Dekriminalizacija i legalizacija

[JozoMujica]

Igor Rakočević: Legalizujte marihuanu! Naš proslavljeni košarkaš Igor Rakočević na svom profilu na društvenoj mreži Tviter, jasno je izrazio svoj stav kojim podržava konzumiranje marihuane.

Edited November 15, 2011 by gotivac

[Joe D]

Istini za volju, nigde nije podrzao konzumiranje marihuane u izjavi, vec se pita zasto su cigarete legalne. Ali nema veze, racuna mu se kao da jeste :D

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

Naš proslavljeni košarkaš Igor Rakočević na svom profilu na društvenoj mreži Tviter, često komentariše aktuelna pitanja i događaje. Tako je jutros postovao poruku u kojoj se pita zašto marihuana nije legalna ako cigarete jesu. Mnogi su to protumačili kao njegov zahtev za legalizaciju marihuane, što je on kasnije demantovao i objasnio da se zalaže za to da se i cigarete zabrane.

Sorry guys.

[hazard]

Ha ha, ja, antilegalizator kakav jesam, sam upravo pomislio i to, nego nisam hteo da vam kvarim zurku (a i koga briga sta je rekao Rakocevic). Al, eto :)

[Joe D]

Pa ono, i nije bilo neke zurke. Inace, to je covek koji je na svom twitteru podrzao stavove gospodina Palme i nazivao prosjake lenjivcima. Zato u startu i nisam shvatio ovo kao neki liberalan stav. Ali, on osta zablezen kao podrzavalac legalizacije, i tesko da ce tu etiketu uspeti do kraja da skine.

[sherman]

najobicniji drogeras

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

kakvi kreteni su ovi iz blica

[JozoMujica]

Pih, a ja se ponadao da neki sportista ima nešto pametno da kaže.

[Indy]

Portugal and the drug war

The Portuguese drug decriminalisation and harm reduction model has been in place for a decade and is a proven success. It is a shining example to the world that the human values of dignity, respect and freedom can challenge and replace the inhumanity, incarceration and barbarity of the War on Drugs.

[Indy]

War on drugs a failure, decriminalise now: Branson

Sir Richard, who is due to appear at a British parliamentary inquiry into drug policy today, wrote in London's Telegraph that political leaders needed to find the courage to speak out against current drug policies."Over the past 50 years, more than $1 trillion has been spent fighting this battle, and all we have to show for it is increased drug use, overflowing jails, billions of pounds and dollars of taxpayers' money wasted, and thriving crime syndicates," he wrote."It is time for a new approach."

[fonTelefon]

War on drugs a failure, decriminalise now: Branson

Kako ti nije jasno da ce to da obori cenu i smanji profit? pa 2008 ko je spasao banke stamparija u frankfurtu, londonu i peraci kao Saric. I onda bi ubili zaradu od cigareta.

[TBoneSteak]

sasvim je moguce da dodatni troskovi koje narkoman prevaljuje na drzavu/drustvo (eksternalije po drustvo: narkomanovo zdravstveno, pomoc nezaposlenom i penzionisanom narkomanu:D itd.) imaju u stvari neutralni efekat po drzavni budzet i poreske platise; narkoman je 1 ekonomska stetocina ali samo u relativno kratkom periodu obzirom na relativno kratak zivotni vek - da zivi duze (kao normalni ljudi), vise bi nas sve i kostao.a kosta nas bez obzira da li je shit legalan ili ne

[Indy]

Dobar tekst. (Nisam sasvim siguran u tacnost teze o rasnoj/rasistickoj dimenziji zabrana droga, ali generalno rezonovanje stoji).The decriminalisation (or even legalisation) of drugs

It doesn't take more than a moment of thought to recognise that the rulings on which drugs are legal or illegal are governed by no particular logic.No theory from medicine or philosophy or psychology demands alcohol, tobacco and caffeine must be legal while marijuana, cocaine, and heroin must be prohibited.We cannot rely on distinctions about relative harm. Many experts have pointed out that marijuana is on balance less dangerous than alcohol. But this legal discord isn't unusual. One British police chief controversially stated a few years ago that ecstasy is safer than aspirin.Nor is the distinction between recreational or medicinal use any help. There are legal and illegal drugs that fall on both sides of that artificial line.The generally accepted definition of the word "drug" offers no guide to legality either: "any substance other than food which by its chemical nature affects the structure or function of the living organism".Whether a drug is illegal is nothing more than an accident of history. Drug laws were not written dispassionately by a panel of the best medical and ethical minds in the world. The laws bear no relation to the damage those drugs could cause or their danger to society – they were not written to minimise harm or protect health.Quite the opposite: the current schedule of drugs in the Western world has been driven by politics, expediency, prejudice, and sometimes outright racism.Take, for instance, the prohibition that kicked it all off – the prohibition on opium.In 19th century Britain, opium was so common as to be part of everyday life. It was an essential ingredient in tonics and pick-me-ups. One writer claimed in the 1870s that opium use "may indeed be said to have reached the height of Fashion".Few British conceived of a drug "problem". Certainly, there were dramatic, gothic tales of addiction and vice. Thomas de Quincey's novel Confessions of an English Opium-Eater is the most well-known. And there were some distressing, but not representative stories of overdose. But, culturally, moderate drug use was normal.And the medical establishment largely accepted this. When reporting on the Royal Commission on Opium in 1893, the iconic journal Lancet described it as a "crushing blow to the anti-opium faddists".There was however, an "opium problem" in Australia and the United States. The difference was race. In both countries there was a significant Chinese minority who had brought their country's opium smoking habit with them. The first war on drugs was a proxy for racial politics, not public health."Who has not seen the slave of opium?," the Victorian minister of health asked parliament at the end of the 19th century: "a creature tottering down the street, with sunken yellow eyes, closely contracted pupils, and his skin hanging over his bones like dirty yellow paper."The issue here, clearly, was not opium but the Chinese.Unsurprisingly this attitude towards opium was hard to separate from the belief Chinese migrants were undercutting Australians in the employment market. The visceral hatred of opium-smoking was the manifestation of resentment about labour competition.It was the same in the United States. As the British writer Christopher Snowdon points out in his excellent new book The Art of Suppression, "if the government could not get rid of opium-smoking, it would get rid of opium-smokers".The 1862 Californian law Protect Free White Labor Against Competition with Chinese Coolie Labor and Discourage the Immigration of the Chinese into California Act is self-explanatory.One of the most prominent American anti-opium campaigners, Dr Harry Hubbell Kane, openly argued that those concerned about job competition should focus their animosity on Chinese drug use.It is easy to tell a parallel history of marijuana prohibition, which was overwhelmingly used by Hispanics and African-Americans.And in his book, Snowdon details the tabloid hysteria of recent times which has led to laws against "designer" drugs – synthetic concoctions which are better described as second-rate substitutes for safer, purer, and already prohibited drugs. Do the political origins of drug laws matter? Absolutely.The first international treaty on drug control was signed in January 1912. The war on drugs is 100 years old this year.This century-long war has definitively and undeniably failed. There is widespread belief in expert circles that the world needs to move towards decriminalisation (or even legalisation) if we want to minimise the harm of drug abuse.But the biggest cultural barrier to such reform is the current status illegal drugs have. In the sort of circular reasoning that only popular discourse can manage, the prohibition of drugs is mostly justified by their pre-existing legal status. Why are certain drugs prohibited? Because they are illicit drugs.But that status has been set by politics and moral panics, not dispassionate evidence-based risk assessments. Drug prohibition carries the legacy of the ugly politics of the past. Once we realise that, we may start to rethink the justice of a war that is, in truth, not against drugs, but against drug users.

[Aće]

legalizacija posedovanja odredjenih kolicina u ceskoj i portugalu imala je + efekte. dopuštene količine droge u Češkoj 1. Marihuana – do 15 grama2. Heroin – do 1,5 grama3. Kokain – do 1 gram4. Metamfetamin – do 2 grama5. Amfetamin – do 2 grama6. Ekstazi – do 4 tablete7. Hašiš – do 5 grama8. Halucinogene pečurke – do 40 komada9. LSD – do 5 tableta

Slično se desilo i u Portugalu, što je prema istraživanjima ispalo pun pogodak. Stopa korišćenja droge je pala, a mladi je manje koriste. Pao je i broj novih zavisnika, a porastao ukupan broj postojećih zavisnika na lečenju. Priče o zastrašivanju da će postati narkomanska meka i odredište narkoturizma nisu se obistinile, kao ni strah od porasta broja zavisnika. Smrtnost od droge je u pet godina prepolovljena što je bio i glavni cilj mere.

boldovane reci su u rangu onih "dete ce ti postati gej ako vidi gejeve koji setaju ulicom"

[minka]

U holandiji je broj zavisnika od heroina godinama nepromenjen, iako vec skoro 40 godina imaju sistem kakav imaju. Dakle, prica da je kanabis portal ka tezim drogama ne da ne pije vodu. Nasi Experti™ iz Drajzerove sire taj mit i zasnivaju ga na tome sto je svaki pajdoman pre dopa vario gandzu. Sto jeste tacno, ali je isto tako tacno da je 40% punoletnog stanovnistva mladjeg od 50 godina pusilo kanabis, a na dopu ih je zavrsilo 50-100k plafon. Dakle tek svaki dvadeseti recimo. Jedna smo od najrigidnijih zemalja po ovom pitanju. A broj heroinskih zavisnika se povecava geometrijskom progresijom, speed smrcu klinci u osnovnoj.Cetvrto odeljenje punom parom jurca uzivaoce™, dok lerdiji krupnog kalibra dobijaju javke kada da se sklone.