Study: Marijuana Does Not Lead to Hard Drugs

Reuters ^ | Dec. 2, 2002 | unknown

[Phantom Lord]

According to a reputable long term study( 5 minutes with neighbors), pot smokers and hard drug users tend to be Democrats.

I would say that pot smokers cover the entire political spectrum. I also suspect, from my experience with pot smokers, conservatives and liberals the liberals are more apt to admit their pot use while it is always a surprise when I find out who the conservative pot smokers are.

The conservative pot smokers are more of a 'keep it to themselves' type of crowd.

[TopQuark]

Gateway drug theory says that MJ use will lead to harder drugs. Well, it actually says that such consequence is more likely; that's a minor point, however.

The study just says that people who are going to use hard drugs are going to use hard drugs wether MJ is the first drug they come across or not.

That is the point you missed in my post: the author, extrapolating his work without a proper basis, says so. There is nothing in the study that even addresses the issue.

[realpatriot71]

My bad, sometimes I get snippy after a long day. Have you actually read the study?

[TopQuark]

George Soros, the quisling NWO apparatchik, spends big bucks pushing repeal of our drug laws. Why does a quisling billionaire like Soros want to have lots more American kids strung out on drugs? Is it because he loves this country? I don't think so.

Wow, from an opinion on how to deal with a social problem you have deduced the lack of love for this country?

You should ease up on that Glenlivette.

[Texaggie79]

I know MANY potsmokers, as I used to be a pothead. Most, never went beyond pot and shrooms.

Now, for you potsmokers you knew who went on to harder drugs, did they use alcohol before they did pot? Why not ban that? Or what about cigarettes before alcohol? Ban that too? What about candy cigarettes? where does it stop?

[Xenalyte]

For me it has always seemed to lead to dorritos, a snickers bar, and a large Sobe (dragonfruit).

Chewy Spree gets me every time.

[zarf]

I've smoked for years. I've never moved "up" the chain. Did experiment with glue in the late 70's for a heady month or two.

This report sounds about correct. to me.

[wideawake]

every one who tries to define reality from anecdotal experience or the collective is being intellectually invalid.

My belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is predicated largely on my own anecdotal experience and astrophysical data that I've never observed and am merely taking on faith from others.

Also anecdotally: my Dad made the same observations in the 60s that I did in the 90s. As a result, he hammered home early and often that potsmoking was an unacceptable activity and would be physically sanctioned. At first I never indulged out of fear, then out of filial piety. Then I noticed my Dad's experience was confirmed by my own.

I'll teach my kids the same way - it's called horse sense. Other people are free to raise their kids according to the results of surveys. And my kids will probably have to pick up the tab for their state-funded rehab program.

[wideawake]

Thank you, TQ. Another excellent post.

[wideawake]

I haven't seen a candy cigarette in about fifteen years.

[TopQuark]

Have you actually read the study? No, I have not; sorry if I inadvertently gave such impression.

We seem to know enough from the article, however: (i) to test the "gateway" hypothesis, a longitudinal study is required, since time is needed for the drug user to get through the "gateway;" (ii) the study has focused exclusively on teenagers, so it is safe to assume it was not longitudinal.

To say anything on the subject, either way, is therefore over-reaching. And, what is even more disturbing, you see a pattern of such over-reaching. Observe that from a study of one drug use, you cannot draw any policy conclusions. Drug use is sociology, chemistry, and the like. But policy is a managerial issue: one needs to know the costs, the priorities, available alternatives, etc. Thus, the author gets into the area beyond his qualification.

To see it more clearly, consider an analogy. Suppose an engineer makes a study of accuracy of a particular weapon, and then gets up and tells us that we should reduce the use of this weapon by 30%. You would laugh, of course: accuracy of one weapon is one issue, but its role in the arsenal of the country depends on what alternative weapons are available; on the costs of production and not just the accuracy; etc. The use of the weapon depends also on the military doctrine, the strategies uses by teh generals --- something that the engineer knows nothing about and certainly have not addressed in his study.

Well, that's why you never hear such nonsense from engineers. But in social "sciences," it is somehow acceptable to do so: make a study of one ant and then make recommendations for the rest of the universe. That's what this author is doing.

[realpatriot71]

I have a friend who lives and dies by skittles. I'm just not into the "candy fruit thing". I normally don't like chocalate, but it's pretty good high. Gotta control the munchies though, or the next thing you know you've eaten a whole beef pizza, and buffalo wings. Not that this has ever happened to me of course - heard about from a guy who knows a guy . . . :-)

[FreePaul]

When I was at an age when I might have been exposed to drug use there were no sources for drugs and I didn't even know anyone who used anything (except alcohol and tobacco). In later years I have known quite a number of people who tried marijuana. Some continued casual use, very few even tried "hard" drugs. There were those few, although, who tried and got hooked on any kind of drugs they could get their hands on. There were those who became hopless alcoholics without ever trying any other drugs. Of those who quit using marijuana I don't believe that any made that decision because it was against the law. I never saw any connection between alcohol use, marijuana use and "hard" drug abuse. The long term choices seemed to be those of the individuals involved.

[realpatriot71]

Fair enough . . . I also have not read the actually study, but the study did use data from between 82 and 94. Is this not a long enough time period to draw a conclusion about the causality of MJ. You see my biggest problem with this is that I've know MJ users who used harder drugs and I've known those that that did not, myself included. Anectdotal? Yes, but I think it's fair to say from my experience that MJ is not some sort of "gateway," but rather is just the first drug that a person comes across. Everyone I know who used harder drugs had a similar type of risky personality. I think that is the key in this situation, not the MJ.

[realpatriot71]

The long term choices seemed to be those of the individuals involved.

Agreed

[truenospinzone]

Finding recreational users or abusers of drugs who haven't used marijuana will be just a bit easieer than finding an honest man.

And that's the trick that WODdies use to keep the "gateway drug" myth rolling. Showing that the majority of cocaine users used marijuana first does absolutely nothing to show that marijuana is a gateway drug. The important statistic is the number of marijuana users who go on to harder drugs, and it's a completely different stat. The reason WOD proponents never use THOSE statistics is that the numbers never come out in their favor in independent studies, as this one shows. Much easier to use semantics and misdirection to "prove" a point.

[Texaggie79]

So, why didn't it stop then? Kids stop using candy cigarettes. Why do they STILL go on to cigarettes, alcohol, pot, ect?

[Michael Barnes]

One day, a young Keith Richards thought he'd "try" a puff of a marijuana cigarette...

Hey, you should be thankful for Keith...If it wasn't for him, there would be a hell of a lot more drugs on the streets...

;)