Talk:Gateway drug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It never has been scientifically proven that cannabis is a "gateway" drug its just another piece of propaganda by the government to help crimanilize marijuana.

Yeah, "man", they're all out to get you. Or perhaps you're just suffering paranoia, which is a side effect of Marijuana use?--I'll bring the food 03:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

Gateway theory has never been proven.^{[citation needed]}

Despite that, I believe it important to give more room to other POVs. Perhaps there isn't a causal link between weed and e, but there is definately at least some evidence to suggest that weed users are more likely to do E.--Ringmaster j 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see a source for that.--I'll bring the food 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From the 2006 report Drug classification: making a hash of it? by the UK House of Commons Science & Technology Select Committee,

"53. The ACMD considered the gateway theory in its 2002 report on cannabis. The report concluded that proving any causal relationship between cannabis use and later use of Class A drugs was "very difficult due to the many confounding factors that might also act as gateways", including the individual's personality and their environment and peer group.[89] The report also stated that "Even if the gateway theory is correct, it cannot be a very wide gate as the majority of cannabis users never move on to Class A drugs".[90] In addition, Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the ACMD, commented in evidence to us that "the early use […] of nicotine and alcohol is a much wider gateway to subsequent misuse of drugs than cannabis or anything like that".[91] The RAND report also concluded that "the gateway theory has little evidence to support it despite copious research".[92] We note that recent results from animal models have suggested a possible biological mechanism for a gateway effect, at least in rats,[93] but in the course of this inquiry we have found no conclusive evidence to support the gateway theory."

- daksya 04:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)`

Basic law of science: correlation is NOT causality^{[citation needed]} . Maybe people who decide to use marijuana are pre-disposed to using drugs like E^{[citation needed]} .

Fill in the citations needed and i'll step back, other wise, forget it.--I'll bring the food 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Check

I believe that the tone of this article is a tad biased towards the pro-drug side of the argument (or anti-gateway-drug side, at least.) Not specificaly the actual text, but the tone of the article seems to hold contempt for the anti-drug side. Specifically, I have trouble with the term 'media', which seems like such a blanket term. Interesting fact: its usage in this context was coined by the Nixon administration, in order to discredit the newsmen of the time (be they print, radio or TV) and give them an ominous blanket designation- with that kind of background, I'd advise steering clear of using it. One might ask why I haven't changed it: I chose not to because I believe I might inject my own POV into it. So, I ask for a neutral party to analyse this article and decide its NPOV-ness, and suggest improvements. --Ringmaster j 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I not sure the article is biased against the anti-drug side. The term gateway drug is itself a term used by the anti-drug side of the drug discussion. To discuss it in neutral terms you have to move in the other direction because the term comes with its own inherent bias and political loading. As far as the term media , and the nixon administration didn't they come up with the current schedule for illegal drugs also? The media has always been a factor in the prohibition of substances movies like reefer madness and newspaper articles have been used to scare people and inject emotion into the discussion. Drugs are a hard subject to discuss in neutral terms. I do think I pretty neutral, I don't use illegal drugs and I haven't had a drink in two years not because of alcoholism but because its not that important to me.

Having said that I probably would be called a radical because I think that the schedule for illegal drugs should be based on a scientific study of addictiveness and negative physical effects. And drugs that are highly addictive should be controlled and denied to minors and adults while the milder drugs should be available to adults with the punishments similiar to those we use with alcohol. We don't want to return to the days of the opium den but we also don't want to return to the days of prohibition.

In its current form, I believe that the artice goes out of its way to present the beliefs of both sides without enforcing any conclusions. There is no medical basis for the gateway theory. Without that, it is readily identifiable as an example of the slippery slope logical falacy, which suggests that occurence X makes occurence Y more likely, when there is no tangible connection.

While there is some basis to the idea that a person who gets comfortable with purchasing and using marijuana will have lowered barriers to the use of more harmful drugs, this is really an argument for eliminating laws against marijuana instead of making them equivalent. If marijuana had the same barriers as alcohol, for instance, then there would be no weakening effect against the barriers for purchasing harder drugs.

Given these factors, I'd be willing to state that the article goes out of its way to present the "pro gateway" side, and possibly doesn't provide the "anti gateway" side enough backing for the reader to grasp the concept. Robert Rapplean 20:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, this article is too pro-gateway drug, but it doesn't deserve the npov notice... it just needs to be rewritten more encyclopaedicly. Flying Hamster 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it definetly deserves a NPOV check and prolly some cleaning up. The article lacks real organisation and I'm skeptical of the references. Also, the dutch drug policy on Marijuana kinda disproves the theory. Perhap we should create a section with arguements for the "gateway theory" and arguements against it. It's difficult for me to get references at the moment because of school filtersRubbergovernment 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)