Read my first post. No, I am not talking about addictiveness at all, again, go back and re-read what I have written. — TimeLine

Oh come on Time Line, face reality. Addiction, and the problems involved with addiction, is all you've been talking about. Here's the first line of your first post:

When I was helping a young girl remove herself from a toxic environment that enabled her addiction to drugs to appear normalised... — TimeLine

Every post, all you talk about is the horrors of addiction. Then you had the audacity to claim that marijuana is highly addictive in order that you could categorize marijuana use as an addiction problem:

There are other issues here then medicinal cannabis and I really do not want to discuss the highly addictive chemical THC and cannabis with you. — TimeLine

The fact is that marijuana, THC, is not addictive. Of the millions of people who use it, only a very few can even be said to be addicted, even by people like you who define "addicted" to suit your purpose.

Since when is statistics bullshit? — TimeLine

Yes, statistics are bullshit because they can be produced, and presented so as to support any argued position. For instance, if one out of every ten thousand marijuana users is addicted to it, you will use this statistic to argue that marijuana is addictive. What sense does that make? When a very small percentage of those engaged in an activity become addicted to it, why would you categorize that activity as addictive? That's bullshit, categorizing something according to a property with a low probability of occurrence.

That's why I brought up the issue with LSD and chromosome damage. In those days, the 70's, "the statistics" clearly indicated that LSD caused chromosome damage. But it was all bullshit, just like your addiction talk.

And what exactly is the point you are trying to make? You come on here with your "statistics is bullshit" rant and iteration of the disgust you feel towards the word addiction, which is a 'disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences', but so? What is your point? And then you have the audacity to say:

When a very small percentage of those engaged in an activity become addicted to it, why would you categorize that activity as addictive? — Metaphysician Undercover

"Small percentage" from where? Which "statistics" did you get that from, or are you carefully trying to use such expressions to somehow verify a moot point? Whether a person is "addicted" to marijuana or any other drug or not, continuous and repeated use over a lengthy period of time as highlighted in my post that shows the effects it has on the brain leads to a cycle of continuous use. That may not be an "addiction" in the way that you are attempting to highlight, but it is certainly disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.

How does your word matter to me without any practicality in what you say? In the real world, a drug-test kit is not practical, not for the millions of young people who access drugs from sources like friends or acquaintances. If you have some facts, why is it difficult for you to just show me? — TimeLine

The idea that "In the real world, a drug test kit is not practical" is promoting a falsehood.

Drug test kits for party going kids trying MDMA are supported by the Australian Federal Police "Drug testing isn’t perfect. Not only will some people take what they have anyway, some might be allergic to a substance in the drug and not know it. But senior figures including former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer say they would support pill testing to reduce the danger for young people who choose to take ecstasy. “I have no problem with it at all, I think it makes absolute sense to try to test the quality of the drugs that people are taking,” Mr Palmer said.
Most experts agree the government’s “war on drugs” isn’t working."

The Bunk Police might be surprising to you since their sole intention is to make sure party goers know what they are taking before taking it with portable test kits and they are WIDELY distributed for FREE to party goers. Are they promoting the use of MDMA? Or are they facing the reality that people will do MDMA (which does have therapeutic uses) and is with most "stigma" drugs, on schedule to be medically legalized by the FDA by 2021.

I dunno - the rich and leisured life gets boring very quickly without personal growth. — Jake Tarragon

That depends on character. If most people make a lot of money, you see them the whole day at the pub >:O .

Drug test kits for party going kids trying MDMA are supported by the Australian Federal Police "Drug testing isn’t perfect. Not only will some people take what they have anyway, some might be allergic to a substance in the drug and not know it. But senior figures including former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer say they would support pill testing to reduce the danger for young people who choose to take ecstasy. “I have no problem with it at all, I think it makes absolute sense to try to test the quality of the drugs that people are taking,” Mr Palmer said. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It still does not change my initial remarks against the practicality of using drug-tests, but please don't get me wrong, I support the use of them. This was arranged at the music festival and I remember watching that program for which the article is written and many figures on the show were against the use of them. For instance, our Ice epidemic is mostly in rural country settings, amongst friends in backyard parties and not at festivals and access to these kits are not readily available. It also provides a false security and that the purity of any drug does not suddenly change the danger factor, as said in the end of the article:

Can you imagine people bowling up to a festival with their drugs in their hands and happily testing them outside the gates? They’ll have to do it before they get to the festival. I can never see that happening in this country.

This is the problem and another diversion used to fuel your argument. The government will never endorse the kits despite what Palmer stated. And perhaps you should read between the lines, rather than speak about these isolated groups at music festivals:

"Drug use shows no sign of slowing down at festivals, along with its the deceptive marketing and sale to attendees. It's pretty clear as forms of oblivious consumption remain a plague... "I've seen so many terrible things happen to people at events; people die, people run their bodies and minds, and have years of lasting effects from using these substances... [festival-goers] just aren't aware what's going on most of the time."

It still does not change my initial remarks against the practicality of using drug-tests, but please don't get me wrong, I support the use of them. This was arranged at the music festival and I remember watching that program for which the article is written and many figures on the show were against the use of them. For instance, our Ice epidemic is mostly in rural country settings, amongst friends in backyard parties and not at festivals and access to these kits are not readily available. It also provides a false security and that the purity of any drug does not suddenly change the danger factor, as said in the end of the article: — TimeLine

The problem with considering 'all illegal drugs dangerous' and have no 'benefit to society' is that does not address each drug, the reason it is being used or abused and the long term affects on the human body. In order to speak of addiction or drugs having a detrimental affect or a beneficial affect, it is necessary to break the drugs down into specific categories. The physical addiction to a drug called Ice (here in the states it is a pure form of Methamphetamine) is worlds away from the possible habitual addiction to marijuana or the use of MDMA. I strongly disagree with the idea that knowing the purity of a drug before taken doesn't change the danger factor as it isn't my experience with Methamphetamine, nor what I have observed in young adults using MDMA.

This is the problem and another diversion used to fuel your argument. The government will never endorse the kits despite what Palmer stated. And perhaps you should read between the lines, rather than speak about these isolated groups at music festivals — TimeLine

These are hardly isolated groups at music festivals and to think that our youth does not research a drug before taking it is the absolute opposite of what our youth is doing. Our youth not only use computers to research the chemical makeup, short term affect and long term affects, they have their own version of Terros who sends out alerts about bad 'batches' of various drugs on the street so those choosing to use, do so informed. This new generation has sites like DanceSafe that cover the risks of drugs and how to stay safe and are not promoting the use of drugs but rather embracing the reality and wanting those who want to engage in risky behavior, to do so with an educated approach.

"Drug use shows no sign of slowing down at festivals, along with its the deceptive marketing and sale to attendees. It's pretty clear as forms of oblivious consumption remain a plague... "I've seen so many terrible things happen to people at events; people die, people run their bodies and minds, and have years of lasting effects from using these substances... [festival-goers] just aren't aware what's going on most of the time." — TimeLine

The above quote can be applied to just about any drug, from long before Woodstock to today, alcohol to MDMA. The cliché of "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll" is a cliché for a reason and that reason has a rich history, so to believe that there will be any separation of the two on the horizon is hopeful but not likely.

f most people make a lot of money, you see them the whole day at the pub — Agustino

OK, so personal growth ain't everything.

OK, so personal growth ain't everything. — Jake Tarragon

The beer, the entertainment, etc. - that is everything to them :P

Small percentage" from where? Which "statistics" did you get that from, or are you carefully trying to use such expressions to somehow verify a moot point? — TimeLine

Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. It's very clear that only a small percentage of those who use, or have used marijuana, are actually addicted to the stuff, or will ever become addicted. Yet your claim is that THC is "highly addictive".

Whether a person is "addicted" to marijuana or any other drug or not, continuous and repeated use over a lengthy period of time as highlighted in my post that shows the effects it has on the brain leads to a cycle of continuous use. That may not be an "addiction" in the way that you are attempting to highlight, but it is certainly disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences. — TimeLine

Oh, I see your point, continuous usage of something, even though there are some adverse consequences, constitutes a "disorder". I guess I'm addicted to the hammer that I use every day at work, and the adverse consequences of an occasional blister or a sore wrist on a hard day, or a hit to my thumb now and then, means that my usage of the hammer is a disorder.

How do you propose to weigh the very obvious rewards against the very sketchy "adverse consequences"? Why don't you lay out these adverse consequences in plain English rather than just alluding to "addiction"?

"Drug use shows no sign of slowing down at festivals, along with its the deceptive marketing and sale to attendees. It's pretty clear as forms of oblivious consumption remain a plague... "I've seen so many terrible things happen to people at events; people die, people run their bodies and minds, and have years of lasting effects from using these substances... [festival-goers] just aren't aware what's going on most of the time." — TimeLine

Anytime that you get tens of thousands of people together for an event, especially adolescents, there is the possibility of "terrible things". The fact that drug use is associated with some of these "terrible things" is incidental rather than momentous, unless you happen to believe that drug use is itself a terrible thing.

This seems to be your argument, because it is possible that a terrible thing can happen to someone who uses drugs, therefore drug use is a terrible thing. The relationship you make between "drug use" and "terrible things" is completely askew. Just like your claim that just because a very small percentage of those who use marijuana will become addicted, therefore marijuana is highly addictive, you want to say that because terrible things happen to a very small percentage of drug users at festivals, therefore drug use is a terrible thing.

So the beer, and the drugs, are an alternative path of fulfilment, to the path of personal growth?

I am reminded of the problems with alcohol addiction among indigenous peoples, when they are "brought into the modern world".

You say:

Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you said:

Statistics are bullshit. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not sure, but as one who clearly advocates the use of drugs, perhaps this may be an indication that it is not all that good for you?

Are you saying that THC is not addictive? What is addictive to you? For me, it is a clinical term so I checked the "statistics" and while it differs in its addictive potential from other more powerful drugs like amphetamines, "the belief that cannabis had no addictive potential was, in part, based on observations that withdrawal of the drug did not result in spontaneous physical withdrawal symptoms in animals or humans. However 1 in 9 cannabis users meet the clinical criteria for dependence as described by the ICD10 or DSM-IV. In summary, based on the latest insights, cannabis should be considered as a drug with addictive potential; albeit the conditions for this addictive potential to emerge are somewhat different from those known from the "typical" drugs such as amphetimines or opiates where tolerance, dependence and withdrawal are robust phenomena after repeated use. Thus, under appropriate conditions, it can be demonstrated that THC and related cannabinoid agonists have an addictive potential and fulfill the reward-related behavioral criteria for drugs of abuse."

Another key feature of all addictive drugs is the increase in dopamine levels where the brain reinforces the positive and pleasurable effects it has that causes a person to continue the use that only increases in strength as one becomes more tolerant to it.

I guess I'm addicted to the hammer that I use every day — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just... yeah, well, awkward moment.

The rest of your rubbish doesn't even merit a response.

So the beer, and the drugs, are an alternative path of fulfilment, to the path of personal growth? — Punshhh

I didn't say they're a path to fulfilment, just a path that many people take, probably because it's easy, and not very painful upfront.

However 1 in 9 cannabis users meet the clinical criteria for dependence as described by the ICD10 or DSM-IV. — TimeLine

Ok, so we're down to 11%. To me, that's already a low percentage. Now how many of those who meet the criteria for "dependence", meet the criteria for "addiction"?

Thus, under appropriate conditions, it can be demonstrated that THC and related cannabinoid agonists have an addictive potential and fulfill the reward-related behavioral criteria for drugs of abuse." — TimeLine

I would assume that if 11% of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would say that it has "addictive potential". I would also assume that if 1%, or if.1%, or .01%, or .001%, (etc.), of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would also claim that it has "addictive potential". That's why I claim that your use of statistics is "bullshit". The statistics are meaningless with such usage.

Consider my example of the claim that the use of LSD causes chromosome damage. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some so-called "scientists" experimented on some creatures, giving them LSD, and found that a small percentage of those creatures displayed chromosome damage. So, they claim, "LSD causes chromosome damage". You see the deficiency of this claim don't you? In the way that I stated the example, there is no control group, and it is highly probable that the few incidents of chromosome damage were caused by something other than the LSD.

Now apply this to your claim that marijuana is addictive. You have a low percentage of the people who try the drug getting addicted to it. You have no control group, and therefore no scientific means of saying that the addiction is not caused by something other than the drug. So I put it to you, that since the rate of addiction is so low, it is highly probable that the addiction is caused by something other than the drug.

Another key feature of all addictive drugs is the increase in dopamine levels where the brain reinforces the positive and pleasurable effects it has that causes a person to continue the use that only increases in strength as one becomes more tolerant to it. — TimeLine

Do you believe that the addiction to sweets is caused by sugar? If so, why don't you turn your rant toward a real problem sugar addiction, rather than a pseudo problem, THC addiction.

I didn't say they're a path to fulfilment, just a path that many people take, probably because it's easy, and not very painful upfront.

Sorry, it's my clumsy choice of words. Really I meant the perception of fulfilment in their eyes. A typical delusion experienced by addicts.

Anyway my original point was in reference to the privelidged in our current world. They are due to their privelidge already well tutored in how to conduct a life of leasure. Whereas the starving, or the "primitive" is not so prepared, hence the problems of addiction amongst indigenous populations when forced into a life of houses, clothes, supermarkets, TVs etc.

Do you believe that the addiction to sweets is caused by sugar? If so, why don't you turn your rant toward a real problem sugar addiction, rather than a pseudo problem, THC addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

THC is not physically addictive, like some drugs which have serious withdrawal symptoms in which illness can follow abstinence.
But as with some other things such as nice things, be that Star Wars films, Mars Bars, or comfy chairs, they can have psychological addiction, which makes you disappointed if you don't get them.

Ok, so we're down to 11%. To me, that's already a low percentage. Now how many of those who meet the criteria for "dependence", meet the criteria for "addiction"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you click on and read the link that defines clinical addiction? IF 11% of 183.3 million is more than 20 million, how is that a low percentage to you?

Ok, so now you say:

That's why I claim that your use of statistics is "bullshit". The statistics are meaningless with such usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you said:

Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. — Metaphysician Undercover

Just reminding you of your doucheness.

I would assume that if 11% of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would say that it has "addictive potential". I would also assume that if 1%, or if.1%, or .01%, or .001%, (etc.), of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would also claim that it has "addictive potential". — Metaphysician Undercover

I wouldn't claim anything. The professionals are.

So, they claim, "LSD causes chromosome damage". You see the deficiency of this claim don't you? In the way that I stated the example, there is no control group, and it is highly probable that the few incidents of chromosome damage were caused by something other than the LSD. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is clarity around what these percentages mean, around the likelihood vis-a-vis excessive use whereby the potential damage could occur, the risks to the brain if taken for a lengthy period of time etc. How you read the statistics is your problem, but it is not actually a problem.

Do you believe that the addiction to sweets is caused by sugar? If so, why don't you turn your rant toward a real problem sugar addiction, rather than a pseudo problem, THC addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

:-|

THC is not physically addictive, like some drugs which have serious withdrawal symptoms in which illness can follow abstinence. — charleton

Try telling that to TimeLine.

Did you click on and read the link that defines clinical addiction? IF 11% of 183.3 million is more than 20 million, how is that a low percentage to you? — TimeLine

Do you even know what "percentage" means? 11% is a low percentage whether the overall number is two, twenty, twenty million, or twenty billion.

Look, you are focusing on the descriptions from the 11% who purportedly get addicted, while totally neglecting the descriptions from the vast majority, the 89% who do not. So you conclude THC is addictive based on that small minority.

Do you not see that this is extremely faulty inductive reasoning? Suppose that 11% of people saw a certain object as green, while 89% saw that same object as blue. Would you insist on the conclusion that the object is green? Your argument makes no sense at all. As in the case with the 11% which say that the object is green, I would say that your 11% who are purportedly addicted, just have difficulty describing what they experience.

Just reminding you of your doucheness. — TimeLine

I don't think you've told me what doucheness means yet. Care to elaborate?

There is clarity around what these percentages mean, around the likelihood vis-a-vis excessive use whereby the potential damage could occur, the risks to the brain if taken for a lengthy period of time etc. How you read the statistics is your problem, but it is not actually a problem. — TimeLine

Right, you're starting to see reason. How I read the statistics is not actually a problem. It's how you read the statistics that's a problem. You focus on a very low percentage of cases, completely ignoring the vast majority of cases. Then you claim that the reports which that small minority make concerning the object (THC), represent the true properties of that object. So you treat the vast majority, which includes me, as if we're chopped liver. I think I know what doucheness means.

On the matter of Chromosome damage.

`When the government asks for evidence of the harm of something, it is the easiest target to shoe damage. Put sugar in a test tube, or salt, or chocolate or just about anything other than water, and you can damage chromosomes.

There is clarity around what these percentages mean, around the likelihood vis-a-vis excessive use whereby the potential damage could occur, the risks to the brain if taken for a lengthy period of time etc. How you read the statistics is your problem, but it is not actually a problem.
— TimeLine — TimeLine

Alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco, and many other common substances have the same risks when you ignore the importance of saying how much and for how long exactly.

Alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco, and many other common substances have the same risks when you ignore the importance of saying how much and for how long exactly. — charleton

Oh sorry, can you clarify, they have the same risks on the brain? No need to divert the attention away from the fact that this thread is about drugs, though, right?

Do you even know what "percentage" means? 11% is a low percentage whether the overall number is two, twenty, twenty million, or twenty billion. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is like talking to a wall. Do you not value human life?

Do you not see that this is extremely faulty inductive reasoning? Suppose that 11% of people saw a certain object as green, while 89% saw that same object as blue. Would you insist on the conclusion that the object is green? Your argument makes no sense at all. As in the case with the 11% which say that the object is green, I would say that your 11% who are purportedly addicted, just have difficulty describing what they experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, sorry buddy, we're done.

It's a cheap trick to say that drugs harm chromosomes when chromosomes are easy to harm.
Pot is basically harmless, like anything else, when used responsibly.

It's a cheap trick to say that drugs harm chromosomes when chromosomes are easy to harm. — charleton

We really need a facepalm emoticon.

It is like talking to a wall. — TimeLine

Communicating with me may be like talking to a wall, but I can see through you like glass. I hope you now recognize that what you promote is nothing but extremely faulty inductive reasoning.

We have an object, THC. We have numerous people who have experience with that object, many of them describing their experience. The vast majority, 89%, describe the object as non-addictive. A slim minority, 11%, describe the object as addictive. Your conclusion: therefore the object is addictive. Facepalm?

Do you not value human life? — TimeLine

Of course I value human life, but that's irrelevant, we're talking about marijuana here, not a deadly toxin.

Did you click on and read the link that defines clinical addiction? IF 11% of 183.3 million is more than 20 million, how is that a low percentage to you? — TimeLine

That's not how them stats works, tho.

That's rather sexy that trailer. I suppose that's how they got such a following, with the use of sex appeal.

Drugs are a cheap substitute to feeling alive. When you can't control the thoughts going through your mind, it's like having an a**hole torturer whispering everything you don't want to hear 24/7.

So, drugs give people an escape from their own selves. It's sad.

Pot is basically harmless, like anything else, when used responsibly. — charleton

Let's see, do you smoke pot? >:)

I had my first joint in 1978. In my time I've grown it and smoked it. These days I'm not that bothered by it, though I find it helpful for chronic pain. Might have a puff once a month or so.
I my life I've tried most drugs, except heroin, and of all those drugs pot is the least addictive; tobacco the most addictive.
Pot has been a great stimulus to help consider alternative opinions. And its something I would heartily recommend those that think they are open minded on this Forum.
As an artist is has enhanced my imagination to improved my output.
As a drummer, it is crap, and a single pint of beer is the best drug to help you loosen up.