I think that the different strengh of many strains avaiable around the world today plays a big hole in the discussion of the addictive power of cannabis. I always smoked high grade stuff and the reactions i have using and withdrawaling are veryyy different from people i know that smoke low grade weed or mid buds.
So how good are your buds?
There were some studies done in the late 1990's and early 2000's that demonstrated a difference between different cannabis strains, addiction rates, withdrawal and long term effects. The Karalinska institute (Sweden) and a university in Australia that I can't recall the name of.
The Karolinska institute studied groups of rats; one group were super-skunked, while another group had an average garden variety. The super skunked rats displayed longer and more severe withdrawals (behaviour included attacking other rats & withdrawing from the group) than the low grade stoner rats. Plus when the two groups were given the choice of getting a cocaine substance in exchange for a little electric shock- the super skunked rats coming down were more likely to risk getting shocked for the substance. This showed that a super skunk withdrawal was more likely to encourage risk taking to alieviate symptoms. In another study, super skunked rats, low grade stoner rats & no substance rats (the control group) were exposed to a cocaine substance and a marijuana substance. Those that had had the super skunk were more likely to choose the cocaine substance demonstating a connection between skunk and going on to harder drugs (marijuana as a gateway to harder drugs theory).
In the Australian studies, case studies were conducted of patients admitted to psychiatric wards and out-patients appointments in the community care system. Those who had used cannabis regularly and those who had smoked or ingested higher grade skunk varieties were more likely to develop addiction, become depressed on withdrawal and develop psychosis symptoms after stopping cannabis.
The studies in Australia were highly influencial in the UK government reclassifying cannabis from a class C to a class B drug.
While I'm in lecture mode, I'm going to point out something else.
While most people think their cannabis doesn't harm anyone, the sh*t that is produced now-a-days is not the 'harmless, peaceful, plant that it once was. I recall the early 80's and walking in to my aunt's house where she had a special plant that smelled of herby lemons. She placed it for 12 hours in the sunlight or under a florescent light that was under her cooker, for 12 hours a day. Then she would stick it in the airing cupboard for 12 hours. Harvest it, dry out the buds and smoke it. It was grown in soil and the most potent substance that touched it was the water from boiled vegatables. When she smoked it or stuck it in her cakes, she laughed, acted a clown and smoke a lot. When she fell pregnant, she gave up without any effects and hasn't smoked again.
These days, what we're smoking is grown using hydroponics- there's no soil or natural light involved. It's sprayed with chemicals ranging from steriods to glucose and amphetamine. And it's no longer a throw-back from the 70's that's growing it in her airing cupboard.
Over 95% of cannabis production in the UK is controlled by criminal gangs. Of course, what we're smoking is no longer 'harmless' and easy to give up- they're income depends on people becoming dependent on their produce. The UK has one of the highest production rates in world for cannabis farms. We also have one of the highest rates of use.
And cannabis is no longer a victimless drug. Not only do we have a high dependency and use rate, but the production of cannabis most often funds terrorism, murder, child-abuse and pedophilia.
The dilemma is that cannabis use has existed for hundreds of years and will continue to do so for a good while yet. In the UK, cannabis use peaked in the early 2000's when Tony Blair reclassified it and started handing out lighter sentances for dealing. There's also been a peak in the US cannabis use since the legalisation of medical marijuana in some states.
The Netherlands had the right idea for a while- growing it through government regulated suppliers and monitoring strength, weights and prices; placing a portion of the money in to government services and handing out harsh sentances to those who grew it for personal use or supply without a licence. But even they have had their problems and are currently reviewing the cannabis laws. As well as their tourist reputation being debated, the levels of psychiatric admissions have (supposedly) gone up and there have been suggestions of differences between the work-related performances of smokers and non-smokers, which has encouraged the Dutch government to reconsider their easy-going approach to smoking.
If you want to know more about the Karolinska institute studies, they're available through Google scholar as well as any good journal supplier (for ex; Sage).
Now back to Tiger, yes, definitely.
Exactly which ones are the "distorted facts"??? You start a debate, yet can't even be bothered to back it up.
Good argument skills. Not.
Have your braincells done a bunk? Or did you have any to begin with?