Talk:Gateway drug effect/Archive 1

Versions of the theory

This section has no citations, contains questionably worded statements such as "to make matters more complicated", and is ignorant as to the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions. To clarify: No versions of Gateway Theory would claim marijuana use is necessary for abuse of harder drugs, as the existence of heavy drug abusers who have never used marijuana immediately invalidates such a statement. Furthermore, no versions of Gateway Theory would claim marijuana use is sufficient for abuse of harder drugs, as the existence of marijuana users who have never abused heavy drugs immediately invalidates such a statement as well. Rather than complete removal of this section, I will “clean it up” and request the original poster cite the claims they have made. If this is not done in a timely fashion, removal may be necessary (as is the case for any material of questionable origin and without citation on Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.100.119 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text at top

"Nonetheless, these histories and research do not indicate a causal relationship between the early uses and the later uses and, therefore, do not confirm the gateway theory."

This is an inappropriately precise statement on causality which smacks of personal motive in its inclusion. Inductive research can only serve to lend support for or against a theory; it can never completely confirm or disconfirm one (as is at the very least heavily suggested by the statement). All evidence – both pro and con – should be represented equally on this wiki page, but definite conclusions as to causality are not appropriate (as for almost any scientific theory, for that matter). It is important to remember that the existence of evidence unsupportive of a theory does not “disprove” it, nor does it negate evidence supportive for the establishment of causality. If someone desires hard to keep this statement in the article, at the very least it must be cited in context of consensus of the scientific community (and nothing less). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.101 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Study of Australian Adolescents (10 years)

How does this study proves causality beyond correlation? To me it only shows that a person with predisposition to drug abuse will start with the most available drug. :Griii2 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

No - a theory is the same as a hypothesis. If proved it becomes fact. Although the word 'fact' in modern usage is losing its former degree of truth. In some english-speaking cultures (eg Scotland), we say 'Is that a fact ?' to mean 'Is that true ?'. In the media in England, the word 'fact' is being debased and devalued - 'facts' may or may not be true ! Some people use a neologism 'factoid' to imply doubt. However 'theory' is fine here.

For an example, consider that evolution is often spoken-of disparagingly as 'just a theory'.

The tricky thing here is whether it is necessary, or even possible, to prove cause-and-effect. See Post hoc ergo propter hoc - 'B happens after A' does not prove that 'A causes B' ! (100% of drug users have drunk milk ...)--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be made clear the difference between the scientific use of the word theory, and the commonplace definition of theory? Perhaps a link to the page on theory would be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.201.218 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously attempting to play it off in "laymens" terms? Because some believe evolution is "just a theory" dosn't excuse the fact that it IS a theory, a scientific theory. Which is not a "laymens" theory. And as much as a "layman" believes it is is anything less than a scientific theory dosn't stop them being completely wrong. You may wish to play off "theory" in the title to give it some credibility, but it wont work, it shall always be, as with all the anti-canabis ignorance, a complete failure. Try again. - Pinoch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.197.182 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)`[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

In particular, the ABC article linked (Source 8), stating that cannabis users were 15 times more likely to smoke cannabis, is a source that misrepresents the study in question, which actually offers an inverse conclusion (Stating that amphetamine use is more often caused by cannabis, not that cannabis use more often causes amphetamine use). Since better sourcing can be found via the abstract of the article and by citing the article itself, should we not use that, and represent it accurately, rather than using a secondary source which displays the conclusions backwards?

Referenced study on Wiley Leishu (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]

Proposed moved

Gateway drug → Gateway drug theory

The proper name is "Gateway drug theory," is anyone objected to moving this article? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, but did all of the marijuana users move on to harder drugs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnealon (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

MArijuana is only a gateway drug if you let it be. there are plenty of "responsible" smokers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsadvocate666 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway effect and public info / legal status

There are a couple of comments on the Cannabis_(drug)#Gateway_drug_theory page that might be better here instead.

One important point in evaluating the "Gateway drug theory" is : what are the consequences of the theory - is it useful - how does it affect us particularly in terms of society's attitude, public information, legislation and enforcement ? Are there any reliable studies on the effects on individuals and society of (mis)information and strict action on 'soft drugs' ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is doubtless Jacqui Smith's reason for intending to reclassify cannabis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnealon (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

shouldn't there be a section that describes the criticisms of the theory? As it is, the article implies that there is a universal consensus about the theory's validity. All of the criticisms such as "all users of heroin have consumed caffeine, so according to this, caffeine is a gateway drug" could be incorporated into a new criticisms section. July 10, 2008. Why is the info given almost entirely about Marijuana. This clearly shows the authors bias against Marijuana. Alcohol and tobacco seem to be of little concern and yet alcohol is easily the most harmful drug in our society.

The obvious reason

I really can't fathom why this theory hasn't been mentioned anywhere, because to me, this is obviously the real connection between cannabis and harder drugs: The people who use cannabis to begin with, are usually less inhibited towards such things in the first place. I remember back in middle school and high school, there were certain people who would use the drugs, usually the "popular" kids who also drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes, or the kids who got low grades. Naturally, these people are more open to drugs, considering they start experimenting with them at age 15, so of course they'll also be open to harder drugs later in life. Basically, an uninhibited, wild party person, who's not doing well in school, is naturally more likely to use drugs than regular students or geeks who get good grades. It's predisposition, not cause and effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.128.97 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish

How would you call this theory in Spanish? There is a name for it in Spanish? like "teoría de la puerta", "teoría de la entrada", "teoría de la compuerta"… which of these would be best? or only leave it in "Teoría Gateway"… I would like your opinion on it, because is interesting globaly and one should talk about it in every language…--200.8.20.88 (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit already an absurd concept, it sounds SO much funnier in Spanish. 128.118.51.33 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A causes B?

Can this even be considered a theory? Lets imagine a guy, lets call him joe, joe attended the 1st round of the wimbledon tennis championship this year. Its clear theres a greater chance that joe will attend the 2nd round, over a random person who didn't attend the first round. Does this mean that theres a greater chance of joe attending the second round simply because he attended the first? Is it not much more rational that joe just likes tennis? Its perfectly reasonable to presume that a guy taking drug A will have a greater chance of taking drug B than a person not as interested in drugs. The goverments and anti-drug campaigners certainly do not help when they come out and say that todays weed is as strong as heroin and such, all this does is lead naive weed smokers into thinking that other drugs can be treated as lightly as weed. Besides, the war on drugs is a losing battle, trying to control mans hunger simply won't work. 193.120.116.183 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) shane[reply]

Steppingstone theory

I've suggested that the one sentence Steppingstone theory article is merged into this one. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are one and the same. The "gateway" idea arose after the "steppingstone" idea started to come into disfavor. And the proper term would not be "theory" or "hypothesis" but "myth"

You can read the history of the gateway myth at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/gateway_myth.htm It is a far more interesting story than the current article.
The idea that one small sin leads to another is an old one. Prohibitionists have used the idea of a chemical progression to justify prohibition since the earliest days. See, for example, Themes in Chemical Prohibitions at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html Ten standard themes for prohibition are identified. They are:

1. The drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy.

2. The drug is identified as solely responsible for many problems in the culture, i.e., crime, violence, and insanity.

3. The survival of the culture is pictured as being dependent on the prohibition of the drug.

4. The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino theory" of chemical progression.

5. The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption.

6. Both the user and supplier of the drug are defined as fiends, always in search of new victims; usage of the drug is considered "contagious."

7. Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access.

8. Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated

(Note that this article is an original US Goverment publication, so there are no copyright issues.)
The progression of the idea through history is interesting. Circa 1910, they believed that the certain steps to a "drunkard's grave" including snacking between meals, eating "Mexicanized food" and (notably) using opium.
In the 1920s, marijuana was outlawed in some states because of the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana. See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm and The Genesis of Marijuana Prohibition at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlr2.htm
In 1937, when marijuana was outlawed at the national level with the Marihuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was asked specifically if there was any connection between marijuana and heroin. He replied emphatically that there was no connection between the two drugs at all. He stated that they were used by two different classes of people who did not associate with each other. You can find the full text of Anslinger's testimony at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm
In 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report confirmed what Anslinger said -- no connection at all. See the La Guardia Report at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/lag/lagmenu.htm
The story changed in 1951. Anslinger was up before Congress asking for more money to enforce the marijuana laws. You see, he himself had recognized in 1937 that the laws were completely unenforceable on his meager budget. Unfortunately for him, just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all the of the things that had been alleged about marijuana in the 1937 hearings were completely false. It did not cause insanity, criminality, and death, and neither did it cause young lovers to elope -- as had been alleged.
Anslinger was left with no justification for his call for more money, so he made up the idea that marijuana is the certain stepping stone to heroin. In doing so, he directly contradicted all the research on the subject, as well as his own testimony from 1937. Regardless, it has been the basis of US drug policy ever since.
Over the years, as the public began to realize that marijuana won't make your fangs grow six inches long, or turn you into a bat (both ideas promoted by the US Official Expert on marijuana), they also began to question the steppingstone idea. After all, think about it rationally. Is there any drug that will give you a craving for completely different drugs that you have never had? Obviously not, so the idea came under a good deal of question.
Under pressure from people who were interested in facts and logic, the idea morphed into the "gateway" myth. That is, they no longer claim that there is some chemical trigger that makes people crave completely different drugs. Now, the idea is considerably more nebulous. They don't say that marijuana has some supernatural property found in no other drug. They simply say that it is the first drug used, which in many peoples' minds, will leave the implication that it triggers further drug use. In other words, marijuana is still evil, but don't try to pin them down on the details.
In truth, the current definition of the "gateway" (when people are pressed) is simply that marijuana is the first drug used. This itself is incorrect, and the idea that it leads to harder drug use is also incorrect.
For all those who want verification that the idea is simply a myth, you can read the full text of every major government commission report on marijuana from around the world over the last 100 years at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. They all reached the same conclusion -- the gateway (or steppingstone) idea is simply mythology. The latest US report to address the subject was the Institute of Medicine report on medical marijuana (1999) and it said that the only connection between marijuana and harder drugs is the fact that they are illegal. The legal system itself causes whatever gateway effect might be found.
The latest research on users of medical marijuana by Dr. Tom O'Connell provides some better answers. Dr. O'Connell has done life histories on more than 4,000 medical marijuana users and has found some interesting patterns. See http://doctortom.org/
First, marijuana is not the first drug that people typically use. The first drug is typically alcohol or tobacco. We could say that alcohol and tobacco are gateway drugs but this would be ridiculous. Gateway to what? Alcohol and tobacco combined kill about 500,000 people per year -- at least 25 times as many as all the illegal drugs combined. To say that they are gateways to drugs that kill far fewer illustrates the nonsense behind this idea.
Dr. O'Connell has found that the gateway idea is not only wrong -- it is exactly backwards. Marijuana does not lead to stronger drugs. It actually leads people AWAY from them.
In his research, Dr. O'Connell found some common patterns among medical marijuana users. First and foremost was that his patients matched the demographic profile of the US very closely. They are distributed across rich and poor, well-educated and uneducate, young and old, etc., etc. About half are over the age of 30.
One common pattern was a history of early childhood trauma. For men it was usually an absent natural father or a bad relationship with the natural father during childhood. Men also had a history of early diagnoses with things like ADD, ADHD, PTSD, and similar anxiety-related disorders. They also had common histories of problem behavior early in life and early use and abuse of multiple drugs. Many of them had serious hard drug abuse problems early in life -- not just one drug, but a number of different drugs. For women, there was a history of things like childhood sexual abuse.
The interesting part is that 90 percent greatly reduced their use of hard drugs, and ten percent quit completely when they took up the regular use of medical marijuana.
This makes more sense when you consider that drug abuse is driven by anxiety-related issues. These people are taking drugs in order to self-medicate anxiety problems. They are doing the same thing that other people might do if they went to the doctor and got a prescription for Xanax or Valium. Marijuana is a very good anxiolytic (anxiety reliever) and is quite safe compared to other drugs on the market. The reason that these people are able to greatly reduce their use of harder drugs is because marijuana gives them the anxiety relief they are seeking without screwing them up so badly that they can't function.
So, in short, this whole article on the gateway idea needs to be rewritten to tell the history and conform to the facts.

Forgot to add: 98.151.226.21 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Clifford Schaffer 16 November 2009[reply]

Excellent debunking, Clifford. A condensed version of much of what you said would make a good "criticism" section at the end. Ajax151 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that, since what I posted deals with the history of how it came to be, most of it should come up front. I view it as a belief in witchcraft. Before you go through all the pro and con science on witchcraft, people need to understand that witchcraft is really lunacy from history. Therefore, trying to claim a scientific basis for the thing becomes obviously wrong from the get-go. It is the equivalent of trying to do research on evil spells. Those who believe in them will interpret their evidence to support evil spells.

I would make such changes myself to the article but I am no expert on formatting the Wikipedia way. The last part, which discusses the actual truth behind the "gateway" idea is probably correctly put into a criticism area. But most of it deals with the fact that anyone who bought into it -- including many of the researchers who researched it -- was fooled by a deliberate US Government propaganda campaign. If you know the history then, from a scientific standpoint, you know there isn't any science to support it.

98.151.226.21 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Clifford Schaffer 26 November 2009[reply]

I put a criticism section in. Do you want to add to it?Ajax151 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added to the section but I confess I am not skilled in how references should be done, so I request that someone more skilled help me out. Here are the references for the changes. Thanks. Alcohol Worse Than Heroin, U.K. Group Says http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/23081

Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (2001–2007): demographics, social characteristics, patterns of cannabis and other drug use of 4117 applicants Thomas J O'Connell*1 and Ché B Bou-Matar2 http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-4-16.pdf

Rat Park http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II III. THE GENESIS OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlr2.htm

STATEMENT OF H. J. ANSLINGER, COMMISSIONER OF NARCOTICS, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm

La Guardia Committee Report - Conclusions http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/conc1.htm

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II VI. THE 1950's: HARSHER PENALTIES AND A NEW RATIONALE-THE "STEPPING STONE" THEORY http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlr5.htm

La Guardia Committee Report - Conclusions http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/conc1.htm

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding Chapter III Social Impact of marihuana use Progression To Other Drugs http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncc3_18.htm

Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs Chapter 6 - Users and uses: form, practice, context Stepping stone to other drugs? http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/canadasenate/vol1/chapter6_stepping_stone.htm

MARIJUANA AND MEDICINE: ASSESSING THE SCIENCE BASE Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., Editors Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1999 CHAPTER 3: First, Do No Harm: Consequences of Marijuana Use and Abuse http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/iom/IOMReport.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.88.200 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's another factor I don't see dealt with: law. I've heard it said the only reason marijuana is a "gateway" is because it's illegal. Given a choice between legal alcohol (which will get you grounded but not jail) & illegal marijuana, far & away the majority choose alcohol. Given a choice between marijuana & cocaine, both illegal, many will chose cocaine. So, the argument goes, make marijuana legal, demand for cocaine virtually disappears (except for hardcore addicts), & with it all the street crime...& all the jobs of the anti-drug crusaders, & the drug cops, & their drug-seizure $$$... Can you say "conflict of interest"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studies not supporting the gateway theory

I just posted a list of major government studies that do not support the gateway theory. Can I ask why that list was deleted and it was returned to only the mention of the IOM report? It seems that the person doing the deleting wouldn't even have had time to check the references. Furthermore, most of those reports were bigger and more comprehensive than the IOM report.

FYI, I am Cliff Schaffer, and those references are all in full text on my web site druglibrary.org/schaffer, so you don't have to take my word for any of it. You may note that I have already contributed to this article under the Criticism section.

May I suggest that, if you want to change something of what I said, please help me with properly posting the references I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.234 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Druglibrary.org appears to be a partisan website opposing the criminalization of drugs, especially marijuana. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links are to the FULL UNEDITED TEXT of the documents, as are all the works on that site. It is a LIBRARY -- meaning a collection of full text books, most of which have not been written by the librarian. Where they are posted makes no difference to the fact that it is the FULL UNEDITED TEXT of the original book. By that standard, you couldn't post a link to the full text of the Bible because it wasn't on God's personal site. Everybody who has posted it has a partisan interest.

The Schaffer Library has been an internationally recognized authority on the subject for almost twenty years. It is used as a basic educational resource at schools, colleges, and universities around the world. It was the basis for the four-hour History Channel special "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How That Got That Way." It has been referenced in numerous books on the subject. It was also the inspiration for the Canadian Special Commission of 2002. In addition, the Office of National Drug Control Policy themselves has sent me unsolicited packets of documents asking me to include them on my website. The reason they did that is because my web site has more credibility than theirs does. You might also want to ask your own children (if you have any) about their drug education in junior high, high school, and college. There are numerous school districts around the country where my website is the first reference given to students who ask for more information. (My own grandson proved it himself in his seventh grade drug education class.)

In fact -- if you care to read just a bit - you will find that it is referenced at least dozens of times on Wikipedia -- including THIS VERY ARTICLE where (if you will note above) I was asked to contribute to the Criticism section.

I accept your apology for not knowing that the Schaffer Library is, in fact, an authoritative international resource, and has been for most of the last two decades. Please return the edits, or come up with a better reason. The fact that you don't like the way the librarian parts his hair doesn't have anything to do with the FULL UNEDITED TEXT of the reference.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.234 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I'll copy the reverted content here:

Every major government commission report on marijuana in the last 100 years that has studied this issue has concluded that there is no inherent "gateway" effect of using cannabis. The general consensus of these reports is that any "gateway" effect that may exist is either propaganda or is due to the social effects of cannabis being in the same black market as other illegal drugs. These studies include:

--The La Guardia Committee Report, New York, 1944<ref name=LAG>{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm |title=The La Guardia Committee Report|publisher=[[City of New York]]|year=1944|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--The Wootton Report on Cannabis - UK, 1968 <ref name=Woot>{{cite web| http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/wootton/sec4.htm |title=The Wootton Report on Cannabis|publisher=[[UK Government]]|year=1968|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--Canadian Government Commission on Cannabis (the LeDain Commission) - 1972 <ref name=USNC>{{cite web| http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/ledain/cannabis_and_other_drugs.htm|title=Canadian Government Commission on Cannabis (the LeDain Commission)|publisher=[[Canadian Government]]|year=1972|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--The Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition - 1970 <ref name=LEGAL>{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm|title=The Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition|publisher=[[Virginia Law Review]]|year=1970|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--Licit and Illicit Drugs by the Editors of Consumer Reports, 1972<ref name=LICIT>{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm |title=Licit and Illicit Drugs|publisher=[[Consumers Union]]|year=1972|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--The Report of the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding - 1972 .<ref name=USNC>{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm|title=The Report of the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding|publisher=[[US Government]]|year=1972|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," 1999 by the US Institute of Medicine found no evidence of a link between cannabis use and the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs on the basis of its particular physiological effect.<ref name=IOM>{{cite web|url=http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/notice.html|title=Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base|publisher=[[National Academies Press]]|year=1999|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

--Canadian Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs - 2002 <ref name=CSSC>{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/canadasenate/vol1/chapter6_stepping_stone.htm |title=Canadian Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs|publisher=[[Canadian Government]]|year=2002|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

From a scientific standpoint, the issue is settled to such a degree that modern studies often fail to mention it, simply because the evidence for it isn't strong enough to warrant a discussion. One such example is "A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use" by the World Health Organization, 1995 <ref name=CSSC>{{cite web|url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-index.htm|title=A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use|publisher=[[World Health Organization]]|year=1995|accessdate=2007-03-30}}</ref>

I probably shouldn't have summarily reverted the edit, but I still feel it isn't suitable to be included in the article.

Why did you remove the study by the Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, previously in the article?
I'd be wary of bold claims like "Every major government commission report on marijuana in the last 100 years that has studied this issue has concluded that there is no inherent 'gateway' effect of using cannabis". (Citing any number of studies which reach one conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that there are no studies with a different one.) It may well be the case that it is the consensus among drug researchers that there's no causal link between the use of cannabis and other drugs - but this, too, needs to be referenced to a reliable source.
Likewise, a claim that "From a scientific standpoint, the issue is settled to such a degree that modern studies often fail to mention it, simply because the evidence for it isn't strong enough to warrant a discussion" was unsourced, and reads like a speculation on why a particular study doesn't mention the gateway theory.
The reports themselves could well be included in the article. I'd recommend, though, to stick to the facts: something like "A number of government reports, including [...], have failed to find any causal link between the use of marijuana and other drugs."

Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the study by the Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health. I included it in my list. You know, just one more item in a long list of such studies.
As for the "every study" I have confirmed that with the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the DEA. I have asked both of them repeatedly over the last twenty years if they know of any comparable study that agrees with them. After numerous replies from them, the statement still stands. In fact, I have actively asked everyone (expert or not, including the world's leading experts on the subject) and no one has come up with one yet. If you have any such study, or can find one, I have been waiting twenty years to find it, so trot it out. But -- knowing that you don't have any such study yourself, and you can't find anyone who has one, the more prudent thing to do simply would have been to edit that statement. I think your actions are showing that you aren't quite unbiased yourself.
If you care to really read up on the science - as well as the history -- you will find that it never was a scientific concept, meets no scientific standards and doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it that would stand up in a basic college class on logic. That's a fact. Note that even the research you have decided was unbiased enough to survive your edits does not state that there is a "gateway."
You could have edited the article in that way and we could have worked something out agreeable. I think the real problem here is that we have a wikipedia editor who is biased and is clearly out of step with what other Wikipedia editors have asked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.234 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content from criticism section

I have removed the following additions to the criticism section. They are unreferenced; in addition, the section is described as listing alternate explanations to the perceived gateway effect - these aren't alternate explanations, but general criticism of the gateway theory (and it reads like a partisan essay). (In addition, I have removed the "self-fulfilling prophecy" item; while it was referenced, it once again wasn't an alternate explanation, and it was too vague.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no drug that, when taken, will give a person a craving for completely different drugs they have never had. The idea is pharmacologically impossible.
The idea is more akin to urban legend, without any basis in logic or fact. For example, alcohol is named as a "gateway" drug—implying that it is a relatively safe drug that leads to more harmful drugs. In fact, alcohol kills far more people and causes more social problems than all the illegal drugs combined by a wide margin. It makes no sense to refer to alcohol as a "gateway" drug when it is the most harmful drug itself.

Dr. Tom O'Connell did life and medical histories on thousand of medical marijuana patients in California. A significant number of them had some common traits, including an absence of the natural father during childhood, early diagnoses with problems such as ADD, ADHD, and PTSD, and other forms of trauma. They also had a high frequency of early abuse of multiple drugs, including blackout periods. When they took up the regular use of medical marijuana, 90 percent of them greatly reduced their use of hard drugs and ten percent quit completely. The explanation is that drug abuse is driven by anxiety related problems. Drug abusers are seeking to self-medicate anxiety-related problems similar to the manner in which other people might go to the doctor for a prescription for Valium. Marijuana is an excellent anxiety-reducing drug and gives these people relief from their anxiety without affecting their state of consciousness to the point that where they can't function.

The idea is, in fact, a complete falsehood, made up by Harry J. Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. It never had anything to do with the marijuana laws.

Marijuana was originally outlawed for two major reasons. The first was racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" idea. During the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Harry Anslinger was asked specifically if there was any connection between marijuana and heroin. He replied that there was no connection at all. In 1944, the La Guardia Committe Report confirmed what Anslinger had said in 1937—there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin. In 1951, the "stepping stone" idea—the precursor to the "gateway" idea—was invented. Anslinger was up before Congress again, requesting more money for enforcement of the marijuana laws. Unfortunately for Anslinger, just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all of the reasons that had been given to outlaw marijuana were completely wrong. Anslinger was left with no justification for his request for more money. Indeed, he was left with no justification for the marijuana laws at all. In response, he made up the idea that marijuana was the certain stepping-stone to heroin. In doing so, he contradicted all the research, as well as his own testimony in 1937. Regardless, it became the major justification for marijuana prohibition. The idea morphed in the "gateway" idea when it became obvious that the original idea of some substance that could magically cause heroin use was indefensible. It then became a more general idea of "gateway" drugs. The idea of a chemical causation was dropped and "gateway" became more akin to "drugs first used" than "drugs that chemically trigger hard drug abuse". The idea is that these drugs open doors to later drug use. In this sense the idea says nothing at all about the properties of any particular drug and provides no useful information how these drugs should be regulated.

The idea has been debunked by every major government commission on drug policy that has studied the issue.
The idea fails basic logic. The primary evidence is that many heroin users used marijuana before they used heroin. Therefore, they reason that marijuana must have caused the heroin addiction. It is the idea that because one event happened after another event, then the first event must have been the cause. It is the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Sheesh! If you had bothered to read the discussion section, the first thing you would have noticed is that I posted the references to the Discussion section and asked someone to help me out with the proper posting of those references. You see- as I explained above- I am not well-schooled in how Wikipedia wants all those links posted, so I asked for some technical help. Is there any reason you couldn't have simply posted the references in the proper format, as I requested?

You said that "in addition, the section is described as listing alternate explanations to the perceived gateway effect"

The section is titled "Criticism" and -- if you will care to read the Discussion above, you will see that it was put in there specifically for such things. Just FYI, your comment is like asking for alternate explanations for unicorns and hobgoblins. I have news for you - there aren't any actual unicorns and hobgoblins. They don't exist. Therefore, any alternate explanations must start with "They don't exist." It is the same with the gateway idea, the history of which is quite clear. The fact is that the gateway idea is, in fact, an urban legend, as any reading of the history will conclusively prove. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean that you get to deny them.

" - these aren't alternate explanations, but general criticism of the gateway theory (and it reads like a partisan essay)."

There is no "alternate explanation" for something that doesn't exist. You have assumed that it is something real. Sorry, but you have been fooled on that score. It never was real - as the history conclusively proves. And, just FYI, stating the fact that something is a myth and nothing more IS a valid criticism. If you are all wrapped up in explaining fairies, it is a perfectly good criticism to show you that fairies are simply figments of your imagination. Nothing in logic requires the critic to assume that fairies are real, even though you may believe it.

"(In addition, I have removed the "self-fulfilling prophecy" item; while it was referenced, it once again wasn't an alternate explanation, and it was too vague.)"

I agree with you there. But, I think it is time to get a Wikipedia editor in here who doesn't take the stance that the "gateway" idea is real and, therefore, the only information that can be submitted is that which assumes it is real and only quibbles about the detail.

Now, if you want to be really helpful and educational, I suggest that, as a minimum, you restore the list of studies and do as I asked the first time I posted them -- help me get the proper posting of the references correct. The information I posted is the best research ever done on the subject. Sorry if it doesn't agree with your idea that fairies are real and therefore, everyone must assume that fairies are real from the get-go. Fairies, and the gateway myth, are both fantasies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.234 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike said: "They are unreferenced; in addition, the section is described as listing alternate explanations to the perceived gateway effect - these aren't alternate explanations, but general criticism of the gateway theory (and it reads like a partisan essay). "

Mike, in case you missed the comments posted above: Excellent debunking, Clifford. A condensed version of much of what you said would make a good "criticism" section at the end. Ajax151 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So, Mike, the "Criticism" section was added specifically so I would have a place to post it. If you want to add a History section, as I originally suggested for some of it, go ahead. In case you were wondering, any reading of the history of these drug laws reads like a partisan essay. That's just the facts. If you read the history you know the idea was simply propaganda. That's why I posted the full text of hundreds of historical documents on my web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.234 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in External Links

I noticed that the four external links at the bottom of the article all led to pages against the gateway theory (except the third which appears to be a dead link). I think that the same even-handed approach to the cannabis studies sections should be applied to the external links section; either sources in support of the theory should be added or (even better) links to neutral general information should replace biased links towards either side.72.198.211.245 (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is good to be even-handed, references don't always balance out. An article about the "Flat Earth Theory" might have trouble finding as many sites supporting the theory as disputing it. Timothy Campbell (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the lede

or at least the paragraph saying post hoc ergo propter hoc, should mention that this theory is literally an example of the slippery slope theory. 188.6.66.154 (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph MISSES the difference between Correlation and Causality!!!!!

While the second paragraph isn't wrong in logic per se, it's using data that isn't needed to debunk a gateway drug theory. I'll put the questionable phrase in bold:

"While some research shows that many hard drug users used cannabis or alcohol before moving on to the harder substances, other research shows that some serious drug abusers have used other drugs before using cannabis or alcohol.[4] The former is particularly evident in individual drug-abuse histories which tend to show that "hard drug" users do progress from one drug to another.[5]"

Believe it or not, this is to the side of the point. It is not a needed reason to defeat gateway drug theories; it's an added note. To say that some started hard drugs without starting pot isn't entirely needed. Why? EVEN IF EVERY pot user moved on to a harder drug, and every harder drug user STARTED with pot, it does not make pot a gateway drug to that harder drug. It's still merely a bidirectional correlation and not causal. You have to assume the possibility that the harder drug user would started with harder drugs anyway and that pot was merely easier at first.Tgm1024 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

♠As I'm reading it, it's effectively blowing up the "gateway" argument. "Gateway" presupposes marijuana leads to harder drugs; the bolded passage says there's evidence use doesn't depend on use of marijuana, so the "gateway" isn't one.

♠As for correlation & causality, the whole gateway theory is faulty in that regard. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't a debate about whether the theory has any currency. It's a record of the fact that the theory exists. There is a difference. Whether it "works" in some way does not prevent people from thinking that it does and from shaping their acts and poinions around this. Britmax (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]