Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
End of story as to whether or not it's an addictive drug then.Pot does not create a chemical addiction. There's no need for any additional, tacked-on comments.
The argument is if it is addictive. No, it is not. Not physically, chemically etc.
-AC
actually, its not that i disagree with you, its just that the way you are breaking up "addiction" into these 2 distinct types is incorrect.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Also, do you have to be that disrespectful to inimalist? You do know that he's pretty much the authority here because he studies the mind for a living. When inimalist talks about things of the mind, almost everyone would do well to just STFU, listen, and learn.
I don't actually support this...
I vehemetly encourage people to challange everything I say, so long as it is reasonable, especially about the brain and mind.
Also, disrespectful stuff doesn't bother me. I tend to take the piss out of people from time to time, or be a little more snide than I should be, but it is the internet, we can all get along by being a little nasty
Thank you, Inimalist.
I wasn't being disrespectful to you at all, and given that he has openly expressed his desire to bait me until I'm banned, I appreciate you using sense.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, its not that i disagree with you, its just that the way you are breaking up "addiction" into these 2 distinct types is incorrect.
I am not suggesting there are no applications for the word "Addiction" involving weed. At all.
I am saying that it is not, factually and scientifically, addictive as a substance. There is nothing in it akin to other drugs that create physiological desires and needs to maintain an intake of that substance, involuntarily. Right? You will not see a pot-head with sunken eyes, shaking on the floor waiting for a fix. Ever.
That's my point when I say that it is not chemically addictive. Do you agree? You have said so once before to me directly, you said so here. So I will assume we're in agreement there?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Inimalist wasn't being disrespected, so you'd do well not to start a baiting and trolling war just as soon as you've taken me off ignore.
Only in your warped sense of reality is:
1. inimalist not being direspectful by your arrogant and disrespectful comments.
2. I'm trolling you by politely asking you to be a tad more respectful to the man? Great job. facepalm
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I simply highlighted a portion of his post that ended the discussion. More on that next.That it isn't chemically addictive? Chemical addiction is factual, it happens regardless of who is using the substance. If I use heroin, and quit, I will get withdrawals. That's a fact. I will get an involuntary desire to use more heroin. My body will be sending signals that desire more heroin.
Pot doesn't do that. You know it, I know it, people in this thread know it. If you could have countered me by now, you'd have done so.
You know that pot is not chemically addictive. That it does not create a desire, involuntary, to seek out more pot.
Of course, if you need more proof, we can go to your "authority" who everyone should "S.T.F.U." and listen to.
My argument: Pot is not chemically addictive.
Yours: It is, and I know nothing.
The man you call an AUTHORITY who needs to be listened to:
[/b]
There's always that. There's always listening to the guy you just called an authority, when he agrees with me.
Let's review:
[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-AC [/B]
Ah, so not only are you still trolling me, you missed his entire point. Great job taking his post out of context to stil end up being wrong.
You have yet to prove yourself right, btw.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't actually support this...I vehemetly encourage people to challange everything I say, so long as it is reasonable, especially about the brain and mind.
Also, disrespectful stuff doesn't bother me. I tend to take the piss out of people from time to time, or be a little more snide than I should be, but it is the internet, we can all get along by being a little nasty
Cool. I certainly didn't like the way he batted your entire post out of the way as meaningless, selectd only text he liked, and pretended as if everything else you said was unimportant. When someone is that bold and brazen to go that far, it is annoying so I said something about it. You may not be offended, but, I was.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Thank you, Inimalist.I wasn't being disrespectful to you at all, and given that he has openly expressed his desire to bait me until I'm banned, I appreciate you using sense.
Right, so let me get this straight:
I'm baiting you to get you banned by telling you not to disregard expert opinion, mangle their post to suit your incorrect points, and telling you to stop being disrespectful to other posters.
Gotcha.
Wait, that's wrong, false, and out of line. In fact, I just got done telling you that I hoped you stayed around. facepalm
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am not suggesting there are no applications for the word "Addiction" involving weed. At all.I am saying that it is not, factually and scientifically, addictive as a substance. There is nothing in it akin to other drugs that create physiological desires and needs to maintain an intake of that substance, involuntarily. Right? You will not see a pot-head with sunken eyes, shaking on the floor waiting for a fix. Ever.
That's my point when I say that it is not chemically addictive. Do you agree? You have said so once before to me directly, you said so here. So I will assume we're in agreement there?
-AC
Prove it. Not with your words, but with something credible.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt's a pretty rash accusation, I mean, what if a mod were to see that?
Stay on topic.I don't buy that. He actually said that he welcomes criticisms and that he takes the piss out of others, too. Nice try?
As trolling and so incorrect accusations of trolling are both bannable offenses.
So, go on. Defend your point.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I am not suggesting there are no applications for the word "Addiction" involving weed. At all.I am saying that it is not, factually and scientifically, addictive as a substance. There is nothing in it akin to other drugs that create physiological desires and needs to maintain an intake of that substance.
That's my point when I say that it is not chemically addictive. Do you agree? You have said so once before to me directly, you said so here. So I will assume we're in agreement there?
By the way, pay no mind to Dudemon. I wasn't disrespecting you.
-AC
I don't think we are arguing whether pot is, in your terms, chemically addictive.
I think the phrasing of "chemical" versus "mental" addiction is a little misleading though, because it seems to insinuate that a mental addiction is not something that is physical. A mental addiction is highly physical, it is just that the physical part of it is an epiphenominon to the chemicals, rather than a direct result of them.
Like, addiction is a VERY poorly defined term in science, and the scales used in mental health are pretty much useless when talking about pot versus crack or so on. However, it is known that most addiction is symptomatic, based on social context, rather than chemical anyways.
So like, living on the street, or living in a habit of using something will produce chemical changes in the brain that could make you addicted to anything, so long as it gives you a positive reward. That reward system is just as physical as dependance on heroin, and it is only responding the chemicals.
So, while I think it is valid to distinguish between the type of addiciton seen in things like cigs, heroin, meth and that seen in like video games, tanning, or pot. But, it is because they all do have underlying chemical processes that pot can produce worse withdrawl than cigs. I just think "chemical v mental" is a bad way to conceptualize it... though ya, my way takes at least 4 posts of clarification, lol
and ya, don't worry, if i thought you were going out of your way to be disrespectful, i'd call you on it myself. Questioning me on the stuff I am educated in really doesn't bother me.... god i hope it doesn't....
Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool. I certainly didn't like the way he batted your entire post out of the way as meaningless, selectd only text he liked, and pretended as if everything else you said was unimportant. When someone is that bold and brazen to go that far, it is annoying so I said something about it. You may not be offended, but, I was.
lol, fair enough man 🙂 all things considered though, I do that to you all of the time
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think we are arguing whether pot is, in your terms, chemically addictive.I think the phrasing of "chemical" versus "mental" addiction is a little misleading though, because it seems to insinuate that a mental addiction is not something that is physical. A mental addiction is highly physical, it is just that the physical part of it is an epiphenominon to the chemicals, rather than a direct result of them.
Like, addiction is a VERY poorly defined term in science, and the scales used in mental health are pretty much useless when talking about pot versus crack or so on. However, it is known that most addiction is symptomatic, based on social context, rather than chemical anyways.
So like, living on the street, or living in a habit of using something will produce chemical changes in the brain that could make you addicted to anything, so long as it gives you a positive reward. That reward system is just as physical as dependance on heroin, and it is only responding the chemicals.
So, while I think it is valid to distinguish between the type of addiciton seen in things like cigs, heroin, meth and that seen in like video games, tanning, or pot. But, it is because they all do have underlying chemical processes that pot can produce worse withdrawl than cigs. I just think "chemical v mental" is a bad way to conceptualize it... though ya, my way takes at least 4 posts of clarification, lol
and ya, don't worry, if i thought you were going out of your way to be disrespectful, i'd call you on it myself. Questioning me on the stuff I am educated in really doesn't bother me.... god i hope it doesn't....
Thank you. You and I know how it is.
Anyway!
I'm not saying a mental addiction does not have physical manifestations. I'm just arguing against Dadudemon who seems to be intent on countering my post containing: "Pot is not chemically addictive, fact.". As a direct substance.
My only point was that pot does not effect the body like other chemically addictive drugs do. It doesn't directly create withdrawals or an involuntary desire to intake the substance, created by a chemical reaction (As a direct result of pot) that signals that desire, does it?
We agree on that?
Like, if you take heroin, your body will tell you to take more heroin because it is dependent. That's a chemical addiction, heroin is chemically addictive directly. It contains elements that are addictive. Pot does not.
-AC
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, fair enough man 🙂 all things considered though, I do that to you all of the time
Yeah, but that's different as we are homies and only when I'm serious (thread about transgendered), do I ever care a little bit. In fact, I get lulz from you taking the piss out of me (it's not trolling if both parties don't care). It's different when someone is doing it to prove a point to another person, while actually missing the entire point of the post.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Like, if you take heroin, your body will tell you to take more heroin because it is dependent. That's a chemical addiction, heroin is chemically addictive directly. It contains elements that are addictive. Pot does not.
yes, this is my understanding at least (just to clarify, the only part of the mind I could legitimatly be said to have any expertise in would be the visual cortex and the system that brings information from the retina through either the LGN or the optic tactum, so nothing related to addiction, at all).
It is not that pot can't be as addictive as heroin, or that it wont produce worse withdrawl effects, just more that the severity of these things for a pot user will be more likely defined by social context (some things as simple as: can i find something else to do with the time i used to spend doing drugs) rather than the chemical properties of the drug itself.
That being said, all addiction is mediated by social context, so like I said before, I'm not as big a fan as the distinction between "types" of addiction as you are, but in terms of the question you are asking, we agree.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, but that's different as we are homies and only when I'm serious (thread about transgendered), do I ever care a little bit. In fact, I get lulz from you taking the piss out of me (it's not trolling if both parties don't care). It's different when someone is doing it to prove a point to another person, while actually missing the entire point of the post.
I don't think he missed my point... I think we define things a little differently and it caused a miscommunication between the two of you.
In very colloquial terms, I have no problem saying pot isn't physically or chemically addictive, just that on a discussion forum it is worth expanding the point.
That should be all of it. Thank you for doing your part to keep this on topic.
If he starts trying to tell you "No, he did this.", then what can you do?
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, this is my understanding at least (just to clarify, the only part of the mind I could legitimatly be said to have any expertise in would be the visual cortex and the system that brings information from the retina through either the LGN or the optic tactum, so nothing related to addiction, at all).It is not that pot can't be as addictive as heroin, or that it wont produce worse withdrawl effects, just more that the severity of these things for a pot user will be more likely defined by social context (some things as simple as: can i find something else to do with the time i used to spend doing drugs) rather than the chemical properties of the drug itself.
That being said, all addiction is mediated by social context, so like I said before, I'm not as big a fan as the distinction between "types" of addiction as you are, but in terms of the question you are asking, we agree.
That's all I wanted to clarify, if we had an understanding on that aspect of pot and it's addictive properties or lack thereof.
It appears we do. So, thanks.
-AC