Is marijuana addictive? - page 3

A couple of us were having this discussion tonight. One nurses says no it is not addictive. I said "well I've know some potheads who couldn't stop smoking, couldn't face life without pot, etc." ... Read More

  1. by   ziggyRn
    I think that legalising it will only create a bigger problem...

    The dealers become legit...after all, just who will continue to supply it all the way down the chain? The people already established in the business of course...they become a legit bunch of crooks...with suits on this time. They will be harder to control once 'legal'.

    The real motive in legalising something that was previously forbidden is going to be $$$$$$$$ was all about money [and lots of it] before and it will continue to be.
    Could say that there are hidden powers trying to sway public opinion to accept legalisation as the best way to control the problem. I would say that liberal politicians are more likely to be gullible...
    I also think that it's a fallacy that legalising something will remove its attraction therefore less problem. On the contrary... it's legal, it's OK...I'm not doing anything wrong, it's legal...

    Some people are like sheep...easily led

    OK, off my soapbox now and putting flame retardant suit on.

    Also, Amsterdam is now considered to be the 'drug capital'of much for supposed control.
    Last edit by ziggyRn on Dec 11, '02
  2. by   sjoe
    portland_guy writes: "I say make it legal, just tax the hell out of it. We spend millions (billions?) on trying to remove marijuana from society. How long has the drug war been going on? Well, let me tell you it isn't working. It is just as easy to obtain as it was 20 years ago."

    And MUCH more powerful. I wouldn't have stopped smoking it (back in the '60s), except I didn't need any more amotivationality. I have always had more than I could use.
  3. by   EmeraldNYL
    People who are under the influence shouldn't drive, whether it's alcohol, pot, or legal narcotics. Therefore, people who do drive under the influence should be strongly punished. However, just as most people don't go jump in a car when they're drunk (most people have better sense than this), if pot is legal most people won't try to drive after they've been smoking pot. I am personally angered by the fact that my tax money is going to fight a useless drug war which we aren't winning or even making any progress on whatsoever. Especially when pot is actually safer than alcohol-- you can't die from smoking too much pot, but you CAN die from drinking too much. All pot really does is make you lazy, and I support the right of people to be lazy if they want. People shouldn't work or drive while drunk/high, but other than that, I don't think the government has any right to tell people what they can and can not put in their bodies.
  4. by   portland_guy
    Also, Amsterdam is now considered to be the 'drug capital'of much for supposed control.
    When was the last time you were in Amsterdam? It is one of the safest large cities in Europe.
    Do they have shoot outs between police and drug dealers that we do nearly everyday in the US? No. The drug war is not working, face it.
  5. by   LasVegasRN
    This is a huge debate here in Nevada and has been put on the ballot twice.

    I don't think marijuana in and of itself is addicting. I have a friend who is an avid smoker and trust me when I tell you it helps him tremendously with stabilizing his mood.

    I see the medicinal value. I think it should be legalized for medicinal use.

    I'd rather smoke pot than drink alcohol. But, alcohol is legal and pot is not... so... cheers!
  6. by   PennyLane
    I'm with PortlandGuy and Emerald on this one. Our tax money is going to fighting the drug war, and including pot dealers in with it. As far as effects, they are far less severe than drinking. Susy, just as one may get drunk off one drink when one has never had a drink before, so can one smoke too much the first few times they smoke. Regular smokers do not get out of control when they get high. It is not physically addictive, and one cannot die from smoking too much pot.

    As far as lung damage goes, yes, I think it can be very harmful to your lungs. But there are other ways to ingest the substance (pot brownies, for instance!)

    I think it should be legal and gov't regulated. It is far and away the safest drug around. And it's completely natural!!

    Smoke on, people!
  7. by   donmurray
    The "gateway" relationship between pot and hard drugs is that due to its illegality, the pot has to be purchased from the same scuzzball that is dealing the other stuff. As there is more profit in it, he's going to offer loss leaders on the harder, more expensive stuff. A real free market economy approach!
    In the UK we recently reclassified pot as separate from other "class 3" drugs, and minor possession is no longer a routinely arrestable offence. Saleable quantities will still get you busted.
  8. by   portland_guy
    Hi allnurses members -

    I would love to hear anyone elses take on this. Do others feel legalization is a good/bad idea? What do people think of the drug war? Is it possible to have 2 global wars going on at once (drug war and terrorism)?
  9. by   fergus51
    Originally posted by Susy K
    I'm not sure I understand this statement. So, the study examined hard drug users to determine if they used marijuana at a higher rate than non hard drug users? What's a "higher rate?" Meaning frequency of use, as in one a week/once a day thing?

    I'm most curious to see if hard drug users started their drug habits with marijuana or not, regardless of frequency of use.
    No, meaning did they use marijuana first and become hard drug users? Was their rate of hard drug use after marijuana use any different from other people (you know how many people who use marijuana become hard drug users and how many don't/ how many hard drug users had never used marijuana)?

    They found it isn't more common for people who use marijuana to become hard drug users in the future.... The gateway drug idea was just a bunch of propaganda.
  10. by   ziggyRn
    hey respectfully portlandguy...
    I have been to Amsterdam and have seen it.
    I stayed in a B&B...landlady went through an elaborate system of security stuff every fact all the buildings on the street got similarly bolted up at night [not a 'bad'area either]
    Why, I asked her...t's because of the drugs' she said
    Sure enough, we were burgled...they managed to get in despite window bars, state of the art locks etc

    Walking around Amsterdam, I saw so many syringes, addicts lying around in alleys. i have stepped over addicts to get past.

    But the average tourist doesn't see this. I saw it because a Dutch friend said that he would show me the real streets that he wouldn't walk down [despite being a fit, ex-military guy]...full of drug dealers out in the open doing trade.
    I had the impression that the drug business has got a pretty good hold and the battle has been lost

    Also, just who will be supplying it when drug dealers are out of the picture? How will drug dealers be put out of the picture?
    Excuse my frankness, but it's naive to think that drug dealers can be put out of the picture.

    Ziggy's 2 cents
    Last edit by ziggyRn on Dec 11, '02
  11. by   Vsummer1
    Interesting thread. I think it is not addictive. Physchological dependence is another question though.

    As for the "gateway" theory, I agree with a previous poster that it is the way in which it is obtained that introduces people to other illegal drugs (whether that be drugs that are available through prescription legally or not).

    And I think it should be available as a medical treatment in certain cases because in my experience with chemo drugs marinol doesn't cut it.
  12. by   portland_guy
    I didn't see that side of Amsterdam. I guess one could probably make the same statements about any large city though. The US has an intense war on drugs, but even here in Portland there are some streets that I wouldn't want to go down with drug dealers on the corners. All that policing effort, long jail terms and extreme drug laws don't seem to work either.
  13. by   fergus51
    You could see the same thing in downtown Vancouver that you saw in Amsterdam. Just go to the eastside (Hastings area) and you'll find addicts and syringes all over the place. Legalizing pot has nothing to do with the amount of heroin or crack addicts you'll see (I am assuming most of the people passed out I see are using heroin, not pot). I'd even bet some of the people I see passed out are using alcohol. Abuse of hard drugs and alcohol is a serious problem, but I haven't seen criminalization stop it, have you (I have no idea what the drug problem is like in Australia)?