Posted on 07/21/2006 5:34:00 AM PDT by Wolfie
Gateway to Nowhere?
The evidence that pot doesn't lead to heroin.
Earlier this month, professor Yasmin Hurd of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine released a study showing that rats exposed to the main ingredient in marijuana during their adolescence showed a greater sensitivity to heroin as adults. The wire lit up with articles announcing confirmation for the "gateway theory"—the claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs.
It's a theory that has long seemed to make intuitive sense, but remained unproven. The federal government's last National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted in 2004, counted about 97 million Americans who have tried marijuana, compared to 3 million who have tried heroin (166,000 had used it in the previous month). That's not much of a rush through the gateway. And a number of studies have demonstrated that your chances of becoming an addict are higher if addiction runs in your family, or if heroin is readily available in your community, or if you're a risk-taker. These factors can account for the total number of heroin addicts, which could make the gateway theory superfluous.
On close inspection, Hurd's research, published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, doesn't show otherwise. For the most part, it's a blow to the gateway theory. To be sure, Hurd found that rats who got high on pot as adolescents used more heroin once they were addicted. But she found no evidence that they were more likely to become addicted than the rats in the control group who'd never been exposed to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, marijuana's main ingredient.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
But what if fatty foods were already banned for some other reason? Wouldn't the correlation to colon cancer be yet another reason to keep fatty foods banned?
Isn't that what we're talking about with marijuana?
"But I would never make a factual claim that adultery destroys marriages without collecting some evidence, defining my terms, and examining some alternative explanations. And, no, I would never just utter a certainty, as you have done, on the basis of "common sense."
But if I approached you and asked you if we should vote nationwide to allow adultery and remove the social stigma associated with it, wouldn't "common sense" be enough for you to say no? Would you need a study before you could respond to that question?
how do the rats hold the joints with their little paws?
It is one mitigating factor out of many, in my opinion.
Allow me to answer that. This country was founded on rugged individualism. I know that I personally would never, ever try heroin. Therefore, if people are weaker than me, screw 'em. My liberty should not be diminished because of those weaker than myself.
I know you oppose legal gambling too, but the same principle applies.I am able to play poker once a week for a moderate amount of money. I would hate for that to become illegal simply because there are jackasses out there who bet their house away.
I'll consider taking up the question if you promise to swear off lecturing everyone else on submitting pie-in-the-sky hypotheses.
So you believe we can mitigate the gateway effect of drugs by legalization.
Another cheap shot from someone scared to death of an actual consistent philosophy of life.
I have met hundreds, perhaps thousands, but I have yet to meet anyone who has used heroin.
Yes, he did. Now, what else did he say in that same interview? Oh yeah.
"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
What I oppose are those who say gambling is a constitutional right and must be legal. I believe gambling should be left up to each state to decide how much and what type of gambling they are willing to support.
As to my personal opinion, well, that's neither relevant nor important.
Some people have a predisposition to want to use psycoactive drugs. Carrots and milk aren't, so I don't buy and have never made that argument.
That, in THAT sense, pot makes you more likely to want to try harder drugs?
Why would it? If someone tried pot looking for whatever it was they were after, and then went on to other drugs, then the pot wasn't what they were looking for.
I'll withdraw that question in favor of the other. If Substance A was legal, are you saying we'd see no change whatsoever in the use of Substance B?
You mean legalizing some drugs.
Believe it or not, some people out there do obey the law. Legalizing recreational drug A would mitigate the gateway effect to illegal recreational drug B.
But, legalizing recreational drug A would increase the number of users of drug A, and some of them would go on to drug B despite its illegality.
So, it's hard to say how legalization would impact the overall "gateway effect".
Moreover, a referendum such as the one you propose cannot removed a "social stigma." In this country, it is legal to be a practicing homosexual. It is "allowed." Has the social stigma disappeared? It depends on where you live. Likewise, it is legal to be married to a person of another race - but there may still be social stigmas associated with it. Stigmas cannot be removed by fiat - only by practice and acceptance. That is why different regions will have different cultures and societies.
As far as to whether my "common sense" - by which you, I think, mean my own personal inclination - would want me to preclude even a vote on such an issue - why would I do that? Because I would be afraid that the consensus would differ from my own opinion? If I can't support my position with facts and reasoning that will win over my opponent, then perhaps my position isn't a legal issue at all. Moral or ethical - but not an issue of law. I can't advocate forbidding debate, or even a referendum, on a topic because I fear the majority may not agree with me.
As for the reverse - outlawing adultery - I would never do so simply on the basis of "common sense." I would need some evidence before I enforce my own personal belief on all of my fellow citizens as a secular law. That is what a civil society is about - that we reach a consensus and base our laws on that consensus and the Constitution.
As far as the "well it's already banned" argument against marijuana .... what was the original reason that it was banned in 1934? If the debate regarding its outright abolition ever comes up again, perhaps we can review the original reasons that it was criminalized, as well as any additional information about it.
I agree with him. The Libertarian Party has completely perverted the term. Much like the Republican Party.
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.
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?
So you admit that the "gateway effect" that you hypothesize is correlated to the legality of the "gateway drug". Interesting.
But, legalizing recreational drug A would increase the number of users of drug A, and some of them would go on to drug B despite its illegality.
But if the "gateway effect" is mitigated, it will be at a lower rate than currently and thus increased use of drug A might not cause increased use of drug B, and may in fact lower it?
So your call for marijuana remaining illegal may result in more people addicted to heroin.
No, I'm saying that we'd see no change in the pre-disposition to use Substance B. If whatever is causing the pre-disposition to want to use Substance A also causes a pre-disposition to use Substance B, legalizing or criminalizing Substance A is not going to change whatever is causing the pre-disposition.
For those users, if the illegality of drug B is not a deterrent, then criminalizing drug A won't keep them from using it either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.