[wideawake]

Every pot smoker I knew in college and the post-college years experimented with harder drugs. Everyone I've ever met who had a problem with hard drugs was also a potsmoker.

Conversely, I and the other nonpotsmokers I know haven't had any experience, let alone difficulties, with hard drugs.

Reality check - how many people do you know who have made this statement: "I'll do smack and blow, but I'll never touch that demon weed!"

[SunStar]

Every pot smoker I knew in college and the post-college years experimented with harder drugs. Everyone I've ever met who had a problem with hard drugs was also a potsmoker.

Your statement is not one of fact or evidence.

[BrooklynGOP]

Every pot smoker I knew in college and the post-college years experimented with harder drugs. Everyone I've ever met who had a problem with hard drugs was also a potsmoker.

Everyone I've ever met who did hard drugs/weed was a drinker! Alcohol is the getaway drug.

[Phantom Lord]

Virtually every person I know who does or has done "hard drugs" also smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, drank milk, ate bread, read meat, vegetables, and breathed oxygen.

[Ronin]

I did a lot of pot 20-30 years ago during my teens and early 20s, but never touched anything harder. And, yes, I know a lot of people that can say the same. I haven't touched anything harder than scotch in more years than I can remember.

Like it or not, marijuana is a lot less destructive in virtually every way than alcohol. Yet no one is seriously considering prohibition again.

They do make a good point. Money and resources spent chasing kids with a few home-grown buds in their apartment could be much better spent on the serious problems facing America -- like the war on terror, for instance.

There is no need to keep persuing a phony and unwinnable drug war, that does nothing but turn hardworking, taxpaying Americans into criminals, when we have a genuine enemy that needs to be confronted.

[galt-jw]

every one who tries to define reality from anecdotal experience or the collective is being intellectually invalid.

[southern rock]

Every pot smoker I knew in college and the post-college years experimented with harder drugs. Everyone I've ever met who had a problem with hard drugs was also a potsmoker.

Let's say what you say is true. Who cares? The legality of one substance cannot be based upon the possibility that those who consume it may consume something else. And whose business is it if they do anyway?

[HumanaeVitae]

I did my undergraduate degrees at a small midwestern Jesuit college. One dorm room over from mine was a cabal of full-time weed-smokers. They'd pop over occasionally to bum smokes and munchies.

One day two of them came over and matter-of-factly told us they were going out to score some crack. Crack. They'd never tried it and wanted to see what it was like. One guy said "I can't wait to try that sh!t!". My roommate and I blew it off; they were Pikes (Pi Kappa Alpha) i.e. little rich brats with too much money and time on their hands. Not much of a loss to society.

Years later another little preppy rich girl that I went to high school with in the late '80s got gunned down in a drug deal gone bad in a pretty bad part of my hometown. She was buying crack as well. And yes, she was a big dopehead in high school.

[Texaggie79]

I know MANY potsmokers, as I used to be a pothead. Most, never went beyond pot and shrooms.

Now, for you potsmokers you knew who went on to harder drugs, did they use alcohol before they did pot? Why not ban that? Or what about cigarettes before alcohol? Ban that too? What about candy cigarettes? where does it stop?

[A CA Guy]

I agree with you.

But they got to have their stuff, so I expect you were flamed after this comment.

[Bush2000]

Reality check - how many people do you know who have made this statement: "I'll do smack and blow, but I'll never touch that demon weed!"

LMFAO!!!!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I apologize if someone has already made this point, but aren't we missing something in the "gateway" theory here.

Let's start with a question: What is the biggest difference between alcohol and tobacco in comparison to marijuana?

Answer: The former are legal, the latter is illegal.

In order to acquire tobacco or alcohol, it is merely necessary to be of legal age (or know someone who is), purchase these items in a completely legal manner and then consume them.

To acquire marijuana, it is first necessary to find someone who is involved in committing an illegal act. Thus, the market is comprised of criminals. Criminals tend to be individuals who are more reckless, daring (stupid) than average. Therefore these dealers, who are almost always users, are likely to be statistically more prone to know others who sell harder drugs, if they don't sell themselves. Thus, beginning a relationship with a dealer is the "gateway" to harder drugs. It is not the drug itself, it is the illegal act.

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.