Stepping through the gateway

The arguments against the legalization of marijuana are basically the same ones used in 1970. They’re wearing a bit thin.

Whenever the question of legalization of Marijuana is discussed, someone will always bring out the argument that marijuana is a “gateway drug;” that is, according to Google, “a habit-forming drug that, while not itself addictive, may lead to the use of other addictive drugs.”

There’s a problem with this. Several, actually.

The idea of a “gateway drug” starts to fall apart when you realize that virtually all people who started using marijuana at a young age first used, or abused, alcohol and cigarettes. Notice that I did not say, “alcohol OR cigarettes,” since in every case I am aware of the “stoner” has first used them both.

The argument against this point always (in my experience) begins, “But alcohol and cigarettes are legal!” and starts to fall apart immediately. Frankly, I cannot find any logical support for this argument. If abuse of substance A leads to abuse of substance B, what the hell does it matter if substance A is legal or not?

I suppose that the underlying premise to the “gateway” argument is that legalizing marijuana will lead to more marijuana use, and thus to more abuse of harder, more destructive and less legal drugs through this “gateway.” But if you’re going to argue that everyone on heroin started with grass, then you have to face the argument that everyone on heroin started with eating food or drinking water or breathing air. Ask people to define the difference and marijuana opponents always seem to fall back of the old legality argument, willfully ignorant of its holes.

You could argue that grass is, itself, a destructive substance (the science of this is a matter of some debate), but are you also going to argue that alcohol and tobacco aren’t? Didn’t think so.

One other point re the “legality” argument; in every case I’m aware of, people who abuse alcohol and tobacco started doing so at an age when the use of either was illegal for them whether they then moved up to “harder drugs” or not. So that kind of knocks your “…but they’re legal!” argument on its ear.

It is also argued that the nature of the drug itself increases the propensity to abuse other drugs. Again, my counter to ask you how alcohol, with its powerful and potentially lethal intoxicating properties, doesn’t do the same. And we’re back to your legality/illegality argument again.

Another argument is that “peer pressure” pushes people into the use of harder drugs, and that legalization of marijuana will only make this worse. But I have never seen that “peer pressure” in any way respected such legalities. Beyond that. I have to plead that I am getting old and therefore am out of touch with the effects of peer pressure; I suspect that they aren’t as prominent as they once were, but I am to far out of it to judge properly. In any case, to me the “peer pressure” argument seems, at best, weak; at worst, it’s silly.

I haven’t smoked grass for at least thirty years. I was never a serious drinker and only smoked an occasional pipe or cigar, and I gave it all up when my heart became an issue. That was a long time ago. In my case, the use of alcohol or tobacco might have lead to the use of grass (though I doubt it) but the use of grass certainly never lead to the use of anything harder. Because of this, it’s difficult to sell me on the whole “gateway” thing.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. But I do have opinions, informed ones, and the right to express them. I have just done so.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Excellent information, fully referenced, regarding the “gateway theory” and more:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Gateway_Theory#sthash.q7DG2xUG.dpbs