Marijuana

[Deagonx]

I see you missed the second sentence....

[ArtDrake]

He probably ignored it.

Let's try the opposite proposition for a moment: using a psychologically addictive drug makes one less likely to use other addictive drugs? Once the brain is wired to crave a high, the type of high doesn't matter, as long as it's intense.

[Deagonx]

He probably ignored it.

Let's try the opposite proposition for a moment: using a psychologically addictive drug makes one less likely to use other addictive drugs? Once the brain is wired to crave a high, the type of high doesn't matter, as long as it's intense.

Don't speak from experience, if you have none.

[SmartyPants]

Let's try the opposite proposition for a moment: using a psychologically addictive drug makes one less likely to use other addictive drugs? Once the brain is wired to crave a high, the type of high doesn't matter, as long as it's intense.

Don't speak from experience, if you have none.

I never experienced a severe burn, but I know not to put my arm into a fire.  Plus, does the last statement mean you finally admit that you have "experience" with marijuana?

[ArtDrake]

I speak from experience, but not with marijuana, or any other controlled subtance, or anything illegal. Happy? Don't get too curious.

I speak from knowledge of marijuana drug, and having read many papers on the effects thereof;

I insist that you don't put commas where they don't belong;

and I speak with reason, my preceding post only outlining a basic, logical summation of the viewpoint you express, worded to emphasize its underlying absurdity, as recieved by me. Perhaps you had better write more eloquently, more correctly, and with more factual data or scientifically accepted common knowledge to support your point.

[MikeW781]

I speak from experience, but not with marijuana, or any other controlled subtance, or anything illegal. Happy? Don't get too curious.

I speak from knowledge of marijuana drug, and having read many papers on the effects thereof;

I insist that you don't put commas where they don't belong;

and I speak with reason, my preceding post only outlining a basic, logical summation of the viewpoint you express, worded to emphasize its underlying absurdity, as recieved by me. Perhaps you had better write more eloquently, more correctly, and with more factual data or scientifically accepted common knowledge to support your point.

Marijuana IS a proven gateway drug. While taking marijuana itself may have a gateway effect, this is hotly debated and neither side has produced conclusive evidence. From personally observed data and common sense, I personally think marijuana does make you more likely do harder drugs from just the act of smoking it, as it does make people enjoy and appreciate the high, which can lead to harder drugs.

More importantly, the environment and life choices of somebody already taking illegal drugs increases their likelihood to abuse stronger drugs in the future. This has been proven by many studies, and is essentially undeniable.

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2003/218/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Gateway_drug_theory
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00280.x/abstract
http://web.archive.org/web/20080622204803/http://www.mpp.org/about/faq.html

These sources back up my points, i.e., that pot itself may be a gateway drug, and that the legal status and environment in acquiring pot make it definitely a gateway drug.


There you have it. Pot is a gateway drug, one way or another. It leads to harder drug use.

I hope this post will return the thread to a discussion on the facts, rather than small details and incorrect grammar from several users. While these issues are present, they should be ignored and the greater issue should be the focus of discussion.

[Deagonx]

Kudos to Mike, for actually bringing in citations, but these studies are just as valid as ones I could fine saying the exact opposite. Such as....

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/ - From the university of pittsburgh medical center
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/may/28/research_proves_marijuana_not_ga
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html


Now, honestly what I suspect "SmartyPants" to do is call my sources out on unreliable. And, until he can give me any information that is in favor of that, I just plain don't want to hear it.

Not only is it very rare for one to want to move on from marijuana to something stronger (because, quite frankly, you dont build up a resistance to the effect). It is even more unheard of for one to actually OBTAIN said things.

The strongest my brother has ever done is shrooms, and he had to contact someone 3 cities away to get that.


In conclusion: Marijuana very rarely ever leads to stronger drugs.

[ArtDrake]

I checked at the UPMC site, and I found no such article. However, I did find many articles about a range of topics, including schizophrenia being activated by marijuana use, marijuana causing infertility in men, marijuana harming babies in womb and once born, and an article on drug withdrawal, listing loss of appetite, chills, weight loss, insomnia, sleeping too much, irritability, and nervous tension as some of marijuana's withdrawal symptoms.

Your second and third sites are grossly biased as a source.

[SmartyPants]

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/ - From the university of pittsburgh medical center
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/may/28/research_proves_marijuana_not_ga
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html

Now, honestly what I suspect "SmartyPants" to do is call my sources out on unreliable.

You would be right.  The first website is a ".com", so it can't be trusted.  The next two websites are clearly biased, so they can't be trusted either.  It is like you citing the McDonalds website to prove fast food is healthy.

[ArtDrake]

Well, actually, the .com site is generally reliable, as it has no bias in the matter. It just happens to have cited an article that didn't come from UPMC. The article itself is bull.

[Deagonx]

Well, actually, the .com site is generally reliable, as it has no bias in the matter. It just happens to have cited an article that didn't come from UPMC. The article itself is bull.

The article was not written by UPMC. If you actually took the time to read it you might have understood that the article was based on a STUDY that was performed by the UPMC.


Im2Smart4U

Of the 4 links presenting marijuana is a gateway drug, one is a .com leading to a book about addiction, one is wikipedia, one didn't even identify marijuana as a gateway drug, rather it just stated that it MIGHT be a gateway drug. and the fourth one supported my case.

Here is what the fourth one said

"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs … There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect … Instead, the legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug."

The legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug. Legalize it, and that no longer applies.

Thank you Mike, for presenting more reason to legalize pot.

[ArtDrake]

I found no trace of the study either. I merely assumed, based on the fact that the article was somewhat well-written, that it a medical article.

As I said, .coms can be reliable, if they're authoritative and factually based. Wikipedia cites many sources, and is contantly combed over by moderators in search of uncited information.

Regarding the main case of whether to legalize marijuana drug or not, I insist that the health detrements alone are reason enough to keep it criminal.

[Deagonx]

Regarding the main case of whether to legalize marijuana drug or not, I insist that the health detrements alone are reason enough to keep it criminal.

WHAT health detriments.

[MikeW781]

Kudos to Mike, for actually bringing in citations, but these studies are just as valid as ones I could fine saying the exact opposite. Such as....

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/ - From the university of pittsburgh medical center
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/may/28/research_proves_marijuana_not_ga
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html


Now, honestly what I suspect "SmartyPants" to do is call my sources out on unreliable. And, until he can give me any information that is in favor of that, I just plain don't want to hear it.

Not only is it very rare for one to want to move on from marijuana to something stronger (because, quite frankly, you dont build up a resistance to the effect). It is even more unheard of for one to actually OBTAIN said things.

The strongest my brother has ever done is shrooms, and he had to contact someone 3 cities away to get that.


In conclusion: Marijuana very rarely ever leads to stronger drugs.

Thanks for appreciating my use of real sources......but um, you missed a lot of the point. I did say that marijuana inhalation itself is debated as being a gateway drug, but its environment and life choices of its users lead to more drugs. All you did was supply information supporting that the actual use leading to heavier drugs may or may not be valid.

[Deagonx]

All you did was supply information supporting that the actual use leading to heavier drugs may or may not be valid.

It is not valid. The only part of the marijuana plant that makes it a "gateway drug" is that it is illegal. Obtaining illegal substances introduces teens to the underground market. Make it legal, this just wont happen.