esrar

• dünyada esrarın yasal hale getirilmesi için çalışan bir lobi vardır.
  
  bu lobinin hesabı basittir. esrar yasal hale gelirse, tüketimi patlayacak, uyuşturucu baronları, şimdikinden çok daha fazla sayıda insanın hayatını çöpe atarak milyarlarca dolar daha kazanacaktır. (tüketimin nasıl patlayacağının canlı örneğini, aşağıdaki rapordan aldığım hollanda örneğinde göreceksiniz)
  
  bu lobinin hangi kandırma ve dezenformasyon taktiklerine başvurduğu, amerika birleşik devletleri'nin uyuşturucu mücadele idaresi tarafından yayımlanmış olan şu raporda anlatılmaktadır:
  
  http://www.justice.gov/…marijuana_position_2011.pdf
  
  (dikkat edilirse, raporun abd adalet bakanlığı'nın internet sayfasında yayımlanmış olduğu görülür. ayrıca 287 bilimsel araştırma ve sözüne güvenilir ciddi kuruluş yayınına da atıf vardır bu raporun sonunda.)
  
  the proposition that smoked marijuana is “medicine” is, in sum, false–trickery used by those promoting wholesale legalization.
  
  (türkçesi: içilen esrarın "ilaç" niteliğinde olduğunu ileri sürmek, özetle, esrarın toptan satışını yasallaştırmaya çalışanlar tarafından kullanılan bir kandırmacadır).
  
  ayrıca esrar satışının ve kullanılmasının yasal hale getirilmesi için çaba gösteren lobinin sürekli örnek gösterdiği hollanda, içine düştüğü boktan nasıl kurtulabileceğini bilememekte ve bocalamaktadır. çünkü esrar kullanımının sadece "coffee shop"larda serbest bırakılması bile, hollanda gençleri arasında esrar kullanma yaygınlığını üç kat arttırmıştır.
  
  gene aynı rapordan, hollanda'nın içine düştüğü durumun anlatıldığı satırları aynen aşağıya alıyorum:
  
  the netherlands
  
  • the netherlands has led europe in the liberalization of drug policy. “coffee shops” began to emerge throughout the netherlands in 1976, offering marijuana products for sale. possession and sale of marijuana are not legal, but coffee shops are permitted to operate and sell marijuana under certain restrictions, including a limit of no more than 5 grams sold to a person at any one time, no alcohol or hard drugs, no minors, and no advertising. in the netherlands it is illegal to sell or possess marijuana products. so coffee shop operators must purchase their marijuana products from illegal drug trafficking organizations.
  
  • on january 2, 2007, the majority of the city council in amsterdam voted in favor of introducing a city-wide ban on smoking marijuana in public in areas where young people smoking joints have been causing a public nuisance. their decision was based upon the success of the experimental ban in debaarsjes.
  259january 2011 44
  
  • according to a new york times article, “the mayor (of maastricht) wants to move most of the city's 16 licensed cannabis clubs to the edge of town, preferably close to the border” (with belgium and germany). mayor gerd leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who “complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. there have been shootings between balkan gangs. maastricht's small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems.” cannabis clubs have drawn “pushers of hard drugs from amsterdam, who often harass people on the streets.” the clubs have also attracted people looking to buy marijuana in quantity. piet tans, the police spokesman also stated that people who come from far away don't just come for the five grams you can buy legally over the counter…they think pounds and kilos; they go to the dealers who operate in the shadows.”
  260
  
  • moving the clubs did not prove to be an effective strategy to deal with the problem. as of january 1, 2010, coffee shops in the province of limburg (which includes maastricht) will be accessible only to registered members. justice minister ernst hirsch ballin also stated that “it would become easier to keep minors out of the coffee shops.”
  261
  
  • although the dutch government regulated what goes on in coffee shops, they have never legalized or regulated how the shops got their marijuana supply. the volume of sales generated by customers from bordering countries and tourists have made these shops regional suppliers. this has resulted in the creation of an illegal cultivation industry involving organized crime and money laundering.
  
  • paul schnabel, director for the social and cultural planning office, a government advisory board, said that the move reflects a growing view that the tolerance policies have not controlled the ills associated with drugs and prostitution. “there’s a strong tendency in dutch society to control things by allowing them…” “dutch society is less willing to tolerate than before.”
  262
  
  • due to international pressure on permissive dutch cannabis policy and domestic complaints over the spread of marijuana “coffee shops,” the government of the netherlands has reconsidered its legalization measures. after marijuana became normalized, consumption nearly tripled – from 15 percent to 44 percent – among 18 to 20 year-old dutch youth.
  263
  
  as a result of stricter local government policies, the number of cannabis “coffeehouses” in the netherlands was reduced – from 1,179 in 1997 264 to 737 in 2004, a 37 percent decrease in 7 years.
  265
  
  • about 70 percent of dutch towns have a zero-tolerance policy toward cannabis cafes.
  266
  
  • dr. ernest bunning, formerly with holland’s ministry of health and a principal proponent of that country’s liberal drug philosophy, has acknowledged that, “[t]here are young people who abuse soft drugs . . . particularly those that have [a] high thc [content]. the place that cannabis takes in their lives becomes so dominant they don’t have space for the other important things in life. they crawl out of bed in the morning, grab a joint, don’t work, smoke another joint. they don’t know what to do with their lives.”
  267january 2011 45
  
  • “contrary to what is often claimed by supporters of the dutch drug policy, cannabis usage by young people in the netherlands is not lower but actually higher than average in europe,” according to the findings of the 2007 european school survey on alcohol and other drugs (espad). “the netherlands scores above the european average. over one-quarter (28 percent) of the youngsters aged 15 and 16 surveyed said they have used cannabis sometime in their life, compared with an average of 19 percent in europe. current cannabis usage (at least once in the month prior to the survey) is more than double the european average in the netherlands (15 percent versus 7 percent).”
  268
  
  • an article published in april 2009 summarizes the challenge now faced by the dutch as a result of their drug policies. “the netherlands has risen in the ranking order of 35 european countries from number 12 in 2003 to number 5 on recent cannabis usage…the dutch youngsters, possibly due to the liberal climate, widely believe that cannabis is innocent. the proportion of school children that thinks regular cannabis usage involves big risks is the lowest in the netherlands (50 percent) of all countries surveyed.”
  269
  
  bunlar da esrarı yasal hale getirmek için uğraşan lobinin faaliyetlerinden başlıklar:
  
  the legalization lobby
  the proposition that smoked marijuana is “medicine” is, in sum, false–trickery used by those
  promoting wholesale legalization.
  • the marijuana policy project (mpp) provides funding and assistance to states and localities to
  promote “marijuana as medicine” initiatives and legislation. yet their vision statement clearly
  indicates that they have a much broader goal of decriminalizing marijuana. at the same time
  the marijuana legalization proponents are soliciting support for laws allowing marijuana to be
  used as medicine, they are working to modify policies to regulate marijuana similarly to
  alcohol.
  22
  
  • ed rosenthal, senior editor of high times, a pro-drug magazine, once revealed the legalization
  strategy behind the “medical” marijuana movement. while addressing an effort to seek public
  sympathy for glaucoma patients, he said, “i have to tell you that i also use marijuana
  medically. i have a latent glaucoma which has never been diagnosed. the reason why it’s
  never been diagnosed is because i’ve been treating it.” he continued, “i have to be honest, january 2011 7
  there is another reason why i do use marijuana . . . and that is because i like to get high.
  marijuana is fun.”
  23
  • a few billionaires—not broad grassroots support—started and sustain the “medical” marijuana
  and drug legalization movements in the united states. without their money and influence, the
  drug legalization movement would shrivel. according to national families in action, four
  individuals—george soros, peter lewis, george zimmer, and john sperling—contributed
  $1,510,000 to the effort to pass a “medical” marijuana law in california in 1996, a sum
  representing nearly 60 percent of the total contributions.
  24
  
  • in 2000, the new york times interviewed ethan nadelmann, director of the lindesmith
  center. responding to criticism that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking horse for drug
  legalization, mr. nadelmann stated: “will it help lead toward marijuana legalization? . . . i
  hope so.”
  25
  • when a statute dramatically reducing penalties for “medical” marijuana took effect in
  maryland in october 2003, a defense attorney noted that “[t]here are a whole bunch of people
  who like marijuana who can now try to use this defense.” the attorney observed that lawyers
  would be “neglecting their clients if they did not try to find out what ‘physical, emotional or
  psychological’” condition could be enlisted to develop a defense to justify a defendant’s using
  the drug. “sometimes people are self-medicating without even realizing it,” he said.
  26
  • in 2004, alaska voters faced a ballot initiative that would have made it legal for adults age 21
  and older to possess, grow, buy, or give away marijuana. the measure also called for state
  regulation and taxation of the drug. the campaign was funded almost entirely by the
  washington, d.c.-based mpp, which provided “almost all” the $857,000 taken in by the promarijuana campaign. fortunately, alaskan voters rejected the initiative.
  27
  • in october 2005, denver voters passed initiative 100 decriminalizing marijuana based on
  incomplete and misleading campaign advertisements put forth by the safer alternative for
  enjoyable recreation (safer). a denver city councilman complained that the group used
  the slogan “make denver safer” on billboards and campaign signs to mislead the voters into
  thinking that the initiative supported increased police staffing. indeed, the denver voters were
  never informed of the initiative’s true intent to decriminalize marijuana.
  28
  • in 2006, the legalization movement funded three state marijuana-related initiatives, which were
  defeated in the november election. in colorado, safer was behind amendment 44, which
  allowed for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. the amendment was defeated by 60
  percent of the vote. in nevada, question 7, which was supported by the mpp, sought to permit
  the manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana to adults aged 21 or older. the measure
  was defeated by 56 percent of the vote. in south dakota, south dakotans for medical
  marijuana pushed measure 4, allowing medical marijuana access. the measure was defeated
  by 52 percent of the vote.
  29
  • the legalization movement was more successful at the local level in 2006. mpp-funded local
  groups were able to pass measures in three california cities: santa barbara (sensible santa january 2011 8
  barbara), santa cruz (santa cruz citizens for sensible marijuana policy), and santa monica
  (santa monicans for sensible marijuana policy); and in missoula, montana (citizens for
  responsible crime policy). residents voted to make marijuana possession the lowest law
  enforcement priority in their cities.
  30
  • three other legalization groups also won local initiatives: the norml (the national
  organization for the reform of marijuana laws) chapter at the university of arkansas at
  fayetteville helped make possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a misdemeanor in
  eureka springs, arkansas; americans for safe access assisted albany, ca with passing
  measure d, allowing a medical marijuana dispensary in the city of albany; and the drug
  policy forum of massachusetts helped four districts pass non-binding policy statements from
  voters allowing for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana be a civil violation subject only
  to a $100 fine (2 districts) and allowing seriously ill patients to possess and grow marijuana
  with a doctor’s recommendation.
  31
  • in 2007 in hailey, idaho, the ballot initiatives to legalize industrial hemp, legalize medical use
  of marijuana and to allow marijuana laws to receive the lowest enforcement priority passed,
  but have not been implemented. the initiative to regulate and tax marijuana sales and use
  failed. mayor rick davis, city councilman don keirn, and chief of police jeff gunter filed a
  declaratory judgment action alleging that the three initiatives were illegal. “the lawsuit
  primarily alleges that the three initiatives are illegal because they are contrary to the general
  laws of the state of idaho and the united states.”
  32
  ryan davidson, director of the liberty
  lobby of idaho, put the initiatives back on the may ballot, and again they passed. “davidson’s
  efforts in hailey are part of a larger grassroots agenda to have marijuana laws reformed
  statewide and nationally.”
  33
  in march, 2009 blaine county 5
  th
  district court judge robert
  elgee filed a decision to void the initiatives that would have legalized marijuana use in the city
  and would have made enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest priority for hailey police. the
  judge also voided language in the initiative that would have required individual city officials to
  advocate for marijuana reform.
  34
  • in 2008, with support from the michigan coalition for compassionate care, michigan became
  the 13
  th
  state to approve marijuana for medicinal purposes.
  35
  • massachusetts, backed by the committee for sensible marijuana policy, replaced criminal
  penalties for one ounce of marijuana with a civil fine in 2008.
  36
  • voters in four districts (15 towns) in massachusetts, supported by local legalization groups,
  passed a ballot measure to instruct a representative from each district to vote in favor of
  legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with a doctor’s written recommendation, to
  possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use.
  37
  • in the same year, voters in fayetteville, arkansas, supported by sensible fayetteville, voted to
  make adult marijuana possession law the lowest priority for local law enforcement.
  38january 2011 9
  • in california, proposition 5, also known as the non-violent offender rehabilitation act, and
  supported by the drug policy alliance, called for more funding for addiction treatment and
  decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana. this initiative did not pass.
  39
  • the legalizers were also less successful in new hampshire, where although the state
  legislature approved a bill to legalize “medical” marijuana, governor john lynch vetoed the
  bill in july 2009, citing concerns over cultivation, distribution and the potential for abuse.
  40
  • rhode island became the 3
  rd
  state to allow the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes. in
  june 2009, the rhode island legislature overrode governor circieri’s veto of bills that allow
  for the establishment of three compassionate care centers regulated by the state department of
  health.
  41
  • new mexico opened its first “medical” marijuana dispensary in june 2009, becoming the 4
  th
  state to allow “medical” marijuana dispensaries.
  42
  • in november 2009, maine became the 5
  th
  state to allow dispensaries. the voters also approved
  the expansion of the “medical” marijuana law, to include defining debilitating medical
  conditions and incorporating additional diseases that can be included under the law. this effort
  was funded by the drug policy alliance.
  43
  • on november 4, 2009, breckenridge, colorado citizens voted to decriminalize possession of
  up to 1 ounce of marijuana for adults over 21 years of age. the measure, however, is
  symbolic, because pot possession is still against state law. sean mcallister, a breckenridge
  lawyer who pushed for the decriminalization measure said that “the vote shows people want to
  skip medical marijuana and legalize pot for everyone.”
  44
  • in january 2010, new jersey became the 14
  th
  state to allow the use of marijuana for medicinal
  purposes. with the most restrictive law in the country, only residents with one of twelve
  chronic illnesses (not including chronic pain) will be able to get a prescription from their
  doctor to buy up to two ounces a month from one of six dispensaries.
  45
  implementation of the
  program, originally scheduled for october 1, 2010, has been extended by the state legislature
  until january 1, 2011, to give the governor more time to determine who will grow and
  dispense marijuana.
  46
  as of january 31, 2011 final details of the program were still being
  negotiated.
  • in massachusetts voters in 18 legislative districts approved non-binding measures calling on
  state lawmakers to pass ‘medical’ marijuana legislation or a bill to regulate marijuana like
  alcohol. the organizers of these measures included the drug policy forum of massachusetts,
  the massachusetts cannabis reform coalition, suffolk university norml and the university
  of massachusetts amherst cannabis reform coalition.
  47
  • in november 2010, arizona became the 15
  th
  state to allow the use of marijuana for medicinal
  purposes. proposition 203, the arizona medical marijuana act, sponsored by the arizona
  medical marijuana policy project with financial support from george soros, passed with 50.13
  percent of the vote. the program, which will be established and implemented by the january 2011 10
  department of health services, allows residents with certain medical conditions to obtain a
  doctor’s written certification to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks from
  a state approved dispensary or grow their own if they live 25 miles or more from a
  dispensary.
  48
  • in south dakota residents once again refused to support efforts to legalize marijuana. measure
  13, which sought to authorize the possession, use and cultivation of marijuana by and for
  persons with specific debilitating medical conditions, was defeated by 63.3 percent of the
  vote.
  49
  • in oregon 58 percent of the voters said no to measure 74, which would have established a
  ‘medical’ marijuana supply system and allow for the sale of marijuana and marijuana-laced
  products in shops throughout the state. the measure was financially backed by billionaire peter
  lewis, a known legalization activist, who resides in florida.
  50
  • in california, voters defeated proposition 19 (the regulate, control and tax cannabis act of
  2010), which sought to legalize the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana
  for use by individuals 21 years of age and older. had it passed, california would have been the
  first state to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.
  51
  the initiative garnered much
  debate. fueled by financial support from legalization activists, including one million dollars
  each from oakland cannabis entrepreneur richard lee and billionaire george soros,
  proponents for the initiative used the media to attempt to sway public opinion.
  52
  nine former
  dea administrators called upon u.s. attorney general eric h. holder jr. to clarify the federal
  position and reiterate the law.
  53
  in response, attorney general holder stated the department of
  justice’s position.
  “…the department of justice will remain firmly committed to enforcing the controlled
  substances act (csa) in all states. prosecution of those who manufacture, distribute or
  possess any illegal drugs – including marijuana – and the disruption of drug trafficking
  organizations is a core priority of the department. accordingly, we will vigorously
  enforce the csa against those individuals and organization who possess, manufacture,
  or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under
  state law.”
  54
  • on july 25, 2007, the u.s. house of representatives defeated, by a vote of 165-262, an
  amendment (hr-3093) that would have prevented the dea and the department of justice
  from arresting or prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers in the 12 states where
  medical marijuana was then legal.
  55
  • two congressional initiatives on marijuana also failed in 2008. hr5842, medical marijuana
  patient protection act and hr5843, act to remove federal penalties for the personal use of
  marijuana by responsible adults, both died in committee.
  • three congressional initiatives were introduced in congress in 2009: hr2835 medical
  marijuana patient protection act; hr2943 personal use of marijuana by responsible adults
  act of 2009; and hr3939 truth in trials act. none were passed.january 2011 11
  • the consolidated appropriations act of 2010 (hr 3288) became law in december 2009
  without the “barr amendment,” a provision that has been included in the appropriations bill
  for the district of columbia since 1999.
  56
  the barr amendment had prohibited “… any funds
  to be used to conduct a ballot initiative which seeks to legalize or reduce the penalties
  associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule i substance under the
  controlled substances act (or any tetrahydrocannabinois derivative).”
  57
  • the elimination of the barr amendment enabled the district of columbia to implement
  initiative 59, a ballot initiative that was approved in 1998 to allow for the use of marijuana for
  medical treatment. in may 2010, the district of columbia city council approved a bill that
  would allow chronically ill patients to receive a doctor’s prescription to use marijuana and buy
  up to two ounces a month from a city-sanctioned distribution center. the legalization of
  marijuana for medical treatment amendment act of 2010 became law in july. the district of
  columbia government is still working on the details of the program to ensure strict regulatory
  controls are in place prior to implementation.
  58
  
  şu makale ise, dünyanın en meşhur ve ciddi tıp dergilerinden lancette yayımlanmıştır ve esrarın zararlı etkilerini anlatmaktadır:
  
  http://www.ukcia.org/…/adverseeffectsofcannabis.pdf
  
  (bkz: lancet/@psalme)
  
  dünya sağlık teşkilatı who ise esrar hakkında yayımladığı şu raporunda, esrarın zararlı ve bağımlılık yaratıcı etkilerinden bahsetmektedir:
  
  http://whqlibdoc.who.int/…1997/who_msa_psa_97.4.pdf
  
  londra'daki king's collegetan nobel ödülü kazanan bilim insanları şunlardır:
  
  http://www.kcl.ac.uk/…s/history/nobellaureates.aspx
  
  "eee, esrarla bunun ne ilgisi var?" diye soracaksınız. esrarı yasal hale getirmek için çalışan lobinin ateşli taraftarları sizi laf kalabalığına boğarak kandırır. ben somut kanıtlarla gitmeyi tercih ettiğim için önce king's college'ın ne olduğunu anlatmak istedim. lütfen dikkat: türkiye cumhuriyeti'nden henüz bir bilim insanı bile nobel ödülüne layık görülmüş değildir. adı geçen üniversitenin bilim dünyasındaki yerini kafanızda daha iyi canlandırabilmeniz için söylüyorum bunu.
  
  bilim dünyasındaki saygın yerini, yüz sene önce nobel ödülü alan mensupları ve günümüze kadar nobel ödülü alan mensuplarının sayısı ile defalarca ispatlamış olan king's college'ta, esrar kullanmanın akıl ve beyin sağlığı ile ilgisini konu alan bir konferans düzenlenmiştir. daha doğrusu, seri konferansların ikincisi king's college'ta yapılmıştır.
  
  konferansın programı ve düzenleyenlerin bilimsel geçmişi aşağıdadır:
  
  http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/…mme_and_abstract_book.pdf
  
  gelelim konferansta sunulan bilimsel araştırma sonuçlarından bazılarına:
  
  http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ikings/index.php?id=584
  
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/…ent/195/6/488.full.pdf html
  
  mesela şu bilimsel makale, esrar kullanan gençlerde, akıl ve ruh sağlığının nasıl bir tehdit altında olduğunu göstermektedir:
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…pmc135489/pdf/1195.pdf