Is cannabis a gateway drug?
One of the biggest arguments for not legalising cannabis is that it is a gateway leading to other and harder drugs. The research of numerous studies on harder drug users (such as cocaine, heroin, crack, ecstasy, etc.) have shown that almost all hard drug users started off using cannabis. Whilst these facts are true, it does not paint an accurate nor correct picture in terms of presenting this argument for keeping cannabis illegal.
The only link that cannabis has to harder drugs theory is due to the fact that it provides you with links to the criminal world - specifically the illegal drugs industry. Cannabis provides this link for the simple reason that it is illegal, users therefore have to enter the underground / criminal environment in order to purchase cannabis. Once you obtain contacts from the criminal underworld then it’s easy to obtain further contacts for different things; such as finding suppliers to other harder drugs, buying stolen goods, etc. If cannabis was legalised then this link to the criminal world would no longer exist, and therefore cannabis could not be associated as a gateway drug. The same principle would apply if alcohol or tobacco were illegal, their associated users would also be able to obtain links to harder drugs, or other forms of criminality.
The next argument in this theory is that if people are willing to try cannabis then they are more willing to try other and harder drugs. Saying that just because someone uses cannabis means that they are more likely to try harder drugs is like saying that someone who drinks alcohol is more likely to try tobacco. I have loads of friends who use cannabis and have never tried harder drugs, and none of us like the idea of harder drugs being associated with cannabis as it is simply unfounded and not accurate at all. I bet if you asked any hard drug user if they tried alcohol before trying drugs their response would be yes (with the odd and rare exception) – could we therefore argue that alcohol is a gateway drug? The answer is an obvious no and most of the population would say that is a stupid argument, so why is it an acceptable argument to use against cannabis?
I can’t understand the Government’s argument on this one at all, it’s plain and simple really and is basic common sense. Perhaps this is the problem though, basic common sense doesn’t seem to apply in Government at all. If Government wish to keep cannabis illegal then I have no problem with this provided their arguments are well evidenced and factually correct, unlike the current arguments which they have supporting their costly, detrimental and unnecessary cause!
