Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mistyisjafo
Pot can be addictive. Any drug can be addictive from asprin to heroin. Every person differs when it comes to abuse of a substance.
|
Gambeling can be addictive, lobster can be addictive, TV can be addictive. There's no definitive research, but most evidence points to 2 kinds of addiction, a true chemical dependancy to the substance or a "psychological addiction" (which is actually probably also a chemical dependancy to hormones like seratonin or adreneline, but the difference is it's internally driven chemistry rather than externally introduced chemistry).
Basically, something that creates a true chemical dependancy, MOST people will get addicted to. Some people won't as their individual body chemistry differs, but they are the exception. Things like heroine and cocaine seem to fall into this category.
Contrast that with a psychological dependancy. This is most easily seen with something like gambling. Clearly, since the addict isn't ingesting anything, it more likely has to do with a dependancy on something that originates internally. It's likely that most people wouldn't be susceptible to this kind of addiction, only those with a specific body chemistry. Or, it's also possible that everyone is susceptible to this kind of dependancy, if they happen to run across the one thing that triggers the right levels of whatever hormones to cause the addiction. Who knows.
Now, most evidence seems to point to marijuana falling into the second category. Most people do not form a chemical dependancy on the substance (thc) itself, but rather the small percentage of users that are addicts become addicted to the secondary physiological response such as increase seretonin levels. No different than people with abnormal addictions to TV, gambling, or food.
Where am I going with this? I don't know. Other than, there's a certain ammount of commone sense and observational science that can be applied to determine which drugs are more of a concern than others.
The bottom line is, the war on drugs is a complete failure. Total prohibition is equally as dangerous and ineffective as total anarchy. To me, it's clear that the direction we should be moving is towards managing consumption in a constructive way rather than throwing everything we have into fighting a losing battle.