Study: Marijuana Does Not Lead to Hard Drugs

— 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.

That's a curious thing about MJ threads: not once was I able to keep a discussion focused on the issue at hand. People tend to do what you've done: broaden the topic first and bring up "are you for or against." Anything else is "loosing ground."

Well, friend, there is more to life than joints and fighting. IF you feel that I am loosing ground, please b my guest and take it all. But as far as I am concerned, (i) there was a specific research problem with the article, (ii) I pointed it out, (iii) that has been discussed, and (iv) the issue is closed.

I hope that when you "coreect the engineers" you too stay focused: otherwise they, a quite inventive bunch, may prevail.

Have a good day. Fly high!

Yeh... let's leave it at whatever you want, officer. Just don't pull my fingernails out.

As long as you stick to engineering or physics or debunking research methods or whatever it is a TopQuark does and quit dabbling in policy. You read like the Drug War's very own Robert MacNamara.

As I said in #242, you are quite an interesting bunch: can't discuss an issue at hand, can't leave it until pushing the opponent into the "for-or-against" corner, can't finish the conversation without insults.

And then you wonder why people worry about pot.

The issue at hand is whether pot is a gateway drug. The article which inspired this thread described research indicating it's not. From there the discussion flowed where it normally does on FR Drug Threads concerning marijuana---the issues surrounding legalization and decriminalization.
You questioned the article's research methods and some of the suppositions drawn from it, and then proceeded to opine that the laws making marijuana illegal should remain nonetheless since marijuana fell outside some magic circle of social acceptability. The only "for-or-against" I tried to play with you was a "yes or no" designed to get you to sharpen your "points," whatever they were.
You cowered from doing that, and now you're whining about it. Bravo.

Ah, the old victimless crime excuse. Like the Libertarians, let's lump in suicide, gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc. I suppose you support these "victimless crimes" also. Crimes with or without victims are still crimes.

Nevertheless, that was not the issue. See my post #169:

"My point was only to illustrate that petty criminals of all types can, and do, come in contact with more experienced criminals. I don't believe that the answer is to legalize the petty crime."

The post was not about the nature of the crime, just the criminal association.

Ah, the old "if you don't believe something should be outlawed, you must support it" excuse. From your list: pornography is not illegal, so that one's out the window, although I certainly agree with the majority of the regulations in place to contain it. I'd love to hear you explain how suicide is a crime, other than "because it's illegal", but that's a topic for another day. As for gambling and prostitution, I don't believe either should be regulated by the federal government, and that states should be free to deal with them as they wish, which is pretty much the system we currently have in place. It's quite a stretch to say that constitutes "support" of gambling and prostitution, but it's sadly a stretch the most virulent anti-libertarians around here frequently make.

As for the topic at hand - the fact is your "point" has no bearing on the original poster's theory, which was that not only is there no documented causation between marijuana use and later use or abuse of hard drugs, but that the current system frequently forces an unnatural connection between marijuana users and dealers of hard drugs. I understand the point you were attempting to make, but you did so by separating the two related issues of the original post, which was, at best, a case of "completely missing the point", and at worst, a deliberate attempt at confusing the issue.

My mistake -- I was in a hurry. I meant to say, "I suppose you support the legalization of these "victimless crimes" also. I did not mean to imply that you would support the activity, just the legalization of it.

My 7-11 example in post #151 was strictly a response to post #150 which stated:

" Conclusion: if you want to reduce the number of people for whom marijuana is a "gateway" drug, make it available so that it is not necessary for them to come into contact with the criminal element that leads to harder drugs."

I was just illustrating that other petty crimes put people in contact with criminals, too. I don't think the solution is to legalize the petty crime.

BTW, some pornography is illegal, and I don't see the LP making any distrinctions. But a point to ponder: Isn't viewing such pornography (pictures or movies) a victimless crime? Granted, making it is, but viewing? Do you see where this leads?

The truth is these victimless crimes have victims. They're just harder to see.

Thanks for the clarification, and thank you for handling this debate in a civilized manner - it's refreshing after dealing with the virulent anti-libertarians for so long.

Honestly, I'm not at all comfortable discussing the LP's views - I'm not a Big L, and only know enough about their platform to know that, well, I'm not a Big L. But from a personal standpoint, as much as the thought of child and non-consensual (i.e. bestiality) pornography disgusts me, I don't believe it should be illegal to view. As far as I'm concerned, that type of pornography is illegal because the act of producing it creates a direct victim, not because of the product itself. I believe it should be illegal to produce and to purchase, but not to be in possession of. I know that seems like a dangerous loophole, but I'm just not comfortable with the government making laws based on "See where this could lead?" I just don't think that a convincing argument can be made for the illegality of most victimless crimes beyond "because it's illegal".

Good one. Alcohol is problematical, isn't it? But if you have a glance of wine with dinner or beer with pizza you are not trying to alter your perceptions. And you aren't in fact altering them usually with one or two drinks. You light a joint or your favorite pipe what are you hoping to do? It is different, at least on the face of it. Sure we both might have had one too many...
My crusade here is that we all (or maybe just me and mine) go to extraordinary efforts to stave off reality. Reality is terribly boring and sometimes awful, after all. But if we are to advance as a species and prosper then we best pay strict attention to what is. Mariajuana does affect your perceptions both short, and long, term. No question about it.

Alcohol is problematical, isn't it? But if you have a glance of wine with dinner or beer with pizza you are not trying to alter your perceptions. And you aren't in fact altering them usually with one or two drinks.

Ah, but you are, and you may not feel like you perceptions have been altered, but that is part of the effect of alcohol. It dulls your senses, including your ability to perceive your own impairment.

You light a joint or your favorite pipe what are you hoping to do? It is different, at least on the face of it.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. If you're intending to have another pitcher of beer after you finish the pizza, the the one you had with it is just part of the process. In some cultures marijuana is looked upon as something old people use to relieve the aches and pains of old age.

But if you have a glance of wine with dinner or beer with pizza you are not trying to alter your perceptions. And you aren't in fact altering them usually with one or two drinks.

Nonsense. That may make you feel better, but one beer really does affect you. Two beers about the same as a "bowl".

You light a joint or your favorite pipe what are you hoping to do?

The same thing.

Good one. Alcohol is problematical, isn't it?

The only problem is that there is no moral difference between the two and that makes your prohibitionist position untenable.

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.