Crikey, you can't even be bothered to follow folk's arguments can you? I know that cannabis is addictive, be it rational addiction or the attack on that analysis of addiction in terms of reinforcement. That simply cannot be denied. We can refer to a more diverse literature in terms of addiction and withdrawal effects. Whilst we would typically argue that those effects are relatively minor, surveyed cannabis users haven't agreed. The need for further research is therefore obvious. You've found a paper that agrees with my conclusions on that aspect of the debate. Golly, that's lovely. Improve your googling before I lose my will to live..............

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

You misunderstand. I cited a peer reviewed paper that states directly that another peer reviewed source, which you presented was wrong.

I used a source which was pre-approved by you because it was peer reviewed.

Your inability to admit to even the smallest flaw in your argument is not your most flattering characteristic.

If you were right and things were undeniably as obvious as you keep saying, don't you think laws would have changed to reflect that by now?

Was it Budney et al (2008, Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal: Severity and contribution to relapse, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol 35, pp 362-368 )? Or are you painting a spam outlook and failing to read the source that you reference?

I've read the paper that you've blindly presented. It makes no comment that can be used to attack my comment, as I've already indicated with my reference to the rational addiction model. Don't get me wrong. I think its brilliant that you're actually referring to published evidence. I congratulate you for that. We just now have to manipulate you to find evidence that applies to my argument

I repeat. Well done!

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

What an asinine assumption on your part. I could be using any one of hundreds of search engines. Regardless, make up your mind. First you ask for supporting evidence, then you complain the source isn't up to your "standards". But the only standard you seek is the one that agrees with your myopic view. Sure, your not scared of my evidence because you ignore it. Ignorance of others viewpoints reinforces, (by some strange osmosis) yours. It's pathetic. These mule like qualities probably bear fruit whilst attempting to get your way with your Mother, but here they do get tiresome.

You know? Thats a rather broad statement that, I might add, is only true for a very small percentage of Cannabis users. A true statement would be "A percentage of those that have used Cannabis show signs of psychological addiction". Because of your biased mind set, your statement implies that the percentage of cannabis users who become addicts is high when in fact it is quite low.
Also, your statement "that simply cannot be denied" is false. Anything can be denied. Just look at your debate style.

Can you tell me how these surveyed cannabis users were chosen? No, of coarse you cannot ...because that information is not available.

It isn't an assumption. Its unfortunate reality.

My standards? Its standard practice that you cannot maintain, given the dissonance it would generate.

Rather than your little tantrum tactics, we could use this to discuss the evidence into addiction 'types'. Given I presented evidence to show that myopia impacts on the distribution of cannabis user 'types', do you have anything that questions the significance of the resulting negative repercussions?

Yep. A simple understanding of the definition of addiction ensures that. The likes of rational addiction is of course supported by empirical evidence. The problem we have here is that you have a rather stunted understanding of addiction. Read up on Becker and Murphy's rational addiction model.

Don't talk rot! All publications provide a description of the methods that they employ. For example, the Budney et al paper uses telephone interviewing following "newspaper advertisements in Albany, NY, Burlington, VT, Hartford, CT, Little Rock, AR, Providence, RI, and Seattle, WA". The following inclusion criteria were adopted "(a) at least 18 years of age, (b) reported an attempt to quit use of either cannabis or tobacco cigarettes in the 30 days prior to telephone contact, (c) had used the substance daily for at least 6 months prior to the quit attempt (at least 25 days per month for cannabis because its illicit status results in occasional abstinence days), and (d) had achieved at least 2 consecutive days of complete abstinence following the quit attempt"

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

You fail. Miserably. Marijuana is getting closer to decriminalization in America every day. That is because you and your propaganda are wrong. It is because the people don't want to see people going to jail for marijuana use. It is no more addictive or harmful than a can of Soda. The majority of studies you have referenced actually support that statement.

You have been blinded by the love of money. Your argument is irrational and unethical. You refuse to even try and comprehend anything anyone says and do little more than insult everyone that tries to reason with you in any way.

Post again when you have facts to cite instead of economic theory or half baked one sided studies that pull "facts" from papers published as far back as the 70's. <<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>

The poor fellow realised that he made a boo-boo over the Smith paper. I did find the rant rather entertaining

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Even if I had used the Google search engine, since you have no legal way to actually know what search engine I use it is still an assumption on your part. Nice try though.

You maintain a standard practice of citing studies that, among other problems, are paid for, or seek funding, from entities that will only fund groups whom they believe will deliver the biased results they seek. I do not automatically disregard such studies. But they are to be taken with a grain of salt because there is a conflict of interest. Can you honestly admit that this sort of activity does not take place?

Please rephrase this. It does not make sense. Or are you attempting to distribute Cannabis "types" more clearly?

You completely missed the point. I can concede that rational addiction is supported by empirical evidence. but empirical evidence is subjective at best. Really Reiver, use your head man. Are you really so ego driven that common logic fails you?

Finally! You finally found enough scrotum content to post the methods used for one of your beloved studies.

Now I will show you why you hesitated for so long.
Screening by telephone interview does not confirm Cannabis usage. Nor does it confirm age. As a matter of fact, there is no way to confirm any of the criteria listed by way of a telephone interview.
This is the comprehensive, laboratory conditions your evidence was collected under? Where is your head Man? These are alleged drug addicts were discussing here. Lying, thieving, sell their sister for a fix drug addicts.
Yet you stand by these findings 100%? You must have bumped your head.

Please, do not source "scientific reports" done by telephone interviews. There is simply no way to verify even the participants eligibility, much less their statements.

DISCLAIMER:


I wanted to verify that this statement I made does not represent that I believe drug addicts are lairs, thieves or Sister salespersons. It was just an attempt to use Reivers own prejudice's against him, for dramatic affect.
I hope no one takes offense.

This should be the example in the dictionary to explain the word ‘redundant‘. A picture of Rush Limbaugh next to it would make a good graphic as well.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.