Marijuana columnist goes on trial on charges of illegally growing pot (DOH! alert)

Yahoo News ^ | 1/21/03 | DAVID KRAVETS

[robertpaulsen]

What's your understanding of the "gateway" argument?

a) There's some chemical in marijuana which causes the smoker to go on to harder illegal drugs,
b) Marijuana smokers become dissatisfied with the "high" and desire a more powerful illegal drug,
c) Illegal drug users, generally speaking, start with less powerful drugs like marijuana then work their way up,
d) With some people, smoking marijuana leads to harder illegal drug usage, but we don't know why,
e) Smoking marijuana may lead to harder illegal drugs, but only if combined with other, as yet unidentified, factors,
f) Users of illegal hard drugs like those drugs. Marijuana was a step but not a factor,
f) No drug 'leads to' another drug, period.

[MrLeRoy]

I agree with the last two. The research I linked to indicates that marijuana use and later hard drug use have the same root cause.

[robertpaulsen]

"However, even a theoretical complete absence of soft drugs would result only in a one-third cut in the prevalence of ecstasy and cocaine."

From your post. How do you explain this?

[bassmaner]

So this is what... 5% of all arrests?

Are you actually denying that 5% is a significant number of arrests? Put a price tag on the taxpayer-funded costs of all those busts -- it adds up to billions. And how do we all benefit? There's still plenty of weed to be had for the tens of millions of Americans that desire it, yet there exists a possibility that arbitrary and capricious enforcement of MJ prohibition law will ruin the lives of hundreds of thousand of otherwise law-abiding Americans. That's what's wrong, and that's what I and many others who post on FR want to see ended.

[philosofy123]

There are lots of professionals who use marijuana regularly, and are able to be perfectly productive members of this society. As a matter of fact, people who use alcoholic beverages routinely are less in control then people who are using marijuana.

[MrLeRoy]

More text: "there is a small, but possibly significant, link between soft drug use and use of ecstasy and cocaine. However, even a theoretical complete absence of soft drugs would result only in a one-third cut in the prevalence of ecstasy and cocaine."

Given that the correlation is only "possibly" significant, the words "a one-third cut" should have been preceded by "at most". I'm guessing the correlation is not significant---why would marijuana be a gateway to cocaine but not, say, amphetamines?

[robertpaulsen]

"why would marijuana be a gateway to cocaine but not, say, amphetamines?"

Don't know. But even if we go with "at most" one-third, to me that's more than "possible" significance.

A 2-5% reduction is a possible link; up to a 33% reduction is something that would have the DEA dancing in the streets.

[MrLeRoy]

up to a 33% reduction is something that would have the DEA dancing in the streets.

The 33% reduction is predicated on COMPLETE elimination of marijuana. To believe that's going to happen, you'd have to be taking something much stronger than any of those three drugs.

[robertpaulsen]

My point is:
1) If marijuana didn't exist, ecstasy and cocaine use would drop,
2) It would drop by 33%,
3) A 33% drop in any drug use would have the DEA dancing in the streets,
4) They're dancing because a 33% drop is definitely significant, not possibly significant,
5) IMO, this is the definition of a "gateway" drug.

[That Subliminal Kid]

You're such an idiot. Sorry, but this is a website for political discussion, not sharing cultivation information. And to your claim that I'm a "woddie", I've grown multiple pounds of marijuana in my living room, and taken more drugs than you've ever heard of. Today of course, I am clean and oppose all drug use. So take your idiotic presumptions and shove them fool.

[That Subliminal Kid]

And the point of this would be? Look, all of you dopers are the same. You try to let it be known that you smoke pot as often as you possibly can, because it's a staple of your shallow personality. It's like a tattoo, a piercing, or a fringe political philosophy. It's something you're proud of, and you think it defines who you are. You imagine that smoking pot carries with it some kind of aura, or mystique and it's an image you want to cleave to and make use of. In short, you're a boring profile of the average doper. You're probably a college kid, a white boy, grew up in the suburbs, floating by on mommy and daddy's money- the profile is all to familiar. So if you think that flaunting your own stupidity (ie drug use) is bothering me or anyone else, you've got another thing coming. I just care about FR and do not want it getting caught up in legal issues because you're too stoned to realize what you're doing. Don't bother to reply, I know I won't. Bye kid.

[Stew Padasso]

[Ken H]

I've grown multiple pounds of marijuana in my living room.

What legal sanction would you recommend for someone caught growing multiple pounds of marijuana in their home today?

[Ken H]

The gateway theory is unproven junk science, just like the EPA global warming report.

[That Subliminal Kid]

LOL! Wow you're a king idiot. You've paid MONEY for that crap. Hint: Niacin. It costs a few dollars over the counter at wal-mart. You'd know that if your synapses weren't so clogged with bong resin.

[Stew Padasso]

[Stew Padasso]

"Don't bother to reply, I know I won't."

*****.

[Stew Padasso]