NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed that all arguements concerning the legality of pot always fall back on "It is a gateway drug." Is this true? I was thinkning about this the other day, and thought that the only only reason it could be considered a gateway drug is because the only people who will know how to get illeagal drugs will be pot smokers (to start with). Rather than the cliched "Weed stops having the same effect so people will need to try harder stuff to feel the same." Which again seems odd. As anyone who has ever tried many drugs knows that the high for each drug is different. But since I have never felt that weed was no longer doing it for me, I cannot really comment on why people try harder drugs because of weed.

Are there any reliable sources to prove that weed is/is not a gateway drug and the reasons behind this effect?

I have noticed that all arguements concerning the legality of pot always fall back on "It is a gateway drug." Is this true?

In a word, no. While many -- possibly even most -- users of illegal drugs have used cannabis, there is no evidence of it being a "gateway" drug, sending people out in a desperate search for "a greater high". The concept is mythological. In any case, most people's first drug high comes from alcohol.

The only possible way that cannabis could be a "gateway" is because it inures people to the idea of using illegal drugs. Those who smoke it compare their generally pleasant (if unremarkable) experiences with the anti-drugs propaganda, and come to realise what a crock most of it is. This is unfortunate, as genuine health warnings are tarred with the same brush and consigned to the same mental wastebasket, and we end up with people thinking that cannabis is "harmless", which of course it's not. It's actively bad for you, but frankly that's no reason why you or me or any other intelligent, informed adult shouldn't be able to enjoy it. Which of course we can do with practical impunity anyway. It's not like it's hard to get hold of.

if anything, tobacco's a gateway drug. only 6% of pot smokers didn't smoke tobacco first.

I've tried pot in my teens a few times, only to discover that the drug wasn't for me. Tried a little XTC, same result. Both times I was motivated by nothing but curiosity. Common sense told me to stay away from the hard drugs, as I'm certain it would tell virtually everyone, and I haven't tried either ever since. So, in my case it lead neither to habitual sof drug consumption or to taking up hard drug consumption even once.

A friend of mine has been the habitual pot smoker for a good fifteen years now. He has yet to express the desire for any hard drugs, let alone act on it. And I suspect that if someone has been doing pot for as long and as regular as he has, and this still hasn't resulting in wanting to move on to hard drugs then this will neverl happen.

Two examples of how pot consumption certainly hasn't let to hard drugs. I could easily name more.

Actually, countless studies have shown that marijuana is a gateway drug. Marijuana users like to point out the fact that a large number of users never use the more potent drugs, but that fact means little. What is more important is when you learn that an incredibly significant number of users of the more potent drugs first used marijuana. That is what it means to be a gateway drug. You can get a lot of information about this if you look.

link some studies then. from unbiased sources... so no government ones please. they tend to make shit up.

Actually, countless studies have shown that marijuana is a gateway drug. Marijuana users like to point out the fact that a large number of users never use the more potent drugs, but that fact means little. What is more important is when you learn that an incredibly significant number of users of the more potent drugs first used marijuana. That is what it means to be a gateway drug. You can get a lot of information about this if you look.

What are the numbers you are talking about? One out of ten moving on to hard drugs? Or maybe one out of five? I think it would have been a rather one sided research since the numbers of pot users can't really be determined with any accuracy.

BTW I'm not a pot user.

My primary source is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Most of their research was farmed out to various college campuses for completion. I'm sorry you don't trust their credibility but they are happy to show you the empirical evidence of their findings. You can also check the validity and reliability of their studies. One of my friends from college was a researcher in their last study, on loan from the EPA.

Their numbers list over 80% of hardcore drug users initially tried marijuana. Let me list some other information about marijuana from SAMHSA:

"The dangers of smoking marijuana are much more serious than they were in the 1960s, especially since the potency of the marijuana now available has increased more than 275 percent over the last decade.

Preliminary studies have shown chronic lung disease in some marijuana users. There are more known cancer-causing agents in marijuana smoke than in cigarette smoke. In fact, because marijuana smokers try to hold the smoke in their lungs as long as possible, one marijuana cigarette can be as damaging to the lungs as four tobacco cigarettes.

Even small doses of marijuana can impair memory function, distort perception, hamper judgment, and diminish motor skills. Health effects also include accelerated heartbeat and, in some persons, increased blood pressure."

see, i don't trust them because they are biased towards makign pot seem as evil as possible to keep people from wanting it legal.

yes, one joint is as bad as 4 cigarettes, but no one smokes 25 joints a day (1 regular pack of smokes up here) however, there are a number of people who are 1-2 packs of smokes a day.
generally, you'll find that one joint is enough to get most everyone stoned... people will generally have say 1/4-1/6th of a joint... depending on how many people they're spiltting it with or even a small joint to themselves per day. i don't know anyone who has more than that. you also have to take into account that most people don't smoke pot every day.

as for your impairing memory function with small doses... perhaps when someone is stoned, but not afterwards. alcohol does the same thing, lots of people forget what they're doing/what happened when they're drunk, however when stoned, you can actually concentrate and kinda make yourself sober or scare yourself into sobriety. the effects of alcohol are minimized only with time.

also, same goes with the other ill-effects you mentioned.

i'm on the wrong computer to have my bookmark, but there is evidence from unbiased sources that marijuana is not a gateway drug. i guarantee that if you sold pot next to cigarettes, you wouldn't even consider the possibility that it leads to harder substances.

I don't doubt that most hard drugs consumers started with pot. Neither did I question that. What I questioned is that pot is a gateway drug in the sense that the chances that it will lead to hard drugs are significant. Because this is the argument often used by those who lobby for pot remaining on the illegal drugs list. Now, if one out of five or ten pot users moves on to hard drugs, than those are acceptable numbers to me. Acceptable enough to say that pot is not a gateway drugs in the sense that the anti-marijuhana crowd uses; that it will lead almost certainly to hard drug consumption.

Why did you bring up the dangers of marijuhana consumption?

Many people claim marijuana is a gateway drug because such a high percentage of people on other drugs started out on it. But this is a false argument. Marijuana is the most common illegal drug in the market and one of the cheaper ones to come by. It also is or has been used by a very large percentage of the population. This is not a cause and effect relationship at all.

My primary source is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Most of their research was farmed out to various college campuses for completion. I'm sorry you don't trust their credibility but they are happy to show you the empirical evidence of their findings. You can also check the validity and reliability of their studies. One of my friends from college was a researcher in their last study, on loan from the EPA.

Their numbers list over 80% of hardcore drug users initially tried marijuana.

Meaningless. Over 80% -- probably close to 100% -- of "hardcore drug users" will have initially tried alcohol, too. Why is cannabis the gateway drug, and not alcohol? If you could find some statistics that said, say, 80% of cannabis users went on to use harder drugs, then that might mean something. Good luck finding that, btw. Unless you can point to a causal link, this is nothing but spin -- which, in a piece of supposedly scientific research, tends to make me skeptical about everything else it says.

Let me list some other information about marijuana from SAMHSA:

"The dangers of smoking marijuana are much more serious than they were in the 1960s, especially since the potency of the marijuana now available has increased more than 275 percent over the last decade.

Man, I can't believe that. If what I smoke now is "275%" stronger than dope in the 1960's, how the hell did the hippies get so high?

"Preliminary studies have shown chronic lung disease in some marijuana users. There are more known cancer-causing agents in marijuana smoke than in cigarette smoke. In fact, because marijuana smokers try to hold the smoke in their lungs as long as possible, one marijuana cigarette can be as damaging to the lungs as four tobacco cigarettes.

Of course, nobody I know smokes 20 joints a day. I doubt if it's physically possible. So if I have, say, 3 spliffs all to myself -- enough to tree me for the night -- it's the equivalent of 12 cigarettes. That's fine. Not healthy, but since I hardly ever have 3 spliffs all to myself in a night, I'm cool with it.

"Even small doses of marijuana can impair memory function, distort perception, hamper judgment, and diminish motor skills. Health effects also include accelerated heartbeat and, in some persons, increased blood pressure."

So... it's bad for me. Bad for ME. Alcohol is bad for me (and does a hell of a better job at impairing memory, perception, motor functions and judgement. Compare a stoned person with a drunk and see what I mean). Driving in traffic causes increased blood pressure, and exhaust fumes cause lung damage to everybody. I know it's bad for me. Is it anybody's business but my own? No.

Dakini, you make some excellent points. However, I think you should check out SAMHSA before you blanketly label them as biased. They have done countless studies on the effects of cigarettes as well as alcohol. It matters not to them whether a substance is legal or illegal. Their job is to disseminate information about all of them and they have a vast amount of freedom to do such.

You make an excellent point about the difference in how much someone smokes. I believe SAMHSA was merely pointing out how much more potent marijuana is, since most people like to compare marijuana to cigarettes.

The fact about short and long term memory though...that is a different situation indeed. Marijuana does impair memory, even when not under the effects of the drug. Alcohol can and does do the same thing. Chronic users are doing damage to their brain, specifically the section that controls memory. Alcohol can cause some extremely serious psychoses as well. Once you damage an area of the brain from constant abuse, you can't go back to repair it.

I personally would have no problem were marijuana to be legalized. In itself, its about as dangerous to use as alcohol. The same restrictions on operating a car could be placed for marijuana as with alcohol and there really wouldn't be a problem.

Their numbers list over 80% of hardcore drug users initially tried marijuana. Let me list some other information about marijuana from SAMHSA:

This statistic which shows an interesting trend in patterns of hard drug users shows very little about marijuana users in general....

The percentage shown is from a pool of hard drug users. Without a statistic (for comparison) on marijuana users who never switched to something hard, the above quote is an example of little more than propaganda... let me break it down

(fictional example)

We are doing a study Group H, trying to support that the behavior of group H was preceded by group THC...

Lets just survey group H scince they exibit the target behavior, let's not worry about the people from group THC who never progress to H-type behavior, and the current study is on group H.

Later a similar study on Group THC is done and researchers notice that a similar survey to the one they were planning was done. Although the focus of the previous survey was correct when studying Group H, one would be looking from the wrong end of the probem if the same survey was done with Group THC as the focus. The researchers do their own survey but results are not quite as they expect. Because of pressure to look as if they discovered what they were looking for they quote the previous survey, which in the context of the current study is misleading. Screw it though, now the organization that payed for the researce has their propaganda, and it's no big deal most people don't pay close enough to what they read to notice the misleading statistic, they just get the message that the organization wanted to send "Group Thc = Bad"

argh! the server just ate my reply!

but yeah, basically, a joint will have more toxins, but it isn't filtered, what do you expect. also, tobacco companies cheat on the toxins tests by putting holes in the sides of the filters, but when someone smokes, they cover the holes with their fingers and lips. if you taped up the filters, then the difference would be less than four to one.

to have any effect on memory, one would have to get stoned nearly every day. also, the effects of pot on memory/iq in frequent users goes away when they quit. it takes 2 months or thereabouts if i remember correctly for iq to go back up the like 5 points that get lost.

Actually, countless studies have shown that marijuana is a gateway drug. Marijuana users like to point out the fact that a large number of users never use the more potent drugs, but that fact means little. What is more important is when you learn that an incredibly significant number of users of the more potent drugs first used marijuana. That is what it means to be a gateway drug. You can get a lot of information about this if you look.

By your logic, breast milk must be a gateway drug.
As a large number of people who were likely fed breast milk as an infant, later went on to use drugs, other than marijuana.
Both may just be entirely coincidental.

But you simply cant comprehend that could you?

While it is not a scientific 'fact' that pot is a gateway drug, I have watched several friends go from 'just a joint' to having heart attacks because they can't find their needle fast enough. When you're high, your perception is less than normal, so you think to yourself, oh its just a little crack or, oh its just a little acid, no big deal, and then you're dead. I think this is why they call it a "gateway" drug...but it makes sense to me, and personally, I believe it.

While it is not a scientific 'fact' that pot is a gateway drug, I have watched several friends go from 'just a joint' to having heart attacks because they can't find their needle fast enough. When you're high, your perception is less than normal, so you think to yourself, oh its just a little crack or, oh its just a little acid, no big deal, and then you're dead. I think this is why they call it a "gateway" drug...but it makes sense to me, and personally, I believe it.

and how much personal experience do you possess with marijuana, that you yourself could definately say you would have done other drugs regardless of wether you had tried marijuana?

I'll bet you, your answer is:

None...or very little.

The gateway drug concept is based on very specious logic, but there’s a simple answer — if pot smokers are accessing other illegal drugs through their connections, make pot legal and they won’t be using those connections.

British Columbia grows the best pot in the world (world champion in Amsterdam, several years running). As a result, international trade in it for other drugs, notably heroin has increased. This is because it’s illegal. If it was legal, its growers wouldn’t likely be trading it for heroin.

While it is not a scientific 'fact' that pot is a gateway drug, I have watched several friends go from 'just a joint' to having heart attacks because they can't find their needle fast enough. When you're high, your perception is less than normal, so you think to yourself, oh its just a little crack or, oh its just a little acid, no big deal, and then you're dead. I think this is why they call it a "gateway" drug...but it makes sense to me, and personally, I believe it.

Really. Several friends, eh? Not to cast doubt on your tale of tragedy, but... you have (or had) some very odd, and highly atypical friends. When you're high, as you so charmingly put it, your perception is actually pretty darned good. Your tolerance for bad TV is higher, and your sense of humour gets quirky. Equally, you can get utterly absorbed by a really good novel. There may be a desire for snacks. That's it. If you offer a stoned person a choice between Pringles and crack, the Pringles would win hands down every time.

Honestly, I thought this "killer weed marijuana" crap went out with the ark. This is dangerous; this is the sort of bilge that makes people who smoke a bit of dope, and find out for themselves that it doesn't turn you into a drooling addict, distrust everything the anti-drugs lobby says. Stick to the facts, man: lung damage, skin damage, possible links with odd head and neck tumours, more research needed. When you start spouting tag lines from Reefer Madness you just get laughed out of town.

There's no need for any more arguing on this matter.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

Basically, a direct correlation does not imply a cause and effect relationship.

A huge mistake people often make.

Saying marijuana is a gateway drug is assuming there's a cause and effect relationship, when there's merely a direct correlation.