REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[East Coast Hustle]

No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied. 

Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research.  So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all. 

As long as you are interpreting that quantitative research and how it applies to human behavior, then yes, it IS a soft science. I didn't make these terms up. They're fairly well-defined and established.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied. 

Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research.  So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all. 

Okay.

Give me an accurate measurement of, say, a human's intelligence.

[East Coast Hustle]

Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".

A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.

So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).


I hope you can agree with that.  If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.






*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.

Bullshit. It is NOT a false dichotomy in the context of whether or not a substance should be legalized. The idea that we should ban things to protect people who might have a propensity for psychological addiction is absolutely fucking absurd.

ECH,
suggests we ban PD.com next

[BabylonHoruv]

Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".

A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.

So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).


I hope you can agree with that.  If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.






*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.

It's an important dichotomy though because Psychological addiction includes things that do not actually go into your body, like gambling, WoW and masturbation.  Addiction to weed is in the same class as those addictions, and not addiction to Heroin or Cocaine and that is important partly because treatment is very different.  Whether that should factor into decisions regarding legality is a point that can be argued back and forth, I think addictive potential is a relatively minor factor, but it does make a drug far less dangerous if you can't die from withdrawal, which, if the addiction is purely psychological, you cannot.

[AFK]

No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied. 

Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research.  So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all. 

As long as you are interpreting that quantitative research and how it applies to human behavior, then yes, it IS a soft science. I didn't make these terms up. They're fairly well-defined and established.

As well-defined as a colloquialism can be. 

Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories. 

I maintain that it is an artificial and arbitrary distinction. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".

A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.

So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).


I hope you can agree with that.  If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addictive.






*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.

Bullshit. It is NOT a false dichotomy in the context of whether or not a substance should be legalized. The idea that we should ban things to protect people who might have a propensity for psychological addiction is absolutely fucking absurd.

ECH,
suggests we ban PD.com next

I think that this is an important difference as well. It seems to me, that "psychologically addictive" is almost analogous to "habit forming". So in such a case, we would be saying "Subject X gets up in the morning, rolls a blunt, enjoys a wake and bake, then goes to work. He comes home, packs up a bowl, relaxes while checking out his favorite websites and email then makes dinner. After dinner, he watches a movie, while getting stoned. Then he goes to bed."

We could say that this person has formed a habit of using marijuana.

We could also say that the guy is living his life and enjoying marijuana as part of it. It seems subjective to me, based on the BiP of the observer.

I mean, speaking as someone who generally smokes lots of high grade pot and then just went 8 days without a single toke... I noticed no appreciable difference in my life. I had no craving, no stress or emotional issues, not once did I think "Man, I really need a bowl." If marijuana were physically addictive, then I am sure I would have suffered... if the chemical compound were addictive then my body would respond to that lack of chemical stimuli.

To me this is a key difference, if Person X and Person Y take addictive drug 1 for a period of time and then that drug is withheld, we can see the physical addiction happen in both... we can make a repeatable observable experiment.

If Person X and Person Y take habit-forming drug 2 for a period of time and then the drug is withheld, we may see very different results with each individual we test with. (At least, according to reports on the 'addictiveness' of marijuana this seems to be what most studies find.) So I don't think its a false dichotomy, but I do think that both can be valid concerns which have several similarities.

In my personal opinion, the only time that "habit forming" is a serious problem though, is when the habit is an escape from personal problems, financial problems, etc. If a person cannot function in reality, drugs are not gonna help. If a person can function in reality with a drug habit, they're way ahead of most of the monkeys on the planet, so more power to them.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories. 

Name one.

[AFK]

I was going to respond to the last couple of posts but....I'm done.  I'm putting up the white flag.  

I have no interest in doing this dance with you guys anymore.  I'm tired of seeing the same scenery over and over again.  

I hope at the very least you have tried to consider some of the information I've presented.  I obviously have no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind and nor did I expect to or want to.  

But the issue of marijuana addiction, particularly when it comes to our youth, is a very real and serious issue.  I've seen it throw its shrapnel and throw far too many lives off into paths that lead them to some very dark places.  I'm just one spag who is trying to help a few of these people out and hopefully help a few more avoid that shrapnel.  I don't do it out of some religious-like zealotry.  I really don't care if adults want to ruin their lives with this stuff.  They're adults, they make their adult decisions.

But kids don't and can't do that.  And when the adults in their lives model bad decisions, or generally just don't give a shit to pay attention, then I think it is good when there are adults in a community who will do what they can to help these kids out.  I'm proud to be one of those idiots charging at the windmill.  I know many (not necessarily here) will knock this as the ole "PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" cliche.  And that's fine.  Imma gonna do it anyway.  

[East Coast Hustle]

No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied.  

Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research.  So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all.  

As long as you are interpreting that quantitative research and how it applies to human behavior, then yes, it IS a soft science. I didn't make these terms up. They're fairly well-defined and established.

As well-defined as a colloquialism can be.  

Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories.  

I maintain that it is an artificial and arbitrary distinction.  

You'll have to explain your stance more clearly. First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories.  

but I'm pretty sure it should come with some sort of citation. And you seem to be ignoring the part where the distinction is between quantitative science and science based on human interpretation of quantitative science as it applies to behavior. It's really not a difficult distinction to make if you're not intent on viewing the terms "hard science" and "soft science" as having some sort of value judgment attached to them.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I really don't care if adults want to ruin their lives with this stuff.

That's the kind of comment that seems 'subjective' and 'BiP-ish' to me. I mean sure, some people ruin their life with pot. However, 'most, but not all' smokers I know are successful in their life. The stereotype of some dude on the couch in his Mom's basement surely exists, but it seems to be a small percentage of people that smoke pot.

One smoker I know is a few months away from his PhD. One just became general manager at a major new club. Another is Sous Chef at one of the best restaurants in the city, another is a in-demand developer and travels all over the world. Hell, even the guy I know that fucked his life up because of pot as a teenager is getting out of the funk and has his own place, a good job and behaves like a rational and reasonable person (and still smokes pot).

Maybe I just don't know all of the basement dwellers, because they're in the basement. However, at the very least, it doesn't seem like 'pot' is the key to people ruining their life. Maybe it contributes as an escape for people looking for an escape, but I don't think that is the same thing.

ETA: Note that I intend this as a subjective comment based on my experiences and what I can see from my own BiP.

[East Coast Hustle]

NOT EVEN ONCE.
\

[Placid Dingo]

For what it's worth, I disagree with probably most people in here on at least one, point, but this has been one of my favourite threads just for the value of RWHN speaking about something he knows professionally and intimately, so cheers.

[Telarus]

I value RWHN's input because I need thing to balance out, say, this, or I'd go crazy (in the bad, anti-social way):

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/15/dea_children

I can't believe she actually said that with her bare face hanging out.

[AFK]

I understand what she was trying to convey but she obviously was quite inartful with how she said it.  Honestly, it's one of those things you probably really can't convey without upsetting people, so it's best to just talk about it internally and not bother the public with it. 

[BabylonHoruv]

I understand what she was trying to convey but she obviously was quite inartful with how she said it.  Honestly, it's one of those things you probably really can't convey without upsetting people, so it's best to just talk about it internally and not bother the public with it. 

I think her statement here is one of the best arguements for legalization.  Keeping people from using drugs is not worth the lives of all of the people that are being killed.

Basically she admitted that the Cartel violence is a direct result of prohibition, something the anti-prohibition people have been saying for a long time.  Personally I hope she is not reprimanded for it, it's one of the few times the DEA has publically spoken the truth about the cost of the drug war and it's rather refreshing.