Talk:Gateway drug theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gateway drug theory article.
Article policies
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Proof

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.


Amen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.151.71 (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


So by this shouldnt we say its gateway drug 'hypothesis' rather than theory? Because isnt theory suppose to have a degree of evidence rather than be made up of assumptions?

[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)

Food, you have no legs. Lots of good citations at Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. The second one is demonstrated by the "impulse buying" effect, where people walk into a grocery store for milk and walk out with a full basket of groceries. Just because beans are sold in the same place as milk doesn't mean that milk drinking leads to bean eating. Another example is big cars and large stereo speakers. It is well known that people who have one will often have the other, but there's no way you can suggest that driving a big car makes you want big stereo speakers. This is elementary statistics, available in any text book on the topic. No, I'm not going to cite some textbook. Robert Rapplean 17:35, 25 April 2007 (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)

[edit] Citations needed

I'd really like to see this article cleaned up. Half of all the "facts" lack citation and it's a real mess. Do we have someone knowledgeable on the subject who could either verify or replace the relevant claims?

[edit] Occam's Razor

People that have the personality traits, opportunity, morals, etc to do one kind of drug are similarly set up for other kinds. Coal isn't a gateway mineral for gold just because you need a pickaxe to get at either.

Perhaps. Can't it be argued that sugar is just a few steps before heroin? How many kids do you know that don't mind having a sugar rush every once in a while? Maybe we should start selling sugar on the top shelves of supermarkets, to adults only, from now on. Pyromancer102 14:06 15 April, 2007 (EST).

[edit] A quick note on form

Hi, there, just dropping in again and giving the article a quick read. Although the information is fairly accurate, it could use a little re-organizing. Articles generally start by giving a thorough description of the term, and then providing circumstances of usage, considerations, and that kind of thing in lower sections. The "all one section" appearance of this article is a little intimidating.

Also, it seems that 65.32.186.82 has hopped in and liberally sprinkled "citation needed" all over the article. I've reviewed his/her past half dozen contributions, and it's a combination of adding and removing this kind of tag, and in one case outright vandalism. I suggest that these citation requests be critically reviewed by knowledgable contributors. For starters, the information needed to support the third paragraph can be found in the results of Monitoring the Future.

Cheers, Robert Rapplean 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed moved

Gateway drug → Gateway drug theory

The proper name is "Gateway drug theory," is anyone objected to moving this article? —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about logic used to define Gateway drug

If Marijuanna is a gateway drug because people who use Cocaine are likely to have used Marijuanna or Tobacco first, than couldn't one argue that Caffeine is a gateway drug as many people who use drugs also drink Caffinated beverages? Thanks, Daniel


How about shoe size. Very few people with a shoe size below three use drugs but when you get in to the 8 to twelve range you will find a much higher percentage of drug users. Or education, very few people who haven't completed education beyond kindergarten are drug users while college graduates are much more likely to have used drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] marijuana is a gateway drug

i don't know about you all but every single person i know who does or used to do hard illicit drugs started with marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.36.80 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are complete wrong! They started with alcohol caffeine and nicotine! If the gateway theory were correct, they would have to start with the first drug they used. The gateway theory is rubbish.91.84.212.194 12:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] caffeine/etc

The "Gateway Drug" hypothesis, as it stands on this page, is more of a sociological hypothesis than a scientific one. Perhaps we should include more scientific info. Obviously, this leads to the questions surrounding early use of caffeine and prescribed medication; there's no doubt, on a physiological level, that drinking coca-cola or intaking ritalin medication, as a child, increases stimulant tolerance. Scientifically, this meets the criteria for a clear-cut gateway drug, in ways that marijuana does not. This info should be included in the article, any suggestions as to how to work it in? 128.59.154.17 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Coffee has clearly been an illegal drug in certain times and places. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)