definiton of "stoner"

that's what a physical addiction is. weed isn't physically addictive.

 

Who cares, we know there can be consequences. As long as stoners are aware of those it doesn't matter if you wanna call it psychological addiction or not.

 

OMG!!! Dave stop with the soapbox shit. We get what you are saying. Saying it over and over again does not make it better and or right, it just pisses us off. If you want to have a nice conversation about weed then find but otherwise cut it out. Life is full of choices I don't need you to justify and or admonish my decisions. I choose to smoke weed. When I choose not to smoke weed I will do so. Plain and simple. You are starting to sound like some kind of zelot!

 

No I do NOT read too much into what you are saying. You are coming off being preachy and arrogant. "Psychological addiction" is blame game rhetoric for lack of self control and ANYTHING can be "psychologically addictive", including marijuana. Let's blame the substance instead of working on some basic self discipline. You pursued this back and forth negativity in your weed addicts thread until it reached 300+ posts and got nowhere. That discussion was closed and now you're carrying it to other threads behaving as though you were the only one here with any sense and accusing people of misreading or overreacting if they call you on it.

Re: the "error" you took it upon yourself to "correct"

Does not the red quoted text "yes it can be a habit" not allude precisely to the "psychological addiction concept that you have taken upon yourself to ram down everyone's throat? The only "error" is in taking any sort of contrary stance to you and taking it upon yourself to "correct" this says quite effectively that you think your OPINION is fact and your characterizing this fractional difference as error is the epitome of ARROGANCE and I will call you on it every single time.

No, I do not read too much into what you say at all. You are bludgeoning the membership here with a point of view that is obviously not resonating very well. This site is a PRO marijuana site- and while you may well be pro marijuana (I'm willing to suspend disbelief to assume that) your word choice does absolutely nothing to justify why laws that criminalize it should be repealed. Splitting hairs in order to perpetrate an error for you to correct is very self serving, needlessly argumentative, and has no place in a civil, honest discourse about a plant.

 

what the hell?

great. you smoke weed. so do loads of people, i'd assume everyone on this message board does for a start; why do you feel the need to tell me this? a zealot? i'm a zealot for facts and not spouting lies in an attempt to "defend" weed.

fact is, you guys saying weed isn't psychologically addictive is incorrect, i study psychology and it is a fact that weed is psychologically addictive. therefore, it is incorrect to say weed is not addictive.

i am not alluding to my topic that got closed in any way, i am literally stating one simple fact. the moderator responding to me obviously has some kind of bias toward me due to this, i'm not sure why, but it's clearly evidenced in his/her posts and the way they seem to think i am something bad that i don't understand.

weed may be psychologically addictive but that doesn't mean weed addiction is particularly prevalent in the cannabis smoker population. just as chocaholics and kleptomaniacs are made up of a VERY small % of the population, weed addicts are also a small % of the weed smoking population, albeit a larger percentage than chocolate and stealing due to physiological reasons and other factors. check my previous post for said physiological reasons, other factors are stuff like psychological addiction to the act of smoking sometimes being a part of cigarette addiction and people who smoke cannabis can transfer this, or people who smoke weed and cigarette together then when quitting cigs begin to smoke weed for cig cravings, replacing weed with cigs.

above paragraph is not a "soapbox", i'm simply trying to further explain my point so that you realise what i'm saying isn't an attack on weed or whatever, i smoke every day; i'm only trying to prevent misinformation.

 

your word choice does absolutely nothing to justify why laws that criminalize it should be repealed.

nicotine is both psychologically and physically addictive. ever heard of an "alcoholic"?

weed being labelled as psychologically addictive isn't going to hurt the legalisation movement, do you think the law makers are retarded? they know as well as i do that weed is psychologically addictive.

the major justifications for criminalisation being repealed imo are the benefits to the economy, the medicinal uses, the elimination of weed sale as a money maker for criminal gangs; the law makers can also justify it by saying it will result in a lower prevalence of weed smokers in the overall population, as evidenced in holland.

it is defined as psychologically addictive, you trying to tell me it isn't won't affect the legalisation movement.

 

I do not see where you're going here except to paint me as ignorant and delusional. I did NOT say that nicotine isn't addictive and thank you for your condescending and patronizing tone, I have indeed heard of an "alcoholic"

only justifiable in my opinion by the assumption that the movement has no life.

ALMOST an attack here, not quite though-- and promoting your conclusion as FACT strikes me as being most arrogant. Choosing to label other things that are equally as psychologically "addictive" as otherwise is misinformation. You are shoving the "addiction" dialog down our throats, blurring, diverting, and confusing the issues, not to mention putting words in our mouths.

These I can agree are justifications for legalization as well I might add the basis for it being criminalized, at least in the U.S., was a misinformational fallacy.

I'm not trying to tell you anything EXCEPT that if the term "psychologically addictive is NOT going to be used to characterize other substances that in fact are then the word choice should NOT be used to describe marijuana except to demonize it as a dangerous drug.. which in my opinion it is NOT. In my opinion nearly ANY consumable substance can be psychologically addictive, whether that be candy, junk food, soda, whatever, so to use the term to describe marijuana as such qualifies as misinformation. Certainly one can have a dependence on weed... as much as one can seek comfort in junk foods, candy-- even shopping or gambling, or anything else that makes a person feel good. I don't hear much outcry to label potato chips as psychologically addictive. so the ONLY reason I see to use that terminology here is to further your own anti-marijuana agenda while masking yourself as being pro pot.

I'm sure you're going to blur, divert, and put words in m mouth because it's quite clear to me that you're not open to any opinions that differ from yours- your characterizations suggest that you're only interested in shoving your opinions down our throats as fact. This makes you a troll in my opinion. You've gone to great lengths to make those who differ from you to look delusional and ignorant for not other reason than the FACT that we won't ascribe to your specific wording that demonizes something that should NOT be illegal. "Psychological addiction" is cop-out rhetoric to excuse people who have no self control... let's blame the SUBSTANCE and not the person who doesn't have a concept of limits.

DROP the condescending attitude or take your act elsewhere.

 

stink yer just wrong

 

Yeah I know but I'm used to it

 

ALL addiction is a condition of the mind. Physical Dependence is not addiction. Drugs don't cause addiction, but are a symptom. However, drugs can indeed be addictive to people predisposed to addiction, the majority of humanity actually. But you don't need to ingest anything to have an addictive problem.

And ingesting something is no guarantee you will become addicted to it. The human mind is so full of conditions we could label as "weakness" or "Lack of self control" for the sake of convenience and to take moral high ground against addicts from a position of superiority.

But every human has the potential to be driven to compulsive or illogical actions, so trying to pack it in a box as generic "weakness" is something a person would do to avoid having to deal with the issue. It's easy to say "You're an addict, you're weak, I'm done with you" and walk away.

Even the most primitive humans make these kinds of sortings for the sake of self protection. People who choose to attack an addict with the "lack of control" or "weakness" issue are likely to be very happy to have someone else to draw attention from thier own failings!

CF

 

Very interesting thread, then again... we are all high.
One time, in Reno..I landed a spot in rehab, live-in facility, to be specific. Now, while I was there, I heard some things. Some complete bullshit, some pretty accurate. But, we are here for the facts, and the fact of the matter is..... addiction..? Addiction, yes do we need to segregate physical and mental symptoms? Not yet, but we do need to define addiction, or at least provide symptoms of addiction.
Now, I am hesitant to throw out any terms defined by those people, so dave, I am hoping you can clearly define addiction for us... maybe in a format like this:

Symptoms of addiction:

1.
2.
etc

That would be swell. If you produce a list in a timely fashion, maybe your arguement can reach a level above 9000.

 

The term "addiction" is used in many contexts to describe an obsession, compulsion, or excessive physical dependence or psychological dependence, such as: drug addiction, crime, alcoholism, compulsive overeating, problem gambling, computer addiction, etc.


wikipedia



again, the moderator guy is just wrong and reading waaaaaaay too much into what i'm saying, seems to think i have some kind of ulterior motive for saying weed is addictive or something. however, as i've said, i'm just repeating what i've been taught; weed is addictive. also, try reading my posts before responding next time (something most users seems to do on this board), as i've said before it isn't just like crisps (what you call potato chips), as it stimulates reward pathways in the brain, stimulates dopaminergic system, so has a much higher psychological addiction potential than crisps.

 

Simple disagreement with you does not make me wrong any more than disagreeing with me automatically makes you wrong. I am taking issue with your stubborn insistence on characterizing weed as an addictive as well the patronizing and condescending tone you occasionally take with some of the people here, myself included. Please bear in mind that this site has a pro-marijuana bias which I agree with and yes, that will make me biased and I will tend to pick apart language that casts pot in a negative light- perhaps to a fault.

It is abundantly clear to me that I will not successfully persuade you so I will cease to argue against what I see as an unnecessarily negative characterization of a plant. I have made my points of view abundantly plain and have taken pains to express them as opinions and not fact in a vain effort to afford a differing the benefit of doubt and must accept that you hold your views strongly enough that you cannot bring yourself to extend the same courtesy.

What I see as not debatable is your practice of promoting your language and negative characterizations as fact and your seemingly patronizing insinuations of those with whom you differ as ignorant to be highly offensive. "Ever heard of an 'alcoholic?'" I find to be particularly offensive and a needless diverting of the subject since I did not even suggest that alcohol wasn't addictive- I grew up under the roof of an alcoholic so I'm fully aware that it can get one hooked. I learned first hand that it is a particularly nasty addiction as well a behavior problem which deeply affects the lives of those around the alcoholic

There is much that can be misconstrued in the typed word and if I have misinterpreted the tone of your replies then I offer my humblest apologies... however I cannot ignore how they seem to come across. It doesn't seem that our opinions of marijuana's effects on a person really differ all that much if at all. I'm hoping that the U.S. federal government will abandon its war on the plant-- so to emphasize it as an addictive when it generally does not physically hook someone is counterproductive to that end.

Do some people rely too heavily on it? Hell yeah... people develop unhealthy habits with many things that people would not generally describe as being "addictive". My opinion is that if an individual's identity is mainly as a pot smoker then they really should re-assess themselves and try to bring some healthy mix to their routine. I suspect you might agree with this at least to a point. Would I call them an addict? No. Is it impossible for marijuana to be addictive? Not at all... I'm sure it can happen but I seriously doubt that it's all that often- even among heavy pot smokers- so to use "addictive" to characterize cannabis is in my mind very misleading. I will from this point refrain from suggesting that it's a lack of self control as this may not have been a completely fair judgment on my part but my own opinion hasn't changed there either as far as most people that you might say were psychological addicts. I do not agree with that judgment. My reasons have been outlined a couple times here.

 

The word habitual does sound very fitting.

I do believe, Dave, you were lacking some things in the definistion. I mean, tolerance (how much over amount of time), justification, minimization, denial... I was under the impression those were the main symptoms of addiction.

As we don't really have the same definition, I see this becoming an arguement of semantics.

On a sidenote, being a pot smoker and a cigarette smoker, I think quitting smoking is harder because of the habit rather than nicotine... just something to think about.

 

"Ever heard of an 'alcoholic?'" I find to be particularly offensive and a needless diverting of the subject since I did not even suggest that alcohol wasn't addictive- I grew up under the roof of an alcoholic so I'm fully aware that it can get one hooked. I learned first hand that it is a particularly nasty addiction as well a behavior problem which deeply affects the lives of those around the alcoholic


when i said that and about nicotine i was referring to :

"your word choice does absolutely nothing to justify why laws that criminalize it should be repealed."

as, both those substances are legal yet are also addictive, weed being addictive won't do this.



As we don't really have the same definition, I see this becoming an arguement of semantics.


it is an argument of sematics to me, it has been the entire time. weed is addictive. this is logical and correct to say, it is incorrect to say weed isn't addictive, as it is very psychologically addictive. i have outlined the reasons for this in my previous posts, i don't see why moderator is ignoring the only science in the topic, weed is a lot more psychologically addictive than the average consumable item/enjoyable activity.


stinkfoot you are clearly wrong, the definition of the word addiction i provided explicitly states that psychological dependency is included in the meaning, i like how i've actually shown factual proof while you've just ignored these proofs and stated your misguided opinion. please research a subject next time before arguing, it makes me think you're just trying to wind me up by doing this, you could've done a simple google search and then not had to argue.

i am condescending and patronising to some because i feel like i'm speaking with people who deserve to be patronised, if you are too lazy to research stuff yourself don't tell me i am wrong when i thoroughly understand what i'm talking about and have studied these subjects for years and am merely repeating what i've been taught. if you insult me i am going to insult you back, you seem to think me quoting the reality of a drug is me hating on a drug, you imply i may be lying when i say i've experienced many drugs and smoke every day. expect a condescending tone when you pick me out and try and pick me apart based on me originally only innocently correcting a minor mistake.

 

Definitions of addiction on the Web:

* Psychological and bodily dependence on a substance or practice which is beyond voluntary control
www.painaction.com/painaction/Glossary.aspx

* An illness in which a person seeks and consumes a substance, such as alcohol, tobacco or a drug, despite the fact that it causes harm.
www.nationalpainfoundation.org/MyTreatment/MayoClinic_glossary.asp

* A primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. ...
www.painsweb.com/articles/3/1/Pain-Glossary/Page1.html

* Dependence on a chemical substance to the extent that a physiological and/or strong psychological need is established.
www.snowdenmentalhealth.com/glossary.mgi

* Uncontrollable craving, seeking, and use of a substance such as a drug or alcohol.
www.ecancerawareness.com/cancer_glossary/a.php

more definitions for you does2.

 

Then you are being needlessly disrespectful and a troll. You have a right to your opinions but this trollish behavior has no place here. We've gone around in circles here and it's fairly clear that you are carrying a self-righteous attitude and will be condescending and patronizing to those who dare to differ with you and this does not belong here. You have been overtly disrespectful of me which I have more than tolerated until now. I offer a bit of an olive branch and you slap it away because you are so obviously right. You can cool your heels awhile. You can revisit your attitude should you choose to return. Good day.

 

I think a stoner is someone who smokes every now and then. A pothead is someone who smokes 24/7 and is always high and their eyes are always red and their cloths smell and munchies out

 

pothead
noun
someone who smokes marijuana habitually