Can we talk about weed?

The idea that weed is not addictive is absolute bullshit. The DSM now sees addiction as different than tolerance; addiction is principally psychological in nature, and is a byproduct of the brain's attempt to adapt to humans putting shit in their body that, in general, isn't good for it. Weed, especially in refined forms, is highly addictive.

Weed of our parents generation wasn't highly addictive because the level of THC (the principal hallucinogenic ingredient) was pretty low, 3-6%. Now, depending on the strain of weed you use, and the route of administration (oral, smoked, etc), the level of THC can be as high as 70-80%. The action of THC on the body is very similar the action of other addictive drugs; it stimulates dopamine, which is intimately involved in the reward mechanism in the brain, and is principally what causes the addictive draw of pretty much every drug. In addition to this, THC also stimulates anandamide receptors, which stimulate in a different way. Particularly with the more potent varieties, weed can be highly addictive, and primary marijuana addiction is one of the biggest diagnoses for new admission to treatment for drug abuse. This is a major change from 10 years ago.

Additionally, method of administration impacts risk of addiction to some extent; drugs smoked are near-immediately absorbed in the brain, while drugs consumed have to first be absorbed in the stomach, which makes for a more gradual, and thus typically less addictive use. However, it is much harder to control dosage (because of the lag time) with weed that is consumed.

For someone who is seeking the medicinal benefits of weed, one can purchase CBD (which provides those benefits) or strains of weed that are high in CBD and contain almost no THC. So the argument that one has to get high in order to get the medicinal benefit pretty much goes out the window.

The idea that somehow smoking cigarettes is bad for you but weed is not is also absolute bullshit. Though cigarettes do have additives to them (formaldehyde, various other chemicals), the natural presence of tar and various other materials damaging to lung tissue is very much an issue with weed. Add to that the fact that weed is generally more deeply inhaled and held longer and you're doing serious damage to lung tissue by smoking it. Further, there are numerous carcinogens present in weed that become active when smoked that are not present in tobacco.

The issue of addiction is complex and is a deep biopsychosocial interaction. The arguments toward legalizing all drugs, if we are using references to other countries that have done so, would not be reliable here because our culture, family bonding issues, incidence of early childhood bonding failures and stresses, and so many other factors are wildly different. This isn't to discount the libertarian argument, but only to say that it would almost certainly be a major disaster. If we are going to solve the addiction problem in this country, it is going to require a lot of effort that happens before the child is born, with extensive parent education and a means of dealing with the poverty, stress, violence, poor parent/child bonding, and other factors that young children are exposed to. Suffice it to say that, in our current socioeconomic situation, it would be an unmitigated disaster to legalize all drugs.

 

You're totally correct about the problem of bias in the field. A lot of the current "research" is funded by the pro-marijuana lobby, so of course, it finds that there's no problems and weed is the cure for everything. Unsurprisingly, these studies are, pretty much without exception, methodologically horrid, and the conclusions are entirely cooked up to support agenda.

One of the best current textbooks in the field that gives a pretty good overview that's evenhanded is "Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders". You can get it from interlibrary loan via most libraries. There are also some excellent studies looking at how THC impacts the dopamine reward system (easily found through a literature search... let me know if you need specifics) that demonstrate pretty much beyond any reasonable doubt why THC is an addictive risk.

As with any addictive substance, one has to also understand the underlying biopsychosocial mechanism behind addiction in order to put into context the addictive nature of weed, alcohol, opiates, or most any other drug that stimulates the dopamine reward system. But to call weed non-addictive is pretty much completely incorrect, and to talk about psychological addiction as though it is somehow less of a concern than the development of physical tolerance is to completely miss current thinking on the cause and treatment of substance use disorders.

 

This is pretty much it. Some people are more prone to addiction as a byproduct of the way their brains were 'wired' early in childhood. Some people have a genetic predisposition for certain types of addiction (notably alcohol.) And some people are less prone to that risk than others.

The addiction risk with smoked weed is probably somewhat similar to alcohol. With highly refined marijuana derivatives (tinctures, dabs, etc) with high THC content, and depending on the method of administration, the risks would be closer to the risks of opiates or amphetamines due to the concentration and the impact on the dopamine system.