h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is cannabis addictive?

I thought that cannbis psycosis happened when there was a pre existing condition. I do not know for a fact though.

I think alcohol is more dangerous to society on the whole there are many with drinking problems. You can stay functional for a long time at work but usualy not at home. When work functions become a probblem due to alcohol the rest of their life is usually a mess. In some jobs and circles it is promoted as part of your work & entertaining.
The latest US survey about kids and drugs-alcohol said that all are going down except alcohol.

I do not think it should be advertised. There is no need and it only serves to get new drinkers just like tobacco ads.
There is an area of town that had up scale bars and clubs interspersed with (taking over) the saddest part of town where the homeless and soup kitchens are. They have huge billboards there advertsing alcohol I find that very weird. Who really needs the advert?

I have found *not drinking* to have more pressures and quizzes and prejudice than accepting a drink which is sort of sad.

From reading all sides and observation - IMO cannabis can be psycologically addictive like food and other things but not physically.

"Is cannabis addictive?"

Whether or not it is physically addictive is open to some debate, however it is quite possible to becom emotionally addicted to it. I know many people who cant/wont give up toking, but are they addicted or do they just like it.

My old man knows loads of old hippies (I think he was one once!) so I know lots of people who have been regularly smoking for 20-30 years. Most of them are fine well adjusted people. One of them is in a mental home with cannabis psycosis and one recently dies of lung cancer. In the main though most of them seem to be doing fine.

Also, the fact that drugs are illegal increases the cost (see my previous post on the cost argument). This then leads to additional crime (burglary, mugging etc.) by addicts seeking the wherewithal to fund their habit.

"I thought that cannbis psycosis happened when there was a pre existing condition. I do not know for a fact though."

IF you are prone to schizophrenia or have a tendency to be paranoid then regular use of cannabis will make your condition worse (although, as far as I know, this is not necessarily permanent). Very regular use over a long time can cause serious mental illness in those susceptible to such mental illnesses.

While I can see - and heartily agree with - the argument that it is prohibition which causes many of the problems associated with drugs, there is an important psychological impact of legalising. That is, if people know that drugs are illegal - that they shouldn't *really* be doing it - they will go through a few more doubts than if they perceive it as "not a problem". The law prevents a more immediate threat than "an increased risk of health problems later in life".

Obviously, legallity and acceptability are not necessarily interchangeable - this is why prohibiting alcohol or tobacco outright would have little impact, because people would be so used to them being acceptable. But the very act of legalising drugs is likely to lead to the belief that they have been declared officially OK, thus taking away those extra doubts for new (potential) users.

My personal view is that there should be much, much, better definitions and information about what harm is done by what drugs, with legal statuses being set accordingly. Indeed, the move here in the UK to lower the classification of cannabis seems to me the right kind of attitude, if the education is there to back up their stance on "soft" vs "hard".

[IMSoP]

Whilst your point is well made imsop I just do not think it is correct. I have do not think I have *ever* met anybody who wanted to try drugs but didn't because they were illegal. Everybody I know who had any interest (well over half the kids at my pretty good school) experimented... about half probably never tried again.

In fact I would say on the contrary... on of the things I personally found so attractive about drugs was that fact that they were illegal... dangerouse... naughty. I think if there is one way to make a kid interested in doing something for sure it is to tell them they are not allowed to do it.

OK, I'm on dodgy ground here, but I'll float this out there and be ready to stand corrected...

One of the problems with smoking tobacco, in terms of health risk, is the actual fact of *smoking*, taking all those various carcinogenic chemicals into your lungs.

Smoking cannabis, to my mind, probably carries the same, or similar, risks. The fact that there hasn't been the huge amount of research as done on tobacco should not preclude the fact that there is probably going to be a strong correlation.

On the addiction side, can anyone tell me about people who smoke cannabis, but not tobacco? Do they get similar cravings? In my experience, people who smoke cannabis also smoke tobacco, so any addictive property of cannabis is effectively satisfied by nicotine.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely? I seek your enlightenment...

Reddy I am not in anyway trying to say that smoking gear is not harmful (I know from experience that it can cause harm) just that it being illegal does not help anybody... apart from terrorists and organised crime.

Good points.
There does need to be accurate information available.

It could possibly do more harm to use scare tactics about the effects or making all substances look like they carry the same risks.

I wonder what young people think when the effects are over stated for some things and understated for others. Would experimentation with other more harmful things happen because of thinking they are less harmful than stated.

Alcohol has a dangerous level of intoxication that is down played.
Nothing wrong with drinking but the level of personal acceptable intoxication (including death)for all things should be talked about more.

Drift--
http://www.westword.com/issues/2004-02-05/news.html/1/index.html?src=newsletter
Not sure if the link will work, it's Westword
" Salvation by the Glass" is the title and it is about a church located in a bar.

On the legal-illegal point of an attraction.
I pretty much quit drinking by the time it was legal for me to start!
So I do think the illegal risk has it's own attraction to the young people.

Ferrettbadger, I don't disagree with you. An awful lot of money has been spent on researching the effects of smoking tobacco, far less on smoking cannabis.

Cannabis is generally available in 2 forms - leaf or resin.

Smoking leaf must necessarily, to my mind, be at least as dangerous as smoking tobacco. The carcinogens in tobacco are the complex aromatics (commonly known as "tar"), not the nicotine (that's the highly addictive bit. And despite what you may have heard, *more addictive* than heroin.). Now, cannabis, I'm sure, when smoked, will have similar complex aromatics, or tars, associated with it. Which will give you cancer.

Smoking resin usually involves crumbling it into a tobacco cigarette. 'Nuff said.

Now, it *is* possible to take cannabis in other ways ( anyone?), but that seems to be a minority sport.

I am *sure* that the smoke from even Green neat without tobbaco causes lung problems. One of the reasons why I gave up toking was the effect it had on my asthma (as well as the creeping paranoia).

Still does not mean it should be illegal though...

No, but there are some people who advocate it as being *better* for you than smoking tobacco. Which is tosh, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I know some people who say that... I also would agree that it is probably tosh. However what I would say is that many tokers (who do not also smoke fags) smoke a lot less in total than your average normal smoker. Still when they are smoking I think it is just as harmful.

Well i've had experience with heroin n crack cocaine cus i've been addicted to them for a few years (two years back am clean now)

Personally i don't think that crack cocaine should ever be legal. This is a totally different addiction than heroin users. When you take crack you you need it virtually constantly. It is not possible to fund a crack habit legally. For example i used to know this prostitute who i know from rehab who was on n £1000 A DAY habit. You might think this is extreme but there have been alot more cases where people spend more money.
Crack is evil. It changes your brain patterns where you get very angry n are willing to kill for your little £20 rock.

Heroin is different. I would say lsay legalise this as users can efn efn effectively go for alot longer with one dose than a crack cock cocaine user can.

W
When i was addicted to heroin i could live on £10 a day easy but its just greediness to need more.

A £10 rock of crack cocaine will last you two minutes if that n as soon as the buzz finishes (5 minutes tops) you desperately need more.

Heroin addicts aren't renowned for violence so its unlikely that you will hear off a heroin addict mugging some someone (unless they take crack too )

As for the other drugs. Well cannabis yes legalise that as only a very small percentage are addicted.

Amphetamines? Well they're already partly legal or they used to be as doctors give them out in very rare circumstances for slimming.

Oh i forgot about something about heroin. There have been a number of addicts that have already got their fix from their their doctors for a number of years already. In fact i was asked at my clinic if i was interested in it but cus i didn't inject i couldn't go on it as it iit is administered by a specialised doctor twice a day 9am n 5am. Like i say its totally different ent to crack cocaine.


I apologise for some of my typing. I'm on digibox n sometimes it repe repeats letters n words!

!

Thank you for your time

Reddy Freddy you say nicotine is more addictive than heroin? ? I cannot believe that as i've took both. You wouldn't see see someone shop lifting or burgling houses for a cigarette would you?
Well thats how i see addiction. You might think differently.

Well, Diddy, I'm merely talking about the physiological effects of dependence. With cigarettes you don't need to burgle anyone - you can just go down to the 24-hour petrol station, if necessary. If cigarettes were illegal, however, it may be a different story. I know that when I was addicted, I would have done anything (including, on one occasion, walking 2 miles through snow in the middle of the night) to get a cigarette. I used to live in fear of running out of fags.

In terms of kicking the habit, it is harder to stop taking nicotine than heroin. This has been borne out by clinical studies of remission rates.

This is one of the things that annoys me about "stop smoking" ads. They're sponsored by either (i) the government, who have a vested interest in you continuing to smoke, as it funds the NHS; or (ii) pharmaceutical companies, who have a vested interest in you buying hteir patches or gum. Pretty well all the advice they give out is plain WRONG.

I see your point R Reddy Freddy n i agree with what you say.

I still use cigarettes now n have been addicted ted since the age of 12 but only smoke 3-4 roll-ups a day which i spose are far worse than filtered.

What i mean about the shofliting is you wouldnt see a nicotine doing crime to pay for cigarettes. You can buy heroin now for £5 which is the same price as a pack of 20 cigarettes. Heroin users WILL do crime to pay for their habit bt but i've not known anyone doing crime for nicotine (well apart from from kids stealing from their mothers purses)

Does that explain it more clearly?

A heroin addict can live on £10 a day a habit which costs the same as 40 cigarettes.