Regarding the DEA report, i have 2 things to say:
First, (like i said before, and i repeat) the North and South America realities are way diferent from the European. The DEA report only aply to the Americas, thus i cannot and will not comment on its accuracy.
Second, i believe i´ve stated my skepticism about these studies and reports, by various reasons.In the words of one of my therapists:"I know nothing about this, i need you to explain it to me". An honest therapist will acknowledge he knows nothing at all about drug addiction, unless they´ve been there. The best therapists i´ve knowned were ex-addicts, recruited to work on the centers.


Very true, but not the way you intended.
Drugs affect each individual a diferent way. There aren´t never 2 cases exactlly the same. Drugs have distict effects on people. Some will feel euphoric, while others fall into depression. It´s impossible to judge a whole community based on the findings of a single subject.
Likewise, going into withdrawl (cold turkey) will affect persons in different ways. Some will go through it easy, while others can almost die from it.
Understanding drug addiction is not a science. It´s more of an art. The more you see, the more you know.


I answer this with another quote:
"Have you even bothered to check on the medical results posted? Your version of downsides for marijuana is speculative and at best it can be explained as your personal experience. You have disregarded everything that has been mentioned by either Aether or me on the subject, but most importantly by various medical researchers.
You also claimed: "the majority will use it to climb the drug ladder to heavier stuff, like cocaine, speed, or even crack cocaine and heroine"
That statement has no validity whatsoever. It is not backed up by any study, and my personal experience tells me otherwise, but hey, if your PERSONAL experience is that most users of pot use it to climb to higher drugs... dont be so rotund when 'setting things straight'"

Your "experience" tells you otherwise???? I´m being "speculative"???
It´s not backed by any "study"? Despite what i think about "studies", i posted quite a few of them, that do corroborate my views.
And judging from your own words, you have no experience at all, so what makes you so think you know what it is like? You´re the one speculating here, based on a few puffs of weed, and one line of coke!! Do you know how much that makes me laugh?


First of all, i am not AETHER, nor can i speak for him, just as he can´t speak for myself. Your questions are with him, and not with me. I just pointed out that the effects of smoking weed aren´t all that clear cut as you might think.
And that in some controled experiments, some subjects actually benefited some extra concentration from smoking it. But that´s all. They were what you call a fluke!
Mankind still doesn´t possess enough insight on the human brain to know how to answer why this happened, and how to duplicate the effect.
But when comparing with alcohol, it´s quite safe to say that weed if far more safe to drive while under its influence. It still doesn´t make it 100% full proof, but the diference is still there.


You "did all except weed"???? You mean to say you did all except heroine, right? Ahh, it´s not important.
I am glad you´ve managed to stay away from heroine. It´s a killer drug. It destroys everything, family, work, friends... There is nothing left after a couple of years. And i stayed hooked on it for over 15! So you can just imagine what it did to me and my family...
There is a simple test you can take to see if you´re hooked aswell. Cannabis doesn´t produce physical dependence, but it does cause psicological dependence.Try this:
If you can go out on a saturday night, with your regular group of friends, and remain all night without smoking allthough they have some and smoke it themselfs, then you´re in the clear, at least for now. But if you take even one puff, then you need to start analysing your life.

Let me put it another way:
From all the people i´ve knowned, either here or abroad, it was the case.
Maybe i got a batch of people that don´t exemplify the larger majority, but that would be highly improbable, wouldn´t it? In the centers i´ve stayed, in France, in Italy, in Spain, the people i´ve knowned here in Portugal during my 20 years of addiction, and the people i knew in Spain during my time living there, i can safely say it was so. It´s over 2 thousand names. Two thousand persons that don´t fit your "picture".Are you trying to tell me that all these guys, coming from all the 4 corners of Europe, don´t exemplify the larger community? Isn´t that a bit farfetched?
Here we have, a group of people originated from hundreds of diferent places, all joined together in one place, and they don´t count as a valid statistic?
Or maybe you think that the centers only accepted addicts that didn´t smoke weed before moving up to heroine? Hummm, that´s a new one. Discriminating centers...
"You smoked weed? Sorry, you can´t get in. We only accept non-weed smokers."
:indeed:


You did read it all, didn´t you?
If you did, how come you missed that those "statistics" were provided by the government of the US, and were exactly what the authors of the study were disputing? I believe the wording was "the flip side of the coin".
What does this tells you? It tells us that no matter what you say, there will be always some study somewhere that states the opposite. But we can´t have two seperate truths, can we? Wich one is right?
Trust me Barça, when i say "don´t trust any studies"! They aren´t worth it.
Trust your eyes, your friends, your streets, your barrios. That´s where the truth is. Visit La Rambla, Las 3000 viviendas, Puerto de Sta Maria, or your local gipsy camp, places like that. Ask the people. Don´t ask the doctors in their Mercedes.
Now, what was that question again?
:dog:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.