In article <01bbccf6$1f5b0320$dccd6981 at lkn033.nwu.edu> LKN,
lkn033 at casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>>Your "research" leaves a lot to be desired. <snip> If you had bothered
to do the search for >the period
>1966-present, you would have obtained answers to your questions.
>>There are 72 articles on "cannabis" & "addic$" in Medline 1966-present.
>fact, if you had bothered to use "addic$" to get addictive as well as
>addiction in your search you would have found 24 instead of 14 articles.
>Strange as it may seem to you, scientific papers do not regurgitate
>>> 3) No obvious or unambiguous definition of addiction exists.
>Rubbish. Miller et al. (Advances in Alcohol & Substance Abuse.
>8(3-4):33-42,1990), for example, use the DSM-III-R criteria. for
>dependence. They also define it elsewhere (in Journal of Substance Abuse
>Treatment. 6(3):183-92, 1989)
>>In summary, there is no doubt that cannabis can be addictive. Cannabis,
>I do however accept the opinion
>of other people who argue that we need fewer not more legal drugs. And I
>hate stupid pseudo-research suggesting that we don't know that cannabis
>be addictive. It reminds me too much of the tobacco industries claim that
>we do not know that smoking causes health problems.
This may sound odd, but I was very happy to endure your scathing
criticism of my previous post. This thread started by me asking for a few
citations to decent cannabis addiction research to support broad
statements that were made here, and repeatedly not being given any. You
have helped to remedy that situation.
Thank you for your candor, and for taking the time to give your well
considered and well referenced response.