[Mirage445]

I believe there have been studies.

Decades of prejudice against marijuana have long resulted in demonizing the substance as the ‘gateway drug’ that leads to harder drugs, such as cocaine and heroin. Turns out, that impression is incorrect. Marijuana use is not the main indicator of whether someone will go on to more dangerous drugs. The best predictor is—ta-da—the use of alcohol!

A lot of people won’t find this surprising, but those who are fighting the so-called “war on drugs” might want to pay attention. The Journal of School Health just published a study in their August edition that puts the blame squarely on alcohol as the precipitating factor behind further drug use. Co-author Adam E. Barry, of the University of Florida, said in an interview with Raw Story that “basically, if we know what someone says with regards to their alcohol use, then we should be able to predict what they respond to with other [drugs].”


This study adds to a growing body of similar evidence. In a 2009 study put out by Missouri Western State University, the researchers found that “100% of the people who reported marijuana use were also drinkers. The first drug used by the majority of people who smoke marijuana was alcohol (67%).” They concluded that, “What people don’t realize is that marijuana use comes after someone is already using alcohol and tobacco.” Their conclusion is the same as that of the new study; they believe that “awareness of the role of alcohol as a stepping stone needs to be brought to light through alcohol education.”

Professor David Nutt, formerly the United Kingdom’s chief drug adviser to the government, issued a report in 2010 that said alcohol use is three times more harmful than crack, more than twice as harmful as heroin, and about five times as harmful as marijuana. Of course, he was sacked by the government in 2009 for going against their own rankings—rankings that portrayed alcohol as less harmful than certain other drugs. Nutt had to form the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, along with two other experts, in order to investigate the issue without political interference. He, too, concluded that “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.”

Will the newly published study fall on deaf ears, as others have? Florida’s Professor Barry points out that, “By delaying the onset of alcohol initiation, rates of both licit substance abuse like tobacco and illicit substance use like marijuana and other drugs will be positively affected, and they’ll hopefully go down.” But powerful factors are working in opposition to this outcome. After all, the widespread sale of alcohol reaps enormous profits for the liquor industry—$19.1 billion in 2010 alone. Plus, demonizing marijuana creates a multitude of jobs for law enforcement, funds for private prison systems, and heavy militarization of the border with Mexico.

The authors of the new study might want to have a chat with Professor David Nutt. He has some experience—and possibly some advice—about how government reacts to those who challenge the status quo.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07...-gateway-drug/

[St.Paul Guy]

I take issue with the use of the word "scientific". Surveying marijauna users and asking them if it has been a gateway drug for them is about as scientific as any of the polls on MMAF.

I'm talking about a truly scientific study with a testable hypothesis, exactly one dependent variable, a repeatable design, and peer review.

Everything that lacks those things is pseudo-science and means next to nothing to anyone in the scientific community.

[Hammerlock2.0]

Originally Posted by St.Paul Guy

I take issue with the use of the word "scientific". Surveying marijauna users and asking them if it has been a gateway drug for them is about as scientific as any of the polls on MMAF.

I'm talking about a truly scientific study with a testable hypothesis, exactly one dependent variable, a repeatable design, and peer review.

Everything that lacks those things is pseudo-science and means next to nothing to anyone in the scientific community.

You could say that about all the social sciences.






And you'd be right.

[K R Y]

Gateway theory is a hypothesis. A very criticised one though for the reasons (pulled off wiki) below.

Some individuals are, for whatever reason, willing to try any substance, and the "gateway" drugs are merely the ones that are (usually) available at an earlier age than the harder drugs.

Particularly for cannabis, which is illegal, exposure to the black market (where harder drugs are available) is suggested to be the real cause

For teenagers, credibility of adults is eroded when the dangers of the "gateway" drugs are exaggerated or made up, leading them to think all anti-drug messages are nonsense.

The peer environments in which "gateway" drugs are used can sometimes overlap with the ones in which harder drugs are used, especially in societies that prohibit the substances or impose very high age limits.

Due to the nature of their merchandise, dealers of the harder illicit drugs may be unwilling to reveal themselves to those unfamiliar with the "gateway" drugs.

[Killz]

Originally Posted by St.Paul Guy

I take issue with the use of the word "scientific". Surveying marijauna users and asking them if it has been a gateway drug for them is about as scientific as any of the polls on MMAF.

I'm talking about a truly scientific study with a testable hypothesis, exactly one dependent variable, a repeatable design, and peer review.

Everything that lacks those things is pseudo-science and means next to nothing to anyone in the scientific community.

You MMAF polls aren't scientific?

[dudeabides]

I've checked over this thread 3 or 4 times and still haven't seen anyone offering.

[OU]

Haven't read this whole thread yet, but I will.
But I personally smoke weed, I smoke everyday. I NEVER smoke before work, I always wait until I'm off before smoking. I use to drink every now and then but I don't really drink at all anymore. It's probably been close to a year since I have.
But I have never done any hardcore drugs in my life. Never done coke,x or any kind of meth. I don't take pills either(for recreation). IMO pills are the drugs to look out for and seems to be getting more and more popular.

I don't think everyone should be allowed to smoke, just like everyone shouldn't be allowed to drink. There are morons out there that mess things up for everyone. Just like with alcohol if you are responsible then you shouldn't ever have any problems.

[HitOrGetHit]

Originally Posted by OUSOONERSOU

Haven't read this whole thread yet, but I will.
But I personally smoke weed, I smoke everyday. I NEVER smoke before work, I always wait until I'm off before smoking. I use to drink every now and then but I don't really drink at all anymore. It's probably been close to a year since I have.
But I have never done any hardcore drugs in my life. Never done coke,x or any kind of meth. I don't take pills either(for recreation). IMO pills are the drugs to look out for and seems to be getting more and more popular.

I don't think everyone should be allowed to smoke, just like everyone shouldn't be allowed to drink. There are morons out there that mess things up for everyone. Just like with alcohol if you are responsible then you shouldn't ever have any problems.

I don't consider ecstasy a hard drug by any means.

[Rauno]

Originally Posted by dudeabides

I've checked over this thread 3 or 4 times and still haven't seen anyone offering.

[OU]

Originally Posted by HitOrGetHit

I don't consider ecstasy a hard drug by any means.

I do personally. Anything that causes a "tweaking" effect is a hard drug in my book. I have been around plenty of people rolling on many,many occasions. It is beyond what I am comfortable with, it's no where near the same class as weed, not even close. But IMO both people who do X and people that take pills in general don't realize how bad off they are. Especially if you are taking meth based pills, that makes you a tweaker in my book. No offense, just how I feel about it.