Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ah.

Because someone claimed that it equals 4.

But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this". So we have one of two conclusions about your claims:

1) Despite claiming that everyone else is just repeating what you said you DO believe that pot is more addictive than food/video games/watching football/etc.

or

2) You're pointlessly nitpicking something that nobody else had any trouble understanding just because there was some tiny amount of ambiguity that couldn't be tolerated.

 Peregrine wrote:
But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this".

An interesting claim. Prove it, my son.

It has been legal in my home country for years (the Netherlands) and as the world can see the country has degenerated into chaos and anarchy because of this. Everyone has become a lazy unproductive junky.

But wait it hasn't, so maybe weed isn't as addictive as some people claim!

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
It has been legal in my home country for years (the Netherlands) and as the world can see the country has degenerated into chaos and anarchy because of this. Everyone has become a lazy unproductive junky.

But wait it hasn't, so maybe weed isn't as addictive as some people claim!

Disagree. You Netherlanders are all crayyyyzaaayyy.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this".

An interesting claim. Prove it, my son.

Prove what, that people have common sense about what "not addictive" means?

(Not that you actually want to see proof, "citation needed" is rarely a genuine request for information.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ah.

Because someone claimed that it equals 4.

But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this". So we have one of two conclusions about your claims:

1) Despite claiming that everyone else is just repeating what you said you DO believe that pot is more addictive than food/video games/watching football/etc.

or

2) You're pointlessly nitpicking something that nobody else had any trouble understanding just because there was some tiny amount of ambiguity that couldn't be tolerated.

Well given what Pot actually chemically does in your brain(direct stimulation of the pleasure centers) I would say its got more addiction potential than food/video games/football/etc simply because its totally bypassing the normal channels of stimulation and its directly plugging in. Its like the difference between normal eating and having a feeding tube.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this".

An interesting claim. Prove it, my son.

Prove what, that people have common sense about what "not addictive" means?

(Not that you actually want to see proof, "citation needed" is rarely a genuine request for information.)

Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
It has been legal in my home country for years (the Netherlands) and as the world can see the country has degenerated into chaos and anarchy because of this. Everyone has become a lazy unproductive junky.

But wait it hasn't, so maybe weed isn't as addictive as some people claim!

Disagree. You Netherlanders are all crayyyyzaaayyy.

That is an after affect of eating too much cheese not weed

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well given what Pot actually chemically does in your brain(direct stimulation of the pleasure centers) I would say its got more addiction potential than food/video games/football/etc simply because its totally bypassing the normal channels of stimulation and its directly plugging in. Its like the difference between normal eating and having a feeding tube.

Ehh... depends really. Most of what I've seen regarding "official" addiction to food is that a person who is addicted to "food" isn't really addicted to it, but rather they have deeper mental health issues and that is, or starts off as a coping mechanism.

As for football... Well, again, this depends. If you're watching it on TV, then I agree with you. If you're playing it, then there is a possibility to become addicted. Again, this isn't addiction to the actual activity itself (this was explained to me by a person in the field of MH with my own example), rather you are addicted to the brain chemicals released by exercise. The endorphins and "Feel good" hormones are what people who are "addicted" to exercise are really addicted to.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

Seriously? Go back and read the post you quoted when you first posted here. They were talking about pot being physically addictive, not psychologically. All you're doing here is nitpicking that "not addictive" is used in the common conversational sense of "not very likely compared to other things", not a literal "not possible" sense. They were absolutely correct about the addiction risk being a misconception: a lot of people believe that pot is physically addictive like other drugs, when it isn't. The only addiction risk is the same addiction risk that applies to pretty much every other enjoyable thing you can do, and if the addiction risk of pot is on the same level as the addiction risk of sitting on your couch watching football then I think most people will say that it isn't addictive.

About 9% of pot users become addicted. Age and consistency/frequency of use can increase an individual's risk of addiction.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201205/is-marijuana-addictive

"Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain. " from: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

"In fact, while many people have benign and brief experiences with this drug, a significant number develop dependence or addiction. About 1 out of 11 adults who use marijuana, and about 1 out of 6 adolescent users, become dependent.

Also contrary to what many people suppose, marijuana can produce physiological dependence. A person who has developed tolerance to the drug and then is deprived of it may experience withdrawal symptoms including cravings, irritability, changes in appetite, and altered sleep. People who regularly use marijuana also often wind up with problems in their daily functioning" from: http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2014/10/dr-kevin-m-gray-q-potential-medication-marijuana-dependence


Perhaps 9% of folks who sit on their couch and watch football become addicted as well. I've never seen a study to indicate it though. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having actual withdrawal due to lack of couch sitting football watching, but I'm sure it has happened. But 9%? I doubt it.

Most of the actual damage is not because of the drug itself, but the same reason alcohol is destructive.

 CptJake wrote:
About 9% of pot users become addicted. Age and consistency/frequency of use can increase an individual's risk of addiction.

{links}

Do you have some scientific studies for this instead of just blog posts? Because the first two links are non-technical blog posts written by someone who doesn't seem to have any real knowledge about the subject, while the drugabuse.gov articles don't cite any sources and have an obvious conflict of interest in the government's "war on drugs" policies that make marijuana use a federal crime. The first two are especially bad because they confuse physical addiction with not having the willpower to quit doing something you enjoy doing.

 CptJake wrote:

My positions is exactly as I stated, it should not be up to the gov't.

I questioned why someone would be against something for physical harm but not care about psychological harm. Harm is harm, and often physical harm is the lesser type. That is why I questioned his position, it made no sense to me and I wanted to see it defended.

Who should it be up to on whether or not it is legal? The government has to be involved in some level, even if it just to say, "Weed is no longer a Schedule I drug." So, in your opinion, should cannabis be legal or not?

Also, what "psychological harm" are you talking about when it comes to cannabis?

 Grey Templar wrote:

It does depend on the addiction. You can be addicted to something harmless, although anything taken to an extreme will be harmful.

This is the part where I mention determining what "harm" entails isn't as easy as people often think, especially when considering only matters of psychology. I'll also mention that people often have definitions of addiction which very wildly from substance to substance. For example, I doubt many people would say someone who has a drink every day is an alcoholic, but someone who smokes a joint every day is likely to be classified as a stoner (eg. addicted to marijuana). Not to mention that people who are addicted to caffeine wouldn't generally into a conversation about addiction, despite the fact that it has the potential to be more harmful than THC.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Relaxation is a dangerous side effect if you are driving. Reaction time is the real factor in avoiding a crash, thats why the 10/1 rule exists The fact it does also make you drive slower isn't actually a compensator, it just adds to the danger.

Fatigue has the same effect, yet most states don't make an effort to punish people for driving while tired.

As to driving slower: That's not strictly true. While large deviations from the general speed of traffic will always be dangerous, simply driving slower is not necessarily so.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Large doses can cause hallucinations and impaired memory.

Sort of like that completely legal, and chemically addictive drug we call alcohol. A drug which is potentially lethal absent any additional factors and is connected to a number of other known, long-term health issues which can clearl be demonstrated to produce suffering.

 dogma wrote:
Fatigue has the same effect, yet most states don't make an effort to punish people for driving while tired.

Or talking to the passengers.

I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

Seriously? Go back and read the post you quoted when you first posted here. They were talking about pot being physically addictive, not psychologically. All you're doing here is nitpicking that "not addictive" is used in the common conversational sense of "not very likely compared to other things", not a literal "not possible" sense. They were absolutely correct about the addiction risk being a misconception: a lot of people believe that pot is physically addictive like other drugs, when it isn't. The only addiction risk is the same addiction risk that applies to pretty much every other enjoyable thing you can do, and if the addiction risk of pot is on the same level as the addiction risk of sitting on your couch watching football then I think most people will say that it isn't addictive.

A) No one cares about what you think is obvious. Bias is a powerful thing, and repeating an assertion over and over again doesn't suddenly make it a substantiated argument.

B) I'm not going to argue with you about what the intent behind someone else' post is. Dude's not dead- he's more than capable of clarifying his post if he wants to.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

Seriously? Go back and read the post you quoted when you first posted here. They were talking about pot being physically addictive, not psychologically. All you're doing here is nitpicking that "not addictive" is used in the common conversational sense of "not very likely compared to other things", not a literal "not possible" sense. They were absolutely correct about the addiction risk being a misconception: a lot of people believe that pot is physically addictive like other drugs, when it isn't. The only addiction risk is the same addiction risk that applies to pretty much every other enjoyable thing you can do, and if the addiction risk of pot is on the same level as the addiction risk of sitting on your couch watching football then I think most people will say that it isn't addictive.

A) No one cares about what you think is obvious. Bias is a powerful thing, and repeating an assertion over and over again doesn't suddenly make it a substantiated argument.

B) I'm not going to argue with you about what the intent behind someone else' post is. Dude's not dead- he's more than capable of clarifying his post if he wants to.

I am not even sure what sort of clarification you need.....

I think every politician, local, state, and federal, who has tried the pot should turn themselves in for jail time and pay for every red cent of it. Maybe then this issue wouldn't seem do trivial to them. You shouldn't impose on others what you're not willing to impose on yourself.

-Deleted for bigotry-

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

I agree with one caveat, misrepresenting it one way or the other does potentially affect how voters will decide to vote on the issue. Spreading the "It isn't addictive" tripe gives voters less than honest info to base their decision on, as does spreading the "It is more addictive than heroine" crap. So from that perspective, it is relevant to how people perceive the issue of whether it should be legal or not, and to what extent it should be regulated and restricted if/when made legal.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

That's a terrible and flawed argument. "There already is bad, so what harm would more bad do?" isn't an argument to begin with.

"X is addictive" is not an argument.

"X is addictive, but so is Y, so banning X because it's addictive seems irrelevant" on the other hand, is a very valid argument and the reason the former is not a very good argument.

 jasper76 wrote:
I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

Sooo... "SUCK IT United Nations!"

Right?

Remember: "puff, puff, pass!".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

Yep... withdrawal is fething serious stuff guys. Some things you cannot COLD TURKEY things and literally survive.

Now... here's the interesting thing though... there's no known case that going COLD TURKEY from POT addiction will kill ya. (yet, alcohol addiction can).

And... it's legal to drink copious amounts of alcohol.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
"X is addictive" is not an argument.

"X is addictive, but so is Y, so banning X because it's addictive seems irrelevant" on the other hand, is a very valid argument and the reason the former is not a very good argument.

Yup.

Dislcaimer: Not a Pot smoker... but, "tootsie rolls" from Colorado? Awesomesauce.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

That's a terrible and flawed argument. "There already is bad, so what harm would more bad do?" isn't an argument to begin with.

No, it's more like, we have already established as a society that the mere fact something is addictive isn't in itself enough to make us uncomfortable, let alone unlawful. We've decided adults can make those choices on their own: please don't make bad analogies from what I said. I never attached any moral value at all.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

Sooo... "SUCK IT United Nations!"

Right?

Remember: "puff, puff, [i]pass![/]

The United Nations can go fall of a cliff. Whatever it once may have been, its now the most useless, toothless obligation we have to keep on life support.

If you're implying I smoke pot, I don't. If it ever became legal, I'd try it for insomnia. But I am subject to random drug testing, and I can't. And if I got arrested, I'd lose my job, which I need.

Tell me, if your kid is caught smoking a joint, how much prison time do you want him to do, and how large a fine do you want him to pay? Seriously, tell me...I want to know.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

Sooo... "SUCK IT United Nations!"

Right?

Remember: "puff, puff, [i]pass![/]

The United Nations can go fall of a cliff. Whatever it once may have been, its now the most useless, toothless obligation we have to keep on life support.

If you're implying I smoke pot, I don't. If it ever became legal, I'd try it for insomnia. But I am subject to random drug testing, and I can't. And if I got arrested, I'd lose my job, which I need.

Tell me, if your kid is caught smoking a joint, how much prison time do you want him to do, and how large a fine do you want him to pay? Seriously, tell me...I want to know.

I think you have me confused as being anti-pot.

In addition, I don't think any "drug users" deserves jail time.

Oh...very sorry! I haven't been getting much sleep lately

 jasper76 wrote:
Oh...very sorry! I haven't been getting much sleep lately

No worries.

My folks live in Colorado.. and my pa just had shingles.

Very painful...

Doc gave him a crap ton of narcotics to help the pain, but those "industry" narcs just feths with his system and he can't take it well.

So, he tried that THC enriched "toostie roll".

It's the best thing ever.