Addiction. It’s a loaded word. Lots of baggage, lots of uncertainty in its meaning. It gets tossed around a lot in reference to marijuana, from those who claim that marijuana is provably addictive, to those who say there is no such thing as addiction.
Regardless of those views, I think most people would agree that there are some marijuana users whose use appears to most people to be excessive. And whether that’s reality or perception, it’s still a very real hurdle.
Making this all even more topical, we now have a very real and current controversy regarding the definition of addiction: War Over Addiction: Evaluating The DSM-V
You’ve heard about the Drug War? Well there’s a war being fought over addiction by the Task Force revising the psychiatric bible in the United States.
Called DSM-V, it will be referred to by every therapist, child development specialist, and family court considering mental health issues, as well as criminal court concerning psychiatric defenses. […]
This template for diagnosing our “mental disorders” has been struggling with addiction – like so many of us. The term “addiction” does not appear in DSM-IV. Rather, “dependence” was introduced as a replacement for addiction in the hope of defining the syndrome more precisely and less emotionally.
DSM-V plans to reintroduce addiction.
This is a roundabout way of leading to the real post, here.
Danny Chapin, the managing editor of AllTreatment.com, a directory for drug rehab centers and substance abuse information resource, approached me about having a dialog about marijuana addiction with all of you, as he searches for understanding himself.
I thought it was a brilliant idea. I wanted to hear what he had to say and also get a chance to respond.
So here we go. I’ll let you have first crack at it, and I’ll respond tomorrow, probably asking Danny for a follow-up post.
Guest Post: Danny Chapin
Marijuana Addiction: What Is It? What Does It Mean?
Addiction is ineffable. In American culture, addiction can and is used to mean many different things. Sometimes it’s an enemy of war, other times a dramatic and thrilling addition to a popular TV show. There is no standard definition of addiction.
Yet, intuitively we know people who are and can become addicted to certain substances and activities. Alcoholism has always been a familiar face, with heroin, meth and cocaine addiction being more recent phenomenons. And these drugs, because of the intense dependence of their users, are clearly addictive substances.
But the one culprit that has never been tied down is marijuana addiction. Some think the notion is hilarious, while others are seriously concerned with its acceptance in our culture. So the question remains, is marijuana addictive? And what does it mean to be addictive, is it physical or mental or psychological or behavioral? Is the notion ridiculous or misunderstood?
Marijuana Addiction
According to Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, whether addiction is physical or mental is a moot point, and a misunderstanding of the negative impact of addiction(1) . To quote Leshner:
What does matter tremendously is whether or not a drug causes what we now know to be the essence of addiction: uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences. This is the crux of how many professional organizations all define addiction, and how we all should use the term. It is really only this expression of addiction – uncontrollable, compulsive craving, seeking and use of drugs – that matters to the addict and to his or her family, and that should matter to society as a whole. These are the elements responsible for the massive health and social problems caused by drug addiction.(2)
Leschner is right. The negative aspect of drug addiction isn’t whether or not marijuana or any other drug makes one addicted physically, but whether or not people will act in uncontrollable, compulsive ways to seek it. It is the determent of this compulsion that is the true face of addiction, disrupting families and ruining friendships. And to this extent, we must ask, not whether marijuana has addictive properties, but whether our citizens use marijuana in a safe, controlled, and independent manner.
The Numbers
The 2008 NSDUH survey found that 15.2 million Americans had used marijuana at least once within the last month. This makes marijuana the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, used by roughly 6.1% of Americans, with variation of use changing only slightly since 2002.
In 2007, there were a total of 305,318 individuals admitted to addiction treatment for marijuana use as the primary substance abused, comprising 16% total drug treatment admissions, only behind alcohol addiction (22.7%) and alcohol addiction with a secondary drug (18.1%). Demographically, 30% of those patients were between the ages of 12 and 17.
This means that in 2007, roughly 2% of people who had used marijuana at least once that year were admitted for marijuana addiction treatment. In comparison, of the 1.9 million users of cocaine in the United States, 178,771 of them were admitted for treatment, making up roughly 9.4% of cocaine users seeking treatment.
The Question(s)
How do we judge this information? Should we say that cocaine’s addiction potential is about 4x worse than marijuana’s, making it ‘less addictive’? Does that comparison matter when we take into account that there are almost 2x as many people attending marijuana addiction treatment than cocaine treatment each year? What makes cocaine addiction a bigger problem than marijuana addiction, or vice versa? Does the low percentage of treatment patients justify a different legal, social, or legislative approach to the substance? And the demographic information, should that impact how we treat marijuana? If marijuana can be a disruptive, uncontrollable force in someone’s life, how do we decide whether or not it should be legal?
Sources:
- Results from the 2008 NSDUH: National Findings, SAMHSA, OAS
http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/quicklink/US07.htm. - The Essence of Drug Addiction by Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Essence.html - Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions by Primary Substance of Abuse, According to Sex, Age Group, Race, and Ethnicity, Year 2007.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#Fig2-1
Notes:
- Leshner does not argue that physical addiction and physical withdrawal are unimportant, but that the real problem is the disruptive, negative impact behavioral addiction can have, of which physical withdrawal can be just one of many symptoms.
- http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Essence.html
Well First, Thank you dan for having this conversation. I can only hope that we help.
First a couple of questions that need to be answered.
-When we define ‘addiction’; Is it just the compulsive behavior to seek that drug or is it the compulsive behavior and the negative effects of the drug?
Put in the context of caffeine. Is caffeine addictive because people consume it in one form or another daily and many go through symptoms of withdrawal if they don’t? Or is it not ‘addictive’ because it is socially acceptable and negative health effects of caffeine are relatively benign? Or if addiction is the compulsive seeking of drugs in the face of negative health and social consequences, can we even measure the level of addictiveness of caffeine, since it is so socially accepted?
-Another question, Is addiction necessarily harmful?
If we take the definite that addiction is the compulsive seeking of drugs. Then we can say caffeine is addictive but since people consume it daily but not necessarily harmful in that people can consume it without serious negative effects either socially or healthwise.
As a note to the use of people in treatment centers for marijuana (and all illegal drugs for that matter); I’m skeptical of those numbers simply because I don’t know how many are there of their free will and how many are there via court order. Simply, If a person goes to a treatment center in lieu of prison, it would suggest that the individual isn’t necessarily ‘addicted’.
First, given the Leshner def, “uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences” I would say that yes, it is possible to be have that kind of relationship with marijuana. I did have that kind of relationship for a number of years. Not so many health issues, but way too many social consequences.
Second, I think it makes the most sense to compare addiction rates. Pure numbers does not make sense. Unfortunately, using treatment numbers as addition numbers also does not work, esp for illegal drugs. Non-addicted users get sent to addiction treatment programs all the time, as part of the legal consequences of getting caught. Without proof, I would say that most of the people in marijuana treatment programs would not even come close to the Leshner definition.
Finally, addictiveness or potential disruption should have no effect on the legal status of drugs. Making a drug illegal always results in more harm. And it is gonna affect more people than the addicts. All users face the exact same negative effects when drugs are illegal vs. just the addicts when the drug is regulated and controlled. The social and legislative (as far as legislated regulation) should probably be affected by addiction rates and harm from addiction. Both of these, however, are pretty hard to do well when the drug in question is illegal.
Marijuana is not addictive.
Life is just better when you have a bag of weed than when you don’t.
No doubt there is a CIA plane in the air right this minute an abductee in the back, the two pilots passing a fattie back and forth, fangs flashing in the dashlights…
scam scam scam
the establishment skipping record album titled
Fun with Nazis
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? A useless argument, as is the one over addiction. Addiction is one of those words which means different things to different people. There can be no consensus without common understanding of definitions. If we just forget about addiction and focus on outcomes, one can find little to criticize in cannabis. I consume about 1 oz per week, and function very well. I feel better, I function fine and bother nobody. I have relationships with stoners and straights. Am I addicted? Meh. I like it. A lot. The world is a crazy place, and pot makes it better. Whether I am addicted or not is a moot point. I fail to see why we get bound up in this discussion of addiction when it is irrelevent. What is relevent is how one lives one’s life.
“How do we judge this information?”
WHY are you judging THAT information? Is that enough information to make a judgment? Does this information lead to the desire for more information, as all scientific fields of study do? How many cannabis users went for addiction treatment because of their parents or the law? What IS cannabis addiction treatment? Does it work? What is the success rate? Not that I want all of those answered, but to make the point that this information is only a small slice we can point to and perhaps learn from.
“Should we say that cocaine’s addiction potential is about 4x worse than marijuana’s, making it ‘less addictive’?”
No. That is to assume we are all robots and react to drugs the same way. We are all individuals and most certainly don’t. Maybe using a statistic like that isn’t the best way to describe the difference between cocaine and cannabis.
“Does that comparison matter when we take into account that there are almost 2x as many people attending marijuana addiction treatment than cocaine treatment each year?”
That comparison doesn’t matter. We are all individuals.
“What makes cocaine addiction a bigger problem than marijuana addiction, or vice versa?”
We are all individuals. The number of people in addiction clinics and the effects of a drug on the human being are completely unrelated. Ask the Doctors, don’t use treatment statistics.
“Does the low percentage of treatment patients justify a different legal, social, or legislative approach to the substance?”
No. Treatment statistics have nothing to do with individual human rights.
“And the demographic information, should that impact how we treat marijuana?”
If it helps stop the barbaric practice of locking cannabis users in a cage, yes.
“If marijuana can be a disruptive, uncontrollable force in someone’s life, how do we decide whether or not it should be legal?”
We are all born with the right to disrupt our own lives under some uncontrollable force within our heads that makes us desire other things. We are animals (not robots) and nothing makes us crazier than “love”, so making disruptive, uncontrollable forces in our lives illegal in order to protect us ourselves is already a lost cause. As far as legality goes, the law should stop at my skin as the absolute default position. Now, using science, information, and education in order to reduce disruption of people’s lives is another matter entirely. Influencing people’s behavior through truth is always more effective than trying to control people’s behavior through jail time or other forced behaviors like arbitrary treatment methods.
I admittedly didn’t read through all the studies as they obviously do not impact my respect of other individual’s human rights. Seems like Leshner is starting down the road to saying not all drug use leads to disruptive, negative behavior and perhaps “addiction” treatment is better served treating the behavior rather than the drug. And from there we might, could discover that the disruptive, negative behavior is caused by something else other than the drug and that the drug is only a symptom of that something else. Maybe mothers beating their children is a bigger problem than drugs are? But if we admitted that, we’d have to stop locking people in cages and start treating them like human beings, so I don’t think Leshner will be allowed to do any further cannabis studies any time soon.
Sorry to be a jerk, thank you for this opportunity and good luck trying to help people.
Very easy. Gather a number of policy options between unregulated and prohibited and consider the possible outcomes—using history as a guide where possible (“Drug War Heresies” is an absolute must-read)—and the pros/cons of each. The federal government used to do things like that.
It’s simply impossible to design drug policies based on some surveys and treatment stats. These data are helpful, but make up an absurdly incomplete picture of current policy outcomes.
The evidence I’ve seen seems to suggest that pot addiction/dependence/whatever is a real problem for a select few of the very heavy smokers, with withdrawals being similar to those of tobacco for those unlucky few. The worst of what this means is that a small percentage of kids who smoke pot end up spending a large amount of their grade-school lives intoxicated, and some pot-smoking parents (like one of our neighbors) will spend much of their day intoxicated. And most users regularly come into contact/get involved with the black market and live in danger of being robbed, busted or much worse. And then beyond all that is Mexico’s narco violence. This is sad and it’s the world we have today, with the current policy.
“Making a drug illegal always results in more harm.”
Nailed it. Since criminalization has no bio-chemical effect on people’s processing of drugs, to argue that jail will stop addiction is foolish. And since it ruins people’s social and legal standing, criminalization actually makes the addiction’s “high” that much more desired and comforting. I think theres a strong case for arguing that criminalization isolates addicts and makes addiction more likely.
“Influencing people’s behavior through truth is always more effective than trying to control people’s behavior through jail time or other forced behaviors like arbitrary treatment methods.”
Also spot on, we confuse people about drugs by acting like there are all these groups, legal medicine, legal recreational, illegal medicine, illegal recreational, compulsive use can come from any of these groups. However by stratifying them we make people believe that legal drugs are “ok” and that illegal drugs are “dangerous.” People stopped worrying about addictive behavior with legal drugs or meds, and assumed all illegal drug use turns you into Golum.
Telling kids that “we banned the dangerous drugs” lets them think anything not banned isn’t dangerous. We put this artificial curtain up saying what drugs are “right” or “wrong.” Lots of teens are looking for wrong, why give them a blueprint? We should just say anything can become addictive, here’s what it usually looks like, here’s why it usually ends badly. After puberty, the choice is yours.
Dan,
You passage after the Leschner quote is a bit confusing due to a circular definition of the word “addiction”
First you offer up Leschner’s definition of addiction: “uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences” (Note that his true definition is “uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use”, but there is an added optional “even in the face of negative health and social consequences”. If you don’t pass the first part of the definition you don’t even need to evaluate the second, optional part.)
Then your paragraph
“The negative aspect of drug addiction isn’t whether or not marijuana or any other drug makes one ADDICTED physically, but whether or not people will act in uncontrollable, compulsive ways to seek it.”
Clearly, if one met Leschner’s definition of addiction they would alrealy be acting in an “uncontrollable, compulsive” manner toward a drug. I think you might better describe your point if you substite “dependent” for “addicted”
“The negative aspect of drug addiction isn’t whether or not marijuana or any other drug makes one DEPENDENT physically, but whether or not people will act in uncontrollable, compulsive ways to seek it.”
It’s not only the substance, but the person’s body chemistry and how they react to the drug that should be factored into the addiction process.
One-out-of-nine people have a biochemical propensity to become an alcoholic. That ratio remains fairly constant throughout the world, except for some parts of the Middle East where people have a gene that converts alcohol to formaldehyde, which then causes a red skin rash to appear on their chest, so they don’t drink. Some Ashkenazi Jews fall into this category.
Some people’s body chemistry makes them completely incapable of becoming addicted to tobacco. I’m one of them, and I don’t use tobacco as it has never done anything for me. I have no idea what it does for anyone else who smokes it.
People who don’t develop a tolerance to opiates are less likely to become addicted to opiates. And so on.
Unless genetic profiles are produced to chart people’s addiction susceptibility to certain drugs, it doesn’t make sense to say that a particular drug by itself is addictive.
My simpler standard for addiction has always been that if you don’t puke your guts out 48-hours or so after ceasing the long term use of a drug, it’s not worth listing it in one’s personal category of chemically addictive substances.
Sorry – this article loses all credibility by citing bogus “addiction treatment” for marijuana stats. Most people in these programs are there under duress – they can go into treatment or go to jail. Similarly, NIDA propagandist Leshner is part of the prohibitionist machine – his definition of addiction is specifically designed to make a false equivalence between cannabis and cocaine and morphine.
Like Michael Pollan’s rule (“don’t eat anything advertised on TV), you can’t go wrong by following this simple maxim: don’t believe anything that comes out of that cesspool of corruption, the federal government. They lie as a matter of habit.
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Divadab said; “Sorry – this article loses all credibility by citing bogus “addiction treatment†for marijuana stats. Most people in these programs are there under duress – they can go into treatment or go to jail.”
I fully agree!
Danny Chapman; please get back to us on this with reliable and accurate statistics concerning the true extent of this possible phenomenon. Until then further debate on this issue is rather pointless!
correction: “Danny Chapin”
I don’t see where the DSM-V reintroduces the term “addiction”.
You can read the draft DSM-V online, and submit comments and suggestions.
Substance-Abuse and Substance-Dependence are being combined into one diagnosis: Substance-Use Disorder. No mention of “Addiction”.
Among other changes, “Craving” has been added as a new symptom, and “Legal problems” has been removed as a symptom.
Addiction,,,,the word has more serious social consequences than
marijuana. And I agree that you cannot use the federal governments statistics on marijuana addiction because they include people being treated because of judicial,job related and family pressure. As one director of a rehab center said,only about 3% of the people going into treatment in his clinic for marijuana addiction are there because they think they need help.
When you speak of addiction,you have to take into account the withdrawal effects of the drugs to determine the addiction harm level.
I have smoked marijuana for since 1968 and have quit “cold turkey” several times,because of jobs,and it has never caused any pain or excessive anger issues.
I had to quit cigarettes five or six times just to get off of them because of the anxiety nicotine causes a user
and finally had to settle for changing from cigarettes too snuff,so I am still addicted to nicotine.
The desire to use marijuana is addictive to people the same way sex is,anything that good needs repeating.
Addiction? Another red herring diversion. Stimulus money grants? The buzz “marihuana” is more derogatory than the “N” word by including several races and cultures over several generations of systematic authorized persecution. Has absolutely no business in any Science research or media report, any more than any other vulgar term. Ganja is illegal because of Nixon lies perpetuated. Period.
80 million Americans toked – 60 million walked away.
20 million still enjoy it. Politicians are addicted to buzzwords.
Pay Attention!
Plea bargains cause Ganja rehabilitation.
ONDCP number crunchers DAWN falsely include Ganja with hospital visits. Both of these statistics are broadcast as reason to escalate. Meaning more tax money. It also must mean stronger pot. With exotic names like Acapulco Gold and Panama Red oh wait, that was our fathers pot. Maybe nerdy drug czars smoked schwag back then and higher potency has always been around. I can’t believe modern humans can type words and still scratch in the dung heap for any bit of terror to hurl on the TVland. It’s over. Stop this Purity Test stigmatizing and segregating stoners. Efficiency experts are sewing yellow Ganja leaves for their sleeves to save time.
The Shafer Commission of 1970
Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency, although some evidence indicates that the heavy, long-term users may develop a psychological dependence on the drug”
LaGuardia Commission Report, 1944
“Cannabis smoking] does not lead directly to mental or physical deterioration… Those who have consumed marijuana for a period of years showed no mental or physical deterioration
which may be attributed to the drug.”
Drug War Distortions
Al Capone and Watergate were red herrings to divert the countries attention from the Fascist acts of eliminating competition. Booze/Ethanol or Ganja//Hemp. While GOP and DNC continue to bicker over nonsense. Farmers still can’t grow. Drugs and Ganja are Gateways to prison profits and cop-shops.
Gaze into my crystal ball…
Oh golly gheepers, bycracker, it does have medicinal value. But only by separating the various cannabinoids, in a multizillion dollar lab, and not smoked or vaporized like they’ve been doing for thousands of years with no problem. Waiting to “gateway” to wtf hasn’t been invented? But vee must keep it dangerous enough to prevent OTC. Schedule #2 will still keep it at home with the Pharmaceuticals and the various Drug Thugs can stay in biz busting stoners. But how? Maybe if it was addictive, then it would be a menace to society and still available for profit. Like speed and cocaine and opiates and hundreds of ziners and generics. The bottom line is there is no medicinal value to Pharmaceuticals growing in your back yard. Plus they can still keep Hemp from the farmers. But y’all keep on betting on the middle shell, It’s very important to remember before picking the middle shell to hop twice with your left pinky touching the right side of your nose, someday the pea will be there… Step right up find the pea!
The LaGardia sub-committee of New York 1944
“The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking”
“Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crime….The publicity concerning the catastrophic effect of marijuana smoking in New York City, is unfounded”
Dr J. H. Jaffe,
The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics.
L.Goodman and A Gillman, 3rd edn. 1965
“There are no long lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marijuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded … there seems to be growing agreement within the medical community, at least, that marijuana does not directly cause criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction.”
1968 UK ROYAL COMMISSION, THE WOOTTON REPORT
“Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India (1893-94) and the New York Mayor’s Committee (1944 – LaGuardia) that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects” “the long-asserted dangers of cannabis are exaggerated and that the related law is socially damaging, if not unworkable”
The Shafer Commission’s (named after commission Chair, Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania) 1972 report, entitled “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,” boldly proclaimed that “neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety” and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.
Cannabis Shrinks Tumors: Government Knew in 74
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”
The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 1987
“Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied… The chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation”.
Say when…
More here… Politics of Pot
“Simply, If a person goes to a treatment center in lieu of prison, it would suggest that the individual isn’t necessarily ‘addicted’.”
In the late 80s/early 90s I knew a fellow who sold a lot of pot for a living. He got busted and after doing a few years was released and forced to go into treatment. Well the funny thing is this fellow didn’t touch the stuff. I mean he qualified for the Mormon Church when it cam to getting high on anything.
Danny, I’m not sure we know what we’re discussing here. Certainly cocaine and marijuana can both lead to addictive behaviors depending on use, setting, and individual body chemistry. Certainly cocaine both has a higher “capture rate” into these behaviors and can cause more body harm and intense drug-seeking behavior, so of course it deserves different policies.
For those believing “pot doesn’t have withdrawal symptoms because I never got any”, you may want to consider that others have had very different experiences with it. Personal anecdotal evidence can mislead.
Heads up ALERT!
“That was the day he discovered that his sales listings for back-issues of High Times magazine, which he’s sold for years on eBay, had been yanked without warning.
Further infuriating Carwile: He claims that two different eBay customer service reps told him the marijuana-oriented mags were pulled at the request of the federal government.”
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-war-headline-news/140620-internet-crozet-man-finds-ebay-yanks-high-times.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Marijuana_Headline_News+%28Marijuana.com+-+Headline+News%29
According to this story,the feds are starting too ban books.
I know nothing of addiciton after 30 years of daily use.
I stop sometimes for two weeks or a month – nothing but sleeplessness for a few days.
I have a harder time giving up coffee.
“The negative aspect of drug addiction isn’t whether or not marijuana or any other drug makes one addicted physically, but whether or not people will act in uncontrollable, compulsive ways to seek it. It is the determent of this compulsion that is the true face of addiction, disrupting families and ruining friendships. And to this extent, we must ask, not whether marijuana has addictive properties, but whether our citizens use marijuana in a safe, controlled, and independent manner.”
Using those parameters, I’d say a definitive “No. Cannabis is not addictive in that sense.”
And, in an aside…I wouldn’t trust anything a paid agent of drug prohibition says, period. Especially Dr. Leshner.
Dr. Leshner was head of NIDA from 1994 to 2001 and was instrumental in the obstructionism evident in the attempts by people like Dr. Donald Abrams to conduct research on the beneficial aspects of cannabis use.
Dr. Abram’s had been warned about the intractable nature of the NIDA towards any such study, not at first believing in NIDA’s institutional hostility towards the concept, but after years of attempting to tweak the parameters of the study to keep the beneficial research aspect intact, he learned that unless he altered the nature of the study to determine deleterious effects, he would not receive funding. Which is what Dr. Abrams did. When his results (predictably) found none, the results were strenuously ignored by the Leshner-directed NIDA.
Dr. Leshner belongs in the Science Hall of Shame right next to Trofim Lysenko, whose name now stands for the bastardization of science for political purposes; Leshner certainly followed in Lysenko’s footsteps with his incessant foot-dragging on medicinal cannabis.
I think Danny raises some fair questions, but they are colored by an unwillingness to unwrap the substance from the policy.
As has been discussed here before, it’s not totally fair to tie the rate of those seeking treatment for cannabis use to actual addiction rates, as many of those seeking treatment are compelled by either the criminal justice system or other authority structures (schools, work, etc.). As cannabis is the most popular illicit drug, and the illicit drug most easily discovered by law enforcement, it isn’t surprising that a great number of cannabis users caught in the criminal justice system opt to identify themselves as addicts to avoid harsher punishment.
The problem, again, though is not so much the substance as the policy.
Dante raises a good comparison that is missing from Danny’s analysis: coffee. Both cannabis and caffeine may have benefits or negative impacts on the user depending on how either is used, however any long-term negative impacts seem to be very low in both. Both do substances seem to draw many into habitual use. I would guess that stopping regular use of caffeine and regular use of cannabis entails similar levels of discomfort in the user. However, what’s different is the legal policy.
If caffeine users suddenly found themselves unable to obtain their drug of choice on the open market, some percentage of them would engage in behaviors they otherwise avoid. Most current coffee drinkers would never enter a black market for any product. But just as formerly law-abiding social drinkers would have thought the same before Alcohol Prohibition, many of those citizens found themselves breaking the law in speakeasies.
Living outside the law will naturally cause more stress on individuals – perhaps leading to the perceived need for more of the substance. Family relationships are likewise under additional stress in such situations.
While any substance or behavior can be disruptive to one’s life, it is prohibition that actually makes the substance more disruptive, and users more willing to skirt the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Danny’s final question (“If marijuana can be a disruptive, uncontrollable force in someone’s life, how do we decide whether or not it should be legal?”), unfortunately isn’t the right question.
Plenty of behaviors that can be a disruptive, uncontrollable forces in someone’s life are legal – gambling, alcohol, sex, food, exercise, shopping – though most are regulated (*not prohibited*) by the state.
The real question is why marijuana prohibition continues. It is a well-documented disruptive, uncontrollable force in society. The damage is clear through the ruined lives, the lost liberties, insane incarceration costs and missed health care opportunities.
The addiction to prohibition is much more dangerous to individuals and society than any syndrome associated with cannabis use.
I don`t need bone heads telling me what is or isn`t. I almost killed myself with alcohol and not one redneck cowboy busted me with a six pack. Drugs are an excuse to persecute people because we are a sick sad race. If it wasn`t drugs it would be some other excuse for these modern day witch burners. May there spouse go to bed with the neighbor.
claygooding/Steve Clay or am I redundent. Again with the Dirkster? Stop the Calvina hogwash and whiny republicans BS. Wishful thinking? Ganja is not addictive, never was never will be. It’s competition kept off the market by prohibition. That doesn’t make it stronger or enslaving, just more profits for the dirtier nasty competition. Weak gullible Americans seem to be. Learn how to use html and stop with the 6 ft links while your at it! Your link is like Pete’ bringing redneck wrestlers reefer mad U2b’s. No one has ever been debilitated from stopping Ganja. It is only politically addictive. Fucking liars! Go back to Dirk’s previous post here and stop the gossip! It’s called reverse engineering. They need to find the piece of the puzzle that keeps Ganja a schedule#1 narcotic. Addiction is a reason, then just go find naive twits to provide the stats and testimony. Probably part of a plea bargain. Others are just weak minded sniveling cowards going along with the thugs. Lapdogs. Remember thousands of years of safe use and only 75 or so of prohibition. Same with opiates and no one argues against their addictive properties centuries ago or today. Only Ganja has this magical power to change according to politicians agenda’s. But I’ve always said it was an amazing plant. High Times was pulled from e-bay because the x CEO is running for governor ass a rehashed pete wilson. GOPerverts are addicted to fascism.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends on his not understanding.â€
~ Upton Sinclair…
Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding – Table of Contents
Neither severe physical dependence, nor prominent withdrawal symptoms after abrupt termination of very heavy usage is suggested by some overseas experience (Charen and Perelman, 1946; Fraser, 1949; Ludlow, 1857, Marcovitz and Myers, 1944; Siler et al., 1933; Walton, 1938). Other studies, however, suggest marked psychological dependence from heavy use producing compulsive drug taking in very heavy users (Indian Hemp, 1893; Chopra and Chopra, 1957; Bouquet, 1944; Lambo, 1965).
Studies in the United States using much lower doses for shorter periods of time have revealed little if any evidence of psychological dependence (Bromberg, 1934 Mayors Committee, 1944; Williams et al., 1946).
DWR December 4th, 2009 at 4:18 am
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding
Chapter III
Social Impact of marihuana use
Addiction Potential
Unfortunately, fact and fancy have become irrationally mixed regarding marihuana’s physiological and psychological properties. Marihuana clearly is not in the same chemical category as heroin insofar as its physiologic and psychological effects are concerned. In a word, cannabis does not lead to physical dependence. No torturous withdrawal syndrome follows the sudden cessation of chronic, heavy use of marihuana. Although evidence indicates that heavy, long-term cannabis users may develop psychological dependence, even then the level of psychological dependence is no different from the syndrome of anxiety and restlessness seen when an American stops smoking tobacco cigarettes. Though I know of no Ganja patches sold to help as with cigarettes.
nicotine is the most addictive alkaloid know to man, yet there are very very few direct negative social consequences applied to those addicted to it — albeit the zeitgeist of the time indicates that they are a convenient whipping boy for a variety of ends. they are in the vast majority of cases quite capable of leading “normal” lives and contributing to society. clearly then, “addiction” is not necessarily detrimental to one self or to others.
so it appears that a separation needs to be made between legal issues and medical issues.
in essence, an addiction is a personal medical problem — and one that i would argue (except for in the case of nicotine) is 95 percent of the time(or more) a symptom of some other underlying stressor(s).
marijuana simply does not cause the underlying physiological processes that are required for true “addiction” — that is why we all laugh about “pot addiction.” there is no “uncontrollable craving” caused by cannabinoids.
one becomes “addicted” to marijuana in the same manner as one becomes addicted to chocolate, or sex or video games. can too much of any of those things lead to personal problems? certainly — playing video games until the wee hours can certainly be detrimental to making it to work or school the next day. but there is no reason to assume that legal interventions are required or appropriate, let alone that some form of “treatment” is indicated. hell, i missed a day of work once due to a late night booty call — should i seek treatment?
you also made a bit of a gaffe in your write up: you show a graph depicting past month use and then talk about annual figures for treatment admissions. coherency demands that you choose one scale of measure and stick to it.
you also need to re-do your math: in 2007, there were 25,085,000 past year marijuana users, and 305,318 marijuana treatment admissions — that works out to 1.22% of the user base going to treatment. thus, it isn’t “nearly 2%,” it is “barely more than 1%” of users who are getting treatment.
add in the fact that (as others have pointed out) even the federal government admits as many as 56% of annual admissions for “marijuana addiction” are court ordered and the “real” treatment rate for marijuana use approaches zero.
lastly, it is important to note that one can be a fully functioning “addict” — see William Stewart Halstead for one rather enlightening example.
Right, Brian. At most, one could speak of engraved habits more or less difficult to be disposed in most cases of marijuana use with high repetition rate. But as far as I experienced most cannabis users, those perceiving the habit of toking as bad actually quit. Not easily but as easy as quitting chocolate or TV or quitting non-sports lifestle.
And there are quite a bunch of people experiencing their habit not bad at all but as a facet of their very personality.
I know people “addicted” to books and shopping. I do not see these prohibited…..
we should stop behaving like children- and take responsibility for our actions. If we behave in a socially disruptive way, it is our choice. We know the difference between right and wrong.
It has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do do with being responsible for oneself.
Stop blaming behavior on society/ upbringing/ drugs etc. and be responsible for your self, your children and your life.
If every person on this planet took the responsibility not to litter, we would have a clean planet – same with everything else. And maybe, just maybe we will be treated like adults by our neighbors and our government as well……
I would just like to chime in that the people I know who attended (outpatient) rehab for marijuana, which includes my brother, were people who got caught by their school or the cops. In my brother’s case another kid in his class told his parents that students were smoking marijuana on a field trip. The school said until people came forward all trips were canceled. He had to go through rehab to stay in his extracurriculars. He never quit smoking and used fake pee to pass his drug tests. He is now attending a good college and still smokes marijuana.
I’ve seen a few people here suggest that if it was legal, Marijuana “addiction” would be something like nicotine or coffee addiction. The main problem with this parallel is that Marijuana is often smoked until it produces a significant change in mental state that lasts for 30 or more minutes and it’s followed by an immediate down period.
Now, I suppose some people who smoke all day long take it in smaller doses, but you don’t see this issue with caffeine or nicotine at all. When taken in larger doses, both of those substances tend to make you feel very poor indeed, while Marijuana causes mild visual and auditory hallucinations that are theoretically desirable and interesting, but are nevertheless significantly impairing. It’s not acceptable to drink a beer once an hour while at work for the same reason… if you drink a beer twice an hour while at work by the end of the day you’ll be pretty trashed.
So what is Marijuana addition? The same as any other addiction and the same as the definition proposed. For most people it is not unlike sex (it’s “addicting” because it’s good, but the individual knows there is a time and place for it and can wait until it’s acceptable). For a very small minority, it’s a crippling addiction and an all day long habit.
Is marijuana physically addictive? Can you go to a chalkboard and draw up a psychology equation? How much is too much smoking? If there is no marijuana will life go on? Ever look into who funds the partnership for a drug free America? Yes that’s right alcohol and tobacco companies fund it. Do you love all those drug ads on tv? Trust your mechanic big pharma knows best.
The name of the game is titration. If one over-medicates on pot one falls asleep. Therefore, knowing how much to take is what counts. You bet there are lots of folks who drink all day long, a little at a time, and function just fine. They are somewhat tight all day long. There are others who have a toke every couple hours all day and are mildly stoned all day. Each of us decides our usage, from none on up. Most of us are able to titrate properly and thereby function. If we are not able to titrate properly, we should be helped to learn to do so or abstain, whichever is appropriate. That is all. Whether we are or are not addicted is of no interest. The term addiction is so loaded with emotional entanglements that it is useless in any discussion. I am glad to learn that the text books are not using that term any more.
DdC,I stated that marijuana is addictive the same way sex is,but if you don’t know what being “addicted” to sex is,then maybe you will get lucky,sooner or later.
Also: Steve Clay, thanks for this link:
http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com/2007/10/marijuana-withdrawal.html?showComment=1212014700000#c5005165404096189840
It has significantly changed my opinion concerning potential Marijuana withdrawal for some extremely heavy smokers. And even if symptoms for some harder drugs are worse, I can see how this is still pretty bad for those who haven’t experience anything worse.
I dont know about the rest of you but, I have never been addicted to cannabis. I must have a gene that says I dont I guess. I can and have smoked it for years then I have just as easiliy stop for many years. My recent stretch has been 4 years. I smoked it for two years straight pryor to that. My stopping usually coincides with changing jobs of or changing what I do at my job. My longest was 10 years while I was married , I didnt want to use around my step kids. Everytime I didnt have a problem stopping. I dont know what that means , but I dont see cannabis as addictive. Cigarettes on the other hand I usedfor 18 years .10 of which I was trying to quit. I did finnally! Been nicotin free for 11 years. Was the worst thing Ive had to quit doing. alcohol was the next worst thng.then caffine.
I just want to post this New Statesman supplement on addiction from a few years back:
“What distinguishes addiction behaviours from other behaviours that reward us is that society has made some sort of judgement about the harmful effects that they can have on an individual or society, about whether these behaviours are desirable or not.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/addictionsupplement2007.pdf
To this end my mother would have loved I practice the piano for 10 hours a day. Unfortunately for her I preferred video games – which I was warned I’d become addicted to.
That a drug is a drug of dependency is of critical importance. Cannabis is not one such drug. Medically supervised withdrawal is a totally pointless waste of money. It remains popular with people, like Chapin, with a vested interest in the operation of treatment centres.
…uncontrollable, compulsive craving, seeking and use of drugs
The definition leaves open too many possibilities for someone to label non-addictive behaviors addictive. Disrupting families and ruining friendships is too vague to apply to drug use, since the same can happen in matters involving religion and politics.
Under the definition, the motive for the drug seeking behavior is deliberately left unanswered: is it biological or psychological? If psychological, is it OCD, or is the use of the drug a means to self medicate for something like depression, or an anxiety disorder? Depression, OCD and anxiety disorders are never referred to as addictions.
Without some kind of biomarker added to distinguish addictive from recreational use, it is still possible for a prohibitionist to label someone a marijuana addict if they use cannabis on a daily basis in the manner of someone who drinks coffee, tea or milk everyday. All anyone has to do is claim a moral harm, which may be imaginary or deliberately manipulated to fit the circumstances.
A biomarker that can be tied to a genetic component or biological function that enables the addiction should be the chief priority in making a diagnosis of addiction. In effect, it should be possible to reduce real addiction to an equated number as opposed to merely a vague definition. Otherwise, it’s possible to call anything addictive.
Did someone mention tea?
“The abuse of tea has taken on the characteristics of a plague. It is not only confined to men, but has even spread to women and children. The situation is becoming very dangerous. Tea abuse…takes the form of an imperious and irresistible craving.
— a Tunisian physician in the 1930s, commenting on the effects of tea when it first arrived in his country. Cited in The Economist (August 8, 2002).” http://sociology.ucsc.edu/directory/reinarman/socialjustice.pdf
Those wanting to change the definition of addiction to fit Ganja or Tea usually have an agenda, and it is not Science. I’m ashamed of Americans who sell out to corporate interest and their lackey politicians doing the bidding. It is abundantly crystal clear who continues to propagandize for perpetuating the Ganjawar. Those with vested interest and the blind fools following without question.
Anti-Drug Campaigns Dumb Down Vital Message
The rehabs never had it so easy and profitable dealing with stoners from court ordered plea bargains. Especially the non regulated religious faith based crackpots with their own separate agenda. Why cop a plea? To avoid mandatory minimum sentencing trying to use a jury of your peers as the Constitution grants. 95% plea out while 80% of the busts are from snitches copping a previous plea. Why not risk it? Because of 404 gag rules stating the jury can not hear the words medicinal use, as it may confuse them. Then they might do something drastic like have sympathy and nullify the trial, as is their right. MM, 3 strikes, double/triple jeopardy. Tack on charges. Forfeiture, confiscations, job loss and losing your kids to another racket “protecting kids”. Prison rape deterrents all from Bullshit artists redefining “addiction” to fit their status weird barbarian butchery.
Demonizing Drugs
Now low and behold, I’m sure its just a coincidence that Ganja is being seen for what it really is, do mostly to the internet, and Hemp is being bought and products hitting $300 million in sales. The “L” word is back in discussions and with that comes the creepy crawler spin masters. Grasping onto their profits in spite of terrorizing innocent Americans far worse than the Taliban ever dreamed. Hypocrites and Liars run the drug war. btw you can change your moniker to get agreement, but your ISP stays the same dork.
Cover-Ups, Prevarications, Subversions & Sabotage
Gossip from drug worriers standing on their misconceptions, albeit honestly and blindly in allegiance, can be forgiven. But those with money and power at stake, in it for the job and profits. Those back from under their rocks as they always come a few weeks before voting day to squash an initiative or campaign. Or humiliate a researchers discovery. Toss in one line diversions and fake skepticism. As sure as sunshine, trash and burn. Mission Accomplished. The scum don’t have to prove Ganja is addictive, just cast enough doubt to keep it as it is until further research, catch 22’s, stalling and killing the studies as they have hundreds of times. This is no different.
Woman’s Christian Vengeance Union
Is it a surprise Rehabs and Piss tasting labs owned and controlled by drug thugs, x czars and politicians like Calfony and child molester Mel Sembler and his mistress Calvina want it to remain illegal… and that means it has to be dangerous. That means if Ganja ain’t got what it takes under the laws of physics, make shit up and bring idiots to give testimony. Like a grocery list cops need three snitches and a war story from an X addict. Grab the rattlesnake kissers. They say what they’re told.
Mothers Against the Drug Czar’s War on Kids
Like the rapist blaming his sex addiction to escape responsibility for his disgusting actions. Puny punks getting busted squealing and crying and again avoiding responsibility, blaming it on the rehashed buzzwords like “addiction”. Have the balls to toke because it is your choice and you enjoy it. If you remain confused… lock up an alcoholic and a stoner and see what’s left after a few days of abstinence. The alkie is addicted and probably dead, the stoner is inconvenienced. 100% of them. Weak kneed prohibitionists cowards are a wart on America!
If it wasn’t illegal the addiction question could be easily answered.
Is Danny Chapin working on his Master’s and getting good ideas from all of you? I made the mistake of clicking on AllTreatment dot com link because I wanted to find out his level of education, however, I’m not wasting a single moment there in order to find out.
I have a psychological dependence to oxygen, should I be put in rehab?
Maybe he should talk to the man in Florida who has legally smoked cannabis for years, compliments of the U.S. Government.
I smoked continuously for decades till the idea of addiction bugged me. To know, I stopped smoking and found a few things. Interestingly, one adapts to time and space distortion on cannabis. In the first week of quitting I found myself losing concentration.
Finally, after three months, I decided that pot did not change me in any way. I was still the same person. I’ve enjoyed it ever since, to say the least.
Historically, hemp smoking is found to bestow three things: Health, long life and eternity. Two out of three so far. Enjoy
The public disquisition on cannabis’s addiction potential is damaging. Moreover, it is destructive in an important way. Laying this rap on cannabis is aid and comfort to the social sobrietists and Drug War sinecures. We’ve all seen it suddenly appear in Czarist media propaganda and watched it gradually creep into the public consciousness to the point where we’re now discussing it for the new DSM. It’s part of what makes “Drug Courts” so pernicious when folks are sent to “treatment incarceration” for pot “addiction.” The more it’s mentioned the more it gains currency. Therefore such a discussion is not in our interest but in that of the enemy except perhaps where it is ridiculed.
Might as well face it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATvu5f9vE&feature=fvst
One problem here is the framing of the issue. We are discussing negative effects of cannabis cessation strictly as “addiction” and “withdrawal.”
There is another way to look at this.
The discomfort some experience while quitting (or being forced to quit) might also be viewed as the body’s shock at the loss of an important health supplement.
Every human has a cannabinoid system that impacts many aspects of our health. Most people seem to manufacture enough of their own endocannabinoids to keep bodily functions running more or less smoothly.
However, there are some people whose cannabinoid systems are out of whack. Just as there is a medical condition called diabetes in which certain people’s bodies cannot produce enough insulin, there seem to be medical problems associated defective cannabinoid systems.
Big pharm has already learned that trying to block the cannabinoid system is a bad idea. The drug rimonabant, initially developed as a weight-loss drug, was designed to block cannabinoids from binding with cannabinoid receptors in the body, thereby dulling the sense of hunger. The drug had so many nasty side effects, it was never even allowed on to the U.S. market. Those side effects included suicidal thoughts and a syndrome that seemed to resemble the beginning stages of Multiple Sclerosis – which is particularly interesting as many MS patients report some relief from cannabis use.
So, what if some people who were introduced to cannabis as a “recreational” drug actually found something from which their body could genuinely benefit? Or, to put it another way, what if some people with low cannabinoid levels have been fortunate enough to find the supplement that helps them? Wouldn’t it be understandable that they would want to take it regularly? And wouldn’t they feel like crap and be rather irritable if that effective supplement was suddenly taken away?
People like cannabis. A lot of people like it. A lot of people don’t.
A lot of people don’t like for other people to like it. They want to “Prohibit” it’s use. Prohibitionists get really hateful, belligerent, and extremely dangerous about it all, sometimes.
Sometimes, some of the prohibitionists we have and hear from, from time to time, start talking about killing people and taking children away from “Irresponsible” mothers when they talk about the “Crime” of cannabis use.
You can call it what you want to, but you’re punishing people by forcing them into “Rehabilitation” for cannabis use. If someone comes to you for your hallowed treatment plan, that’s one thing. Forcing people into your treatment plan is entirely another.
I also think you, an editor of addictions papers, just said “Leshner”, and with seemingly, a trace of what I rather think is, a tad much undeserved awe and respect for Leshner’s work, that I cannot respect.
The important issue is that prohibition is terrible and destructive policy. Whatever debate or discussion anyone wants to have about addiction at this time is a distraction.
However anyone wants to deal with the addiction will be easier and more effective if there is no prohibition in place. This is true for all substances.
The notion that addiction is a factor in making decisions about prohibition is fraudulent.
Formulating the right policy will result from keeping the two separate.
Ned wrote
Agreed, but addiction should be a factor in decisions about regulation. If we get regulations based on the notion that pot causes no problems for anyone, the result could be a big upstroke in problem usage feeding a movement to re-prohibit. To me that makes establishing everything you can about the drug pretty important.
Everyone should read the entire Shafer Commission report, not just the bits that confirm what we’d like (pot policy to be more liberal). From the section on long-term heavy use:
Is it really shocking to confirm that 40 years later?
Marijuana addiction is a filthy lie. Just more demonization of marijuana by the government smear campagin.
Everyone here has done a pretty good job demolishing this “addiction” meme, especially the idea that Big Brother-forced treatment of mostly teenagers =/= voluntary consent and interest in “treatment”, and that the aptly named “NS_DUH” past use survey numbers are meaningless in the way the author has used them.
I want to add one more thing about the scientific authority figure Alan Leshner. As some have pointed out, he’s no longer at NIDA (Ms. Volkow performs the same function today as status quo propagandist-in-chief). Mr. Leshner has gone on to the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science magazine.
I want to point out Leshner’s involvement not only in the frustration of marijuana/cannabis research, something his successor continues (google Lyle Craker), but his made to order faux research of his colleague George Ricuarte, who proved for the US Congress’ consumption that kids taking ecstacy at raves fried their brains. Except to find, after the ecstacy ban was passed, that the dead apes Ricuarte studied were “accidentally” shot up with meth instead of ecsatcy.
Real story. http://tinyurl.com/yly7c9z I agree with Captain Nemo above that this guy is not a real scientist, rather a laughable politicized Lysenko. It’s politically correct junk science of the sort flat earth conservatives and birthers love.
There is no such thing as addiction. It is a political creation. Think about how long these substances have been in use by men. We act, we are responsible for our choices even though we would prefer not to be that is the bottom line. There is nothing in a substance that I might ingest or a behavior that I might engage in that is beyond my conscious control. If I drink alcohol to excess it is a decision that I am making I am the person performing the action drug taking excessive or not is an action that is consciously performed by individuals. There is nothing in a substance or behavior that can override a person’s will. I personally believe that the only reason people accept this belief in addiction as some sort of thing beyond their control is so they can avoid taking responsibility for their actions. It doesn’t matter if a substance I ingest might cause me harm that is a choice that only I am qualified to make. My body belongs to me not to society as long as I am not infringing on any other person’s right to their self or their property I am not committing an aggressive act and therefore any sanctions against me must be considered unjust.