wow, and i always thought the gateway theory was bullshit

if pot was legal it would be more accepted

 

but what is being debated is the gateway theoy.it implies that pot made you do it. not outside influince

 

if you mean that when you said 'thats what the gateway theory is' that you were referring to that part of stonerbill's reply, then i still think you might be misinterpreting what he's saying, otherwise i'm an idiot and i'm sorry to be wasting your time. stonerbill said

"when a person tries something they consider a 'drug' then they often loose the feeling people have before they try drugs, that its some crazy thing that bad people do, as most children believe, and rightfully so (...) once they realise that the drug theyre takin is just anotehr chemical like all the rest, this raises the chance of someone trying more drugs."

which isn't the gateway theory, but rather the other theory i mentioned, which says that people move on to "harder" drugs than marijuana not because they need a stronger high, like the gateway theory states, but because they are around the drug and get used to it, rather than seeing "drugs" as something that isn't a part of their life, so they are more likely to try other drugs because the person feels like they can because they tried marijuana.

if you were getting at something else...then sorry...

again i'm not sure thats what stonerbill's logic was, i think he was talking about ("however, with alchohol and cigarettes, because of they way they are accepted, they are not seen as 'drugs' but enough people in teh world, unfortunately, and so they tend not to lead to gateway effect.") how they are accepted because they are forced on the general public, rather than just because they are legal. with all the advertisement for alcohol and tobacco, the gov't couldn't blame them for kids getting "hooked" on "hard" drugs, so they used marijuana as the scapegoat, because it's looked down upon in most countries today, not just because it's illegal, but because of all the propaganda about it.

 

1.no I was refering to the cem thing and the what he said about it2.well its hard to know what his logic is.and Its hard for me to exslpain what I mean on this damn key bord.but what I ment when I first said something about it was it seemed to me that not being acceped , justafiction for,being illeagal , propaganda, all support each other.there for if it was leagal there wouldn't be the need for propaganda in turn it would be more acceped. I should have just used the word acceped insted of illeagal .what I got out of what he said was if it was more acceped it would not be a gateway drug. my point being that it is not regadless of its accepence. sorry if I babuled


it is nice to meet someone who thinks
peace

 

gotcha, i think i misread the chemical thing, guess he was referring to other drugs. i think, regarding the legilization issue, that i was thinking that it wouldn't ever be very accepted after its been viewed as the "devil weed" for a lot of america's history, and for a while in many other countries. i think that alcohol and tobacco have been part of america's history (cant really speak for any other countries, other than most western european countries) and thats why they are so accepted today. but i can see it going either way, if it were legalized, there would only be propaganda aimed against teenagers smoking or smoking responsibly, so after a while it could become integrated into everyday life. nice...arguing with you...

 

allways enjoy a good arguiment

 

you did misinterpret me, but both of you did. ill try to clarify.

I thought the gateway theory was founded on observation, that people who do hard drugs often start on weed so its assumed that weed influences people to try it. I have always seen the 'need a better buzz' as a seperate issue all together.

the basis of what im saying is that it is the drug's image that makes it cause gateway as i understand the gateway theory to be. alchohol and cigarettes dont cause the gateway effect, not just in waht the govt says but in the nature of the gateway. people tend not to drink alchohol and want more than it caus the way its protratyd, alchohol isnt really even considered a drug. theyre considered a seperate part.

I dont disagree that legalising weed would get rid of the gateway theory, i actually mentioned that in the other thread i believe.

the basis of waht im saying actually is that it should be legalised so that its not seen as a 'drug' but as the same sort of class as alchohol and ciggs.

i have no idea waht your trying to say about the chemical issue, but weed is just anotehr drug like all the others. just because it is encased in cellulose and other plant materials doesnt make them less of a chemical. it actually makes it less pure than pills and powders. you just know whats in it.

novictim no crime, you jsut got it misinterpreted and i think some others did too, that you thought i was inferring that alchohol and nicotine also cause the gateway but the govt just doesnt class them as gateway drugs, i believe that alchohol and nicotine dont cause the gateway effect on most people because they generally dont percieve alchohol as 'drugs'.

this is how i percieve the gateway effect. taking drugs for the first time opens up a gate into the world of drugs. with the gate open, it makes it less likely for a person to choose to stay on weed, in most cases of gateway.

 

ahhh i see...whoops

 

I don't think that relates to the gateway theory at all. The gateway theory is total bullshit. It's just a strategy the DEA uses to make it look like marijuana is evil.

Your friend is likely a drug addict and doesn't care what he gets fucked up on. Weed just happened to be the first thing he tried. With his personality, I imagine it wouldn't matter what he tried, he would always go on to something harder. That's the impression I get.

I'm not trying to judge, that's just what it looks like to me.

 

jabba i thought i would never agree with something u said but i was wrong

 

Ok.. I haven't read the whole thread so this might have been said before.. but I'd like to comment, coming from a country where weed is kinda legal.

I think weed CAN be a gateway drug, but only if your weed supplier carries more drugs. This happens mostly in countries where weed is illegal, so you'll have drugdealers selling you weed and trying to get you to try other stuff as well.

Over here.. you can walk into a coffeeshop in broad daylight, buy weed and walk out the door with the bag in your hand saying 'hi' to a cop. I've bought weed several times.. it's WAY easy to get weed here, even if you're a minor (helps if you have friends that are 18+). However, I wouldn't have a clue how to get cocaine, heroine.. or even LSD and XTC? Why? Because those drugs aren't sold in coffeeshops! I know where to buy alcohol, where to buy weed.. but since the rest is more illegal/less legal.. it's a pretty big step here to take.

For people that are more into the whole dance/party scene coke and xtc are probably more easy.. but for common folk like me, it's totally different from weed & alcohol.

 

Velvet, thanks for your input. That is the point I was trying to make and I think it is a valid one.

 

i did't mean if we legalized it i ment if it was never ilegal in the frist place. what disproves the theoy is the number of people who smoke or have smoked pot who do not go on to other drugs. pot is the most used ileagal drug if the theoy wor true more people would do other drug too. any fucking way if your going to belive some stupid propagand go ahead.

 

like a 15yo has enough experiance to even touch this subject

 

that doesnt disprove the theory at all, gonj. What would dissprove the theory is if most people who do hard drugs start with hard drugs instead of weed. which is not true.

and so, whatever the reason for teh gateway theory, be it the inner acceptance of different levels of drugs, the avaiability from dealers, or people just choosing,
you cannot deny what has always been happening.

if legalised now, the effects wouldnt come in for a while, in fact we dont even know how the effects may be, legalising weed could then jsut lead to everyone accepting dreugs and doing them.

but the fact is, that if your kid starts smoking weed, then theres a much higher chance theyll go onto other drugs. it doesnt force them to, but it makes it more likely that they will.

since when has the fact that a person has a choice meant that the outcome is going to be better for them??? it doesnt matter that its a person's choice, if the person is going to choose what isnt good for them!

 

why is that?...... in the eyes of dea ,goverment ,paternship for a drug free amarica,ect the drugs are all the same.but thats not true. gateway theoy is that pot infulicned them do it ,not that things such as being exsposed to the black market ect.did it. how people veiw pot has nothing to do with it.the theoy says that people are not satisfyed with the high anymore and so must move on to hader stuff.in some cases thats true but that is there own genedic makeup. as it has been said by other people in this thread they would have done it even if pot did not exsised . they smoked pot frist because it was avalible first but most people drank first. and it dose not madder how people veiw it alcohal is a drug .as for what the effects legalizing would be look at amsterdam.

 

you said befor that tobbaco and alcohal arn't gateway drugs because people don't see them as drugs but they are,so how people see them has nothing to do with it .good bye your just to brain washed

 

I've noticed its easier to get laid with hot chics if you use drugs with them. But that is besides the point

 

thats cuz there sluts

 

Man, im not gonna get any further with this, your a fuckin asshat if you keep insisting im brain washed.

I started off with your view and come to my own view through understanding of sociology and psychology. you have come to your view evidently through typical stoner ignorance, that is, that your so opposed to any criminalisation of weed, that you become just as bad: making out that weed is percetly 100% pure and divine.

I live in australia, where we dont get any of the bullshit antidrug stuff at the magnitude you get in america. anyone at least on this forum would be able to tell you Im not one for following brainwashing.

and looking at amsterdam as a model for american legalisation is perhaps the most naive thing youve said