REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Requia ☣]

RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological.

Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?

I think he's right in this case, but only really because the links RWHN gave aren't making any attempt to differentiate between physical and psychological addictions.

I can't really blame the site though, the APA insists that both kinds of addiction are things that only happen with chemical use, its only really when you look at the broad kinds of compulsive habits people form that there's any reason to consider the difference between addiction types.

[Vaud]

Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?

Absolutely, I read through those links.  The mayoclinic link merely illustrates that marijuana can be classified as an addiction, but that doesn't mean it's pinned down to biological dependencies.. ofc, one could easily argue that anything psychological is biological, but I was much more interested in concrete evidence of chemical dependencies, or deficiencies caused by use.  I haven't come across anything substantial.  

The jointogether link doesn't bring anything new to the table either, unless one isn't aware of the harmful effects of smoking it.  I do agree that smoking it is harmful to the lungs and heart.  I'm a big fan of vaporizers, which are widely available, and at least here in central IL, quite affordable.

The whitehouse pub also addresses dangers in smoking, which I've already addressed, and I think it's pretty easy to see it's written with bias.

It seems to me that RWHN is coming at this from a sociologically influenced perspective, which can be substantial, of course.  I just wanted to know if there were concrete/numerical analyses that illustrate a biological dependency.

[LMNO]

I meant the part where he said that "psychological addictiction is still addiction."

Just because you casually dismiss it, doesn't invalidate what he's saying.

[Vaud]

I meant the part where he said that "psychological addictiction is still addiction."

I'm not disputing this point at all. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I think there may be a broader point to be made about whether or not the potential for psychological addiction should be basis for any decision about any substance's medicinal usefulness, but I'm also not sure there's much point to debating it here. My personal opinion is that while potential physical dependency SHOULD factor into a substance's schedule and frequency of prescription, the fact that psychological addiction can be caused by virtually anything in people predisposed to have that problem means that it should NOT factor into decisions on a substance's schedule and frequency of prescription.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think there may be a broader point to be made about whether or not the potential for psychological addiction should be basis for any decision about any substance's medicinal usefulness,

I am most definitely addicted to benzos, but so what?  I need them for a real reason, and they work.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think it's crazy that prescribing OxyContin for chronic back pain is a legitimate business that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but smoking a joint for chronic back pain is considered a menace to society and grounds for an individual to have a criminal record (which these days just about guarantees they'll never get a job that pays a living wage).

[Vaud]

I think it's crazy that prescribing OxyContin for chronic back pain is a legitimate business that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but smoking a joint for chronic back pain is considered a menace to society and grounds for an individual to have a criminal record (which these days just about guarantees they'll never get a job that pays a living wage).

I agree. This is completely insane.

[AFK]

Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?

Absolutely, I read through those links.  The mayoclinic link merely illustrates that marijuana can be classified as an addiction, but that doesn't mean it's pinned down to biological dependencies.. ofc, one could easily argue that anything psychological is biological, but I was much more interested in concrete evidence of chemical dependencies, or deficiencies caused by use.  I haven't come across anything substantial.  

The jointogether link doesn't bring anything new to the table either, unless one isn't aware of the harmful effects of smoking it.  I do agree that smoking it is harmful to the lungs and heart.  I'm a big fan of vaporizers, which are widely available, and at least here in central IL, quite affordable.

The whitehouse pub also addresses dangers in smoking, which I've already addressed, and I think it's pretty easy to see it's written with bias.

Again, the quote I pulled from that document from the whitehouse.gov site comes complete with a citation to scientific research.  Can we try a little harder than, "lawl, government bias"?

It seems to me that RWHN is coming at this from a sociologically influenced perspective, which can be substantial, of course.  I just wanted to know if there were concrete/numerical analyses that illustrate a biological dependency.

Withdrawal symptoms aren't biological?  Are they just hallucinations?  

[AFK]

RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological.

Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?

I think he's right in this case, but only really because the links RWHN gave aren't making any attempt to differentiate between physical and psychological addictions.

I can't really blame the site though, the APA insists that both kinds of addiction are things that only happen with chemical use, its only really when you look at the broad kinds of compulsive habits people form that there's any reason to consider the difference between addiction types.

Did everyone just skip over the part where I explained the difference between, say, pathological gambling and marijuana addiction? 

[Requia ☣]

Yes, must have missed it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I predict this thread will end very, very badly, just like this topic (and a few others) always does.

FACT:  Weed isn't good for you, unless you have a symptom it will treat (ie, it's better for insomnia than benzos).

FACT:  Anyone who thinks that people caught with weed should be incarcerated should be taken for a drag around the prison yard.

This thread will become a tool box in less than an hour.  Just saying.

[LMNO]

Forget it, RWHN.  It looks like the conversation has reached that familiar point where the exchange of ideas ends; in other words, a conclusion (by your definition).


[edit: in other words, what TGRR said.]

[Requia ☣]

It's been a tool box for months.

[AFK]

But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary.