First of all, it's a poor argument to suggest that just because some things that are more dangerous than pot are legal (e.g. alcohol) then pot should be legal too.
Second, yes, weed is addictive. Saying something is "psychologically addictive" but not "physically addictive" is a employing a false dichotomy. When a person uses any drug linked to dopamine transmission, that person's body will become less efficient at transmitting dopamine over time. Basically, the body says, "I'm going on vacation! I don't need to work anymore because something else is doing the work for me!" So, the body gets lazy. When that same person stops smoking weed, the body must relearn how to be as efficient as it once was.
Third, the effects of weed over time are subtle but they accumulate. It's a poor argument to say, "Look! I've smoked pot for 10+ years and I'm fine! Obviously pot isn't that bad!" It's a poor argument because you don't have anything to compare it to. If you didn't smoke those 10+ years, who knows how much better off you would be?
Then everything is psychologically addictive, in that case.Second, yes, weed is addictive. Saying something is "psychologically addictive" but not "physically addictive" is a employing a false dichotomy. When a person uses any drug linked to dopamine transmission, that person's body will become less efficient at transmitting dopamine over time. Basically, the body says, "I'm going on vacation! I don't need to work anymore because something else is doing the work for me!" So, the body gets lazy. When that same person stops smoking weed, the body must relearn how to be as efficient as it once was.
Third, the effects of weed over time are subtle but they accumulate. It's a poor argument to say, "Look! I've smoked pot for 10+ years and I'm fine! Obviously pot isn't that bad!" It's a poor argument because you don't have anything to compare it to. If you didn't smoke those 10+ years, who knows how much better off you would be?
What about those that wouldn't have made it this far in life without weed? How much worse off would they be?
1) Not sure how "then everything is psychologically addictive" is a defense. That's similar to the "but other, more harmful drugs are legal!" defense. We're not talking about everything else, we're talking about pot.
2) If you need pot to "make it this far in life," then you sound pretty weak. I'm not saying pot doesn't have any positive aspects, and I understand that pot can be a used for creative, spiritual, and even social means. I don't deny this at all. But in this way, pot is like baby food. You can smoke pot for a little while so that you can begin to see the world in a different way. But, if you're smart, you'll learn how it's possible to view the world in the same way without pot afterwards. Once you're all grown up you don't need baby food anymore. Now, if you have glaucoma or are going through chemotherapy, then pot can obviously be beneficial.
Consider mushrooms or LSD, both of which are even less addictive than pot (though more dangerous in other aspects). Anybody who has tried these substances at least once will likely tell you that it had a profound impact on their lives, and usually for the better. But does that mean you need to keep consuming mushrooms or LSD? No. You caught a glimpse of a profoundly different perspective, and now you can implement what you've learned into your sober life.
It doesn't mean you can't continue to explore your mind either.
