Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It — Marijuana Not A Gateway Drug After All
	found on UPI written by ksu93, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 3 Dec 2:59pm
		"Conventional wisdom for many years has been that, however innocuous marijuana use might be in and of itself, outlawing the wacky weed is still good policy because it is a so-called 'gateway' to other, undeniably harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroine," ksu93 writes. "Long discredited by casual pot smokers around the world, the gateway theory is now being challenged by a more mainstream organization. A mathematical model developed by the think tank RAND Corporation of Arlington, Va., challenges the long-held belief that marijuana should be illegal because it leads to heroin and cocaine abuse. Policymakers often cite this as a rationale for keeping the drug illegal even for medicinal uses.

	The model, which simulated adolescent drug use in the United States, found chance rather than marijuana use is a better explanation for why kids might go on to use harder drugs, Andrew Morral, associate director of RAND's Public Safety and Justice Unit and lead author of the study, told United Press International. "Although the Rand report stops short of endorsing the legalization of marijuana, it will no doubt lend some credibility to groups around the country who seek to revise current drug laws. But don't look for the federal government to change its current approach to marijuana anytime soon. For now there does not appear to be any sign that harsh drug laws are on anyone's short list of legislation in need of revisions."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 85 commentsmost: 18 commentsbest: 6 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  it's about damn time...   by StofCircumstance       at Tue 3 Dec 3:13pm score of 2.5 interesting     As a fifth-grader, I was told marijuana was a gateway drug. As a freshman in highschool, I tried marijuana a few times. I found it pleasant, and used it occasionally throughout high school. As a freshman in college, I got high all the time. (Probably too often, as my early grades tend to reflect...) However, neither myself nor any of my friends EVER got into heroin, crack, or whatever. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, especially not to those chemical devils. If anything, marijuana leads people to try other natural substances with psychotropic properties. Psylocibe mushrooms, peyote, etc. These drugs may, in fact, cause people to use the more dangerous synthetically produced drugs, but I do not believe marijuana is responsible for that. It was presented to me in a DARE meeting that marijuana "does not actually lead to the use of other drugs. It makes a user think that, because they can "handle" marijuana, he can handle something heavier, like cocaine." Clearly, you had to be eleven to believe that load of bullshit. Marijuana may contain carcinogens, and it may impair short-term memory. Marijuana certainly impairs motor skills. However, no casual user would assert that marijuana led them to do other drugs. Most "habitual" users would agree. Drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. come into your life because someone offers it to you, not because smoking a bowl makes you feel invincible. Smoking a bowl makes you giggly and crave White Castle; not cranky and in need of a fix. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: it's about damn time...   by UdoKeir       at Tue 3 Dec 4:07pm score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 1     Drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. come into your life because someone offers it to you One could argue that your dealer would be such a person. "Here, try some of this stuff, it'll really make you happy." Of course, that makes a very good argument for legalisation. If you buy it from government approved retailers instead of lowlifes, maybe they won't offer you anything stronger.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: it's about damn time...   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 4 Dec 3:24pm score of 0.5   in reply to comment 1     neither myself nor any of my friends EVER got into heroin, crack, or whatever. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, especially not to those chemical devils. If anything, marijuana leads people to try other natural substances with psychotropic properties. Psylocibe mushrooms, peyote, etc. These drugs may, in fact, cause people to use the more dangerous synthetically produced drugs, but I do not believe marijuana is responsible for that. Then it IS a gateway drug, as you pointed out, and because people who use it think that whatever is natural is OK.. Naturalistic Fallacy. Heroin and crack are also natural, and they are much safer than "Psylocibe mushrooms, peyote, etc." because they have no medical consequence, other than contaminants and the lifestyle associated with addiction. Most hallucinogens are not addictive, but hallucinogens are seriously unpredictable, and people can go psychotic and have lasting flashbacks from one single exposure. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, and over 1% report persisting and recurring flashbacks and depersonalization.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  marijuana flashbacks?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 4 Dec 3:39pm score of 0.5 clever   in reply to comment 37     Maybe you should bother to read your own link, dumbass. The article goes out of it's way to discredit the idea of marijuana flashbacks, pointing out that the "marijuana flashbacks" reported may have only been the result of survey respondants with pre-existing schizophrenic tendencies - or that had also used LSD.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: it's about damn time...   by Mad Ogger       at Wed 4 Dec 6:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     And your point is...? Do you claim that shrooms are even close to being as dangerous as crack? I can't slap a named fallacy on it but that's just plain wrong. "Marijuana is a hallucinogen." Huh? "Hallucinogen" is a misnomer anyway but putting weed and LSD in the same category is just bizarre. Might as well just call everything from chocolate to fentanyl "drugz", as in "Drugz r bad cuz the DARE person said so and I am really into skateboarding so I will not do drugs (until 4 years from now when I will become a pothead)." Do you really think flashbacks and depersonalization disorder are the main risks of smoking pot? (Hint: it's not lung cancer either.) If so, I'm forced to conclude you got all your information from DARE brochures.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: it's about damn time...   by n29_w95       at Wed 4 Dec 6:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Heroin and crack are also natural, and they are much safer than "Psylocibe mushrooms, peyote, etc." because they have no medical consequence, other than contaminants and the lifestyle associated with addiction...' '...Marijuana is a hallucinogen, and over 1% report persisting and recurring flashbacks and depersonalization.' You really have no earthly idea what you're talking about, do you? As it's clear that you're completely un/misinformed on the subject of drugs, and yet you still speak with the snotty tone of a self-appointed "expert" - I must ask: Do you work for the ONDCP? ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: it's about damn time...   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 4 Dec 6:51pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 37     "Marijuana is a hallucinogen, and over 1% report persisting and recurring flashbacks and depersonalization." One percent of the respondents were clearly on something other than weed. The only thing that weed made me hallucinate about was to make it seem as if my first wife was a decent cook. You know you'll eat just about anything when you get him with the munchies. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by marduk_kur       at Tue 3 Dec 3:16pm score of 2.5 astute     Conventional wisdom for many years has been that, however innocuous marijuana use might be in and of itself, outlawing the wacky weed is still good policy because it is a so-called 'gateway' to other, undeniably harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroine. I don't think any serious person has believed that since at least the late '70s. It seems like this 'discovery' is made by some research or policy group about once a month. Which made it all the more incredible that our rabidly anti-pot Drug Czar pushed such a stance in his recent Anti-Legalization whistlestop tour of Arizona and Nevada. Frankly it's very difficult to understand the basis for the continued criminalization of weed. But then again the criminalization of marijuana never made any sense, and it has always run counter to medical evidence and good public policy. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by semonyenko       at Tue 3 Dec 4:38pm score of 4 informative   in reply to comment 2     the criminalization of marijuana never made any sense, and it has always run counter to medical evidence and good public policy. If you want to know just how asinine criminalization is, read here about the history of how pot became illegal. It's more absurd than you can imagine. Why is it still illegal? Here's a good summary (link): "Weyerhaeuser and Hearst don't want it legal. There'd go the value of their forest interests (U.S. Gov't. studies confirm that hemp produces over four times as much paper per acre as trees). Standard Oil doesn't want it legal. Monsanto doesn't. Eli Lilly and Upjohn don't. The dealers don't, and neither do most law-enforcement and other tax-funded agencies. And the politicians don't. In every case -- whether from ignorance, malice, self-interest, or misguided good intentions -- the status quo serves those who oppose re-legalization." Yep, that's right - pot is illegal to defend the economic interests of large corporations and other interested parties. Until these organizations can find a way to make a profit from it (or, in the case of drug dealers, find a replacement), it will remain illegal. La plus ca change, la plus la meme chose. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by captainebo       at Tue 3 Dec 5:38pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 9     Yep, that's right - pot is illegal to defend the economic interests of large corporations and other interested parties On the other hand, Philip Morris could make a killing selling Marlboro Extra Greens at $50 a pack. Seems like the Republicans have a divided interest here. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by b1z0t       at Wed 4 Dec 2:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     regarding the link to "the history of how pot became illegal" - i just love any serious essay whose thesis statement is preceded by the phrase "...in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Dave's not here   by gordon shumway       at Wed 4 Dec 12:49am score of 1 incoherent   in reply to comment 13     I think that despite changing attitudes toward marijuana, it is going to be harder to get it legalized after the entire demonization of and assault on tobacco companies. How can the same people who have been trying to eradicate tobacco be taken seriously claiming some new smoked drug be made legal? Seems like liberals have a divided interest here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Dave's not here   by captainebo       at Wed 4 Dec 1:35am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 27     I'm not convinced, simply because the attacks against Big Tobacco have focused not on the harmful nature of the product, but on the attempts by industry insiders to hide this fact. It's legal to sell rat poison in this country too, but no one tries to convince you it's good for you. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Dave's not here   by toothgnip       at Wed 4 Dec 2:48pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 27     Tobacco is bad because it's extremely addictive and unhealthy. It's the combination of those two things that's important. Marijuana isn't nearly as addictive as tobacco. While it ain't great for your health, it's much easier to stop smoking it if you want to. goats: the comic strip   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by semonyenko       at Wed 4 Dec 2:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     If you read the intro, I think you'll find that it wasn't a 'serious essay,' per se, it was a transcript of a talk the author (a law professor) gave to a bunch of judges (i.e., professional colleagues). Hence the use of the familiar, second-person term "you guys." I fail to see how the out-of-context phrase you quote in any way invalidates the legitimacy of what was said. Am I missing your point altogether? Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Dave's not here   by semonyenko       at Wed 4 Dec 3:27pm score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 27     Why do you think that the people who want tobacco eradicated are the same ones who want pot legalized? Is it because you brand them all as "liberals", and believe that they all think exactly the same way about every issue? Carrying the stereotypes pretty far today, aren't we? Here's a clue: there's lots of diversity of opinion among those "liberals". Some think tobacco and pot should be illegal, some think both should be legal. Many object to tobacco not because of its health effects, but because the tobacco companies knowingly tried to make people addicts while denying there were any dangers. Many of those who want pot legalized are Libertarians, whom most people don't consider "liberal" at all. Believe it or not, there are even some regular conservatives who advocate making the stuff legal. So, I'm afraid your underlying theme that hypocritical "liberals" want tobacco made taboo but pot to be legal doesn't hold. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Dave's not here   by tomaxxamot       at Wed 4 Dec 3:31pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 27     How can the same people who have been trying to eradicate tobacco be taken seriously claiming some new smoked drug be made legal? Seems like liberals have a divided interest here. Except that "eradicate" is a bit of a strong word choice. I'm a pack a day smoker, and selfishly, I'm not happy about having to sit and fiend for five hours while I fly cross country either. Only the most ardent anti-smoking zealots are trying to outlaw cigarettes completely though. Smoking is being increasingly regulated, but I doubt it's ever going to be illegal. Were pot to be legalized, I'm sure it would be regulated even more heavily. The equivalent of open container laws would keep people from smoking pot in public. If it ever occurs at all, I doubt that pot legalization would extend to anything more than permitting adults over the age of twenty-one to sit in their living room and pass a joint back and forth. And lastly, how is legalization a "liberal" issue? It's part of both the Libertarian and Independence Party platforms, and you'd be stretching to describe either of those parties as being even remotely left of center. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  United Nations: Pot is a Gateway Drug   by sagthang       at Wed 4 Dec 2:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I don't think any serious person has believed that [it is a so-called 'gateway' to other, undeniably harmful drugs] since at least the late '70s. One would have hoped, but many influential people still believe the myth. I have a relative working at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , the international body setting most of the standards for drug-related legislation, and the official belief is still very much that cannabis is a gateway drug. Not only does my relative fervently believe this -- despite my arguments (and personal experience!) -- but documentation on the UN's ODC website would indicate that the term is used often and without question. The world will end very soon. Black, brittle bodies peeling into ash. - Mick Travis in "If"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by pyrrho       at Thu 5 Dec 12:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     the thing I find interesting is that it's RAND, a conservative think tank (named after Ayn, iirc). -pyrrho   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: Suprise! Oh wait, I mean: Unsuprise!   by manos       at Thu 5 Dec 12:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 70     Officially, RAND is an acronym standing for Research and Development. I've never heard that it was named after Ayn Rand, but it may be one of those cutesy acronyms picked because it spelled something somewhat relevent (a la the RICO laws, allegedly). Once again, I point the blame squarely at tight pants.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Why try anything else?   by Rawdog       at Tue 3 Dec 3:30pm score of 4.5 clever     Dude, I would have to, like, get up off the sofa to try other drugs....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  It's a start at least   by shadarr       at Tue 3 Dec 3:48pm score of 1     There is so much disinformation out there that it will take a lot of studies like this to really put this idiocy to bed, and even then some people will never be convinced. I remember arguing with my Law teacher in highschool about legalizing pot, and one of his arguments was that pot is physically addictive. The debate pretty much fell apart after that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  It is too a gateway!   by causeigothigh       at Tue 3 Dec 3:57pm score of 2.5 nuanced     Mary Jane is the gateway to your mind, baby. Just inhale and let it roll on in. It lifts the fog that industrial culture has installed in your brain and lets you really enjoy TV commericials the way the Creator intended. Before I smoked pot, I was a regular kid, bored, angry, frustrated. I did OK in school and I hated my parents. Since I started smoking a couple decades ago, I've made peace with my parents. I graduated High School and got two associates degrees. I'm a happily employed landscaper and horticulturist (and you know what they say "you can lead a whore to culture, and she'll probably accept payment in the form of homegrown purple haired kind bud). Marijuana has been my gateway to happiness. And shrooms.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  wrong gateway   by jim v.       at Tue 3 Dec 4:04pm score of 3.5 astute     experts have argued both sides of this debate for a long time. but marijuana isn't the gateway, its your friendly neighborhood dealer. think about it for a moment. to purchase your pot, you have to interact with the local dealer, who probably has some other products he'd like to sell you (and being a curious and impressionable young person, maybe you'll try them). if pot were available in legal and regulated businesses, you wouldn't have to deal with this character and access to more serious chemicals might not be so easy. legalization closes the gateway argument once and for all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by JDillinger       at Tue 3 Dec 4:23pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 6     to purchase your pot, you have to interact with the local dealer, who probably has some other products he'd like to sell you (and being a curious and impressionable young person, maybe you'll try them). if pot were available in legal and regulated businesses, you wouldn't have to deal with this character and access to more serious chemicals might not be so easy. A-ha! Bull, I say! Think about it... The corporate mentality is all about getting people to buy extra stuff. After tasting the profits of lucrative marijuana sales, I'm pretty sure that these drug companies will be all to eager to diversify their product base! And since the government is in the pocket of the pharmaceuticals industry, I predict that the leglization of cocaine, heroin, E would follow scant years after the legalization of marijuana! The drug companies would crave newer, harder drugs to shove upon an unsuspecting public! Marijuana truly is a gateway! Besides, drug dealers aren't any worse than legitimate businesses when it comes to the hard sell. Next time you go to Best Buy, count how many people try to sell you a service plan or 'subtly' hint that you should buy a more expensive model than the stereo you're eyeing. Now THOSE are the real pushers... -JD --- "Every letter started broken hearted/ And ended way too soon." - The Wrens ---   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by seijun002       at Tue 3 Dec 5:32pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     Surely your argument hinges not on the results of the study, but on the idea that the pharmaceutical industry would latch on to legal cannabis, control the market in an oligopolistic fashion, and has the power to change national drug policy by fiat AND make the use of hard-drugs attractive to the public. That's a lot of ifs. Cannabis is not patentable, is easily growable by any garden hobbyist, and there's very little processing involved (basically growing and curing), so there would be little "value-added" to the product. Going into the recreational cannabis business would scarcely be worth it to them, compared with their current practice of manufacturing a pill for a few cents and selling it for a few dollars.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by Mad Ogger       at Tue 3 Dec 6:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     I would be very surprised if pharmas started growing weed. It's not what they know. It's most similar to tobacco or raisins or something like that. Just as with those products, there is plenty of value to be added in the form of controlled quality. I have no idea what this discussion is about but I wanted to muse about corporate weed. For the record I don't think the pharmas or the paper companies are keeping weed illegal. It's voters who think legalizing it would lead to too many kids sitting getting high and watching TV all day or something. Studies like this one might change some minds, assuming that the gateway hypothesis is anyone's major concern, which I somewhat doubt. What I find more interesting is the NORML guy's claim that most people stop smoking weed once they get to be 25. That's true in my experience and I wonder why. Does it conflict with adult lifestyles? Stop working? What, exactly?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by JDillinger       at Tue 3 Dec 9:22pm score of 3 brilliant   in reply to comment 12     My last comment was written tongue in cheek, but I think I could argue a bit. Cannabis... is easily growable by any garden hobbyist Anyone with seeds and some dirt can grow tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, etc. Anyone who can wield a hammer could make a chair or a table. So then, why do these people still go to the store to buy things that they could easily make? I'm guessing that the main reason is convenience. There is a vastly larger number of people buying cigarettes than growing tobacco (and I'm guessing that most of these cigarettes come from Altria). I don't know what what kind of climate to grow pot in. How much water does it need? How much sunlight? Miracle-Gro? How many buds can be harvested from one plant? I don't know the answers, and I'm guessing that most pot smokers don't know either. The people that DO know are probably the people that already have small pot-farms in their basement. You can't overestimate the laziness of some people. Also, corporate pot farms(and now that I think about it, the agriculture industry is a more likely candidate than the pharmaceutical companies)will have the same advantages over budding bud growers that corporate produce farms have over local farmers. They can produce in bulk. The fact that there's very little processing involved in pot would help a corporation out just as it would help some random stoner. Easy to produce, easy to process, sell in bulk. Pass the savings on to the consumer! I can see massive Sam's Club bags of hash right now... Also, remember that huge corporate farms get subsidies straight from the government. Even if they don't sell an ungodly amount of pot, the government's money is too good to pass up. Strike 2 for the friendly local pot dealer. Also corporations are assumed to have higher quality control standards than Timmy from down the street. When my friends buy pot, they always make sure to weigh the stuff before smoking to make sure that it wasn't cut with anything (though, granted, they'd probably smoke it no matter what weight it turned out to be). Granted, shady dealings in the pot market would probably sink with the War on Drugs bullshit, but just the stigma attached to the random dealer would drive some individuals to use the now-available officially-sanctioned weed. It's all about the safety, man. Also, corporations would have the advantage of mass marketing. Frankly, I don't know where any of the pot dealers in my town live. They don't have commercials. I know that the main reason is because it's still illegal, but even if it's legalized, how many of them are gonna have the cash to buy a TV spot or even newspaper ad? The right corporate mentality can turn any product into gold. Or maybe I'm completely wrong. Whatever. *deep inhale* -JD --- "Every letter started broken hearted/ And ended way too soon." - The Wrens ---   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by JDillinger       at Tue 3 Dec 9:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     . For the record I don't think the pharmas or the paper companies are keeping weed illegal. Oh, I agree there. I just think that IF pot is ever legalized, the agriculture industry would not be adverse to adding it to their catalog (now that I think about it, the agriculture industry would be much more likely to grow pot than pharmaceutical companies). This is all very very hypothetical, of course. -JD --- "Every letter started broken hearted/ And ended way too soon." - The Wrens ---   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by popularsciencereader       at Tue 3 Dec 11:41pm score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 15     Pharmaceutical companies will probably not start growing weed, but they stand to gain a great deal from marijuana use among young people if the conclusions of this New Scientist report are correct. I quote: "Daily cannabis use was associated with a five-fold increased risk of depression at the age of 20. Weekly use was linked to a two-fold increase. The regular users were no more likely to have suffered from depression or anxiety at the start of the study.", "Another team calculates that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by 13 per cent." From my own experience, having had the misfortune to be given cookies spiked with heavy doses of marijuana at college, which precipitated panic attacks, resulted in hospitalisation, ruined my degree and civil service career prospects, and lead to emotional instability that has jeopardised my current career, the conclusions of the research ring true. Marijuana is probably not a gateway to stronger illegal drugs, it seems to me; but it could well be gateway to legal drugs like anti-depressants and treatments for schizophreniform disorders. I've had just about enough of your sesquipedalian evasiveness.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by pyite       at Wed 4 Dec 1:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     > What I find more interesting is the NORML > guy's claim that most people stop smoking weed > once they get to be 25. Two reasons. First, it clearly shows that marijuana is not addictive for most people, like "real" drugs are. I can only speak for myself on the second point, which is that the risk of getting caught outweights the moderate amount of fun that comes from using pot. As a kid, you have little to lose; but as an adult they can take your house, car, etc. away and you can lose your job due to a failed drug test. Pot prohibition only stops adults; and in fact it makes it EASIER for kids to get because of the black market. If it were legal (or, better, decriminalized), fewer kids would use it but more adults would. My opinion is that people should be allowed to grow a few plants for personal use. That should mostly dry up the black market... nobody is going to risk dealing if pot is super cheap. Ignorance is the real gateway drug   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  "Adult" pot smokers   by SickBoy       at Wed 4 Dec 2:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     What I find more interesting is the NORML guy's claim that most people stop smoking weed once they get to be 25. That's true in my experience and I wonder why. Does it conflict with adult lifestyles? Stop working? What, exactly? As someone in their mid-30s who still dabbles, I would venture a guess that most "adults" look at their use of pot in high school and/or college as an experimental phase, or something they did when they were "young." In addition to this, as an adult, most people probably aren't quite as interested in the possibility of getting arrested and/or going through the necessary hassles of buying weed. I've gotten the vibe that most "adults" think smoking pot is not something they'd do any more, even if they did enjoy it in the past. And also, it's tough to preach to kids about abstinence from drugs, when you're getting high yourself. (Note - I don't have kids.) Any man with a michrophone can tell you what he loves the most.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 4 Dec 4:30pm score of 0.5 compelling   in reply to comment 30     If it were legal (or, better, decriminalized), fewer kids would use it but more adults would. If it was legalized, MORE kids would use it. You only have to look at alcohol and tobacco to see that more kids use those drugs than weed. Or, look at the Dutch. My opinion is that people should be allowed to grow a few plants for personal use. That should mostly dry up the black market... Yes, but at what cost? More kids using weed. More mental illness. I would like to take guns off the black market too, but not by handing them out freely. Marijuana is a powerful drug, contrary to popular opinion, it is addictive, and has been linked to mental illness, and 1.3% report persisting depersonalization and flashbacks. 30% of users stop because of a bad experience, and 15% report paranoia, panic attacks, fear of death. This drug is NOT a totally safe drug, and people need to get a fucking clue. THC can cause serious mescaline-like hallucinations, and body detachment depersonalization. I understand why people have this liberal view on marijuana, and that's what scares me. People will ingest anything, without any clue where it came from, or what it will do to them, just because someone tells them to.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: "Adult" pot smokers   by jon010d       at Wed 4 Dec 4:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     As a mid-twenties indulger, I found that being high all the time impaired my ability to do things like get a job and move out of my parents' basement. The depression thing is real, too. It is depressing to be unemployed and living in your parent's basement. The thing about age 25 is simple - it's about the time you stop having "potential" and start becoming a "loser".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by tomaxxamot       at Wed 4 Dec 5:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     If it was legalized, MORE kids would use it. You only have to look at alcohol and tobacco to see that more kids use those drugs than weed. Or, look at the Dutch. That's wrong for one simple reason: Drug Dealers don't ask for ID's. Employees in liquor stores do. Drugs are easier to get for teenagers than booze under the current model - the only reason that more kids drink is because our society produces larger quantities of alcohol than it does of say, blotter acid. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by semonyenko       at Wed 4 Dec 5:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     I understand why people have this liberal view on marijuana, and that's what scares me. People will ingest anything, without any clue where it came from, or what it will do to them, just because someone tells them to. As a psychiatrist I knew once said "any time you put a drug into someone's body, you're doing a chemistry experiment." People's reactions to drugs differ, because their own body chemistry differs. What gets one person high might make another paranoid. Since a person's body chemistry varies over time, using the same amount of the same drug can give different effects. All the manufacturer (grower, seller, whoever) can say is what the drug does for most people. If pot were legal, it would have to come with warnings as to possible side effects. That only seems prudent. Pity so many other legal drugs (caffeine, sugar) don't. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: "Adult" pot smokers   by Mad Ogger       at Wed 4 Dec 6:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     That squares well with my experience. I had a job and an apartment but I was not really satisfied with things and pot doesn't exactly motivate you to run out and improve your life. In fact, when I finally got going on my plans and went back to school, I found that while high my career aspirations seemed stupid to me. That didn't stop me but it was a bit disturbing and became another reason not to smoke. Another big thing is that it stopped working as well. It got to the point where the main and most reliable effect was lethargy. That's OK when you really need a break and don't want to do anything but otherwise it's not so fun. Btw, a few weeks ago on Loveline Snoop said that he stopped smoking 4 months ago.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: "Adult" pot smokers   by tomaxxamot       at Wed 4 Dec 6:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 58     when I finally got going on my plans and went back to school, I found that while high my career aspirations seemed stupid to me. That didn't stop me but it was a bit disturbing and became another reason not to smoke. That's interesting, as it totally contradicts my own experiences. Granted, I've never been much of a pot head anyhow - I smoked it intermittently in highschool, quit through most of college, and only started again (very occasionally - maybe once every two weeks) about a year ago. I've found though that things like calculus, linear algebra and low level assembly programming seem far more fascinating when I'm stoned than they ever do when I'm sober though. Also, while I haven't put this theory to the test (and have absolutely no intention of ever doing so) I'm inclined to say I'd be better at any of them after smoking a bowl than I would be in my normal study mode (high on caffeine, stressing out in the library at two AM). The key is probably moderation. Smoking pot isn't any different than drinking a six pack of microbrews for me, and neither is something I do all that often. If I were waking and baking and going through an eighth every few days or so, I doubt I'd want to do much more than sit at home, play videogames and eat junk cereal. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: "Adult" pot smokers   by Mad Ogger       at Wed 4 Dec 7:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     I've found though that things like calculus, linear algebra and low level assembly programming seem far more fascinating when I'm stoned than they ever do when I'm sober though. That is still true, although I think it becomes harder to do the really hard stuff, like read a complex proof for the first time, while stoned. Normal programming baked works though. The problem was moving beyond having a boring programming job and sometimes doing more interesting things on my own time. While stoned it seemed like a stupid idea. It wasn't wake-and-bake, more like get home from work, get baked, so, yes, there was a lot of videogame playing and cereal eating on. I am not anti-weed now, but at this point it would not be a good idea to smoke more than very occasionally, like you do. I also had the problem that if I was a little bored the easiest thing to do was to smoke up, which can make bad TV more entertaining, etc, which led to overuse. If I had been busier or had more self-control it would not have been a problem.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by NH4       at Wed 4 Dec 8:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     A lot of people with ADD or similar physical conditions (feeling "hyper" a lot) find real relief for the first time when they start smoking marijuana, Mad Ogger. After smoking for a few years, the hyperactivity tends to go away entirely. Since such a person has no more need for the stuff, s/he tends to stop buying it. You could also make the point that it seems like two or three time as many men as women like smoking marijuana. It drops body temperature, which makes a lot of women (and even a lot of men) feel "paranoid." I find that the women who like to smoke it tend to be the most aggressive or hyper (i.e., "masculine") of their gender.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by stankow       at Wed 4 Dec 9:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 51     the only reason that more kids drink is because our society produces larger quantities of alcohol than it does of say, blotter acid. Step One -- Legalize drugs. Step Two -- Companies produce large quantities of blotter acid. Step Three -- Kids get access to it, just like they have access to alcohol and cigarettes now. The question is which choice you want to go with: A) It's easier for kids to get some of a smaller quantity of an illegal drug. B) It's harder for kids to get some of a larger quantity of a legal drug.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Tinfoil hats... ON!!   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 5 Dec 1:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     I had forgotten all about the sex difference. I've wondered about that. I have no idea where it was, but once I read a suggestion that being stoned helps men, um, "get in touch with their feminine side", maybe simply in terms of being calmer and less aggressive, or something like that. The point being that women have no need for such a thing. From what I've read, ADHD has two sides, difficulty in focusing and hyperactivity, and it's probably caused in part by abnormal dopamine receptors. I wonder if THC use causes the dopamine receptors to fix themselves or some other set of receptors to compensate. On the other hand, I could imagine that if THC relieves the symptoms, a ADHD patient could eventually learn how to do that without the THC. Maybe those are the same thing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: "Adult" pot smokers   by Jupitersiren       at Wed 25 Dec 9:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 58     My bf used marihuana 4 a long time but then he started to realize that it wasn't really doing much 4 him anymore, so he tried cocaine, ecstasy and other pills, alcohol and cigarettes, therefore marihuana IS a gateway to other drugs by that time he was an aggressive person, he got depressed a lot and didn't have expectations in life. Hopefully he quitted but he still got the side effects (by the way he used more marihuana than the other drugs) so now he doesn't remember things. Marihuana affects the cerebral connections and it causes serious physical and emotional damages and inhibits the sexual desire and potention. In my opinion marihuana should only be used as a medicine drug ONLY (to cure diseases). In conclusion marihuana is a gateway to other drugs but the user has the power to go inside the gateway or to quit and close it. I hope this may be helpful to some who are still trying to make a decision about smoking or not but as always the decision is yours.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: wrong gateway   by mlilback       at Wed 4 Dec 6:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     think about it for a moment. to purchase your pot, you have to interact with the local dealer, who probably has some other products he'd like to sell you I've bought from lots of dealers and none of them have ever pushed other drugs. Some might have had them if you asked, but none have ever pushed them on me or anyone I know. There is a large community of pot users/dealers who don't touch anything else. There are tons of pot delivery services in NYC, but I've never heard of bike messenger bringing multiple selections of cocaine to your house so you can pick which one you want.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: wrong gateway   by superdude       at Wed 4 Dec 10:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     think about it for a moment. to purchase your pot, you have to interact with the local dealer, who probably has some other products he'd like to sell you (and being a curious and impressionable young person, maybe you'll try them) My local pot dealer only sells to people he knows. He doesn't push it on people. He doesn't NEED to push it on people. People come to him. I mean, this isn't Amway he's selling--it's weed. I think my pot dealer is more typical than the sort of person you see on cop shows on TV.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: wrong gateway   by wasson       at Thu 5 Dec 3:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     I completely agree with legalization but I'm very sure it wont happen for a very long time. The government body i.e. all law enforcement agencies make way to much money off keeping it illegal what other excuse are they going to use to buy all those helicopters, tanks, and home surveillance equipment. The war on drugs as a whole is just one big excuse without the war on drugs there wouldn't be any DEA which has thousands of agents and more weapons then most countries. I say legalize everything tax the hell out of it and use that money for education because smart people wont get hooked on stupid chemical drugs, just get high and discuss galaxies and philosohy. I wanna kill a party clown.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  the propaganda war   by seijun002       at Tue 3 Dec 4:49pm score of 1     I wonder where RAND gets its funding. Supposedly research that might possibly undermine the government's position on cannabis never gets federal funding. I always thought the gateway post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc argument was the weakest link in the rationale for keeping cannabis illegal. Someone mentioned it's only true in the sense that your drug dealer might offer cocaine, heroin, etc., in addition to weed, though that's never been true in my experience, and in any case, it's only true because of a situation the drug laws created in the first place. I appreciate the fact that this little study does have that mainstream cachet and might get a few people thinking about drug policy reform who would not have thought about it otherwise. As far as the propaganda offensive against decrim and eventually legalization goes, I'm a little more concerned about that old reliable "New study proves pot is dangerous" tactic. New study in which methodologically questionable research with little relevance to actual human casual (or even heavy) use patterns gets written up and put on page one, with token caution from researcher Dr. Whosis who says, "This research is incomplete and may not be the experience of most, or even any human casual or habitual users, but that doesn't matter since most people aren't going to read this far down the column." A few weeks later some additional material questioning the value of the research MIGHT get written up and buried on page ten. Doesn't matter. Research in illicit drug use isn't about the truth, it's about preserving the status quo. I started smoking tobacco on a regular basis soon after I began to hang out in bars, noticing that with a cig in my hand, I wasn't pounding them down quite so often and not getting as schnockered, and conveniently, I could buy 'em right on the the premises. The gateway hypothesis seems to apply to this situation as much as it does to cannabis. Got-dam drug dealers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: the propaganda war   by MrTripps       at Wed 4 Dec 4:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     with token caution from researcher Dr. Whosis who says Token caution. Ha! That's funny. Pass the cheetos. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  This is your brain on propaganda   by NomiMalone       at Tue 3 Dec 5:15pm score of 5 clever     I've always thought that marijuana is possibly a gateway drug, in one way only: Kids who get the talk from their parents, go through the DARE program, and swallow all that propaganda whole, are constantly lectured about "drugs". No distinction between soft and hard, organic and inorganic, so marijuana gets lumped in with crack under the catchall "drugs", aka "that which will cause you to go insane and steal and turn tricks with nasty men to feed your filthy habit, that is if you don't die first." Then, when this same kid smokes pot for the first time and discovers that it's not the end of the world, that they're not suffering reefer madness, it begs the question: Did they lie about all the other drugs too? I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: This is your brain on propaganda   by Mark McGrath       at Tue 3 Dec 7:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     That's always been my view on the subject as well, except I believe there's another way marijuana can lead to using harder drugs: Because it's illegal, many smokers have to associate themselves with shady underworld characters to get access to it. Legalizing it would allow a legitimate distribution network to form, and for a large segment of people, it would mean no longer having to participate in the underground network, where exposure to harder drugs is much more likely.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Another Treacherous Gateway Drug   by NH4       at Tue 3 Dec 9:38pm score of 3 brilliant   in reply to comment 11     25% of the people who use this stuff go on to smoke pot. Over 70% of the people who use it go on to use alcohol. Over 20% of the people who use it go on to smoke tobacco. It's white, just like cocaine. It's peddled in the schools, pushed on TV, hawked from billboards. We assume it's harmless, but the figures tell the true story. What substance are we talking about? Milk.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Another Treacherous Gateway Drug   by 4d3r37h       at Wed 4 Dec 5:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     And what are the stats for people who don't drink milk? I bet a bunch of them are hippie vegans who smoke dank non-stop.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Another Treacherous Gateway Drug   by NH4       at Wed 4 Dec 10:28pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 54     Perhaps you've missed the point of my attempt to portray milk as a "gateway drug," 4d3r37h. Almost everyone drinks milk at some point in their life; hence, if 25% of all Americans have experimented with marijuana, it is possible to say that 25% of all milk drinkers "graduated" to marijuana. I could have stated my "case against milk" in an even more damning way if I had been trying to: 100% of all marijuana smokers, 100% of all alcohol smokers, and 100% of all tobacco smokers "started" by drinking milk first. I assume that every sensible person understands that there is no causal relationship between the consumption of milk and the later consumption of marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. But saying that 25% of all milk drinkers "graduate" to marijuana, or that 100% of marijuana smokers "started" with milk, implies a causal link, even though the implication is patently ludicrous. (I could just as easily have claimed that use of salt, my favorite white powder, led to marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, or even hard drugs.) Since the government routinely uses statistics in this precise manner to "prove" its "case against marijuana," what I was trying to say with my example of milk as a "gateway drug" is that the government's use of statistics in this manner with respect to marijuana use is inherently fraudulent and misleading. Note that I declined to use caffeine or chocolate as the "gateway drug" in my example (as in "100% of cocaine users started down the road to stimulant abuse by abusing caffeine" or "100% of heroin users started by consuming chocolate as children") precisely because I was concerned that if I used these mind- and body-altering substances as my "gateway drugs," it would have been easier for some readers to miss my actual point about the bogus character of the argument. The phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is particularly apt when we see the government trying to tie marijuana use to crack or heroin addiction.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: Another Treacherous Gateway Drug   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 5 Dec 1:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     The statistics are a little more complicated than that. In your milk example, there is no correlation between milk drinking and drug use. The RAND author does say there is a positive correlation between pot and hard drugs. But we all know that correlation doesn't prove causation. But you can get some information about causation statistically. What you do is come up with a set of causative models for your situation. Then you compare the models with the empirical data statistically. The model that fits best is the most likely of those models to be correct. It is, of course, entirely possible that the best model you thought of is completely wrong. That's perfectly fine for this discussion since we're more interested in ruling out the gateway hypothesis than finding the correct theory. The obvious alternative model is that there are some unobserved ("latent" in the jargon) factors that cause both pot smoking and crack smoking. RAND tested such a model. Unfortunately, the article doesn't tell us what they really found. If their model fit the data just as well as the gateway effect, we'd have no statistical reason to prefer one over the other. On the other hand, if there model was a better fit, we'd prefer the model without the gateway effect. Really, though, what they should have tested is a model with both the gateway effect and the X factors. Then they could have found the most likely magnitude of the gateway effect. If that came out to zero, it would be strong evidence for the nonexistence of the gateway effect.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: This is your brain on propaganda   by Seastone       at Thu 5 Dec 7:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Did they lie about all the other drugs too? Yes they did and still do. I agree that some drugs are more likely to cause addiction, such as heroin. But I suspect that the percentage of those who try the so-called hard drugs and get addicted is fairly low. At least a lot lower than those anal-retentive anti-drug schmucks would like to have us believe. In my own experience with some of the hard drugs the theory of addiction does not apply, whether it's me or my friends or people I've met that I have met. I have no scientific proof to back this up but Dominic Streatfield covers the subject in his book Cocaine pretty thoroughly. A must-read for those who suspect the war on drugs in the world is a bit dubious.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Gateway haiku   by anykey       at Tue 3 Dec 6:37pm score of 1.5 clever     Some people are going to do Crack. Some people are going to be pilots. Most of them are going to drive a car first. Just because you drive a car, it doesn't mean you're going to be a pilot. Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Congrats!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 3 Dec 8:03pm score of 0.5 funny     Congratulations, America! You're finally beginning to figure out what the rest of the world has known for decades. Maybe next year you'll figure out how to exercise, use condoms or find yourselves on a map!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  I will forthrightly say...   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 3 Dec 8:28pm score of 2 succinct     ...that, unlike Bill Clinton, I not only smoked marijuana when I was around 19 to 23, I also inhaled it. As a matter of fact, I rather enjoyed the buzz I would get from weed. I always considered it a great alternative to booze. No hangover, no added calories (except for when I was sating my urge for munchies), and it was pretty economical, all things considered. Of course the downside to it was that it was illegal and, if I ever got busted, there would be a price to pay. Oh, and one other thing. I never progressed beyond doing weed to coke or heroin or meth or anything more mood altering than an aspirin. So much for marijuana being a gateway drug for me. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Re: I will forthrightly say...   by drakewolf       at Wed 4 Dec 4:23pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 18     I too have found no inclination to move beyond MJ. Maybe it's because my parents never bullshitted with me about drugs. Since both of them smoked when younger (and if ever legalized may do so again) they told me the truth. It's amazing how that works It's hard to trust someone in this world when their priorities are in another.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  It depends on the person..   by StratKat       at Tue 3 Dec 8:53pm score of 1.5 astute     ...whether Marijuana use takes them in other directions. Marijuana is a gateway drug in the sense that it introduces people into the drug culture. Any further steps they take down that path are a matter of personal choice. An 8 foot tall joint named Smoky does not appear and announce that you are now ready and required to jab a needle in your arm or shove Pixie Dust up your snout. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

76.  Clarification...   by iarnuocon       at Thu 5 Dec 7:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Marijuana is a gateway drug in the sense that it introduces people into the drug culture. Any further steps they take down that path are a matter of personal choice. Marijuana "introduces" people to drug culture. Any steps taken down that path are a matter of personal choice. Therefore, marijuana use is a personal choice. Ipso facto, marijuana is not a gateway drug. People who have problems with addictive behavior will have problems with marijuana. People who do not, won't. Let's not confuse the two groups. (that's a general admonition... not particularly directed at you, StratKat) insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Clarification...   by StratKat       at Thu 5 Dec 8:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     Marijuana "introduces" people to drug culture. Any steps taken down that path are a matter of personal choice. Therefore, marijuana use is a personal choice. Ipso facto, marijuana is not a gateway drug. Isn't that what I said? Did you smoke a joint before you posted this reply? C'mon now, tell the truth.. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Yes.   by iarnuocon       at Fri 6 Dec 8:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 91     But you started out by saying "marijuana is a gateway drug." Many people will not get beyond that part of the sentence. Hence "clarification." Although you say "marijuana is a gateway drug..." [note ellipsis], following through to the conclusion of the statement means, in fact, "marijuana is not a gateway drug. Never underestimate the laziness of some people. If you give them a convenient stopping point, they will stop there-- whether it is what you meant or not. Sadly, I did not smoke a j before posting... although now that you mention it, I could use a little relaxation. insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  How true, how true.   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 5 Dec 7:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Actually, oxygen is the gateway drug. Breathing it and continuing to do so leads to life. Life is full of choices. Choices include drug/no drug, Republican/Democrat, chocolate/vanilla, etc. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Sadly, It Doesn't Matter   by cloudofdust       at Tue 3 Dec 9:11pm score of 2 compelling     Drugs are an extremely emotional issue in this country. Anti-drug warriors used the specter of drug-crazed darkies raping our white women to get marijuana made illegal in the first place. Look at places like Tulia, Texas and see that those fears are still very much in play. Unless and until legalization advocates can disconnect pot from people's fears of crime and blacks there will be no real movement in drug policy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Re: Sadly, It Doesn't Matter   by Dyolf Knip       at Tue 3 Dec 11:05pm score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 20     Geez. Now there's a depressing read. The only remotely non-depressing angle I can think of to all that is that even if the local sheeple weren't so worked up over their anti-drug stance, the politicos would just find some other 'common enemy' to rally them around. Possession of something naughty is just such an easy way to do it, though. Once you have your potential juries convinced that [Stuff] Is Bad, it becomes so utterly trivial to conjure up legions of badass criminals out to sodomize your children and destroy your god-given lifestyle. I don't get it. To The Powers That Be that pushed the illegalization of marijuana, Prohibition was only a few years dead. I cannot imagine how obvious its failure had to be before Congress would write in big, bold letters in the Constitution, "We Fucked Up". So what could possibly possess them, within 4 years of the 21st ammendment, to pull a stunt like the MJ Tax Act of 1937? The really scary thing is that we can see the same thing starting all over again today with electronics and software. Without bothering to see if the latest "Here's the list of things you can't do with stuff you own" bill merely didn't work or in fact truly fucked everything up, they're off to pass the next one. "Those dirty hackers and programmers; all they want is to steal your stuff. Only criminals want to copy bits." How can a group of people not-too-totally-stupid enough to acquire a high public office maintain a complete and total ignorance of the fact that there is this thing called history and that it's sometimes a good idea to read about it? Dyolf Knip   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Childhood Memories, and the Loss Thereof.   by Norman108       at Wed 4 Dec 2:27pm score of 1     One could say, for me LSD and alcohol were the "gateway" drugs to using pot. LSD to pot because I was seeking a less intense way to get high, and alcohol to pot because booze always made me throw-up, I couldn't maintain on it, my Dad was a drunk, etc. So, in a way you could say pot got me off hard drugs and kept me from becoming an teenage alcoholic. Most of us knew all along the gateway theory was flawed at the core. What's more likely is the gateway to all drug use is open from the start in most curious folks. Then those folks will try all the drugs they can, until they settle into the combination that is most compatable with their psyche, psychology and brain chemistry. Brains with high endorphin receptors, high endorphin need, and low endorphin production will settle on Opiates, brains with high cannabinoid type receptors, high cannabinoid need, and low cannabinoid production will settle on Cannabis, etc. Not a perfect formula, but I'll bet you bottom dollar it's more often than not an accurate one. Addendum: Haven't used pot for a few years now, and I think it's in part because the intensive meditation practice has increased my receptor sites and natural production of neurotranmitters. Started getting so stoned on even small amounts of marijuana, it was (literally) driving me crazy! In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  finally!   by littlebluephreak       at Wed 4 Dec 3:23pm score of 2 compelling     i've heard the gateway argument so many times, i could throw up. i started smoking pot when i was 16 (before i started drinking alcohol incindentally), and am now 22. i am diagnosed as manic depressive, and have been for about a year...before that point, i had no idea about my mental illness. after being diagnosed, and learning about the different aspects of being bipolar, i found out that many patients self-medicate with drugs such as marijuana and alcohol (alcohol being much more dangerous in my opinion), without really knowing that's the reason why the are using the substance. i sure as hell had no idea in the beginning, i just knew it helped me feel happier and calmed my anxiety. after a failed marriage at a young age (married at 17) with an abusive husband, combined with my illness, i started self-medicating with harder drugs, and subsequently got into legal trouble which i won't go into here. my wonderful father offered to let me move home and helped me get a lawyer. i went clean, no drugs or alcohol, including pot. my felony charges were dismissed, and things started getting back on track. i still didn't feel any better though...i still had horrible mood swings, depression, anxiety, paranoia, etc. i decided that i wanted to see a psychiatrist, so my dad took me. now, i'm doing so much better it's like living a different life...i can look back and see how miserable i was. i have to take medications to control the chemical imbalance that i was born with, medications that have some of the most nasty side effects you've ever heard of. not all the side effects happen to me, but some do. some side effects i probably don't even know are happening, nor do the doctors, despite all our advances. some things might not show up for years. and although marijuana has side effects too, at least it's natural. i have klonopin prescribed to me for anxiety attacks and sleep. i use it very sparingly, only when i absolutely have to, because i know it's addictive, and it's very strong...at a 1mg dose, i'm usually out cold and loopy all the next day. sometimes that's all that can help though, and i'm thankful to have it. now, when i smoked marijuana, it took care of my anxiety just fine. it helped me sleep. it didn't make me loopy for 24 hours and inhibit my driving and working capabilities. the only difference is that klonopin is legal and marijuana is not. if they were both legal, i would chose the marijuana over the klonopin because the side effects aren't as drastic, but i still get the good effects from it. i've tried xanax and all the others, same annoying side effects that i didn't get with marijuana...other bipolars that i keep in touch with through group therapy suffer from the same side affects too. i really hope that someday marijuana will be available to at least by prescription to those that need it. i would like it to be available to those over 21 to use without a prescription too, considering the rising cost of health care, especially psychiatric visits. the only reason i feel it's not legal already is because of greed, and that's really sad to me. anyway...this is a really long post, and my first one on plastic, although i've been reading awhile. i just felt compelled to post this.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Re: finally!   by orionoir       at Wed 4 Dec 4:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     after being diagnosed, and learning about the different aspects of being bipolar, i found out that many patients self-medicate with drugs such as marijuana and alcohol (alcohol being much more dangerous in my opinion), without really knowing that's the reason why the are using the substance. i sure as hell had no idea in the beginning, i just knew it helped me feel happier and calmed my anxiety. that phrase "self-medicate" seems to have a life of its own, sort of like president bush's "regime change" -- it parses so easily, people just act as if its validity is self-evident. me, i am not at all convinced that people self-medicate. i'm bipolar, and when i drink, i drink because it makes me higher. if you're en route to mania and you throw a whole lot of scotch on the fire, well, it's not going to level you out, i think that's safe to say. my father's a doc, so he has infinite access to whatever; but for some perverse reason, when he attempts to self-medicate (real sense of the word) he invariably fucks it up. my mom, otoh, has that rare combination, access plus good judgement; she self-medicates pretty well. i know pot is different for everyone, but i just have a real hard time believing it could be a useful med for bipolar disorder or anxiety. i've heard of people using fish oils instead of lithium, and who knows, it sounds like a neat trick if you're able to pull it off. my rule of thumb re drugs is that if it's pleasant, it's probably not good for you. since fish oil is repulsive, with a name like dog vomit, it has to be good. i'm so happy i can't stop crying -- sting, fr. "lithium sunset"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: finally!   by drakewolf       at Wed 4 Dec 4:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     As a self medicating manic depressive (Probably a mis-diag) with my drug of choice -see subject, I fully appreciate the desire for a legal and mild mellowing drug. I have to applaud your story and would like to add a bit about my own experiences with cannabis. I have smoked on and off for since about 17 and have found that when smoking, I had little to no need of any of the prescribed drugs the psychologists would hand my way. I was on everything they could think of for many years before I got fed up with the side-effects (Lithium: zombie with no feelings good or bad for 3 months solid) and told all of them that I was better. I wasn't, but oh well. I did fine for many years and would say that I have been very successful in my few years since. 24, married happily, house I own, 40K per year - opening my own business etc. I still smoke and the only un-wanted effect comes not from the drug but from my own genetic inclination towards addiction that was passed to me from my parents (documented). I have successfully quit MJ, and alcohol several times whenever I got it into my head that maybe I was just a little over the line. That line is the one I define as being where I can't stop thinking and wanting more. It's a mild addiction that allows me to function but still very scary. Now I am rambling and if you have read this far then thank you. It's hard to trust someone in this world when their priorities are in another.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  old joke (with a core of truth)   by burningman       at Wed 4 Dec 3:47pm score of 1     An old joke that I often relate is that when at a party, an old pot head sees someone pulling out some cocaine and pauses smoking for a moment to say "Gee!, I didn't know there were going to be drugs here!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  It's Because It Is Illegal   by MrTripps       at Wed 4 Dec 4:33pm score of 1     If pot were a gateway drug it would only be because it is illegal. Otherwise booze, cigs, and spinning around until you are dizzy would be a gateway drug as well. Pot is still illegal because it is a usefull tool of oppression. Now that terrorism is the national boogy man and boomers are getting into power we may see it legalized within the next decade. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

57.  So?   by landonair       at Wed 4 Dec 6:14pm score of 1     If 15% of people that smoked marijuana go on to harder drugs, that means 85% didn't. The only people that cling to this 'gateway drug' theory are people that have never smoked pot and don't have any fundamental, first-hand understanding of it. "It's so easy to say things that are so idealistic without reasoning and thinking them out in the big picture"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

64.  DARE program smoking crack...   by superchick       at Wed 4 Dec 9:16pm score of 1     As with other posters, I am totally floored by this study. The information given to us by the government about marijuana is false?! Who knew? I've long believed that if anything is responsible for the so-called "gateway" phenomena it's the DARE program and all the anti-drug propaganda pushed our way since the early 30's. We've been told alternately that marijuana: makes you crazy, makes you kill people (think reefer madness), makes you stupid, makes you apathetic, makes you a loser...blah, blah, blah. Then when, after all this indoctrination, a kid smokes a joint and reality doesn't splinter and shatter into a million pieces, he begins to wonder what else the DARE program lied about. Anyway, our long sordid history with marijuana is too much to get into in this post. Plus, it pisses me off... Just watch this great Canadian documentary "grass", and then watch that big vein in your forehead start to throb as you think about how much $$ our government spends on futile endeavors running counter to all scientific data... In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

65.  Anti-gateway drug   by TheRisen1       at Wed 4 Dec 9:40pm score of 1     I've been smoking herb since I was old enough to get my hands on it (13 or so). I have experimented with other drugs, mostly acid and mushrooms, a little coke on the sly. Just a little background for my story here. In the summer of 2001, what must have been a karmic nadir in my life, I developed a serious methamphetamine jones. An interesting side note is that the people who "got me into" meth (I got me into meth, which is why that's in quotes, but I think my meaning is clear enough) were very much not potheads. The two groups really don't cross-pollinate that much. Today, I'm (thanks be to the gods) almost a year away from that nightmare. How'd I do it, you ask? 12-stepping? Nope. Inpatient? Nuh-uh. Smoking grass, my man. I remembered that pot didn't ruin my life the way speed did, it didn't ruin my body like speed did, and I promptly dropped the monkey and went back to the bong. I haven't looked back, and I couldn't be happier with my decision. True story. I realize that this is kind of long-winded and rambling, but I think it's relevant to the discussion. For what it's worth... TeeAhr1: Raving batshit loony? Or hope for man??   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

69.  Well, duh!   by Beckygrrl       at Wed 4 Dec 11:08pm score of 1     Of course pot's not a gateway to harder drugs, and it should be fairly obvious to anyone who realistically considers the question. Speaking as someone who wasted about 20 years of my life plastered on just about everything short of heroin, I can tell you what the true gateways of hard drug use are: Depression, hopelessness, wanting to escape a reality too difficult to deal with straight, a lack of interest in life, wishing to avoid becoming an adult and accepting adult responsibilities, wanting to commit suicide but not being able to do so intentionally and with forethought...in essence, seeking to inhabit a reality that enables the user to hide from themselves. For me, it was about running away from the truth of my transexuality. Acid, shrooms, meth, coke and ecstasy kept me wasted and helped me ignore the issues that eventually drove me to attempt suicide. Once I finally acknowledged and dealt with my real problems, I found I no longer needed hard drugs to escape reality anymore, and it's now been about 8 years since I've used anything stronger than pot...I don't even drink anymore, because that was a problem for me as well. Throughout all that, pot was never an issue for me. When it was around I smoked, when it wasn't I didn't...I never actually needed it like I needed the coke and the other hard drugs. I still smoke the occasional joint now and then...pot and cigarettes are my two last remaining vices (unless you count fattening foods and pretty women). After all this practical experience, I can tell you that it might be the desire to get high that gets someone try hard drugs, but it's not what makes you an addict. Addiction comes from a source far more debilitating than smoking pot...that lump of gray matter between your ears. Just because pot use generally comes before hard drug use doesn't mean it's any more of a gateway to it than alcohol is. It's not about the drug, it's about the psychology that drives one to use it. Peace and Power, Becky   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

79.  RAND Thinktank?   by fozzy       at Thu 5 Dec 8:30am score of 1     Wow, it's amazing that it takes a government thinktank to figure out something that millions of stoners already knew....It's good to see progress though. I always though that RAND was considered to be a conservative thinktank? Maybe i'm just confused. I do know that RAND Corp was originally started by the US Military soon after World War II. It's purpose was to effectively combine research, information, and new ideas from various fields of science.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

83.  Re: RAND Thinktank?   by ndunn       at Thu 5 Dec 11:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 79     I have to say the same thing. RAND? RAND and pot? That's the fucking story. Oh, and as seems to be the trend with this post: "I use pot, and occasionally mushrooms, and that has not led to harder drugs in my life. Thank you." It all depends, really.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: RAND Thinktank?   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 5 Dec 3:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     If you were determined to call RAND conservative or liberal, maybe it would be liberal, but it isn't conservative in the usual way. From what I've heard, their studies contradict the gubmint line on drugs more often than not. There is a famous RAND study that concluded that drug enforcement becomes less cost-effective the further it is targeted from the user. They said treatment programs were the most effective, source interdiction in Colombia, et. al. least effective. I guess the Feds don't want to read that one either.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

82.  cranky irrelevant snipe   by alumshubby       at Thu 5 Dec 9:26am score of 1     As a longtime tobacco pipe smoker, leave us out of this! Thank you. "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

90.  gateway to -incoherent   by orionoir       at Thu 5 Dec 7:37pm score of 1     what's with the cow spots on the box? why would i want a bovine computer? this is a good thing, to have a cud-chewing easily-tipped computer? my gateway came with ms-windows me preinstalled. another bad omen. wouldn't it be better to have ms-windows i, like, nominative case, a computer which makes stuff happen, rather than this poor sad me to which bad things flock like flies on cow poop: i ask you. oy vey, why me: now there's a slogan. the other night, my gateway spontaneously rebooted in the middle of a rated scrabble game. before i knew it, i had a crack pipe in my hand. then me is telling me i have lost clusters, should i fix or delete? clusters? i want to eat them not delete them, but could i select, oh no, not me, i had a fix in my arm, plus i was drinking in a most unsocial manner: mad dog 20/20 w/ grain, ask your doctor if it's right for you. this is where things took a turn for the worse. as me was recklessly deleting my life as told to gateway, my corrupt glassy-eyed unmotivated junkfood-eating obnoxious music-listening poorly-groomed breast-sprouting son lionel offered me a puff of marijuana. (who named him lionel? me!) ah, the sicky sweet smoke of satan, how i wish had not such vile substance passed mine lips! it was all so innocent, me and my gateway. but, alas, there are deeds too monstrous for remorse. i'm so happy i can't stop crying -- sting, fr. "lithium sunset"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

92.  this darkness got to give   by montana rain       at Fri 6 Dec 7:20am score of 1     Finally! Common sense has spoken! For years I have known the marijuana is a gateway drug theory is insane. I can say for myself that marijuana has not opened the rusty gate to cocaine and heroin use, for I have never tried either one, and I'm almost 30. I have had friends who have tried every drug out there, but I think that based on personality, they would have experimented with drugs regardless of having smoked marijuana. It all comes down to the individual. I don't know how many times I have been offered a line of coke, and I have always turned it down. I don't want to get geeked out. As for heroin, I've seen what that does to people and its real creepy. The emancipated strung out look is really cute. And so is vomiting profusely because you can't get high. It's about time that marijuana is separated from REAL drugs. People don't develop insane drug addictions from smoking pot, they have no physical withdrawl symptoms when they don't smoke a joint, and most pot smokers are normal, functioning everyday people who just like to feel mellow every now and again. Again, I must say, isn't there something more important my tax money could be spent on then fighting the war on marijuana? Sigh. someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]