SC sheriff may seek charges against Michael Phelps

[This_person]

Originally Posted by LateApex

I'm curious what you define 'addictive' as. THC will not cause withdrawal symptoms if one were to quit using marijuana.

It _can_ be habitual though.

Addictive Potential
Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2–3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb

THC, in and of itself, isn't addictive.

Actually, it is

Originally Posted by Brown University

Is marijuana addictive?
No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users.

For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting.

[pcjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by This_person

Actually, it is

Interesting studies, but it at least WAS an accepted fact that THC isn't addictive, but people who are susceptible to becoming dependant on the effects (such as, people with depression that need it to just feel "normal") could become "addicted". Is that REALLY addiction though, when it is something that is, in all respects, necessary for them to live their lives? Would you call someone like that addicted to anti-depressants, because I'm sure they'd have similar reactions to being taken off of those after a long period of use.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb

Interesting studies, but it at least WAS an accepted fact that THC isn't addictive, but people who are susceptible to becoming dependant on the effects (such as, people with depression that need it to just feel "normal") could become "addicted". Is that REALLY addiction though, when it is something that is, in all respects, necessary for them to live their lives? Would you call someone like that addicted to anti-depressants, because I'm sure they'd have similar reactions to being taken off of those after a long period of use.

I'm not a doctor.

A government study, and numerous (just Google "addictive properties of THC") independant studies call it mildly addictive - physically and psychologically. So, you have a valid point about the psychological effects, but it appears to be the general conclusion of the medical community that it is also physically addictive, if mildly so for most (85%+) - and strongly for others (10-15%).

[pcjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm not a doctor.

A government study, and numerous (just Google "addictive properties of THC") independant studies call it mildly addictive - physically and psychologically. So, you have a valid point about the psychological effects, but it appears to be the general conclusion of the medical community that it is also physically addictive, if mildly so for most (85%+) - and strongly for others (10-15%).

I have no problem saying that I think they're wrong. In general, it is just a desire to reach the same cannaboid receptor reaction as they got before, for pleasure, relaxation, etc. This can be gotten in other ways, but some people don't know how to replace the drug use with a different cannaboid reactor. Addiction is a widely abused term, IMO. An addiction cannot be replaced...it requires weening off of the substance and relapse is easily caused by exposure to the substance again (alcohol, for example). When something can be replaced by other substances or activities, I do not call it addiction.

[iamanmpd]

You didn't answer my question. Does your employer know you are on here?

[huntr1]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SMOKED THE EVIL GREEN PLANT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT DECRIMINALIZED/LEGAL????

Hey dipsh!t weed is illegal by FEDERAL law, therefor it is illegal in EVERY state.

[pcjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb

I have no problem saying that I think they're wrong.

Found a great example:

Behavioral models for studying cannabinoid motivational and reinforcing properties

Drug discrimination

Early studies identified the discriminative stimulus properties of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive constituent of cannabis. Because animals did not easily self-administer cannabinoids, initial studies analyzed the subjective properties of cannabinoids with this task. Animals easily associate the pharmacological properties of low doses of THC (0.20 mg/kg) with a correct response for a reward (i.e., food) in a two-lever drug discrimination task (Jarbe et al., 1976). The discriminative stimulus effects of THC are pharmacologically selective. Non-cannabinoid drugs generally do not substitute for THC, whereas cannabinomimetic drugs fully substitute for THC in pigeons, rats, and monkeys (Wiley et al., 1995). A GABAergic component may be involved in cannabinoid drug discrimination, as revealed by the partial substitution elicited by diazepam (Wiley and Martin, 1999). Cannabinoid discriminative effects are prevented by pretreatment with the CB1R antagonist SR141716A (Wiley et al., 1995). Anandamide and stable analogs of this endocannabinoid do not fully substitute for THC, indicating a different pharmacological profile for natural and synthetic cannabinoids and endocannabinoids (Wiley, 1999).

Cannabinoid Addiction: Behavioral Models and Neural Correlates -- Maldonado and Rodr#guez de Fonseca 22 (9): 3326 -- Journal of Neuroscience

This, IMO, shows an addiction to the reaction and not the drug itself. This is why it can't be linked to the physically addictive properties of other substances, because the body never becomes reliant on having the drug (UNLESS the person were to say, sit in a corner and do nothing, in which case they would obviously have withdrawal symptoms because their cannaboid receptors are not being used at all and going from constant use, to nothing, is going to cause a reaction.)

[This_person]

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb

I have no problem saying that I think they're wrong. In general, it is just a desire to reach the same cannaboid receptor reaction as they got before, for pleasure, relaxation, etc. This can be gotten in other ways, but some people don't know how to replace the drug use with a different cannaboid reactor. Addiction is a widely abused term, IMO. An addiction cannot be replaced...it requires weening off of the substance and relapse is easily caused by exposure to the substance again (alcohol, for example). When something can be replaced by other substances or activities, I do not call it addiction.

I respect your opinion, but I have to accept that your opinion is but a part of the medical community's opinion. They agree with you, AND say that it is ALSO physically addictive, by whatever means they have to justify that statement.

They include numerous qualifiers (long term daily use, for one) to show who is effected, but they demonstrate that the effect is there nonetheless.

[pcjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by iamanmpd

You didn't answer my question. Does your employer know you are on here?

I prefer to have intelligent discussion. When you can come back and give that, we can talk

Originally Posted by huntr1

Hey dipsh!t weed is illegal by FEDERAL law, therefor it is illegal in EVERY state.

His point was that Phelps could have been overseas, for example, when that picture was taken.