Study: Cannabis is as addictive as opiates, for teens.

[Snafu in the Void]

Hmm. Yeah.

I was pawning shit to buy weed before I got into heroin when I was 12 or 13. Sold countless sports memorabilia to buy weed.

Is weed as addictive as heroin? No.

But I treated it as such when I was that young for sure.......

These days I have a hard time getting off the couch to go buy weed. Feels like buying chicken... kinda boring now. Heroin, though..... keep me away.

These stats have more to do with maturity and brain function than weed itself....

No grown ass man gonna sell his car for weed.... well I'm sure somebody has, and I do not feel bad for them, weed is fucking weed not crack

 

[Neuroborean]

. Feels like buying chicken..

hahah funny!

 

[Lux Exterior]

Weed is as addictive as sugar, tea is better with it.

 

[burn out]

Probably opioids would be like alcohol if they didn't kill overdosing so often... and imagine if they didn't cause any withdrawal! that would be crazy, at least 50% of the population would be nodding off five minutes after reaching home from work...
I consider weed the only addiction I had, cause I could say that I'm "addicted" to kratom, but at the moment I'm in a t-break and doing fine 9days off, if I feel bad (not feeling what I want from kratom ) then I'm able to do a t-break, and that's the only issue, with very minor withdrawals...
With weed it was pure addiction since I didn't want to realize for a loooong period of time that the plant was not benefiting me in anye way, I just didn't want to see it, I was blinded. I don't feel blinded by kratom, I feel good, better than normal, it has its downsides, I can clearly point at them but is not like is fucking my life, weed was.

Well back before morphine hit the market, opiates (opium) didn't kill so easily. I don't know what percent of the population used it but I know opium addiction was regarded as a problem both here and in China where it was very common. If it didn't cause any withdrawal then yes I am sure usage levels would have shot up over 50% since it would seem there would be little downside if you could stop whenever you wanted but I feel like that would violate the laws of nature. Every kind of medicinal plant has to have some kind of catch or downside in order to keep life balanced. No one has ever found a drug that just makes you feel good without any risks or negative health consequences. I get the feeling opium had a negative stigma even before it was illegal. I have read about some villages in India where opium is used regularly and is considered normal and not looked on with a stigma. Most other parts of the world seem to have a negative view of opium though.

 

[Neuroborean]

I feel like that would violate the laws of nature. Every kind of medicinal plant has to have some kind of catch or downside in order to keep life balanced. No one has ever found a drug that just makes you feel good without any risks or negative health consequences.

Yeah, I think kind of the same thing.
Kratom could be one of the most "miraculous" substances but is pretty addictive and if you have daily big doses it starts having a lot of downsides.
For me weed blunts my mind and make so lazy and couch-locked without motivation, I hate that honestly.

 

[burn out]

I just want to add to this thread that I think the reactions show how our knowledge of the risks of cannabis has grown over time. I am pretty sure that had it been suggested cannabis was anywhere near as addictive as opiates as little as 15 years ago, it would have been met with extreme skepticism on forums like this. Over the past decade, more people have begun to realize that cannabis is not harmless and there is a growing body of evidence documenting cannabis addiction both in terms of scientific studies and multitudes of people online describing their dependence on it. It is especially dangerous to teenagers/young adults which is exactly what cannabis detractors had been saying for decades although their claims seem to have been largely dismissed until recently when it became apparent that at least some of what they were saying was true.

 

[dalpat077]

I just want to add to this thread that I think the reactions show how our knowledge of the risks of cannabis has grown over time. I am pretty sure that had it been suggested cannabis was anywhere near as addictive as opiates as little as 15 years ago, it would have been met with extreme skepticism on forums like this. Over the past decade, more people have begun to realize that cannabis is not harmless and there is a growing body of evidence documenting cannabis addiction both in terms of scientific studies and multitudes of people online describing their dependence on it. It is especially dangerous to teenagers/young adults which is exactly what cannabis detractors had been saying for decades although their claims seem to have been largely dismissed until recently when it became apparent that at least some of what they were saying was true.

Nice post.

Albeit that I may be perceived as being disingenuous by one or two here: this one of the reasons why I get a tad upset with these pro. H. activists (for example). Almost exclusively they draw on dated (like decades old) studies and research to validate their arguments. Twenty or thirty years ago we didn't have the medical knowledge and technology, nor the ability to collect and collate statistics, that we do today. This all said: even this argument is flawed given that it was banned in 1924 in the US (if memory serves me correctly). Point being that in spite of being even more behind the times: it didn't take rocket science to figure out that it was problematic. And I'm not saying the so-called war on drugs has worked i.e. evidently not (hence the current changing of attitudes and legislation). But let's not confuse one issue with another. And don't insult our intelligence nor those that have gone down this path and ended up in dire straits as a result (and the latter seemingly the rule as opposed to the exception if most posts and threads both here and on other related forums are anything to go by).

Anyway and back on topic specifically:

Don't you just love it when information this important to the harm reduction community is made available only upon payment? The link to JAMA Pediatrics in the original article doesn't work. So I found it on the link below. But don't get too excited i.e. it requires payment or a subscription to read the full text (or if you're that interested you can sign up for a 14-day free trial on some other site that will give you access to the full text).

Note that the study was not limited to Cannabis (or so it would appear anyway based on the preamble that is indeed viewable).

Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders by Time Since First Substance Use Among Young People in the US

This cross-sectional study examines the association of time since first substance use with substance use disorders among young people in the US.

jamanetwork.com

Here's another site that references the article and contains slightly more information:

Younger age of first cannabis use or prescription drug misuse is associated with faster development of substance use disorders

NIH analysis measures the prevalence of nine substance use disorders after first substance use or misuse in young people.

www.nih.gov

Oddly enough: I was half-listening to a BBC Worldwide broadcast yesterday in which it was noted that during a certain developmental phase of the human brain that individuals (teens) were more susceptible or prone to addiction due to neural pathways being developed during such phase. I cannot say for sure that it was on this topic specifically (as I said: half-listening unfortunately) and couldn't find a podcast for it. But if it turns up or I find it: I'll post a link.

And yeah. One thing that has jumped out at me (not sure now from which link or document i.e. had so many open while trying to format this post) is that somewhere it's stated that Cannabis use among teens is increasing proportionately in states where it's been decriminalized or legalized (not exact wording I'm afraid but if you look hard enough you'll find to what I'm referring I'm sure). This begs a rather ominous question does it not?

 

[Tramalala]

Nice post.

Albeit that I may be perceived as being disingenuous by one or two here: this one of the reasons why I get a tad upset with these pro. H. activists (for example). Almost exclusively they draw on dated (like decades old) studies and research to validate their arguments. Twenty or thirty years ago we didn't have the medical knowledge and technology, nor the ability to collect and collate statistics, that we do today. This all said: even this argument is flawed given that it was banned in 1924 in the US (if memory serves me correctly). Point being that in spite of being even more behind the times: it didn't take rocket science to figure out that it was problematic. And I'm not saying the so-called war on drugs has worked i.e. evidently not (hence the current changing of attitudes and legislation). But let's not confuse one issue with another. And don't insult our intelligence nor those that have gone down this path and ended up in dire straits as a result (and the latter seemingly the rule as opposed to the exception if most posts and threads both here and on other related forums are anything to go by).

Anyway and back on topic specifically:

Don't you just love it when information this important to the harm reduction community is made available only upon payment? The link to JAMA Pediatrics in the original article doesn't work. So I found it on the link below. But don't get too excited i.e. it requires payment or a subscription to read the full text (or if you're that interested you can sign up for a 14-day free trial on some other site that will give you access to the full text).

Note that the study was not limited to Cannabis (or so it would appear anyway based on the preamble that is indeed viewable).

Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders by Time Since First Substance Use Among Young People in the US

This cross-sectional study examines the association of time since first substance use with substance use disorders among young people in the US.

jamanetwork.com

Here's another site that references the article and contains slightly more information:

Younger age of first cannabis use or prescription drug misuse is associated with faster development of substance use disorders

NIH analysis measures the prevalence of nine substance use disorders after first substance use or misuse in young people.

www.nih.gov

Oddly enough: I was half-listening to a BBC Worldwide broadcast yesterday in which it was noted that during a certain developmental phase of the human brain that individuals (teens) were more susceptible or prone to addiction due to neural pathways being developed during such phase. I cannot say for sure that it was on this topic specifically (as I said: half-listening unfortunately) and couldn't find a podcast for it. But if it turns up or I find it: I'll post a link.

And yeah. One thing that has jumped out at me (not sure now from which link or document i.e. had so many open while trying to format this post) is that somewhere it's stated that Cannabis use among teens is increasing proportionately in states where it's been decriminalized or legalized (not exact wording I'm afraid but if you look hard enough you'll find to what I'm referring I'm sure). This begs a rather ominous question does it not?

Yes, drug/alcohol/weed use in the early teens seem excessively dangerous still. I remember friends of mine at age 13/14 starting to smoke weed and honestly most of them have developed serious problems later in life. I'm glad I didn't start experimenting so early but even for myself I wish I would have waited till like 21 before trying ANYTHING. I still remember being 15/16 and having my first few beers... man I felt AMAZING. I believe this led me to a path where it's more easy to get addicted to alcohol/ghb/gaba-drugs. (which happened)