Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Marijuana Does Not Lead to Hard Drugs
Reuters ^ | Dec. 2, 2002 | unknown

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: brownshirts; dudewheresmybong; dumembers; ganja; gatewaydrug; jackboots; jbtsonparade; lpvoters; maryjane; stoners; wackyweed; weedisnotnormal; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-254 next last
To: Renegade
Man created alcohol...

The way I heard it, God created alcohol so the Irish would not rule the world!

181 posted on 12/04/2002 9:35:10 AM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
It is my understanding that we cannot be fighting a war on things, whether they be drugs or guns, but on behaviors. In this case, it is drug abuse.

And in the scope of drug abuse, including alcohol and prescription drug abuse, does the cost of attempting to enforce and maintain a prohibition on marijuana have a proportional impact on that problem as a whole?

182 posted on 12/04/2002 9:40:07 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
does the cost of attempting to enforce and maintain a prohibition on marijuana have a proportional impact on that problem as a whole?

That is a poor criterion. Some battles are fought to the end. What's the proportional impact of Alamo?

183 posted on 12/04/2002 9:47:45 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
That is a poor criterion. Some battles are fought to the end. What's the proportional impact of Alamo?

Why is it a poor criterion? Yes, some battles are fought to the end, if they are deemed worthy. What was the criterion under which this particular battle was engaged to start with? The Alamo wasn't fought over white women having sex with jazz musicians.

184 posted on 12/04/2002 10:09:21 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"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."

The environmentalists are a good example! Like the proponents of legalizing drugs, environmentalists don't let the truth stand in their way when it comes to these so-called "studies." One common line of thought between the pro-drug movement, and environmentalists is that the end justifies the means!

185 posted on 12/04/2002 10:17:49 AM PST by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Exactly. This is a question of values, that's all. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. People who argue for war against drugs do so because of their values, just like those who advocate legalization. Expense is not the issue.
186 posted on 12/04/2002 10:19:20 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
The environmentalists are a good example! Like the proponents of legalizing drugs, environmentalists don't let the truth stand in their way when it comes to these so-called "studies." One common line of thought between the pro-drug movement, and environmentalists is that the end justifies the means!

Nice try, but nobody is going to buy it. Your "methodology be damned" attitude puts you in the company of the end-justifies-the-means zealots.

187 posted on 12/04/2002 10:22:00 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Right back at ya! Apparently, that point went over your head, so I'll try to explain it so that even YOU can understand! I was trying to make the point that a political agenda can influence the results of these "studies," and they should be taken with a grain of salt.
188 posted on 12/04/2002 10:25:21 AM PST by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
I was trying to make the point that a political agenda can influence the results of these "studies," and they should be taken with a grain of salt.

What then, exactly, is the RAND Corporation's political agenda? In the study itself, the researchers were careful to state that they neither supported nor opposed laws criminalizing marijuana.

189 posted on 12/04/2002 10:29:47 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Exactly. This is a question of values, that's all. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. People who argue for war against drugs do so because of their values, just like those who advocate legalization. Expense is not the issue.

Then why do those who argue for a war on drugs not argue for that war to extend to alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco? If it is indeed a war on drug abuse, then where are the calls to incarcerate those who abuse alcohol in combination with prescription drugs (by the goverment's figures, that includes about 1 in 6 Americans over the age of 60)?

190 posted on 12/04/2002 10:41:55 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
I was trying to make the point that a political agenda can influence the results of these "studies," and they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Taken with a grain of salt is one thing. Dismissed outright as meaningless is quite another.

191 posted on 12/04/2002 10:46:24 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Exactly. This is a question of values, that's all. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. People who argue for war against drugs do so because of their values, just like those who advocate legalization. Expense is not the issue.

This is a war on drug abuse. Proportionality has nothing to do with it, and expense is not an issue. It is a question of values - you are either for it or against it.

There are a whole bunch of wealthy, well connected people down at the Betty Ford Clinic being treated for alcohol and prescription drug addiction. By your reconing, either all of these people need to be locked up for drug abuse, or their doctors do for fraud for treating them for a non-existing condition. Which is it?

192 posted on 12/04/2002 11:29:26 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Taken with a grain of salt is one thing. Dismissed outright as meaningless is quite another."

I call 'em like I see 'em!

193 posted on 12/04/2002 11:41:21 AM PST by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
I call 'em like I see 'em!

We all do. Some of us just like to look before we decide what we're seeing.

194 posted on 12/04/2002 11:45:11 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Which is it? It's something else altogether.

Human society consists of frail people who aspire to soemthing beyond them but fail. Some vice are unavoidably accepted as a result. The question is where to draw the circle. Alcohol is already within that circle, so with regard to it the question is of expulsion beyond the pale rather than status quo maintanace, which is what the war in drugs is trying to achive. These two tasks are widely different thus.

What you gave is a favorite among many non-example. The prescription drugs are not only within the circle by happenstance but by choice since they play a positive role. Some people will abuse them, as well as anything else, but that's another story altogether. MJ, in contrast, has no positive value other than some substitutable limit use in some cases. Legalization advocates do not suggest even that --- to make it a prescription drug. THis is a non-example.

195 posted on 12/04/2002 11:48:50 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I have addressed that in the previous post: the question of where to draw the circle and that of the status quo.
196 posted on 12/04/2002 11:54:15 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
The question is where to draw the circle.

And you will do this how, exactly, without any sense of proportionality, or any reference as to expense - either monetary or societal?

197 posted on 12/04/2002 11:57:19 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
I think pot and harder drugs is relatively easy to prove as association but not causation.

How many on this forum who admit to smoking dope have also used other drugs?

I don't think pot causes hard drug use but it happens to be a usual first choice......but one could also make that claim about beer.

When I was growing up 30 years ago, I would submit that at least half of the kids I knew like myself who started out dope smoking (after beer) did indeed try other drugs. But, very few became junkies....and one must remember this was back when cocaine (which I disliked immediately Thank G-d) was considered benign.
198 posted on 12/04/2002 12:07:52 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Human society consists of frail people who aspire to soemthing beyond them but fail. Some vice are unavoidably accepted as a result. The question is where to draw the circle.

Wrong---the question really is who are you to draw that circle, and by what authority do you draw it? Seems to me a bunch of pretty enlightened folks got together in the 18th century and crafted a few documents to answer both questions, and in our zeal to engineer a "perfect" society we forgot some of the most basic lessons they tried to teach us, chief among them the notion of limited government.

199 posted on 12/04/2002 12:41:51 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Wrong---the question really is who are you to draw that circle, and by what authority do you draw it?

AS I said, we continue to have a disconnect: you keep putting word in my mouth, and it gets a little tiring to keep pointing that out.

200 posted on 12/04/2002 12:59:35 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-254 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson