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

[Cane2theLeft]

Its just a hypothetical example of severe side effects that result from true chemical dependency. If no bodily process is unable to function due to lack of internal chemical that stopped being produced, then its not a true chemical dependency, is it?

"Addiction" in rehab programs is defined by behaviour. That is kind a new way of looking at it. Addiction, from what I understand, originally meant chemical dependency.

As far as the medical community is concerned, you're mixing up terms. PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY is the body adapting to an exogenous chemical so that its presence is required for homeostatic functioning. This is true of many substances that may or may not be recreational... hence why I brought up drugs like beta blockers and oxymetazoline that produce substance physical dependence and no recreational effects. These drugs are only referred to as addictive when people confuse addiction with PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE. To further confuse the matter, the DSM-IV doesn't have an "addiction" diagnosis, they refer to it as SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE however for all intents and purposes, a diagnosis of SD means someone is an addict. This nomenclature will be fixed in the next edition of the DSM where I believe they'll be using 'addiction'.

Chemical dependency is synonymous with addiction which is not purely physical. Addiction is also not purely behavioral and after years studying addiction treatment, I'm not aware of any groups, associations or programs that label it as purely behavioral.

The most succinct way most phrase it is that addiction is a biopsychosocialspiritual disease (many leave out the last adjective).

Addiction is all-encompassing and affects most or all aspects of an individuals' life... people physically dependent on antihypertensives or pain medication (who do not abuse them) are not addicts. They are physically dependent while people whose whole lives revolve around getting a drug, using a drug, their social lives have suffered, their professional lives have suffered, their familial relationships have suffered are ADDICTS... although not as common as with other substance, this is certainly possible for marijuana users.

I happen to understand the neur-chemistry of marijuana, and I know there is no 'gland' that will atrophy or stop producing your internal THC....rather, every single neuron in your body secrets your endo-thc, and its ability to produce this chemical doese not seem affected by prolonged regular use of marijuana....maybe its possible, but I dont think there has ever been a documented case of it....there is no proof of chemical dependency.

I'm confused by this because you claim to understand neurochemistry then claim we have endogenous-THC (we have endogenous CANNABINOIDS such as anadamide, not THC) and then claim that every neuron in your body secrets something the body doesn't produce.

Unfortunately, I am NOT as well-versed in neurochemistry as you are so I'd appreciate it if you could link me to some information elucidating the way every neuron secrets endo-THC. I'd like to learn more about this.

In my opinion, the NA meeting and 12 step program definition of addiction is the 'made up' one. This is a recent attempt to 'understand the mind of the addict'.....I understand that it used to mean specifically habits that may include attitudes of obsession and compulsion removing control, but more importantly produces chemical dependency.

ANYTHING can be addictive using some of these 12 step program definitions. Video games can be "addicting"....but it does not produce a true dependency, like opiates do.

Again, you are mixing up 'physical dependency' with 'addiction'. Addiction is a biospychosocial disease and many drug addicts are not physically dependent and its not required for a diagnosis of addiction (substance dependence)... for the 90th time, cocaine and amphetamines produce negligible physical dependence, ESPECIALLY when weighed against opioids, opiates, alcohol, benzodiazepines, etc. but they are certainly addictive.

EDIT:

I definitely agree with you about 12-step definitions. I think they are exaggerated, preachy and incapable of seeing anything as other than 'black and white'. They undeniably help some people but I can't stand these 1-size-fits-all approaches to treatment... not to mention so much of that shit is straight creepy and cult-like.

 

[halperdude]

few friends here and there with an issue, but not me... yet

 

[Sentience]

Caine...yes, you are technically correct on several points. Just because I was a little lax and non-specific doesnt mean I didnt study this stuff. How many people here even understand how a neuron depolarizes and the role of sodium or potassium in any number of biological functions? Saying endogenous "THC" is just easier to say.

I used a dictionary definition of "addiction". I can agree that dictionary definitions can lack sophistication, but it should also be recognized that this whole "addiction is a spiritual disease" is a relatively new philosophy and terminology....not THAT new, but the term "addiction" has been used in the general sense for hundreds and hundreds of years before the 12 step programs created their jargon for it.


Personally, I have never seen anyone have severe physical withdrawal symptoms from not getting their weed.....maybe psychological agitation, like frustration that a deal didnt go through, but for most people that goes away once the mind focuses on something else, where a true chemical dependency will produce cravings regardless of what the mind is focused on.

I am using THIS dictionary definition, and I dont believe marijuana fits.

being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially alcohol or narcotic drugs)

While people may show drug seeking behavior towards marijuana, people seem to be able to live their lives more or less normally without it. Even a tobacco or caffeine addiction will have worse WD symptoms than marijuana. Much worse.

Caine, I like you. I may not agree with you but I dont take it personally. You seem like you are getting a little agitated. I think we should all take a step back and realize how unimportant this is.


I am aware of the 12 step alcoholics anonymous definition, and I am not totally on board with it. I dont believe its a spiritual disease or a life long illness. I think those are perspectives that are part of the, arguably benevolent, mind fuck.

Whatever helps though.


But yeah, the web definition I grabbed seemed to imply that dependence is a criteria for addiction, but perhaps not the whole story.......while addiction might be more than habituation or dependence, I question whether you can have a true addiction without dependence.....some people think they need weed, but when they dont have any they realize they are fine.....is a heroin addict actually fine without their fix the way a weed smoker is?

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^no "I" in cane :D ...its the device I use for ambulation

I like you as well and that's why I enjoy discussing things with you, if I came off adversarial or agitated I apologize.

You're saying that marijuana doesn't cause physical dependency and I'm saying that physical dependency isn't required for someone to be an addict.

You're saying that YOU view addiction as requiring physical dependency, and I'm saying that the consensus in the medical world is that a diagnosis of addiction does NOT require physical dependence.

The chasm here seems to be how terms are defined. There are literally hundreds of definitions of addiction out there... religious groups, support groups, the medical community, dictionaries, historical sources, different treatment perspectives and on and and on will define it differently.

What I am saying is that GOING BY THE ACCEPTED DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria, marijuana can be addictive. I'm not arguing that it produces physical dependence, I'm saying that the treatment and medical worlds do not require physical dependence as a diagnostic criteria. It IS a diagnostic criteria, but one of 7 on a list that requires 4.

A heroin addict will be sick without heroin and a marijuana smoker will not, my point is that addiction (as I've studied it for years and the definition I will be working with and under FOR years) is that addiction is not defined solely by what happens when you stop a drug, its the problematic relationship between a drug and a user and the consequences resulting for the person.

 

[purple_cloud]

Addiction is all-encompassing and affects most or all aspects of an individuals' life... people physically dependent on antihypertensives or pain medication (who do not abuse them) are not addicts. They are physically dependent while people whose whole lives revolve around getting a drug, using a drug, their social lives have suffered, their professional lives have suffered, their familial relationships have suffered are ADDICTS... although not as common as with other substance, this is certainly possible for marijuana users.
\

I agree with you on this. Especially since this thread is in CD, it shouldn't be about people comparing marijuana addiction to heroin addiction. They both seem to fall on some sort of addiction "spectrum." I personally believe being addicted to weed is very real, and it has interfered with my life financially in particular, and I probably spend more time alone getting high than I should. That's why its an addiction to me...yeah it makes it easier to eat, helps with my anxiety, and makes things less boring, but its moreso the fact that it's become part of my daily routine and has caused part of my life to suffer that makes it addictive. I wonder if this Masters degree I'm killing myself over for the next two weeks would have been easier without it --- the non-stoners seem to be a lot more productive with a better memory. Plus, I wish I could be like them, do it like once a week and just get retardedly stoned and thoroughly enjoy the experience, rather than it being part of my day, every single day.

 

[Sentience]

Some good arguments here.....However, I will keep my rebuttal short and simple.

In my mind, there are two parts to "addiction". The first part is obsession, when your life motivation becomes the drug. Its almost like a possession. The second part is consequences for not getting the drug....illness, vomiting, cold sweats, panic attacks, seizures (yes, foaming at the mouth is possible), heart attacks and strokes in rare instances.

A responsible pain patient does not meet the first requirement (unless he is frantic that he will be in pain, but its not the same as a pleasure seeker).

A habitual pot user meets the first requirement but not the second....there are no serious consequences to not getting stoned one day. In fact, you may end up functioning BETTER than if you had smoked.

So together I think the responsible pain patient and the obsessive pot smoker meet two separate requirements of addiction, but neither of them are addicted in the true sense of the word.....though the pain patient is dependent, and the weed smoker is habituated and obsessed maybe, neither meet the full criteria. If you combine their attributes, then you have a true addict.

Opiates CAN become addicting, because the WDs are very real.

I am not convinced weed can become addicting, because while some but not most pot smokers become obsessed, I have never seen a reaction that has convinced me that they need some weed in order to function.

 

[Sentience]

You're saying that marijuana doesn't cause physical dependency and I'm saying that physical dependency isn't required for someone to be an addict.

You're saying that YOU view addiction as requiring physical dependency, and I'm saying that the consensus in the medical world is that a diagnosis of addiction does NOT require physical dependence.

Fair enough. I concede that its not only about dependency.

However, I dont think that psychological habit is enough to be a true addiction either, unless there are very real consequences for not getting the drug. I am not convinced that the consequences of withdrawal are serious enough, even if that is not the only defining factor.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

Since I've reference this a few times I thought I'd cite it just so its clear where I'm coming from. When I'm working in the field as an addictions counselor, this is the criteria I'll be using to make diagnoses. When diagnosed with substance dependence, this diagnosis follows you; its considered chronic.

This is a responsibility I do not take lightly and regardless of how individuals view what does or does not comprise addiction, THIS is the criteria used to label people for their lives as addicts... (straight from the DSM-IV-TR)

Substance Dependence Disorder

A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:

(1) tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve Intoxication or desired effect
(b) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance

(2) Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
(a) the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance (refer to Criteria A and B of the criteria sets for Withdrawal from the specific substances)
(b) the same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms

(3) the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended

(4) there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use

(5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain-smoking), or recover from its effects

(6) important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use

(7) the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g., current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression, or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption)

Specify if:

With Physiological Dependence: evidence of tolerance or withdrawal (i.e., either Item 1 or 2 is present)
Without Physiological Dependence: no evidence of tolerance or withdrawal (i.e., neither Item 1 nor 2 is present)

In class we've discussed this scenario a lot... you have one guy who comes home and drinks 3-4 beers every day after work without fail for years. He never gets drunk and he never thinks about drinking at work. It has virtually no effect on any aspect of his life... his family, his job, his social life, his finances, etc.

Then you have another person who binge drinks to blackout once a week. She will never experience anything close to physiological withdrawal but she CONSTANTLY thinks about drinking. She counts down the days, hours, minutes, seconds until she can finally drink. She blows her paycheck, makes stupid decisions, fucks a bunch of strangers and get the clap six times a year, has been to the ER for alcohol-related accidents, has 3 DUI's but she only drinks once a week.

Who is more addicted?

___________________

Earlier I kept saying 4 criteria were necessary to diagnose and its actually 3. Few people who are given this diagnosis only meet 3 criteria and I was getting the numbers mixed up between substance dependence and substance abuse (which itself has a total of 4 criteria, only meeting 1 being necessary for that diagnosis).

 

[Sentience]

That post helps a lot. I am going to consider it and respond.

(1) tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve Intoxication or desired effect
(b) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance

Certainly there is tolerance with weed, but unlike opiates I feel there is a bit of a ceiling with it.....you can only smoke so much feasibly, and tolerance, after the initial break in period, can remain pretty steady without requiring greater and greater doses.....after the first year, you can continue with about the same smoking habits. You do NOT need to keep increasing your dose to get stoned...you can habituate to a higher dose if you become used to smoking with heavier smokers, but if you keep your habit even your tolerance wouldnt necessarily continue to skyrocket.

I am going to have to respond to #1 with a degree of skepticism....tolerance does happen, but it levels off, unlike opiates where you may someday need 100 or 1000x as much.

(3) the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended

Possible....the internet is much worse than weed in this regard. So are video games....but yes, this is possible.

(4) there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use

I find it hard to believe that someone who REALLY wanted to stop weed couldnt do so at any time. Its not like tobacco where the cravings keep haunting you, reminding you, making you uncomfortable until you smoke.....but sure, its theoretically possible if you are OCD.

(5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain-smoking), or recover from its effects

Yes. I am going to have to say this one fits.

(6) important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use

Yes, I will have to say this one fits as well.

(4) there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use

(5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain-smoking), or recover from its effects

(7) the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g., current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression, or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption)

I am skeptical to a degree, as I think most of the "problems" weed causes are social and could be avoided, and are not entirely the fault of the drug or even the user....but its possible.

Smoking weed can affect short term memory for tests, and some people might choose to get stoned even as it affects their performance.


What I dont like about 5, 6, and 7, is that they are all basically the SAME THING....Too much time spent doing it vs doing it to the exclusion of other things vs doing it knowing it has these consequences.....while they may be SLIGHTLY different, they are not different enough to warrant each of them being 1/3 of the defining characteristic.


I dont really like the standards from your book, because using that definition you can be addicted to almost anything....you can be addicted to exercise and things that are GOOD for you.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

This is what I said on page one of this thread regarding the diagnostic criteria.

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, regular coughing, 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.

I think its a little misleading to refer to the DSM as "my book". Its the 943 page Holy Gospel of mental health disorders. It is the product of decades of research and debate amongst psychiatrists and psychologists and contains the diagnostic criteria on every diagnosable mental health disorder. There have been 4 editions of the DSM since 1952 because of the lengthy, exhaustive process that the American Psychiatric Association utilizes prior to publication. The most recent DSM (IV) was put out in 1994 with a substantial Text Revision in 2000. DSM V is currently being debated and concepts re-thought and is tentatively schedule to be released May 2013.

The section on substance abuse disorders is 206 pages long and I quoted half of one page of that. There is a lot more to what the DSM is saying than just the criteria set for substance dependence disorder.

I just found the wikipedia page on Cannabis Dependence and its actually rather informative and representative of the DSM perspective as well as more recent research on this subject.

From the aforementioned, here is an interesting excerpt from the "Addiction Potential" section-

Research has shown the overall addiction potential for cannabis to be much less than for tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin, but slightly higher than that for psilocybin, mescaline, LSD, and MDMA.[49] There is some evidence that dependence on cannabis can exist in some heavy users. One study with 500 heavy users of cannabis showed that when trying to cease consumption, some experience one or more symptoms such as insomnia, restlessness, loss of appetite, depression, irritability, and anger.[42] Cannabis Dependence has been recognized as a clinical entity in the DSM-IV.[50] Prolonged marijuana use produces both pharmacokinetic changes (how the drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted) and pharmacodynamic changes (how the drug interacts with target cells) to the body. These changes require the user to consume higher doses of the drug to achieve a common desirable effect (known as a higher tolerance), and reinforce the body's metabolic systems for synthesizing and eliminating the drug more efficiently.[51] It is clear that cannabis ultimately acts through the mesolimbic dopaminergic system of reinforcement,[52] just as all other addictive substances act.

 

[Sentience]

Sorry. I jumped in without reading the whole thread.

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

Me? In fact, I think I smoke less and less as I get older. It doesnt have that much appeal, but I have been smoking it for 17 years, semi-regularly, and my dosage has not continued to skyrocket.

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

I think a lot of people take 'breaks' but never had good reason to swear off weed forever to begin with. People quit to get in shape, to study better, to pass a drug test.....then they realize that at that moment there really isnt a good reason not to go back to it. That isnt really what I think of in regard to people who "cant quit'. You can quite pot if you want to....A lot of people probably lie about wanting to, or completely wanting to.

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.?

Not many who I know....yeah, theoretically possible, but I have not seen such behavior.....then again, I live in Northern Cali where such efforts are not required, but that kind of behavior seems very 'highschool'. I dont see a lot of responsible adults acting like this just for weed....I wont say its not possible, but I would say its uncommon among the vast majority of people who were initially responsible individuals and began smoking past college.

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

Are you sure this is a cause and effect? I am skeptical of a direct causation. I think that LIFE is stressful. Few anxiety orders start early in life, but they can. Who is to say these anxiety problems would not have existed anyway?

Its possible, but I am skeptical. I think its more likely that people will get anxiety if they DO smoke, rather than from WDs.




6.) See Afroman song

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

 

[Cane2theLeft]

Me? In fact, I think I smoke less and less as I get older. It doesnt have that much appeal, but I have been smoking it for 17 years, semi-regularly, and my dosage has not continued to skyrocket.

I didn't ask if this was true of YOU or if its happens, I'm the same way. I'm not talking about me or you though, I'm talking about people who could be considered cannabis dependent. By saying you don't fit this designation doesn't negate the fact that others do.

I think a lot of people take 'breaks' but never had good reason to swear off weed forever to begin with. People quit to get in shape, to study better, to pass a drug test.....then they realize that at that moment there really isnt a good reason not to go back to it. That isnt really what I think of in regard to people who "cant quit'. You can quite pot if you want to....A lot of people probably lie about wanting to, or completely wanting to.

Again, lots of people do use regularly and can take breaks and have no problem. No one is making the case that EVERYONE WHO EVER USES becomes a pot junkie. I'm referring to a small group of hardcore potheads who meet these criteria.

Not many who I know....yeah, theoretically possible, but I have not seen such behavior.....then again, I live in Northern Cali where such efforts are not required, but that kind of behavior seems very 'highschool'. I dont see a lot of responsible adults acting like this just for weed....I wont say its not possible, but I would say its uncommon among the vast majority of people who were initially responsible individuals and began smoking past college.

All of this is uncommon. With HEROIN, 24% of people who try it will become dependent. With alcohol its about 15% and its substantially less with cannabis. So assuming its 1/3 as addictive alcohol (being VERY generous) and 40% of the population have tried it, we're talking about .7% of the population now. These are rough estimates, I'm just showing I'm talking about a TINY group of people compared to the general population or even compared to those that have smoked cannabis.

Are you sure this is a cause and effect? I am skeptical of a direct causation. I think that LIFE is stressful. Few anxiety orders start early in life, but they can. Who is to say these anxiety problems would not have existed anyway?

Its possible, but I am skeptical. I think its more likely that people will get anxiety if they DO smoke, rather than from WDs.

This criteria is talking about people using despite consequences so the anxiety I was referring to IS a result of smoking, not cessation. One of the most common chronic problems I've seen around here as well as in my life is people developing anxiety after years of heavy use. Its a rather common and documented phenomenon among heavy smokers and far more prevalent than the development of anxiety problems at the same ages for non-smokers.

 

[Sentience]

Sure, I see where you are coming from, but I still feel like its a bit of a stretch.

People quit video games then start them again. People read comic books when they should be studying. People dork out on on the computer when they could be at a party or studying.

How many people who use opiates regularity for years can just stop for 3 months to pass a drug test? By contrast, almost all weed smokers can. Some might not, but anyone who really wants to who has a slightest bit of gumption and isnt easily peer pressured or constantly surrounded by weed...it really is that easy to walk away from.


A very small number of pot smokers might fit the description you are using, but those same people could be found addictive to video games and comic books.


Do you believe that video games and comic books produce a "true addiction" in some people? Do you see any significant differences in how marijuana is habit forming from say....text messaging is habit forming?

Regardless of how authoritative this text is in some circles, I would criticize it on the basis that almost anything can be addictive by its standards....Yoga can be addictive. Anyone who is OCD can be addicted to almost anything.

To me, that isnt how I would use the word 'addicton'.

 

[Sentience]

I would also say that if anything at all can be addictive, in the "true" sense of the word, then there is nothing special about the addictiveness of certain drugs....and I think if you come to that conclusion you are seriously missing the mark, not appreciating just how bad some truly addictive substances can be.

If you use one of the older, more basic and dumbed down dictionary definitions, the existence of some kind of serious WDs is an essential vital characteristic, vs the source you chose which says that you can mix and match any 3 of these common traits and you have an addiction.

I would argue that you could have hundreds of things in common with people who are truly addicted, and the number of similarities does not make them equal.....without some kind of real withdrawal symptoms or dependency I find it hard to accept this criteria.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^If you notice in the criteria they mention "clinically-significant impairment or distress"... blowing off studying to read comic books or play video games is FAR from clinically significant impairment or distress.

To meet THAT criteria they'd have to be blowing off EVERYTHING to read comic books. Losing jobs, failing classes, fucking up social relationships, getting in debt to buy comic books, risking jail to keep buying comic books, using comic books despite knowing all of these consequences and if somehow comic books could ALSO adversely affect their physical and psychological health, they would continue to read them anyway.

You're taking ONE of the criteria, completely stripping it from the context it was written and trying to make a logically fallacious straw-man argument.

Do you see the distinction? I've certainly known people who have had clinically-significant impairment and distress from their use of cannabis and you're right... its not as severe as heroin users, it doesn't happen as quickly and you have to use A LOT more relatively speaking, but its certainly possible. At least the empirical data support this.


EDIT:

JESUS, its not some random source I chose. Its THE diagnostic criteria to be labeled an addict in THIS COUNTRY. Its what multiple professional fields use as their litmus test... and its not some insubstantial combination of 3 of them, its 3+ of them THAT HAVE TO cause clinically-significant impairment and distress.

 

[Sentience]

Sometimes the most authoritative establishments are wrong? Look at our government and the laws of our land. Would you say federal law most accurately reflects objective morality?

I would argue that something like internet addiction could apply significantly, IN SOME PEOPLE, to 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7. I am arguing that it could meat 5 out of 7 criteria.

Do people play world of warcraft to the eclusion of all social relationships, studying or taking care of their health? Yes.

Do people play world of warcraft for longer than they planned? Yes. They stay up all night. Same with the internet.

Do people continue despite obvious harm? Yes.

I could go on and one, but there are a lot of non drugs that meet this criteria in very significant ways, MUCH WORSE than marijuana for example. In fact, I have seen people more obsessed with the internet than they are with cocaine.

I stand by my point, that by this definition, even non drugs like video games are "addictive".

Even if you had to agree with these definitions to graduate from any degree in psychology or sociology or to become a social worker, I would still challenge it UNLESS you agree that non-drugs can induce addiction in the true sense of the word....video games, internet and sex all being candidates.

Then again, isnt internet addiction considered a "spiritual disease" now?

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^so instead of addressing the countless studies, empirical evidence and scientific research that lead to the information I've presented, you say "sometimes authorities are wrong?" wow. If you're going to just stop addressing the points I make, why continue?

Comparing what I said to claiming federal law represents "objective morality" could not be a larger false equivalency.

Why do all of your examples NOT fit in what I've been discussing?

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE.

Given your fondness for looking up things in dictionary, try SUBSTANCE both in regards to the chemical use requisite for that diagnosis as well as what your responses have began lacking of late.

There are certainly people who advocate for the expansion of "addiction" diagnoses to non-drug situations but I'm wholly unconcerned with that because we're talking about SUBSTANCE ABUSE, specifically cannabis and if CANNABIS USE can meet the criteria for addiction. Bringing in red herrings hardly refutes anything I've said above ABOUT CANNABIS.

 

[Sentience]

I think you are missing my point.

The people who advocate for increasing the definition of addiction to include sex and internet addiction are merely being true to the criteria you provided. If you believe in that criteria, then many things can be commonly addictive that are not drugs, and almost anything can be a true addiction if you have an OCD disorder.

So, if you accept that non-drugs are addictive in the true sense of the word, then fine.....Marijuana is addictive the way the internet or World of Warcraft can be addictive. If you want to call that a true addiction, then fine. Its the official position.....


I would like to point out that you are appealing to authority, a fallacy. It wouldnt matter if it was the single greatest authority on a subject, that alone does not mean its right or wrong.....the fact that sometimes authoritative sources are wrong does not prove my position, but neither would an appeal to authority. I am especially biased against appeals to authority for some reason...not that I am claiming it proves my point.


So maybe we have to distinguish between types or degrees of addiction....or maybe a spectrum of addiction with one side of the spectrum not being more or less than the other end of it.

Marijuana is addictive mostly in the ways that World of Warcraft or the internet can be addictive, and less like how heroin can be addictive except in some ways.

 

[Sentience]

I dont know about you, but I walked 5 miles and asked 4 dozen people where I could find an internet cafe while I was traveling latin America....significantly more effort was spent finding the internet than was spend finding weed or coke.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

Types or degrees of addiction? Now you're just making shit up

I'm not appealing to authority, I'm using recognized terms and definitions because if you and I have terms that are defined completely differently, communication and debate is literally impossible so I'm using the most widely agreed upon definitions and uses of the terms and I've shown you where the definitions came from... empirical research and consensus among applicable professionals.

I'm not saying "this is right because the APA said so". I'm saying, "Let's use the agreed upon terms and discuss from there".

I actually agree with your last sentence-

Marijuana is addictive mostly in the ways that World of Warcraft or the internet can be addictive, and less like how heroin can be addictive except in some ways.

The way you keep going back to heroin, you're referring to PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY which is certainly common in a many substance use disorders but I'm taking a broader view to look at addiction as a whole, not just the physical aspect.

Are you familiar with the rat park studies? To way oversimplify, Bruce K. Alexander demonstrated that morphine addiction was less about the physical properties of the subject and more about the social condition.

He had 1 group of rats in tiny cages who could self-administer morphine (this is how most of the studies were done to show how addictive coke and heroin were... monkeys locked in cages would dope themselves up to the point of choosing drugs over food or even life so professionals said the DRUGS did this. Alexander said, maybe its the cages...).

The other group was in "colonies"... they could run around and exercise, socialize, mate in private areas and do everything rats needed to be content so-to-speak. He offered both rats access to the morphine, tried to sweeten it for them as rats love sugar and tried other ways to get the colony rats hooked and he couldn't.

He even took rats from the cages who were already addicted, put them in the colony and the vast majority chose painful withdrawal over maintaining their use because it got in the way of what they desired.

The same thing was seen in returning Vietnam veterans. A tremendous amount of US servicemen used while at war (in the cage) and didn't continue when they returned home (to their colonies). Some were still stuck in cages though with PTSD and other problems from the war so they continued their use.

What Alexander drew from this was that addiction wasn't caused by the drug, it was really a result of people (or animals) medicating their distress pharmacologically. People in cages, whether physically in cages, mentally in cages or whatever, will look to some kind of relief and many do so with drugs.

The other examples you gave work on the same pleasure centers of the brain (the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathways, the ventral tegmental area and the nucleus accumbens) so naturally they are going to have rewarding properties in much they same way as the substances we're discussing. Video games, gambling, cutting and other non-drug compulsions activate the same rewarding areas of the brain and I think Alexander was on to something when he said that people who had a reason to medicate their distress would be drawn to relieving it with whatever they could. In our society that's video games, the internet, gambling, fast food, casual sex, shopping, etc. etc. etc.

For most people, they can participate in these activities OR in drugs and be fine. For some, they begin to need to repeat this behavior and when this causes 'clinically significant distress and impairment' is when I'd call it addiction.