Now, here’s why: suppose you didn’t like fox hunting, a peculiar British sport where country-dwellers dress in red and gallop across fields on horseback with a pack of dogs after a fox. It’s been banned in this country, but many similar activities are still legal such as chasing a pre-laid trail of fox musk, or chasing a toy doped in fox musk and dragged by another horse. All very well and good, economic substitution at work, however a small amount of illegal hunting continues.
It comes to your attention that everyone who participates in illegal fox hunting started off by learning to ride horses, so you ban horse riding — it’s clearly a gateway to illegal fox hunting.
“But that’s stupid!” you cry, “And nothing to do with drugs!”
But wait: Here are the facts — nearly everyone who currently does heroin started off with a “soft” drug such as ecstasy or cannabis.
You can argue about this two ways — that smoking dope makes you more likely to shoot up smack, or that the kind of people who shoot up smack are the kind of people who would start off smoking dope.
Both result in the same correlative evidence, but one is a causal relationship, and the other isn’t. How would you tell the difference?
Back to fox hunting. There are large numbers of people who participate in riding-related activities that aren’t fox hunting. If riding did really “cause” fox-hunting, then we would expect a far greater number of people who do riding also doing fox-hunting.
Now consider drugs; consider drugs in Portugal, where both cannabis and heroin have similarly declassified legal statuses. In 2006, heroin use occurrence amongst 16-18 year olds was 1.8% and cannabis occurrence was 15.1%, using Bayes law, even assuming that every heroin user also used cannabis, and in the knowledge that heroin and cannabis use does not equate to usage (i.e. occasional vs. habitual), the probability that any given cannabis-user also uses heroin is 0.12. Interestingly, when drugs were decriminalised in 2001, heroin usage dropped, and cannabis usage rose, strongly implying a fact that seems obvious when applied to horse riding:
If horse riding were illegal, then less people would ride horses, but those who did ride, as they were already breaking the law, would be more inclined to participate in fox hunting.
The evidence from statistics in favour of the “gateway drug” concept is weak indeed, but argument from anecdote is weaker still. I saw a program the other week where a panel discussed the potential legalisation of drugs, and despite having some excellent rationalists on both sides (Tim Carpenter of LPUK in favour), the debate devolved into an argument between a medical-marijuana user and a former drug addict.
Come on gentlemen.
Grow up.
Repost of an essay I dug up from May last year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Morning
Purely anecdotally I do happen to think that, in some respects, dope is a gateway drug.
But I am also of the view that legalisation - not simpler decriminalisation - would help remove this.
I haven't smoked dope for a good many years now, but when at college I was always offered 'something stronger' by my dealer. It didn't appeal to me, but I know a good number of people who did take up the offer. Of those a couple did end up getting themselves pretty serious habits (1 smack, 1 coke).
Legalising ALL drugs would remove this so long as the distribution of drugs as well as quality, etc... was also covered in the regulations.
Your average chemist, who has spent many years studying for their qualifications, is highly unlikely to offer something stronger if the sanction for doing so is loss of licence to practice as a chemist. If a customer wanted some smack or coke though then they know that the chemist could sell it to them, but just not 'push' it on them.
Of course there would always be some bansturbator trying to get people to give up their perfectly acceptable (IMHO) dope smoking behaviour and pressing for tax grants to campaign against it, but they just don't get it.
The illegal nature of the current trade is what drives many people go for something more than they were looking for when in fact they were just looking to get a bit chilled at the weekend.
Discuss.
Yup, agreed, but you've an uphill struggle on your hands if you have to fall back on things like "facts" or "logic" or "if in doubt the government should do nothing". Most people don't actually like facts or logic.
I'd make the case for legalisation from the other end of the harm spectrum.
I recently watched a woman on the Jeremy Kyle Show (don't ask) inhale butane gas while the show's psychiatrist read her the warning label.
Criminalising this woman's behaviour and creating a lighter fuel black market would be incredibly stupid.
The idea that the state can "save us from ourselves" is clearly nonsense.
We need to point that out at every opportunity.
The drug war is just another big government racket.
@Dominic "I was always offered 'something stronger' by my dealer"
That, to me, is the gateway.
Prohibition is the gateway drug.
@Dominic "I was always offered 'something stronger' by my dealer"
- and you presumably said "no thank you".
It's called freedom. More people should have it - and exercise it.
Currently it pays to be on drugs
If your found out, you may end up with warning.
If you get addicted, you automatically get help from the state.
If you lose your job, you can claim incapacity benefit.
If beg for it, you will be provided with drugs free by the state.
If you steel to fund your drug habit, the rest of us are not allowed to defend our selves.
Take drugs, your better off.
Don't worry about your health, you have free treatment on demand from the NHS and FREE support from the state.
If you support drugs then vote one of the big three.
No wonder why we have a drugs problem in the country. We live in a druggies paradise.
In Scotland it costs every tax payer £800ish each every year to fund alcohol abuse.
At least under a libertarian society your free to take drugs however your fully responsible for your own actions. Dont' expect help on-demand and rest of us to pay for your mistakes.
History of polo ralph lauren. Polo fashions had its humble beginnings in 1968 when tie salesman Ralph Lauren gave it a kick start. By 1969 he had a boutique polo ralph lauren factory stores within the Manhattan department store Bloomingdale's. ... Brands and luxury standard. Since Ralph Lauren's first brand, Polo Ralph Lauren, was launched, the company has expanded to include a variety of luxury brands such as Polo Golf, Polo Denim, Polo Sport. You can buy cheap Ralph Lauren Clothing at Ralph Lauren outlet.Also We provide polo shirts
Ralph Lauren polo shirt, 50% OFF! polo ralph lauren outlet online is your best choice!In 2006, polo ralph lauren outlet became the first designer in Wimbledon's 133-year history to create official uniforms for the tournament. As part of this year's event, which starts next week, polo ralph lauren sale will introduces the first ... determination to maintain and enhance the values for which our two brands are famous throughout the world. The rugby ralph lauren brand brings to Wimbledon the look of timeless elegance, drawing on our rich history and traditions
Post a Comment