Is Marijuana More Addictive Than Alcohol?

a reply to: OptimusCrime

First off, I never said that marijuana isn't addictive. In fact I further clarified this point on page 2. Second, no your link does not mean it is just as addictive as alcohol. You are just making things up. All that link says is the same thing I've said that marijuana is a addictive, just not as much as alcohol.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: romilo
a reply to: violet

Also i think its about which one can also kill you and i think alcohol kills ppl rather regular pace and theres allot more negative sides on alcohol than ganja but still alcohol is accepted but ganja that cannot kill ppl are banned, i guess it makes sense at least on business side of it....

Just because the drug doesn't kill you directly, it still kills because of drug dealers and murders related to it. So, yes, it does kill, but not directly. If you want to argue "well, just legalize it", then you will see the deaths from accidents while on pot rise because people won't have to worry about hiding while using it.

This is an AWFUL point. If marijuana is legal, you don't have to go to the black market (and therefore stay away from gang members) to buy it. Alcohol used to be illegal and there were many deaths caused by gang members smuggling. Now that it is legal, when was the last time your local liquor store owner got into a gang feud with another liquor store owner because all his business was going to the other guy?

Accidents from pot use will rise? You are REALLY grasping for straws here. I mean, do you even HAVE an argument anymore?

All drugs kill some way or the other. Just because it doesn't kill you if you take too much, it still has the potential to kill.

Newsflash buddy: EVERYTHING kills you. Everything will shorten your life, because we all die. But trying to equate the killing potential of marijuana (barely any) to the killing potential to something like alcohol is LARGELY dishonest.

Alcohol is worse than pot for sure. Other than being able to use it as an antiseptic on a wound in a pinch, there is not much GOOD about alcohol. Does that mean I wont drink a bourbon and coke on occasion? Of coarse not.

Pot is hard to put your finger on all the reasons for and against being legal. I can say I do NOT believe you should get a record for having a bag of weed on you during a traffic stop...what a waste of time and resources. I smoked alot of pot when I was a teen. I can say it made you want to just chill when you should be doing something. Im pretty sure the term ("F*** it) was coined by a stoned person when asked if they were suppose to be at work in 10min. But I have never seen it make a person angry like alcohol, paranoid, yes. But violence is a non factor. It will slow your reflexes so driving while stoned is a factor for sure. The biggest thing I believe the police are worried about is how to "check" for it. You drink 5 shots in an hour and breath in the tube, its detectable while in your system and gone the next day. Weed, its there for a month, so how can they test you to see if your stoned at that moment and did not burn one 4 days ago? RIght now there is no way. They would have to treat it like drinking, you get in a wreck, pulled over and high, you should expect to go to jail.

To say pot is non addictive, or has no danger what so ever is just as stupid. Of coarse your breathing in SMOKE to your lungs, even if you vape it your coating your lungs, so that equals adverse affects later on no doubt about it. The whole slowing of reflexes means there is "some" dangers. Nobody here would want an EMT to be high when they show up to answer a 911 call. People cant be high and do their job the way its should be done, just like drinking. There is a big issue, companies that drug test, you smoked 3 weeks ago at a concert and they test you, it doesnt matter if its legal or not, your going to lose your job, things like this have to be considered.

The addictive part is not as dyer or hard on you when stopping or being without. You will not have the true withdrawals with pot like alcohol. When I had my first kid almost 20yrs ago...I had to stop, and I can say the only thing that it really made hard or affected was going to sleep...I swear its been 20yrs and I have not slept or been able to go to sleep as well ever since...otherwise no other symptoms were felt by me and I smoked for many years pretty much all day long. I have always had a lot of will power though, I quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey without much trouble either.

I would not have a problem with pot being legal and treated like alcohol on laws and such. I would probably even smoke it once in a while if it was. But to say its totally harmless and nothing bad can come from weed is not being totally honest.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The simple, accurate and honest answer is no, Cannabis is not physically addictive, whereas alcohol most certainly is.

Cannabis may be habit forming, in as much as one enjoys using it and will miss it once ceased, but the same can be said of anything in life...i like roller-coasters for example...i enjoy riding them, and miss the thrill as i don't get to ride them very often..but it's not an addiction...the same is true of Cannabis.

So no, it isn't even in the same league as alcohol.

originally posted by: Wiz4769
Alcohol is worse than pot for sure. Other than being able to use it as an antiseptic on a wound in a pinch, there is not much GOOD about alcohol. Does that mean I wont drink a bourbon and coke on occasion? Of coarse not.

Pot is hard to put your finger on all the reasons for and against being legal. I can say I do NOT believe you should get a record for having a bag of weed on you during a traffic stop...what a waste of time and resources. I smoked alot of pot when I was a teen. I can say it made you want to just chill when you should be doing something. Im pretty sure the term ("F*** it) was coined by a stoned person when asked if they were suppose to be at work in 10min. But I have never seen it make a person angry like alcohol, paranoid, yes. But violence is a non factor. It will slow your reflexes so driving while stoned is a factor for sure. The biggest thing I believe the police are worried about is how to "check" for it. You drink 5 shots in an hour and breath in the tube, its detectable while in your system and gone the next day. Weed, its there for a month, so how can they test you to see if your stoned at that moment and did not burn one 4 days ago? RIght now there is no way. They would have to treat it like drinking, you get in a wreck, pulled over and high, you should expect to go to jail.

Ever heard of a saliva drug test? It's only effective up to 24 hours. So while still not as effective as the breathalyzer, it is certainly better to use than a urinalysis.

To say pot is non addictive, or has no danger what so ever is just as stupid. Of coarse your breathing in SMOKE to your lungs, even if you vape it your coating your lungs, so that equals adverse affects later on no doubt about it. The whole slowing of reflexes means there is "some" dangers. Nobody here would want an EMT to be high when they show up to answer a 911 call. People cant be high and do their job the way its should be done, just like drinking. There is a big issue, companies that drug test, you smoked 3 weeks ago at a concert and they test you, it doesnt matter if its legal or not, your going to lose your job, things like this have to be considered.

I never said that it was non-addictive or harmless. Though vaping isn't the same as smoking and doesn't carry the same risks as smoking (it's just water vapor). I wouldn't want an EMT to be drunk on the job either, so using that as a comparison is a moot point.

The addictive part is not as dyer or hard on you when stopping or being without. You will not have the true withdrawals with pot like alcohol. When I had my first kid almost 20yrs ago...I had to stop, and I can say the only thing that it really made hard or affected was going to sleep...I swear its been 20yrs and I have not slept or been able to go to sleep as well ever since...otherwise no other symptoms were felt by me and I smoked for many years pretty much all day long. I have always had a lot of will power though, I quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey without much trouble either.

I've also posted a link on page 2 showing the withdrawal symptoms of marijuana.

I would not have a problem with pot being legal and treated like alcohol on laws and such. I would probably even smoke it once in a while if it was. But to say its totally harmless and nothing bad can come from weed is not being totally honest.

I never said this.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

First off, I never said that marijuana isn't addictive. In fact I further clarified this point on page 2. Second, no your link does not mean it is just as addictive as alcohol. You are just making things up. All that link says is the same thing I've said that marijuana is a addictive, just not as much as alcohol.

For one, the studies show that 9% of people who use pot will get addicted and increase to 17% who start at a young age. If you use marijuana multiple times a day, you have up to a 25% chance to be addicted. Or did you just ignore the entire source? From the decades of research with alcohol, the average is about 16% of total users get addicted.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not sure why you dissected and had really anything against what I said, none of that was pointed at you, just pointed to the general crowd of there is nothing bad about pot. Everything you stated, I already put in the post. So pretty much you agree with most everything I said...I do not think pot is that bad , I think it should be legalized, Im just telling it like it is.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Everything depends on the person.
For some it can be more addictive, for others no.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: romilo
a reply to: violet

Also i think its about which one can also kill you and i think alcohol kills ppl rather regular pace and theres allot more negative sides on alcohol than ganja but still alcohol is accepted but ganja that cannot kill ppl are banned, i guess it makes sense at least on business side of it....

Just because the drug doesn't kill you directly, it still kills because of drug dealers and murders related to it. So, yes, it does kill, but not directly. If you want to argue "well, just legalize it", then you will see the deaths from accidents while on pot rise because people won't have to worry about hiding while using it.

This is an AWFUL point. If marijuana is legal, you don't have to go to the black market (and therefore stay away from gang members) to buy it. Alcohol used to be illegal and there were many deaths caused by gang members smuggling. Now that it is legal, when was the last time your local liquor store owner got into a gang feud with another liquor store owner because all his business was going to the other guy?

Accidents from pot use will rise? You are REALLY grasping for straws here. I mean, do you even HAVE an argument anymore?

All drugs kill some way or the other. Just because it doesn't kill you if you take too much, it still has the potential to kill.

Newsflash buddy: EVERYTHING kills you. Everything will shorten your life, because we all die. But trying to equate the killing potential of marijuana (barely any) to the killing potential to something like alcohol is LARGELY dishonest.

No, it's not an awful point, the point is, drugs will kill you one way or the other. Now, if you want to live your life with the "Everything kills you attitude", then enjoy your days on earth and stop arguing with me online. Go do something more interesting. No, I'm not grasping at straws. Any time you use a substance that alters your thinking, more accidents will happen. That's why they test for marijuana when on the job site. Or have you never heard of that before?

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Your source is from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. A federal government organization. The SAME federal government who insists that there isn't enough scientific evidence to reschedule marijuana from a schedule 1 narcotic to something lower. Forgive me if I take THAT source with a grain of salt.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes it is an awful point. In any case, explain to me why you or anyone else should have a say in what I put into my body. Regardless of health risks, where do you get off telling others that it's not ok to ingest a plant or are you just a fan of totalitarian tactics?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Your source is from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. A federal government organization. The SAME federal government who insists that there isn't enough scientific evidence to reschedule marijuana from a schedule 1 narcotic to something lower. Forgive me if I take THAT source with a grain of salt.

Actually, there's graphs all over the internet with the same info. I'm not clowning around with you anymore because obviously, I'm the only one stating facts here while you go off on a tangent.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes it is an awful point. In any case, explain to me why you or anyone else should have a say in what I put into my body. Regardless of health risks, where do you get off telling others that it's not ok to ingest a plant or are you just a fan of totalitarian tactics?

You haven't heard? Plants are bad. PHARMACEUTICALS ARE GOOD.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes because graphs are TOTALLY evidence of something being true. How do you know these graphs littering the internet aren't all derived from the same biased source?

Though for s#s and giggles, let's run with it. If marijuana is more addictive for teenagers, then wouldn't it make sense to legalize it? As of now, with drug dealers, there is no quality control or regulations restricting the sellers. You could be five years old and if you walk up to a drug dealer, stick some cash in his hand, he'll give you a bag of weed. If it were legal and sold in stores, there would be legal repercussions for honoring that transaction.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes it is an awful point. In any case, explain to me why you or anyone else should have a say in what I put into my body. Regardless of health risks, where do you get off telling others that it's not ok to ingest a plant or are you just a fan of totalitarian tactics?

See, nowww we're getting to the root of the issue. It's not the marijuana, it's that you don't like to be told what to do by the government, which I can understand. You should have just said that at first and we could have avoided all this.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes because graphs are TOTALLY evidence of something being true. How do you know these graphs littering the internet aren't all derived from the same biased source?

Though for s#s and giggles, let's run with it. If marijuana is more addictive for teenagers, then wouldn't it make sense to legalize it? As of now, with drug dealers, there is no quality control or regulations restricting the sellers. You could be five years old and if you walk up to a drug dealer, stick some cash in his hand, he'll give you a bag of weed. If it were legal and sold in stores, there would be legal repercussions for honoring that transaction.

Now you're grasping at straws. It's more accessible for everyone if it's legal and it won't stop a teenager to get their hands on it. If anything, it will make it easier. Whether it's legal or not, it alters your chemicals in your brain and can be addictive, correct?

a reply to: OptimusCrime

I'm a Libertarian. I've never made that a secret and I've said it many times throughout my tenure here on ATS. All you'd need to do is read my post history to figure that out.

Though I still want to see some data that ISN'T the government that confirms your point of increasing addiction rates among teenagers and habitual users. Graphs AREN'T evidence without the supporting study. So don't use that cop out.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes because graphs are TOTALLY evidence of something being true. How do you know these graphs littering the internet aren't all derived from the same biased source?

Though for s#s and giggles, let's run with it. If marijuana is more addictive for teenagers, then wouldn't it make sense to legalize it? As of now, with drug dealers, there is no quality control or regulations restricting the sellers. You could be five years old and if you walk up to a drug dealer, stick some cash in his hand, he'll give you a bag of weed. If it were legal and sold in stores, there would be legal repercussions for honoring that transaction.

Now you're grasping at straws. It's more accessible for everyone if it's legal and it won't stop a teenager to get their hands on it. If anything, it will make it easier. Whether it's legal or not, it alters your chemicals in your brain and can be addictive, correct?

No I'm not grasping at straws. It's a solid argument. If the plant is restricted to being sold in designated stores that require ID's before purchase then the onus falls on the shopkeeper to ID the person before purchase. That is how alcohol and cigarettes work.

Yes, I've already agreed that it's addictive. I just don't think it's as addictive as alcohol. It certainly isn't as destructive either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes because graphs are TOTALLY evidence of something being true. How do you know these graphs littering the internet aren't all derived from the same biased source?

Though for s#s and giggles, let's run with it. If marijuana is more addictive for teenagers, then wouldn't it make sense to legalize it? As of now, with drug dealers, there is no quality control or regulations restricting the sellers. You could be five years old and if you walk up to a drug dealer, stick some cash in his hand, he'll give you a bag of weed. If it were legal and sold in stores, there would be legal repercussions for honoring that transaction.

Yes, they do. It's proven science, by doctors. I'm not quoting every source right now, I don't feel like it. But I will later when I'm in front of my workstation and not my laptop. I bet you'll come back with "Well, these doctors don't know squat" or something of the like.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OptimusCrime

Yes because graphs are TOTALLY evidence of something being true. How do you know these graphs littering the internet aren't all derived from the same biased source?

Though for s#s and giggles, let's run with it. If marijuana is more addictive for teenagers, then wouldn't it make sense to legalize it? As of now, with drug dealers, there is no quality control or regulations restricting the sellers. You could be five years old and if you walk up to a drug dealer, stick some cash in his hand, he'll give you a bag of weed. If it were legal and sold in stores, there would be legal repercussions for honoring that transaction.

Now you're grasping at straws. It's more accessible for everyone if it's legal and it won't stop a teenager to get their hands on it. If anything, it will make it easier. Whether it's legal or not, it alters your chemicals in your brain and can be addictive, correct?

No I'm not grasping at straws. It's a solid argument. If the plant is restricted to being sold in designated stores that require ID's before purchase then the onus falls on the shopkeeper to ID the person before purchase. That is how alcohol and cigarettes work.

Yes, I've already agreed that it's addictive. I just don't think it's as addictive as alcohol. It certainly isn't as destructive either.

Thanks for solidifying my point. Said person buys cigs, walks out, hands them to minor he/she knows. Happens all the time. Same with legalized pot and alcohol.