natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Constraints on evaluation evaluation process: the Interministerial Mission (MILDT) in France, the PNSD in Spain, the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction (IDT) in Portugal, the Drugs Directorate in Ireland, the Drug Coordinator Office in Sweden and, asannounced in the 2001 Belgian ‘strategy’, the General Drug Cell in Belgium, when it comes into operation.
V vseh državah, v katerih se izvaja postopek vrednotenja,se zdi, da je nacionalna agencija za usklajevanje glavnipristojni organ za organizacijo in izvedbo postopkavrednotenja: Medministrska misija v Franciji, Nacionalninačrt o drogah v Španiji, Inštitut za droge na Portugalskem,Direktorat za droge na Irskem, Urad koordinatorja zadroge na Švedskem ter Splošna celica za droge v Belgiji -kot je bilo objavljeno v belgijski “strategiji” 2001 -, ko bozačela delovati.
Withinthese agencies, the drugs monitoring centres, which areusually the same as the Reitox national focal points, areresponsible for providing the information and datanecessary for the evaluation, and sometimes are alsotechnically responsible for the evaluation.
V okviru teh agencij so centri zaspremljanje drog, ki so ponavadi isti kot nacionalnekontaktne točke Reitox, pristojni za zagotavljanje informacijin podatkov, potrebnih za vrednotenje, včasih pa so pravtako tehnično odgovorni za vrednotenje.
Targets and indicators
Cilji in kazalci
Within the scientific community it is acknowledged that it isvery difficult to determine whether or not a drug policy iseffective. Experts and professionals warn of the difficultiesposed by impact evaluation of a public policy: ‘layers ofcomplexity’ and a ‘multitude of cause and effect linkages’must be considered.
V okviru znanstvene skupnosti velja mnenje, da je zelotežko določiti, ali je politika drog uspešna ali ne.Izvedenci in strokovnjaki opozarjajo na težave, ki jihsproža vrednotenje vplivov javne politike: treba jepreučiti “sloje kompleksnosti” in “številne povezave medvzroki in učinki”.
Indeed, it can be difficult to detect acausal link between a drugs policy and its outcome andimpact because of the variety of interventions and effects tobe measured and the possible external factors (confoundingfactors) influencing the reality (for example socioeconomicconditions, subcultures).
Vsekakor je težko ugotoviti vzročnopovezavo med politiko drog in njenimi rezultati ter vplivizaradi številnih intervencij in učinkov, ki jih je trebaizmeriti, ter možnih zunanjih dejavnikov (motilnihdejavnikov), ki vplivajo na realnost (na primerdružbenogospodarske razmere, subkulture).
Some research suggests that drugsphenomena might depend more on behavioural andsocietal factors than on policy interventions.
Nekatereraziskave predlagajo, dabi lahko bili pojavi drog boljodvisni od vedenjskih insocialnih dejavnikov kot odpolitičnih intervencij.
Moreover, the illicit nature of drug use can be a seriousobstacle to data collection, which is an essential tool to anyevaluation process, leaving many important aspects of thedrug phenomenon unidentified.
Poleg tega je lahko prepovedana narava uporabe drogovira za zbiranje podatkov, ki je bistveno orodje za vsakpostopek vrednotenja, saj veliko pomembnih vidikovpojava drog ostane neopredeljenih.
Thus, evaluation in the fieldof drug intervention must be carefully thought out and itsresults must be interpreted with caution.
Tako mora bitiocenjevanje intervencij na področju drog skrbnopremišljeno, njegove rezultate pa je treba previdnorazlagati.
The question of the extent to which the effects of actionsimplemented as the result of a ‘national drugs strategy’ canbe measured is often raised.
Pogosto se postavi vprašanje, v kolikšni meri se lahkoizmerijo učinki izvedenih ukrepov kot posledicanacionalne strategije boja proti drogam.
Indeed, both ‘international’and ‘national’ drugs strategies refer to very ‘generalobjectives’, such as ‘reducing the risks for drug users’ or‘aim of a drug-free society’, as well as to ‘operationalobjectives’, such as ‘increasing the number of treatmentslots’ or ‘establishing a drug coordination agency’.
Res se takomednarodne kot nacionalne strategije boja proti drogamnanašajo na zelo “splošne cilje”, kot sta “zmanjševanjetveganj za uživalce drog” ali “cilj vzpostavitve družbebrez drog”, kakor tudi na “operativne cilje”, kot sta“povečanje števila sklopov zdravljenja” ali “ustanovitevagencije za usklajevanje na področju drog”.
Both‘general’ and ‘operational’ objectives could benefit from thesetting out of specific aims.
Tako pri“splošnih” kot “operativnih” ciljih se lahko določijoposebni cilji.
The former are important as abasis of national drugs policy, identifying a direction butare difficult to measure; the latter indicate the delivery ofqualitative and quantitative initiatives, implying that theyshould be easier to measure.
Prvi so pomembni kot podlaga zanacionalno politiko drog, opredeljujejo smer, vendar jih jetežko izmeriti; drugi nakazujejo kakovostne in količinskepobude, zaradi česar naj bi jih bilo lažje izmeriti.
From the data reviewed, it appears that ‘national drugsstrategies’ generally take evaluation to mean measuringimplementation — progress, achievements, even failures —and eventually making some judgment of it, rather thanevaluating the impact on the overall drug situation.
Izvedenci in strokovnjaki opozarjajo, da je za znanstvenoovrednotenje strategije treba cilje opredeliti na jasen,nedvoumen in izmerljiv način, ki razlikuje med “splošnimi” in“operativnimi cilji”, vendar jih hkrati povezuje.
This isan important conclusion.
“Operativnecilje” je zares treba obravnavati kot način utrditve “splošnihciljev”.
Most countries that have faced thedrug problem for many decades are now able (or willing)to put in place, through monitoring systems, a basis formeasuring the drugs phenomenon and the effects of theirefforts.
Da se izmeri doseganje ciljev, je treba zato določitikazalce uspešnosti.
Thus, drugs policies can be considered to be moreaccountable than ever before, which itself is an importantachievement.
Trenutno se lahko vto kategorijo vključisamo nekaj nacionalnih strategij boja proti drogam.
Experts and professionals warn that, in order to evaluate astrategy scientifically, the objectives must be spelled out in aclear, unambiguous, measurable way, distinguishing, butlinking, ‘general’ and ‘operational objectives’.
Iz pregledanih podatkov se zdi, da se “nacionalnestrategije boja proti drogam” na splošno ne razvijajovsmeri vrednotenja vplivov na celotne razmere v zvezizdrogami, temveč v smeri merjenja izvajanja – napredka,dosežkov, celo neuspehov – in navsezadnje nekakšnepresoje strategije.
Indeed,‘operational objectives’ must be seen as a way of firmingup ‘general objectives’.
To je pomembna sklepna ugotovitev.Večina držav, ki se je z vprašanjem drog ukvarjala večdesetletij, je sedaj prek sistemov spremljanja sposobnih(ali pripravljenih) položiti temelj za merjenje pojava drogin učinkov njihovih prizadevanj.
Performance indicators should thenbe set to measure the achievement of the objectives.Currently, only a few national drugs strategies can beincluded in this category.
Tako je mogoče reči, daso politike boja proti drogam bolj odgovorne kot kdaj koliprej, kar je že samo po sebi pomemben dosežek.
A few countries have gone further, announcing that, inaddition to the development of monitoring systems, they willconduct an evaluation of the implementation of the‘national drugs strategy’, by which they mean a scientificstudy to assess the worthiness or otherwise of all or part ofthe strategy.
Nekaj nacionalnih strategij boja proti drogam pogostonavaja analizo stroškov in koristi ali analizo stroškovneučinkovitosti, razen španske strategije, ki pojasnjuje, da se
Generally, countries that take a more structured approachto drug policy, i.e. which have a written, objective-driven,overall ‘national drugs strategy’, a central coordinationmechanism with, ultimately, a national coordinator and asolid monitoring system, report the existence of a moresophisticated evaluation process (Figure 25). It seems that
Nekaj držav je šlo še dlje in oznanilo, da bodo polegrazvoja sistemov spremljanja izvedle vrednotenje izvajanja“nacionalne strategije boja proti drogam”, pri čemerimajo v mislih znanstveno raziskavo za ovrednotenjeprimernosti ali neprimernosti celotne strategije ali njenega
Annual report 2004: the state of the drugs problem in the European Union and Norway
Letno poročilo 2004: O stanju na področju drog v Evropski uniji in na Norveškem postopoma prispevalo k merjenju uspešnosti evropskihnacionalnih strategij boja proti drogam.
Drugs strategy the existence of a more structured approach, in itself a signof a financial and political commitment, is a prerequisite fora more developed evaluation approach to a national drugsstrategy.
Slika 25: Glavne značilnosti strukturiranega pristopa politikeboja proti drogam
written, objective driven, timed, overall
Strategija boja proti drogam zapisana, ciljna, časovno opredeljena, celotna
Central coordination
Centralno usklajevanje
Financial and political commitment feasible indicators, data systematised, quality controlled power of decision,accountability,leadership, access toinformation, financialautonomy
Zdi se, da je obstoj bolj strukturiranegapristopa, ki je že sam po sebi znak finančne in političnezaveze, predpogoj za bolj razvit pristop vrednotenja knacionalni strategiji boja proti drogam.
The spread of a culture of monitoring and assessment hasadded to the knowledge of the drugs problem in the EU,and consequently the scene is set for more informeddecisions.
Finančna in politična zavezanost kazalci izvedljivosti, sistematizirani podatki, kakovostno obvladovan pooblastila za odločanje, odgovornost, vodstvo, dostop do informacij, finančnaneodvisnost
Evaluation is now firmly recognised in currentdrugs strategies as a critical element of accountability,performance and financial prudence.
Rutinsko vrednotenje prispevati k oblikovanju in izboljšanju kakovosti intervencij
Many projects andspecific interventions in the field of drugs already containan element of evaluation and, if extended to all major drugpolicy interventions, this will gradually contribute to themeasurement of the effectiveness of European nationaldrugs strategies.
Širjenje kulture spremljanja in vrednotenja je pripomoglo kpoznavanju vprašanja drog v Evropski uniji in posledičnose je določilo ozadje za bolj utemeljene odločitve.Vrednotenje je v tekočih strategijah boja proti drogamsedaj trdno priznano kot odločilni element odgovornosti,uspešnosti in finančne preudarnosti.
contribute to designand improvethe qualityof interventions
Veliko projektov inposebnih intervencij na področju drog že vsebujeelemente vrednotenja, to pa bo, če se bo razširilo na vseglavne intervencijske politike v zvezi z drogami,
Selectedissue 2Cannabis problems in context — understanding the increase in European treatment demands
Izbrano poglavje 2Problem konoplje v kontekstu – razumeti poveÏanje potrebpozdravljenju v Evropi
Introduction context, the aim of which is to facilitate a more informeddebate on the potential public health impact of this mostcommon of all forms of illicit drug use.
Uvod poglavju v zvezi s konopljo v kontekstu, da bi omogočilivečjo obveščenost pri razpravljanju o možnih vplivih najavno zdravje zaradi te najbolj razširjene oblike uživanjaprepovedanih drog.
The legislative context: legal status of cannabis in Europe
Zakonodajni kontekst: pravni status konoplje v Evropi
The legal penalties that should apply to those who usecannabis remain an issue of some controversy in the EU (and the Member States diverge considerably in theirapproach to this question.
), države članice pa se precej razlikujejo pri obravnavi tega vprašanja.
The term ‘cannabis’ is used to define various products thatare obtained from the cannabis or hemp plant (Cannabis sativa L.), an annual species native to central Asia that nowgrows in many temperate and tropical parts of the world.The numerous varieties of Cannabis sativaexhibit acorrespondingly wide range of different biological andchemical characteristics.
Izraz “konoplja” se uporablja za opredelitev različnihproizvodov, pridobljenih iz rastline konoplje (Cannabis sativa L.), enoletne vrste, ki izvira iz centralne Azije insedaj uspeva v številnih zmernih in tropskih delih sveta.Številne sorte Cannabis sativakažejo prav tako širokrazpon različnih bioloških in kemičnih značilnosti.
Three forms of illicit cannabis arefound on the European drug market: ‘herbal cannabis’,consisting of the dried flowering tops, stems and leaves ofthe plant; ‘cannabis resin’, the dried brown or blackresinous secretions of the flowering tops, usually sold in theform of compressed blocks but sometimes also found as apowder; and, by far the least common, ‘cannabis oil’,which is a sticky viscous liquid.
Naevropskem trgu drog obstajajo tri oblike nedovoljenekonoplje: “zeleni deli konoplje”, in sicer posušeni cvetočivršički, stebla in listi rastline; “konopljina smola”, to jeposušeni rjavi ali črni smolnati izločki cvetočih vrhov, ki seobičajno prodajajo v obliki stisnjenih kock, včasih pa tudikot prah; najmanj pogosta oblika pa je “konopljino olje”,lepljiva gosta tekočina.
Cannabis extracts are classified as narcotic drugs under Schedules I and IV of the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (152).
Izvlečki konoplje so razvrščeni med droge na Seznamih I in IV Enotne konvencije Združenih narodov o drogahiz1961 (United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs) (152).
The convention requiresmeasures to be adopted to ensure that a wide range ofactivities — including the possession of narcotic drugs —are punishable.
Konvencija zahteva sprejem ukrepov,skaterimi bi zagotovili kaznivost širokega obsegadejavnosti – vključno s posedovanjem drog.
However, Member States have to interpretand apply the convention taking into account their owncircumstances, and Article 36.1.b allows for the possibilityfor options of ‘treatment, education, after-care,rehabilitation and social reintegration’.
Vendar pamorajo države članice tolmačiti in uporabljati konvencijoob upoštevanju okoliščin v teh državah, člen 36.1.b padopušča možnost za izbiro “zdravljenja, izobraževanja,spremljanja po zdravljenju, rehabilitacije in ponovneintegracije v družbo”.
Cannabis has a long history of use by man, and at timeshas been used by different societies as an important sourceof fibre for cloth and rope, an aid to religious ritual, aherbal medicine and an intoxicant.
V praksi to pomeni, da se kazniva dejanja, povezana skonopljo, v EU obravnavajo različno.
Worldwide, cannabis isnow the most commonly produced, trafficked and consumedillicit drug (UNODC, 2003a).
Nekatere države soizdale smernice za kazenske postopke ali pravnekodekse, ki narekujejo, kako obravnavati določene vrstekaznivih dejanj, povezanih s konopljo, in pogostopriporočajo različne pravne poti za kazniva dejanja, kiveljajo za lažja oziroma težja.
Despite both its long historyof use and its current popularity, our understanding of thepublic health impact of cannabis use remains limited.Recently, evidence of a potential association betweencannabis use, and especially intensive cannabis use, and arange of health and social problems has been growing.There is also increased concern about an apparent rise inthe number of cannabis users who are seeking help fromspecialist drug services.
V nekaterih državah so vprimerih uživanja in posedovanja majhnih količin drogbrez oteževalnih okoliščin bolj naklonjeni izvajanjuterapevtskih ukrepov namesto kazenskemu pregonu.
However, the extent and nature ofproblems found within populations of European cannabisconsumers remain unclear.
Polegtega lahko kazenski zakoniki obravnavajo spornouporabo tako, da dopuščajo (neomejeno ali obvezno)prekinitev kazenskega pregona, če se kršitelj odloči zasvetovanje ali zdravljenje.
Also unclear is the extent towhich statistical information on increasing demands fortreatment reflects changes in reporting and referral practiceas opposed to increases in the number of individualsrequiring help.
Čeprav te možnosti običajnoveljajo za uživalce vseh drog, zakoni ali smernice v Belgijiin Združenem kraljestvu po lani opravljenih spremembahzdaj posebej navajajo problematične uživalce konoplje znamenom, da se jim pokaže kje in kako najdejo pomoč.
To answer these questions we have to placecannabis treatment demands in the broader perspective ofchanging consumption patterns in Europe, the evolution anddevelopment of reporting systems and even a considerationof the changing nature of the drug itself.
Zgodovina človekove uporabe konoplje sega dalečvpreteklost. Uporabljale so jo različne družbe kotpomemben vir vlaken za tkanino in vrvi, kot pripomočekpri verskih obredih, zeliščno zdravilo in sredstvo zaomamljanje.
These matters areaddressed in this selected issue on cannabis problems in
V sedanjem času je konoplja najboljproizvajana, prodajana in uživana prepovedana drogana svetu (UNODC, 2003a).
What this means in practice is that, across the EU, handlingof cannabis offences is heterogeneous.
Kljub dolgi zgodoviniuporabe in trenutni razširjenosti je naše razumevanjevpliva uživanja konoplje na javno zdravje še vednoomejeno.
Some countries haveissued prosecutorial guidelines or legal codes that directhow certain types of cannabis offence should be dealt with,often recommending different legal pathways for what areconsidered minor or more serious offences.
V zadnjem času je vse več dokazov o možnipovezavi med uživanjem konoplje, zlasti intenzivnimuživanjem konoplje, in vrsto zdravstvenih in socialnihproblemov.
And in somecountries a trend is emerging for therapeutic measures tobe implemented as an alternative to criminal prosecutionfor cases of use and possession of small quantities of drugswithout aggravating circumstances.
Vse večja je tudi zaskrbljenost zaradi očitnegapovečanja števila uživalcev konoplje, ki iščejo pomoč prispecializiranih službah za droge.
In addition, penal codesmay address problematic use by allowing (discretionary orcompulsory) suspension of prosecution provided theoffender undergoes counselling or treatment.
Vendar pa sta obseg innarava problemov, prisotnih pri populacijah evropskihuživalcev konoplje, še vedno nejasna.
Althoughthese alternatives usually apply to users of all drugs, as aresult of changes in the last year, the laws or guidelines in Belgium and the United Kingdom now make specificmention of problematic cannabis users with the aim ofdirecting them towards assistance.
Nejasno je tudi,vkakšnem obsegu statistične informacije o povečanjupotreb po zdravljenju odražajo spremembe v praksiporočanja in napotitev glede na povečano številoposameznikov, ki iščejo pomoč.
)See European legal database on drugs (ELDD) website (http://eldd.emcdda.eu.int/trends/trends_cannabis.shtml).)See: http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/index.htm.
Da bi odgovorili na tavprašanja, moramo postaviti potrebe po zdravljenjuzaradi konoplje v širši kontekst spreminjanja vzorcevuživanja v Evropi, sprememb in razvoja sistemovporočanja in celo upoštevanja spremenljive narave samedroge. Tovrstna vprašanja so obravnavana v izbranem
Selected issue 2: Cannabis problems in context — understanding the increase in European treatment demands
Izbrano poglavje 2: Problem konoplje v kontekstu – razumeti povečanje potreb po zdravljenju v Evropi
Physical, psychological and developmental problems associated with cannabis use (153
FiziÏni, psihološki in razvojni problemi,
In most Member States, cannabis is the illicit drug mostoften involved in reported drug law offences, which isunsurprising given that it is also the drug most commonly used (154).
V večini držav članic je konoplja tista prepovedanadroga, na katero najpogosteje naletimo v prijavah kršitevzakonov o drogah, kar pa ni presenetljivo, če upoštevamo, da je tudi najpogosteje uživana droga(154).
However, in contrast to other drugs, such as heroin, there appears to be no strong association betweencannabis use and other types of offending.
V nasprotju z drugimi drogami, kot je heroin, pa se zdi, dani bistvene povezave med uživanjem konoplje in drugimivrstami kaznivih dejanj.
Cannabis use and the measurementofproblems
Uživanje konoplje in opredelitev velikosti problemov
The national reports of the Member States point out that arise in the number of cannabis treatment demands probablyreflects an increased level of problems particularlyassociated with intensive cannabis use.
Nacionalna poročila držav članic poudarjajo, dapovečanje števila potreb po zdravljenju zaradi konopljeverjetno odraža povečano raven problemov, ki so posebejpovezani z intenzivnim uživanjem konoplje.
It should be noted,however, that systematic and comparable data on theproblems experienced by cannabis users are largelylacking. The scientific knowledge base in this area is stilldeveloping but does provide increasingly convincingevidence of an association between cannabis use and arange of problems, although the nature of the causallinkage is not always clear.
Opozoriti paje treba, da precej primanjkuje sistematičnih in primerljivihpodatkov o problemih, ki jih doživljajo uživalci konoplje.Podlaga za znanstvena spoznanja na tem področju se ševedno razvija, vendar zagotavlja vse več prepričljivihdokazov o povezavi med uživanjem konoplje in vrstoproblemov, čeprav narava vzročne povezave ni vednojasna.
An overview of the literature onthe problems associated with cannabis use is availableonline (http://www.emcdda.eu.int/?nnodeid=4811).
Pregled literature o problemih, povezanih zuživanjem konoplje, je na voljo na spletu(http://www.emcdda.eu.int/?nnodeid=4811).
Although the agreed international diagnostic criteriaprovide useful guidance on the definitions of harmful druguse, abuse and dependent use, problems arise whencannabis is considered in the light of available Europeanevidence (155).
Čeprav dogovorjena mednarodna diagnostična merilazagotavljajo uporabne smernice glede opredelitevškodljive uporabe, zlorabe in odvisnega uživanja drog,sepojavijo problemi, ko se konoplja obravnava glede narazpoložljive evropske podatke(155).
In particular, there is considerable variationin key measurement issues.
Odstopanja so zlastivelika pri ključnih vprašanjih merjenja.
For example, there is littleconsensus regarding the definition of terms such as‘intensive use’, ‘regular use’ and ‘problematic use’, and thismakes comparing the findings of different studies difficult.Additionally, it is mostly in survey work that attempts havebeen made to measure ‘dependence’ or ‘abuse’ accordingto the ICD or DSM definitions at the population level; hereagain standardised tools that would allow convincingcomparison of data from different studies or acrosspopulations are currently lacking.
Poleg tega se je večinoma le pri nadzoru,povezanem s študijami, poskusilo izmeriti “odvisnost” ali“zlorabo” glede na definicije ICD (Mednarodnaklasifikacija bolezni pri Svetovni zdravstveni organizaciji)ali DSM (Diagnostični in statistični priročnik duševnihmotenj pri Ameriškem psihiatričnem združenju) na ravnipopulacije; tudi tukaj pa trenutno ni standardiziranihorodij, ki bi omogočila prepričljivo primerjavo podatkovizrazličnih študij oziroma med populacijami.
It is important to distinguish between the acute (short-term)effects of cannabis and the longterm or chronic impact ofthe drug.
Pomembno je razlikovati med akutnimi (kratkoročnimi)učinki konoplje in dolgoročnimi ali kroničnimi učinki tedroge.
A range of both positive and negative acuteeffects have been reported.
Poroča se o vrsti tako pozitivnih kot negativnihakutnih učinkov.
Negative effects include deficitsin attention and concentration difficulties, adverse effects onmotor function (reflexes, coordination), short-term memoryproblems, anxiety and panic attacks and depression.Positive effects include euphoria, relaxation and increasedsociability.
Med negativne učinke spadajopomanjkanje pozornosti in problemi s koncentracijo,negativni učinki na motoriko (refleksi, koordinacija),problemi s kratkotrajnim spominom, napadi tesnobe inpanike ter depresija. Pozitivni učinki zajemajo evforijo,sproščenost in večjo družabnost.