Think Marijuana Isn't Addictive?

eggtimer rocketry
Onebadhawk
the rocketry show
Wildman Rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Quite a broad range of opinions that look mostly uninformed on the subject of cannabis. I know a guy who ingested about half a gram of edible, decarboxylated full spectrum, ethanol extracted cannabis oil, daily for 5 years in an attempt to inhibit the regrowth of a resected brain tumor. This person ceased in 2018 without any sort of withdrawal symptoms except a few days of difficult sleep. The cannabis oil was taken in the evenings and reportedly assisted with falling asleep and pain control. Still doing fine, no tumor regrowth. Smoking is bad for you, nobody should smoke anything because it screws up your lungs and probably has toxic crap in the smoke, likely carcinogens and other artifacts of combustion. If a person wanted to inhale some cannabis for pain relief or recreational purposes, a device like a Vapexhale can be used to allow inhalation without combustion, these new style vapes pass heated air through the ground up flower and a double water bath helps to reduce particulates while allowing the desired chemical, THC to pass. Here in Colorado we have not seen any substantial downside to the legalization and regulation, other than out of state residents flocking to the shops and transporting their purchase across state lines illegally. The best solution to the current set of problems would be to de-schedule cannabis at the federal level, allowing the FDA to do the research necessary to determine the medical aspects of this plant and to standardize the regulations between states to reduce the black market. Having it regulated allows the enforcement of product quality standards, like testing for residual pesticides and keeps the kids out of it by crushing the black market. The at home growing rules are great in CO too, people here can have up to 12 plants in their residence, which is plenty and is just another way to eliminate the black market. Keep in mind that the guy on the street who sells weed probably has other things too. Let's recognize that there is such a thing as safe, sensible and responsible use of cannabis products. The brain tumor guy is doing well (no new tumor growth) and urges us all to vote yes on sensible regulation and legalization of cannabis.
 
I just love how some have an opinion, yet have never tried it or have been 'in their shoes'.. Or better yet, lump M-J with Coke, meth, Heroin / Opiods, like they are all the same thing!! There is a reason why pot is a little more accepted than heroin..

K-9, go ask a cop who he'd rather deal with: a bunch of drunks or a bunch of pot heads.. Do some research on 'why' it is illegal (hint: "gotta keep the black man down!") T. Jefferson saw it as a cash crop for the southern states. The war effort had posters of "grow this plant" for the war effort' as hemp rope is super strong & an easy plant to grow. And, the war on drugs (for pot anyways) is just a never ending money pit.

Canada is one of the first (and only) countries to have thrown in the towel on the fight , and has made it legal to 1) tax it, and 2) to get it out of the hands of the black market. And also the better regulate it, as we do alcohol. Cops should (and have) better things to do than round up a few 'spaced out' members of society..

Pot is addictive, but a mild addition compared to a career drunk, or a smack-head (heroin / opiod user) Pot additions is more like being addicted to cigarettes.. Unlike alcohol or opiates, where you are physically addicted to it; your body needs it to function, otherwise you start going into shock & withdrawal.. (one of the reasons why liquor stores are considered an essential service: to supply the need to the addicts, and so the hospitals can be empty & ready for the real patients..)

Pot really isn't really that much of a burden on society. It has issues, but society is more burdened with the opiates & coke & their derivatives the need for interventions, drug support, lost wages & employment, etc.... Alcohol even, due to chronic health issues that result form its use [overuse?!].. Cigarette smoke (2nd hand smoke ) is more harmful to bystanders...

I'll smoke a joint, but I won't become belligerent [drunk], rob my neighbor's house for my next fix [smack head], become a raging crazy man [meth]. If at all, i'll just get comfy, over eat, and fall asleep..
 
Last edited:
As a medic, the most common drugs I have had issues with when someone is under the influence are alcohol, synthetic "pot" like spice and bath salts, heroin or Rx opiates, meth, and PCP. Alcohol by far being the most common who have tried to hurt me, the next probably being spice.

I've seen a handful of patients give themselves heart attacks with cocaine, but they didn't become violent. I have yet to see someone OD on Marijuana.

On the other hand, I administer fentanyl, ketamine, and versed regularly and those can all be abused. Don't under estimate the cost to society of people abusing alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.
 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252950.pdf
Seems like not enough data as concluded by this study by the U.S Department of justice, which means its not a debatable subject in its current state. Which means I can't back up what I'm saying, but same goes to anyone with opposing views. I will state though that the gateway drug theory is a slippery slope situation as of now until further data backs it, but at the same time saying weed isn't as bad as other drugs such as heroin isn't valid evidence as to state that its fine. In fact by saying that, your not denying the fact weed isn't that bad (Which it is, very unhealthy for you). I don't see how comparing something bad (A) to something worse (B) and using that as the main point of reasoning is really valid. "A is not as bad as B, therefore A isn't bad" <not valid reasoning
 
Yukon@K-9 Rocket Tech said:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252950.pdf
Seems like not enough data as concluded by this study by the U.S Department of justice, which means its not a debatable subject in its current state. Which means I can't back up what I'm saying, but same goes to anyone with opposing views. I will state though that the gateway drug theory is a slippery slope situation as of now until further data backs it, but at the same time saying weed isn't as bad as other drugs such as heroin isn't valid evidence as to state that its fine. In fact by saying that, your not denying the fact weed isn't that bad (Which it is, very unhealthy for you). I don't see how comparing something bad (A) to something worse (B) and using that as the main point of reasoning is really valid. "A is not as bad as B, therefore A isn't bad" <not valid reasoning
Click to expand...
Well, when A&B are both common every-day occurrences it's fairly straightforward to compare C and note that to be consistent either 1) we should jail people for having a beer or cigarette on their person or 2) we should probably stop imprisoning people for pot.
 
Yukon@K-9 Rocket Tech said:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252950.pdf
Seems like not enough data as concluded by this study by the U.S Department of justice, which means its not a debatable subject in its current state. Which means I can't back up what I'm saying, but same goes to anyone with opposing views. I will state though that the gateway drug theory is a slippery slope situation as of now until further data backs it, but at the same time saying weed isn't as bad as other drugs such as heroin isn't valid evidence as to state that its fine. In fact by saying that, your not denying the fact weed isn't that bad (Which it is, very unhealthy for you). I don't see how comparing something bad (A) to something worse (B) and using that as the main point of reasoning is really valid. "A is not as bad as B, therefore A isn't bad" <not valid reasoning
Click to expand...
Wow.

That's a remarkable ramble that could be accurately and succinctly paraphrased as 'I have no evidence for any of the claims I've made in this thread.'
 
Less bad is a terrible rationale. It is or isn’t. Discussion gradients of bad is a terrible discussion.
 
Don't forget the makers of Oxycontin are now settling up, as they are finally admitting that "well, maybe our drugs are addictive.."

And, another thing to toss into this conversation, is "how": How do druggies start out? Do they start with one drug and move on? If so which one? What causes them to start? To continue? To keep at it & try harder / stronger? Society is as much to blame for them starting as it it is responsible to help them stop. especially some that are more likely to become addicts (addictive personality traits) and the drive / escape from their daily lives. Not to mention depression & despair also pushing them into addiction; looking for the escape.

It's easy to preach from a comfy couch with parents who love you, care for you, and feed you, and provide for a positive lifestyle & education.

But what of:
  • The 16yr old single mom who can no longer be in school because of said new child? (and can't get help for the child?)
  • The single parent who works 3 jobs just to make the basics: rent, food, bills?
  • The 16yr old who is in an abusive household? be it an abusive / alcoholic / "shady" / never home parent(s)?
  • The patient who becomes addicted to their pain meds?
  • The sales / business guy who works 16hrs a day, and finds alcohol (then coke, then ..) to keep himself going & relevant? (Was it his choice? or his work environment that forced this?)
  • The special needs kid, (even just a slight learning issue), who falls thru the cracks and is misplaced / forgotten?
  • The kid who is constantly being belittled / demeaning towards them, living in a perpetual lack of self confidence or self esteem?
  • The kid who cant' fit in', is constantly bullied; feels they are a constant failure?
  • The ...

And, of the few kids who "experiment" in school with drinks & drugs, how many of them become career drug addicts & criminals?!
How many bright kids get that one, crippling moment, and their life is forever changed? Banished to fend for themselves with few coping skills for 'the real world'? Or just make one simple, but bad mistake that they can't climb back up from?

I feel pretty confident to say, that (mostly) anyone over the age to 30:
  • knows an alcoholic,
  • knows a drug user / addict (pot user mainly, but maybe a pill popper too)
  • Has known someone who has caused an accident from either drugs or alcohol
  • Has known someone who has died from drugs or alcohol (either from direct use, or from indirect exposure: an accident / bad choice)
  • Knows of someone incarcerated for said crimes
usually from the college years; early / mid 20's.. even late high school we've known these individuals..

K-9, you're what, 16? 18? let's have this conversation in another 10 years.. I'm pretty sure you'll have a different outlook..


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/health/purdue-pharma-opioids-settlement.html
 
I’n going to echo NateB from above. During my 10 years as an EMT I saw a fair number of drug users, and the ones we never had a single issue with were the only-cannabis guys.

The issue got to be more people who were already using cannabis and decided to add in opiate pills, or a buddy’s MDMA, and something went wrong.

The MJ users didn’t seem to cross over much with the really hard drug users (straight heroin/fentanyl, coke, meth), and that group was way more likely to get violent or cause trouble.
 
cwbullet said:
Less bad is a terrible rationale. It is or isn’t. Discussion gradients of bad is a terrible discussion.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, but the world is not black and white. “It is or it isn’t” is called “false dichotomy”.

It is important for everyone to be able to understand that everything has some nuance, including substance that the government has declared illegal. We already *have* gradients of “how bad” - the DEAs drug schedule is based around exactly that.

A schedule V drug is potentially addictive, but the addiction risk and harm level (low) mean we still regularly and normally prescribe them as medication. Schedule I drugs are considered so high risk and/or addictive that we won’t even use them as medication.

Cannabis got thrown into schedule I because of The War On Drugs and Nixon’s desire to have a reason to jail counter-culture protesters. If it was based on the same criteria, it would likely be Schedule IV or V. Alcohol would likely be schedule III or IV, given the potential for addiction and dependence.
 
Joshua F Thomas said:
Oh no, my credibility is destroyed by my use of a familar form of address used since the 1960s! What ever shall I do?!
Click to expand...

Using the term dude is demeaning to you. I recommend you avoid it. It is 2020 and that term should remain in the 60s.

The bottom line is that you can think drug policies should change without condoning their use. There are very few proven benefits of its use and it is addictive. I supervise the largest and most successful addiction treatment facility in the DOD. Less addictive or harmful is of limited use. We are constantly receiving patients addicted to THC related drugs. In fact, the numberts are rising and higher than opiates, amphetamines, and cocaine. It is only surpassed by alcohol but that may change soon.
 
Last edited:
I’m unable to do anything due to how hard my eyes are rolling. But as soon as I can, I’m unsubscribing to this thread, because it seems to have become a drama train.
 
It is clearly proven to not be physically addictive. (from the link above, we've know this since 1944) The mental stuff is not as easy to nail down. Keep it away from kids by regulating it like alcohol. Regulate means take steps to keep people from driving while using, making sure it is safe to consume with no contaminants, properly packaged in childproof packaging... This has all been done successfully in CO, which should serve as a model for the rest of the states that haven't started the legalization process yet. This prohibition has been wrong from the start and to see half the states still working to prevent the relaxation of this prohibition is to watch the creation of a black market that is making the situation worse than it needs to be. If you don't like it, don't use it. Look up the tax receipts in CO for the last few months and you can see another reason to allow shops to sell it. There has been no carnage on the roads or wild behavior by insane maniacs because of cannabis here. But while walking around the neighborhood in the evening I can detect the aroma around a nearby park, which I do not call a problem. Whether you approve of using this or not, this is still a free country where you can enjoy your liberties, like flying rockets, drinking beer and pursuing what makes you happy. I am convinced that de-scheduling cannabis is the next step to put the bad (failed) idea of prohibition to rest. I am surprised by the 'church lady' view that we need to all avoid it because of some long debunked story about it being bad. Go back in history for a few centuries to see that it has been used for medical reasons by millions of people with no real problems, until it was made illegal. There are clearly a lot of people who need to avoid it, like people with underlying mental health issues, young people and those who don't like the smell. Let's let the FDA work on the medical aspects by getting it off of the schedule and see if any of the medical miracles being reported are valid. There are some pretty compelling anecdotal stories being told, Rick Simpson Oil is getting a lot of attention for some of the reported "cures."
 
Colorado has been a test bed for legalized/regulated cannabis products these last dozen or so years. What is apparent from legalization is that there are a large number of people who want to purchase this stuff. What is known about the physical effects is quite clear that young people (under 21 yrs) should not use it and requiring it to be sold in secure, regulated stores can make this easier to control. There are millions of people using cannabis products instead of other drugs for treatment of pain, PTSD and depression and their reports call for FDA study to better understand why. If any part of the alleged cancer tumor inhibition process involving cannabis is true, we need to understand it a lot better. If it is patently untrue, that needs to be learned as well. I think a good guess about what percentage of people are interested in using it at all is less than 10% but that is just an off the cuff assessment of the data published and my observations here. I attended an event in 2015 called The Cannabis Cup, a 3 day carnival that included hundreds of vendors and over 30,000 attendees. I was recruited as a designated driver for some guys working in the industry. I was able to meet the people who make and sell Charlotte's Web, a cannabis based extraction that has been successfully used against an epilepsy condition, documented in a CNN program by Dr. Gupta. They have a lot of successful treatment stories. At 4:20 each day the crowd lit up in some sort of mass exercise, which was quite a sight to see, or not see since it was impossible to see across the ballrooms. There were no fights or problems, just a lot of convention show style shuffling around by attendees. What struck me was how peaceful and nice everyone was to each other and the only visible police presence was outside, helping with traffic. What I experienced was much different compared to what I've heard over the years about people using it. I cannot advocate for the use of cannabis products because it is clearly inappropriate for most people. In general it is a mild intoxicant that gives users a sense of euphoria, lasting for an hour or so, unless it is eaten, which would extend the length of time it is in the body before being cleaned up by the liver. There are always people who will find a way to abuse something and what I saw at the "dab bar" looked like abuse to me, where glass tubes and small torches were used to inhale a concentrated extract, causing violent coughing fits. I'd compare it to people doing shots of tequila at a bar. I think that we should all recognize the reality of cannabis in our environment and make sensible rules about it. No access for kids, no driving, no black market and a public education campaign that reinforces the idea of safe, sensible use for those who so choose. USANDTOMMY 2015.jpg
 
The “coughing fits” response currently seems to be happening to those using vapes and waxy extract.

Inhalation of butane exhaust via glass tubes is a suboptimal longevity tactic.
 
Honestly, I do not consider marijuana addicted in case you do not suffer of a certain disease like nausea, anxiety, depression or maybe even post traumatic stress disorder. In case you just smoke it for recreative purposes, then I think you do not get addicted to it. At least that is my own opinion.
 
cwbullet said:
Benefits? Debunked benefits!
Click to expand...
That Physician is an educated idiot. Proving the old saying "We are all idiots, only on different subjects." In this case, he obviously has zero experience with real world usage in the medical field with marijuana, only collecting data from the anti-marijuana statistics crowd. He further has ZERO Chronic pain issues or suffers from Severe depression. "We all believe things that are wrong"- a statement NO one can argue with.
 

Similar threads

David Schwantz
Burnsville Heros
Replies
0
Views
113
David Schwantz
David Schwantz
K'Tesh
RIP Lyricist and Librettist Tom Jones has passed away, 95
Replies
9
Views
528
stealth6
stealth6
B
OOPS !!
Replies
2
Views
406
jd2cylman
jd2cylman
M
Ruskies shot down a UFO!?
Replies
27
Views
1K
MClark
M
B
RIP Tony Dow
Replies
11
Views
1K
kuririn
kuririn

Latest posts

Back
Top