sklonost i narkomaniju.Eto na primer: kakove su posledice po radnu sposobnost, kakove su mogucnosti da umresh, kako utichesh na okolinu, da li je i jedno i drugo sloboda izbora.

Da podsetim: narkomanija i homoseksualizam su uporedjeni po jednom kriterijumu - legalizacija i slobode koja ne ugrozava slobode drugih.Prihvatljivost znaci da narkomani ne mogu da trpe SAMO zbog svog izbora, caeteris paribus.Takodje, drustvena prihvatljivost nije isto sto i drustveno pozeljno ponasanje.U tom smislu radna sposobnost i umiranje su nebitni argumenti jer to nije bio predmet analogije.Uticaj na okolinu je sirok argument, jer ga svaka vecina moze koristiti protiv manjine. Dakle, treba definisati uticaj na okolinu u smislu malogradjanstine i diskrminacije "sta mi se ovi pederi/narkomani motaju okolo" (gde analogija sa homoseksualizmom postoji) od uticaja na okolinu u smislu dodatnih troskova da se stetnost pojave umanji. Napominjem, da u drugom slucaju analogija sa homoseksualzimom ne postoji, ali "okolina" nije argument protiv legalizacije.Kada je rec o slobodi izbora, rec je o slobodi da se homoseksualna orijentacija javno ispoljava.