Gateway to Nowhere? The evidence that pot doesn't lead to heroin.

Slate ^ | July 20, 2006

[robertpaulsen]

"So your call for marijuana remaining illegal may result in more people addicted to heroin."

I have no idea.

It could be the keeping marijuana illegal may result in less marijuana users which may result in less gateway heroin users.

[tacticalogic]

It's the consistency that dooms it. Consistency demands that not only marijuana be legal, but all drugs including prescription drugs, for all ages limited only by local laws. And that's just for starters.

Can't you do any better than textbook strawman arguments?

[robertpaulsen]

But what if the legalization of Substance A resulted in more users of Substance A? Let's just say the use doubled.

Certainly some of those would go on to Substance B? But you're claiming no increase.

[Protagoras]

It's the consistency that dooms it. Consistency demands that not only marijuana be legal, but all drugs including prescription drugs, for all ages limited only by local laws. And that's just for starters.

Actually, your perpective about consistency is what dooms you to your failed and utterly preposterous philosophy of elitist authoritarianism. That also leads you to the bizarre obsession with this topic. And that's just for starters.

[Protagoras]

When Reagan was re-elected President in 1984, carrying 49 states, there were Hollywood types who said they didn't know of one person who voted for him. Maybe it's who you hang around with, huh?

You want to get personal? Send me a freepmail and I'll tell you about yourself. Otherwise, you're just another of a long line of baiters who throw out that nonsense and cry to the mods when responded to.

[tacticalogic]

But what if the legalization of Substance A resulted in more users of Substance A? Let's just say the use doubled. Certainly some of those would go on to Substance B? But you're claiming no increase.

I've never made that claim. As you have observered, there is no way to predict with any certainty. You also recognize that by criminalizing Substance A, you put people who are inclined to use it despite it's being illegal into a situation where Substance B is just as readily available to them, where that situation would not exist if Substance A was obtained through legal channels. This makes it more likely they will use Substance B, and will result in more people using it, and other substances that they might not have otherwise.

Overall I think we'd see a net reduction in people using harder drugs, and greater isolation of the remaining users and dealers of harder drugs. Anyone can predict a net increase by only considering the factors that might result in greater usage and disregarding those that would have the opposite affect, but I can't think of any good reason to engage in such an exercise.

[ThinkDifferent]

I'd like to know the percentage of heroin users who once smoked pot. That's an indication of where they get their numbers from. If the majority of them used to smoke pot, and we can reduce the number of pot smokers, seems to me that we'd reduce the number of future addicts, yes?

That doesn't follow. Suppose some portion of the population is naturally predisposed to drug use. A decent percentage of this group will use pot. A smaller percentage will use heroin. If you pushed a magic button and entirely eliminated all pot, you would still have heroin users. In fact you would likely have more, because some who would have been satsified with pot will turn to heroin instead.

[Nate505]

What research has been done to show how many heroin users did NOT start with pot.

How is that relevant to anything? I'm sure someone who is a drug user, particularly a hard drug user, would first use a drug that is more mild. It's akin to saying that 99% of all people who rode a roller coaster road a merry-go-round first.

[HamiltonJay]

The issue isn't is it biologically a gateway... the fact is psychologically it is.. and there is no doubt about it.

A habitual pot smoker may be no more or less likely to become addicted to Heroine than someone who has never touched the stuff if they both smoke it.... but odds are that the liklihood of the pot smoker trying the heroine in the first place are significantly higher.

I know the flaming will begin, but case study after case study bares this out.

[Beckwith]

But what if ...

What if ... what if ... what if ... cows could fly?
More facts, Bobbie?

[ThinkDifferent]

If Substance A was legal, are you saying we'd see no change whatsoever in the use of Substance B?

Presuming A and B are partial substitutes, if A were legalized (i.e. made cheaper), demand for A would increase and demand for B would decrease.

[Nate505]

Wait, so according to you alcohol being legal has kept many alcohol users from being heroin addicts, most likely because they have a legal means of accquring their preferred product, but making pot legal would increase the number of pot users, and therefore would increase the possibility of the number of heroin users because.....why is this?

[ThinkDifferent]

the fact is psychologically it is.. and there is no doubt about it.

Perhaps not to you. But you may be right, because in order to get pot many users acquire contacts in the drug trade. Once they've done this, the relative cost of trying other drugs decreases. Under these circumstances, then the "gateway effect" is actually an argument for legalizing pot.

[cryptical]

I have no idea.

True.

It could be the keeping marijuana illegal may result in less marijuana users which may result in less gateway heroin users.

But if you think that the legality of marijuana has a bearing on the gateway effect, you'll have to admit that lowering the percentage of marijuana users that go on to try heroin would be more effective than lowering the number of marijuana users.

A presumed added benefit would be a change in law enforcement focus from marijuana to heroin or other "hard" drugs.

[JTN]

Slate is such a good source. /sarcasm Another case of "Liberaltarianism".

If you do not wish accept Slate as a source, then here's the study. Where do you think Slate went wrong here?

[Know your rights]

I'd like to know the percentage of heroin users who once smoked pot drank milk. That's an indication of where they get their numbers from. If the majority of them used to smoke pot drink milk, and we can reduce the number of pot smokers milk drinkers, seems to me that we'd reduce the number of future addicts, yes?

The study referenced in the above article cited four previous scientific studies that "supported the cannabis gateway hypothesis of cannabis as a steppingstone toward abuse of other drugs".

If it's a matter of the post user's addictive personality making it more likely for him to move on to another drug, then it's not clear that reducing post use would have any effect, since the addictive personality would remain.

[Know your rights]

I didn't suggest that it be the basis for banning. I am suggesting, however, that it's a darn good reason not to legalize it.

That's silly ...even for you. Not to legalize is to continue the ban.

[A CA Guy]

Did the rats have their other rats and drug dealers moving them on to more interesting drugs in that study as well to mirror what happens in our society?

[Know your rights]

Wait, so according to you alcohol being legal has kept many alcohol users from being heroin addicts, most likely because they have a legal means of accquring their preferred product, but making pot legal would increase the number of pot users, and therefore would increase the possibility of the number of heroin users because.....why is this?

Nice catch. Let the squirming commence.

[Know your rights]

odds are that the liklihood of the pot smoker trying the heroine in the first place are significantly higher.

That higher likelihood can be entirely explained by the fact that those with an inclination to alter their mental states are both likelier to try pot and likelier to try other drugs. If that's what the "gateway effect" is ... so what?