Jump to content

Raziskave s področja dovoljenih in prepovedanih drog


Recommended Posts

 

 

Če se kdo ne strinja z ugotovitvami te raziskave naj argumentirano piše NIDA ali email dr. Volkow:

Source Information

From the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Volkow at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rm. 5274, Bethesda, MD 20892, or at nvolkow@nida.nih.gov.

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment
  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Ni to noben spam, temveč je povsem on-topic. "Študija", ki si jo ti objavil, uporablja povsem enake pristope, kot "študija", ki sem jo objavil jaz. Ampak tega enostavno nočeš videti.

 

Ni res. Njegova študija je bla na žvaleh, katerim so vbrizgal konjske doze metamfetamina i.v. (in ne MDMA), in je bla takoj razkrinkana... strokovnjaki so jo ovrgli... ricaurte se je opravičil

 

Nevrotoksičnost MDMA za ljudi, ni dokazana do danes!

 

Študija 2014 o marihuani je bla opravljena na ljudeh in je overjena... nism še slišal, da bi jo ovrgli

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

 

 

 

Če se kdo ne strinja z ugotovitvami te raziskave naj argumentirano piše NIDA ali email dr. Volkow:

Source Information

From the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Volkow at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rm. 5274, Bethesda, MD 20892, or at nvolkow@nida.nih.gov.

 

 

Daj ne bluzi tukaj z nekimi tumastimi naslovi, ki so tam itak samo zaradi tega, da so. Ne da bi sploh kdo bral pošto. Naročnik "študije", ki si jo objavil je isti, kot naročnik študije, ki sem jo objavil jaz. Uporabljeni so tudi isti pristopi.

Link to comment

 

Ni res. Njegova študija je bla na žvaleh, katerim so vbrizgal konjske doze metamfetamina i.v. (in ne MDMA), in je bla takoj razkrinkana... strokovnjaki so jo ovrgli... ricaurte se je opravičil

 

Nevrotoksičnost MDMA za ljudi, ni dokazana do danes!

 

Študija 2014 o marihuani je bla opravljena na ljudeh in je overjena... nism še slišal, da bi jo ovrgli

 

Potem pa pokaži njegovo opravičilo. Še za vsako killer-ganja in ganja-veča-možnost-dednih-bolezni "študijo" se je na koncu razkrilo, da vsebuje falzificirane rezultate.

Link to comment

 

Pokaži razkritja oz. fazificirane rezultate, pa ti jest pokažem "opravičilo/priznanje R."

 

Tukaj si lahko prebereš kaj več. Čakam opravičilo, ki ga je napisal Ricaurte. S tem mislim njegovo priznanje, da je zavestno objavljal lažne študije in ne samo njegovo obžalovanje, da so se vzorci "zamešali".

 

Pa da bom on-topic: 20 medical studies that prove Cannabis can cure cancer

Link to comment

 

:jaok:

 

Former NYPD cop, former high school health teacher, the unstoppable Ron Marczyk, R.N., Toke Signals columnistIMG_4484-325x216.jpg

 

Hvala lepa za take linke.

 

Rabm kredibilne linke. Znanstveno dokazano od specialistov na področju cannabisa :P

 

Raje preberi stran do konca, predno streljaš kozle. Ravno ti objavljaš nekredibilne linke od diletantov na področju konoplje. Jaz pa objavim kredibilen vir, kjer je objavljen pogovor z dr. Sunilom Aggarwalom, ki je res strokovnjak na področju konoplje, pa tega niti nočeš prebrati. Potem ni čudno, da tako zelo malo veš o konoplji in še tisto kar "veš", si prebral na strani od NIDA-e, DEA-e in podobnih pristranskih agencij.

Link to comment

 

Raje preberi stran do konca, predno streljaš kozle.

 

http://www.tokesignals.com/worth-repeating-marijuana-laws-stuck-on-stupid-for-76-years/

 

Članek je nestrokoven, spisal ga je Ron Marczyk.

___________

 

 

kjer je objavljen pogovor z dr. Sunilom Aggarwalom, ki je res strokovnjak na področju konoplje

 

 

podaj prosim link, kjer je objavljen pogovor z strokovnjakom dr. Sunilom

 

če mislš 53s clip, k pove:

“The writing is on the wall. The two largest physicians’ groups in the country are saying that the Schedule 1 of marijuana is suspect and urgently needs reconsideration.” ~ Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, MD, PhD

 

se popolnoma strinjam, travo je treba preregulirat.

 

Omogočt je treba uporabo CBDja.

 

Kajenje trave, sploh trave pomešane s tobakom (đoint) je zdravju močno škodljivo.

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

@drogfart: Na tistem linku so verjetno mislili tale članek (sklepam iz imena avtorja Wayne Hall in da naj bi bil objavljen v Addiction):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/abstract

 

ful hvala. Sm prebral na hitro in ja, to je to.

 

PDF ima samo 12 strani... bom prebral ASAP.

Abstract

Aims

To examine changes in the evidence on the adverse health effects of cannabis since 1993.

Methods

A comparison of the evidence in 1993 with the evidence and interpretation of the same health outcomes in 2013.

Results

Research in the past 20 years has shown that driving while cannabis-impaired approximately doubles car crash risk and that around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence. Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risks of early school-leaving and of cognitive impairment and psychoses in adulthood. Regular cannabis use in adolescence is also associated strongly with the use of other illicit drugs. These associations persist after controlling for plausible confounding variables in longitudinal studies. This suggests that cannabis use is a contributory cause of these outcomes but some researchers still argue that these relationships are explained by shared causes or risk factors. Cannabis smoking probably increases cardiovascular disease risk in middle-aged adults but its effects on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear, because most cannabis smokers have smoked or still smoke tobacco.

Conclusions

The epidemiological literature in the past 20 years shows that cannabis use increases the risk of accidents and can produce dependence, and that there are consistent associations between regular cannabis use and poor psychosocial outcomes and mental health in adulthood.

____________

 

 

mho: mediji so nekoliko napihnl zgodbo, ampak načeloma bo držalo kar so objavl...

Zmotno pa je, da so mediji primerjal odvisnost od marihuane z odvisnostjo od heroina.

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

 

Tukaj si lahko prebereš kaj več. Čakam opravičilo, ki ga je napisal Ricaurte. S tem mislim njegovo priznanje, da je zavestno objavljal lažne študije in ne samo njegovo obžalovanje, da so se vzorci "zamešali".

 

 

 

You Can't Trust The Drug "Experts"

 

Research on Illicit Substances Is As Biased As Its Funding Source

"One night's ecstasy use can cause brain damage," shouted a newspaper headline in September 2002, after the journal Science published a study that found a single dose of the drug ecstasy injected into monkeys and baboons caused terrible brain damage. Two of the 10 primates in the study had even died. The media trumpeted the news around the world and drug enforcement officials held it up as definitive proof of the vileness of ecstasy.

 

But a year later, an odd thing happened. The author of the study, George Ricaurte, admitted his team had mistakenly injected the baboons and monkeys with massive doses of methamphetamine, not ecstasy, and Science formally retracted the article.

 

The retraction was scarcely reported and drug enforcement officials said nothing about it. Obscure as this incident may sound, it actually demonstrates something vitally important about research on illicit drugs, something few laymen understand but is well known among researchers and academics. It's a deeply politicized field, says Peter Cohen, a professor at the Centre for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam. "There is no neutral science."

For critics such as Cohen, George Ricaurte illustrates the problems in illicit drug research. Long before the Science study made him 2000 notorious, Dr. Ricaurte was accused by some academics of producing biased science designed to make drugs look as dangerous as possible. The motive was funding. Scientific research and scientific careers are built on funding and drug research is particularly expensive -- the flawed Science study cost $1.3 million U.S. alone.

"Researchers need to get their money from somewhere," says Cohen, but funding options are extremely limited. Pharmaceutical companies aren't interested. And most governments aren't prepared to pay a great deal of money for research on drugs they have already banned. The one exception is the United States, which lavishes money on drug research. As a result, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse boasts that it "supports over 85 per cent of the world's research on the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction."

But that money comes with ideological strings attached. The American government is dominated by a drug-war ideology in which drugs are not simply another health risk that can be rationally studied and regulated. Drugs are criminal, immoral, even evil. When most people think of alcohol, we draw a line between "use" and "abuse" -- consumption that does no harm versus consumption that does. But because the drug-war ideology sees drugs as inherently wicked, it erases the line between use and abuse of illicit drugs. Any use is abuse. Any use is destructive.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1119815/posts?page=214

________

 

roka? sva si bot?

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

The adverse health and social consequences of cannabis
use reported by cannabis users who seek treatment
for dependence appear to be less severe than those
reported by alcohol and opioid-dependent people [6,51],
but rates of recovery from cannabis dependence among
those seeking treatment are similar to those for alcohol
[52]. Clinical trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for
cannabis dependence show that only a minority remain
abstinent 6 and 12 months after treatment, but treatment
substantially reduces the severity of problems and
the frequency of their cannabis use in most who receive
treatment [53,54].

 

______

 

to opravičuje zmotno pisanje medijev glede primerjave s heroinom

 

______

 

lepa je tud tabela 1 Summary of major adverse health outcomes of recreational cannabis use.

 

__________

 

Adverse effects of acute use

• Cannabis does not produce fatal overdoses as do
opioids.

• There is a doubling of the risk of car crashes if cannabis
users drive while intoxicated.

• This risk increases substantially if users also consume
intoxicating doses of alcohol.

• Maternal cannabis use during pregnancy modestly
reduces birth weight.

Adverse effects of chronic use
Psychosocial outcomes
• Regular cannabis users can develop a dependence
syndrome, the risks of which are around 1 in 10 of all
cannabis users and 1 in 6 among those who start in
adolescence.

• Regular cannabis users double their risks of experiencing
psychotic symptoms and disorders, especially if they
have a personal or family history of psychotic disorders,
and if they initiate cannabis use in their mid-teens.

• Regular adolescent cannabis users have lower educational
attainment than non-using peers.

• Regular adolescent cannabis users are more likely to
use other illicit drugs.

 

• Regular cannabis use that begins in adolescence and
continues throughout young adulthood appears to
produce cognitive impairment but the mechanism and
reversibility of the impairment is unclear.

• Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately
doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia
or reporting psychotic symptoms in adulthood.

• All these relationships have persisted after controlling
for plausible confounders in well-designed studies,
but some researchers still question whether adverse
effects are related causally to regular cannabis use or
explained by shared risk factors.

Physical health outcomes

• Regular cannabis smokers have higher risks of developing
chronic bronchitis, but it is unclear if it impairs
respiratory function.

• Cannabis smoking by middle-aged adults probably
increases the risks of myocardial infarction.

 

________

 

Nič spornega iz moje strani. PDF prebran

Link to comment

to opravičuje zmotno pisanje medijev glede primerjave s heroinom

 

Ne se zdaj nekaj vleči ven. Ti si uletel z linkom, ki trdi, da konoplja povzroča hujšo odvisnost od heroina. Zdaj pa iščeš neka glupa opravičila, ki bi naj vnašala vsaj nekaj kredibilnosti v popolnoma faljeno "študijo".

Edited by technolog
Link to comment

 

Spet gonja tabloidov proti travi? :grin:
Ma kdo link od te raziskave. pdf?http://www.drogart.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=946563&p=1694039

 

To je bil moj komentar. Prosim, da ne zavajaš. Hvala

 

P.S.: študija ni faljena. če imaš pripombe se obrni na:

Correspondence to: Wayne Hall, The University of Queensland Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, Herston 4006, Australia. E-mail: w.hall@uq.edu.au

 

_

 

LP

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

ta antiganja gonja je popolnoma logična ... po svetu se je začelo dogajat, vse več folku je jasno, da trava ni nekaj grozljivega ampak je zel, ki lahko človeku pomaga ali ga zjebe ... odvisno od načina rabe. Precej podobno kot velika večina drugih naravnih substanc, ki jih človek uporablja tisočletja ... farmacevti bodo seveda storil vse, da zmešajo drek, da bo fejst smrdelo, da ne bi slučajno bli ob zaslužek. :rastur:

Link to comment

ta antiganja gonja je popolnoma logična ... po svetu se je začelo dogajat,

 

Študija je trajala 20 let... in daleč ni edina longitudinalna študija, ki je dokazala zdravju zelo škodljive učinke.

 

Osebno še nism vidu študije, ki bi dokazovala nasprotno, kar trdi ta in druge podobne.

Link to comment

 

Študija je trajala 20 let... in daleč ni edina longitudinalna študija, ki je dokazala zdravju zelo škodljive učinke.

 

Osebno še nism vidu študije, ki bi dokazovala nasprotno, kar trdi ta in druge podobne.

 

 

Pa sej maš tud nekaj raziskav, ki obetajo zdravilne učinke CBD.

 

Nobene, ampak res nobene pa ne boš najdu, ki bi odkrila, da je kajenje ganđe bilokako zdravo. fact! ;)

 

Spet bluziš, lažeš in zavajaš! Te nič ni sram? Glede na tvoje obnašanje, si idealen kandidat za evropskega komisarja. Druga možnost je, da si samo tako zelo nerazgledan in premalo, oziroma nič ne veš o konoplji.

 

Če kajenje medicinske marihuane ne bi imelo nobenega zdravju koristnega učinka, potem je ne bi razdeljevali bolnim v razvitih državah.

 

Za začetek nekaj študij in linkov:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20805210/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688212/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358713/

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

http://www.maps.org/research/mmj/

 

Tukaj pa si lahko še sam poiščeš nekaj študij in se poučiš o tebi povsem neznani rastlini:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

Link to comment

 

 

 

Če kajenje medicinske marihuane ne bi imelo nobenega zdravju koristnega učinka, potem je ne bi razdeljevali bolnim v razvitih državah.

 

OK... da se bomo razumel. Kajenje in 'inhaliranje' je razlika.

 

Če uporabljaš bong al vaporizer, ne bom oporekal, da je za določene bolezni boljše kot tablete, ki jih nudi medicina/farmacija.

 

Samo kajenje je zdravju škodljivo. V kolikor se meša s tobakom, pa še toliko bolj.

 

Prosim naštej mi koliko strupenih plinov vdihneš, ko si zrolaš đoint? + škoda, ki jo naredi vdihavenje vročega dima, če kadiš s filtrom iz papirja...

______

 

Se razumemo?

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

 

OK... da se bomo razumel. Kajenje in 'inhaliranje' je razlika.

 

Če uporabljaš bong al vaporizer, ne bom oporekal, da je za določene bolezni boljše kot tablete, ki jih nudi medicina/farmacija.

 

Samo kajenje je zdravju škodljivo. V kolikor se meša s tobakom, pa še toliko bolj.

 

Prosim naštej mi koliko strupenih plinov vdihneš, ko si zrolaš đoint? + škoda, ki jo naredi vdihavenje vročega dima, če kadiš s filtrom iz papirja...

______

 

Se razumemo?

 

vsa zdravila majo stranske učinke :D

Link to comment

 

vsa zdravila majo stranske učinke :D

 

Zato jih je pa večino na recept. O negativnih stranskih učinkih si obveščen na priloženem papirju + iz strani zdravnika ali farmacevta.

 

 

Tko kot so v večini EU tud kanabinoidi na recept... Sativex, Marinol... http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000883

 

'medicinska marihuana' še ni odobrene kot zdravilo iz strani FDA... osebno mi je ta izraz totalno zgrešen

 

Kaj je razlika med 'medicinsko marihuano' in marihuano, ki se prodaja na črnem trgu?

 

Are “Medical” and “Street” Marijuana Different?

In principle, no. Most marijuana sold in dispensaries as medicine is the same quality and carries the same health risks as marijuana sold on the street.

However, given the therapeutic interest in cannabidiol (CBD) to treat certain conditions such as childhood epilepsy, strains with a higher than normal CBD:THC ratio have been specially bred and sold for medicinal purposes; these may be less desirable to recreational users because of their weaker psychoactive effects.

 

:P

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine

 

Edited by drogfart
Link to comment

kot sm povedal že večkrat, sm tudi osebno za preregulacijo (dekriminalizacijo) marihuane, sigurno pa ne za 'totalno legalizacijo'.

Če majo nekateri željo po 'totalni legalizaciji ganđe', ne vidm razloga, zakaj nebi legaliziral vseh drog... totalno vseh drog...

 

Nekak logično je, da so pri tej rastlini, enormni zaslužki, zato je tud taka borba kdo bo pokasiral največ... in vrjemi mi, da bo to slej k prej 'big pharma'

 

Na penis mi grejo hašišarji k se derejo, da je trava zdrava in pika... kar seveda ni res.

 

______

 

I'm off... do naslednje študije ;)

 

 

Link to comment

kot sm povedal že večkrat, sm tudi osebno za preregulacijo (dekriminalizacijo) marihuane, sigurno pa ne za 'totalno legalizacijo'.

Če majo nekateri željo po 'totalni legalizaciji ganđe', ne vidm razloga, zakaj nebi legaliziral vseh drog... totalno vseh drog...

 

Nekak logično je, da so pri tej rastlini, enormni zaslužki, zato je tud taka borba kdo bo pokasiral največ... in vrjemi mi, da bo to slej k prej 'big pharma'

 

Na penis mi grejo hašišarji k se derejo, da je trava zdrava in pika... kar seveda ni res.

 

______

 

I'm off... do naslednje študije ;)

 

 

 

glede na to da nisi za legalizacijo me zanima kako bi kontroliral uporabo marihuane? kako bi jo prodajal oziroma kakšne kazni bi po tvojem morale biti da bi z njimi preprečili uporabo? misliš da prepoved zmanjšuje uporabo? bi kazni mogle bit višje ali nižje od sedanjih?

 

kar se pa hašišarjev tiče maš pa tako obnašanje povsod. maš pijance k ga pijejo za zdravje, maš hašišarje k vidjo v travi rešitev vseh problemov, maš wannabe budiste k so enkrat kadil dmt in zdej prepričujejo cel svet da je resnica to kar so vidl natripani... ti npr na enak način zagovarjaš mdma in ghb s tem da si mal bolj izobražen na tem področju in lepiš tuki študije k dokazujejo nasprotno. sej drugač smo na isti strani, men grejo tut na živce hašišarji ampak res ne vem zakaj maš tok velik proti travi. kar se pa tvojih linkov tiče pa mislm da 70% ljudi k bere ta forum nekak sprejema dejstvo da je trava droga in ima negativne posledice tko da ni nekega blaznega efekta razen da tisti k to preberejo rečejo 'aha ok'.

 

ful rajš bi bral študije o ketaminu pa stimulansih kokr o travi če sm odkrit :D

Edited by alien
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.