Gotta say jimson weed - which you later mentioned - was the first thing that immediately came to my mind.
To the OP: as a general rule drugs were no different than just about any other discussion with my kids in that they pretty consistently responded appropriately to honesty and common sense, while being critical of hyperbole. Had no problem telling them that DARE was bullshit - with which they heartily agreed. Despite my efforts they have all turned out to be pretty sober young adults.
Of course, hardly anyone intentionally grows jimson weed in the garden, it’s classed as a noxious weed pretty much everywhere. Foxglove and oleander, now, both widely used as ornamental landscaping plants and quite hazardous to humans and pets.
I think the point was, almost no drugs are really all that “physically addictive”. The only drug that I know of that can permanently harm you if you quit it is alcohol, and the side effect of quitting opiates aren’t pleasant at all as far as I know (and yet, I’ve heard junkies say that tobacco is harder to quit than heroin), but other than that, the physical side effect of quitting most drugs seem to be relatively mild. That still doesn’t make quitting any easier though - it’s the mental dependancies and the situational “triggers” that seem to be the most difficult to avoid - speaking as someone who cut down his weed intake from “stoned each and every day” to almost zero pretty much over night yet can’t seem to quit smoking tobacco.
There’s some pretty good research out there showing that meth has long term, possibly lifetime effects on the brain–destroying dopamine receptors, for example. What long term use of it does to the body is also pretty cataclysmic and well documented.
Most of the studies I’ve seen about marijuana risks are politically motivated or just plain bad science. For instance your cite points out that marijuana use is associated with psychoses. It implies that the drugs are the cause and psychosis the symptom, as do the similar studies I’ve seen, or seen reports about. However it could well be that psychosis is the cause, and drugs are the symptom. The psychosis may not be evident when the sufferer begins to use drugs, and teenagers are not good at self-assessment of their mental state. The drugs may be a form of self medication, and many drugs legal and illegal can help brain functions short term, but not necessarily in the long run. The most under-reported study I know of presented the case for what every drug user knows. Taking drugs makes you feel better. That’s why you take them in the first place. Down the road, you may feel better because taking the drug stops withdrawal symptoms. But I think the likelihood of continued drug usage is usually related to some other cause for feeling ‘bad’ in the first place.
I’ll mention now that popular media reports on actual science tend to be inaccurate and misleading. Some headlines state the exact opposite conclusion of the story or the original report.
This cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ra...ependence).svg is a picture without any reference. Where did the data come from? All it tells me is that yellow drugs have less unattributed numerical values than orange and red ones. I’ll assume its cited by other Wikifacticles with equally weak support. The Cocaine link has the Wiki folks themselves noting the lack of citations.
This one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...rugsreport.pdf mostly contradicts your assertion, mentioning that others disagree.
How’s this sound? Drink only water, eat only raw vegetables and tiny amounts of meat cooked only to the point of recommended food safety guidelines. Don’t go anywhere, or do anything except to help the needy. Pray (shouldn’t hurt even it doesn’t work), get plenty of sleep, and you might live a long healthy, dull life.
Or: Eat, drink, and be merry, in moderation. Make time to help the needy, pray if you feel the need, and you might also live long, but be much happier.
There are plentry of other alternatives, but the term ‘moderation’ is really important to all of them.
of course the legal classification of pot has greatly restricted the scientific study of it - either as to benefits or harms. So silly when gov’t agencies would say “Little reliable evidence of benefits” when they wouldn’t allow studies. :rolleyes:
A couple of years back I tried quite diligently to track down whatever I could about the potential harms of pot. It somewhat surprised me how little there was. And much of it tracked back second- and third-hand to a couple of highly suspect studies. Of course common sense would tell you that inhaling smoke into your lungs poses potential dangers exceeding the inhalation of clean, fresh air…