HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/gateway.myth

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 6KB

From: [e-mail] (Carl E. Olsen)
Newsgroups: alt.hemp,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.hemp.politics
Subject: Myth of Marijuana's Gateway Effect
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:42:25
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

The Myth of MarijuanaÆs Gateway Effect

by John P. Morgan, M.D.
and Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D.

     The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, in cooperation with
the National Institute or' Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the White House
Office of Drug Control Policy, recently announced a new anti-drug
campaign that specifically targets marijuana.  Instead of
featuring horror tales of marijuana-induced insanity, violence
and birth detects, this campaign is built upon the premise that
reducing marijuana use is a practical strategy for reducing the
use of more dangerous drugs.

     The primary basis for this "gateway hypothesis" is a recent
report by the center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA),
claiming that marijuana users are 85 times more likely than non-
marijuana users to try cocaine. This figure, using data from
NIDAÆs 1991 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, is close to
being meaningless. It was calculated by dividing the proportion
of marijuana users who have ever used cocaine (17%) by .the
proportion of cocaine users who have never used marijuana (.2%).
The high risk-factor obtained is a product not of the fact that
so many marijuana users use cocaine but that so many cocaine
users used marijuana previously.

     It is hardly a revelation that people who use one of the
least popular drugs are likely to use the more popular ones --
not only marijuana, but also alcohol and tobacco cigarettes. The
obvious statistic not publicized by CASA is that most marijuana
users -- 83 percent -- never use cocaine. Indeed, for the nearly
70 million Americans who have tried marijuana, it is clearly a
"terminus" rather than a "gateway" drug.

     During the last few years, after a decade of decline, there
has been a slight increase in marijuana use, particularly among
youth. In 1994, 38 percent of high school seniors reported having
ever tried the drug, compared to about 35 percent in 1993 and 33
percent in 1992. This increase does not constitute a crisis. No
one knows whether marijuana use-rates will continue to rise. But
even if they do, it will not necessarily lead to increased use of
cocaine.

     Since the 1970s, when NIDA first began gathering data, rates
of marijuana and cocaine use have displayed divergent patterns.
Marijuana prevalence increased throughout the 1970s, peaking in
1979, when about 60 percent of high school seniors reported
having used it at least once. During the 1980s, cocaine use
increased while marijuana use was declining. Since 1991. when
data for the CASA analysis were gathered, marijuana use-rates
have increased while cocaine use-rates have remained fairly
steady.

     The over-changing nature of the statistical relationship
between use-rate for marijuana and cocaine indicates the absence
of a causal link between the use of these two drugs. Therefore,
even if the proposed Partnership campaign were to be effective in
reducing marijuana use it would not guarantee a proportional
reduction in the number of people who use cocaine. To the extent
anti-drug campaigns are effective, they seem to be most effective
in deterring those people who would have been fairly low-level
users. There is no reason to believe that anti-marijuana messages
of any sort would deter many of those marijuana users --
currently 17 percent of the total -- who also develop an interest
in cocaine.

     Nor is there reason to believe that the PartnershipÆs new
campaign will actually reduce the overall number of marijuana
users. For a decade now, American youth have been subjected to an
unparalleled assault of anti-drug messages. They have seen
hundreds of Partnership advertisements, on television and in the
print media. They have been urged to "just say no" by rock stars,
sports heroes, presidents and first-ladies. They have been
exposed to anti-drug educational programs in the schools. Yet
this is the same generation of young people that recently began
increasing its use of marijuana. It seems unlikely that many of
them will be deterred by hyperbolic claims of marijuanaÆs gateway
effect, particularly when it contradicts the reality of drug use
they see around them.

     If the creators of American drug policy are truly interested
in reducing the risk of `marijuana users using other drugs, they
should take a closer look at Holland, where drug policy since the
1970s has been guided by a commitment to diminishing any
potential gateway effect. Wanting to keep young marijuana users
away from cocaine and other "hard drugs," the Dutch decided to
separate the retail markets by allowing anyone 18 years of age or
older to purchase marijuana openly in government-controlled
"coffee shops" which strictly prohibit the use and sale of other
drugs.

     Despite easy availability, marijuana prevalence among 12 to
18 year olds in Holland is only 13.6 percent -- well below the 38
percent use-rate for American high school seniors. More Dutch
teenagers use marijuana now than in the past; indeed, lifetime
prevalence increased nearly three-fold between 1984 and 1992,
from 4.8 to 13.6 percent. However, Dutch officials consider their
policy a success because the increase in marijuana use has not
been accompanied by an increase in the use of other drugs. For
the last decade, the rate of cocaine use among Dutch youth has
remained stable, with about .3 percent of 12-18 year olds
reporting having used it in the past month.

     In the United States, the claim that marijuana acts as a
gateway to the use of other drugs serves mainly as a rhetorical
tool for frightening Americans into believing that winning the
war against heroin and cocaine requires waging & battle against
the casual use of marijuana. Not only is the claim intellectually
indefensible, but the battle is wasteful of resources and fated
to failure.

-- END --

     Received by Iowa NORML from the National Organization for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), 1001 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Suite 1010, Washington, D.C. 20036, on Tuesday, February 7,
1995.  For more information, e-mail NORML at [e-mail]