Debunking The Gateway Drug Theory

One of the most common arguments against the legalization of marijuana is that it is a gateway drug. Does anyone else see how silly this argument is? Beyond the fact that there are studies demonstrating why this is not so the whole gateway drug theory is so incredibly flawed.

For those of you who don't know what the Gateway Drug theory is let me enlighten you. The theory goes that those who smoke pot eventually move on to harder drugs. Apparently the belief is that most people who have ended up seriously addicted to major hard drugs admitted to being on marijuana first therefore someone who tries marijuana is likely to move on to harder drugs.

So now you are asking, well if studies show that those on harder drugs tried marijuana first doesn't this indicate that it IS a gateway drug? No it does not, and let me explain. The first problem with the theory is it is taking the conclusion and postulating a cause, and not the other way around, they are not polling marijuana users to see if they move on to harder drugs, but rather polling hard users to see if they used marijuana, this is reaching a conclusion and then examining the data rather then examining the data and coming to a conclusion. You see using the same logic I could demonstrate that Tylenol was a gateway drug, because I bet you any amount of money that an even higher percentage tried Tylenol before they tried Marijuana or the harder drug in question. There is a whole host of possibly addictive substances that these addicts probably tried, which one is the REAL gateway?

The fact is it is not the drug but the fact that marijuana users are more likely to come into contact with people who might have access to these harder drugs, and they will then have access. Not to mention the fact that someone with an addictive personality is most likely willing to try any drug out, and that would mean they would go through a whole spectrum of drugs before finding the one they favour.

A much better debunking of the gateway drug theory