• CD Moderators: nepalnt21
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Do you or anyone you know seem heavily addicted to Marijuana?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is about being addicted to pot. Not heroin, not meth, not nail biting and not video games either. Why do feel the need to de-rail it so much?
 
Everything I have been saying is about whether marijuana is addictive. Comparing it to other addictions is necessary for perspective.

I dont really like the medical definition because things like video games can easily fit the criteria of "addiction", and it doesnt feel right comparing video games to narcotics.

But whatever....the medical definition is significantly different from the classical dictionary definition, but it exists.

I dont really know a lot of people who manage to become "addicted" to marijuana, but the medical definition is a very liberal definition and I suppose people can be addicted when using that definition.

More people meet the criteria for video game addiction than meet the criteria for marijuana addiction.


I also feel like demonizing marijuana by saying its addictive the same way harder drugs are is misleading to the public who will hear this and assume it has a similar harm potential to these harder drugs, which it does not.
 
This article says that marijuana addiction can be as high as 4%...Using a very liberal definition of addiction that does not require dependence or craving.

http://www.spiritualriver.com/is-marijuana-addictive/


So I wont argue that it cant be psychologically "addictive", though medicine makes no distinction based on which of the criteria you meet....I am mostly skeptical of lumping it together with drugs that are much more obviously metabolically addictive producing strong cravings that are difficult to ignore or overcome.


"Marijuana is not as bad as crack" is not just an excuse. Its a reality.
 
Any addiction has a similar harm potential involved, that's why there is a medical criteria to define it. How dangerous the DRUG is, is a completely different story. It's the person behind the drug that makes all the decisions and that's where the REAL harm potential truly lies, not the drug.

For example, I have made many bad decisions based off of my addiction to marijuana leading to several arrest, loss/rejection of jobs and a general sense of mal-being. However, I have tried speed and I used it responsibly. I didn't like it and stopped using it. Speed never got me in trouble once. I am not addicted nor have I ever been addicted to speed.

You want to call the whole definition of medical addiction a fluke because you don't "feel" comfortable comparing weed to "hard" drugs.

It's a very narrow minded view that you have on drugs. You are essentially blaming the drug for all the problems it causes people, when it's the PEOPLE who make the decisions after using them, not the drug.
 
Valid argument.

I agree that psychological addiction is about the person and not just the substance...which is why I said that anything can be addictive if you are OCD enough.....I mean if its really not about the substance itself, then its not about marijuana being addictive at all but about people who have addictive personalities.

To a point however I do blame the substance more than the users who make choices, because some substances are so instantly and powerfully addictive the very first time you try them.....like if you have ever tried this stuff called 'Pink Champaign' that I think was a combination of coke and speed....it was so powerfully addictive from the very first hit, such a dirty yet euphoric high, totally fiendish because you get the coke cravings while you are still tweaking......yeah, I blame the drug itself as much as I blame the people who chose to try it. The drug has inherent properties that fuck with your chemistry, even if you were slipped it without your knowledge.

If somebody smoked a bowl of weed, I wouldnt expect them to be as likely to lose control and go on a binge/spiral of addiction over the next few weeks or months, selling everything they own before they run out and start stealing stuff....I just dont see it.

Getting arrested is an unnecessary consequence of the drug. That aspect of harm would not exist if the drug wasnt demonized and criminalized by government, and saying its addictive just like crack and tobacco is only adding to its stigma.

You know, in California you would never be arrested even for smoking in public. At least not here in Santa Cruz.


I am not making up a new definition of addiction though....I am reverting back to an older definition. The medical definition is the new made up definition. The classical definition had cravings and dependency and obsession all as criteria.
 
Sentience said:
To a point however I do blame the substance more than the users who make choices, because some substances are so instantly and powerfully addictive the very first time you try them.....like if you have ever tried this stuff called 'Pink Champaign' that I think was a combination of coke and speed....it was so powerfully addictive from the very first hit, such a dirty yet euphoric high, totally fiendish because you get the coke cravings while you are still tweaking.....
Click to expand...
So your example for your rebuttal to my argument is some obscure drug name that doesn't even show up when I fucking google it.

You know, in California you would never be arrested even for smoking in public. At least not here in Santa Cruz.
Click to expand...
And yet 19 didn't pass. Shame on you.
 
My point basically is that I question whether you really did ever lose your choice in the matter, whether some powerful craving or dependency overpowered your will despite a desire to quit, or if you simply made a series of bad choices and flip flopped on your intentions.

A true addiction can be almost like a demonic possession, if such a thing existed. Independent of your own will, you crave a substance. It tells you when to get up, where to go, what to do....it takes you over.

I am skeptical that marijuana can produce this effect, to a very significant degree, in the vast majority of non-OCD individuals.
 
A true addiction can be almost like a demonic possession, if such a thing existed.
Click to expand...
So using medical definitions is out of the question for you, but using ancient religious philosophies is totally cool?

I am skeptical that marijuana can produce this effect, to a very significant degree, in the vast majority of non-OCD individuals.
Click to expand...
Isn't OCD in itself a medical definition? Wouldn't this be something you would have to disagree with?
 
Sentience said:
My point basically is that I question whether you really did ever lose your choice in the matter, whether some powerful craving or dependency overpowered your will despite a desire to quit, or if you simply made a series of bad choices and flip flopped on your intentions.

A true addiction can be almost like a demonic possession, if such a thing existed. Independent of your own will, you crave a substance. It tells you when to get up, where to go, what to do....it takes you over.

I am skeptical that marijuana can produce this effect, to a very significant degree, in the vast majority of non-OCD individuals.
Click to expand...

I may have an unwitting case of OCD then...

I picked up a halfer after 2 weeks of trying to tolerance break, and immediately started smoking 6+ times a day...

I definitely was not planning on that happening...

I have like nothing left...wtf happened
 
Last edited:
I dont disagree with the existance of medical conditions....I just think they are not totally objective like the hard sciences are. Medicine, while based on hard sciences more than psychology, is as much an art with subjective practices as the social sciences are.....medicine is not totally objective like chemistry and physics or math. There are a lot of subjective elements in medicine.

OCD as a tendency is real in my opinion, but where you draw the line and how you word the description can be a subject of debate....and is.

Addiction is real in my opinion, but medicine makes no distinction between psychological vs metabolic addictions. I think they should, because I think that different types of addiction need to be treated differently.

My own mother is probably as close as anyone can be to being "addicted" to pot....She thinks she needs it constantly or she will become difficult.....however, if you keep her distracted, she wont notice that she isnt stoned/smoking.....psychological addiction.

I also had the opportunity to see her addicted to crack cocaine....not even remotely similar. She vanished for years, became homeless, lost everything, tried to quit and was unable to, it took over her life and she completely lost control......

Is it really that similar to marijuana? I dont think it is. I think its more like a habit, like nail biting or video games....maybe some people get OCD about it, like my mother does, but comparing it to a metabolically addictive drug is like night and day.
 
Using my mom and also friend as test subjects, one thing I have also noticed is that when you are dealing with a psychological addiction, other sources of entertainment will substitute for it....for example, my mom can get 'drunk OR stoned'. If she gets some pain pills she doesnt need those AND weed, though if she has both she will combine them....she only dables in stuff that isnt weed these days, but as a psychological poly-drug user, she can easily substitute one source of entertainment for another.

Not so with a chemical addiction. You MUST have that specific drug, or a drug that fits the same receptors. Not only that, but you cannot keep somebody mentally distracted from a chemical dependency, or substitute with other sources of entertainment that trigger the reward center. The cravings are metabolic, in the body, not just in the mind.

"Habits" or psychological addictions can also become compulsive or obsessive, but I feel that the distinction should be made, but it isnt.
 
Sentience said:
medicine is not totally objective like chemistry and physics or math.
Click to expand...
This is very ignorant of you to say. Ever hear of Einstein's theory of relativity? Or how about Euclidean vs Non Euclidean geometry? Do you think that those theories go without any subjectivity to them? By definition they are subjective. In fact, all the axioms which we rely on to study them are 100% subjective.
 
Point taken, but that in turn only strengthens my point that medical definitions are not above subjective debate.

I dont doubt you had a psychological addiction, but I also believe that metabolic addictions are in a different league and should be differentiated.....I sometimes call a psychological addiction a 'habit' to distinguish it from something metabolically addictive that produces cravings that can overpower the human will.....not just something the mind desires and will seek if available.

Most pot smokers can choose not to smoke....they just dont want to...in my opinion.....like I really dont want to do the dishes or take out the trash, but I can if I put my mind to it.

Those who are metabolically addicted really have their choice taken away in much more meaningful ways.
 
Psychological addictions can be more over-powering than metabolic addictions. Like I said before, it's what the PERSON chooses to do with it which makes it an addiction or not.
 
Yes and no. Most metabolic addictions are ALSO psychologically addictive, generally moreso.

A purely psychological addiction without metabolic dependency or boldly cravings, like pituitary cravings for food and sex, is unlikely to dominate your life to the same extent.....when it does, it largely resembles an OCD tendency, where the mind thinks it needs something but nothing bad really happens if you dont get it.

Have you ever been addicted to something like methamphetamines or opiates? Ever tried to kick smoking? Do you know that feeling you get when you eat a meal and dont have a cigarette to smoke to increase motility? Thats the pituitary gland trying to remind you to fulfill your basic human needs, and its a pretty powerful motivator. Its what compels us to eat food instead of waste away. It punishes us with hunger if we fail to feed it. There is no known pituitary related craving for marijuana. Its more like how somebody wants to play video games the second they get home, or stay up all night playing them when they have a test the next day.

I have a hard time seeing marijuana as being in the same category as drugs that produce both psychological and metabolic/pituitary addictions. Furthermore, I suspect that anyone with an addictive personality prone to being addicted to marijuana would be even more so addicted to a harder drug they find enjoyable.


Psychological addictions exist, but they belong categorically separate from pituitary metabolic addictions.
 
I lived in london most of my life and years ago,dont know about rest of uk, but in london if you had a drug problem they sent you to a mental hospital as drug councillers then were all psychiatrist's. You was mixed with depressives and all sorts of people with all kinds of mental illness's. I couldn't help noticing that quite a few Rasta's were always in those places and were for the most part drugged up on 'Largactal'(chloraphomazine). These guys were mostly suffering from schitsofrinia and I also discovered that they were always on the pipe(weed) and smoked it neat, really strong sensi. They had smoked so much that they had totally fucked thier brains up. I have toked on the pipe like that, but not day in day out, year in year out. One guy had a direct line to god and went round all day shouting patois to the sky. Another one went round shouting at people with a bible in his hand, he was a scarey fucker.Another thought he was a witch doctor and put curses on the staff. They were all young blokes, gone over the top doin too much weed for too long. As it is not physically addictive, I think the key is moderation. I did puff for 50 years, almost daily, but when I stopped smoking(cigarettes) I missed the puff but it didn't bother me. I only did about two or three spliffs a day. Purely medicinal (oh yea).
 
addicted to pot?
um nope, and I use to smoke half ounce a day, and I quit cold turkey, no withdrawls, just a scatter craving.
 
w01fg4ng said:
Psychological addictions can be more over-powering than metabolic addictions. Like I said before, it's what the PERSON chooses to do with it which makes it an addiction or not.
Click to expand...

You're spot on.

I have to warn you- sentience holds on to his views stronger than just about anyone with less empirical reason to than just about anyone so further argument will likely just be an exercise in futility and annoyance. Proceed with caution and fair warning.

_____________

Sentience- seriously? telling me to cede that point?

I already CLEARLY demonstrated that they didn't use common definitions for video game addiction that they use for substance addiction so the figures produced are incomparable and useless. If they used the same criteria for video games as they do for substance dependence, the numbers would be that low.

You cherry picked a study to find one that used different (and completely unexplained) criteria for addiction thus generating a COMPLETELY USELESS figure and then tried to use that figure to show I was wrong but all you did was prove your ability to create straw men and cherry pick data. Congrats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top