REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

Bullshit makes the pot plants grow. 

I made it pretty damn clear what I was talking about. 

But here is a pithy little definition for everyone:

It's a gateway drug because kids can easily get it and it is where many drug addicts transition from experimentation to regular use and addiction.  Other gateway drugs include alcohol, Rx drugs, and inhalants. 

Everyone happy now? 

[LMNO]

Ok, maybe I was over the top, but still.  To read over the last few pages and then ask that question says two things to me:

1) You haven't been comprehending the conversation.

2) You're looking for a "gotcha" -- that is, you're trying to pigeonhole the term in some way that, instead of increasing understanding, you can twist and poke holes in as a way to 'win' the conversation.

If, after all that's been said, he still wants a definition of "gateway drug", then he should start the process himself, laying out a potential framework.


You know, I'll start.

From what I understand, "Gateway Drug" seems to mean the following:

- The drug is easy to obtain, and moderately inexpensive.
- The drug is perceived as "only a little" dangerous.
- The drug shares social mindspace with other drugs.


Lets take that as a starting point.  So as it's been said, pot is easy to find, can be cheap (if you like dirt weed; it's also fairly easy to grow), and a typical social circle of pot smokers will often contain people who do other drugs as well.

Let's also get pseudo-Beysean here and say that none of this means a 100% chance of using other drugs.  But it looks to me like there is an increases probability that if someone begins using a gateway drug, the odds of them using another drug go up sigificantly.

So, of course you can have anectdotal evidence that "my brother smokes pot, and nothing else, doesn't even drink".  But you can also have anectdotal evidence that says "I started smoking pot at 18, and 4 years later I was doing LSD every other week."



[edit: it appears RWHN has already answered this.]

[AFK]

Yes, and I also want to reiterate what I said during that discussion about gateway drugs which is that I don't think it is a particularly important point to focus on regarding the legalization debate.  My stance of not wanting to legalize marijuana is on the merits of the drug itself.  Not whether or not it leads to harder drugs.  Not whether or not it is "safer" than alcohol.  My focus is on what marijuana, itself, does to young people who become addicted to it. 

The fact that it is a gateway drug is important to me in my work of education and raising awareness.  But when it comes to the question of legalization, I really don't think it is something to get hung up on one way or the other. 

[Triple Zero]

Ok, maybe I was over the top, but still.  To read over the last few pages and then ask that question says two things to me:

1) You haven't been comprehending the conversation.

2) You're looking for a "gotcha" -- that is, you're trying to pigeonhole the term in some way that, instead of increasing understanding, you can twist and poke holes in as a way to 'win' the conversation.

If, after all that's been said, he still wants a definition of "gateway drug", then he should start the process himself, laying out a potential framework.

I disagree. When I read that question, I thought "good question", why? Because a number of times someone said "gateway drugs is X / does Y" which RWHN countered with example but still not said what it exactly is. Yet his definition is the one that matters because he brought it up in the first place, plus being the expert on drug prevention/treatment/councelling/etc.
And while I don't doubt his intentions, it's still kind of hard to talk about it if one of the people in the discussion keeps going "no, not quite, because ...". After three pages of that, I don't think it's retarded at all to just get the question out on the table and ask for a definition straight up.
So yes, there was three pages about what a gateway drug "is", but no, after those three pages, the question wasn't exactly answered at all.

And if you can't give a definition without fearing someone might poke a hole in it to "win" the conversation, then I really, really wonder why we were quoting scientific papers a few pages back. Cause without definitions, those are just, like, your opinion, man Come on, really? Those papers were in fact using definitions to describe exactly what they were talking about (the good ones, at least).

And for "gateway drug", it's not that hard either. You put down a definition and stick with it. Something doesn't fall under the definition? Then it's not a "gateway drug". Does that mean it's suddenly a-okay? Of course not. Not at all. How again is this going to "win" someone a conversation? Because all I'm seeing is everybody getting more out of the conversation and understanding eachothers viewpoints better because everybody is speaking the same language.

I for one, hate this conversation, and even if I somehow "won" it, I wouldn't have it because it smells.

I made it pretty damn clear what I was talking about.  

That's the second time you said that, after shitting on someone that had the bloody nerve to ask for clarification.

Everyone happy now?

this is why I hate these discussions.

I don't know why everybody is so lyrical about this thread compared to the other ones about pot. I'm seeing the same pattern, people get shot down for asking questions, and nobody gets any wiser for it. Maybe the others were even worse, but this one isn't better.

Secondly, we have to consider a considerable difference between the Netherlands and America.  Culture.  The most immediate of which is the advertising culture.  The Netherlands were successful in banning advertising.  You try to do that in America, you've got a Freedom of Speech battle on your hands that will most likely be won by the advertisers.  And then all bets are off.  Based on that alone, it's difficult to accept the Dutch model as a one-to-one comparison to what would happen in the U.S. if we followed the same policy.

Serious question, you still have cigarette and tobacco commercials on TV in America?

I should also note from what I've read, the Dutch are starting to become a bit jaded and upset with the marijuana policy.  Mostly because it is inviting "drug tourists" to their country from neighboring European countries.  I've also read that quite a few municipalities in the Netherlands have refused to allow their coffeeshops to supply marijuana.  So it seems like the jury is still out in some respects.

This is only partly correct in the sense that what you describe is happening, but not for those reasons.

Yes the conservative parties in NL still don't like weed and crack down on the coffeeshops whenever they get the chance (like a majority in a municipality). This has exactly zero to do with any jury being out on anything (even if we had juries in NL). The decisions are not exactly based on any sort of numbers or research or anything, just conservative gut-feeling. If they were based on numbers, they'd know that closing a coffeeshop only makes the neighbourhood *seem* better, but in fact pushes the problem elsewhere, as well as making it worse (part of the crowd will go to the criminal circuit). It's NIMBY politics, plain and simple.

As for drug tourism, yeah that's a nuisance. In some cities near the border they are trying to fix it with a kind of card you need to show to be able to buy weed. Which I think is an incredibly stupid idea for reasons of privacy and such.

But it does show, however, that they'd rather try and solve the actual problem instead of thinking it'll go away if they'd just ban weed or close some more coffeeshops. Cause again, that'll only push the problem elsewhere. And fortunately this sort of stuff is handled on a provincial level, which has a bit more of a tendency to look at numbers than the municipal council.


What sources did you get that reasoning from?

[Triple Zero]

Having this thread end amicably was too much to hope for.

I don't see the problem, everything I wrote in any of these threads has been met with hostility. For asking questions, mind you.

[AFK]

I disagree. When I read that question, I thought "good question", why? Because a number of times someone said "gateway drugs is X / does Y" which RWHN countered with example but still not said what it exactly is. Yet his definition is the one that matters because he brought it up in the first place, plus being the expert on drug prevention/treatment/councelling/etc.
And while I don't doubt his intentions, it's still kind of hard to talk about it if one of the people in the discussion keeps going "no, not quite, because ...". After three pages of that, I don't think it's retarded at all to just get the question out on the table and ask for a definition straight up.
So yes, there was three pages about what a gateway drug "is", but no, after those three pages, the question wasn't exactly answered at all.

It was answered.  Did I put it in a pithy little sentence?  No, because it is something that has a couple of different components to it which I did thoroughly explain.  the bit about access and the bit about transitioning from experimentation to addiction.  That information was presented when asked for and in more than one post.   

I made it pretty damn clear what I was talking about.  

That's the second time you said that, after shitting on someone that had the bloody nerve to ask for clarification.

It didn't feel that way to me.  It felt like someone searching for a definition they could agree with.  It felt like the definitions I was giving, didn't quite click with a person's view of things and so I was being asked to reword it, and reword it, until it fit into their world view. 

Secondly, we have to consider a considerable difference between the Netherlands and America.  Culture.  The most immediate of which is the advertising culture.  The Netherlands were successful in banning advertising.  You try to do that in America, you've got a Freedom of Speech battle on your hands that will most likely be won by the advertisers.  And then all bets are off.  Based on that alone, it's difficult to accept the Dutch model as a one-to-one comparison to what would happen in the U.S. if we followed the same policy.

Serious question, you still have cigarette and tobacco commercials on TV in America?

No.  But they more than make up for that with the advertising they do in publications, convenience stores, ballparks and other event arenas.  Meanwhile, we are plastered with beer and liquor ads. 

I should also note from what I've read, the Dutch are starting to become a bit jaded and upset with the marijuana policy.  Mostly because it is inviting "drug tourists" to their country from neighboring European countries.  I've also read that quite a few municipalities in the Netherlands have refused to allow their coffeeshops to supply marijuana.  So it seems like the jury is still out in some respects.

This is only partly correct in the sense that what you describe is happening, but not for those reasons.

Yes the conservative parties in NL still don't like weed and crack down on the coffeeshops whenever they get the chance (like a majority in a municipality). This has exactly zero to do with any jury being out on anything (even if we had juries in NL). The decisions are not exactly based on any sort of numbers or research or anything, just conservative gut-feeling. If they were based on numbers, they'd know that closing a coffeeshop only makes the neighbourhood *seem* better, but in fact pushes the problem elsewhere, as well as making it worse (part of the crowd will go to the criminal circuit). It's NIMBY politics, plain and simple.

As for drug tourism, yeah that's a nuisance. In some cities near the border they are trying to fix it with a kind of card you need to show to be able to buy weed. Which I think is an incredibly stupid idea for reasons of privacy and such.

But it does show, however, that they'd rather try and solve the actual problem instead of thinking it'll go away if they'd just ban weed or close some more coffeeshops. Cause again, that'll only push the problem elsewhere. And fortunately this sort of stuff is handled on a provincial level, which has a bit more of a tendency to look at numbers than the municipal council.

What sources did you get that reasoning from?

Most recently from an article from CBS News. 

[AFK]

By the way, it was Laughing Jude who brought up Gateway Drugs, not me.  Just so we have the record straight. 

[AFK]

It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug.  But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug.  Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.  Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get.  All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get.  Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them.  These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage. 

Note that in this post for talking about gateway drugs I talk about access and experimentation.  So, okay, I could've been a little clearer talking about the experimentation piece, but then I did:

I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?

Yes.  And as I stated marijuana isn't the only gateway drug, but it is one of the more popular ones amongst youth.  Rx drugs and inhalants are also gateway drugs, in that it is the drug that many youth will experiment with first.  It's basically the substance that is the gate between experimentation and regular use/dependency.  And generally, it is going to be your more easily accessible drugs.  It is rare you are going to see a kid start at cocaine or heroin.  Sugar is not a gateway drug because you don't see very many kids who move from regular sugar buzzes to injecting heroin in their arms. 

There it is again.  access and transition from experimentation to addiction.  And then later in a response to Ratatosk I say:

No, it's not really either one of those, though the latter is part of it and is most definitely not bullshit.  It is a fundamental in the stages of addiction.  Does that mean that everyone who starts down the marijuana path is going to graduate to harder drug use?  Obviously not.  But it doesn't negate the gateway effect.  It isn't an absolute and isn't put out as an absolute today.  But if a person's motivation for drug use is escapism and self-medicating, they definitely are going to be prone to it as they develop tolerances. 

The other component of the gateway effect is access as I've described.  Marijuana does have a gateway effect tied to it, but it is not the only drug with those properties.  Inhalants and Rx drugs also can be gateway drugs based upon them being easily available in the home.  An obvious difference is that inhalants and Rx drugs can be deadly or seriously damaging on the first try. 

There it is again.  Access and part of the transition from experimentation to addiction.

So I don't think it is really fair, or accurate, to say that I was not offering a definition, or that I was moving goalposts.  I was very consistent with my definition of access and transition. 

[Triple Zero]

Thanks RWHN for your answers.

It didn't feel that way to me.  It felt like someone searching for a definition they could agree with.  It felt like the definitions I was giving, didn't quite click with a person's view of things and so I was being asked to reword it, and reword it, until it fit into their world view.  

It probably helps if you know el Sjaako has a background in physics, and the "if and only if" part of his question is a mathematical phrase, meaning a kind of equivalence, as used in definitions in most exact sciences. But I suppose that if you don't know the phrase, and interpret it as literal English, it sounds kind of weird, perhaps like someone fishing for something.

As you can see in the posts you just quoted he also asked for examples and counterexamples of gateway drugs, because that's how "if and only if" works. But never mind.



Reading your quotes of explanations, I'm trying to figure it out. Maybe it's pretty clear to you but it's a tricky subject to me. Please tell me if I got it right this time:

So "gateway" is not just a property of the drug in itself, but also depends on the context in which it is being used?

Someone smokes marijuana with his friends and they are "bad" friends, because through them he experiments with other drugs, and then he gets addicted to the other drugs. Then marijuana is the gateway drug (and his friends, if you like, are "gateway friends" ).

But if someone smokes marijuana twice a month and doesn't even drink, etc. Then in that case marijuana is NOT a gateway drug?

Or is it that marijuana in general is always considered a gateway drug because it has the possibility of being a "gateway" to harder drugs?

Cause I was thinking of the latter, and so it seems was el Sjaako, but reading your explanations it's more like an after-the-fact thing like "yeah he got addicted to meth and marijuana was his gateway drug".

So it's more like "marijuana can (often) be a gateway drug"? (depending on context)

It doesn't really matter but I think that's what some of the confusion came from, maybe.

No.  But they more than make up for that with the advertising they do in publications, convenience stores, ballparks and other event arenas.  Meanwhile, we are plastered with beer and liquor ads.

Okay same here.

Now that I think about it, you're right, I do remember learning in school that it's also specifically illegal to advertise pot. I never really thought about it, though. It seems natural. Actually, to be fair, I'm happy with ANY limits on advertising whatsoever, regardless of what for

[AFK]

Yes, it can be a gateway drug but isn't always.  But again, as I said, I don't think it is really important to the question of legalizing.  I think a young person being addicted to marijuana, in and of itself, is a negative, even if they don't move on to harder drugs.  That dependency, itself, can cause a lot of turmoil and seriously disrupt a young person's life.  Same thing with alcohol.  And of course with alcohol you have to deal with a fairly wide spectrum of potency, where just being addicted to alcohol can be pretty serious especially if it ends up being an addiction to particularly strong forms of alcohol. 

[LMNO]

Would it help to say that pot is currently in the [set] of drugs that are [easily accessable and increase the percentage risk of experimentation and addiction]; and that [set] is labeled "Gateway Drugs"?


Because it appears some of your questions are asking about if pot "is" a GD, as if there is some ON/OFF switch in the drug itself that leads to experimentation and addiction ("When is pot a gateway drug, and when isn't it?" (to paraphrase)).

It seems to me that RWHN is talking about two separate things:

1) The chemical structure in pot has been shown to cause addiction (using the broad definition), and inhibit proper development of the brain in children.

2) Pot currently fits into the [set] of Gateway Drugs.



RWHN, let me know if I'm off base here.

[AFK]

No, that pretty much nails it. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

 The chemical structure in pot has been shown to cause addiction"...

I have not seen this documented. I would be interested to though. It was my understanding that the addiction was psychological (and still very real for people that experience it) but was not due to the chemical structure of pot. Any references

Also, RWHN, I want to apologize for sounding like I was questioning your integrity.

[LMNO]

Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".

A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.

So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).


I hope you can agree with that.  If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.






*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, that seems unnecessarily vague, but I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with it in the context stated.

Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".

A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.

So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).


I hope you can agree with that.  If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.






*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.