U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-26-2008, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,381 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder Spoken like a man who can't get pregnant.
Or do you believe that having children won't 'complicate' your life?
We somehow went from "understanding" to some ontological point with an implied non-subjective ontological state of "complicated"?

Sex isn't difficult to understand. Pregnancy, babies, etc. are not hard to understand. Of course, for someone who hasn't reached puberty yet, pregnancy is not part of sex anyway. But it's not as if that's a difficult idea to understand. If pregnancy could be part of sex for four year olds, there would be no problem with them understanding it. It's not rocket science.
Quote:
Are you saying that no 2 situations can be the same?
That would generally be a good way to understand this sentence, "I don't think that any two situations are the same".

I can see how you could think that maybe I just mean that contingently, through whatever quirks might account for this, I think that it's just the case that NOW, no two situations are the same, but somehow, in the future, they could maybe be the same, but that's maybe reading a bit too closely, and it's kinda ignoring the "I'm a nominalist" part . . . the "are" in the second sentence wasn't really intended to be tensed (it's just that English doesn't have a good tense-free substitute there--you kind of have to understand from context whether a tensed verb is implied or not.)
Quote:
If so why what is the point of entering a debate if no situation can be compared?
Here's a proposition that I'd assign "false" to: "You can't compare two situations if they're not identical".
Quote:
That is because you are already an adult addict
I'm not addicted to anything.
Quote:
while a 4-year old generally isn't addicted, nor does it have any experience with an addiction.
I never had experience with addiction, either.

If you believed that "One can not understand x unless one has experienced x" AND "One must be able to understand x prior to consenting to x", you've got a logical problem.

Last edited by Tungsten_Udder; 12-26-2008 at 10:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:42 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
The "gateway" theory is bunk. If it was true the usage rates of other illegal drugs would be as high as that of pot, for one. That's only logical. I've smoked pot, on and off, for the better part of a decade. I've used a minuscule amount of cocaine, none in the last eight years or so, have never smoked crack or anything like that. (That little thing in my profile is just a joke.)
No, the "gateway" theory is not bunk. Most people that say that argue it from the oversimplied mentality of "I smoked pot but didn't do other drugs!!"

There are three types of questions that academics subscribe to when discussing the "gateway" issue: the sequencing question, the association question, and the causation question. The sequencing question deals specifically with the place of marijuana within the sequencing progression of drugs. Most people (not all) who have tried marijuana have tried alcohol. And, in turn, most people who tried more potent drugs (cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc.) have previously tried marijuana. So, it passes that litmus test.

The next question is the association question. That deals specifically with the association between marijuana use and subsequent use of other illicit drugs. Taking the biological (physiological) aspect into account, studies were done with twins with (obviously) like physiological make up (to account for possibilities with hereditary predisposition for addiction). The study followed twins (one of who reported marijuana use by 17, while the other one reported not). The results showed that the individual who tried marijuana was: 2.5x more likely to use heroin later in life, 4x more likely to use cocaine or other stimulants, and 5x more likely to use hallucigens. So, that's a majority passing 2 out of 3 tests for meeting the "gateway" drug requirement, let's look at the last.

The causation question is actually broken down into 2 arguments. The first is the intrinsic argument (that says the THC in marijuana leads to physical or psychological dependency) and the sociocultural argument (that basically says "birds of a feather flock together). The intrinsic argument has been found over time not to substantiate the claim that the drug either physically or psychologically induces some dependency. But the sociocultural argument that people who smoke pot tend to seek out other friends or social circles with others that do does pan out in the greater percentage of marijuana users. It further identifies that individuals in those groups are much more likely to try the more potent drugs as they are introduced by one or more people into the group.

For these reasons, the term "gateway drug" most definitely applies to marijuana. That said, however, it also applies to alcohol, but not so much to cigarettes. And, for that reason, marijuana is classified as a Class I on the legal schedules for drugs. Again, we haven't learned our lesson with legalization of alcohol, so we want to amplify the effects (positive and negative) by legalizing another drug. I wonder how many people will have to face the influence before the common sense prevails? Because it won't with constantly clouded minds doing nothing but seeking new ways to cloud them longer and further.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:48 AM
 
706 posts, read 1,312,752 times
Reputation: 308
The drug prohibition is stupid. It costs the world economy a couple trillion dollars a year in increased crime, lost productivity, enforcement / incarceration costs, increases medical costs, trade restrictions, etc, etc, etc. People who support it are either economically ignorant (mostly due to mis-education by public schools) or profit from it themselves. And millions of piggies do profit from it - cops, politicians, prison guards, etc, and of course the drug dealers themselves - no prohibition, no easy profit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,381 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
No, the "gateway" theory is not bunk. Most people that say that argue it from the oversimplied mentality of "I smoked pot but didn't do other drugs!!"
Just curious what studies you're referring to. I was curious how they conducted these studies and what the exact language was for "gateway" in the literature, and when I went to do a Google search for it, I instead got references to studies saying that it's not a gateway drug (I didn't look far enough to see if we could find references to the actual monographs from academic journals, but I could look for that if you'd like):

Here's an article that talks about a University of Pittsburgh study:
Study say marijuana no gateway drug | Science Blog (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html - broken link)

Here's one talking about a different study done by RAND:
Marijuana Not A Gateway To Hard Drug Use, Rand Study Says<BR>Conclusions Raise Serious Doubts Regarding The Legitimacy Of U.S. Drug Policy - NORML

. . . not that I think it matters for the discussion of whether drugs should be legal, but I'm just curious about some of the literature you're referring to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:04 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,964 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
No, the "gateway" theory is not bunk. Most people that say that argue it from the oversimplied mentality of "I smoked pot but didn't do other drugs!!"

There are three types of questions that academics subscribe to when discussing the "gateway" issue: the sequencing question, the association question, and the causation question. The sequencing question deals specifically with the place of marijuana within the sequencing progression of drugs. Most people (not all) who have tried marijuana have tried alcohol. And, in turn, most people who tried more potent drugs (cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc.) have previously tried marijuana. So, it passes that litmus test.

The next question is the association question. That deals specifically with the association between marijuana use and subsequent use of other illicit drugs. Taking the biological (physiological) aspect into account, studies were done with twins with (obviously) like physiological make up (to account for possibilities with hereditary predisposition for addiction). The study followed twins (one of who reported marijuana use by 17, while the other one reported not). The results showed that the individual who tried marijuana was: 2.5x more likely to use heroin later in life, 4x more likely to use cocaine or other stimulants, and 5x more likely to use hallucigens. So, that's a majority passing 2 out of 3 tests for meeting the "gateway" drug requirement, let's look at the last.

The causation question is actually broken down into 2 arguments. The first is the intrinsic argument (that says the THC in marijuana leads to physical or psychological dependency) and the sociocultural argument (that basically says "birds of a feather flock together). The intrinsic argument has been found over time not to substantiate the claim that the drug either physically or psychologically induces some dependency. But the sociocultural argument that people who smoke pot tend to seek out other friends or social circles with others that do does pan out in the greater percentage of marijuana users. It further identifies that individuals in those groups are much more likely to try the more potent drugs as they are introduced by one or more people into the group.

For these reasons, the term "gateway drug" most definitely applies to marijuana. That said, however, it also applies to alcohol, but not so much to cigarettes. And, for that reason, marijuana is classified as a Class I on the legal schedules for drugs. Again, we haven't learned our lesson with legalization of alcohol, so we want to amplify the effects (positive and negative) by legalizing another drug. I wonder how many people will have to face the influence before the common sense prevails? Because it won't with constantly clouded minds doing nothing but seeking new ways to cloud them longer and further.
Sorry, but even the DEA no longer uses "Gateway drug" as their anti-marijuana propaganda point. It's been repeatedly proven to be completely false. I tried milk before I smoked a joint, so I guess that milk is a "gateway drug" too. Wouldn't Caffiene be the TRUE gateway drug?

What I don't get is how a clearly intelligent person (as your ability to write shows quite well, I will admit that you're a lot smarter than most who argue against my opinions) can still not see that marijuana is less harmful to society than sugar, caffiene, tobacco and alcohol. I've been high on marijuana before with ecstasy, cocaine and heroin being offered to me by a gorgeous woman who wanted me to be "on something" when we fooled around together. I still turned it down because I know the harms of those more dangerous drugs. I was 18 at the time, and have had cocaine and ecstasy offered to me on numerous occaisions since, and have yet to partake. My sister dropped acid before she tried marijuana, cocaine or speed. My college roommate snorted Adderall before moving on to cocaine, but he felt that marijuana was just for hippies. The simple fact is that coincedence is not the same as correlation. People confuse that all the time. In the immigration forums, when an immigrant commits a crime all those anti-immigration people immediately blame all immigrants for crime, saying that immigrating illegally leads to crime. But that's simply not true, the #1 factor in crime is poverty.

The #1 factor leading to drug addiction is depression. So instead of blaming marijuana, we should blame parents for not taking care of their children's psychological problems at a young age. Plus, addiction is a hereditary trait.

I guarantee you that more cocaine users drank caffiene or alcohol than smoked marijuana.

When the DEA gives up on a piece of propaganda, you know it's been refuted enough...yet you continue to use THAT as your talking point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:06 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
Just curious what studies you're referring to. I was curious how they conducted these studies and what the exact language was for "gateway" in the literature, and when I went to do a Google search for it, I instead got references to studies saying that it's not a gateway drug (I didn't look far enough to see if we could find references to the actual monographs from academic journals, but I could look for that if you'd like):
I just finished a class on Drugs and Criminal Justice. The textbook used (as was articulated to me) was picked as to be unbiased as possible (and I believe it was... I've learned that a lot of the myths and stygma I had about marijuana (and other drugs) was unfounded).

The book is Drugs, Society, and Criminal Justice (2nd Ed. Charles A. Levinthal). It provides a history of introduction of drugs, societal protests for and against it, and studies. But, it doesn't cite the study so I can reference it in the back of the book, so the best I can give you is the book itself. There were about 59 citations at the end of the chapter on marijuana itself.

Sorry I can't provide more information on that.

Rath
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:08 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
The drug prohibition is stupid. It costs the world economy a couple trillion dollars a year in increased crime, lost productivity, enforcement / incarceration costs, increases medical costs, trade restrictions, etc, etc, etc. People who support it are either economically ignorant (mostly due to mis-education by public schools) or profit from it themselves. And millions of piggies do profit from it - cops, politicians, prison guards, etc, and of course the drug dealers themselves - no prohibition, no easy profit.
Great debates... not unsubstanitated glibness... great debates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,381 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
. . . The textbook used (as was articulated to me) was picked as to be unbiased as possible (and I believe it was... I've learned that a lot of the myths and stygma I had about marijuana (and other drugs) was unfounded . . .
No problem. I'd have to try to figure out what in the bibliography for that chapter might have been the source then.

I have my own views about whether either a lack of bias or even measurements of bias are possible (I don't think either is possible, but it's a long discussion better suited for other threads), but at any rate, it's obviously not the case that everyone in academia agrees on this issue. Which should hardly be a surprise. There aren't many things that everyone in academia agrees on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:28 PM
 
706 posts, read 1,312,752 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
Great debates... not unsubstanitated glibness... great debates.
My glibness comes from my confidence that the irrationality of the drug war will be demonstrated by others, I merely wanted to add a brief statement of my support. I never tried any illegal drugs and most likely never will, so I'd rather leave this debate to others and focus in greater depth on more challenging issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:38 PM
 
13,723 posts, read 25,295,786 times
Reputation: 8657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
For these reasons, the term "gateway drug" most definitely applies to marijuana. That said, however, it also applies to alcohol, but not so much to cigarettes.
Why not cigarettes/tobacco? This has much more addictive potential than pot. You're talking to someone with plenty of experience here. (When I am smoking pot I can cut my tobacco smoking to nearly nil, as it helps with the cravings for nicotine, FWIW - if I decided to start regularly smoking pot again for an extended period it's plausible that I could kick the tobacco habit for good....been thinking about it actually)

Quote:
And, for that reason, marijuana is classified as a Class I on the legal schedules for drugs.
Huh? It's Schedule I because it's a gateway drug like alcohol, but alcohol is legal? Score one for Anheuser-Busch and the liquor purveyors.

Quote:
Again, we haven't learned our lesson with legalization of alcohol
Our lesson was....what again? That making alcohol illegal did not decrease use (check the reference I gave here a few posts back) and empowered organized crime at unprecedented levels? I think it was a lesson well-learned - well, sort of. We keep up the charade of doing that with pot and other drugs.

Quote:
so we want to amplify the effects (positive and negative) by legalizing another drug. I wonder how many people will have to face the influence before the common sense prevails? Because it won't with constantly clouded minds doing nothing but seeking new ways to cloud them longer and further.
You're also assuming that everyone who is opposed to the drug war is a heavy drug user. I know a lot of libertarian-type thinkers who have the same position who've never touched the stuff. I had this viewpoint before ever trying it. What I did later on - maybe you could call it "personal research."

FWIW though, some of the clearest and most motivated thoughts I've had were under the "influence." Don't let that "cloud" your propaganda though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top