jshatzkin

I recommend that anyone send her an email (her address is at the bottom of the article). I sent her an email, eloquently disagreeing with some of her stereotypes and judgments. She actually read it and responded to me. I think you all should flood her with emails (stating your opinions). Remember, she already thinks we are a "wild bunch", no need to prove it.

What's there not to get? It is a simple, straightforward, common and generic theme. No hidden meaning. I think we all get the statement. Jen

No, it's not just you

I'm just shirking that responsibilty on you Of course I would not post studies contrary to my "dramatic" conclusions! That's what my opposing side is supposed to do That's healthy. Hopefully it has been a fun diversion during the shift from hell

Great movie. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is from a comic written several years ago (before current administration). Maybe the theme is just a natural government theme that is coincidentally paralleling our state of affairs. It's really not that different than the theme in "1984". Jen

Perhaps, "medically": but understanding it is an important, almost crucial part of drug education and psychological/social intervention. I'll admit the "permanent fuck-your-brain-up psychosis." comment was a bit overdramatic (I blame the dramatization on PMS), to prove a point. It stems from another popular theory that I am not getting into, as it is not relevant and will probably be anbother 10 pages of debate wasting my time. Dramatization is not equivalent to tangential thinking and should not be compared as such (that is similar to me likening you "delusional" for such a comparison). Of your definition, every thread in every forum on the site would be guilty of tangeantial thinking (vs natural progression of discussion) and called psychotic Also, in reply to Yep. In fact good research often asks more questions than it answers and spawns more studies. Critically analyzing research is different than dismissing it completely when it concludes something you disagree with (ie "NO physical withdrawal or addiction to MJ"). Good critical analysis involves looking at several studies from both sides and how they were conducted to draw your own conclusions. All I have seen with you is a complete dismissal of any study I talk about, and nothing to add. Jen

I know the stereotype is off the mark

I agree that DARE was a big waste of money and simply a false security that we were doing "something" about drug issues. It was horribly ineffective and any study will show that. Jen

Wow. That's a pretty extreme, inaccurate assumption of me. This is not a black or white argument. There are many grey areas, and you are taking much of what I say out of context and placing me outside of the grey area. If it were such a simple issue, one that had no grey areas and could easily be argued on SC, then it would not be such a big issue at all. Edited to add: I suppose if I were to make such an extreme, overarching false assumption about you, similar to the one you have made about me based on some of my views, I could say you are just another pot smoking conspiracy theory hippie who wants to legalize drugs (isn't that the stereotype of people who want to legalize it?). But, I stay clear from generalizing to that extreme, and really doubt that it's true. Just making a point of how ridiculous your statement about me and the "Reefer Madness" post. You obviously have not read all my posts and are making hasty generalizations. Jen

I am not suggesting that at all- I am only saying that there are common myths about all drugs, and used those particular drugs as examples. And as far as cocaine....when it initially hit the scene, it was considered harmless compared to "harder" drugs of the 70's. As we know, that myth was very quickly dispelled, but nonetheless was prevalent at the introduction of cocaine as a popular drug. Jen

Okay, I'll play your game,..I just don't see where you are going with it. Yep Not while in the plane Yep Jen

What relevence is there in asking me these questions? Jen

I agree with this post. Alcohol is a very damaging drug as well. I think education for all drugs is key. I think there are a lot of misconceptions and myths about drugs, especially marijuana, that have been highlighted throughout this thread. In the early 80's it was a common misperception and belief that cocaine was a "soft" and harmless drug as well. In the 90's it was a myth and common misperception that MDMA (ecstacy) was harmless as well. The ignorance concerning marijuana is common and widespread. I steered from the legality aspect of this thread as I saw many posts with these common ignorant statements. Hey, education has to start somewhere! I am not completely against legalizing it and regulating it either. That's for the post from Kelpdiver making reference (I am guessing) to me and the DEA??!So yes, we do need the studies, not necessarily for DEA purposes,..but for education purposes. Jen

That's a cop out reply if I ever heard one Another fallacy in this argument; to simply discount evidence presented without supplying your own, hoping that will make your argument somehow valid??? There is usually evidence supporting any side of research. Perhaps you would be more convincing to simply state that there is conflicting evidence (though you have shown none) rather than to make your own blanket conclusion based on absolutely nothing. The SC mystifies me with all these opinions that some cannot or will not back up with facts! Most recent research uses technology to conduct these studies in a more valid way that could not be used when previous studies were conducted. Do some history search, find out how those studies were conducted compared to "recent" studies and it makes sense why we are finding more harmful effects than previously noted. Just as in any science, as our technology and means increase, we are able to isolate more variables in studies that could not be isolated,..say in the 1960's. But to make such a strong statement as "no physical addiction or withdrawal" is fallacious supported by nothing. Jen

Again, you are posting opinion only. Please scroll to 3 separate posts where I have supplied peer reviewed empirically based evidence showing studies proving addiction and withdrawal existence of MJ. Read the studies, and if you can find one countering it, I will be interested to read it. I think it's fascinating how some can make such general overt statements, which are nothing more than personal opinion not backed by data or research! (at least you have posted nothing but your opinion). Please, you or Lindsey show me some evidence, not just your opinion, about addiction and withdrawal of marijuana supporting your claim. Jen

If you read my earlier posts, you will see that I have already adressed the legal aspect! I never said it should be illegal. I was simply dispelling people's arguments that it is harmless. The whole addiction/withdrawal argument has to do with disagreement about the harmful effects, not the legality of it. Please read all my posts before making a general comment like that! Jen

I don't disagree with that at all. What I DO disagree with quite strongly was your blatant statement: to which you have not responded back to or provided any evidence to fit your belief. I have posted much evidence to the contrary, you have only posted your opinion. Again, if I am wrong, please reference me some evidence. Jen

Another interesting study concerning dependence and withdrawal of marijuana: Clicky Jen

Also to note an abstract concerning withdrawal of MJ: "Addiction Volume 94 Page 1311 - September 1999 doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.94913114.x Volume 94 Issue 9 Marijuana withdrawal among adults seeking treatment for marijuana dependence Alan J. Budney, Pamela L. Novy, John R. Hughes Aims. The clinical relevance of marijuana withdrawal has not been established. This study is the first to document the incidence and severity of perceived marijuana withdrawal symptoms in a clinical sample of marijuana-dependent adults. Measurements. Fifty-four people seeking outpatient treatment for marijuana dependence completed a 22-item Marijuana Withdrawal Symptom checklist based on their most recent period of marijuana abstinence. Findings. The majority (57%) indicated that they had experienced six symptoms of at least moderate severity and 47% experienced four symptoms rated as severe. Withdrawal severity was greater in those with psychiatric symptomatology and more frequent marijuana use. Conclusions. This study provides further support for a cluster of withdrawal symptoms experienced following cessation of regular marijuana use. The affective and behavioral symptoms reported were consistent with those observed in previous laboratory and interview studies. Since withdrawal symptoms are frequently a target for clinical intervention with other substances of abuse, this may also be appropriate for marijuana." Jen

I actually got you confused with Skyydekker who made a comment earlier about taking a statistics course! My apologies- By the way, your pointing out my fallacy pointing out your fallacy keeps us in the fallacy argument AS far as reaching conclusions, I am not. I am merely stating facts that run the gamut of effects of MJ use from harmless to the more severe. What is more common is the long term physiological changes in the brain and amotivational syndrome caused by prolonged use. Much more common. I was simply rebutting people's claims about it being harmless, that's all. By the way, is it not a fallacy to compare a food allergy to illicit drug use Jen

Many different views are still open on the *withdrawal* of marijuana. From (I quote this book again) "Drugs, Society and Human Behavior" 9th Ed. Charles Ksir and Oakley Ray: "Physical dependence {with marijuana} has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments with humans given large doses of THC every 4 hours for 10 to 20 days. Beginning several hours after the last dose subjects have shown irritability, restlessness, nausea, and vomiting. These symptoms peak at 8 hours and declined over the next three days. Sleep disturbances and loss of appetite have also been reported. Such withdrawal symptoms are virtually never reported outside the research laboratory. One reason might be that the drug is so long lasting. Withdrawal signs are more dramatic when a when a drug leaves the body quickly. The development of a specific antagonist for the marijuana (or anandamide) receptor has made it possible to demonstrate clear withdrawal symptoms in laboratory animals, because administration of an antagonist has the effect of removing the drug from the receptors almost instantaneously. In [these} animal studies, the withdrawal symptoms resemble those of opiate withdrawal to some extent and may have some mechanisms in common" Really? Maybe it is that the withdrawal symptoms are spread out, so it is not as overtly observable. So, yes, over time the person can experience withdrawal, and according to the DSM, still meet criteria for the diagnosis in argument, 30 days after withdrawal has ended. This is also probably why they give a 28 day window for withdrawal because of how long it can take to slowly withdrawal from the drug. If I am wrong, please show me evidence supporting your claim there is NO withdrawal symptoms. Jen

Think about it: if the criterion states "within one month of intoxication or withdrawal..." Withdrawal can last up to 28 days (peaking around 10) . It is very possible. Let's say the patient stops smoking, 28 days later he could still be going through the last of withdrawal. Then via the DSM, it could be another 30 days and still meet criterion for inclusion of said diagnosis. So urinalysis is clean,..they state "have not smoke in months",..and it could still viably meet the full criteria. Jen

I did not mean to imply that at all. In fact I was thinking more of the crack and meth addicts who have to rely on social systems to care for them. I was thinking faster than typing. I was referring to something someone said about it (drug use) being only the user's problem. The distant use, (ie one month prior) meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for cannabis induced psychosis, so I am still confused why you have such a problem with the statement and infer that DSM does NOT support it (I still don't see that). Jen

I have never once stated that we should 1. keep it illegal and 2. keep it illegal because it is harmful. Quite the contrary. I have several posts in here referring to policy and what has shaped the drug policy. Have you ever taken a speech or debate course? You are taking two separate issues, which I have stated my point clearly on both of them, and contorting them to something I am not stating at all. Your argument contains such an overt Straw Man fallacy. Again, I have NEVER stated that it should be illegal BECAUSE it is harmful. I think I have even alluded to tobacco and alcohol being harmful. I keep reiterating my point in every post that my whole point in stating the adverse effects was to dispell a common myth, and one that has come out on this thread, of it being harmless. It's not. And I know that there were racist and big company movements behind early legislation of making it illegal. So you're statistics argument goes the other way as well. Too many people make a generalized blanket statement of it being harmless. I chose a serious, yet not so frequent, possibility to make a point about how pot smoking runs the whole gamut. I did not see you arguing with those who made blanket, generalized statements about it being harmless. Another statistical fallacy. Jen

Did you not read my post with the DSM-IV version? "...the symptoms developed during or within a month of substance intoxication or withdrawal..." This is different than what you posted. I still don't see where the DSM does NOT support the diagnosis. As far as referring to my original post about it,...maybe you missed several ones inbetween?? Such as the one I copied and pasted below. Linz, That's basically it. I do recall a sepcific staffings on one of these patients (there were only 3 that I specifically remember over an 18 month period who received this dx). The doc was so adamant that chronic use contributed to his psychotic state. I cannot remember how long it had been since his last use, but it was negative in his urine. He had used several times per day for several years. Who knows, maybe he got some bad stuff that messed him up. Anyway, I am glad you posted this. I think some people here are trying to argue that other than mellowing you out and giving the munchies, there is not much more to marijuana use. My point is that it can definitely alter thinking and functioning and can have some severe effects. That was my whole reasoning of posting the diagnosis of these patients. COuld the doctors have been wrong? I don't know. I initially argued that it had to be more going on with them, but was shot down. But the fact remains, it is possible to have psychosis with it in a non-intoxication state. The DSM states "...1. the symptoms developed during or within a month of substance intoxication or withdrawal....." I am well aware that certain psychiatrists have their preferred diagnosis, and sometimes it's hot on the "what's being researched now" list. And it was not the same doc in all the cases. Perhaps they went to some seminar featuring new research on it and that's where the focus was. Probably why it takes an average of 4-5 diagnoses to hammer the correct one. Like I said before, over and over on this thread,...my only point in posting that was to dispell myths about it being harmless. I felt that many on this thread were painting a docile picture of the drug. Let me ask you this: we all know for a fact that cannabis intoxication can result in acute immediate paranoia. Is it possible that prolonged heavy use can leave somebody a little more paranoid permanently? I absolutely think so. The key feature of the psychosis in these patients was paranoia. The type of paranoia that does affect others in society (that's why they were brought in by police). Jen