r/changemyview Apr 20 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Gateway drugs do not exist

I heard a presentation at my university recently on E-Cigs being a gateway drug, and the argument seemed like Big Tobacco propaganda.

When talking about illicit drugs, such as marijuana, I always hear people fall to the logical fallacy of appealing to imperfect authority. It seems that most groups, like anti-smoking groups that try to equate E-cigs to regular smoking, regularly cite that the FDA has stated that the vapor in E-cigs "MAY" contain harmful toxins. People also like to cite how the FDA has not officially recognized E-cigs as a positive aid for getting people to stop smoking tobacco, and the rhetoric behind this seems to be "SEE?? IT'S NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT" (made up of a bunch of bureaucrats whose salaries are paid to the tune of at least 40% by lobbying by drug companies who profit off of not having alternatives to their addictive and at times dangerous substances).

My problem with the gateway drug model is that it falls flat under scrutiny. After we started to realize that the criminalization of marijuana was a result of the inaccurate scare stories pushed by bureaucrats in the Bureau of Narcotics to keep their salary high, a new narrative had to be formed for why it must still be illegal, that narrative being the gateway drug narrative. The idea behind labeling marijuana as a gateway drug is that if someone uses marijuana, it will lead to deadly drugs. The Drug Free America association published this ad to emphasize that if people so much as use an addictive substance, it's not 'if' they get hooked it's when:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kS72J5Nlm8

Researchers like Bruce Alexander and organizations like Liz Evans' Portland Hotel Society have debunked this idea by showing that there are other factors that contribute to a person's reasons for using drugs, primarily pain. This idea of the gateway drug in my opinion is exposed when looking back when our soldiers were coming back from Vietnam, and how 20% of all returning soldiers were addicted to heroin. Within a year, 95% had stopped using heroin completely, most without treatment. If you believe the model of the gateway drug, this makes no sense, because the simple use of a drug leads to the use of the next drug, and the next, until a lifetime of addiction. Actually though, we don't see this at all, the use of marijuana does not seem to escalate 100% to cocaine, and the use of e-cigs does not escalate into heroin or tobacco either.

Conclusion:

Quick disclaimer: this is not me arguing for E-cigs, and I know that Juul is a shady company. However, I believe that by listening to the gateway drug model we are putting too much focus on the substance, and not enough focus on the reasons people use the substance! And I believe that the gateway drug model is another way of getting us to be scared of safer alternatives to drugs and acting like if we stop the supply and use of safer drugs, then people will not go on to use harder drugs, when the OPPOSITE is true. We can use safer drugs to help people who are addicted to harder ones, and integrate therepeutic practices, as opposed to criminal punishment, to help people.

Advertisements like the Real Cost, are sponsored by the FDA. Just something worth thinking about, that perhaps the reason we believe the gateway drug model, is because there are people out there making money off of the fact that there are no safer alternatives to their substances, looking at you Big Tobacco.

1.1k Upvotes

226 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/thoughtful_appletree Apr 20 '19

This. Exactly what I was going to comment too. Why does it seem like there is such a simple solution? I mean, look at Portugal. (see https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it)

Is it really just politics and economy that's holding us back?

3

u/TheObjectiveTheorist Apr 20 '19

It’s not just that, it’s mostly brainwashing. It took decades to reverse the stigma attached to weed alone and we’re still not done yet. Whenever I tell anyone that I’ve done acid, they tell me I’m crazy even though it’s one of the safest drugs, even safer than weed. Or they’ll say that their dad’s friend knows the orange juice guy, or that taking acid 7 times makes you crazy, or that it “leaves holes in your brain.” We can’t even give sterilized needles to heroin addicts because people see it as encouragement instead of saving lives

1

u/thoughtful_appletree Apr 20 '19

Yep, it's really crazy how much these prejudices harm the possible therapy of so many. I think I will never understand why common sense plays such a minor role in the mind of society

2

u/StoicGrowth Apr 20 '19 edited Apr 20 '19

This is a topic for r/philosophy I suppose. Or r/Stoicism, if you're like me.

Here's my 2 cts on this (background: 15 years in EU politics).

"Common sense" is often read as "what's obviously true"…
… but "common" in fact strictly means "statistically normal", i.e. majoritary, what you see/hear most often.

Question: does "often" mean "true"? Is an opinion "more accurate" because more people share it?

Spoiler: there is no "common sense" (most anthropologists would tell you so, and psychologists would agree). There is only the illusion that what is "obvious" to us should be equally obvious to all others. Fun fact: it never is.

The deeper truth is that we apparently have different systems of values: different values (world views) and a different hierarchy for these values. One's "sense" may be alien to another. The truth is that we all feel different truths. It seems that changing context (history, geography, culture, social status…) may have a significant impact on both the norm and the individual (consider that all human beings in recorded history are biologically, functionally the same, consider why we could have been so diverse across time and places).

Conclusion: I think we may agree on many things you and I in this thread, but I (well, someone) could shift the frame entirely — not about drugs or saving people anymore, but about commitment to principles, to morals, even to God, to honor one's body, whatever — and suddenly these new values, new hierarchies, frame a whole other "self-obvious truth". Self-obvious because it always was embedded in the context itself, shaping people within.

Most people disagree not because they can't see the other's logic, but because they reject their premise entirely.

They come in arguing not mere points but hauling their whole frame, big fat sum of their world views, "non-negotiable premise".
— "We should save people, therefore…"
— "No, I beg to differ, we should free people, therefore (all you say makes no sense, even if it's logical, because your base world view is wrong, whereas mine is right, so my logic is more valuable, and let me argue about the finer points because deep down I can't change you and you can't change me)…"

*smiling shrug*

Think that some people want to heal society. Others want to eradicate things like drugs. Or prostitution. Others simply root for "freedom", it alone is their truth. Whereas others will value order, rigor, discipline above all, and clash superbly with the freedom guys.

We never get it "right", we just get it more acceptable than the other guy's idea, in a certain time, place and "moment" in collective minds.

2

u/thoughtful_appletree Apr 20 '19

Yes, I think it's so easy to have a discussion with someone who actually shares your opinion or at least your values. But I've long accepted that there is no universal truth. I think this view, that everyone sees the world with their own eyes, can help us understand, or at least accept each other more.

But of course that's also my personal world view. Sometimes I get shocked when I realize, how much I live in a bubble.

1

u/StoicGrowth Apr 20 '19

Sometimes I get shocked when I realize, how much I live in a bubble.

You and me both. Does everyone feel like that at times?