Letter to the editor: Debunking ‘gateway drug’ argument | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Debunking ‘gateway drug’ argument

Letter-writer Susan Jones worries that legalizing marijuana could potentially lead to an increased usage of cocaine, crack or heroin (“Legalized pot a gateway drug,” Feb. 16, TribLIVE).

The “gateway drug” argument is an example of assuming that correlation is evidence of causation. Studies do show that the majority of people abusing the more dangerous drugs begin their drug-taking experience with marijuana. Studies also show that almost all of those same drug abusers also used alcohol and tobacco before they used harder drugs.

Yet the majority of people who have used marijuana, alcohol or tobacco never consume any cocaine, crack or heroin at all. If marijuana use was the genuine cause of an eventual addiction to cocaine or opioids, then the number of people addicted to those drugs would be more than double the number it is today.

While marijuana use cannot offer real physical relief to those who are already suffering from the addictive demands of opioids, legalized marijuana consumption could reduce the demand for cocaine, crack and heroin in the future. With legal (and potentially more potent) cannabis available, those looking to stimulate pleasure-receptors in the brain would be less likely to turn to harder drugs.

Andrew N. Mewbourn


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.