Talk:Gateway drug effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Tobacco and other drugs seems to cover mostly the same content as this article. I think it would make sense to merge that article here. Thoughts? Sizeofint (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think not myself - both could be greatly expanded. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the scope of Tobacco and other drugs is larger than the gateway effect I suppose that would justify keeping it. What other aspects should we note in that article? Sizeofint (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: the gateway theory for Tobacco and other drugs is only half of the story, the other half being the shared genetic or environmental factors might increase the change of the use of both tobacco and 'other drugs'. The latter idea implies that taking up tobacco smoking doesn't increase your risk of taking other drugs; rather, the increased risk of taking other drugs was already present. Klbrain (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: The gateway idea has been the primary justification for the marijuana laws since 1951. It is not just an academic argument. It has had serious real-word consequences. It was never asserted for tobacco smoking until activists started to point out the hypocrisy of claiming that one chemical is a "stepping stone" and another is not. That's the same time it became known as a "gateway". That is, tobacco is the "gateway" to drugs that kill far fewer people than tobacco. That argument was a symptom of prohibition starting to fall apart because the arguments made no sense. It is a subject all its own.76.9.88.166 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Add-on effect after first-time use
This section is fully within the scope of the article, which deals with ".....medical theory that the use of a psychoactive drug can be coupled to an increased probability of the use of further drugs." (Lead section). A secondary source will be added thus fulfilling our practice rules as described above. --Saidmann (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are other concerns here. For one, the word "effect" implies causation, this is not concluded by either source. They simply found associations. There exist many factors in drug abuse (as we have touched on in the article), no study can adjust for all confounders. Cross-sensitization exists bilaterally between many drugs and seems to only be a component cause. There are a growing number of studies showing additional, previously unknown factors.


 * The interpretation of the primary study, "In a sample of 27,461 people who showed no signs of alcohol use disorder (AUD) before their cannabis consumption" is in error. As seen in the full text of the study, at wave 1 for the non-AUD sample there were two groups, one that reported no cannabis use in the past year (n=27,301) and one that reported past year cannabis use (n=160). The "cannabis group" was using cannabis at the beginning of the study period, then they looked for differences between the two groups 3 years later.


 * I haven't read the secondary source yet, as it is behind a paywall, but it is not concluding any specific measure of effect cannabis use may have, only that it may be a factor worth exploring: "Furthermore, co-use may be associated with worse clinical outcomes, yet there are few studies examining the development and evaluation of interventions on reducing the co-use of cannabis and alcohol." It is not concluding that there is a 5 times greater risk of AUD due to cannabis use, just that cannabis use may be a factor. There are other studies showing that cannabis use may play a role in harm reduction and that it may actually help some people reduce alcohol and more harmful drug usage such as opioids. For now at least the section heading and content should be changed to something more balanced. Psyden (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to "Gateway drug effect"
Scientific publications listed under the search term "Gateway drug effect" are more than twice as many as those listed under the search term "Gateway drug theory". According to Google Scholar: The preference of "Gateway drug effect" is also reflected in the publications of recent years, including the most comprehensive reviews that have so far appeared on the subject: The Article is therefore moved to "Gateway drug effect". --Saidmann (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC) (Main author of the article: Authorship attribution = 57.6%)
 * "Gateway drug theory" 176
 * "Gateway drug effect" 392
 * PMID 28845848 (2018)
 * PMID 31539325 (2019)
 * Pretty much BS and phantasies of the main spammer of this article. Hope can review this nonsene.


 * Overall, the concept of the gateway hypothesis has inspired a large body of research, but there remain significant gaps of knowledge before we are able to fully accept or refute the hypothesis. Despite the growing number of published papers relevant to the gateway drug hypothesis, many complex factors still have not been thoroughly addressed to determine causality in animal models even excluding human-specific confounds that impact interpretation such as social, psychological, and legal considerations. As the legality regarding substances of abuse evolve, becoming more relaxed in many jurisdictions, understanding the effect of drug exposure during critical periods of neurodevelopment, particularly adolescence, is essential. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506797/


 * Yeah, a hypothesis suddenly flips in 2017 and everything changes in 2018/2019 with 2 measly reviews. --分液漏斗 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * More evidence that the main spammer of this article tries to fool us, search "gateway hypothesis" in his phantastic review: PMID 31539325 (2019) - I got 23 matches "gateway hypothesis" just within this review. But only 7 for "Gateway effect". 328% increase in BS.--分液漏斗 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks, but no evidence. My original arguments remain fully valid. The move was therefore mandatory and will be repeated. --Saidmann (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

History
This article leaves a lot out of the history. See History of the Marijuana Gateway Myth for a full page of things left out, with links to original references. For example, one of the motivations for the early marijuana laws was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana. When Harry Anslinger testified for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, he was asked specifically if there was any connection between marijuana and heroin, and he replied emphatically that there was none at all. See Transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act for his complete testimony. The idea became official US policy in 1951, during the hearings for the Boggs Act. See Whitebread's history of the marijuana laws The reason it became referred to as the "gateway" idea is because the "stepping stone" idea no longer had any credibility, having been damaged by such things as the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1973. It became obvious that there was no drug that would give someone a craving for completely different drugs they had never had, so the idea was softened to make it seem like more of a psychological thing. It should also be mentioned that anyone who tries this idea in any college logic class will fail the class. 76.9.88.166 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Clifford Schaffer

About coffee...
Is coffee, due to legalization, being considered exempt from being classifiable as a gateway drug?

Note that the entire concept of 'gateway drug' is based on psychology/sociology, not harmful physiological effects, and that psychologically/sociologically, there's a wide number of semblances between coffee and other gateway drugs; distinct physiological effects achieved, habit/ritual/social-ritual formance, addiction/tolerance-building/abstinence symptoms, situational escalating use, initiating use during teenage years, use to improve performance, similar biological function as cocaine. A quick search will bring numerous sources that discuss coffee as one.

Why doesn't the article mention it? Gewath (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC) "A quick search will bring numerous sources that discuss coffee as one."
 * Good. You could do that search, then include them as sources in a paragraph on the subject. Britmax (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)