In article <54fhps$pfs at falcon.le.ac.uk> Dr E. Buxbaum, EB15 at le.ac.uk
writes:
>Other than that, you only amplify my point: there are already enough
>dangerous and addictive substances around, so lets be carefull in
>introducing new ones.
Right. Let's review:
First you said:
In article <542fb3$ht0 at falcon.le.ac.uk> Dr E. Buxbaum, EB15 at le.ac.uk
writes:
>to divert such substances from legal to illegal use. And cannabis IS an
addictive drug,
>contrary to the long disproved claims of its proponents. It can cause
>psychological dependency
>in "normal", and physical dependency in very high doses.
Then, I said:
In article <545m4l$gqh at fremont.ohsu.edu> Matt Jones, jonesmat at ohsu.edu
writes:
>Dr. Buxbaum,
>>Would you mind providing citations to support your statement that
>marijuana is addictive?
Then, you said:
In article <54fhps$pfs at falcon.le.ac.uk> Dr E. Buxbaum, EB15 at le.ac.uk
writes:
>That it can cause psychological dependency is by now widely accepted
>(note that "can" does not mean "will in every case"). The interesting
bit
>is the physical addiction caused in very high doses. This was observed
in
>certain asian countries, which virtually dried up the heroin market
<long non-referenced anecdote omitted>
And now, I repeat:
>Dr. Buxbaum,
>>Would you mind providing citations to support your statement that
>marijuana is addictive?
When I asked for citations, what I meant was a pointer to some public
archive of research findings (like a scientific journal), that everyone
can go look up, rather than having to take your statements at face value
without any critical consideration.
Thank you,
Matt
