Why would you guess that, so that we know your clueless about the true nature of addiction? Go ahead, buy into the hysterical propaganda.
I really like you answer. For some people it is not possible right away to moderate the hobbies.
and again I would like to quote the excellent mind of Mr. Bright:
With addiction with which can one assume confidently it was before the first consumption
(habituation comes later), the biochemical lack of luck hormones,
it is in the heroin study the result,
there is one already there , rather welfare-ends effects, as the result, the research completely is in the contradiction and thus becomes dominant visibly propaganda.
XXd 
There are more than you think, sugar addicts, medizin, co-addicted, car addicts, and so on and on......
XXd
B
Blue Dot
The problem is in today's society the "non-addicts" (those born without drug dpendency tendencies) see it as their duty to make laws aginst those who are born with drug dependency tendencies.
Their rationale is that they can't keep you from your genes so they'll just try and keep you from ACCESS to a drug that may souce that dependency.
If you believe this then you can understand the mindset of lawmakers to a degree.
Completely arbitrary as they have no problem keeping you from alcohol or nicotine.
Their rationale is that they can't keep you from your genes so they'll just try and keep you from ACCESS to a drug that may souce that dependency.
If you believe this then you can understand the mindset of lawmakers to a degree.
Completely arbitrary as they have no problem keeping you from alcohol or nicotine.
And the life holds that hell is this mistake and makes hell for the addicted ones.
Those dying, die at this from the ignorant ones that caused the hell, instead of being able to lead a simply normal life with drug of choice.
Maybe we see some slow change sin the politic powers of this day.
Basically they don´t know what to do with us after all the propaganda for the last centuries.
At least in the U.S. they allow to be med. Providers, it is a step forward. Who would have thought about that a while ago?
In Germany they will give heroin to heavy addicts now, so the criminal rate should go down some what in the next few years.
I think that is first in their minds. Far behind in their minds comes the health aspect of it.
But also the government can not close their eyes about all the new science studies coming out about drugs in recent years. Now alcohol is more addicting than heroin.
And cannabis, which should be less
harmful than smoking a cigarette….. and when science says so it is so…..
In Germany they see the side effects of binge drinking in 14-25 year olds.
They call this young generation here `the no future generation` and they wonder why they drink themselves Into a coma.
And they (the powers to be) wonder why it Is so.
not at all what i am doing.
example: i bet you cannot think of very many people between the ages of 18 and 40 that arent addicted to sex.
People who use marijuana develop at least two symptoms of addiction.
-Tolerance
-Withdrawal (only in extremely heavy users)
But the real question is: Do people continue to use it depite negative consequences in their life? Such as problems at home, at work, financial trouble, legal problems? That's the real definition of addiction.
I don't think MJ triggers reward circuits in the brain strongly enough for most people to continue to use in spite of negative consequences. It's not like crack or meth.
I mean have you ever sucked a dick for a bag of weed?
-Tolerance
-Withdrawal (only in extremely heavy users)
But the real question is: Do people continue to use it depite negative consequences in their life? Such as problems at home, at work, financial trouble, legal problems? That's the real definition of addiction.
I don't think MJ triggers reward circuits in the brain strongly enough for most people to continue to use in spite of negative consequences. It's not like crack or meth.
I mean have you ever sucked a dick for a bag of weed?
B
Blue Dot
Legal problems are a negative consequence of the LAW, Not the drug so legal consequences cannot be considered part of addiction.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Have you ever hang around a gymnasium?
I see you have a flawed definition of addiction. Addiction is not just liking something, especially something hard wired into our brains that is a biological imperative to the survival of the species. Whacking off every day doesn't make you a sex addict Lots and lots of people between 18-40 have healthy sex lives.
google -- "rat park" heroin --, and read about the study of heroin's potential as an addictive substance. IIRC it was done in 1974. Offered all the pure heroin their little hearts could possibly desire, only about 2% got addicted.
Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Have you ever hang around a gymnasium?
I see you have a flawed definition of addiction. Addiction is not just liking something, especially something hard wired into our brains that is a biological imperative to the survival of the species. Whacking off every day doesn't make you a sex addict Lots and lots of people between 18-40 have healthy sex lives.
google -- "rat park" heroin --, and read about the study of heroin's potential as an addictive substance. IIRC it was done in 1974. Offered all the pure heroin their little hearts could possibly desire, only about 2% got addicted.
Possession laws yes, if you're sticking up gas stations for money to buy crack or arrested for driving drunk not so much.
american heritage dictionary
addict - to give (oneself) habitually or compulsively
princeton wordnet
addiction - being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially alcohol or narcotic drugs); an abnormally strong craving
wikipedia
addiction - an obsession, compulsion, or excessive psychological dependence
there are many definitions to the word addiction. under any of these would fall many cannabis users, tea drinkers, sugar eaters, etc... the act or substance one is addicted to doesnt need to be life threatening, or cause physical dependence.
addict - to give (oneself) habitually or compulsively
princeton wordnet
addiction - being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially alcohol or narcotic drugs); an abnormally strong craving
wikipedia
addiction - an obsession, compulsion, or excessive psychological dependence
there are many definitions to the word addiction. under any of these would fall many cannabis users, tea drinkers, sugar eaters, etc... the act or substance one is addicted to doesnt need to be life threatening, or cause physical dependence.
durgamata
Member
My day is on a very low note if I dont have any marijuana to use at the end of the day, or if I have a small ammount that will need to be replaced soon.
It weighs heavy on my mind throughout the day. Knowing I have a big nug at home or on my person can lift my spirits in most situations throughout the day. I dont even have to smoke it, just knowing that I have it for later.
It weighs heavy on my mind throughout the day. Knowing I have a big nug at home or on my person can lift my spirits in most situations throughout the day. I dont even have to smoke it, just knowing that I have it for later.
anthonytaurus
New member
I think people don't make enough distinction between true addiction and addictive personality. For example, no one is physically addicted to Big Macs. But, somehow some people are addicted. The reality of such a situation is that that the person isn't addicted to Big Macs as though they'd go through withdrawal if they didn't have it. They just have an addictive personality. You can really find out if/when you have a chance to observe the person. you can deprive them of the specific stimulus but without addressing the mental health of the person or the addictive personality, they'll just go right back to it. This is why groups that try to "help" with marijuana addiction don't work. They treat the substance as though it were addictive when they should be treating the person's mental health.
Marijuana is about as addictive as a Big Mac and still less harmful to the body.
Marijuana is about as addictive as a Big Mac and still less harmful to the body.
I recall landing in Oakland in 2005. I got on the shuttle to the hotel and met a man all decked out in Boston Red Sox paraphernalia. I asked him if he accidentally got on the wrong plane, which cracked him up. He explained that the A's were hosting the Red Sox that weekend, and that he was following the team on all its trips in order to see every single game that season in person.
OK folks, was he 'addicted' to the Boston Red Sox or some other aspect of major league baseball? 1. It consumed his life. 2. He spent enormous amounts of money in travel expenses when he could have watched the games on tv. 3. His activity produced nothing, and was therefore a drain on society.
Next case study: the diabetic that can't live without insulin.
OK folks, was he 'addicted' to the Boston Red Sox or some other aspect of major league baseball? 1. It consumed his life. 2. He spent enormous amounts of money in travel expenses when he could have watched the games on tv. 3. His activity produced nothing, and was therefore a drain on society.
Next case study: the diabetic that can't live without insulin.
i think you are getting hung up on the negative connotation of the word "addict"
even if insulin saved this man's life, would it be untrue to classify this man as having an addiction if it fits a definition of it? alcohol can save a man's life, too, if he has a strong enough dependence on it.
and the boston guy is most certainly addicted to baseball, or the red- sox. that doesnt make him a bad person, just a simpleton.
humans are not the all knowing, all powerful, free-willed masters of our environment that we think we are.
even if insulin saved this man's life, would it be untrue to classify this man as having an addiction if it fits a definition of it? alcohol can save a man's life, too, if he has a strong enough dependence on it.
and the boston guy is most certainly addicted to baseball, or the red- sox. that doesnt make him a bad person, just a simpleton.
humans are not the all knowing, all powerful, free-willed masters of our environment that we think we are.
I think your definition of addiction makes the word meaningless. You're free to use the word as a synonym for 'aficionados' like my Red Sox fan example, but that's not the addiction that people fear. There is a significant world of difference between how the Red Sox fan chose to spend his life and what happens when a true heroin addict suffers from lack of supply. If the Red Sox game is rained out that day the fan doesn't have his entire universe go to hell. If we're not talking about the addiction that people fear they will catch, why are we even having this conversation?
i think this gets right down into the reason we are having this argument. everyone thinks an addiction is this serious mental disorder that is wreaking havoc on inner city minorities and causing incredibly terrible crime, when really an addiction is a perfectly normal human flaw. if the definition of the word addiction is inadequate, we need to begin making the distinction between "addiction" and "dependence", as they are very different things often used in the same context.
the heroin user that cannot go a day without a fix is 'dependent' on the heroin. "dependence" is a very serious condition that needs to be addressed and treated, while "addiction" is pretty harmless in many cases.
where do you begin to make the distinction between liking something and having an addiction? would you only go by the criteria listed in the dsv?
i would consider it pretty much along the same lines as discussing drug abuse, when not all drug use is drug abuse. there are those that do not make the distinction (while they make the distinction between 'drugs' and 'alcohol').
the heroin user that cannot go a day without a fix is 'dependent' on the heroin. "dependence" is a very serious condition that needs to be addressed and treated, while "addiction" is pretty harmless in many cases.
where do you begin to make the distinction between liking something and having an addiction? would you only go by the criteria listed in the dsv?
i would consider it pretty much along the same lines as discussing drug abuse, when not all drug use is drug abuse. there are those that do not make the distinction (while they make the distinction between 'drugs' and 'alcohol').
