Up in Smoke

This is in response to Noah's article found here.

Noah claims that weed is indeed a gateway drug. This implies one of two things: cannabis is the cause of further drug use, at least to some degree; or cannabis is the first (nationally illegal) drug people tend to take.

Though true in some cases, the first of the two implications is by-enlarge false. Granted, there will definitely be some circumstances in which one is encouraged to move on towards harder drugs because of marijuana. However, on the scale of the whole population of drug users, the vast majority of them were not caused to use harder drugs because of prior cannabis use.

As detailed here (towards the bottom of the study) and here,  the largest foreign cause - that is a cause not related to the finances, biology, or traumatic experiences of the drug user - towards increased use of harder drugs is the culture associated with using drugs. Meaning, the very fact that cannabis is illegal causes more hard drug use. The very fact that cannabis users have to go to a dealer who may also sell hard drugs causes the pot-smokers to have a higher rate of hard drug use. If cannabis wasn't illegal, then the pot-smokers wouldn't have to participate in the underground to smoke cannabis, they then wouldn't associate with those who use and sell harder drugs, and hence they wouldn't be exposed to hard drugs any more than the general population. Without the influence of the hard drug culture, the cannabis user is far less likely to move on towards other hard drugs.

Of the dichotomy aforementioned, the second option is almost entirely true.

Cannabis is the first 'drug' people tend to take. In reality, cannabis is actually only the first nationally illegal drug people tend to take. Of those who have used cannabis, the average age people first used the drug is 17. The average age cigarette smokers first smoked cigarettes is 14. Since most of those who smoke marijuana have also smoked cigarettes, tobacco is actually the first drug in this gateway drug theory. So, ideally the crusade should be aimed at tobacco; which is far more addictive, far more deadly, and overall more detrimental to society as a whole.

Another key statistic is the fact that those who used cigarettes but didn't use marijuana when they were youth have a similar percentage of usage of harder drugs as those who used both marijuana and tobacco. Taking the 'marijuana step' out of the gateway drug theory has little to no effect on usage of harder drugs. This is not suggesting that cigarette usage does; when the same thing is done but with tobacco, the results are the same: Those who used marijuana but not tobacco have a similar percentage of harder drug use when compared to those who used both tobacco and marijuana. Hence, neither tobacco nor marijuana (nor alcohol for that matter) have the effect of increasing ones likelihood to use harder drugs. In logic this fallacy is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The case could also be made that caffeine, high amounts of sugar, or fatty foods are really the 'first' gateway drug, as all three of those substances have a similar effect and are used in similar circumstances as 'regular' drugs. All three are unhealthy; all three are often used to alleviate stress; all three cause some amount of pleasure; and all three are to some extant addictive. For the same reasons listed above, none of these three vices have the effect of causing further usage of other substances.

This means that those who eventually go on to use hard drugs do so for the following reasons: One, they were exposed to the hard, illegal drug culture in some way or experienced creative 'marketing techniques' administered by the dealer. Two, they experienced traumatic events in childhood such as abuse, thus predisposing them to search for substances to dull the pain. Three, they in some way for whatever reason identify with drugs and/or the state of highness associated with them. In all three reasons, the usage of marijuana neither causes nor by-enlarge further exacerbates drug usage.

Another conclusion of the study above is that criminalization of cannabis doesn't decrease use of said cannabis. Neither criminalization nor decriminalization of cannabis decreases or increases the use of cannabis, respectively. By-enlarge, the legal status of cannabis, at least in modern times, is divergent of the willingness of people to use the drug. I think this was also the conclusion of the "Reuters" article Noah critiqued. This has to do with the way our culture views cannabis specifically. The fact that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and less addictive than cigarettes has led our society to appropriately view cannabis as less harmful than those substances. Hence, our relatively widespread use of cannabis.

On to Noah's second point.

The assertion, "the idea that you will be able to regulate a drug that you have legalized that is already extremely difficult to regulate when illegal is fallacious," is itself fallacious. Legalizing by definition makes those who were once secretive about their usage more open to their usage, less secretive. The more open society is about what it does, the easier it is to address, and regulate, whatever 'it' is. Also, if someone has an option between two products, the only difference of which is the status of their legality, the person will most often choose the legal one. Therefore, if a person in say Colorado wants to buy weed, they will buy it from the state sponsored stores, rather than from the person down the street who is selling it illegally. Hence, legalization makes something easier to regulate rather than harder.

The proposition to put the tax money from marijuana into education is probably one of the smartest I've heard from government in a long while. The reason that will decrease marijuana usage in the long run is simple: people with higher levels, or a better quality of education also have a lower rate of all drug usage.

On to Noah's third point.

Overall this argument is a slippery slope. Noah didn't use one piece of evidence indicating that the next direction of the pro-legalization forces is legalization of hard drugs. It was pure speculation.

The reason the pro-legalization forces won't by-enlarge move on to legalize hard drugs is because there isn't an argument to be made for legalizing hard drugs. With marijuana, along with other soft drugs, the argument integral to legalization is the fact that the detriments associated with cannabis usage are few. The same cannot be said of hard drugs. That is what differentiates them from each other. Hence, those looking to legalize hard drugs won't have the same battle as those looking to legalize cannabis.

Noah's fourth point is entirely dependent on his third one. Hence, its falsity.

However, ad hoc, I will refute some of the argument.

An economic argument first proposed by Milton Friedman for legalizing all drugs refutes your assertions well. The argument is geared towards harder, addictive drugs; rather than softer, less-addictive drugs. I will break the argument into premises.

(1)The current demand of drugs, disregarding natural fluctuations or general trends, is inelastic. Addictive drugs create a (seeming) necessity of those drugs to the users.

(2)The supply of drugs once legalized will increase.

(3)The demand, however, will not increase; due to inelasticity.

(4)Therefore prices of drugs will decrease.

(5)Lower prices reduce profits for drug dealers

(6)Lower profits decrease the amount of freedom the dealer has to pursue aggressive marketing techniques, such as free samples.

(7)Less aggressive marketing techniques lower the rate of first time drug users.

(8)Therefore legalizing drugs decreases usage over time.

Also, it isn't an ad hominem argument; it's a slippery slope argument, an ad consequentiam, or an ad passiones argument, or all three depending on how you meant it.

I know this wasn't a conventional article, but to be honest, Noah is a better writer than most newspaper writers.