Marijuana Legalization In Oregon (Bend: health, best, money)

[GJJG2012]

If they allow enough dispensaries, people won't have to drive as far to get it. That alone should help. Also, cannabis has a plateau effect at which point it isn't possible to get more stoned. And cannabis is less intoxicating than alcohol. An officer from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition said he was on the scene of roughly 2,000 accidents & none were ruled as caused by cannabis.

I wish states legalization plans would pretty much copy Colorado. Denver last I read had about 275 places to buy it, so many could just walk to get it. Also, it costs less there, with leafly dot com showing many of the dispensaries offering many strains for only $7-$8 a gram. Authorities in CO said for Jan-Mar of this year compared to Jan-Mar 2013, fatal crashes are down 25.5%! Best wishes.

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

While I am sure that there are some people who take a hit to relax the way other people sit in a comfy chair and unwind with a glass of wine, there are also people for whom the entire point of pot is to get thoroughly stoned. That brings in all the attendant altered driving issues - Will there be an increase in this? I dunno, it seems like watching what happens in Washington and Colorado for a bit and learning from their mistakes is the way to go.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by BendLocal

Source?

Let me google that for you.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by BendLocal

This discussion got me googling and this came up.

Marijuana | Brown University Health Education

Still psychological. Hypochondriacs give themselves real, visceral symptoms simply by imagining them. If somebody has a psychological dependence on something, quitting it can give them "physical symptoms". Again, the chemicals themselves do not form a dependence.

Heck, even video game addicts experience physical withdrawal. You will learn this if you click the link I provided. No chemical dependence there either.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by BendLocal

This discussion got me googling and this came up.

Marijuana | Brown University Health Education

This link, which is directed at college students, contains part truths, and conclusions that are at least partly incorrect. It also seems that a lot of the information is outdated. It says only 10 states have some form of marijuana law. There are now more than twice that, including Rhode Island, where Brown is located. It also links to a Frontline video that was published in April of 1998.

While physical withdrawal symptoms are possible, for most users they are often either very mild, or not noticeable at all. Obviously if you are using cannabis for your insomnia, and you stop using it, your insomnia will return. Obviously if you are using it to "chill out", and you stop using it, you might be a little irritable. Obviously if you are using it to increase your appetite or for nausea, and you stop using it, you might not feel like eating, and/or you might feel nauseous.

I would dispute the idea that heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users. Without knowing how they define "infrequent" and "heavy", this is a meaningless statement. I've researched this topic extensively for decades and I've never heard or read of this before. I'd like to see a study that shows this. Heavy users do talk about periodically eliminating cannabis so that they don't have to use more to get the same effect, but 8 times as much seems unlikely. The fact that heavy cannabis users do talk about often abstaining for weeks at a time would suggest that they can stop without debilitating side effects.

No one in any part of the extensive literature I've read in the last 40 years would characterize cannabis as highly addictive - except the federal government - The DEA or NIDA. It is certainly possible that Brown University is pandering to the position of the feds because 1) they don't want to lose federal funding or suffer from DEA raids and 2) They know parents will want to know what Brown is telling their children about drugs. Any position besides "Don't do it here." might impact their ability to attract new students.

The idea that 10 to 14% of users will become heavily dependent is another number that I've only seen in government literature, or in studies sponsored by the government. There are a few pro-cannabis articles I've seen that quote a 9% dependent number, but the source for that is an old government study that has been debunked. Most recent researchers think that the real number is likely much less.

Whatever the percentage of cannabis users in treatment centers, 16% or some other number, the fact is that many of them are there because of mandated treatment as an alternative to incarceration, or job loss, or other types of coercion. They don't actually need treatment.

I don't believe that cultural or societal beliefs keep people from seeking treatment. It's more likely that in order to get treatment that you have to admit to breaking the law - which could mean that you could lose your children and/or job, that keeps people away from treatment when/if they need it. Another is that treatment centers are already doing so much business with people mandated to treatment that private citizens have difficulty in finding a treatment center that can accept them without a long wait. I know that in my area the wait time at 3 nearby treatment centers varies from 21 to 90 days.

[CosmicWizard]

Quote:No one in any part of the extensive literature I've read in the last 40 years would characterize cannabis as highly addictive - except the federal government - The DEA or NIDA.

Then it MUST be true. The federal government ALWAYS tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The government NEVER lies to us, twists the truth, or withholds the truth from us. The government ALWAYS has our best interest at heart.

[Lunar Delta]

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

I would dispute the idea that heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users. Without knowing how they define "infrequent" and "heavy", this is a meaningless statement. I've researched this topic extensively for decades and I've never heard or read of this before. I'd like to see a study that shows this. Heavy users do talk about periodically eliminating cannabis so that they don't have to use more to get the same effect, but 8 times as much seems unlikely. The fact that heavy cannabis users do talk about often abstaining for weeks at a time would suggest that they can stop without debilitating side effects.

Speaking of heavy use, in my experience it seems as though tolerance to marijuana decreases almost as fast as it increases. Once, after months of semi-heavy use I quit for a week just to see if I could (I succeeded), and when I smoked a single bowl out of a pipe I got MUCH higher than I thought I would.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by Lunar Delta

Speaking of heavy use, in my experience it seems as though tolerance to marijuana decreases almost as fast as it increases. Once, after months of semi-heavy use I quit for a week just to see if I could (I succeeded), and when I smoked a single bowl out of a pipe I got MUCH higher than I thought I would.

I use to be a "heavy user", now I use it less than once a week. On the occasions that I do partake, one hit gets me way higher than a whole bowl did when I was at my peak of usage.

[BendLocal]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Let me google that for you.

I asked for your source rather than google's.

This is what Google found for me -

Addiction experts say video games not an addiction | Reuters

"There is nothing here to suggest that this is a complex physiological disease state akin to alcoholism or other substance abuse disorders, and it doesn't get to have the word addiction attached to it," said Dr. Stuart Gitlow of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

[delta07]

Let me remind everyone again of my post #99 when I reopened this thread. We are verging on completely straying off topic. There is an argument for both sides, but when we start arguing back and forth about sources and jumping on others, that is where I draw the line. This is the last warning. Again, per the Terms of Service, to which you all agreed:

Our opinions on a location or issue are just that, opinions. Highly subjective. Personal preferences. Quirks, even. Leave wiggle room for dialogue, others may not see things the same as you, or been there as long as you, and any one of us can be wrong. Pouncing on someone you disagree with runs contrary to the spirit of this board and its members. We are here to help each other.

[BendLocal]

I was hoping to find a definitive science based answer on the issue, but after reading different articles it appears that the professional stance on addiction and harmful effects isn't cut and dry. This video has two experts on each side of the issue debate some of the key points.

Is Weed Addictive? Pt 1 - Is Weed Addictive? | The Dr. Oz Show

This article summarizes the research -

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...lly-That-Bad-/