posted
Tres, I wonder how many marginally more productive or socially successful people it takes to balance out one family broken by the incarceration of a parent?
I'd think an awful lot.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the answer is yes, marijuana should be legal (and possibly a handful of other drugs). If the answer is no, we should seriously look at re-instituting prohibition. These are the only two logical scenarios. Alcohol as an important piece of "culture" is an illogical argument.
I'm cool with re-instituting prohibition. But I do think you are skipping over the "culture" argument too quickly. I neither drink nor smoke pot. The not smoking pot part has virtually never posed any sort of problem for me in everyday life. But the not drinking part tends to come up a lot, because drinking is involved in so many different activities in our culture. That suggests the social cost of not drinking is far far higher, in everyday life, than the social cost of not smoking pot. I strongly suspect that is the reason why alcohol prohibition reached a threshold to be repealed that marijuana prohibition never has.
quote:Tres, I wonder how many marginally more productive or socially successful people it takes to balance out one family broken by the incarceration of a parent?
I'd think an awful lot.
Why are we taking an approach that breaks families where drug abuse occurs? Why aren't we taking an approach aimed at fixing them?
The solution to the dilemma you are posing here is not to make marijuana legal. The solution is change the way we deal with people who commit the crime - we should not be destroying their lives over it. Instead we should be approaching them with an eye towards getting them off the habit. Unfortunately, that is not how the law has approached it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I strongly suspect that is the reason why alcohol prohibition reached a threshold to be repealed that marijuana prohibition never has.
How would it modify your theory to know that marijuana prohibition is effectively, at this point, doomed?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead we should be approaching them with an eye towards getting them off the habit. Unfortunately, that is not how the law has approached it.
How would you approach this if people don't want to be "off the habit"? I can't think of a good non-Orwellian approach. (The Orwellian approach would be just as damaging as our current strategy.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I hope their marijuana presentations include the fact that it is significantly less harmful and less addictive than alcohol.
It is not any less addictive than alcohol- addiction is a motivational disorder aggravated (sometimes) by physical dependency. And on that score, alcohol has not been shown to be more dependency forming than marijuana, although physical dependency on alcohol and its withdrawal period are much, much more dangerous.
Just get your facts in order, that's all.
You state that alcohol isn't any more addictive, and then you remark on how much more dangerous alcohol dependency is.
Physical dependence IS an extremely large factor in alcohol addiction.
Not really. Many alcoholics experience no physical dependency at all, and marijuana addicts also experience mild to negligible physical dependency.
Yes, alcohol dependency is extremely dangerous, physically, when it occurs. It does not occur in ever case of alcoholism, but when it does, withdrawal can be fatal. Not so for the majority of abused drugs. This has nothing whatever to do with its addictive properties.
Addiction is not dependency. You can have one without the other, and you can have both. Dependency can aggravate the severity of addiction, but addiction is a motivational disorder, with neurological causes, not a physical dependence on any chemical.
quote: Most doctors consider addiction to include both physical and psychological dependencies.
No they do not. In common parlance, we treat the word addiction as being synonymous with dependence, however the disorder and the dependency are independent of each other, which is of course why dependency lasts for a matter of days or weeks, or never occurs, and addiction is a chronic disorder.
I feel like I've said all this to you before- if so, please, don't bother answering, I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would it modify your theory to know that marijuana prohibition is effectively, at this point, doomed?
If marijuana prohibition ever ended, that would probably depend on why it ended. If it did, though, that would give us better evidence about the effect of decriminalization in the U.S. - either causing marijuana use to go up or down.
quote:How would you approach this if people don't want to be "off the habit"? I can't think of a good non-Orwellian approach. (The Orwellian approach would be just as damaging as our current strategy.)
I am no expert on this question, but I would think a greater emphasis on forced treatment rather than lengthy periods of jail time would be better. I think the trend has been in this direction already.
quote: Most doctors consider addiction to include both physical and psychological dependencies.
No they do not. In common parlance, we treat the word addiction as being synonymous with dependence, however the disorder and the dependency are independent of each other, which is of course why dependency lasts for a matter of days or weeks, or never occurs, and addiction is a chronic disorder.
I feel like I've said all this to you before- if so, please, don't bother answering, I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Wow. Self righteous much?
Mayo Clinic, the WHO, etc state that one of the main symptoms of drug dependence IS physical addiction. Do your own dang homework. Or show me a single source that states that addiction is seperate from dependence. Dependence is a PART of addiction. My father was a hospitalized alcoholic, and I had to go through 10 years of Alateen. You may be Demosthenes in your own head, but nobody's always right.
And if you're really "not interested in a debate", go elsewhere.
posted
Show me where in the DSMIV it says so. The definition of addiction is, paraphrasing, the innability to stop a given behavior in the face of mounting and debilitating consequences. Is there a physical dependence on sex addiction? Video game addiction? No, chemical dependence is found in only some categories of addiction, and is not always present. You seem to be transposing your terms. Yes, dependence is a sign of addiction, but addiction is not a sign of dependence, they are not the same things. Lack of dependence does not contraindicate addiction. Its only when you conflate physical dependence with addictive syndromes that you make this mistake. But addiction is a motivational disorder sometimes aggravated by a congenital neurological imbalance. It is not defined by or concommitant with drug dependence, though the two very frequently occur simultaneously.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to be clear, I blame your alenon sponsor and group for not educating you properly. Just as I blame the mayo clinic for perpetuating the common misinformation that these terms are synonymous. Its a shame that education about addiction is so poor even among medical professionals.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: And to be clear, I blame your alenon sponsor and group for not educating you properly. Just as I blame the mayo clinic for perpetuating the common misinformation that these terms are synonymous. Its a shame that education about addiction is so poor even among medical professionals.
No one said that they are synonymous. But dependence CAN be a part of addiction. And dependence CAN be a part of severe alcohol addiction and IS a part of alcoholism. They're certainly not interchangable.
I'm a part of my family, but I'm NOT the actual family. And there can be another family WITHOUT me (ie, marijuana addiction). But that doesn't mean that I'm not a part of MY family (alcoholism).
Jeez. I'm sure you know better than the health professionals.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Show me where in the DSMIV it says so. The definition of addiction is, paraphrasing, the innability to stop a given behavior in the face of mounting and debilitating consequences. Is there a physical dependence on sex addiction? Video game addiction? No, chemical dependence is found in only some categories of addiction, and is not always present. You seem to be transposing your terms. Yes, dependence is a sign of addiction, but addiction is not a sign of dependence, they are not the same things. Lack of dependence does not contraindicate addiction. Its only when you conflate physical dependence with addictive syndromes that you make this mistake. But addiction is a motivational disorder sometimes aggravated by a congenital neurological imbalance. It is not defined by or concommitant with drug dependence, though the two very frequently occur simultaneously.
And if you really want to call the DSMIV into question (which doesn't make a lot of sense), they seem to classify addiction in EITHER patterns of abuse OR dependence.
"Once abuse or dependence is verified, the clinician administers a comprehensive assessment to develop a treatment plan. The assessment includes detailed medical and psychological histories from the individual. The clinician may request copies of medical records and may interview family members."
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: And if you really want to call the DSMIV into question (which doesn't make a lot of sense), they seem to classify addiction in EITHER patterns of abuse OR dependence.
As far as I know, the word "addiction" is not in the DSM-IV. It is not a medical term. I went through and looked for it, actually, at the request of my husband, who is a researcher and national policy writer in the field of substance abuse, and I could not find it.
So, to suggest that the DSM-IV addresses "addiction" directly is, I think, misleading. One of the major problems in the field is the lack of defined terms -- at least not widely agreed-upon terms. It is a politically charged topic with much vague language.
On first read, I also cannot make sense of the Mayo Clinic site suggesting what it was initially claimed to have suggested, but I'd have to reread it to be sure. I'll try to do that later today.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
errr...the DSM IV doesn't include a definition of addiction. (edit: Sorry, I posted this before I saw other people addressing this point)
If I remember correctly, Ori, you came up with some other weird ideas about addiction the last time it came up (I think it was that you maintained that there is no distinction between substance addiction and behavioral addiction). I asked you then where you'd gotten your info, but I don't think you ever came back on it. So, again, where are you getting this information from?
quote:How would you approach this if people don't want to be "off the habit"? I can't think of a good non-Orwellian approach. (The Orwellian approach would be just as damaging as our current strategy.)
I am no expert on this question, but I would think a greater emphasis on forced treatment rather than lengthy periods of jail time would be better. I think the trend has been in this direction already.
Let's say someone grows a few pot plants in his basement for himself and to share with his friends. He gets busted, and has enough to get charged with intent to distribute.
How is "forced treatment" going to address the problem? He can go through the motions of a 12 step program, or something, but if he's not an addict the treatment isn't going to be suitable and b) even addicts don't get better until they want to get better.
Keep in mind this hypothetical guy didn't get pulled over driving under the influence, didn't violate parole, didn't do any of the other things that might correlate closely with addiction and the need for treatment.
What kind of treatment would make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to dogpile, but I don't think you (Orincoro) addressed my previous question.
To restate the question, when you say that Marijuana is "not less addictive than alcohol", which of these are you trying to say:
1) Marijuana is more addictive than alcohol. 2) The two drugs are somehow exactly equally addictive. 3) You don't know which one is more addictive, and further believe scientists and doctors don't know either. 4) You believe that no two drugs can ever be said to be any more or less addictive than the other. 5) Something not encapsulated by the above options.
Until I know which one you are actually suggesting, I'm not sure how to respond. Talking about how physical dependence is independent of addiction doesn't really address which one is actually more addictive.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: As far as I know, the word "addiction" is not in the DSM-IV. It is not a medical term. I went through and looked for it, actually, at the request of my husband, who is a researcher and national policy writer in the field of substance abuse, and I could not find it.
As long as we're clearing the air about various misconceptions about addiction/dependence I'd like to hear your take on the division between 'psychological addiction' and 'physical addiction.' I haven't had a professor yet who didn't think that the distinction was, ultimately, a superficial holdback to earlier conceptualizations about chemical dependence.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be the first to agree that there are no objective definitions and that the argument is a stupid waste of time (and in some cases, intellect). Seriously, it's a disagreement about semantics.
<Cues the argument on how I just used the word "semantics" incorrectly, in the colloquial -- rather than dictionary -- usage>>
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I know, the word "addiction" is not in the DSM-IV. It is not a medical term. I went through and looked for it, actually, at the request of my husband, who is a researcher and national policy writer in the field of substance abuse, and I could not find it.
So, to suggest that the DSM-IV addresses "addiction" directly is, I think, misleading. One of the major problems in the field is the lack of defined terms -- at least not widely agreed-upon terms. It is a politically charged topic with much vague language.
My understanding is that the current draft of the DSM V does include definitions of addiction, although there is considerable controversy about this and this may not make it into the final version.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be the first to agree that there are no objective definitions and that the argument is a stupid waste of time (and in some cases, intellect). Seriously, it's a disagreement about semantics.
But even if his definition of "addiction" is very different from mine or yours, can't one still be more "addictive" relative to the other? (Presumably with some evidence behind the claim.)
If not than you'd have to agree that a placebo is just as addictive as heroin, and that's just silly.
I was challenged to "get my facts straight", and when someone says that they need to be prepared to present the correct facts (and with sources behind them to boot).
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be the first to agree that there are no objective definitions and that the argument is a stupid waste of time (and in some cases, intellect). Seriously, it's a disagreement about semantics.
But even if his definition of "addiction" is very different from mine or yours, can't one still be more "addictive" relative to the other? (Presumably with some evidence behind the claim.)
If not than you'd have to agree that a placebo is just as addictive as heroin, and that's just silly.
I was challenged to "get my facts straight", and when someone says that they need to be prepared to present the correct facts (and with sources behind them to boot).
Well, people asked for facts. I know that I provided some, and I received nothing other than derision. This post would be a great example of logical fallacies, as there are several posters who seem to be poster-children (inductive, deductive, personal attack, etc).
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
based on my understanding of addiction and the definitions ive read, i think most paraphrased definitions of addiction can be slightly misleading (or at least overly simplistic). one mentioned above looks more like a description of compulsive behaviors, which do play a part in addiction but arent responsible for the entirety of the condition. others have already addressed the difficulty of defining the issue so i wont.
my thoughts on the subject: i dont know if there is an identifiable difference between chemical and physical addiction but perhaps there is. it seems conditions resulting from the addiction, such as chronic neurological imblance, can be described as a phycical dependence in that the body functions abnormally during the time of abstinence. since neurotransmitters are regulated using negative feedback the body can be affected by all forms of addiction. in the case of drug use, when the neurotransmiters are foreign, the physical dependence and/or duration of withdrawl could be considerably longer but i would argue that a neruopsycholgical dependence does constitute a physical addiction.
i cant find much literature regarding motivational disorders. im not sure if thats a newer term used to decribe a previously known condition. maybe those using it could point me towards an educational link regarding such a disorder.
also, i agree that some medical professional are poorly educated about addiction; not everyone can be a specialist. granted, addiction is a broad issue with much to know and understand but the research into addiction and its cause and implications are ongoing. already much is being discoverd which wasnt known even a few years ago. so i dont think its fair to say people are misinformed or lacking in education. they may not be current in their information but thats something discussions like this can help them with.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:This post would be a great example of logical fallacies, as there are several posters who seem to be poster-children (inductive, deductive, personal attack, etc).
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you talking about my post being full of logical fallacies? If so I'm not sure you understand what I was saying there. Hint: I'm pretty sure I am in agreement with everything you've posted on this thread.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being a busy 5th grade teacher who just now happened upon this thread, and being a 5th grade teacher who's class is currently being taught D.A.R.E. by a police officer, I found the comments made here about D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness to be very interesting. So, . . . . I decided to go researching! I've now read through several studies and abstracts of studies about D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness and most of the studies say that it isn't very effective. Considering that it is taking up a precious 45 minute block of my instructional time every week for ten weeks, I'm understandably upset by this. It's not something that I can just stop because the county endorses it. However, I can do some more research and present the findings to the school board and let them debate with the public about whether to keep the program or not. But, one caveat to the research I've read is that it has all been primarily with white students. My school is 75% hispanic (mostly new or first generation immigrants), with a 90% poverty rate (based on school free and reduced lunch data). So I'm curious if there are studies out there to determine just how effective (or not) the program is with my school's particular population. As one study said,
quote:Although DARE has program elements that are similar to social influence approaches, it has been suggested that it’s effectiveness may be compromised because it targets the wrong mediating processes, uses instructional methods that are less interactive than more successful prevention programs, and/or that students “tune out” an expected message from an authority figure (Hansen & McNeal, 1997; Tobler & Stratton, 1997).
From a purely anecdotal point of view, my students are enthralled with the program. I don't see the non-interest that was expressed in one of the studies. My students are very interested in the police officer, his life, his duty, and are interested to know more about what he has to teach.
Xavier said,
quote:If this DARE program material is like others I've read about, this brainwashing was done through scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies.
Just to comment on this, having experienced five of the ten lessons so far in the D.A.R.E. program, there haven't been any scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, or outright lies presented in my classroom. The police officer has been very factual, and enjoyable in his delivery style.
Just thought I'd add my own personal very up-to-date observations of D.A.R.E. from a teacher's point of view!
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:having experienced five of the ten lessons so far in the D.A.R.E. program, there haven't been any scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, or outright lies presented in my classroom.
Good to hear. I'm curious though, what exactly do they say about it to get kids not to do it then? Is the illegality emphasized?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This post would be a great example of logical fallacies, as there are several posters who seem to be poster-children (inductive, deductive, personal attack, etc).
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you talking about my post being full of logical fallacies? If so I'm not sure you understand what I was saying there. Hint: I'm pretty sure I am in agreement with everything you've posted on this thread.
No, not yours . . . I actually meant "thread" not "post".
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has the illegality been emphasized? No. Mentioned, yes. Basically what has been said are the legal ages for buying cigarettes and alcohol, and that other drugs are either legal (medical) or illegal. So far the emphasis has been on the physical results of tobacco and alcohol abuse (two lessons) and how to identify peer pressure (three lessons). Actually, much of the time has been spent on answering questions that the kids have that have run the gamut from "have you ever shot anyone" to "what do I do if I find something in the playground or in the field." The program is also incorporating information about gangs and violence, an issue of great importance in my region.
I can easily see that this program would be very ineffective in middle school grades because of the differences in kids' maturity and the overwhelming need to conform. Fifth graders haven't been quite bowled over by that need yet and are still more children than adolescents and are more open to the curriculum. I do notice that many of the meta-analyses of D.A.R.E. are a bit old and that the program has been revamped quite a bit in recent years, so what you (universal you) may have experienced may be quite different from the way the program is conducted now.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keep in mind this hypothetical guy didn't get pulled over driving under the influence, didn't violate parole, didn't do any of the other things that might correlate closely with addiction and the need for treatment.
What kind of treatment would make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more?
I would think it would have to be some combination of treatment and punishment that varies according to the specific case, and be designed to fix his problems rather than get moral retribution for what he did. In a basic case like that, I'd think something comparable to what we do with people who are caught driving under the influence might be appropriate - forced classes to inform him, some fines or jail time (but not excessive), and monitoring/limitations for some period of time. You would have to include traditional punishments and increase punishments for repeate offenders, but you don't have take the zero-tolerance approach that many states use that seem more aimed at blunt deterrance rather than fixing the psychological issues that lead to the desire for substance abuse.
And if someone is growing weed in his basement illegally, gets caught and punished for it, receives education about why he needs to stop, knows that there will be harsher punishments if he does it again, and nevertheless still decides to keep growing weed in his basement simply because he enjoys the experience, then I would think that in itself demonstrates either a need for serious intervention or that he has a complete disregard for the law.
It should be noted that underage cigarette smoking remains illegal, but has significantly declined due to the county's effectiveness in educating underage youth about why smoking is a bad idea. That's going to be the most effective method to make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more: preventing it by doing an effective job of showing him why it is not in his interest to do it. Making pot legal would send the opposite signal.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... I'd like to hear your take on the division between 'psychological addiction' and 'physical addiction.' I haven't had a professor yet who didn't think that the distinction was, ultimately, a superficial holdback to earlier conceptualizations about chemical dependence.
I find it hard to discuss because it seems impossible to pin down what is meant by the terms in a consistent way. That is, "substance dependence" has a standardized definition, and I can assess the research literature based on that definition. I find it hard to assess research literature about "psychological addiction" because whenever I try to compare studies, they are using different definitions and thus hard-to-impossible to compare (apples and oranges, or at least apples and pears). So I'd end up talking out of my ass, based mostly on my my own preconceptions about the topic, and I try to avoid that.
My best answer would then be "I am not even sure what people mean by the term, and so I cannot systematically assess it in any reliable or repeatable way."
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: My understanding is that the current draft of the DSM V does include definitions of addiction, although there is considerable controversy about this and this may not make it into the final version.
Right. The conversations behind the scenes are amazing. I was responding to a claim about DSM-IV, so I limited it to that. But as for the next version -- well, careers are on the line, and for good reason.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I am no expert on this question, but I would think a greater emphasis on forced treatment rather than lengthy periods of jail time would be better. I think the trend has been in this direction already.
One of the problems is that it is problematic for the courts to recommend treatment which doesn't have a process to assess and report on its validity. AA isn't well-studied in the research literature, because it is a loose conglomeration of mostly anonymous volunteers. How would you do [a good] outcomes study? What is out there research-wise seems to suggest the general approach works very very well for a subgroup of problem users of various substances, and it may make things worse for other subgroups.
Most centers that bill themselves as treatment centers do not track outcomes in a scientific manner. Sometimes even the best-looking places don't even consistently track their own numbers. So making referrals as part of a mandated system becomes excruciatingly problematic, since you could well be mandating something ineffective or even counter-productive -- and then the court is responsible.
The politics and history of substance abuse diagnosis and treatment is Byznantine. We are in pretty dark ages, still.
posted
It's worth noting that Alcoholics Anonymous is not set up to be a research-validated system. It is set up (insofar as there is a consistent setup) to be a voluntary, individually participatory group meeting for persons at at least a certain stage of readiness to change. And for that, it seems to do very very well.
I would not like to see AA criticized for [not] being something it was not intended to be, especially given that it seems to be quite good at what it does intend to be, and for a certain group of people. I also would not like to see it formally treated as something it is not, particularly when treating it inappropriately in that way is done by a public agency representing me as a citizen of the community, and in the guise of appropriate action in an area for which my professional obligations require me to object vociferously.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It should be noted that underage cigarette smoking remains illegal, but has significantly declined due to the county's effectiveness in educating underage youth about why smoking is a bad idea. That's going to be the most effective method to make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more: preventing it by doing an effective job of showing him why it is not in his interest to do it. Making pot legal would send the opposite signal.
Oh?
Dealers don't ask for ID. Dispensaries do.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Not to dogpile, but I don't think you (Orincoro) addressed my previous question.
To restate the question, when you say that Marijuana is "not less addictive than alcohol", which of these are you trying to say:
1) Marijuana is more addictive than alcohol. 2) The two drugs are somehow exactly equally addictive. 3) You don't know which one is more addictive, and further believe scientists and doctors don't know either. 4) You believe that no two drugs can ever be said to be any more or less addictive than the other. 5) Something not encapsulated by the above options.
Until I know which one you are actually suggesting, I'm not sure how to respond. Talking about how physical dependence is independent of addiction doesn't really address which one is actually more addictive.
Mostly 4. What I meant to express specifically is that the statement: "alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana" is untrue in regards to addiction. For some people, and addictionology research has not reached a conclusion as to why this is, marijuana is dependency forming and highly addictive. For others it is not. Same for alcohol. Individual biology, physiology and psychology determine the individual's relationship with a given substance- a minority people in the world are physically incapable of opiate dependency due to some as yet incompletely understood property of the chemical receptors in their brains- others are completely unaffected by marijuana for similar reasons. Still others have highly adverse physical or psychological reactions to exposure to those chemicals, and some experience euphoria and in others almost immediate addictive syndromes result.
So yes, no two drugs can be judged on a scale of addictiveness because addictiveness per se is a function of highly individual interactions, and cannot be generalized. Those who seek to claim that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol should do so by pointing out that it is pharmacologically very mild, and does not present risks of overdose as with many other drugs, even legal drugs. It is folly to suggest however, that it is not more addictive. For certain people, it simply is the worst thing they could possibly do to themselves.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I've done both acetaminiphen and heroin. I'm ashamed to say it, but acetaminophen gets rid of my headaches better. I take three even though the bottle says to take two. I'm out of CONTROL.
<Hangs head in shame.>
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, he complains that other people aren't referencing facts, and then you throw a wall of them at him. He still makes outlandish claims without any support that fly in the face of every actual expert.
On a different note, have you ever watched Dora the Explorer? I've got a silly song stuck in my head from that crazy show! I don't know why I ever thought of it....
posted
Herb, Going in to an argument with Ori, you've got to manage your expectations. Yes, he's doing that. It is what he does. I think it would be better for you if you realize that this is going to happen and figure out what you're looking to get out of it, if you can reasonably expect anything like that to come out of it, and focus on that during your interactions.
It can be tempting to get into talking about the person, but in most cases, this doesn't get you very far, especially with someone like Ori, who isn't going to change and whose behavior that you're going to be criticizing is pretty well known to the people here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: So you can't say that acetaminophen is less addictive than heroin?
Considering that acetaminophen is not psychoactive? I think it's safe to say heroin is the bigger problem- not that a dangerous acetaminophen addiction couldn't happen, but it's unlikely to happen without the presence of opiates such as in several prescription drugs.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Heck, based on that logic, I don't think you can say that arsenic is more deadly than peanuts.
Not surprisingly, no one I'm aware of who actually works in this area talks about things that way.
No? Do they wildly distort and simplify carefully qualified statements in order to mock those who make them? HM? Ass.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So yes, no two drugs can be judged on a scale of addictiveness because addictiveness per se is a function of highly individual interactions, and cannot be generalized.
What. No, this isn't at all true.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok - I realize that this has gotten into a debate about addiction, but I'm curious about a couple of other things.
A couple of people have asked, but not one has really answered, how does this situation change if what the boy brought in was a more serious drug. Would we think D.A.R.E. was failing kids if the kid had brought in a stash of Crack, Meth, or Heroine? Or is D.A.R.E. not really the problem? Are we really upset that CPS was removing a child from a home where nothing "truly dangerous" was taking place (and while marijuana is illegal, I think almost all of us can agree that it doesn't present the "immediate danger" to a child that is usually required as justification for removing the child from the home)?
Those both seem to be totally separate issues that have somehow morphed into a discussion of "should weed be legal" and then "is weed addictive" and then "what is addiction?.
On the "should weed be legal" question. I am sort of on the fence with this issue, but I tend to lean towards legalization because most of the data I've seen doesn't show weed to be dangerous enough that I believe the government has the right to stop people from using it. HOWEVER, one of the biggest reasons I've heard for legalizing it is so that we can a) tax it and b) get it away from drug dealers, thus taking away it's ability to be a "gateway drug". My little brother always counters this argument though, saying that since marijuana already has such a successful distribution method in place, people would STILL use illegal channels, even once legalized, because they would be cheaper. Thus, even if we did legalize it, it would STILL be a "gateway drug" simply because our efforts to tax and control it (and probably set a minimum age on it) would drive people to the illegal dealers anyway. It would just be harder to fight dealers because mere possession wouldn't be enough for an arrest anymore. That means we'd just be making it easier for drug lords to get rich.
Personally, I'd like to believe that most citizens given the option of obtaining the substance legally, would do so. However, we do still have problems with illegal tobacco and alcohol being sold to avoid taxes, and those have been legal for ages! Is it really reasonable that people would abandon their usual dealers just because they can now buy it at 7-11?
Also, on the subject of how "safe" weed is. I remember reading in several places, that marijuana is actually more than twice as damaging to your lungs as tobacco, and introduces 3 times the number or carcinogens into the bloodstream. I don't have sources on this, because these aren't things I've read recently, but for those of you who seem to be doing alot of research, is there any truth to this? If so, it seems like it really could be problematic for public health.
Lastly, what do you think the rules ought to be on use if it's legalized? For instance, can you smoke it in restaurants? Can you smoke while driving? Is there some equivalent to a "blood alcohol level" that can be obtained to determine whether or not you are driving under the influence? How do you handle those questions?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would we think D.A.R.E. was failing kids if the kid had brought in a stash of Crack, Meth, or Heroine? Or is D.A.R.E. not really the problem?
Dare is a problem independent of what this kid did. Don't look at individual instances; look at what the statistics say.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
