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

[Sentience]

I keep going back to dependency, purposefully, because I think its an important half of what the original dictionary definition of "addiction" was based on, long before DSM existed.

About making up a spectrum of addiction....yes, I did just make it up. Where do you think all of this theory and jargon comes from to begin with? People debating with each other and interjecting their own ideas and perspectives, and fighting for recognition. People with more recognition developed these ideas kind of similar to how your opinion or mine might shift over the course of this discussion.


Addiction had a really basic and general definition long before the DSM standards were created....that old school original simple common language definition stated that dependence was an essential requirement, not merely 1 of 7 with a total of 3 =ing dependency.....and however official and universally recognized those standards are, or however good those standards are, it seems quite artificial and maybe slightly arbitrary....why 3? Why isnt 4 the magic number? Why not just 2 if you have them really bad?


I like the original simple common language definition of addiction better.....2 absolute criteria and you have to meet ALL 2 of them. Dependency and compulsive obsessive behavior towards it. Thats it.....not best of 5, not 2 out of 3, not 4 out of 9.......2 criteria, and if you meet both then you are addicted.

I prefer the original dictionary definition, but I acknowledge that this DSM definition exists.


Marijuana is addictive like warcraft is addictive because you might score equally on the exact same numbers.

Cocaine or tobacco shares some similarities with Marijuana, but those two are very similar to each other, but less similar to marijuana or internet addictions.

Is it because of dependency and cravings? Yes. Basically. That originally was an essential half of the equation, without which you could not be addicted.....back when the good old dictionary was good enough.


I can understand your frustration though. I got the same way when Anarcho-Capitalists tried to say they are Anarchists, and then they dont know the first thing about classical Anarchist theory.....I am probably on the other side of the fence on this one, with you where I was.....however, out of nothing more than personal preference, I am going to have to go with the original dictionary definition and tell the DSM to go shove it.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

I don't think you're as well versed on societal perceptions of addiction as you believe. The concept is actually very new and didn't even appear AT ALL in its modern form until this century and wasn't widely accepted until AFTER the DSM came out (but admittedly, I have no idea what the sections on drugs said in the first 3 editions, if they included the topic at all).

Historically, what we today would consider addicts were people society viewed as having moral weaknesses. It wasn't until modern medicine really started to progress that people knew there was even a biological component AT ALL. They thought alcohol withdrawal was demons and a result of their sins for fucks sake.

Around the turn of the twentieth century they knew so much about addiction that when heroin hit the market in 1898 they thought it was a cure for alcoholism. Later on they thought cocaine was a cure for heroin addiction!

The definitions you're referring to are a product of people only having HALF the information. They could see heroin withdrawals, they could not see pet scan images of brains damaged by a decade of methamphetamine use and had not yet studied all the psychological factors that produce and result from addiction.

My main reason to keep physical dependency as a smaller aspect of what we define addiction as is because of how legitimate medicine can cause the same withdrawals. I don't think we should characterize addiction by acute withdrawal period but by the craving and relapses that follow.

 

[Sentience]

Here is where you are wrong.....I dont believe myself to be an authority on all this fancy stuff you are talking about. A lot of it is new me. I know full well that this is your specialty more than it is mine.

I am not sure that my opinion would change necessarily if I understood these theories in greater depth. My opinion is that at face value, the DNS standards seem very contrived and somewhat arbitrary. The last 3 or 4 are arguably only variations on the exact same behavior, or rather consequences of the exact same behavior, or different sets of things that might deter a normal person from destructive behavior, but its still the exact same behavior....where some of the earlier numbers actually represent different ideas distinctly.

This is honestly the first time I have ever studied that page you showed me, and its my opinion....I like to think I am a reasonably intelligent human being, and despite my relative ignorance of its history and context, those are my feelings on the subject.

So I am going to commit a fallacy here.....The old definition is better because it is older....well, maybe it isnt. Maybe its less practical and lacks sophistication....Outside of a clinical setting, I think its perfectly appropriate to fall back on a more common definition in polite conversation.

Anarchism is a pretty elaborate philosophical position, with positions on economics, the ethics of landlordism, property rights, the rejection of natural law and classical liberalism, advocacy of voluntary associations, and the basis of what would become workers entitlements.

Do I flip out when people fall back to a much older dictionary definition of "Anarchy" to describe hurricane Katrina? "Its Anarchy"!! Well, maybe I do, but only because its an opportunity to interject my ideas, like I just did.

I believe that older common uses of words and newer elaborate jargon and scientifically updated and elaborated definitions of these words can coexist.

There is also the tendency that sometimes one word will have a very DIFFERENT theory being represented by a term, if its being used by two distinct branches of the sciences. I cant think of a perfect example off the top of my head, but I remember a debate where the same word had significantly definitions whether it was math jargon, philosophy jargon, psychology/sociology jargon, or from one of the hard sciences....then there is the humble dictionary.

In the case of Anarch-ism, I like to give that one to Proudhon because he was the first ever to use the term. Not the first to use "anarchy" though. 'Anarchy' can accurately be used to describe a mob scene after a natural disaster or riot, much to the protest of AnarchISTS who claim that their proposed society would look nothing like that.

 

[Sentience]

And yes, I am backpedaling but without changing my original feelings too much.

I argued that it wasnt a true addiction....well, according to the DNS definition, the authority on clinical definition of addiction, yes it is.....point taken.

All I have to fall back on is that I was correct if I was using an older less sophisticated definition, and my subjective feelings that the DNS definition seems rather contrived and fallible.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^I'm apparently way too tired for this now... I spent like 5 minutes trying to figure out what Domain Name Systems have to do with any of this before I realized you meant Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel. :D

The fact is that many people view 'addiction' and 'substance dependence' as interchangeable and many people, exactly like what you're saying, believe physical dependence must be present to characterize addiction.

From the first part of the substance dependence wikipedia page-

Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence.

The related concept of drug addiction has many different definitions. Some writers give in fact drug addiction the same meaning as substance dependence, others for example provide drug addiction a narrower meaning which excludes drugs without evidence of tolerance or withdrawal symptoms.

Your definition certainly has validity and many people share your views. I just take a different approach academically and professionally.

So hopefully you can agree with this... using the DSM, SOME cannabis smokers (a rather small number compared to other drugs) will meet substance dependence criteria however using your definition of addiction, they will not.

Are we on the same page?

 

[Sentience]

Totally. Its been a good exercise, and I realized a few of my fallacies along the way.

 

[TrevMcdonald]

id say im mentally addicted, but after a couple of days your fine again. its hardly like alcohol where if your drinking a shit load every day and then just stop, you drop down dead. i think the main problem with pot is LAZYNESS! haha lagalize it!

 

[squidhead]

You 2 had a nice convo happening...don't mean to interrupt, but just want to interject a couple of points:
After 41 yrs of partaking, I've noticed some things that I thought would've been the exact opposite...1) I no longer wake & bake like I did, say, 20 yrs ago. I prefer to keep my puffin' to the evening hours when my day is done...2) I don't need nearly as much weed to get blasted. Now, that might be attributed to the fact that the present-day herb that I get directly from the grower(s) is a lot stronger than the pot in the 1970s, but a lot of that imported weed was pretty damn good itself. We could toke all day & night, no prob. I just can't/don't need to do that anymore...3) 20-30 yrs ago, I HAD to toke daily or I'd be grouchy & miserable to be around. Nowadays, I have to remind myself to go over to my den & do my evening ritual of either bongs or vaporizer. Some evenings, I'll actually skip getting high.
I would've assumed that after 4+ decades of doobage, my tolerance level would be sky-high (pardon the pun), but it's done a 180. My tolerance is so low that just 2-3 bonghits or 2-3 vape-hits is plenty for me. I used to toke 3-4 times that much & still be able to smoke more if I wanted to, but there's no way in hell that I could do that much weed at my age. I'd be passed-out!!
I'm not complaining in the least...in fact, I love that I'm to the point that all I need is a few hits & I'm good-to-go. I don't know about you other ancient tokers out there, but it seems like the older I've gotten, the less weed is needed for maximum orbit. It's a beautiful thing!! I would sum this up by saying it seems any weed addiction was a lot stronger 20 yrs ago when it felt like I needed to get high the minute I woke-up. I've never really taken any time-off from toking...but nowadays it's more of an evening 'treat' than a continuous all-day event.

 

[rollingstoned!]

Nah something that makes you pass out, feel different, and messes with your natural neurotransmission can be addicting? Who'da thought!

 

[Sentience]

Yeah, my experience is similar to squidhead, though I am 30. The longer I have been smoking the LESS I need to smoke, and the LESS often I do it, and the LESS it interferes with my life, and the LESS harmful it is to my social life or work schedule. In fact, the longer I have been smoking, the less allure it has and the less I feel I need it.

Its possible that some breakthrough moments on psychedelics have healed my dependencies, but marijuana for me and for many who have been smoking their whole life, is NOT really fitting the fiendish characteristics that list seems to be describing.....and the last 3 or 4 on that list are almost the same thing in different words, so I question whether they should really be cumulative.....yeah, in my completely unprofessional opinion without having studied the subject, my first impression is that the last half of the questions is just rephrasing the exact same tendency and listing different consequences, so they really shouldnt be 1 point each.

The more years I smoke, the less I need to smoke, the less often I smoke, and the less I feel like I am missing out if I dont smoke.

I have to remind myself to smoke because its good for my health......I have inflammatory autoimmune conditions. Its like remembering to eat my veggies or take my vitamins.

 

[Sentience]

So while I think theoretically people can be "addicted" to weed, I think people who fit the criteria are mostly psychologically addicted, socially addicted because its part of their identity and peer pressure, or have an OCD complex......marijuana does not consume you like opiates or cocaine, at least not more so than things like the internet, which eat up a LOT more of my time.

Its not ONLY WDs either. Its also cravings. I never crave weed. I like it. Mentally I think to myself that getting stoned would be nice....I dont crave it like an itch or like food, not like I do with cigarettes or stims when I used to use them.

 

[8L4YN3]

My belief is that alot of it comes down to perception. Perception is affected by past experiences, which gives the ability to compare to experiences ect.. Okay this is all extemely obvious but what i mean is that people who've never had a habit with say opiates or benzos but smoke say 2-3 ounces of chronic a week, these people are going to be physically and mentally addicted.

For people who've crossed the hypothetical line into drugs which cause strong physical dependence, to them weed is a peice of cake to come off of compared to say heroin or methadone.

But for the weed user their physical symptoms of repressed hunger and insomnia are very real but seldom if ever severe and are always short lived. Then of corse is the main bulk of the cannabis addiction which is the psychological part and obviously something as soothing and comforting as weed is going to be very mentally painful to part with. So to someone who has never delt with a dependence that's more severe and have nothing to compare back to cannabis withdrawal is very real and painful for them.

Weed can be very mentally addicting and this is what drives the motivation to smoke to the extreme point of producing physical symptoms(which as i stated before a small in number and not the main effect of the withdrawal syndrome itself) but once this cycle is created alot of people will keep smoking to avoid having to deal with going through the bullshit of quitting, so it is a very real physical and mental addiction. It is just that the physical part is very mild and although the mental part can be pretty strong it is nothing like harder drugs.

But then when everyone who was once addicted to weed and then moved up to harder drugs(not trying to say this is the norm or anything just example), they all would consider weed to be not even in the same league and most would even consider themselves clean and drug free when just smoking weed. It's nowhere near heroin. But yeah anyways thats my belief,

Sorry for any mistakes and shit in this i'm blazed as hell.

 

[RussianPothead]

I've gone weeks without pot, and at that, I could go more. People who smoke as a method of escape will likely develop some sort of reliance on the effects of the drug, but the drug itself is not addictive.

 

[Sentience]

I've gone weeks without pot, and at that, I could go more. People who smoke as a method of escape will likely develop some sort of reliance on the effects of the drug, but the drug itself is not addictive.

According to the 'clinical definition' of addiction, it is, but according to that definition video games and internet are "addictive" in the true sense of the word, unless you exclude them for completely arbitrary reasons.

I think the clinical definition is a bunch of bullshit personally. I disagree with its criteria. I think that WDs and cravings are essential characteristics of something that is truly addictive. Without cravings or withdrawals, I dont see why it should be considered "addictive" rather than simply "habit forming".

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^having a perspective is one thing but you're just distorting facts here.

24% of people who try heroin eventually meet criteria for substance dependence. 5-10% of people who try cannabis do, A TINY FRACTION of ONE percent of people who try video games or the internet would.

You seem to constantly and willfully ignore the requirement of 'clinically significant distress and impairment' and just focus on a very subjective interpretation of the 7 criteria completely devoid of context.

Please stop doing that.

 

[Sentience]

28% of statistics are bullshit.....but seriously, what do you have to prove those statistics? A poll? A number of people who have been clinically diagnosed? Self reporting? I could see serious flaws in any of those methods. I think the numbers are going to be altered by subjective cultural attitudes towards what can be addictive....I think that at least a quarter of the population has played video games or used the internet to the detriment of their homework, exercise or health, real life social relationships, that people will continue doing so despite the harm, that people spend more time on these things than they intended, ect......maybe they dont need greater and greater doses, but you only need 3....any 3, which is why its bullshit.

In my humble unprofessional opinion, a word should have clear absolute criteria.....not best of 3, 3 of 7, or some other point ranking system.....that seems totally unnatural or at least highly unusual for a word to be defined like that.


Why does it matter if only 1% are "addicted" to internet or video games? How is that ignoring facts? Why are those facts even relevant to my argument? Are they really facts at all?

Sorry, but if the best anyone can do to exclude these things from being true addictions is to apply arbitrary criteria without explanation, the whole thing is probably flawed.

I would easily believe that video game addiction goes under reported and is ignored in a clinical setting due to completely subjective societal attitudes. I think that Television is more of an epidemic than heroin, maybe not in that you need more and more....or perhaps with porn, some people DO need more and more shocking material, or perhaps people crave games or viewing material that is more and more violent, ect.

I really dont understand why the percentage of people addicted, however questionable that source , even undermines my argument....I didnt claim that video games are more likely to be addictive, though they might be as I have seen no evidence that they are not, only that this criteria could theoretically apply to them.....and that leads me to suspect that this definition of addiction has more to do with the mental habits of the individual more so than the nature of the thing itself....anything, if you are OCD enough, can be "addictive" if you go purely by that list.


Just my personal opinion, but I think its crap. If I had to learn that in college, I would want my money back.

 

[Sentience]

Anyway, its VERY common for people to reject that drugs that do not cause dependence or craving are truly "addictive"....and such an attitude is more true to the original definition of the word.

The medical social sciences have created a whole philosophy and theory and method, but its not really an objective science. Its certainly not above critique....even objective criteria does not make it an objective science or theory.

 

[Sentience]

And while I really dont study this area of medicine or science, at a casual glance I seem to agree more with the life-process model of addiction over the disease model of addiction....Im not sure if they use the same criteria.

 

[Sentience]

24% of people who try heroin eventually meet criteria for substance dependence. 5-10% of people who try cannabis do, A TINY FRACTION of ONE percent of people who try video games or the internet would.

ORLY?

In 2007 stats in a Harris Poll reported on youths addicted to video games. The poll showed 8.5% of youths (between the ages of 8 - 18) in the US could be classified as video game addicts. While another 23% of youths would say that they are addicted to video games.

These stats are merely a rough estimate. Until the APA has defined what video game addiction is exactly no one can say what constitutes video game addiction.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Binge-Gaming-Signs-Stats-Treatment


Video game addiction is more common than heroin addiction....but I still reject that definition, because without dependence or cravings I see no reason to distinguish it from being 'habit forming'.

 

[Self-Aware]

I know too many people with "marijuana dependance" and it's no laughing matter. It's fuckign depressing and I just can't spend any extended time with these people because it brings me down and I expend way too much energy trying to keep my head above water.

Cannabis/pot/maijunana dependance is very real.

All you can really do is set a good example and surround them with love and support.

I get temporarily deafened every time I hear this topic come up due to the cacophony of people screaming "its not physically addictive!!!".

Most people get next to no withdrawal from methamphetamine or cocaine, especially when compared to opiates or benzos, but are coke and meth not addictive?

This is the DSM criteria for substance dependence disorder (in the medical and treatment worlds, they don't use "addiction" but this is the clinical equivalent)



Cannabis doesn't produce substantial withdrawal but only 3 of these criteria are necessary for a diagnosis...

3.) How many potheads smoke the same amount to get high after years of use?

4.) How many have quit at some point and gone back to smoking?

5.) How many potheads will spend hours and hours calling every person they've had a conversation with in the last 9 years if their usual hookups are dry? How many potheads spend loads of time during their day trying to find product, picking up, rolling joints/packing bowls, etc.?

6.) See Afroman song

7.) How many potheads have experienced anxiety, depression etc. that wasn't present before their use?

_____________________________

Obviously not everyone who smokes pot is going to become addicted and compared to most illicit substances, the occurrence is rare. However, with anything that is pleasurable and mind-altering, people can develop unhealthy relationships with cannabis that detrimentally affect their lives.

Well said.

i'm the first one to admit i am addicted.

Now hear me out. I have also been addicted to opiates, and i know the two don't compare by any length.
However, i find the cannabis to be ultimately more addicting. You can virtually use cannabis all your life without ever feeling any apparent ill effects from it. Therefore, it never even occurs to you that you should maybe stop, and then there comes the point when all your friends are smoking weed, and you don't even know any non-smokers anymore. It happened to me, i would look forward to smoking weed every day. It was on my mind 24/7 and i didn't even seem to care. it's just weed right? What should have been on my mind is personal advancement, social skills, and pursuing a good school education. but no, as long as i had a job that would pay my bills and i had enough weed to smoke i was a-ok. it didn't even occur to me that i could have done so much better if weed wasn't on my mind all the time.

At times, i ran out of weed, and i would literally skip work to go find weed. When i ran out it was THE MOST STRESS in my life. Nothing could stress me as much as not having any weed. Here, i started to notice that something odd is going on. Sure, i quit cold turkey after going a year all day every day, and i experienced nothing comparable to an opiate WD, but i still wasn't quite the same.

Either way, you are lured into a sense of false safety. The moment a substance is on your mind all the time you start having a problem. When i realized i was doing dope every day, i saw the ill effects it had on me (health wise, withdrawals, financial situation etc.). With weed, i never perceived anything wrong. And if something seemed odd, it was ignored until it became a problem or went away on it's own. So i missed many many chances in my life being caught up with cannabis. It seemed like everybody was smoking it. That was because i only surrounded myself with weed smokers, i didn't even know any normal people anymore.

It came to me one day, when i walked into the house i sometimes smoke at. everybody there was already stoned, and just staring at the TV while one person was playing COD. I was sober at the time, and i realized that these people do nothing all day except smoke weed, sit on their ass, and are caught up in a world of distractions while they should really try to improve their own situation. but no, as long as there was a place to sleep and weed to smoke, everything was A-OK.

Ever sine that day, i greatly slowed down with weed. I still smoke every day. But i changed my usage patterns drastically. Back then, i would sit around and get high, and then, i'd get more high. Today, i save the weed until my day is over, i accomplished something, and i don't have to deal with anything major. And then, i smoke a joint or two, enjoy the high while relaxing, and go to sleep. It's not a sport anymore to get as high as possible. These days are over for me. Nowadays, it's the less weed i smoke, the better.

I try to derive something positive from it. It needs to do something good for me, otherwise it's wasted money. When i smoked every day all day, it did nothing good for me, except slow me down a lot. Now, i get relaxation after a stressful day from it, and i believe this is the way this stuff is meant to be enjoyed. If i smoke too much, the cons start to outweigh the pros, but smoking weed, you don't see this. That is why i make it my priority to spend most of my day sober. My sobriety is something i cherish, because only when you know what sober feels like you can truly appreciate the drugs effects.

That's a fantastic story and I enjoyed reading it. I just wanna say well done and thank you for sharing

I've been through the same shit as yourself growing up, surrounding myself with smokers, realising all my friends were just boring idiots wasting their lives (IMO anyway. it's up to them what they choose to do with their life. I still love them all).
My pot habit began very very early in my teens but these days I can barely tolerate the stuff. I'm 24.

I have smoked weed everyday since i was 15, and i'm 20 now.
stopped 3 months ago to get a job at a hospital
haven't had any type of withdrawls, or lost any kind of sleep over it
the only thing was boredom

so like i said. no physical addiction
if someone "can't" stop smoking weed it is literally because they don't want to or dont have a good enough reason to stop

for the guy who was given the ultimatum by his wife to stop or divorce
i guess he really didn't love her all that much now did he?

Who knows man? When a person allows themselves to become so dependant on pot to function and cope in their daily lives they won't always fully think it through when they are presented with an ultimatum like that.

I was going to say just the opposite. She knew he toked before they were married & now she's giving him the ultimatum?
It always kills me when chicks enter a relationship with some guy...tells him she loves everything about him...then once married, tries to mold the dude into what SHE perceives as a good husband.
Why marry the guy if he's not up to her standards?

Nah mate. As women get older they expect a bit more from their partner. Him being stoned all the time wouldn't have helped.

Enjoy lifes little pleasures in moderation. Always.

I cannot argue whether pot is physically addictive, but I know I was addicted for a long time. I used to smoke pot all day everyday. I did that for years. I have been a regular smoker since I was thirteen. I finally quit when I was 22 years old after meeting someone who made me feel good the natural way(yay for dopamine releasing love). and did not smoke for four years.

I have just recently started smoking very occasionally and not smoking much when I do. The first couple of times I smoked I got really paranoid, but not anymore.

Word to that brother! :D

That is why I made the distinction between physically addicted and emotionally dependent. Pot is not like things like opiates and benzo's and what not where your body is addicted.

My problem was all mental and emotional. I liked being numb and was scared to go with out pot and having to feel.

Same. I'm still teaching myself to feel and loving every step of the way. Well I prefer the steps forward but I'm getting better at tolerating the down time.