....does anybody want to talk about what Kim Ogg did?

but doesn't metal addiction lead to physical addiction?

 

It potentially could, but if you are using something that is physically addictive that physical addiction will happen even without a mental addiction. The mere use of it causes physical addiction over a certain period of time. You could hate doing it every single time and end up physically addicted.

 

And they make up a world that relieves them of the responsibility. People can detox. People detox all the time. They go back to taking these drugs. What word before addiction do you ascribe to that behavior. Why do you keep saying addiction instead of withdrawal?

 

I keep saying "physical addiction" instead of "withdrawal" because they are different things. If you are physically addicted to something you will go through withdrawal if you don't use it. Seriously, how are you having such a hard time following along here?

I mean, I get that you have no answer for why you think the government should be interfering in people's lives telling them how to live and what to do and what not to do.....but derailing this conversation by failing to understand, or pretending to understand what words mean isn't going to help you out.

If you support the government telling people they can't smoke weed, would you also support a caffeine ban? It's every bit as ridiculous and arbitrary. How about a tobacco and alcohol ban? Why not ban fried food?

 

Recap
You have no objective evidence of physical addiction per your own admission.
You claimed "study after study" but had no response to studies I posted.
You change the definition of addiction to suite your needs.

Really poor performance here.

 

LOL, I'm fine with you denying the existence of physical addiction.....it's really Kyrie Irving of you.

That said.....you still fail to answer the question that I continue to pose to you, and I think we all know why that is.

 

I am saying your definition of "physical addiction" is BS. How you define it ends meaning after detox. If it were true we could just round up all drug users, detox them and free them of "physical addiction". At that point (using your definition) opiates and alcohol are just as addictive as cannabis.

Is the question the silly false equivalency to caffeine? I will answer. No didn't support a ban because despite it having physical withdrawals it isn't nearly as harmful as cannabis. That should be obvious to anyone. I think you should do more to find objective evidence and settle your hypocrisy on your definitions of addiction. Is it BS or is it a compulsion that cannot be overcome.

 

It's not my definition, it's THE definition. There is physical addiction and psychological addiction, those are real things even if you refuse to accept that. There are flat earthers and holocaust deniers, I guess your weird little stance isn't any more outlandish.

Thanks for partially answering, basically you say that it's just your personal random subjective opinion that entitles you to decide what people should be allowed to do and what should land them in jail without any logic used whatsoever. Gotcha.

 

LOL, I can give you objective evidence that the earth is round and the holocaust happened. When pressed, you said I have to experience physical addiction. I deal with facts and evidence. After detox, does "physical addiction" (as you currently define it) exist or not?

 

Detox is intended to break physical addiction....it's the reason you do it. It's hilarious that you are trying to argue that it doesn't exist. I guess it's sort of what I can expect from the prohibition crowd in lieu of logic or sound reasoning.

 

Excellent. We have progress. So one detox has occurred and withdrawal symptoms are over the "addiction" to heroin and alcohol is then equal to cannabis. That must be your position correct?

 

Once the physical addiction is broken, the only thing that would possibly remain would be a psychological addiction.

Of course this is all off topic, we were really talking about how you think that your random subjective analysis entirely devoid of logic should determine what things people are allowed to do and what should land them in prison.

 

Devoid of logic? You refuse to use the term "withdrawal symptoms ceased" instead using spurious term "physical addiction broken"

Probably because it reduces this huge litmus test of "physical addiction" to a week long hospital stay and makes it as inconsequential as is it really is. Therefore putting all addiction on equal terms and you might have think critically about what the word addiction even means. Is it a compulsion that cannot be overcome or a dependence that requires a short medical observation. On one hand you say people need to put their big boy pants on but then admit "physical addiction" ends after detox. Is that so serious that big boy pants no longer can work?

 

Smart policy. The drug war has been an abject failure.

 

Hopefully they can put it towards our bloated pension system.

 

LOL, that is absolutely an adorable view you have on this issue. So in your mind, the bigger issue is psychological addiction....something that can happen with literally anything rather than physical addiction (another word for this is physical dependency....but yeah, you don't believe that exists because.....bad public school systems or whatever) which only certain things can cause. That's brilliant.

It's also nice to know that in your mind psychological addiction cannot be overcome.

Anyway, that was fun, but in the real world quitting smoking weed is REALLY easy for damn near anyone while stopping using substances that are physically addictive like nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, benzodiazepine, or opiates are much, much, much harder to do for basically everyone who uses any of those things habitually.

You can't make a sane case for banning mar1juana when you think alcohol should be legal. It completely destroys your credibility and exposes you as someone who is not using logic in your analysis.

 

Also, I'd say that if you disagree with ANYTHING I just said, it just shows that you have no experience with the subject.....which is what I'd expect from a prohibitionist.

 

I said addiction was a BS term used to absolve personal responsibility to taking actions that involve self harm. Are you reading my posts? Please answer, why did you miss that?

If alcohol was not completely ingrained in our society and prohibition of it's use had not already failed I would advocate it. I think DWI punishments should be higher and I don't see any logic in pointing out that since we already have two harmful substances that are legal we should also allow cannabis. It's a silly argument you are making to take the topic away from your massive logical holes regarding addiction and big boy pants.

 

you have already pointed out you have no objective reasoning. No need to keep killing your argument with that.

 

LOL, well, I said all along that I'd never see eye to eye on this with a big government liberal and well....that's how it played out.