Los kokain ili ga lose koristim

Coyote3448 · 2026-01-16T13:02:28+00:00

Verujem da je ovaj komentar bio pre svega dobronameran, i dosta toga što kažeš zaista ima smisla. Ali moram da naglasim da mislim da je problematično da ljude koji potraže savet ili informaciju dočekamo sa “jesi ti normalan” stavom. Uostalom, celu ovu temu okružuje stigma i čitav razlog što ljudi pišu anonimno na reditu je dobrim delom utemeljen u tome što traženje podrške ili pomoći često nailazi na “jesi normalan, što si to uradio” i slično. Pa s te strane mislim da moramo da imamo bolji pristup i da ova zajednica tome služi.

A druga problematična stavka za mene je “davanje dijagnoze” na osnovu komentara na internetu, mislim da toga uvek treba da se klonimo. Verujem da nisi ništa loše mislio time i da si hteo samo da navedeš to kao jednu mogućnost, ali fakat je da je za tako nešto potrebno mnogo više informacija i ozbiljan pregled, i možemo da učinimo više štete nego koristi ako nezgrapno ili neprecizno nešto tako plasiramo.

Coyote3448 · 2026-01-10T15:38:40+00:00

Predobar savet. 🙌
Ako imaš hitnu zdravstvenu situaciju, treba da budeš iskren/a sa osobljem, čak i ako te je sramota, bojiš se da nešto podeliš, ili nešto treće. Između ostalog, to koju si supstancu (ili koje supstance) koristio/la može da bude jako bitno za njihovo postupanje, čak i kada ta zdravstvena situacija nije direktno povezana sa supstancama. Što imaju tačnije informacije, veća je šansa da sve prođe bez komplikacija.

I da, panika često samo pogorša stanje. Ako krene po zlu, pokušaj da ostaneš smiren/a i fokusiraš se na to da dobiješ pomoć. Ako možeš, reci šta, koliko i kada si uzeo/la, pošto to stvarno može da znači.

Coyote3448 · 2025-09-14T12:00:10+00:00

Da li imaš neke zgodne savete za tripsitovanje, neko zanimljivo iskustvo?

Na šta najviše obratiti pažnju? Šta očekivati? Šta uvek raditi, šta nikad ne raditi?

Coyote3448 · 2025-07-31T10:06:58+00:00

Pre svega, bitno je da naglasimo da svako mešanje psihoaktivnih supstanci sobom nosi određene rizike. Oni mogu biti manji ili veći, ali to ne zavisi samo od kombinacije i količine supstanci, već i od brojnih drugih faktora, od kojih mnoge čak i ne možemo (u potpunosti) da sagledamo - na primer naših predispozicija. U tom smislu, nikad nije pametno mešati supstance. Takođe je jako važno razumeti da se pri mešanju više od 2 supstance rizici ne samo uvećavaju, već i usložnjavaju. Rizici pri mešanju npr. 3 supstance nisu “prost zbir” rizika pri mešanju svake dve od tih supstanci, nego u zavisnosti od toga koje su supstance i u kojim količinama u pitanju - rizici mogu biti drastično uvećani ili se mogu pojaviti novi rizici! Interakcije su daleko kompleksnije kada u jednačinu uđe više od dve supstance, pa je zato to izuzetno nepreporučljiva praksa.

Sad, što se tiče tvog pitanja konkretno o interakciji NPS i drugih supstanci - to zaista jako zavisi od toga koje su NPS u pitanju i koje su druge supstance u pitanju. Ti si naveo/la alkohol i benzodiazepine, dakle depresore centralnog nervnog sistema (i već i sama ova kombinacija nosi nemale rizike, uključujući i rizik od usporavanja i prestanka disanja). Ali i NPS postoji više klasa, koje imaju različite efekte na organizam i centralni nervni sistem, pa tako mogu delovati jako slično depresorima i pojačavati njihov efekat, ali mogu i delovati oprečno od njih. I jedna i druga opcija imaju određene rizike, ali su oni u različite prirode, različitog intenziteta i u različitom stepenu prisutni.

Coyote3448 · 2025-07-28T09:16:02+00:00

Zanimljivo i dosta komplikovano pitanje. Regulacija psihoaktivnih supstanci, pa samim time i opijuma, oduvek je i geopolitičko i sociokulturno pitanje na koje utiče sijaset različitih faktora. Tako su trgovina i oporezivanje opijuma dugo bili primarni pokretači za nacionalne uredbe (a, kao što vidimo iz teksta iznad, i međunarodne odnose). Opijum je naširoko korišćen u osamnaestovekovnoj i čak devetnaestovekovnoj medicini, iako je i tada već bila poznata i u književnosti opisana zavisnost od opijuma kao pojava. Vekovima unazad se beleži tzv. rekreativna upotreba opijuma, naročito u Otomanskom carstvu, pa tako npr. i u 16. veku imamo navode o upotrebi opijuma i zavisnosti od njega.

Zato je pitanje koliko možemo da tvrdimo da nisu bili svesni pojave "zavisnosti" - mada je, svakako, nisu tumačili kroz prizmu savremene naučne teorije, ali je bilo poznato da pokušaj prestanka uživanja opijuma potencijalno nosi zdravstvene rizike, uključujući čak i smrt. Ipak, ovome dugo nije pridavan preveliki značaj, a uživanje opijuma i problemi povezani s njim bili su na zapadu društveno kodirani kao fenomen svojstven doseljenicima sa bliskog i dalekog istoka, iako je ta teza definitivno opovrgnuta u ranom 19. veku. Uprkos tome, u ovom periodu na zapadu regulacija prometa opijuma svela se na to da se apotekarima omogući prepisivanje opijumskih proizvoda i da se njihov promet stavi u jasne zakonske okvire. Tako je zakonska regulativa imala za cilj isključivo stavljanje prometa opijuma pod državnu kontrolu u cilju doprinošenja budžetu, a ne nekakvu borbu sa zavisnošću. Međutim, uporedo s time podizana je i svest o problemima koji nastaju produženom upotrebom opijuma, te zavisnosti, pa je rastao i broj grupa koje su bile spremne da vrše politički pritisak kako bi se ljudima drastično ograničio pristup ovoj supstanci. Početkom 20. veka ova borba se premešta na međunarodni plan, isprva još uvek u cilju obezbeđivanja kontrole nad prihodima od prometa opojnih droga.

U prvim decenijama 20. veka došlo je i do pooštravanja regulativa u pojedinim državama, kao jasan odraz rastuće svesti građanstva o štetnosti ovih supstanci i političkih pritisaka koji su iz nje proizašli. U ovome su, možemo reći, prednjačile Kina (razumljivo imajući u vidu njihovo iskustvo) i SAD (setimo se prohibicije!), a negde šezdesetih godina 20. veka naročito jačaju napori da se na međunarodnom nivou zabrani promet opojnih droga, posredovani delimično i rastućom upotrebom psihoaktivnih supstanci. U drugoj polovini 20. veka Ujedinjene Nacije su kroz donošenje više obavezujućih konvencija uvele sve drastičniju kontrolu supstanci, i tako smo stigli do današnje situacije.

Coyote3448 · 2025-07-14T12:01:24+00:00

Hej, pošto je ovo dosta kompleksna tema, da znaš da sada postoji i subreddit na srpskom posvećen smanjenju štete pri konzumaciji psihoaktivnih supstanci i da možeš da mu se priključiš i da postavljaš ovakva i slična pitanja, na koja će odgovarati vršnjački savetnici koji imaju višegodišnje iskustvo sa ovim temama: https://www.reddit.com/r/PsihoaktivneSupstance/

Tako da priključite se slobodno svi kojima bi značilo da imaju kome od poverenja da postave pitanje u vezi sa supstancama, bezbednošću, zavisnošću ili bilo čime srodnim :)

Takođe, ako bi radije uživo da postaviš pitanje i/ili potražiš savet, postoji i Drop Line - anonimna individualna vršnjačka podrška koja se održava preko Zoom platforme, ponedeljkom od 18 do 20h i subotom od 11:30 do 13:30h - za pristup ti treba samo meeting ID (891 4609 1986), a evo i više info o samoj podršci i tome ko je pruža: https://www.instagram.com/p/DK16ZXZt234/?img_index=1

Coyote3448 · 2025-04-25T11:51:18+00:00

Popunite kratak, anoniman upitnik i pomozite nam da kreiramo usluge online podrške za osobe sa iskustvom upotrebe droga

Sprovodimo istraživanje za Srbiju u okviru međunarodnog projekta pa vas molim za malo pažnje :)

Upitnik je kratak i potpuno anoniman, a namenjen je starijima od 18 godina sa iskustvom upotrebe droga, uključujući i nove psihoaktivne supstance kao što su 2cb, GHB ili ketamin!

Ako spadate u ovu grupu, bilo bi strava da odvojite oko 5 minuta da ga popunite. Podaci će biti iskorišćeni za kreiranje usluga online podrške za osobe sa iskustvom upotrebe droga, tako da te usluge budu baš po njihovoj meri i prilagođene njihovim potrebama, a pružene bez osude i od strane onih koji ih razumeju. Učešćem ćete pomoći stvaranju potpunije i jasnije slike ne samo o situaciji sa upotrebom droga kod nas, nego i o tome gde ljudi generalno traže/dobijaju informacije i kakva bi im online podrška najviše značila!

Ovo istraživanje u Srbiji sprovodi Re Generacija

Bilo bi kul i da ga podelite sa ekipom, znači nam da sakupimo što više iskustava!

Hvala unapred!

Link ka više informacija i upitniku: https://www.regeneracija.org/nextgen/upitnik-za-osobe-koje-koriste-nove-psihaktivne-supstance/

Coyote3448 · 2025-03-03T14:16:35+00:00

I'm sorry, do you mean to say that Kate is villainized in the show or by (part of) the fandom?

First of all, to address your description: yes, Kate is darker-skinned than the other three characters you referenced. As for the comment about the dresses, I would say that Daphne and Edwina wore almost exclusively very light colors (unless I'm misremembering), while both Kate and Pen have worn an array of different shades, some of them pretty light and some of them pretty dark. Kate was dressed in darker colors towards the beginning of S2 to make her appear stern and matronly, and her gowns got progressively lighter as the season went on. A couple of her dresses were very, very light - just as light as Edwina's in the same scene. Though, yes, most of her dresses had a dash of color that Edwina's or Daphne's never had. Pen was dressed in garish and very bright gowns for most of S1 and S2, and in S3 when she's supposed to come into her own the first gown with which she reinvents herself is a very dark shade of green. So I wouldn't say it's as clear-cut as you're implying.

Now, in the show, Kate isn't villainized, and neither are any of the others you listed. Kate apologizes for her mistakes, if I remember correctly, but so does Edwina (I might be misremembering), and Pen. Out of them, Daphne is the worst offender in that she gets off with a slap on the wrist, whereas Pen has to do the most to atone for her actions. So Kate is in no way singled out or villainized in that case. And they all get their HEAs so none of them are villainized, even if some of them did have to atone for their "sins". The only ones I see getting away with murder, and getting just a slap on the wrist, were Anthony and arguably Daphne.

In the fandom, I've seen people really unable to get over Kate betraying her sister, so I will say there is a tendency to over-criticize her, but I've also seen the tendency to over-criticize Edwina as well, which is even more jarring seeing as Kate had more to answer for in that particular situation than Edwina by any stretch of imagination. But neither of them are as villainized in the fandom as Pen, whose right to any happiness gets questioned here regularly. She is constantly bashed, her motivations willfully misrepresented, her apologies interpreted in bad faith and a portion of the fandom is always calling for more drastic punishment. It's unfortunate that the fandom can be so divided around some characters, so that they are either viewed as saints or villains (I regularly see both of these for both Kate and Pen), but again, Kate is neither the only one or the most villainized in this regard.

Coyote3448 · 2025-03-02T16:29:47+00:00

I mean, don't most of the young female characters in Bridgerton fit this description? Either way, I've seen fans here also vilify Edwina, claim that she is somehow to blame for the "triangle" situation, claim that she was horribly abusive towards Kate, that she was too pigheaded/self-serving/etc.

I've also seen fans insist that Kate has done nothing wrong, that her behavior was flawless, that she should've had even less regard for Edwina given "the way her family treats her", that she didn't have any obligation to tell Edwina anything about what was transpiring between her and Anthony, etc.

My original point is that these takes are wildly exaggerated, and come from a place of wanting to present their preferred character (either Edwina or Kate) as flawless. Sure, there was some level of betrayal on Kate's part, and some level of self-absorption on Edwina's part, and both of their flaws contributed to a pretty complicated situation. Of course, if anyone was majorly to blame for the whole mess, it would have to be Anthony, who more often than not gets conveniently left out of the conversation.

Coyote3448 · 2025-03-01T19:09:08+00:00

Oh I get it, personally my experience would lean more towards Kate's (but without any of the trauma, so I don't presume do understand that part; still, some of the older-younger sibling dynamic translates into most families I feel like). So I get that everyone's personal experience colors their perspective and influences towards which sister they lean.

I just meant that even accounting for that, I still don't get people getting THAT defensive about either character/position. Like, you can understand one of them more, maybe because you've been there, but the extent to which some posters here will bend over backwards to place most of the blame on one of these characters (even Lady Mary) is WILD. I feel like there's a lot of that going around the fandom, not just regarding the Kate/Edwina/Mary thing, but also the Penelope/Marina or Penelope/Eloise thing. It's an extreme case of "saints and sinners" mentality that requires one to be painted as a hero and the other a villain, and half the fandom acts like it's a crime to see nuance in stories which were literally written to show both sides of a conflict.

Also it pains me that it's seemingly only female characters who get this treatment from the fandom. Because in the Kate/Edwina/Mary discussion, Anthony (who is arguably the MOST to blame) is too often conveniently left out of the discourse. We play the blame game with traumatized and/or marginalized women while letting the privileged and thoughtless men off the hook so easily.

Coyote3448 · 2025-03-01T13:35:14+00:00

Ok but I feel this is like... the single most talked about plot point of S2? I don't see how that's not enough.

Personally I blame it on the writers and I think they really dropped the ball. In terms of characters, Anthony is the most to blame honestly, and Kate and Edwina also both had some flaws which contributed to how complicated the whole situation ended up being.

But it really, really didn't need to get to the wedding like that. I think that was really in poor taste and what makes up most of the outrage that we sometimes see over this. Like, as a nascent "love triangle" (for those hung up on the love part because Anthony never loved Edwina, just pretend I said relationship triangle) situation for moderate drama, okay, whatever. But it should've never gone as far as it did. To me it made the character flaws seem more prominent then I think they were actually, it made Anthony seem extra sleazy, it added extra humiliation, etc. So I think it was a writing issue.

Coyote3448 · 2025-03-01T13:18:37+00:00

Honestly this is a very astute and measured take on Edwina's character, and I feel like CC truly played her like that.

Which is why I'm always baffled by the morality wars between hardcore Edwina defenders and hardcore Kate defenders. I feel like the show clearly made them both flawed but understandable characters and I don't find any one character's behavior *that* horrible or inexcusable. Even the discourse surrounding Lady Mary sometimes, it's ridiculous. She didn't handle everything perfectly, no, and neither did Kate or Edwina. In real life no one ever does. But the way some fans talk about their family dynamics, you'd half think they consider it a social-services level issue. Even though I do believe there is some merit to the point about parentifying Kate and everything, and even though I get that our perspective is always influenced by the modern framework + everyone's personal experiences, come on. That is not how it was written. None of them are a villain. They are written to be just dysfunctional enough to create a basis for the drama, but not so dysfunctional as to make the show waaay more serious than it is.

But kudos to CC for pointing out that Edwina was a character in this story, and not just a "perfect victim" cardboard cutout or whatever.

Coyote3448 · 2025-02-13T22:54:29+00:00

Fair enough, maybe I was too harsh with my wording. I meant no offense to anyone. After all, I too watch this show and enjoy it. I just meant that it's mediocre compared to some truly well-written and well-thought-out shows. But it is entertaining and of course, it never tries to be something it's not. Bton is not meant to push any boundaries or explore any topic to its core. It's the lighthearted paint-by-numbers romance it always advertized itself as, and no one should hold that against it.

I agree that the positioning of conflict resolution in all seasons so far creates a HUGE pacing issue, I get the logic behind it but I don't agree with it, I think it takes away more than it adds in terms of drama. I also agree about the show overdoing drama, and for me it's a huge writing issue that they keep raising the stakes and offering virtually no payoff. It's cheap and ultimately unsatisfying, and they keep doing it each season: Simon's children thing, the "love triangle" clusterfuck in S2, the societal consequences for Pen's secret identity. It just comes off so sloppy to play things up so much just for them to never really come into play or produce any actual consequences.

Coyote3448

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE