Posted on 12/02/2002 2:42:58 PM PST by Sparta
— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Countering a basic principle of American anti-drug policies, an independent U.S. study concluded on Monday that marijuana use does not lead teenagers to experiment with hard drugs like heroin or cocaine.
The study by the private, nonprofit RAND Drug Policy Research Center rebutted the theory that marijuana acts as a so-called gateway drug to more harmful narcotics, a key argument against legalizing pot in the United States.
The researchers did not advocate easing restrictions in marijuana, but questioned the focus on this substance in drug control efforts.
Using data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse between 1982 and 1994, the study concluded teenagers who took hard drugs were predisposed to do so whether they tried marijuana first or not.
"Kids get their first opportunity to use marijuana years before they get their first exposure to hard drugs," said Andrew Morral, lead author of the RAND study.
"Marijuana is not a gateway drug. It's just the first thing kids often come across."
Morral said 50 percent of U.S. teenagers had access to marijuana by the age of 16, while the majority had no exposure to cocaine, heroin or hallucinogens until they were 20.
The study, published in the British journal Addiction, does not advocate legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, which has been linked to side-effects including short-term memory loss.
But given limited resources, Morral said the U.S. government should reconsider the prominence of marijuana in its much-publicized "war on drugs."
"To a certain extent we are diverting resources away from hard drug problems," he said. "Spending money on marijuana control may not be having downstream consequences on the use of hard drugs."
Researchers say predisposition to drug use has been linked to genetic factors and one's environment, including family dynamics and the availability of drugs in the neighborhood.
What you are referring to is not anecdotal. Anecdotal refers to anecdotes, that is, stories repeated by others. That the sun rises, water boils at 212 degrees, the wind blows, is the metaphysically absolute, and as such, is self evident.
All one needs do to verify it is use sensory perception.
You are confusing the metaphysically self evident with word of mouth stories.
A is A.
In biological terms, Richards is about 150 years old.
If the data has been manipulated, or the methodology is not sound, then yes, it is meaningless. OTOH, if the methodology is good, and the data is read objectively, the study is perfectly valid. Can you provide any reason to believe the study has been manipulated, other than that the results didn't turn out like you wanted?
The Shafer Report came to the same conclusion, and that research was commission by Nixon, and the members hand picked by him.
It doesn't matter who Nixon hand picked to do his study. Obviously they had their own agenda! Methodology be damned.
If I'm a petty thief and rob 7-11's, get caught and go to jail, I'll be forced to reside with other criminals. In prison, I'll learn that the real money can be found in banks, and I'll become a bank robber when I get out.
Now, if it were legal to rob 7-11's, I wouldn't be arrested and exposed to these criminals. Voila!
Maybe, maybe not. I asked what evidence you had to support the assertion that it has been manipulated, and you haven't provided any. My "agenda" is to have a rational public policy based on an objective analysis of the available data. What's yours?
It doesn't matter who Nixon hand picked to do his study. Obviously they had their own agenda! Methodology be damned.
On that basis, there is no reason to do any research at all. Why waste money on research if you've already decided what the results should be, and will not accept any evidence to the contrary? It works for the environmentalists.
A pointless example, being that the act of robbing a convenience store is in and of itself a crime with a direct victim. For this scenario to be in any way relevant to our discussion here, you'd have to prove that the act of an adult purchasing marijuana from another adult and consuming it in private is, in and of itself, a crime with an obvious, direct victim. The government hasn't had any luck trying to "prove" that for the past fifty years or so, so I'd imagine you won't fare much better.
"Obviously" by what standard? Because the results didn't match up with your predetermined conclusion? Are you honestly stating that each of the dozens of independent studies that have determined no causal relationship between marijuana use and hard drug use "had their own agenda", and that only those that come to your personal conclusion are valid? Who has the agenda again?
As for the policy implications, suppose that the authirs are correct, the gateway effect is not a cause. They established, then, that MJ use is a great detector of the subsequent use of harder drugs. So, why not continue preventing it so that a person caught does NOT graduate to harder drugs?
Because policy-wise, you answered your own question. If this study's legitimate, people who use hard drugs are predisposed to do so. Marijuana plays no role in it. By busting pot smokers, you're not going to cut down the number of people who "graduate" on to harder drugs because none do. You're only going to bust people who smoke pot.Therefore, when making policy, you must consider pot alone: does pot pose such a societal threat that people who grow it and smoke it should be thrown in prison? Is government intervention really warranted here---especially if our goal, as conservatives, is less governmental intrusion in the daily lives of American citizens?
Thus far there has been very little success in actually preventing the use of MJ. Only in sanctioning the small percentage who are actually caught.
Most of them, as far as I know, go through revolving doors.
We fight war on drugs just like we fought in Vietnam. The opponents conclude, erroneously, that thes wars should not have been started.
If this study's legitimate, people who use hard drugs are predisposed to do so. Marijuana plays no role in it.
No, not true: if you bust MJ smokers, you are going to get those who will graduate to harder drugs as well and possibly prevent that from happenning.
You are also going to bust people who would not have progressed to harder drugs. But nobody said that that is the sole reason for butsting them 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.