I wonder if marijuana would be more addictive if it were cheaper and legal?

My point is that I think use of marijuana/cannabis far more likely to lead you to take harder drugs.

 

I don't understand this. I am a college student and I don't really care to admit I smoke pot occasionally as do a lot of my friends. When I have smoked, I have rarely felt the need to want to try something else. That goes for most of my friends to. None of us have ever tried the "harder' drugs pot supposedly leads to. It is such a weak argument to say pot is far more likely to lead us to other drugs. If it is so mind altering, when is the last time you heard of a man beating his wife or family because he was to high? Or how many times have you heard of your friends or people you heard of go to jail for driving or killing someone when they are high and they drive compared to those that drink and drive? Or how about those one night stands that happen in college. I think I hear " Man, I shouldn't of done that, I was way to drunk." way more than " Man I was way to high, I shouldn't of done that" ? I think I hear of far more of people making mistakes when they are drunk then when they are high. This goes in hand to show that alcohol allows us to do things we normally wouldn't do, including other drugs. I see this stuff daily. You're not going to persuade me to say Pot is far more dangerous and leads to harder drugs.

 

If the person wants something more, they are going to try it. Those people will usually start out with pot because like someone said, its the easiest to get. That doesn't make it a gateway drug.

I don't understand this. I am a college student and I don't really care to admit I smoke pot occasionally as do a lot of my friends. When I have smoked, I have rarely felt the need to want to try something else. That goes for most of my friends to. None of us have ever tried the "harder' drugs pot supposedly leads to. It is such a weak argument to say pot is far more likely to lead us to other drugs. If it is so mind altering, when is the last time you heard of a man beating his wife or family because he was to high? Or how many times have you heard of your friends or people you heard of go to jail for driving or killing someone when they are high and they drive compared to those that drink and drive? Or how about those one night stands that happen in college. I think I hear " Man, I shouldn't of done that, I was way to drunk." way more than " Man I was way to high, I shouldn't of done that" ? I think I hear of far more of people making mistakes when they are drunk then when they are high. This goes in hand to show that alcohol allows us to do things we normally wouldn't do, including other drugs. I see this stuff daily. You're not going to persuade me to say Pot is far more dangerous and leads to harder drugs.

 

If the person wants something more, they are going to try it. Those people will usually start out with pot because like someone said, its the easiest to get. That doesn't make it a gateway drug.

 

Again: I can understand using the "well that's not the case with me" argument...it would only make sense to compare yourself to others. However, there is study after study showing that, statistically, marijuana does increase your likelihood to use harder drugs.

 

As for how mind-altering marijuana is...I never made any reference to that. I never said it made you beat your wife, or wreck your car. I never even said it MAKES you turn to harder drugs. I just suggested that it can lead to harder drugs, moreso than I believe alcohol or tobacco do.

Again: I can understand using the "well that's not the case with me" argument...it would only make sense to compare yourself to others. However, there is study after study showing that, statistically, marijuana does increase your likelihood to use harder drugs.

 

As for how mind-altering marijuana is...I never made any reference to that. I never said it made you beat your wife, or wreck your car. I never even said it MAKES you turn to harder drugs. I just suggested that it can lead to harder drugs, moreso than I believe alcohol or tobacco do.

 

I was just stating those examples of how alcohol can IMO lead you to do things you wouldn't normally do, including harder drugs. If you are saying it is a gateway drug, then you have to be making reference to how it alters the human mind. Otherwise your argument has no point.

 

Also, its not just the "well that's not the case with me." argument. I see this stuff daily. There is a significant difference in the people that do harder drugs and the people that just smoke pot. They have a different mindset. Those studies go off the basis that since the drug users started off with pot then that is what leads them to use harder drugs. I think it matters what type of home life you had and what you can get your hands on.

 

Couldn't you argue that most kids drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes first then go on to smoke pot? So I guess Cigs and alcohol are gateway to pot, considering that there is study after study showing that kids have a higher chance to smoke pot if they smoke cigs and drink alcohol thus making those two the main culprit.

Again: I can understand using the "well that's not the case with me" argument...it would only make sense to compare yourself to others. However, there is study after study showing that, statistically, marijuana does increase your likelihood to use harder drugs.

 

As for how mind-altering marijuana is...I never made any reference to that. I never said it made you beat your wife, or wreck your car. I never even said it MAKES you turn to harder drugs. I just suggested that it can lead to harder drugs, moreso than I believe alcohol or tobacco do.

 

Just to make a broader point, but I think we need better evidence for our arguments. This isn’t directed at you specifically CWB, but I’m just branching off of this debate because of the importance of the statistics you cited. The number you cited earlier (62% of teens who smoked marijuana eventually tried cocaine) is pretty damaging to the argument that marijuana isn’t a gateway drug. That’s a fairly substantial percentage and is something anyone arguing against that point would have to discuss. However, without actually being able to read that report, specifically those findings within that report, it lacks quite a bit of merit. This isn’t to say you aren’t being honest, it’s just important to know exactly how that number was derived – what kind of questions were asked, what kind of definitions did the study use, how did they calculate this probability, etc – that way we are all looking at the same information. It's even more important when the information comes from a third-party to begin with. Perhaps NA operates a lot like Jim described. If so, they may be willing to exaggerate or rely on some other form of deception. This is similar to the Above the Influence website, they made a very bold and specific claim (more teens are being treated for marijuana dependence than all other illicit drugs combined) and had a very vague and dubious citation. I have no idea how they came up with that number. In short, it's really important that we all get to examine the primary evidence.

 

Similarly, anecdotal evidence doesn’t tell us much. It is evidence, it just isn’t very good evidence, particularly when speaking to anything larger than the specific situations involved. So, just because your friend does X, doesn’t mean everyone’s friend does X. It may help describe how something happens (i.e. marijuana caused friend A to try harder drugs because of reasons Y and Z, so that’s one way it can happen), or prove an exception to something (i.e. friends B and C use marijuana with no dependence or predilection for hard drugs), but it still isn’t very concrete. I’m sure most of us are guided by this in some manner. For me, I know a lot of people who smoke marijuana and they are all well-adjusted, successful people with no dysfunctions as a result of it. This experience makes me extremely skeptical of the anti-marijuana argument, but it isn’t evidence to hang my argument on.

 

This is all to say that I think we are getting close to talking in circles. We need more concrete information, or else we are all just going to agree to disagree.

^ To piggyback, I would also be interested to know who commissioned these studies that get bandied about as support for the "gateway drug" theory. Something tells me they aren't very independent.

^ To piggyback, I would also be interested to know who commissioned these studies that get bandied about as support for the "gateway drug" theory. Something tells me they aren't very independent.

No doubt in my mind! :thumb:

 

The sad thing is because of stuff like this Marijuana has become taboo in today's society when in reality it should have a better perception than alcohol.

The sad thing is because of stuff like this Marijuana has become taboo in today's society when in reality it should have a better perception than alcohol.

Scare tactics work.

History. Lots of friends smoked weed back in the day. They do not today.

 

However, more than a few still smoke cigarettes.

 

I think that has more to do w/ illegality and job loss/fines/and public records than it does preference or addiction.

 

In my opinion, and very unscientific, I would say that weed would be the better of the two if:

a. you know the grower

b. assuming that it is straight from plant to paper. Cigaretts have a ton of chemicals. I couldn't imagine that a natural plant would be worse than a plant refined w/ 100s of chemicals.

I wonder if marijuana would be more addictive if it were cheaper and legal?

 

Perhaps, because companies, if it were legal, would probably introduce addictive ingredients that aren't there in its natural state. Kind of like how they do with cigarettes. As it stands now, it is in no way, shape or form addictive, unless you want to make the lame argument that it is psychologically addictive. That argument can be made for Big Macs too, though.

Just to make a broader point, but I think we need better evidence for our arguments. This isn’t directed at you specifically CWB, but I’m just branching off of this debate because of the importance of the statistics you cited. The number you cited earlier (62% of teens who smoked marijuana eventually tried cocaine) is pretty damaging to the argument that marijuana isn’t a gateway drug. That’s a fairly substantial percentage and is something anyone arguing against that point would have to discuss. However, without actually being able to read that report, specifically those findings within that report, it lacks quite a bit of merit. This isn’t to say you aren’t being honest, it’s just important to know exactly how that number was derived – what kind of questions were asked, what kind of definitions did the study use, how did they calculate this probability, etc – that way we are all looking at the same information. It's even more important when the information comes from a third-party to begin with. Perhaps NA operates a lot like Jim described. If so, they may be willing to exaggerate or rely on some other form of deception. This is similar to the Above the Influence website, they made a very bold and specific claim (more teens are being treated for marijuana dependence than all other illicit drugs combined) and had a very vague and dubious citation. I have no idea how they came up with that number. In short, it's really important that we all get to examine the primary evidence.

 

Similarly, anecdotal evidence doesn’t tell us much. It is evidence, it just isn’t very good evidence, particularly when speaking to anything larger than the specific situations involved. So, just because your friend does X, doesn’t mean everyone’s friend does X. It may help describe how something happens (i.e. marijuana caused friend A to try harder drugs because of reasons Y and Z, so that’s one way it can happen), or prove an exception to something (i.e. friends B and C use marijuana with no dependence or predilection for hard drugs), but it still isn’t very concrete. I’m sure most of us are guided by this in some manner. For me, I know a lot of people who smoke marijuana and they are all well-adjusted, successful people with no dysfunctions as a result of it. This experience makes me extremely skeptical of the anti-marijuana argument, but it isn’t evidence to hang my argument on.

 

This is all to say that I think we are getting close to talking in circles. We need more concrete information, or else we are all just going to agree to disagree.

 

I can agree with a lot of what you're saying. I've been pretty busy with work and some other things, but I'll have to go back and see if I can't find the study data.

Seriously this is a question??? Weed, guys most drug users started out with weed. I know some really successful people who smoke cigs, weed...not so much.

Seriously this is a question??? Weed, guys most drug users started out with weed. I know some really successful people who smoke cigs, weed...not so much.

I'd bet most drug users started out with cigarettes, alcohol or both before they tried weed. You'd be surprised at the number of really successful people who smoke weed. I know quite a few myself.