New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you using "physically addictive" to cover "addicted" or something else?

I think 'physically addicting' vs 'habit forming' is a very clear medical distinction. Though perhaps you think habit forming is the same as the recalcitrant relapse of people who were physically addicted after they have cleaned up.

For whatever reason, there is a huge difference after people are sober. Alcohol, heroin, cocaine all have very significant relapse rates once people are addicted even after physical withdrawal is over. Nicotine has a pretty strong addiction though it is less than hard drugs and alcohol.

But people who have pot habits and decide to quit do not experience the same pull toward relapse as with the other drugs. They just don't.

....
From the Mayo Clinic:
If addiction doesn't fit marijuana, perhaps dependence would? Certainly, marijuana addiction does show up in the treatment field, so at least some professionals are treating it as such.

I don't doubt it. There are people addicted to things like gambling that need treatment.

But I've worked in the addiction field quite a bit in my career, (despite being in infectious disease now), and pot 'dependence' just does not compare to other addictions. It just doesn't.

 

[marplots]

I think 'physically addicting' vs 'habit forming' is a very clear medical distinction. Though perhaps you think habit forming is the same as the recalcitrant relapse of people who were physically addicted after they have cleaned up.

Not the same, but very similar. Since the topic has moved to relapse instead of addiction or dependence, I'll shift as well.

For whatever reason, there is a huge difference after people are sober. Alcohol, heroin, cocaine all have very significant relapse rates once people are addicted even after physical withdrawal is over. Nicotine has a pretty strong addiction though it is less than hard drugs and alcohol.

But people who have pot habits and decide to quit do not experience the same pull toward relapse as with the other drugs. They just don't.

It may be the experience and even the mechanism is different. I don't see why it wouldn't be tied to whatever drug or behavior we want to talk about. But unless things have changed radically since 2006, relapse after treatment for marijuana addiction is quite high:

(From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2597384/ ) Clinical studies have shown that marijuana treatment is characterized by low rates of continuous abstinence, comparable to rates for other abused drugs. Given that marijuana dependence is not easily overcome, more treatment options for marijuana dependence are needed. A subset of marijuana smokers report that they are dis-satisfied with their use of marijuana yet find it difficult to quit on their own. In fact, marijuana relapse rates are comparable to those of other abused drugs (45), demonstrating that even motivated treatment seekers often do not achieve abstinence. Understanding the factors contributing to marijuana’s high relapse rates may improve treatment options.

The reference cited in that as [45] is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14629990 (abstract) which gives a 71% relapse rate after two weeks of abstinence. I won't try to argue that these numbers have much force, since use and abstinence is governed by many factors, including whether you are motivated to quit or just trying to meet a court order, and relapse can be defined as a single slip up or falling back into previous use levels. Still, it certainly isn't nothing.

I don't doubt it. There are people addicted to things like gambling that need treatment.

But I've worked in the addiction field quite a bit in my career, (despite being in infectious disease now), and pot 'dependence' just does not compare to other addictions. It just doesn't.

I agree. I think marijuana should be evaluated based only on marijuana. This is why I do not think comparisons to alcohol, tobacco or heroin (just to name a few already mentioned) have much force.

I also think marijuana for medical use is an interesting social experiment in the works. We get a peek at how some form of legalization turns out in practice. So far, it looks pretty good.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You need to add in the consequences, not just the 'habit'. With tobacco, we know there are serious health consequences. With hard drugs and alcoholism people continue to use in spite of serious health and life consequences.

You just don't see that with pot.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's a strawman. I don't see anyone here making a claim that smoking pot is harmless.

Exhibit A.

Personally, I find cannabis, when used in moderation, to be beneficial,

 

[dafydd]

Pot was made illegal not because of any known effect on health, but as a way to harass Mexicans and blacks, at least in the USA.

And to protect the cotton industry.

 

[calebprime]

Exhibit A.

Beneficial when used in moderation doesn't mean harmless.

Not sure if Piggy is around, but he says what he means.

 

[cosmicaug]

I've stated that driving under the influence of any chemicals should be considered automatic attempted manslaughter.

Caffeine? Antihistamines?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The argument "It's harmful, therefore we should outlaw it" is flawed. Does anyone know why?

But that is not why it was outlawed. It was outlawed because it is preferred by those damn dirty Mexicans and not proper white folk. They even use it to seduce our women.

You have to remember that all early drug laws we're based in racism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, it is regulated, but anybody who is old enough can just go into a grocery store and buy as much as they want. And it is without a doubt more dangerous than marijuana. Yet marijuana is completely banned by the federal government and most states. Does this make any sense at all?

Yes, always remember the racist policies that got the law passed in the first place.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Has anyone in this conversation ever been addicted?
That's where the rubber meets the road and freedom has left the building. You are asking me to support slavery because you want me to believe people choose to become slaves.

So we need to outlaw tobacco then, as it is one of the most addictive substances there is.

The problem is that health concerns and addiction are not why marijuana was outlawed. Look at the creations of the time to support its outlawing. It was the violent insane killings that caused it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's been used by millions of people for hundreds (probably thousands) of years, surely any significant health effects would be apparent by now if it was actually dangerous?

Pot was made illegal not because of any known effect on health, but as a way to harass Mexicans and blacks, at least in the USA.

Don't forget the violent insanity it causes as documented by Reefer Madness.

 

[Dancing David]

Has anyone in this conversation ever been addicted?
That's where the rubber meets the road and freedom has left the building. You are asking me to support slavery because you want me to believe people choose to become slaves.

If addiction is a disease, and it can be mitigated by restricting access to drugs, doesn't society have an obligation to restrict that access? If the objective is to lessen the societal costs of the war on drugs, that's fine, change the way you fight. But to abandon everything because it isn't working as is seems to miss the point of making them illegal in the first place.

As a former addict I want to ask:

Where exactly does restriction mitigate addiction?

Alcoholism did not disappear during prohibition, it just raised the profit margin on alcohol.

 

[Dancing David]

You don't know what you are talking about. Heroin doesn't harm the body unless you overdose (not really a problem when smoked). It is addictive though (that's why I only do it occasionally).

not as addictive as nicotine and cocaine.

 

[Dancing David]

You need a course in physiology for starters -___________- I'll tell you this, YOU don't know what you're talking about. You know just enough to be biased and wrong.

And your actual data is?

 

[Dancing David]

You are so goddamned uninformed that you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Heroin inhibits your body's response to the necessity to breathe. This isn't an overdose response, it's a response of your physiology at a point in time. You could take a normal hit but if your physiology is compromised in many ways from stress to straight up sedentary lifestyle you might play over par and die.

You. Don't. Know. Enough. Take a loved one of mine. She was 21 and pretty fit other than her stupid drug habit. She took heroin; it wasn't too pure as far as toxicology was concerned. She went to sleep because it was freakin' nighttime and she rolled up into bed. That compromised her physiology and she died. That's heroin, that's what it does. It relaxes your body and inhibits autonomic responses. It can kill you.

Yeah so does Tylenol, so OD is an issue. I understand your personal trauma.

It is exactly an overdose response.

 

[3point14]

Exhibit A.

Are you saying that things can't be both?

I don't believe they're exclusive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As a former addict I want to ask:

Where exactly does restriction mitigate addiction?

Alcoholism did not disappear during prohibition, it just raised the profit margin on alcohol.

Look at all the people that got cured by dieing by drinking industrial alcohol which got the poison in it increased during prohibition.

 

[Lowpro]

Yeah so does Tylenol, so OD is an issue. I understand your personal trauma.

It is exactly an overdose response.

First off all I got warned already in this thread so I think it's time the subject were changed but I'll answer the previous "Your data" response. Google opiodes. Read about what they do to your body. Read about the body then. Understand how depressing autonomic responses is really really really bad for you. This isn't a matter of dosage, it's a matter of your body's response to said dosage. This is common understanding in toxicology.

As for the tylenol bit, would you make yourself do nothing to prevent someone from taking a pissload of Tylenol just because it's a free country? No, you'd stop them because it's foolish and it can hurt them. It only adds to that idea if I decide to make my case about a "tylenol addict" or the like, but I shouldn't even have to tickle your fancy on that if it's a healthy person either.

 

[ravdin]

First off all I got warned already in this thread so I think it's time the subject were changed but I'll answer the previous "Your data" response. Google opiodes. Read about what they do to your body. Read about the body then. Understand how depressing autonomic responses is really really really bad for you. This isn't a matter of dosage, it's a matter of your body's response to said dosage. This is common understanding in toxicology.

As for the tylenol bit, would you make yourself do nothing to prevent someone from taking a pissload of Tylenol just because it's a free country? No, you'd stop them because it's foolish and it can hurt them. It only adds to that idea if I decide to make my case about a "tylenol addict" or the like, but I shouldn't even have to tickle your fancy on that if it's a healthy person either.

That's a ludicrous analogy. I wouldn't stop you from buying a whole bottle of Tylenol over the counter. I certainly wouldn't send a SWAT team to bust down your door and ransack your house on the suspicion that you have a lethal dose of Tylenol in your medicine cabinet. How exactly would we stop you from swallowing a lethal dose of Tylenol pills, if you had a mind to?

 

[paiute]

Once and for all dispelling the myth that pot is 'harmless' to it's users, Australian researchers have documented scientifically the brain damage caused by smoking pot

So? Substitute "gin" for "pot" and the study reaches the exact same conclusions.