NY: Marijuana As 'Gateway' Drug Is Political Myth, Benjamin Center Report Says

[Ron Strider]

The Benjamin Center for Public Policy Initiatives at SUNY New Paltz has released a discussion brief, “The Marijuana Gateway Fallacy,” in which the authors conclude the idea that marijuana use is a “gateway” to using harder drugs is a myth.

The report was co-authored by Eve Waltermaurer, an epidemiologist; Leah Mancini, a 2017 SUNY New Paltz graduate and Benjamin Center student researcher; and Gerald Benjamin, a distinguished professor of political science at SUNY New Paltz and director of the Benjamin Center.

They find the gateway drug theory was both promoted and persists for political purposes “despite the great and increasing weight of contrary scientific evidence.”

The authors argue political use of the idea of marijuana as a gateway drug has done more social harm than marijuana use itself because the resulting drug policies have diverted attention from the opioid crisis and stigmatized individuals with criminal records.

“Maintaining this myth not only wastes resources but actually harms numerous individuals, primarily members of minority groups, who are being criminalized,” Waltermaurer said. “Energy which could be better applied toward reducing the truly harmful opioid epidemic, is instead spent on a fool’s errand.”

In a press release announcing the issuance of the brief, the Benjamin Center said that “support for legalization of marijuana has become a majority sentiment in many jurisdictions” in recent years, “a trend largely driven by younger voters.”

While New York in July 2014 joined states permitting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, its use is strictly controlled and decriminalization for recreational use has not gained political traction despite its popularity with the public.

News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Marijuana as ‘gateway’ drug is political myth, Benjamin Center report says
Contact: Contact Us
Photo Credit: Kevin J Beaty
Website: The Daily Freeman: Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment & Hudson Valley News

 

[TorturedSoul]

The Benjamin Center for Public Policy Initiatives at SUNY New Paltz has released a discussion brief, “The Marijuana Gateway Fallacy,” in which the authors conclude the idea that marijuana use is a “gateway” to using harder drugs is a myth.

Imagine that, LOFL, some scientists have finally figured out what nearly every cannabis user - and at least one country's government - has known for... how long has homo sapiens been using cannabis again?

I stated "at least one country's government," because in at least one country - the Netherlands - people have been prescribed cannabis for years to help them QUIT using "hard" drugs. Yes, prescribed (as opposed to "recommending" - which is all doctors in the United States are allowed to do). People then go to their local pharmacy to get their cannabis.

I've personally known two people who used cannabis to help kick certain habits.

What's next, lol? Are they going to do a study and figure out that the Easter Bunny doesn't actually exist and that most toys are produced in bulk in Chinese factories, rather than being handcrafted by elves living at the North Pole :rolleyes3 ?

 

[Surfer8210]

@TorturedSoul
It's actually a positive step in the 'right' direction when research is brought out to the public eyes.
Despite the fact that most marijuana users already believe and know this to be true, research done by those in higher education carries more weight in the eyes of those responsible for reversing past legislative decisions.
When drug cartels masquerading as pharmaceutical companies control our political landscape anything that would threaten their hold on it is seen as a detriment and will be strongly resisted. 'Reefer Madness' campaigns have done so much more harm than good that research which shows marijuana use in a positive light is needed on a grander scale than which presently exists.
The fact that this "study" or research was conducted at my alma matter makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, like weed does..!!
New Paltz college once made Playboy magazines number one spot on their list of Top Ten Party Colleges in the US..!!

 

[TorturedSoul]

It's actually a positive step in the 'right' direction when research is brought out to the public eyes.

Sure. I just find it to be somewhat unlikely that such a study hasn't already been done in the past, in a country where it is accepted enough as medicine that it is actually prescribed by doctors and the patients take those prescriptions to their local pharmacies for filling. For reasons including the usual - but also as part of the (often very difficult) path to overcoming the addiction of an illicit substance.

I could be wrong, here, but I find it more likely that it's just another case of "not invented here." IOW, any such prior study would have been performed by "foriegners" and, therefore, considered to be highly suspect. But I'm just guessing, and as I mentioned, I could be wrong.

I wonder if any of those scientists read "Cannabinoid CB(1) antagonist SR 141716A attenuates reinstatement of heroin self-administration in heroin-abstinent rats" when it was published 12 years ago? Or "Endocannabinoid release from midbrain dopamine neurons: a potential substrate for cannabinoid receptor antagonist treatment of addiction," published the same year? I'm no scientist and my research budget is exactly zero, but I found those in less than 30 seconds by looking at the Scientific Publications page on the CMCR's (Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research @ University of California, San Diego) website.

BtW, off-topic (maybe), but if anyone has had the opportunity to read Neuropsychology and Substance Misuse: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions, specifically chapter seven, I'd be interested in learning what was stated about cannabis.

Despite the fact that most marijuana users already believe and know this to be true, research done by those in higher education carries more weight

I agree, actual research and controlled experimentation carries more weight than anecdotal evidence. I'd just be surprised if such research has not already been performed somewhere, and the results already been published.

in the eyes of those responsible for reversing past legislative decisions.

By that, do you mean... err... We, the People? Or politicians? If the latter...

drug cartels masquerading as pharmaceutical companies

May well be the most significant force that has kept cannabis illegal in this country for so long. Well, those plus DuPont, of course. Seems like I read something about cannabis having been perceived as a threat to DuPont's (then) new plastics manufacturing enterprise.

The existence of such entities are why I wasn't even slightly surprised when I read that Trump's regime intends to devote resources towards prosecuting cannabis-related "offenses." (Speaking of which, did I really hear that one of his campaign promises was that he would "run this country like he ran his businesses," lol? Because I seem to remember him managing to declare bankruptcy something like SIX TIMES in four years...)

The fact that this "study" or research was conducted at my alma matter makes me all warm and fuzzy inside

Learning that money, time, and effort was expended to find something that is, after all, common sense... never makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Instead, it always leaves me feeling vaguely disappointed in the human race. Are the mouth-breathers going to read the results of this study and suddenly become enlightened? (Will they even read the results of this study in the first place, lol?) Will the politicians who've cherry-picked questionable - and, occasionally, patently false - publications that seemed to agree with their agendas, while at the same time completely and utterly disregarding any and all studies that disagreed with them... suddenly change their "tune?" <SHRUGS> IDK. But I probably wouldn't bet a great deal of money on it, lol.

One can always hope, I suppose. But I've been hoping for 20+ years now that the D. would remove cannabis's designation as a Schedule I Narcotic, since a substance is supposed to have to meet THREE specific requirements for inclusion as such - and research showed years ago that it, in fact, meets none of them. So I'm just not going to hold my breath on this one.

EDIT: Oh, and Surfer8210, I just realized that the post I was responding to was your very first one here. I'm always glad to see someone new join and begin interacting in the forum. I do (very much) hope that you'll not be put off by my willingness to debate with you, lol. And welcome to 420Magazine.com!

 

[Surfer8210]

University research doesn't involve that much time effort or money. It might be that it's redundant too BUT, if more ammunition is needed at least it's there.
Unfortunately, there were a myriad of reasons marijuana was put on the schedule 1 list and a reefer smear campaign started, it's always best to look for the money if you want to discover the root causes why.

 

[Surfer8210]

Sure. I just find it to be somewhat unlikely that such a study hasn't already been done in the past, in a country where it is accepted enough as medicine that it is actually prescribed by doctors and the patients take those prescriptions to their local pharmacies for filling. For reasons including the usual - but also as part of the (often very difficult) path to overcoming the addiction of an illicit substance.

I could be wrong, here, but I find it more likely that it's just another case of "not invented here." IOW, any such prior study would have been performed by "foriegners" and, therefore, considered to be highly suspect. But I'm just guessing, and as I mentioned, I could be wrong.

I wonder if any of those scientists read "Cannabinoid CB(1) antagonist SR 141716A attenuates reinstatement of heroin self-administration in heroin-abstinent rats" when it was published 12 years ago? Or "Endocannabinoid release from midbrain dopamine neurons: a potential substrate for cannabinoid receptor antagonist treatment of addiction," published the same year? I'm no scientist and my research budget is exactly zero, but I found those in less than 30 seconds by looking at the Scientific Publications page on the CMCR's (Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research @ University of California, San Diego) website.

BtW, off-topic (maybe), but if anyone has had the opportunity to read Neuropsychology and Substance Misuse: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions, specifically chapter seven, I'd be interested in learning what was stated about cannabis.



I agree, actual research and controlled experimentation carries more weight than anecdotal evidence. I'd just be surprised if such research has not already been performed somewhere, and the results already been published.



By that, do you mean... err... We, the People? Or politicians? If the latter...



May well be the most significant force that has kept cannabis illegal in this country for so long. Well, those plus DuPont, of course. Seems like I read something about cannabis having been perceived as a threat to DuPont's (then) new plastics manufacturing enterprise.

The existence of such entities are why I wasn't even slightly surprised when I read that Trump's regime intends to devote resources towards prosecuting cannabis-related "offenses." (Speaking of which, did I really hear that one of his campaign promises was that he would "run this country like he ran his businesses," lol? Because I seem to remember him managing to declare bankruptcy something like SIX TIMES in four years...)



Learning that money, time, and effort was expended to find something that is, after all, common sense... never makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Instead, it always leaves me feeling vaguely disappointed in the human race. Are the mouth-breathers going to read the results of this study and suddenly become enlightened? (Will they even read the results of this study in the first place, lol?) Will the politicians who've cherry-picked questionable - and, occasionally, patently false - publications that seemed to agree with their agendas, while at the same time completely and utterly disregarding any and all studies that disagreed with them... suddenly change their "tune?" <SHRUGS> IDK. But I probably wouldn't bet a great deal of money on it, lol.

One can always hope, I suppose. But I've been hoping for 20+ years now that the D. would remove cannabis's designation as a Schedule I Narcotic, since a substance is supposed to have to meet THREE specific requirements for inclusion as such - and research showed years ago that it, in fact, meets none of them. So I'm just not going to hold my breath on this one.

EDIT: Oh, and Surfer8210, I just realized that the post I was responding to was your very first one here. I'm always glad to see someone new join and begin interacting in the forum. I do (very much) hope that you'll not be put off by my willingness to debate with you, lol. And welcome to 420Magazine.com!

Thanks and I certainly don't consider our debate to be anything but fruitful, certainly not to be misconstrued as an argument.
I write that because only last week while having another gentlemanly debate the other individual labeled it as an argument.
Debating is a good thing, I don't agree just for arguments sake.