Jane Kelley wrote in a message to Alex Vasauskas:
AV>Not surprisingly, you didn't relate any of your literature citations
AV>to the issue we are discussing -- the addictiveness of 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.
I don't mean to be unkind, but it is time to stop lying, Jane.
I hope that everyone else on Fidonet reads this so that you cannot
continue to harmfully lie and mislead people here about this herb.
Based upon your own claims regarding DSM IV, this reply will
demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.  I will
even provide you with the quote from DSM IV that contradicts your
representations, and I will give you the page number where you can
find the quoted material.  (You have repeatedly refused to do this in
support of your claims -- evil shuns the light, eh Jane ;-)    )
I have provided you with authoritative, scientific sources demonstrating
that marijuana is not addictive -- with the worst scenario in this regard
being according to the NIDA's scientists, and they conclude only that it is
not as addictive to those who use it as is caffeine to those who drink
coffee.  In spite of this, you repeatedly claim that marijuana is very 
addictive to a substantial number of those who use it.  And, the only
published authority you rely upon in support of this is DSM IV, which
does not provide any rigorous, scientific discussion, evaluation, or
citation to underlying scientific sources regarding addiction.
You have been unable to cite any reliable scientific study or even any
part of DSM IV in support of your claims.  This is not surprising
because there is no such scientific study, and there is no such
determination in DSM IV.  Moreover, DSM IV *nowhere uses the terms
"addict" or "addiction" relative to the use of marijuana*.
 
You either have not read DSM IV, or you didn't understand it.
DSM IV is not a definitive handbook of the causes of people's
problems.  The full title of the book describes what it is about:
_Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_.  What DSM IV
does is provide names and numbers for differing collections of people's
behaviors and possible causes of those behaviors so that psychiatrists
and other mental health workers can have common, short-hand terms and
categories with which to communicate about and attempt to deal with
groups of behaviors a patient/client may be exhibiting.  It is for the
most part merely a useful psychiatric catalog.
DSM IV contains many cursory and incomplete statements regarding the
statistics, facts, and science relevant to the causes for behaviors.
It provides no citations to the sources for these statements.
Furthermore, it was copyrighted in 1994, and so the results and
implications of more recent studies relative to matters referred to
in DSM IV have not been considered.
The final destruction of your credibility here was done at your
own hands.  Like the destruction of other evils, your excess in
promoting your reefer-madness lies has brought you down.  It is
not surprising that you have never cited any credible, scientific
authority supporting your claims regarding the addictiveness of
marijuana  -- there is none, other than what appears to be your
imaginary mental health nursing credentials and your imaginary horde
of marijuana addicts.  Furthermore, the only authority you have cited
is DSM IV, and this is inappropriate for our discussion since its
primary focus is naming syndromes rather than providing a rigorous
scientific grounding in the basis for human behavior.
In any event, DSM IV itself not only does not support your claims, it
further exposes your reefer madness lies.  There is no reference in
DSM IV regarding cannabis being addictive.  In fact, DSM IV
specifically states   (note that "Cannabis Dependence" is a
psychiatric term-of-art that is used solely as a diagnostic
label in DSM IV):
"Individuals with Cannabis Dependence have compulsive use
and do not generally develop physiological dependence....
There have also been some reports of withdrawal symptoms,
but they have not yet been reliably shown to be clinically
significant."
DSM IV, 4th ed., American Psychiatric Assn. (Washington, D.C.,
1994) p. 216. -- [This is a citation, Jane.  It tells people
specifically what a source says and gives them enough information
to check it out for themselves.  Notice the page number -- you
provide this when you want others to be able to check out your
representations.  The fact that you have refused to provide anything
like this was a major clue that you didn't know what you were
talking about.]
This means that people who are emotionally disturbed to the point
where they seek to cope with life or to escape through using
cannabis may abuse it or become dependent upon it as a means of
coping or escape.  But, this dependence is the result of their
emotional disturbance (like becoming dependent on the confort of
food and eating) and not the marijuana itself.
Your web of lies is finally undone.  If, according to your
representation, you have testified in court as an expert (which
seems unlikely) that marijuana is addictive to a substantial
proportion of people who use it, or that DSM IV supports this
conclusion, you have not only lied to everyone here on Fidonet,
you have committed perjury in court.
The authority you invoked to try to make yourself sound authoritative
and to try to intimidate people, DSM IV, is neither the best authority
on the issue of addiction nor does it support your claims --
it contradicts them.  The much more meaningful scientific studies
I have provided to you very authoritatively do the same.  It's
time to open your mind and give up your delusions and denial and your
attempts to seduce and browbeat others into sharing them.  But, even if
you don't, hopefully others will now be better able to see through you.
--- 
---------------