DSM 5 may classify Marijuana as an addictive substance.

[useful idiot]

wow so it looks like half of the people in this thread think that i am arguing against legalization. I am simply stating that Marijuana is most likely an addictive substance.

As a former heavy user, it's not addictive. I don't know how many more people have to tell you that.

About the DSM; the day I take it seriously, is the day I believe psychiatry is a science, which it's not. It also happens to be the day pigs fly in a frozen hell.

appeal to self fallacy.
I have smoked and I think it can be addictive, but I wont use my self as evidence because statistical,double blind studies, and so forth are better.

Psychiatry is a Social Science but advances in the field over the past 40 years have made it more scientific.

Well he's stating that it wasn't addictive for him, others on this thread have said it isn't addictive for  them, and I'll throw my two cents in and say that there was a time when I smoked almost every day and it was only addictive in the sense that it made me feel good when certain meds I was taking wouldn't and so I wanted to do it again.

There are lots of things that are addictive in one sense but not in another. Yes I think people can get addicted to weed in the sense that they can get addicted to pornography or fattening foods, but not in the sense that someone gets addicted to Heroin and Meth.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

wow so it looks like half of the people in this thread think that i am arguing against legalization. I am simply stating that Marijuana is most likely an addictive substance.

As a former heavy user, it's not addictive. I don't know how many more people have to tell you that.

About the DSM; the day I take it seriously, is the day I believe psychiatry is a science, which it's not. It also happens to be the day pigs fly in a frozen hell.

Tbh I'm amazed there is anyone - except psychiatrists - who takes the DSM seriously.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

wow so it looks like half of the people in this thread think that i am arguing against legalization. I am simply stating that Marijuana is most likely an addictive substance.

As a former heavy user, it's not addictive. I don't know how many more people have to tell you that.

About the DSM; the day I take it seriously, is the day I believe psychiatry is a science, which it's not. It also happens to be the day pigs fly in a frozen hell.

Tbh I'm amazed there is anyone - except psychiatrists - who takes the DSM seriously.

The DSM is a good reference book, but in the end experience in the field is the best thing.

[Yelnoc]

It is addictive Psychologically but not Physically.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

It is addictive Psychologically but not Physically.

How so?

[Yelnoc]

From what I understand, people who are regular smokers can crave it, but there body in no way needs it to function.

Another psychologically addictive substance would be LCD while a physically addictive substance is Heroin.  Though I doubt that the addiction to Marijuana is as strong as a LCD addiction.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The DSM has strict criteria but i am sure it would have been fun to be conducting a double blind experiment.

[Sbane]

It is addictive Psychologically but not Physically.

How so?

Acetylcholine and Nicotine both are agonists for the nicotinic receptors in our nervous system. This serves a very important function in our body. So if you repeatedly introduce an exogenous agonist such as nicotine into your body, your body will produce less acetylcholine. And if you then try to quit, your mind will not only crave it but your body will need it. Same with heroin, which is an agonist of Mu receptors in our body.

Marijuana on the other hand is not needed by the body. Your mind can certainly crave it, and if you have Marijuana in easy reach, you can certainly get addicted to it. But it still won't be anything like how it is for heroin or nicotine addicts. The addiction is more akin to gambling or fatty/sugary foods.