JANE KELLEY was thinking about Marijuana & Addicti [1/3 and keyed into 
cyberspace:
JK>AV>Not surprisingly, you didn't relate any of your literature
JK>AV>citations to the issue we are discussing -- the addictiveness of
JK>AV>marijuana. 
JK>I've told you several times to go look it up in the official manual
JK>of mental health in this nation, the DSM IV.
Jane, the degree of "addictiveness" of any substance is NOT cited in 
either the DSM III or IV. That is not the function of the DSM.
JK>AV>What you have demonstrated is that mental health is in a sorry
JK>AV>state if there are mental health workers who have blind-spots like
JK>AV>yours. 
JK>We still have those who cling to old fashioned ideas such as those
JK>spouted by Freud and Skinner in a day when brain imaging is being
JK>used for a definitive diagnosis by those who really give a damn.
Agree with Jane = give a damn.
People who disagree with Jane = people who do not give a damn.
---snipage---
JK>SOME FOLKS DO NOT GET ANY REAL BENEFIT FROM POT USE!
Since you said "some", am I correct in thinking that you do believe that 
the others, not the "some" you refer to, do get a real benefit from pot 
use?
JK>And if you had even a fraction of real knowledge about this noxious
JK>weed instead of the hype put out by potheads, you would know that.
I am asking, because I do not use, and have never used.
                ===>The Voice of Reason<===
                     mark.probert@juno.com
---
 * CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
---------------