Re-classification Of Cannabis

Originally Posted by towny

[i]The article is in no doubt that the 'gateway' effect is real, but points out that exactly why the gateway effect exists is as yet unknown.

I do not agree with the conclusions that have been drawn from that experiment, all it does is illustrate that any causative effects are not genetic in nature. As it does not fully account for all nuture effects, as the article itself highlights, it cannot be considered to have demonstrated its argument clearly.

It does not cover the issues of cause and effect adequately either. It does not examine whether it is likely if these people would have gone on to harder drugs if they hadn`t been taking cannabis. It is difficult to draw accurate conclusions without reading the original paper, but all that precis does is highlight an "interesting" statistical correlation, but doesn`t actually provide clear evidence one way or the other for the overall argument.

[danielf]

I'm with the Dr Wadd here. Interestingly, I've also seen some suggestion that the real gateway drug is nicotine...

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by towny

The article is in no doubt that the 'gateway' effect is real, but points out that exactly why the gateway effect exists is as yet unknown.

Well said towny.

My instinctive reaction is a belief the answer will be a combination of factors depending on the specific individual.

Just as some who visit a pub will turn to drink to solve problems those exposing themselves to cannabis through whatever route are equally likely to use "drugs" in much the same way.

My take on this is that the safest way, at least until the issue is fully understood, may be to make it available as a prescription drug available only after consultation with a specialist GP.

The bit that seems beyond doubt is that forcing people to go via "dealers" must be playing a major role in the links between cannabis and harder drugs and therefore legalisation is the most likely way to break that specific link.

[ZrByte]

I think the biggest factor of addiction (To any drug) is the personality of the individual.
For example, all the way through Highschool I was asked many times To try alcohol, Cigerettes, and Canibis.
My Parents had always made it clear that while they did not really want me drinking as long as I was sensible It didnt matter, they also didnt seem to have any qualms with drugs even though they dont take them (To my Knowledge), My Mum smokes so it would be extremeley two faced for her to object IMO but she never did.
The result, Both Me and my sister only drink when We go out (Social Drinkers) Dont smoke and dont use canibis (OR anything harder), I tried canibis once for the experience and it really didnt do anything for me so I never bothered taking it again, My sister experimented a lot more than me but the end result is the same.
Oddly enough I dont even drink much now when I go out, this is mostly because I normally need to drive (well ride actually but basicly the same) to wherever im going so I just make do on Diet Coke

My Friend on the other hand, he was (To my knowledge) never really asked through highschool to try Alcohol or any of the others mentioned, and his parents where very strict against them.
He first got asked during his second year of college and I guess you could say addiction hit him hard since now he drinks on an extremeley regular basis (Will buy a six pack Just to play on his PC, is that normal?) chain Smokes (on about 40 a day I would say) Seems to blow his monthly wages buying weed and I heard from another friend that he does harder things now.
Though he has always had an addictive personality, basicly anything you could get addicted to when we where younger he did.
Myself & My sister dont really have addictive personalities, I'd say the only thing im addicted to is my PC and even then I dont think im addicted I could take it or leave it (dont most addicts say that though? wich makes me wonder ) the only thing I would say my sister is addicted to is Bitching (But I think that applies to a lot of women I know anyway :p )

What does reclassifiying Cannibis as Class 'C' imply anyway?

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I do not agree with the conclusions that have been drawn from that experiment, all it does is illustrate that any causative effects are not genetic in nature. As it does not fully account for all nuture effects, as the article itself highlights, it cannot be considered to have demonstrated its argument clearly.

It does not cover the issues of cause and effect adequately either. It does not examine whether it is likely if these people would have gone on to harder drugs if they hadn`t been taking cannabis. It is difficult to draw accurate conclusions without reading the original paper, but all that precis does is highlight an "interesting" statistical correlation, but doesn`t actually provide clear evidence one way or the other for the overall argument.

Maybe, maybe not - but what I was responding to in quoting it was your rather bold claim that there is 'absolutely no evidence' in support of the 'gateway effect'. Now you say this report 'doesn`t actually provide clear evidence.' The quality and interpretation of the evidence may well be up for grabs but I maintain that your earlier comment, that there is 'no' evidence, does not stand up.

Originally Posted by towny

Maybe, maybe not - but what I was responding to in quoting it was your rather bold claim that there is 'absolutely no evidence' in support of the 'gateway effect'. Now you say this report 'doesn`t actually provide clear evidence.' The quality and interpretation of the evidence may well be up for grabs but I maintain that your earlier comment, that there is 'no' evidence, does not stand up.

I still don`t agree that the article does provide any evidence. It provides evidence that goes against a genetic hypothesis, it highlights an interesting statistical correlation, but as the article currently stands I do not believe that it provides scientific evidence in support of the gateway hypothesis, and for the same problems that I have seen in other research into this topic. It proposes a cause and effect relationship that the data cannot legitimately support.

The article in itself has worth in that it suggests interesting further avenues for research, but that research must be done to put the article in context.

[Jerrek]

Yes, it will be a bigger strain on the health care system, but then, I'm opposed to nationalized healthcare.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Yes, it will be a bigger strain on the health care system, but then, I'm opposed to nationalized healthcare.

i assume aimed at my comment , do you have such a thing in canada or not ??????????? , the problem here is that we get taxed to death , supposedly to support the nhs , i must admit i wonder at times about that to be honest , having said that i think it would be tragic if we followed somewhere like america where you had to pay for everything , or am i rambling now

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I still don`t agree that the article does provide any evidence. It provides evidence that goes against a genetic hypothesis, it highlights an interesting statistical correlation, but as the article currently stands I do not believe that it provides scientific evidence in support of the gateway hypothesis, and for the same problems that I have seen in other research into this topic. It proposes a cause and effect relationship that the data cannot legitimately support.

The article in itself has worth in that it suggests interesting further avenues for research, but that research must be done to put the article in context.

I think you're mincing words a little here ... surely calling this evidence an 'interesting statistical correlation' is not dissimilar to a newspaper printing a 'clarification' because it doesn't like to use the word 'correction'?

Evidence is evidence. Some evidence is deeply impressive and conclusive all by itself, other evidence is effective as part of a greater body of information. Perhaps the subject does call for further study, but I don't see any justification for attempting to call a spade an earth-moving implement, except to draw attention away from information that contradicts your own point of view.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by towny

I think you're mincing words a little here ... surely calling this evidence an 'interesting statistical correlation' is not dissimilar to a newspaper printing a 'clarification' because it doesn't like to use the word 'correction'?

Evidence is evidence. Some evidence is deeply impressive and conclusive all by itself, other evidence is effective as part of a greater body of information. Perhaps the subject does call for further study, but I don't see any justification for attempting to call a spade an earth-moving implement, except to draw attention away from information that contradicts your own point of view.

I would have to agree with Dr Wadd analysis. The article has shown a correlation between cannabis use and use of other drugs which does not seem to be caused by genetics. It does not pose any mechanism, and does not take any account of nurture or social circumstances. It that is to be evidence for cannabis playing a role in the subsequent use of hard drugs, than that evidence is to very poor by scientific standards as the mechanism is not understood.

So, if you want to call it evidence, go ahead, but realise that it does not bring us much closer, and as the article suggests, very different policies could be based on it, from stricter to more lenient policies.

[Russ]

I still say it should be used for medicinal purposes only and certainly not recreationally.

Originally Posted by towny

I think you're mincing words a little here ... surely calling this evidence an 'interesting statistical correlation' is not dissimilar to a newspaper printing a 'clarification' because it doesn't like to use the word 'correction'?

Perhaps your comment about "mincing words" does have some truth to it, but the article is from New Scientist so I am therefore looking at the article from the viewpoint of scientific rigour. I can use the term 'interesting statistical correlation', but that only describes the numerical outcome of the results, not the results when taken in context. You can demonstrate many correlations, that even with a strong statistical result do not have any cause and effect.

In this instance, they have merely demonstrated that the twin who smoked cannabis was more likely to go on to taking harder drugs. Without knowing the complete social background for each twin as an individual, nor the incidence of hard drug use in twins as a whole, the results have no meaning.

Consider this example, which I appreciate may be a tad extreme, but serves for illustration. Imagine a situation where 100% of cannabis users then went on to take heroin. Even here you could not argue that it was a gateway drug as you would have no data on how many of those people would have taken heroin even if they hadn`t taken cannabis.

[danielf]

Further to Dr Wadd's comments: If two things are correlated, it does not mean they are causally related. As an example, there is a huge correlation between the number of churches and pubs in cities. That does not mean that churchgoers are heavy drinkers, but rather that you get more of both in bigger cities.

In the cannabis example it may well be that there are mediating (social) variables, such as getting both drugs from the same source (as the article acknowledges).

From a scientific point of view the article has only shown that the already established correlation between cannabis use and hard drug use does not appear to have a genetic basis. What the cause for the correlation is remains unclear.

We will never win the war against drugs.We will just pay more and more to try and stop it and the dealers will just get richer and richer and the criminal associations and degredation(prostitution,stealing,mugging,gun crime) will continue.

How about just legalising it all(yes all drugs).At one swoop take all criminality out of the whole process.On top of that let the government tax the product thus earning lots of lovely revenue for the state coffers(and the NHS).Also if it's sold under licence then the product will become purer and less adulterated with substances like rat poison.

Anyone caught selling it to children should face immediate incarceration and a heavy fine.
Armed forces and police,fireman,doctors,drivers etc to face mandetory testing and instant dismissal for any abuse whilst working.

Will it work?Maybe.It has worked to a certain extent with tobacco and alcohol.All I know is that the system we presently have isn't working.

Incog.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

[The four stages of drug addiction
[Article in French]

A medical practitioner has been inquiring on the subject for eighteen years, and confronting the discrepancy between the facts observed and the social and psychiatric approach of the plague. His study of adolescent toxicomania was proceeding from the care of 1000 drug-fiends,

"Plague"? "Drug fiends"?! I wonder which side *this* article is going to come down on...!!!