Legalizacija drog in kriminal

thramos je 3. jun 2010 ob 10:07 izjavil:

Da se bo število uživalcev povečalo so samo ocene, precej neosnovane, glede na dejstva, ugotovljena v eni izmed držav, ki koraka proti legalizaciji.

Po šestih mesecih je na kliniki ostalo 101 odvisnikov. Pri več kot dveh tretjinah tistih, ki so prejemali heroin, pri vsaj polovici testiranj urina ni bilo znakov "pouličnega heroina". Pred vstopom na kliniko so poulični heroin uporabljali skoraj vsak dan. Le tretjina tistih, ki je prejemala metadon v katerikoli obliki, je imela na testiranjih enako dobre rezultate.

Po tej raziskavi je nekaj odvisnikov nadaljevalo s programom in se ga držalo več kot dve leti. Dr. Strang ni imel natančnih rezultatov, vendar je za Reuters povedal, da je nekaterim uspelo dobiti službo in ponovno navezati stike s svojimi družinami.

Pozitivno bi pa bilo tudi, da bi se odvisniki zaradi poceni šusov sami izbrisal

(1) Stop emphasizing measures designed to keep drugs away from people.
Prohibition–– trying to keep drugs away from people–– began with the enforcement of the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act, and it has remained the dominant theme of both antidrug legislation and antidrug propaganda ever since.

Prohibition does not work. As the United States learned from 1920 to 1933, it didn't work with alcohol. As the country has been learning since 1914, it doesn't work with heroin. It isn't working today with marijuana, LSD, or any of the other illicit drugs. Nor is prohibition likely to prove more effective in the future.

Worst of all, excessive reliance on prohibition, on laws and law enforcement, lulls the country decade after decade into a false confidence that nothing more need be done–– except to pass yet another law, or to hire a few hundred more narcotics agents, or to license the agents to break down doors without knocking first, and so on.

2) Stop publicizing the horrors of the "drug menace."
Scare publicity has been the second cornerstone of national policy, along with law enforcement, since 1914. The effort to frighten people away from illicit drugs has publicized and thus popularized the drugs attacked. The impact on young eyes and ears of the constant drumming of drug news stories and antidrug messages is clearly discernible–– just look around.

As shown throughout this Report, sensationalist publicity is not only ineffective but counterproductive. Both the peril and the warning function as lures. At the same time, the antidrug campaigns have inflamed the hostile emotions of many non-drug users, making it harder to win support for calm, rational, nonpunitive, effective drug policies.

3) Stop increasing the damage done by drugs.

The choice is clear: to continue trying, ineffectively, to stamp out illicit drug use by making it as damaging as possible, or to seek to minimize the damage done by drugs, licit and illicit alike.

(4) Stop misclassifying drugs.
Misclassification lies close to the heart of the drug problem, for what teachers tell students about a drug, and how judges sentence drug-law violators, both depend on how the drug is classified. Most official and unofficial classifications of drugs are illogical and capricious; they therefore make a mockery of drug-law enforcement and bring drug education into disrepute.

A major error of the current drug classification system is that it treats alcohol and nicotine–– two of the most harmful drugs–– essentially as nondrugs. Equating marijuana with heroin is a second shocking example for it helps to encourage the switch from marijuana to heroin.

(6) Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use.
If, in 1937, efforts had been undertaken to reduce marijuana smoking over a period of years rather than to try to eradicate it immediately, such a program might well have succeeded. Instead, one of the greatest drug explosions in history–– the marijuana eruption of the 1960s–– was triggered (see Part VIII).

Attempts to stamp out illicit drug use tend to increase both drug use and drug damage. Here LSD is the prime example (see Part VII).

Finally, as we have shown, efforts to stamp out one drug shift users to another–– from marijuana to LSD and heroin, from heroin to alcohol.

Thus Halsted was a morphine addict at the age of thirty-four, when Welch invited him in 1886 to join the distinguished group then laying the foundations for what was soon to become the country's most distinguished medical school. Welch knew, of course, of Halsted's addiction, and therefore gave him only a minor appointment at first. Halsted, however, did so brilliantly that he was soon made chief of surgery and thus joined Osler, Welch, and Billings as one of the Hopkins "Big Four."

While on morphine Halsted married into a distinguished Southern family; his wife had been head nurse in the operating rooms at the Hopkins. They lived together in "complete mutual devotion" until Halsted's death thirty-two years later.

Halsted's skill and ingenuity as a surgeon during his years of addiction to morphine earned him national and international renown. For Lister's concept of antisepsis--- measures to kill germs in operation wounds Halsted substituted asepsis: measures to keep germs out of the wound in the first place. In this and other ways, he pioneered techniques for minimizing the damage done to delicate tissues during an operation. Precision became his surgical trademark. A British surgeon, Lord Moynihan, admiringly described the Halsted technique at the operating table as one of "frequently light, swift, sparing movements with the sharpest of knives, instead of free, heavy-handed deep cutting; of no hemorrhage or the minimum of hemorrhage instead of the severance of many vessels, each bleeding freely until clipped ." 4 For pioneering improvements such as these, Halsted became widely known as "the father of modern surgery."

In 1898, at the age of forty-six, Osler's secret history notes, Halsted reduced his daily morphine to a grain and a half (90 milligrams) a day. Thereafter the surviving record is silent--- though Osler in 1912 expressed a hope that Halsted had "possibly" given up morphine. 5 Halsted died in 1922, at the age of seventy and at the pinnacle of his exacting profession, following a surgical operation. He remained in good health, active, esteemed, and in all probability addicted, until the end.

Doctor X was born in 1858 and entered medical school in 1878. Two years later he began spitting blood. His illness was diagnosed as tuberculosis, and he was sent home with a bottle of "Scott's Emulsion," to which a quarter of a grain of morphine per dose had been added. Six months later he was well enough to return to medical school--- "but found that, when he did not take his prescription, he had a 'craving.'

Doctor X continued to practice medicine until he retired at the age of eighty-one, in 1939. Three years later, at the age of eighty-four, he was subjected to a thorough physical examination. Departures from the normal were few for a man of eighty-four in the sixty-second year of his addiction. "The evidence of damage is surprisingly slight," Dr. Cutting summed up, "as regards both physical and mental functions." The only serious disease from which Doctor X suffered was pulmonary emphysema-a disease associated with his cigarette smoking rather than with narcotics addiction.

Psychological tests were administered to the eighty-four-year-old physician by Miss Vee Jane Holt of Stanford. "The evidence is very clear," she wrote,

that Doctor X has been, and is yet, a person of very superior mental ability, even when compared with persons much younger than himself. Scores on the information and comprehension tests ... are significantly above mean score of persons in their twenties--- the age level at which intellectual function is generally regarded as maximal--- and therefore almost certainly far above those of the average person at his own age level. On the solution of arithmetic problems ... he did as well as the average person of 45 to 49 years of age. 6

He did well on several other tests as well. Indeed, he failed only one test. When given a series of five random numbers-such as 5-3-8-2-6 he was able to repeat them forward but not backward. (The reader might try this test on himself.) "This is a typically hard operation for old persons," the psychologist explained.

Another noteworthy case of a distinguished addict was reported in 1962 by Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. "This addict," Commissioner Anslinger stated, "was one of the most influential members of the United States Congress. He headed one of the powerful committees of Congress. His decisions and statements helped to shape and direct the destiny of the United States and the free world." Commissioner Anslinger heard of this man's addiction, recognized the political damage that might follow exposure, and therefore arranged a continuing supply of drugs for the elderly Congressman from a pharmacy on the outskirts of Washington. When a nationally syndicated columnist got a tip on the story from the pharmacist, Commissioner Anslinger staved off exposure by warning the journalist that "the Harrison Narcotic Act provided a two-year jail term for anyone revealing the narcotic records of a drug store." 7 The Congressman died in office, still legislating, still addicted, and still unexposed.

thramos je 3. jun 2010 ob 10:45 izjavil:

Dokazuje ne sicer ničesar, ampak določene stvari se da sklepat, če je uporaba marihuane ob legalizaciji na približno isti ravni kot ob prohibiciji ...

• The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco.

• The mean age at which respondents began using marijuana more than once per month was 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.

• In both cities, users began their periods of maximum use about two years after they began regular use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98 years in San Francisco.

• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.

• Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[20] but higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[21] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.3%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[21]

The available research, as affirmed by a recent Federal analysis of drug policy, indicates there would be little if any increase in use.

From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.

[National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 192-193.]

The Netherlands decriminalized possession and allowed small scale sales of marijuana beginning in 1976. Yet, marijuana use in Holland is half the rate of use in the USA. It is also lower than the United Kingdom which had continued to treat possession as a crime. The UK is now moving toward decriminalization.

[Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).

If there is an increase in the reported rate of drug use after the end of prohibition, it may be due to an increased willingness to admit to being a drug user. Currently, such an admission means admitting to breaking the law, which social scientists point out discourages honesty.

[National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001): "It is widely thought that nonresponse and inaccurate response may cause surveys such as the NHSDA and MTF to underestimate the prevalence of drug use in the surveyed populations (Caspar, 1992)." (p. 93)]

Smrekar1 je 7. jun 2010 ob 00:18 izjavil:

In to, po tvoje, ne bi vodilo v večje število uživalcev? Mi veš povedati kak dober razlog za to?

JanK je 7. jun 2010 ob 00:28 izjavil:

Ali lahko navedes vir za to? Predvsem pa vir za tvojo trditev, da je legalizacija (in ne kak drug faktor) povzrocila porast porabe.

Zgodovina namrec kaze, da je uporaba drog vec ali manj neodvisna od njihovega statusa. Ravno za marihuano je bila leta 2004 v reviji American Journal of Public Health objavljena studija, ki je primerjala uporabo v Amsterdamu in v San Franciscu. Verjetno ves, da je SF eno izmed najbolj liberalnih mest v ZDA, marihuana pa je vseeno prepovedana in zagrozene so precej hude kazni. Citiram iz raziskave:

• The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco.

• The mean age at which respondents began using marijuana more than once per month was 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.

• In both cities, users began their periods of maximum use about two years after they began regular use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98 years in San Francisco.

• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.

• Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

Se pravi ni statisticno pomembne razlike med enim mestom, kjer ti skoraj na vsakem vogalu ponujajo marihuano in med mestom, kjer gres, ko te tretjic zalotijo z marihuano, vec ali manj do konca zivljenja v zapor!

Predlagam ti tudi, da preberes clanek Drug policy of the Netherlands @ Wikipedia.

Ta zadnji podatek bi lahko z malo domisljije interpretiral tudi tako, da dovoljen stik z mehkimi drogami cloveka "pripravi" in s tem tisti, ki gredo na trde droge niso tako problematicni, kot v drugih drzavah (v razmerju 3:5 v korist NL).

JanK je 7. jun 2010 ob 00:31 izjavil:

Zgodovina ni dovolj?

Smrekar1 je 7. jun 2010 ob 14:44 izjavil:

Recimo tale članek:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/comm...

Trendi so dokaj jasni.

However, cannabis use also developed in waves in other European countries. Apparently, general national trends in cannabis use are relatively independent of cannabis policy. To date, cannabis use in the Netherlands takes a middle position within the European Union. Apparently most cannabis use is experimental and recreational. The vast majority quits using cannabis after some time. Only a very small proportion of current cannabis users is in treatment. From international comparison, it is concluded that trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.

Smrekar1 je 7. jun 2010 ob 14:44 izjavil:

Aja? Glej, tole je kalifornijski zakonik glede trave:
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witne...

Tole si "citiral":

every person who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100). Notwithstanding other provisions of law, if such person has been previously convicted three or more times of an offense described in this subdivision during the two-year period immediately preceding the date of commission of the violation to be charged, the previous convictions shall also be charged in the accusatory pleading and, if found to be true by the jury upon a jury trial or by the court upon a court trial or if admitted by the person, the provisions of Sections 1000.1 and 1000.2 of the Penal Code shall be applicable to him, and the court shall divert and refer him for education, treatment, or rehabilitation, without a court hearing or determination or the concurrence of the district attorney, to an appropriate community program which will accept him. If the person is so diverted and referred he shall not be subject to the fine specified in this subdivision


Kazni se vrtijo med 50 in 500 dolarji, višji znesek velja za povratnike. Če te 3x dobijo z do skoraj 30 grami marihuane imaš obvezno rehabilitacijo. Niti slučajno pa ni govora o kakem doživljenjskem zaporu. Politika je malenkost strožja od Nizozemske, ampak ne kaj dosti. Vsekakor ne do te mere, da bi lahko trdili, da je pristop bistveno drugačen. Rezultati so, kot vidimo, dokaj podobni.

First, some necessary background. Under President George W. Bush (and under President Bill Clinton before him, for that matter), the U.S. Justice Department treated state medical marijuana laws as nullities. Such laws were contradicted and therefore preempted by federal drug laws, the Justice Department reasoned, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that position in 2005.

Accordingly, the federal government has periodically raided and prosecuted defendants who at least claimed to be complying with state medical marijuana laws, and when it did, defendants were forbidden from telling juries about the existence of those laws.

In late February, President Obama signaled a new approach. His attorney general, Eric Holder, confirmed at a press conference that he would no longer subject individuals who were complying with state medical marijuana laws to federal drug raids and prosecutions.

By the greatest majority of indicators, the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect. Those drops continued for about the first two years of Prohibition and then alcohol consumption began to rise. By 1926, most of the problems were worse than they had been before Prohibition went into effect and there were a number of new problems -- such as a drinking epidemic among children -- that had not been there before.

The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describes what happened in the opening years of Prohibition:

When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.

Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever.

Testimony of Andrew Furuseth, President of the International Seamen's Union of America, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"

Organized labor has ever been engaged in promoting temperate drinking and was making great p rogress until the enactment of the Volstead law. The continuation of such laudable activities now constitute a national crime.

Millions of homes, in the majority of which liquor was never seen, have been turned into breweries and distilleries. The youth of the land is being reared in the atmosphere of disregard for law and lack of confidence in government.

Former law-abiding citizens see nothing wrong in drinking and even in distilling liquor or making home-brew. Men and women who never drank before now seek it openly. The pocket flask may be found in almost every store and is never absent from any meeting, dinner, or dancing party.

Young and old alike do not regard the Volstead law as of sane legislative expression under the eighteenth amendment but as an impression of fanaticism clothed in the form of law . . .

Beer drinking has been forced to give way to whisky and near whisky and other poisonous concoctions.

The observance of the Volstead law is in its breach and its virtue in disregard for law.

Bribery of officials in so far as the enforcement law is concerned is no longer looked upon as a detestable criminal offense.

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: "During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis" (Brown, 1932:176).

In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: "The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed" (Pollock, 1942: 113).