Chewy Spree gets me every time.
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.
I would say that pot smokers cover the entire political spectrum. I also suspect, from my experience with pot smokers, conservatives and liberals the liberals are more apt to admit their pot use while it is always a surprise when I find out who the conservative pot smokers are.
The conservative pot smokers are more of a 'keep it to themselves' type of crowd.
The study just says that people who are going to use hard drugs are going to use hard drugs wether MJ is the first drug they come across or not.
That is the point you missed in my post: the author, extrapolating his work without a proper basis, says so. There is nothing in the study that even addresses the issue.
Wow, from an opinion on how to deal with a social problem you have deduced the lack of love for this country?
You should ease up on that Glenlivette.
This report sounds about correct. to me.
My belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is predicated largely on my own anecdotal experience and astrophysical data that I've never observed and am merely taking on faith from others.
Also anecdotally: my Dad made the same observations in the 60s that I did in the 90s. As a result, he hammered home early and often that potsmoking was an unacceptable activity and would be physically sanctioned. At first I never indulged out of fear, then out of filial piety. Then I noticed my Dad's experience was confirmed by my own.
I'll teach my kids the same way - it's called horse sense. Other people are free to raise their kids according to the results of surveys. And my kids will probably have to pick up the tab for their state-funded rehab program.
We seem to know enough from the article, however: (i) to test the "gateway" hypothesis, a longitudinal study is required, since time is needed for the drug user to get through the "gateway;" (ii) the study has focused exclusively on teenagers, so it is safe to assume it was not longitudinal.
To say anything on the subject, either way, is therefore over-reaching. And, what is even more disturbing, you see a pattern of such over-reaching. Observe that from a study of one drug use, you cannot draw any policy conclusions. Drug use is sociology, chemistry, and the like. But policy is a managerial issue: one needs to know the costs, the priorities, available alternatives, etc. Thus, the author gets into the area beyond his qualification.
To see it more clearly, consider an analogy. Suppose an engineer makes a study of accuracy of a particular weapon, and then gets up and tells us that we should reduce the use of this weapon by 30%. You would laugh, of course: accuracy of one weapon is one issue, but its role in the arsenal of the country depends on what alternative weapons are available; on the costs of production and not just the accuracy; etc. The use of the weapon depends also on the military doctrine, the strategies uses by teh generals --- something that the engineer knows nothing about and certainly have not addressed in his study.
Well, that's why you never hear such nonsense from engineers. But in social "sciences," it is somehow acceptable to do so: make a study of one ant and then make recommendations for the rest of the universe. That's what this author is doing.
Agreed
And that's the trick that WODdies use to keep the "gateway drug" myth rolling. Showing that the majority of cocaine users used marijuana first does absolutely nothing to show that marijuana is a gateway drug. The important statistic is the number of marijuana users who go on to harder drugs, and it's a completely different stat. The reason WOD proponents never use THOSE statistics is that the numbers never come out in their favor in independent studies, as this one shows. Much easier to use semantics and misdirection to "prove" a point.
Hey, you should be thankful for Keith...If it wasn't for him, there would be a hell of a lot more drugs on the streets...
;)
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.