Ljudje: legalize it!

Ok to je pa res! Glavno kaj iščejo so preprodajalci in "dobavitelji"! Pa tudi kazni so ZELO mile ce te prvic dobijo pa da nimas nicesar pri sebi potem je skoraj sigurno opomin in nič več. Če te dobijo z več kot gramom potem dobiš hišno preiskavo. Če ti tam najdejo veliko si naj*bal, če ne pa tudi največkrat opomin al pa kakšna manjša kazen (govorim do 100k denarne kazni)

LP

Kako ne iščejo, ali se za brezveze furajo tam kjer pač folk hodi na zvitek?

Dutch ban dope den Brits

Ampak potem maš tudi kontra:

Nevada: REGULATION OF MARIJUANA INITIATIVE

Pa takih ni malo.

Edit: About.

Anti-Drugwar Strategy: Overview
by Brian C. Bennett

You Can't Tell the Players Without a Scorecard

If you want to win a war, you generally need two things: a plan, and an army.
If you have a great army, but no coherent plan, you likely will not prevail. Likewise, if you have a great plan but your army stinks, then you're not likely to prevail either.
Obviously then, to "win" the drugwar means we'll need a great army and a great plan.
I've been asking some of the leaders in drug law reform over the past several years where I can find the gameplan so I can help more effectively.
I don't get any replies -- because there simply is no plan.

There is, however, a growing army assembling for the effort (a "coalition of the willing" as it were), but they are not actually driven by a defined common interest yet.
Indeed, they are actually somewhat antagonistic to each other for various reasons and to varying degrees.
The vilification of people who use drugs has permeated so deeply into our societal consciousness that, sadly enough, even those claiming to be dedicated to helping to change things wish to remain free of the "taint" they believe is imposed on their efforts by any association with casual drug users. Of course, the "stoners" themselves (some 26 million of them) are hidden away in the shadows, afraid to step forward and be identified. Clearly the people and organizations considering drug law reform are a house divided.

These issues are the Achilles' heel of the drug reform movement. Obviously, uniting the army is going to require a slightly loftier goal than merely "legalizing drugs" (itself a point of dissention among reformers), but at the moment, that is how the "man on the street" thinks of these issues.
The way to win, I believe, is actually to figure out how to connect to everyone's "inner American" -- that part where we actually believe in all that crap we've been taught about how we are all created as equals and have the same rights. If we don't have the right to do things to ourselves, then we really have no rights at all.

To me this is the core reason for drug law reform: we don't have the right to punish people for doing things to themselves. And the data itself proves that we really don't have a reason to do so either.

Uniting for a Higher Purpose

Winning the drug war is going to require the efforts of literally millions of people. At the moment, there are several hundred organizations and several thousand people working on the task -- not nearly enough! Their efforts are dictated by their specific interests, rather than a common goal. For example, some focus on medical marijuana, or commercial hemp, and don't care about (or worse, are actively antagonistic toward) casual marijuana users. Meanwhile, organizations devoted to ending marijuana prohibition specifically, play the old "well, if you think I'm bad, look at them" game, as they point toward crack-heads, tweakers, and other assorted drug users.

Pathethic isn't it? If you have the balls to stand up for your right to smoke plants, then it ought to occur to you that vilifying other people who use different drugs than you makes you a "prohibitionist." The drug czar is right: don't be a hypocrite. All of this is symptomatic of the underlying core problem faced by our society: We're failing at our duty to treat each other as equals.

Thus the battle isn't over drug use at all -- the battle is for control over our bodies and minds. If people can be subjected to what they are currently subjected to in the name of "saving them from drugs," there is simply no limit to the abuses that can be heaped upon other future denigrated sub-groups. And if you don't get to choose what you do to yourself, then you really don't have any "rights" at all. How can you have a 'right' to do anything else in the world, if you don't even have the right to touch yourself as you see fit? You don't. And that's the problem. It isn't about drugs, it's about the right to choose for yourself. The same idea applies to the question of who is "allowed" to marry whom. Thus, the potential size of the army can be raised exponentially by focusing on our nations' failure to protect equality for everyone.

The Three Central Principles

Ending the drugwar is actually not the goal (surprisingly enough) of a large number of the various reform groups. Some position themselves as being in favor of 'decriminalization,' allowing say, punishing drug users (oops, make that only the marijuana users) with a simple citation, a small fine, and no permanently blemished record. They are quite content to let the users of other drugs rot in prison. Others propose a slow piecemeal approach in line with the notion that "society isn't ready" for (fill in the blank).


Those perpetuating the war, naturally, oppose any alteration of the status quo, and actively derail any and all attempts at reform by pressing the hot buttons that the children must be protected, and that there is a horrifying epidemic of drug-fueled mayhem being perpetrated against the rest of us. They are winning the game based on the completely false notion that legalizing drugs will lead to calamity and social destruction on a scale unparalled in the history of mankind.

But to come up with a real solution, and to evaluate any proposed ideas about what to do requires that they be evaluated against what I consider the three essential facets of the issue of self-intoxication:

* Biology 101 -- Humans (as well as a rather large variety of other critters) are biologically hard-wired to seek pleasure and novelty. Read this, and repeat it to yourself until you get it: it is impossible to alter this simple fact.

* Economics 101 -- "Where there is a demand, a market will rise to supply it." People like drugs. Why? See Above.

* American History 101 -- America was established as the place where people could live as self-determining beings.
The goal is to treat everyone else as an equal, and for the government to actively protect against encroachments of individual liberty. We're getting an "F."

Any and every proposed or existing solution, law, idea, approach etc about what to do about the "drug problem" needs to be evaluated in terms of how well it accomodates the fundamental principles outlined above. Any "solution" in which two of these principles is violated will absolutely fail.

For example, prohibition itself fails because it violates all three of these principles. "Decriminalization" isn't a "solution" because it violates Economics 101, and American History 101. When all of the data, facts, opinions, pronouncements etc are considered against these three criteria, the only solution that will work is to stop persecuting people over what they do to themselves, and allow them unfettered access to the market in the goods they desire. It isn't a question of legalizing drugs, it's recognizing our inherent (dare I say suggest "god-given") right make our own choices, and the inviolate nature of these three simple principles.

Drafting the Army

The key here is to make it as easy as possible for people to understand the situation and more importantly, to motivate them to actively help get the job done. Talk about a Herculean task! People are primarily motivated to help only when they have sufficient reason to care personally. That motivation is inversely proportional to the extent to which they are directly affected by any given cause. Thus if someone has a family member with cystic fibrosis, it isn't surprising to find them helping to raise money to find a cure for it. But with drug laws, it isn't really very easy to get people to care about those most directly affected. Worst of all, there are 26 million potential recruits out there (past year marijuana users) who are sidelined because they simply can't even let their own family members know who they are. Those very family members have been co-opted into supporting a war against them.

It isn't really their fault. They have been brainwashed about the drug use issues for their entire lives -- just like every one of us. And the basis of the brainwashing is not "facts" -- it is emotionalism. Thus, no matter how many facts you try to pound into someone's head, until they actually feel like they have a direct reason to care, they are going to believe that drug users are evil people who beat old ladies to steal money for the drugs they will buy and then sell to somebody's children. Changing that impression requires first that people who are drug users get involved in their own emancipation, and that the entire dialogue surrounding drugs and drug users be drastically altered.


Altering the Dialogue

Over the past 40 years, the drug war has been ratcheted up in intensity mostly through the use of government "findings" and statistical "facts." Naturally, people who knew better started rebutting what was being claimed and have done so vociferously and untiringly. If this were a simple logical issue though, the job would already be finished. The problem is that the issues are too complicated for the average person to understand, and they simply don't have the time to get educated about something they believe doesn't directly involve or affect them.

Comprehension is what we're really after, and for that, the way forward is to provide the proper context for interpreting what is being said. The old "keep it simple stupid" adage applies. That is the guiding force behind my own work on my website. I want to make it as easy as possible for anyone interested to truly comprehend what is going on with drug use. The data make it abundantly clear: there really isn't much of a problem. But people actually have to be exposed to the information in order to understand that. Oops, and then there's that 100+ years of propaganda to contend with.

In a Nutshell

To win the war on drugs requires that we end the war on drugs.
What I hope I have provided here is a good framework for accomplishing that goal.
I work with anyone and everyone who asks for my help, and that is why a good number of the drug reform organizations have linked to my site.
My plan for victory is simple and involves three avenues of effort:

* Providing a more lofty goal than "legalizing drugs" and uniting people to accomplish that goal

* Altering the dialogue by putting things into more coherent perspectives, and of course using every avenue available to spread the word

* Helping to draft an army by inspiring others and providing them the ammo they need to help get the job done

But none of this can happen without a large number of people getting actively involved. It is time to do so, indeed it is well past time.

So Who's With Me? "

http://www.briancbennett.com/strategy/o...

An excellent current example of "altering the dialoge" would be the strategy used in the recent Denver election that legalized possession of up to an ounce (28 grams) of marijuana by adults.

The Denver proposal seemed to draw at least as much attention for supporters' campaign tactics as it did for the question of legalizing the drug.
Supporters argued that legalizing marijuana would reduce consumption of alcohol, which he said leads to higher rates of car accidents, domestic and street violence and crime.

"We educated voters about the facts that marijuana is less harmful to the user and society than alcohol," said Mason Tvert, campaign organizer for SAFER, or Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation.
"To prohibit adults from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana is bad public policy."

Bruce Mirken of the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project said he hoped the approval will launch a national trend toward legalizing a drug whose enforcement he said causes more problems than it cures.

"The movement" has now become very mainstream and is maturing.

The economics of drug prohibition and drug legalization

Zato k majo defacto visji standard. Pr nas je pa tko kot je in mulca ze ob kajenju jointa oznacijo za narkomana, kar v mnogih primerih pomeni se dodatno brco v rit mladenicu, ki si ni na jasnem, v katero smer naj zavije.

kot ze tolikokrat poprej, bom se enkrat zapisu ... PROHIBICIJA slepi! Ma samo slabe ucinke, zelo slabe!

lp
OrlyTM

Še ena dobra

Key words:
Neurogenesis ... literally means "birth of neurons".
Anxiolytic - A drug that relieves anxiety.
Hippocampus
-a complex neural structure (shaped like a sea horse) consisting of gray matter and located on the floor of each lateral ventricle; intimately involved in motivation and emotion as part of the limbic system; has a central role in the formation of memories.

This article uses some technical jargon, such that it was dictionary time for me. :)
http://www.answers.com/main/health.jsp
....................................................................................................
Cannabinoids boost neurogenesis?
New study suggests the chemicals may also act as anxiolytics and antidepressants.

Cannabinoids promote neurogenesis in embryonic and adult rats, and produce anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects, according to a new report in the current issue of The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
The effects appear to contradict those seen from other studied drugs of abuse, the authors note.

"Most drugs of abuse such as nicotine, heroine, and cocaine suppress neurogenesis in these cells, but the effects of cannabinoids weren't clear.
We show that cannabinoids, in fact, promote neurogenesis," study author Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, told The Scientist.

During the study, Zhang and his colleagues analyzed the effect of the synthetic cannabinoid HU210, an agonist of the cannabinoid receptor CB1, on neural progenitor cells in the hippocampal dentate gyrus. They found that HU210 increased cell proliferation in vitro, and did so in vivo after chronic treatment. Antidepressants produce a similar pattern of cell proliferation, inspiring the authors to examine the influence of HU210 on behavior, explained Ronald Duman of Yale University School of Medicine in an Email.

The authors measured anxiety and depression using a novelty-suppressed feeding test and a forced swimming test.
They found that, indeed, HU210 produced effects similar to those of antidepressants and anxiolytics.

Furthermore, irradiating the hippocampus blocked the agonist's effects on both neurogenesis and behavior. "This provided further support for CB1 induction of neurogenesis at a functional level," explained Duman, who did not participate in the study.
HU210, like antidepressants, may produce antidepressant and anxiolytic effects by promoting neurogenesis in the hippocampus, the authors note.

Although Duman found the paper "interesting and potentially promising," he advised caution in interpreting the results.
"There is limited clinical evidence demonstrating that cannabinoid administration produces an antidepressant response.
Thus, it's difficult to conclude that the current studies indicate and support a therapeutic action of CB1 agonists," he said.

Duman said he's also cautious about the behavioral findings, because the novelty suppressed feeding paradigm is an anxiety model, not a depression model.
In addition, the forced swim test is a test for antidepressants that is responsive to acute antidepressant treatment, he noted, not chronic administration.
He added that he believes the authors also did not conduct a sufficient number of controls to demonstrate that irradiation decreased neurogenesis and blocked behavioral effects, without additionally damaging hippocampal neurons and cells in other brain regions.

"This criticism is reasonable," replied Zhang. "I'm fully aware that there are no reliable clinical studies available that examine the effects of cannabinoid on mood, but the test for antidepressants mentioned in our paper has been successfully used by several groups to examine the chronic effects," he said. Zhang added that he and his colleagues followed published control methods.

Amelia Eisch of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who was not involved in the research, found the paper "intriguing." She said she was particularly interested in the correlation between the neurogenesis findings and the behavioral effects, and the promise that HU210 may serve as a novel antidepressant. "It is especially exciting to have a study challenge the hypothesis that all drugs of abuse decrease neurogenesis," said Eisch. "That being said, I think it remains to be seen how relevant these findings are for addiction. It's not at all clear whether HU210 is an addicting drug in these animals."

In a 2001 paper, Zhang and his colleagues confirmed previous findings that chronic HU210 injection produces dependence in rodents, but for Eisch, dependence is just one aspect of addiction. "This paper urges examination of the 'rewarding' or enforcing properties of HU210. Such information would provide tantalizing insight into how drugs of abuse regulate adult neurogenesis."

Eisch added that this study also raises the question of how vasculature is involved in regulating adult neurogenesis and the correlated behavioral effects. "There is some evidence that cannabinoids can cause vessel relaxation, and thus increase blood-flow. Maybe the effect they are seeing (on neurogenesis) is secondary to an effect on the vasculature," said Eisch. "The role of the vasculature is an issue for to everyone in neurogenesis research these days."
Quote:

"There is limited clinical evidence demonstrating that cannabinoid administration produces an antidepressant response.


Commentary anybody as to Cannabis's Anti-depressent qualities...?

Se en debilizem o prepovedanosti THCja v krvi se mi zdijo vsi športi. Zakaj? Ker piše da je THC body-enhancing drug! WTF? Če se ga orenk skadiš si loh srečn če loh sploh še hodiš.

Ne štekam sploh tega obravnavanja do thcja. Ne trdim da je zdravilen, niti da lah vozš kos pičen sam vseen se mal pretirava glede zakonske obravnave te mehke droge.

Pritisk javnosti in številka konzumerjev se veča. Le uprašanje, če se dovolj hitro.

Pa še vse bi blo u izi

Freak,

Sedaj lahko ljudje isto pocnejo s krompirjem.

ja isto počnejo s krompirjem sam kulk pa zaslužjo s krompirjem, pa kolk količine ga morjo prodat??? Za krompir celo njivo ora za isti dnar k bi si eno ganjo posadu

Ce bi vsi gojili konopljo, bi imela priblizno tako ceno kot krompir... Mogoce se manjso... ;) Tudi lan so vsi gojili.

Aja, pa če zdaj mislte, da bom potem, ko bom zadet, ležal sred ceste ali pa se šel zadrževat pred nek vrtec se motite :> To delajo narkomani.

lp

Če bi že lagalizacija pridobila glas v parlamentu, bi se obravnavalo samo lahke droge, katere povzročajo zasvojenost prav tako kot cigaret. Kar se pa tiče trdih drog, se pa lahko obravnavajo kot najmočnejša pomirjevala, ki delujejo na principu zapiranja receptorjev ali umetnem proizvajanju serotonina(hormona sreče). Avtomatsko, so take droge prepovedane, kot bi seveda lahko smatrali najmočnejša pomirjevala, katera se dobijo na recept psihiatra.
S tem ko jemljemo pomirjevala ali trde droge, telesu omejujemo naravno proizvajanje serotonina, in ga nadomestimo z umentimi substancami. Posledica tega je prenehanje ali pomanjšano proizvajanje serotonina. Ker ob prenehanju umetne substance mora telo nadomestit z pomankanje serotonina, se pojavi abstinenca. Z abstinenčnim stanjem, je človek izpostavljen padcu obrambnega mehanizma in pomankanju vitaminov v telesu, ker se vežejo na umetne substance. Tako, da telo doživlja velike šoke in zaradi tega se "abstinenti" ali "narkomani" vrtijo stalno v krogu, da bi zbežali pred bolečino in neravnovesjem telesnega stanja. Stanje, ki lahko nastane z prenehanjem jemanja omenjenih substanc, lahko zajame časovno obdobje daljše od 3 tednov. Zato se po domače abstinenti vrtijo v krogu, da zbežijo posledicam ali stranskim učinkom.

Zaradi tega se ne strinjam z legalizacijo trdih drog, ampak se bi pa strinjal, da se jih totalno iztrebi. Z drogami ali psihoaktivnimi zdravili človeka spravimo v podložni položaj in mu omejimo svobodo. Tako delajo v psihiatričnih bolnišnicah. Zato se trda droga lahko primerja samo z močnimi zdravili in alkoholom. Abstinenčno stanje lahko povzroči šoke v telesu, ki pripeljejo tudi do infarktov pa neglede kolikšna je starost bolnika.

Mislim,da sem napisal vse, tako da lahko sami vidite nevarnost v trdih drogah in njihovi uporabi. To pomeni, da po eni strani imajo države od trdih drog in zdravil zaslužek. Nevem kaj bi rekel, jaz nisem za legalizacijo, kot ima Nizozemska. Ker bi bili deležni turizma na račun zasvojenosti, to pa ni noben turizem, ampak izkoriščanje ter krvavi zaslužek. Na tak način bi se ŠE več mladoletnikov odločalo za uporabo, kar pa je že sedaj preveč. Pol bi država prevzela vlogo psihitrične bolnišnice za svoje državljane in v tem vidim samo smrt. Tako, da mogoče pride v poštev samo lahka droga kot je po domače rečeno "trava".

Prej sem nekaj prebral ; Kar se pa tiče povezave inteligentnih opic, z jemanjem droge, je pa res. Tako je tudi pri nekaterih bolnikih dokazano, da imajo večjo stopnjo inteligence in tolerance bolečine. Kaj bi pol to pomenilo, da se z drogo uničuje inteligentne in čustveno dovzetne ljudi? GROZA! Kaj bi to pomenilo drugo kot svinjarija?!! To pomeni, da je potencialni bolnik vsak študent v fazi pubertete?? Zato sem še prej za uničevanje trde droge, ne pa za legalizacijo.

ramses324 Sem za legalizacijo in se popolnoma strinjam s tabo. Uničt trde droge, ukinit magari cigarete in alkohol (trda droga). Cannabis Sativo pa kar primeru pusti. Ja, mehka je.

> katere se NE obnavljajo.

Kje si pa to traparijo slisal, seveda se obnavljajo.

To, da se ne obnavljajo, govorijo, da bi narkomane prepričali da nehajo z drogo(po mojem). Kar se tiče obnove SIVIH celic, je pa ovirana in pušča TRAJNE posledice na možganih!!!

DROGE - WORD doc


Genetska determiniranost delovanja možganov
– gostota sive mase korelira z mentalnimi dosežki
– je nedvomno genetsko determinirana (Thompson, 2001)

Nevroni sodijo med najbolj specializirane (diferencirane) celice
– bolj kot so celice specializirane, bolj omejeno je njihovo obnavljanje - manj so se zmožne deliti
– nevrogeneza naj bi se tako končala, preden odrasemo.

> Skratka podpiraš jemanje droge,

Ramzes, manjka ti funkcionalne pismenosti.

Ce sem proti necemu, se ne pomeni, da si bom izmisljal neke bedarije, da bil ljudi preprical, da imam prav.

OFFTOPIC:hehehe.....Bemula, kakšna dobra asociacija!

BigWhale: Bemula ramzes, tud googlat ne znas!

BigWhale: Bemula ramzes, tud googlat ne znam!
---"---: Tut info ne znam poiskat!

PS: Zgodba tvojega življenja! Govoriš na pamet! Ali misliti pomeni nič vedeti!
Zato moraš druge napadat, da prekriješ lastno sliko!Pometi pred svojim pragom!

Stari, Psychology!

PS: In pusti uporabnike Foruma že enkrat na miru! Stalno nekoga provociraš, pol pa ne znaš nehat!
Nisem edini, ki to opažam. Poglej si 1.člen in 3.člen Foruma. Jaz nikoli nisem začel provocirat, ampak sem kriv(Samo toliko), da se odzovem na obrekovanje. Zato, če nekaj začneš tudi bodi toliko pameten, da končaš oz. pustiš, da nekdo drugi konča namsto tebe. Če ne, si pa ne nalagaj odgovornosti, ki jih ne izpolneš!

Moderators respect! love and pissss!

Tic....hehe...Full dobre knjige si mi priporočal, sej nekaj že imam doma, tako, da ne bom na Forumu preveč razpravljal. Genetika in Duhovnost sta me vedno pritegnila. Ampak tukaj imamo samo razpravljamo in nič drugega. Argumentiral sem naslov Topica. In stojim za tem kar pišem, ker droga resnično vpliva na regeneracijo sivih možganskih celic in prenosu možganskih informacij. Še posebno pa trda, kar je bil tudi glavni vzrok mojega posta. In dobro veš, da droga vpliva na vsakega pubertetnika, kar pomeni, da vsaka pozitivna informacija, ga spodbudi k jemanju naprej. In vsi vemo kam to pelje.

Kar se tiče čustvene inteligence, bi proporočal vsakemu, da si prebere. Prava stvar, za razumet sebe in svojo okolico. Na čustveni ravni!


Vseeno Thanks...pa LP

> In stojim za tem kar pišem, ker droga resnično vpliva na regeneracijo sivih možganskih celic in prenosu možganskih informacij.

Kako pa to veš?

krisspace - obstaja ena sistemska napaka v tvojem razmišljanju. Ponavadi so takšni ljudje (kot si jih ti omenjal) bolj dovzetni za odvisnosti (lastne izkušnje in opažanja). Zato povprečen človek brez stika z drogo korelira travo z nezaneslivostjo. Kar pa sploh ni res.

Bom povedal eno paralelno sklepanje:

Vse kure imajo rade koruzo. Sklep: koruza povzroča, da človek po njej kokodaka.

Ali je ta sklep logičen?

OK, ne bom trdil nasprotno. Samo moje izkušnje so drugačne....

Sem pa tudi poznal ljudi, ki jim nikoli ni bilo dovolj in so kadili ganđo do takrat, ko ni vse zmanjkalo. Če pa se je to slučajno zgodilo, pa so se spravili na kakšen kos pohištva in ga vsaj zbrcali, če ne do konca demulirali ali pa rjoveli kot eni lačni levi.

Samo vedno se v populaciji najde nekaj takšnih ljudi. Pač nimaš sreče, da si srečal ravno tistih 50 komadov.

Tisti, ki pa ima glavo na pravem mestu, pač to jemlje kot eno izmed načinov sprostitve (ne pa kot bistvo življenja). In zakaj mu to prepovedovati? Sicer pa kdor ni nikoli probal, nikoli ne bo vedel, kaj to v resnici je. Njegov problem....