Should U.S legalize Marijuana??

[freethefly 6]

The Gateway Myth

January 24, 2003

High Road
Marijuana as a "gateway" drug

By Jacob Sullum

By the 1950s, Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger had backed away from his claim that marijuana turns people into murderers. Instead he began arguing that it turns them into heroin addicts. "Over 50 percent of those young addicts started on marijuana smoking," Anslinger told a congressional committee in 1951. "They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."

Half a century later, this idea, known as the "gateway" or "stepping stone" theory, remains a bulwark of marijuana prohibition. Its durability is largely due to its ambiguity: Because it's rarely clear what people mean when they say that pot smoking leads to the use of "harder" drugs, the claim is difficult to disprove.

Survey data indicate that heroin and cocaine users generally use marijuana first, and that people who try pot are much more likely than people who don't to try other drugs. But there are several ways of interpreting these facts. A recent study by the RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center, for example, found that a general predisposition to use drugs, combined with a four-year lag between access to marijuana and access to other illegal intoxicants, was enough to account for the patterns observed in the government's surveys.

"The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and other drugs," said Andrew Morral, the lead author of the study, which appeared in the December issue of the journal Addiction. "Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available. Once we incorporated these facts into our mathematical model of adolescent drug use, we could explain all of the drug use associations that have been cited as evidence of marijuana's gateway effect."

Case closed? Not quite. A study reported in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association surveyed 311 pairs of Australian twins in which one used marijuana by age 17 and one did not. The researchers found that the early cannabis users were more likely than their twins to use other drugs. They were four times as likely to use psychedelics, three times as likely to use cocaine or other stimulants, and more than twice as likely to use opioids.

These relative probabilities may sound impressive, but they're quite modest compared to the numbers usually cited by defenders of the war on drugs. The prohibitionist propaganda mill known as the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, for example, trumpets the fact that "12-to-17-year-olds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not." The results of the twin study suggest that almost all of this difference is due to environmental and personality factors, as indicated by RAND's analysis.

Even with twins, of course, there are differences in environment and personality. The study's results were similar for monozygotic ("identical") and dizygotic ("fraternal") twins, which suggests that genetic differences of the magnitude seen in siblings are not important in determining who uses the "harder" drugs. But both kinds of twins clearly differed in significant respects; otherwise, it would not have been the case that one from each pair used marijuana early while the other did not. If one twin happens to be less risk-averse or more rebellious, or if he happens to have friends who know where to get pot, that factor could explain both his early marijuana use and his subsequent use of other drugs.

The researchers, for their part, speculated that the link between early pot smoking and later drug use "may arise from the effects of the peer and social context within which cannabis is used and obtained. In particular, early access to and use of cannabis may reduce perceived barriers against the use of other illegal drugs and provide access to these drugs."

To expand on that point a bit, the government's decision to put marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin may contribute to a gateway effect in three ways:

1) Once teenagers break the law to try pot, they are less reluctant to break the law to try other drugs.

2) Once they discover that the government has been lying about marijuana, they are less inclined to believe official warnings about other drugs.

3) Once they buy marijuana on the black market, they are more likely to have the opportunity to buy other drugs.

A more obvious explanation for the connection between pot smoking and other drug use is that people who discover that they like marijuana may be more inclined to try other psychoactive substances, in the same way that people who discover that they like bungee jumping may be more inclined to try sky diving. You could say that bungee jumping is a gateway to sky diving.

Notice that none of these interpretations involves a specific pharmacological effect of the sort drug warriors seem to have in mind when they suggest that pot smoking primes the brain for cocaine or heroin. As a National Academy of Sciences panel observed in a 1999 report, "There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular drug effect." Last year the Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs likewise concluded that "cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory."

Of course, it all depends on which "sense" you have in mind. A few years ago in the Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin, the social psychologist Robert MacCoun laid out seven—count 'em, seven—different versions of the gateway theory. "Given our current state of knowledge," he concluded, "one can coherently argue that (a) the gateway is a myth—it doesn't exist; (b) the gateway is very real and it shows why we must sustain or strengthen our ban on marijuana, or (c) the gateway is very real and it shows why we should depenalize or even legalize marijuana."

A theory that versatile will never die.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason, is the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, forthcoming in May from Tarcher/Putnam.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

I hate to say it micro, but your argument there about why drugs should be regulated works in EXACTLY the same way for guns. God I hate crossing two topics, but it is the truth:

-----------------------

I think it behooves the government to regulate guns that are harmful not only to people who could shoot themselves, but who would also not have the brains NOT to harm others while in and about society.

------------------------

The key is your word usage: regulate. Making them illegal is just the most severe form of that. Not many SERIOUS marijuana advocates want TOTAL freedom. They recognize the need for tax and control of the substance. Same as alcohol.

I really want to avoid the gun argument, but there it is.

No Rob, it's not the same. MJ is a psychoactive substance that impairs the brain. Guns do not. There is a difference. A gun is a tool. MJ is not. See my previous posts.

Nonsense. MJ is a tool in the medical treatment of glaucoma and cancer (or it would be if not outlawed).

And you only have to read SC to realize that gun ownership DOES affect some people's brains.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Guns are not addictive.

SURE!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Plus, the only thing a pothead is a danger to is a bag of cheetoes. Regulating marijuana is a waste of law enforcement time and resources.

I understand the premise of your statement, but to say that marijuana usage does not pose a danger in the broader scheme is incorrect in my view.

Lung cancer cases would increase by an order of magnitude which would cripple treatment systems. Users would eventually file a suit mirroring the tobacco lawsuits, posing even more government oversight. It's much simpler to try and keep it out, versus regulate monitoring systems tracking nicotine, THC, and other carcinogen content (much like cigarette industry requirements).

It would create a layer of bureaucracy unknown today, plus create a massive burden on healthcare as we know it. I won't even get into the issue of having half the country getting stoned then getting behind the wheel of an automobile.

. LOL. They already do. What planet are you on?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Sure, whatever, try eating any mushrooms you come accross. Just eat few of them!....and maybe you can chew on some thallium, or drink some arsenic, pickup some nutmegs, and wild berries!!!. and good luck.

The mushrooms w/ the pretty purple ring on the stem are pretty tasty

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I hate to say it micro, but your argument there about why drugs should be regulated works in EXACTLY the same way for guns. God I hate crossing two topics, but it is the truth:

-----------------------

I think it behooves the government to regulate guns that are harmful not only to people who could shoot themselves, but who would also not have the brains NOT to harm others while in and about society.

------------------------

The key is your word usage: regulate. Making them illegal is just the most severe form of that. Not many SERIOUS marijuana advocates want TOTAL freedom. They recognize the need for tax and control of the substance. Same as alcohol.

I really want to avoid the gun argument, but there it is.

No Rob, it's not the same. MJ is a psychoactive substance that impairs the brain. Guns do not. There is a difference. A gun is a tool. MJ is not. See my previous posts.

Nonsense. MJ is a tool in the medical treatment of glaucoma and cancer (or it would be if not outlawed).

And you only have to read SC to realize that gun ownership DOES affect some people's brains.

We were talking about recreational/abusive use of MJ. Leave it to you to distort things as well as to get a dig into people you don't like. Typical.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Guns are not addictive.

SURE!

Yeah, every time I thumb through a new gun magazine at the news stand, I have this incredible desire to gorge on doritos. And when the effects wear off, I just HAVE to go score a real gun or I start to itch ALL over and if I don't have it RIGHT NOW I'm gonna rob granny over there and take her pearl earrings RIGHT off her and hock them so I can buy that fucking gun and go shoot it! I'm a gun junkie!!!

Good lord John.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Under that line of reasoning then, should the govt. legalize ALL drugs? Heroin, crack, meth?

Yes. The government shouldn't be telling me what I can and can't do to my own body. Let Darwin do his thing.

Blues,
Dave

The govt. sure as shit can and SHOULD be telling you what you can do w/ your body when it can and will affect other peoples bodies! You wanna fuck up your body, fine... but too many people TOO MANY TIMES have fucked up TOO MANY LIVES by doing drugs and hurt or killed other people in the process.

Where's Darwin then?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>Such as?

Legalizing it, taxing it and using the money to treat people with dependency problems. Would it work better than trying to stop people from using it at all, and failing? (which is what we're doing now.) I don't know - but I think there's a good chance it would.

Looks like a nice duplicitous, vicious cycle you have there.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

true, the illegality/legality of the matter may not be enough to keep addicts from using, but at this point, what's the alternative?

How about letting people, addicts or otherwise, work it out for themselves. Novel idea.

linz

b/c addicts at times have this uncanny ability to drag many other people down into their hell and either kill them, maim them, or just plain fuck them up. and addicts shouldn't have that right. "their body, their choice." sure, until it interferes w/ the rights of OTHER people...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>MJ is a psychoactive substance that impairs the brain. Guns do not.
> There is a difference. A gun is a tool. MJ is not. See my previous
> posts.

That's sort of a silly distinction.

Just sitting there, a gun doesn't impair you. Just sitting there, neither does marijuana.

If you use a gun on yourself, you may become impaired. If you use marijuana on yourself, you may become impaired. A gun will impair you a lot faster and a lot more permanently than pot will.

If you practice burning marijuana on a bonfire or something, you generally won't become impaired. If you practice with a gun at a range, you generally won't become impaired.

People who use guns foolishly are MORE likely to injure or kill themselves or others than people who use marijuana foolishly. So if your objective is to protect people from themselves, outlawing guns would probably work about as well (if not better) than outlawing marijuana. (As we've seen, such a prohibition never works very well to begin with, no matter what the topic.)

Bill, IMO, your distinction b/t guns and pot borders on complete insanity.

We weren't comparing using guns on oneself vs. smoking pot . Kallend was talking about the careless shooting of someone else vs. harming someone else while under the influence of a psychoactive substance.

But if you went w/ your example, again you could substitute ANY impliment that you could use to harm yourself w/... an ice pick, a hammer, a razor blade.

Here's a statement you made that is laughable... "If you use MJ on yourself, you may become impaired." I'm assuming you mean that if you don't inhale, a la slick willy, you run the risk of not impairing yourself? Or "if you use a gun on yourself..." same thing...

You're comparing people who use guns foolishly to people who use MJ foolishly. I think this is a false comparison. The whole point of smoking MJ (recreationally) is to become impaired, to experience the high! The majority of people who use guns aren't using them to use them to impair themselves! It's an invalid comparison.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[livendive 8]

Quote

The govt. sure as shit can and SHOULD be telling you what you can do w/ your body when it can and will affect other peoples bodies! You wanna fuck up your body, fine... but too many people TOO MANY TIMES have fucked up TOO MANY LIVES by doing drugs and hurt or killed other people in the process.

I totally support the government telling me what I can and can't do to other people's bodies (without their consent). If I violate those laws, they'd be right to prosecute me. But there shouldn't be an *assumption* that I will hurt someone else. Plenty of people drink and do drugs today without hurting others...in "the land of the free", that should be a legal option.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jshatzkin 0]

I am not the one who gave the dx,..I just gave the tx. I was skeptical as well,...but 5 docs, including a neurologist all assured that other causes were ruled out, and pinpointed the dx as marijuana induced psychosis. Again, this was something that was rare to see in our unit, but it is possible. I know that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly the cause for any mood or psychotic problems. Diagnosing is very complex. Who knows, perhaps all the docs were wrong.

As far as you not having seen any literature on it, go look in a (diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders) DSM-IV TR, diagnostic codes 292.11 and 292.12. You don't get much more researched based in mental health and substance abuse than that.

Jen

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

The govt. sure as shit can and SHOULD be telling you what you can do w/ your body when it can and will affect other peoples bodies! You wanna fuck up your body, fine... but too many people TOO MANY TIMES have fucked up TOO MANY LIVES by doing drugs and hurt or killed other people in the process.

I totally support the government telling me what I can and can't do to other people's bodies (without their consent). If I violate those laws, they'd be right to prosecute me. But there shouldn't be an *assumption* that I will hurt someone else. Plenty of people drink and do drugs today without hurting others...in "the land of the free", that should be a legal option.

Blues,
Dave

To an extent, i really don't disagree... I really don't... I've just seen and heard about too much carnage... people killed by drunk drivers, people strung out on dope, meth addicts neglecting their kids, or blowing them up... I don't know where the line is. Once you're impaired, it's far too easy for you to decide you'll do x, y, or z b/c your inhibitions are lowered, you feel more invincible, or whatever, and you wind up doing something you wouldn't do when you were sober. And, when that happens and you hurt someone along the way, yeah, you should pay dearly, but that doesn't erase the hurt you caused to that person. It just doesn't make sense to me. And just b/c "plenty of people do [it] today w/o hurting people" is FAR from a compelling argument, since MANY people DO hurt and kill people while doing it.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[jshatzkin 0]

I think what we are talking about here is occasional recreational/experimental use vs. regular users. I restate my gateway statement. Alcohol and tobacco are the real gateway drugs. Nancy Andreason, M.D., PhD, is a whiz in the field of psychiatry. Her review of literature and common conclusions of professionals, is that regular users of marijuana are more likely to also use other drugs. I think that was the point I was trying to make. not too well

Jen

[jshatzkin 0]

Quote

You've lumped MJ with others. Did you ever take a statistics course?

Plenty of them
AS far as the docs diagnosing,..obviously we went through comprehensive assessments and histories and that was the conclusion. AS I stated in another post, look up the DSM-IV diagnostic codes 292.11 and 292.12. Psychosis due to marijuana use is real and not just some made up dx the docs gave these (only very few) patients.

Quote

So does alcohol, nicotine, even caffeine.

If you looked far enough, my comment about the psychoactive properties was in reponse to the argument about marijuana use vs. guns! Not marijuana vs. other drugs!

Finally, the "lumping" of MJ users, was more a response of the effects of drug addiction in general. And that does not matter what type of drug. There are users, abusers, and those who are physically dependent. Very different between the three. I am talking about physically dependent, addicted drug users. They do not function in society, are a drain on health care and are less productive in general.

Jen

[Lindsey 0]

As far as you not having seen any literature on it, go look in a (diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders) DSM-IV TR, diagnostic codes 292.11 and 292.12. You don't get much more researched based in mental health and substance abuse than that.

The criteria for Substance Induced Psychotic Disorders specifies that they arise "only in association with intoxication or withdrawal states, whereas primary Psychotic Disorders may precede the onset of substance use or may occur during times of sustained abstinence. Once initiated, the psychotic symptoms may continue as long as the substance use continues...."

Those are the Diagnostic Criteria per the DSM-IV...the one we used when I was working in that field. I don't have a copy of the newer version at my house, but I doubt that the criteria have changed that dramatically....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jshatzkin 0]

Linz,

That's basically it. I do recall a sepcific staffings on one of these patients (there were only 3 that I specifically remember over an 18 month period who received this dx). The doc was so adamant that chronic use contributed to his psychotic state. I cannot remember how long it had been since his last use, but it was negative in his urine. He had used several times per day for several years. Who knows, maybe he got some bad stuff that messed him up.

Anyway, I am glad you posted this. I think some people here are trying to argue that other than mellowing you out and giving the munchies, there is not much more to marijuana use. My point is that it can definitely alter thinking and functioning and can have some severe effects. That was my whole reasoning of posting the diagnosis of these patients. COuld the doctors have been wrong? I don't know. I initially argued that it had to be more going on with them, but was shot down. But the fact remains, it is possible to have psychosis with it in a non-intoxication state. The DSM states "...1. the symptoms developed during or within a month of substance intoxication or withdrawal....."

Jen

[jshatzkin 0]

Just one quick reference (with others noted in the text) to back up my claim

" CANNABIS PSYCHOSIS

Dr Brian Boettcher Consultant Psychiatrist Shelton Hospital, Shropshire’s Community & Mental Health Services NHS Trust, Bicton Heath, Shrewsbury, SY3 8DN

Introduction
The drug induced psychosis seen when Cannabis is the main substance being abused is distinct phenomenologically from other psychosis.

It is unusual for such a psychosis to occur without other drugs being involved to some extent and so it is difficult to tease out the differences between the effects of Cannabis and other drugs.

However it is misleading and dangerous, to our youth in particular, to label Cannabis as “soft”. In fact the serious adverse effects of Cannabis have been known for some time now and Hall and Solowij in the British Journal of Psychiatry sounded warnings in 1997 about such issues as dependence on Cannabis, adolescent developmental problems, permanent cognitive impairment as well as involvement in and the development of psychosis.[1]

There are suggestions that in a small number of cases Cannabis is capable of precipitating psychosis, going on to the chronic picture described below, in people who have had no family and personal history of psychiatric illness.There have been suggestions that such people may be the ones who have started Cannabis in their teens and caused disturbance to neural connectivity. However, it seems Cannabis can precipitate or exacerbate a schizophrenic tendency in a characteristic manner.[2]

ACUTE SYMPTOMS OF CANNABIS PSYCHOSIS
International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)
Often the combination of symptoms makes one suspicious that schizophrenia is present but at the same time there is an affective component. There may be the suspicion that the condition, either in part of whole, is feigned for reasons that are unclear because the pattern of symptoms do not fall easily into the usual criteria for psychosis. Drug taking is often denied, or the amount that is admitted by the patient is so little that one cannot say that this accounts for the current symptoms. Worse still, patients may not even consider Cannabis as an illicit or dangerous drug and so do not mention using it. Hallucinations are vague and delusions may be transitory with little in the way of thought disorder. There is often a lack of volition and a history of gradually deteriorating social ability and contact with others, including significant others. This history will often be verified by relatives and close friends who may be either completely ignorant of the drug taking, or confirm that there has been some in the past but believe that there has been little drug taking recently. There is often a depressive component with suicide attempts in the past but nothing recent or, if there is, then they are only ineffectual pleas for help. The person has usually lost his or her job some months or weeks before due to their poor performance at work. There is often very poor memory and concentration, which may be marked at the time of presentation. Paranoid delusions may be present and quite severe which can be the most alarming psychotic feature and result in hospital admission. If confronted with aggressive and authoritarian staff, who indicate verbally or non-verbally, that they do not believe the patient, the patient may become violent or simply leave against medical advice. There is a slow and gradual effect of cannabis and the symptoms continue to worsen for some time after the person stops using it. Thus by the time of presentation the person may be so disorganised and confused that they can’t even arrange their next “cone” or “joint”. Over the following few days the symptoms ease quickly. The improvement is easily credited to the neuroleptics and/or the antidepressants, which may in fact have contributed to the improvement. Symptoms such as the paranoia, hallucinations and depression fade until the patient is allowed to go on leave from the hospital and, a worsening of the symptoms may follow this. More often than not the nursing staff are the first to become suspicious that drugs have been taken when the patient is on leave from the hospital.

It could even be that the drug screen only indicated small dose drug taking or even absent. The International Classification of Disease indicates the following symptoms due to Cannabis.

“There must be dysfunctional behaviour, as evidenced by at least one at of the following:

(1) Apathy and sedation

(2) Disinhibition

(3) Psychomotor retardation

(4) Impaired attention

(5) Impaired judgement

(6) Interference with personal functioning.

C. At least one of the following signs must be present:

(1) Drowsiness

(2) Slurred speech

(3) Pupillary constriction (except in anoxia from severe overdose, when pupillary dilatation occurs)

(4) Decreased level of consciousness (e.g. Stupor, coma)

F12.0 Acute intoxication due to use of cannabinoids F12.0 DCR-10
A. The general criteria for acute intoxication (F1x.0) must be met.

B. There must be dysfunctional behaviour or perceptual disturbances including at least one at least one of the following:

(1) Euphoria and disinhibition

(2) Anxiety or agitation

(3) Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation

(4) Temporal slowing (a sense that time is passing very slowly, and/or the person is experiencing a rapid flow of ideas)

(5) Impaired judgement

(6) Impaired attention

(7) Impaired reaction time

(8) Auditory, visual or tactile illusions

(9) Hallucinations, with preserved orientation

(l0) depersonalization

(11) derealization

(12) Interference with personal functioning

increased appetite
dry mouth
conjunctival injection
tachycardia.”
[3] DSM IV also has similar but less complete information under the heading of Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder and refers the reader to a general description of “ Sunstance­Induced Psychotic Disorder”. That is the difference in the phenomenology of Cannabis Psychosis and other substance induced psychosis is not made, however this is now rather dated being 1994 when published.[4]

It can be seen from this that the range of symptoms is quite extensive and not confined to the core symptoms mentioned at the beginning.

CHRONIC SYMPTOMS OF CANNABIS PSYCHOSIS
Patients are left with the well-recognised and permanent symptoms of memory loss, apathy, loss of motivation and, paranoid ideation. These symptoms known as “ the Amotivational Syndrome” in the past are usually permanent.[5] If Cannabis using resumes then the acute symptoms redevelop. The chronic state can also be arrived at without a preceding psychotic episode. After Cannabis started to be widely used about 20 years ago, for permanent damage to occur it was felt by some that Cannabis had to be heavily used over at least three years [6]. However, there is accumulating evidence that smaller amount will do damage also and in animals “ deficits on tasks dependent on frontal lobe function have been reported in cannabis users” [7]. It is very difficult to conduct research in this area, as it is not acceptable to harm humans by doing trials with damaging substances such as Cannabis. However there is accumulating evidence of the psychological consequences of using Cannabis [8]. It is logical that to get the permanent “ Amotivational Syndrome” small amounts to damage have to accumulate incrementally. All this is in addition to the recognised danger of a recurrence of a pre-existing illness, such as Schizophrenia or Manic-depressive disorder. There are suggestions that Cannabis “ caused schizophrenia in young people and (or) enhanced the symptoms, especially in young people poorly able to cope with stress or in whom the antipsychotic therapy was unsuccessful”. [9] Caspari found “patients with previous cannabis abuse had significantly more rehospitalizations, tended to worse psychosocial functioning, and scored significantly higher on the psychopathological syndromes "thought disturbance" (BPRS) and "hostility" (AMDP). These results confirm the major impact of cannabis abuse on the long-term outcome of schizophrenic patients”.[10]P



References
[1] Hall W, Solowij N, “ Long-term Cannabis use and Mental Health “ 1997 British Journal of Psychiatry, August, 171:107-8

[2] Hall A, Degenhardt, “Cannabis and Psychosis” Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Presented at The Inaugural International Cannabis and Psychosis Conference 1999 , Melbourne 16-17 February 1999

[3] World Health Organisation, Geneva, (1992) “ The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders”

[4] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association,1994

[5] Schwartz RH “Marijuana: an overview”. Pediatr Clin North Am 1987 Apr;34(2):305-17 .

[6] Boettcher B, Medical Journal of Australia 11/25 December 1982 “Marijuana and Apathy”

[7] Jentsch J D, Verrico C D, Le D, Roth RH, “ Repeated exposure to dleta9-tetragydrocannabinol reduces prefrontal cortal dopamine metabolism in the rat “ ,Neurosci Lett (1998) May 1;246(3):169-72

[8] Hall W, Solowji N, Lemon J, The health and psychological consequences of Cannabis use. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series no 25. Canberra: Australia Government Publishing Service, 1994

[9] van Amsterdam JG, van der Laan JW, Slangen JL, “Cognitive and psychotic effects after cessation of chronic cannabis use “ Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998 Mar 7;142(10):504-8

[10] Caspari D, “Cannabis and Schizophrenia: Results of a follow-up Study” Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1999;249(1):45-9

Jen

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Guns are not addictive.

SURE!

Yeah, every time I thumb through a new gun magazine at the news stand, I have this incredible desire to gorge on doritos. And when the effects wear off, I just HAVE to go score a real gun or I start to itch ALL over and if I don't have it RIGHT NOW I'm gonna rob granny over there and take her pearl earrings RIGHT off her and hock them so I can buy that fucking gun and go shoot it! I'm a gun junkie!!!

Good lord John.

I doubt you are addicted to sex or gambling either, but some people are. Doesn't have to involve ingestion of a substance in order to be addictive.

Good Grief, Michael, don't you know ANYTHING?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I hate to say it micro, but your argument there about why drugs should be regulated works in EXACTLY the same way for guns. God I hate crossing two topics, but it is the truth:

-----------------------

I think it behooves the government to regulate guns that are harmful not only to people who could shoot themselves, but who would also not have the brains NOT to harm others while in and about society.

------------------------

The key is your word usage: regulate. Making them illegal is just the most severe form of that. Not many SERIOUS marijuana advocates want TOTAL freedom. They recognize the need for tax and control of the substance. Same as alcohol.

I really want to avoid the gun argument, but there it is.

No Rob, it's not the same. MJ is a psychoactive substance that impairs the brain. Guns do not. There is a difference. A gun is a tool. MJ is not. See my previous posts.

Nonsense. MJ is a tool in the medical treatment of glaucoma and cancer (or it would be if not outlawed).

And you only have to read SC to realize that gun ownership DOES affect some people's brains.

We were talking about recreational/abusive use of MJ. Leave it to you to distort things as well as to get a dig into people you don't like. Typical.

Meaningless distinction. Some people use guns to hunt for food, some just shoot for recreation. Please.

I do not wish the government to nanny me on account of other people's bad behavior.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

So which is it?

A rare result, as you've said,

or a common result and reason to fear pot as a 'non soft' drug, as you want to conclude?

Seems like a larger % of the population are allergic to pennicilin, or peanut butter.

---
And I'm sure you're aware how politicized all federally funded research is when it comes to pot. The other side claims no countering research will ever be supported, and I believe them. So we rarely have opportunity to see data that might counter the official line.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

b/c addicts at times have this uncanny ability to drag many other people down into their hell and either kill them, maim them, or just plain fuck them up. and addicts shouldn't have that right. "their body, their choice." sure, until it interferes w/ the rights of OTHER people...

How many potheads do you know that are so disfunctional? Or are you clinging to the gateway claim?

[yourmomma 0]

Quote

Guns are not addictive

John Rich , in my estimation , is addicted to guns. As well as correctly bashing the English for not shooting home intruders with them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have an addictive personality...

And yet I manage to have a glass of wine or two daily and stop there; can't remember the last time I was drunk.

a glass or two DAILY sounds borderline alcoholic. What happens if you choose not to drink for a week?

Thanks to my vicodin intake this summer, I ended up not drinking for 2 months. Good to know it didn't really matter that much to me. (and it only took 4 days to start sleeping after dropping the narcotics)