The ‘gateway drug’ is alcohol, not marijuana

I read an AJM volume at my doc's office while I was waiting to be seen...I don't know which volume, but it was a 6 year old copy from 2006, as most of the magazines in her office are. There was a chart showing deaths from ALL pharmaceutical drugs (legal and illegal) in 2005 were completely overshadowed by alcohol and tobacco. As always, reported deaths from cannabis = 0.
 
ferinox said:
Weed was a gateway drug for me but not in the sense that politicians use as an argument to keep it illegal. It was a gateway to other substances bc I came into contact with other drugs through weed dealers with good drug connections.
Click to expand...

That's how they mean it, actually. A paternalistic argument is correct not because it is sensible, but because it is uttered by someone in authority. But make no mistake: when they call marijuana a gateway drug, they mean that it is the first illegal drug most users try. Ironically, this is used as justification to keep it illegal. Again, it doesn't matter what is said, but who is saying it.
 
reported deaths from cannabis = 0
Click to expand...

Truthiness level > 9000
Truth level = 0

This drugged-up urban myth has zero basis in fact and is in dire need of being rebuked. To wit:

Cannabis Smoking and Risk of Lung Cancer in Men

Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case–control study

Risk of Lung Cancer and Past Use of Cannabis in Tunisia

Adverse effects of cannabis

Now, I am not in any way intending to decry cannabis ingestion as the Dopefiend Devil that is Destroying our Great Nation. But seriously, the majority of stoners need to wake the fuck up. If you're systematically inhaling combusted plant matter, don't fool yourself into believing that 'your' smoke is better than 'their' smoke just because Big Gov'ment and the American Medical Association say otherwise.

People do drugs because they want to, not because they had some beer or a bong.
Click to expand...

I just think the whole gateway theory is another way to put the onus of drug taking on a substance as opposed to individual responsibility
Click to expand...

+1. Though I'm not inclined to agree with your theories of social 'responsibility,' I can confidently proclaim to anyone who will listen (be they a scientist, politician, or layperson) that I chose to ingest psychoactive drugs simply because I wanted to. Becoming a member of 'drug culture' and the decision to engage in the quasi-pathological behaviors with which that culture is associated was a conscious choice on my part. To my clear recollection, I was not some dumb impressionable teenager corrupted by the influence of the Poison Drink or Satan's Leaf - I was just a dumb teenager looking for thrills, of whatever flavor. I found them, in spades, in psychoactive drugs. The 'lifestyle' was something that I misguidedly sought out, not one that was aggressively inflicted upon me, neither by an insidious 'gateway drug' nor by the stereotyped, FauxNews 'pusher' of the parental imagination doling out PCP-laced bubblegum to five-year-old children.
 
Last edited:
Yes, inhaling combusted plant matter is unhealthy, but there are other ways to ingest Cannabis. Vaporization and edibles for a start.
Also, I wasn't trying to insinuate any theory of social responsibility. All I'm saying is that alcohol has a certain stature in society, and if it were another drug it-
I'm saying that a substance itself can't be blamed for doing more drugs other than whilst under the influence of a drug that removes inhibitions or impairs critical thinking, such as alcohol.
I know where you're coming from, I really do, as I'm the same, but does this mean everyone does/got into drugs for the same reason? No.
There is one common reason everyone who's done drugs has done drugs, and that's not because of any fucking gates, it's because of desire.
Sorry if my first post was unclear.
 
Yes, inhaling combusted plant matter is unhealthy, but there are other ways to ingest Cannabis. Vaporization and edibles for a start.
Click to expand...

Naturally, yeah, there are. But while the whole 'you don't have to smoke it' schtick may apply to medical applications, and sure does sound like a reasonable rejoinder, what proportion of recreational cannabis users do you sincerely believe rely near-exclusively upon methods other than smoking to achieve a buzz? The number is depressingly low, my friend.
 
i think whatever is the first drug you do can be your gateway drug. mine was ecstacy. after i tried that i wanted to try them all.
 
my first drug was alcohol and it hits so many receptors that one of them is bound to hit a chord with you, hence further issues
 
P A said:
Naturally, yeah, there are. But while the whole 'you don't have to smoke it' schtick may apply to medical applications, and sure does sound like a reasonable rejoinder, what proportion of recreational cannabis users do you sincerely believe rely near-exclusively upon methods other than smoking to achieve a buzz? The number is depressingly low, my friend.
Click to expand...

i use cannabis orally but the buzz is not the same (i.e. not recreational) i use oral cannabis to increase singing skills, something that smoking weed goes against literally
 
i use cannabis orally but the buzz is not the same (i.e. not recreational) i use oral cannabis to increase singing skills, something that smoking weed goes against literally
Click to expand...

While that may be pretty cool and great for you, most potheads are smoking it. Ergo, cannabis users as a group are probably at a greatly increased risk of developing lung cancer. End of story.
 
What I don't understand about this theory (of alcohol being the real gateway drug) is that it doesn't take into account how much people pay attention to whether something is illegal or not. If some kids try cannabis, find that it's pretty much completely safe, and then find out that it's actually scheduled more harshly than methamphetamine, what is that going to make them think about the safety of stuff like meth? It's less illegal so it's probably even safer, right?
 
Transcendence said:
Nuh Uh! Alcohol isn't a drug b because you uh, drink it! And it's legal! And it's a christian drink! I like alcohol. I drink it every night, and I don't do drugs.

Jesus drank wine. Are you saying Jesus took drugs? Fuck you.
Click to expand...

I would bet a very large sum of money that Jesus used multiple schedule one substances in his day.
 
It's less illegal so it's probably even safer, right?
Click to expand...

As someone who grew up as a middle class Caucasian teenager in a small American town, I must question whether people who say these sorts of things truly believe that most kids in the developed world (or anywhere, really) are that stupid. Maybe they are. But I doubt it.
 
I have never had any gateway drug, and I hate that:sus: they also say the same about Marijuana, That is the Only Drug I use Weed and my prescribed meds. I dont drink, when you get alcohol poisoning from it almost die, its happened to me when I was in my 20s have not drank since then.
 
sugar is the gateway drug. we are exposed to it from a young age, parents laugh at their kids' 'sugar high' and 'sugar crash' and we learn from early childhood that altering our consciousness can be fun and exciting.
 
PA - that first article you posted concludes
"Our results suggest that cannabis smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer. However, residual confounding by tobacco smoking or other potential confounders may explain part of the increased risk."
Click to expand...

The Association Between Marijuana Smoking and Lung Cancer
A Systematic Review states -
"Observational studies of subjects with marijuana exposure failed to demonstrate significant associations between marijuana smoking and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use.
Click to expand...

those north african case studies:
The present findings are consistent with the three North African case–control studies 16–18 that have reported a six- to eight-fold increased risk of lung cancer with cannabis smoking, although the lack of detailed smoking histories and the custom of mixing cannabis with tobacco may have contributed to the risks observed
Click to expand...
source: Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case–control study

I'm not trying to say there is no risk or increased risk for lung cancer from cannabis - only pointing out that the relation is definitely not as clear as you are trying to make it seem

Back on topic though - my first drugs of (abuse?) were certainly sugar and caffeine as an adolescent. But I started drinking alcohol before using other drugs. Marijuana followed shortly after but I would attribute that sequence more to the people I hung out and worked with with on a daily basis back then. I'm sure if they had all been doing coke instead of pot I may have tried cocaine at an early age...
 
Last edited:
The whole theory is fake. I have known people using various substances when I spent some time getting heroin from the street, and not only. Relations between what somebody used to take and what takes now are far more complex than these theories. I went to intravenous injection of strong opioids and I hadn't smoked marijuana earlier, moreover I had never liked alcohol! Most people who like downers don't like stimulants and most of those who like stimulants don't like downers although there are people who like to use both, there was really no rule. There was no marijuana there, though. I guess, if at all, they wanted to combine something with e.g. clonazepam, it would be alcohol.

One can get back from heroin (supposedly the "worse" drug) to alcohol, it happens too. I've ever known a guy who did heroin and some shit from RC shops (stuff "to collect"... like bath salts), even when mephedrone got illegal.

Besides, I guess there are more drunk sirs I can see all around, I can't see anyone smoking marijuana or snorting something etc. I understand that alcohol is legal but surely it's not a pleasant view for me looking at alcoholics we certainly have plenty of in Poland.
 
the relation is definitely not as clear as you are trying to make it seem
Click to expand...

When did I directly implicate cannabis in the etiology of cancer? From the studies I've linked, the association alone is clear. This fact, coupled with the knowledge that inhaling combustion products is generally harmful to human lung tissue, is more than enough to warrant serious concern.

My point was that cannabis is not a risk-free drug, and should stop being touted as such by proponents of decriminalization/legalization. It makes them appear foolish, misguided, and misinformed. So please, don't reply to my post with your faux deflationary skepticism as though I'm the one promoting misinformation in a thread containing phrases such as "deaths from cannabis = 0".
 
Last edited:
Alcohol is the only drug that's been responsible for me trying a drug I wouldn't otherwise try, if that makes sense.

With MDMA and Weed I made a sober and informed decision to do them, before they were ever offered to me. The first (and only) time I did a line of mephedrone was because I was absolutely smashed. Pretty sure if I was wankered and someone offered me coke I'd be like "fuck yeah why not".
 
P A said:
When did I directly implicate cannabis in the etiology of cancer? From the studies I've linked, the association alone is clear. This fact, coupled with the knowledge that inhaling combustion products is generally harmful to human lung tissue, is more than enough to warrant serious concern.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with what you are saying. On a tangent, however, have you seen the reports that while smoked cannabis is carcinogenic some cannabinoids may inhibit tumour growth. If this is true then cannabis is probably less likely to give you cancer than tobacco, as the two effects will work against each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top