• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Is marijuana addiction serious or real?

Depends what you mean by serious. I mean, it's a joke compared to alcohol or benzo withdrawls, but I have certainly felt symptoms after quitting following too long a period of use. A bit of insomnia, irritability, loss of appetite.

It's probably closer to, but a bit worse than something like nicotine addiction. But it's certainly real, I don't see how that can really be debated. Too many people seem to have symptoms, and well, that's what I think is relevant, books and politicians aside.
 
w01fg4ng said:
Stigmas and taboos created by prohibition unfortunately play a role in addiction behaviors, often times leading users down a more dangerous path than they would have normally gone.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree entirely. I think culture forms when people do things together, so naturally weed has its own unique and diverse drug cultures and subcultures.
Some people seem to develop a problem with it. Addiction is more behavioral than chemical with weed
 
Egzoset said:
Still at it Mafioso?...



M'yeah, there's that thing call perceptive distortion which separates us i guess.

At some point it was argued that "addiction" to cannabis was "real".

Hence i ask HOW REAL???

What you're problem putting that in clear statistics which everyone understands, rather than continue to focus on personal attacks??

But you've got to get that trophy, am i not right?!...

Anyway. Lets say were're 60 % of the Canuck population to have inhaled at least once in our entire lives, then 2.2 % of this group (go figure why not...) has been in "trouble" because of cannabis, one way or another (discipline at school, whatever)... then only, say, 1 tenth of a percent from this sub-group has actually displayed clinical signs of "addiction" as definined by our elite doctors, the same kind of guys who once declared "Indian Hemp" as "Poison", and i repeat: besides arsenic and cyanure!... Then the national ban of 1923, In The Name Of Children, etc., etc... Euh... Then, after all the math how does it boil down to when the time comes to justify KILLING a Canadian citizen over 8~ g not even collected from the dead, who was blamed for his fate, etc...

So, my point is that if "addiction" is real then it must be measurable in the real world, hence my request to see real numbers.

More personal attacks would be futile, i'll quote this question again if you dare avoid it. My promise.

Good day, have fun!! =D
Click to expand...

Addiction literature has come a long way.

At one point it was argued whether or not alcohol addiction was a real thing.

Addiction is not measured by whether or not someone has had legal problems, if that is what you mean by "trouble". I referred to the DSM-5 because it is the standard that all addiction professionals currently use to determine whether or not someone has addiction to cannabis. If you are curious as to how it is determined, the information is widely available online.

There is nothing personal about it.
 
w01fg4ng said:
Stigmas and taboos created by prohibition unfortunately play a role in addiction behaviors, often times leading users down a more dangerous path than they would have normally gone.
Click to expand...
I would agree but stigmas or taboos are not the root cause of cannabis addiction, although they do create bigger problems in regard to cannabis use.
 
Salutations,

As promised...

Egzoset said:
...if "addiction" is real then it must be measurable in the real world, hence my request to see real numbers.
Click to expand...

It's a start to throw a book at me and i'd bet that's where my 2.2 % came from, yet i was expecting a simple statement like in Canada, on planet Itnoc, during the year 2016 there's been 475 psycho-somatic complications related to cannabis, for example (hypothetically). Then we all want to hear how much did it cost per capita, etc. Right??

Basics for a voter trying to decide if Trudeau is a public enemy, i must argue. 'cause it's easy to scare people on TV with generous descriptions of a few peek (monster) cases but that's meaningless without a reference to compare.

So i repeat, if it's real then how real - or more precisely how much real? E. G. $$$ per child "saved"...

Then i'm going to return with more questions about how much permanent prejudice was caused via durable trauma, would this justify a collective case requiring reparation by the government, etc., and of course this translates as an amount of public money given to each individual victim eligible to such compensation. Then we can put that in a balance and decide if it's disproportionate because of bigotry or not, for example. Etc.

w01fg4ng said:
Stigmas and taboos created by prohibition unfortunately play a role in addiction behaviors, often times leading users down a more dangerous path than they would have normally gone.
Click to expand...

I think that's still applying on a nearly global scale today: the most widespread consumption method is smoking i believe, which implies chronic self-poisoning and multi-intoxication. E.G. contaminated data from self-vilifying agents which can only help the prohibitionist cause if one dares to ask me! So in my personal opinion our proliticians are not just failing the population out of good will, no. Actuallly it's gone way beyond that now while we can all share a same information via internet nonetheless. Like it's more real because it's on TV, euh... That endless/sterile dialog goes nowhere while invisible strings are beeing pulled... But i can say this: if i could have been my own coach (when i was a young man) using what i know now i wouldn't feel like my country ows us apologies and compensations (since i'd know better...), in real measurable money for starters - which implies equally real statistics, etc.

Today i believe the cigarette/joint deprives cannabis consumers from an important choice when it comes to consumption disorders. The dosage is wrong and the ritual too, hence i'll buy the "behavioral addiction" version and continue using my 475 "victims" count in 2016 in this country unless more acurate figures can be shown, as mine requires adjustment i'm sure. Yet i'm confident it's not 10 thousand as many or similar, else no one would be able to ignore such crisis - but i get the impression this one ain't going to hapen.

Now 475 is still a huge number but that doesn't invalidate constitutions and charters of rights, nor plead for more police brutality, culture-centric stigmatisation/persecution/"cultural genocide", etc., etc... So, how many behavioral addictions and then how much each - especially everything connected to Trudeau's "Big Mari-Caca"...

Good day, have fun!! =D
 
Last edited:
According to the DSM-5(professional standard for diagnosis mental disorders in the US), the criteria for cannabis addiction is as follows:
1.Taking the substance in larger amounts or for longer thanyou'remeant to
2.Wanting to cut down or stop using the substancebut not managing to
3.Spending a lot of time getting, using, or recovering from use of the substance
4.Cravings and urges to use the substance
5.Not managing to do what you should at work, home,or schoolbecause of substance use
6.Continuing to use, even when it causes problems in relationships
7.Giving up important social, occupational, or recreational activities because of substance use
8.Using substances again and again, even when it puts you in danger
9.Continuing to use, even when you know you have a physical or psychological problem that could have been caused or made worse by the substance
10.Needing more of the substance to get the effect you want (tolerance)
11.Development of withdrawal symptoms, which can be relieved by taking more of the substance

The "numbers" you request have no relation to whether or not cannabis addiction is real. It would assume that everyone or really anyone who has an addiction to cannabis is seeking treatment or has been open and honest about their use. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, addiction is considered psychosomatic, or a mental illness. Politics and tax money have nothing to do with it. The cases of heroin addiction are far less than cannabis, yet I doubt anyone would argue that heroin is not addictive.

Cannabis has addictive qualities and it is known(through neuroscience) to cause changes in the brain. It meets all criteria for addiction. Drug addiction implies a behavioral addiction but behavioral addiction does not imply drug addiction. The two are not the same.

I would continue this debate if you were on topic, but...I'm no longer clear on what your argument is. just wanted to make it clear what the DSM-5 states if anyone is curious. Cannabis addiction is not a debate among mental health professionals, it is a fact. You can argue about propaganda all day, but I'm not interested.
 
Egzoset said:
i'll buy the "behavioral addiction" version
Click to expand...
Behavior is really the only way we can measure these things.

Mafioso said:
I would agree but stigmas or taboos are not the root cause of cannabis addiction, although they do create bigger problems in regard to cannabis use.
Click to expand...
Bigger problems with cannabis use sounds exactly like a behavioral issue as it relates to addiction. There isn't one reason for addiction, in fact your list of 11 behaviors requires at least 2 of those behaviors in a person to even be considered for being a disorder however you failed to mention that.

Personally I can attest for having all 11 of those behaviors in your DSM-5 reference and almost half of them I can personally attest to being alleviated, or in some cases no longer relevant, by the effects of legalization. Specifically #3, #5, #6, #7 and #8 all are relevant when it comes to addiction behavior changes that occurred in me that I can personally attribute to legalization.
 
In one breath you speak of cannabis addiction and in the next breath you try to call it a behavioral problem and imply it is caused by legal status.

If it is just a behavioral problem then it is not an addiction. I would still argue that all addictions are much more than just a behavioral issue. There are changes in the brain caused by psychoactive substances. The changes can be attributed to the use of a psychoactive substance and lead to changes in behavior. The changes in behavior can be attributed to the changes in the brain.

To get back to the original question: cannabis addiction is real. The seriousness off it is circumstantial and will vary from person to person.
 
Mafioso said:
In one breath you speak of cannabis addiction and in the next breath you try to call it a behavioral problem and imply it is caused by legal status.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I said that all in one breath. I've got some pretty wicked lungs.

All joking aside, it's just my experience. You might need several years of living with legalization to understand what I have been going through so I don't particularly expect you to relate at all.
 
I think you're misunderstanding the point to be honest.

The DSM does not list reasons or causes of addiction, it is a diagnostic tool.

Cannabis has been decriminalized in CA and there has been a medical program set up for a long time. CA also produces 80% of the weed circulating the US. I'm pretty familiar with weed culture and what it is like to be around non-judgmental people. I've had bosses that grew weed and I've been a foreman myself and smoked with the crew. There are also licensing programs set up for growing recreational weed. You are not special over there in Colorado...

Even if it is easy to acquire, if you spend a good portion of the day smoking weed/cooking edibles or growing it, it is likely to be considered preoccupation.(#3)

Not fulfilling duties at work, home, or school has nothing to do with legal status and is talking about the side effects of weed. Surely you aren't going to sit here and try to argue that there is no side effects....(#5)

Problems in relationships may have to do with legal problems, but it is also talking about problems caused by the side effects like loss of short term memory, loss of motivation, or other behavior changes caused by the side effects of smoking weed that then lead to problems in a relationship. If everyone you know is a stoner it's likely that others have the same issues so problems may not be as obvious as if you are dating someone who doesn't smoke weed, for example.(#6)

if there were no side effects to smoking weed, like paranoia, anxiety, forgetfulness, and so on, I don't see any reason to avoid social functions. Personally I never avoided social functions because I was worried that I smelled like weed and there would be some sort of legal trouble as a result of me being high. It was simply just knowing I would be high around sober people, which is what #7 is talking about.

Regardless of legal status, driving while stoned is still considered risky due to the fact that you are intoxicated, even if only mildly so. There are also other risky behaviors that can be associated with cannabis use that do not involve legal troubles, like inhaling smoke. Losing a job could even be considered putting yourself in a risky position- it would be putting weed before food and shelter. (#8 )

I don't get why legalization is being brought up so much when the topic is cannabis addiction. People can become addicted to drugs that are prescribed to them by a doctor, even if they take them as recommended. Legal status has no bearing over addictive qualities of a substance, although legal status may compound some behaviors commonly associated with addiction- it does not make them any more or less addicting. Maybe less likely to seek treatment or admit a problem, but whether or not someone becomes addicted to a drug has everything to do with family history, personal history, extent of use and drug used.

The qualities that make cannabis addicting have everything to do with pharmacology and physiology and nothing to do with legal status. The whole purpose of discussion is attempting to make your view understandable to others, but you seem to think the opposite..lol..



To clarify, I think legalization is a positive movement and I think the drug war to be a very negative thing in our society, but legalization will not solve addiction. It can help battle addiction by offering treatment to drug offenders rather than jail time, but legalization will not change the pharmacology and physiology surrounding addictive substances.

Lastly, look at prescription pills, alcohol and cigarettes. All legal and widely accepted and all are addictive with high case of addiction.
 
Last edited:
Mafioso said:
If you are attempting to discredit what I said and what I sourced, why don't you answer your own questions as they seem very directive and as if you are trying to use them to make a very specific point... Why play games? Just come out and say what it is you believe.

If you're questioning the integrity of the DSM, then you might as well question the integrity of everyone who works in the mental health field in the U.S. because it is the standard. It isn't written by one source either, so alluding that it may be biased is alluding to a vast conspiracy of doctors and researchers over decades.... Also, if it might be important to note that it only has a few pages if that on cannabis addiction... so it is far from anti-cannabis propaganda, if that is what you are trying to allude.

Never said nor implied that everyone who uses cannabis becomes addicted, just stated the fact that it is possible to become addicted. It has nothing to do with inflammatory speech. There was nothing inflammatory about my statement.
Click to expand...

The DSM 5 is crap, especially with regard to "Substance Abuse Disorders". I have multiple degrees in the field, and work as a licensed mental health clinician in the USA. Most of us in the field recognize that the DSM is crap, but it's the best we have, and insurance will pay on the basis of it's diagnosis. The DSM is written by many people, but the MDs in the room have far more power then the PHDs, despite the fact that the pure medical model of mental health is clearly ineffective. Use is serious when the subjective effects it is having on the users life become problematic, period.
 
Proper assessment techniques with an eye towards the effect any given behavior or habit has on a person's ability to live the life they wish to live tends to work best with regard to substance use. On the mental health side one need only look at the debates regarding differential diagnosis for bipolar with psychotic features vs schizoaffective disorder to see how flawed the dsm understanding is.

Combine good clinical sense with the individuals subjective report of effect a of use, and you have a solid idea if something is an issue in their life, when speaking about treatment at least.
 
That's a very specific example to completely discredit literature that covers literally hundreds of diseases/disorders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of colleges' curriculum based to some degree on the DSM? I'm not saying the DSM is flawless or should be used without question, but even you said it was "the best we have" seemingly suggesting that it serves as an industry standard..? I was citing the DSM in attempts to show that cannabis addiction is a disorder that is widely accepted among mental health professionals.

What is "good clinical sense" and proper assessment technique based on?
 
People scrape pipes for resin and smoke it to get high, I think that behavior speaks volumes about cannabis addiction. Some IV drug users reuse cottons when they run out, it's not for shits and giggles, it's to get high.

I have an addictive relationship with pot. If I have it I will smoke it everyday, sometimes I smoke resin when I dont have it. I was diagnosed with cannabis use disorder (as part of poly substance use) in 2012.

Pot addiction is real and *can be serious. I mean if you're spending rent or food money on weed that's a serious issue. If you're getting high and skipping class... that's an issue.
 
It's difficult for me to explain the flaws in the DSM in the time I have to post on this board, but it's flawed. The diagnoistic criteria basically allows one to diagnosis anyone using virtually any substance, at almost any level as a clinically relevent substance abuser. I chose one especially flawed example of the DSMs diagnostic critiera. And yes, most grad programs for clinical work spend alot of time talking about the DSM, and most admit it's flaws. I have two graduate degrees in the field, and was always taught to question the DSM more then take it as a bible. The (top 10) programs I've attended regard the DSM as basically an insurance tool to get paid. Clinical judgement comes from a combination of advanced education (undergrad degree, at least one grad degree, and hopefully for most, post grad work in a given speciality), experience in the field, and learning from those who have been doing it longer.

Look, youll find docs and even therapists who treat the DSM as a bible, IME, they are not especially skilled at their job.

I'm not saying there is no addiction to cannabis, i'm saying the DSM critiera assumes everyone who smokes with any regularity has a problem with the substance. I think MOST of us can agree this is flawed. Further, anyone having more then 3 drinks a week could be regarded as an abuser of alch. If you happen to have a copy of the dsm, flip through a see how many disorders (that you don't have) that you might be able to diagnosis yourself with on a bad day based on the given critiera. I'm not talking substance abuse either, many of the mental illnesses have such flimsy criteria as to allow a healthy person to meet them on an especially bad week. (Ok, I'll admit the DSM 5 has improved this fact with timeframes, but you'll still notice that many of on the more subjective side of things, lacking scienfiic definition).

This is a good thing, as it leaves a solid window for therapists and docs to ensure folks can get insurance to pay for their treatment, BUT it makes the DSM a horrible example of how to define addiction.

Not too long ago homosexuality was diagnosiable using the DSM, YES it's been modified, but that fact also speaks to it's lack of objective authority on the question. DSM continues to reflect stigma and political ideology. Mental health diagnositics are worlds behind their physical counterparts.

But overall, I agree, one can have a serious problem with Cannabis. Also with gambling, sex, porn, Afrin, eating non-edible items, ect. However, when compared to substances triggering physical dependence youll find cannabis addiction to be more rare and mild. I was a daily user to an extreamly long time (decades) and cut down to occasional with almost no issue. Some would be unable to do this, but many are suprised with how simple it can truly be. We are all different, and any substance can become a problem for any person.

My point is that there are daily smokers who don't have a problem because their life is not being negetivally effected by cannabis use. And would be less effected if they became to consume the susbtance orally rather then smoked. Others find a lack of motivation really fucks their life up, and if they also find themselves unable to stop, I would of course regard that as a problem. My disagreement is with citing the DSM as the evidence, when speaking mental health its important we recognize the subjective differences we all experience. For one, daily smoking may be a serious issue, but for another is may be an effective self medication preventing them from requiring regular benzos for control of anxiety, or stimulants for focus (I used daily in school to replace my vyvance script, as I am have a diagnosis that effects my focus). For many cannabis does not assist focus, but it allowed me to graduate top of my class in both grad programs, after struggling through college on Vyvance, hardly able to listen to lectures.

We must allow individuals to explain how a substance effects them rather then consulting a check list to determine addiction, no checklist, no matter how well researched, will ever explain the human experience.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with anything you said except that the individual has to explain how a substance effects them in order to determine an addiction. There are many "functional alcoholics" who don't perceive alcohol as having negative effects and likely won't until years down the road when the physical side effects catch up.

I don't think that all people who smoke weed are addicts, but just because their life is going well doesn't mean they aren't experiencing addiction. They likely have become accustomed to the side effects and have learned how to function with them. I smoked weed on the daily for about a decade of my life and was fairly successful, received promotions and raises at work and got along well socially. I learned to cope with the side effects, but I wasn't impervious to the side effects...

I agree that the DSM is far from perfect, really the entire mental health field is far from perfect, but that is a completely different argument. The question I was attempting to answer was "is cannabis addiction real" and a lot of people seem to think that it is not real and only a product of negative propaganda.

People who suffer from chronic pain who are prescribed opiate medications will still experience opiate addiction along with all the positive effects like relief from pain and an ability to function throughout the day, the negative side effects just may not be as bad as living with chronic pain might be. Someone who takes benzos for anxiety will become addicted after extended use even if they only use it as prescribed but being able to function in social settings might outweigh the negative effects of the drug, granted they never go into WDs. I have not met or heard of anyone who is taking these medications and doesn't panic when they can not get them. Using a less addictive and harmful drug like cannabis is great, but it is harm reduction not harm avoidance. The key word being less.

Drug use, even addictive drug use, can have a lot of positive results. It's not all doom and gloom. Whether or not there needs to be intervention/discontinue use is highly subjective, but I don't think the question of addiction is completely subjective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top