By
Neal Smith
03-24-2011
What is an addiction? www.dictionary.com defines addiction as:
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
“…its cessation causes severe trauma” is a rather important phrase when talking about Marijuana. Now taking a look at the medical dictionary offered online through the National Institute of Health (NIH):
Compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful—compare habituation
Habituation is a word we don’t see used much anymore, perhaps a laziness on the part of some researchers, perhaps a deliberate obfuscation of definitions to reinforce negatives about Marijuana use.
1 : the act or process of making habitual or accustomed
2 a : tolerance to the effects of a drug acquired through continued use b : psychological dependence on a drug after a period of use—compare addiction
3 : a form of nonassociative learning characterized by a decrease in responsiveness upon repeated exposure to a stimulus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/addiction Apparently NIH contracts through Merriam-Webster, a recognized and accepted dictionary.
Philosophically, most human activities can be habituative…some habits are good, some are bad. But there is a difference between “Addiction” and “Habituation.”
An industry has grown up to combat Marijuana “Addiction.” They’ll tell you all day long how Marijuana is physically addictive. But the truth is, It just doesn’t meet the criteria for addiction.
A 2009 study out of Germany shows that any “Withdrawal” symptoms peak on the first day of abstinence and symptoms from “dependent” subjects are relatively mild, short-lived, and “may only be expected in a subgroup of … patients,” Further:
“Most symptoms ranged on average between low to moderate intensity. The most frequently mentioned physical symptoms of strong or very strong intensity on the first day were sleeping problems (21 percent), sweating (28 percent), hot flashes (21 percent), and decreased appetite (15 percent). … Other often highly rated psychological symptoms included restlessness (20 percent), nervousness (20 percent), and sadness (19 percent).”
The abstract from this study can be found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19783382 Fewer than 50% of the test subjects reported any kind of withdrawal symptoms at all. That would indicate there might be other factors involved with those who reported withdrawal symptoms that weren’t controlled for.
The 1999 Institute of Medicine study showed that withdrawal from Cannabis is usually easier than withdrawal from caffeine. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376&page=83 denotes a lot of the tests conducted to back the findings.
Supporters of the notion that Marijuana is addictive like to point to the number of “Treatments” that are given to pot smokers. What they don’t like to tell you is that a majority of people who check into “Treatment” programs are there only because they were court-ordered to go rather than go to jail. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), In 2010, Indiana had 3,852 treatment admissions for Marijuana, the most of any category, out of a total of 18,390 for all drugs and alcohol. Nationwide in 2008, the latest available, 346,679 went to treatment for Marijuana, out of a total of 2,016,256. Most of those referred to treatment for Marijuana came from the Criminal Justice system, as an alternative to jail time:
- The criminal justice system was the principal source of referral in SAMHSA’s Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for substance abuse treatment admissions reporting marijuana as their primary substance of abuse. The proportion of criminal justice referred treatment admissions increased from 48% of all marijuana admissions in 1992 to 58% of all marijuana admissions in 2002.
- Specific criminal justice venues and programs referring clients to substance abuse treatment include State and Federal courts, other courts, probation programs, other recognized legal entities (e.g., local law enforcement, corrections, or youth agencies), diversionary programs (e.g., Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities [TASC]), prisons, and “driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated (DUI/DWI) programs.
- Marijuana treatment admissions referred by the criminal justice system were more likely than marijuana admissions referred by all other sources to be admitted to ambulatory (outpatient) treatment services (86% vs. 79%) and less likely to be admitted to residential/rehabilitation (13% vs. 16%) or detoxification services (1% vs. 4%).
You can see this and other information at: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/MJreferrals/MJreferrals.cfm
Marijuana does not meet the criteria to be a physically addictive substance. For government to force “Treatment” for a substance not known to cause severe withdrawal, with no practical overdose potential and no connection to causing violent or anti-social behavior is unnecessary and capricious.
And who gets to pay a big chunk of this forced “Treatment?”
Government programs will pay for the treatment of 62% of admissions where marijuana is the primary substance of abuse, and 60% of the admissions referred by the criminal justice system. In thousands of cases, taxpayers appear to be funding treatment for non-addicts whose only problem is that they got caught with marijuana.
This from Dr. Jon Gettman through http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr5/bcr5_index.html
According to a study published in Addiction magazine, researchers French, et al, determined:
The average economic costs of the five types of outpatient treatments ranged from $837 to $3334 per episode, and varied by both direct factors (e.g. hours of treatment, treatment retention) and indirect factors (e.g. cost of living, staff level, case-load variation).
This and more information on this study is available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.97.s01.4.x/full
So let’s do a little math. If you’re in outpatient treatment for six hours a week at $837 per hour, that’s $5,022 per week. Assuming 30 days of treatment or 24 hours, that’s $20,088 for that month, per person. If there are 346,679 treatment cases total, and taxpayers pay for 60% of the cases, that’s 208,007 cases we’re paying for at a cost of Four Billion, 178 Million, 452 Thousand and 615 Hundred dollars EVERY MONTH, and 50 Billion, 141 Million, 431 Thousand 814. That’s over 50 Billion dollars a year taxpayers have to pay to “Treat” people who don’t have a problem. Of admissions to these “Treatment” programs, 37% haven’t used Marijuana in the previous 30 days, (2007 figures) and another 16% had used Marijuana three or fewer times in the previous month. http://oas.samhsa.gov/TEDS2k7highlights/TEDSHighl2k7Tbl3.htm gives you that data.
Over 50 Billion dollars spent on “Treatment” of a non-existent problem every year at least! It would make more sense to tax and regulate Marijuana like alcohol. On a nationwide basis, estimates are taxing and regulating would bring in 14.1 Billion dollars, at least, every year. Which makes more sense to you?
Related posts:
- Exploding the Myths: Not Your Father’s Marijuana
- Exploding the Myths: The Gateway Theory
- Exploding the Myths: Stoned Driving
- Exploding the Myths: What About the Children?
- Exploding the Myths: The Stoner Stereotype
Find more like this: Criminal Justice, Science, series Exploding the Myths , economy, habituation, marijuana addiction, marijuana treatment, samhsa
This book is something important that needs to be in the public discourse. I don’t smoke marijuana, and I’ve never tried. But I’ve read a lot about it and this book is not really as biased as the drug counselor claimed in his/her review. In fact, this book is merely an echo of what honest scientists have known for more than a hundred years, with new modern evidence to confirm that knowledge.Since I cannot offer much more praise for this book than most people here, I thought I could do people who haven’t made up their minds a better service by refuting the claims made by the drug counselor. Here is my point-by-point breakdown of that review:First, the reviewer (I’m going to use the female pronous from now on) said that you get what you look for and she warned us all to take an "unbiased approach."This is an interesting way to determine if something’s biased: if you agree with it, it’s not, if you don’t agree, it is. And if you don’t agree, you then warn others to be "unbiased." Please spare me the moralizing. She’s a drug counselor, not a scientist as will become quite clear by the time I’m finished.The next claim is that marijuana is "a psychologically addictive drug." What she doesn’t mention is that this book does not claim otherwise. Obviously one must wonder whether she even read it. The books says, and I’m quoting verbatim from chaper 3 "Marijuana and Addiction," "Marijuana does not cause PHYSICAL [emphasis added] dependence." This is an important distinction: nictotine, caffeine, and alcohol ALL cause physical dependence.What about psychological dependence? Physical dependence is the one that is the most dangerous. Anything can be "psychologically addictive." All that means is that people get "addicted" to the pleasure something brings. Sex is psychologically addictive, so are most things that make people feel pleasure in any amount. I once read about a man who got psychologically addicted to Advil tablets, yet in and of itself that’s not a big deal, and he "quit" without any drug counselor’s help. The real danger is from physical dependence: Drugs that cause it also have withdrawl symptoms because they change the make-up of neurotransmitters in the brain. Marijuana DOES NOT DO THAT.If you’re wondering about how much this drug counselor knows, than it’s about to get even worse. This is probably the most disingenuious statement in her review:"There has NOT been a lot said as to the harmful effects of marijuana as relates to traffic accidents, driving under the influence, industrial accidents, etc. The human toll here has yet to be defined but is estimated as astronomical. The economic costs of marijuana’s well-known amotivational syndrome are all too well known."That statement is a flat out lie and by now it’s clear that not only did she NOT read the book at all, but she’s never read anything about marijuana from an "unbiased approach."The British government recently completed a study that showed marijuana using motorists are LESS LIKELY to get in car wrecks when they’re high (source, "Reason" Nov. 2000). Why? The claming effects caused the drivers to drive more cautiously and less recklessly without causing a decrease in reaction times or judgement as seen with indentical studies using alcohol.Second, there isn’t an "astronomical" human toll from marijuana use. The real number of deaths that the government has linked directly to marijuana use? ZERO. That is not to say that marijuana can’t cause deaths, just that it hasn’t been shown that it does, in fact most researchers now agree that there is no way to overdose on marijuana. Finally, "amotivational" syndrome is not causally linked with marijuana. This is a simple distortion of science to serve a poltical agenda: correlation does not equal causation and marijuana does not cause amotivational syndrome. Chirst people, don’t review a book you haven’t read.I love this next one, this person really is an idiot:"(And by the way, one reviewer stated tobacco as being more harmful-that is not proven. The amount of tar and nicotine in one "joint" is much higher than in one cigarette. Get your facts straight)"Okay folks, if you’re following the pattern here than you know what comes next.First, tobacco smoke is much more harmful than marijuana smoke, but not for the reasons most people realize. Second, anyone who thinks there is nicotine in a joint needs their head examined, and finally all of this has been proven.Tobacco smoke is bad, really bad. Everyone knows this. It’s the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. But tobacco smoke kills only because smokers must inhale such a high amount to get a decent level of nicotine into their bloodstream. Marijuana "joints" deliver much more active ingredient per unit of smoke than tobacco by FAR. Most smokers smoke a pack a day or more, yet the average marijuana user may smoke a couple of joints a week. My roommate uses it a couple of times a month. This is because nicotine causes physical addiction, marijuana does not. The tobacco user inhales an ever increasing level of smoke to get that nicotine fix that was formerly delivered with less, the marijuana user does not need to do this. Trust me, I may not use marijuana, but I do use tobacco.Also, studies of heavy tobacco users who also use marijuana show no "superadditive" effect: if marijuana smoke was as bad as tobacco smoke than it should’ve been obvious in people who used both, because that way scientists would be able to get around the fact that many people don’t need to smoke that much marijuana to get high. The studies showed that there was no superadditive effect and that marijuana does not obstruct the lung’s small airways and cannot be linked to lung cancer or emphysema even in heavy chronic users.Marijuana smokers inhale less over time than tobacco users, so they experience less lung damage. But let’s be clear: any smoke burns when you inhale, thus that probably means it’s not as good for you as not inhaling it. And marijuana smoke contains lung irritants, just like tobacco smoke does. The honest truth? Marijuana has not been linked to the problems that tobacoo has been, but that is not proof that it is safe to smoke it, it just may be safer than tobacco.Okay, I debunked the "unbiased approach" and I apoloigze for the length of this review. I think the reviewer I debunked did a disservice to all of you: she obviously didn’t read the book, and she flat out lied. She said that one reviwer wrote that some people just get what they look for.I’d like to add that some people should take off their blindfolds before they try to see.
i have smoked marijuana for 40 years and i can outrun outhink and outwork anyone my own age and most younger men or women . especially any politicians. lets get with it state and federal lawmakers. do the math , help working americans and our government , be smart and legalize marijuana. alcohol is a lot worse health wise, and to the public safety. government drinking can take a back seat for a while . be smart not greedy. lets help each other for all our best interest. stop the greed. people are starving and dying because of the lack of common sense of the government.