ok, i see. have a good day.
mc
wut?? 
My point in that response to ITD’s post where she said that if the use of the drug(s) doesn’t impede the life they want to live, they wouldn’t be considered “addicted” was to ask that if someone had enough wealth to not be affected by many of the problems that most addicts face, would they not be considered an “addict” (Keith Richards was my example)?
Not sure what you mean, here. There are lots of ways lives can be affected (social and family relationships, not meeting personal goals, etc), that has nothing to with income.
And remember, this response was for the very narrow hypothetical that asked “Is this person hooked” given these criteria:
- You personally don’t want to quit;
- AND you’ve never been in a position to have to;
- AND having taken true physiological addiction out of the equation
In that extremely narrow (and rare) scenario, I suggested that using drugs that otherwise didn’t interfere with a healthy running of your life, you probably weren’t hooked.
I’m not really sure how finer a hair you want to split, but I think I’ve exhausted any opinions I’ve had on this.
Well I explained what I meant in my next post. Basically, it boils down to “Is Keith Richards an addict and if so, what makes him one?”
And I never took psychological addiction out of the equation. Addiction is psychological in nature. My goal is not to get an answer to an extremely narrow and specific case, it’s to use that narrow case to question what an addict is.
I said physiological, not psychological.
I have no idea if Keith Richards fit all the criteria I was responding, which was the end of a series of posts between you and I. So to that I have no idea.
Apologies, I misread.
except that you dont know if the taking of drugs impedes their life. it may appear to the outside world like everthing is fine when its not. i dont know keith richards, i dont know about his struggles with drugs - addiction or no. but i do know many addicts, and as you said, life circumstances vary. some may have a rollercoaster ride of it; plunging into the depths, and then struggle their way back to some normalcy for a while only to plunge into the depths again, and repeat ad infinitum. others go from casual use to rock bottom in straight fashion and right quickly. still others can maintain a level of use for quite some time.
you cant compare addicts and their addictions. for each it is an extremely personal and individual ride.
speaking specifically of marijuana use: actual physical addiction is extremely rare, however psychological dependence is not. its very easy for pot smokers to slip from wanting to smoke to needing to smoke. just recognizing that fact is sometimes enough to prevent trouble.
mc
And when you throw kids and a non-using spouse into the picture, it doesn’t end well, which is a massive understatement.
Only person in our group “hooked” on weed is female.
Dude, we are both hooked because we have monkeys on our backs. You know how when you skip smoking for a day or two you get the sniffles, feel itchy, have aches and pains, and mood swings? Yeah, me neither.
I occasionally stop smoking for a week or two just to experience the intense dreams it triggers. When I stop having these amazing dreams I go back to the pipe.
As far as “risk aversion” and the ladies, I have noticed this. When I buy weed I contact “the guy” and arrange a meet. I know a few women who smoke a lot. When they buy weed they call me and ask me to get them a bag next time I get some for myself.
You know how nice it is to walk into a nice, clean store with lots of selection and legally buy? 
STOP that. I already hear it from my Cali and Colorado friends.
it’s still illegal there, right?
my theory is that when it’s legal everywhere and all you do is buy it at the dispensary it will become a chore that is more evenly divided.
but that’s a WAG. 
SOON!!
I forgot to mention that with all the taxes piled on, it is cheaper than it used to be as well. 
I’m not really sure if there’s a way to definitively quantify the assertion in the OP, but I have my own theory.
Of all the frequent female pot smokers I’ve known since college, most of the women quit when they got pregnant and never really went back much after the toddler years. My sister basically quit drinking too, for about 20 years because she never knew when there would be some sort of crisis and she’d need her wits about her. Maybe having kids makes men quit too; but I haven’t observed that. Of the stoners I know, it’s mostly men married to women who have tapered down or quit completely.
Ok, let’s say I’m driving on a circular racetrack and I want to drive in circles for the rest of my life, having no desire to stop. How do I tell if my brakes work? The question is by definition unanswerable. You can’t measure how effective your brakes are unless you actually attempt to use them.
So the real answer is that you try to stop and find out. If your refusal to quit, even temporarily, is bigger than your desire to know if you are hooked, then you are hooked.
As a side note, if your refusal to quit is big enough that you feel the need to hijack a thread about gender and pot smoking to create unlikely hypotheticals on how not wanting to quit really means you are not hooked, you’re probably hooked.
QFT.
The weed-smokers I know are mostly women.
I’m in Washington state where it’s been legalized. My observation is about 50/50 across genders now. Women seem to be more event-oriented usage (e.g. “book club”) oriented though, rather than daily routine usage like men.
Maybe this should have been a poll. 