[mrmephistopheles]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here (because I've always been against the use of ANY drugs from cerveza to crack), and suggest that pot is considered a gateway drug simply for the fact that it's far more benign than the harder drugs out there (coke/meth/crack/heroin, etc), but still has the appeal of getting one high.

Succinctly, who (in their right minds) would try heroin or crack as their first illicit substance?
I'm not the brightest guy in the world but it makes sense to me that progressing from one drug to the next is the more logical way to do it.

Think of it like climbing mountains.
Let's say Everest and K2 are crack and meth.
Let's say Mt Fuji is cocaine and marijuana is a 5000ft mountain.
Beer is Blueberry Hill.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that the entire population is of good enough health to summit everest.

Let's say I've tried Coke. It stands to reason that if I've tried coke, I've probably tried pot and drank beer. Those are both substances that aren't terribly hard to come by, and carry little risk (compared to coke and onwards).

Most of the US is content climbing up Blueberry Hill from time to time, and a few more like to hit that 5000ft peak now and then.

Let's take a look at the Everest and K2 climbers. Real-world climbers who want to summit those peaks have climbed the Blueberry Hills, and the 5000ft peaks and the Mt Fujis of the world and seek to go further. They want the adventure and the glory and the excitement and the challenge of climbing the highest peaks.

A skewed version of that holds true for users of crack and meth. More often than not, they've tried beer and pot and coke and while they've probably enjoyed it all, they've wanted MORE. They wanted the bigger high, the more profound feeling of euphoria, the greater buzz, etc. They understood (to some degree) the risks associated with those drugs and they chose to take them.

It stands to reason that a large majority of them smoked pot at some point along the journey, even if climbing Mt. McKinley isn't a prerequisite to climbing Everest. It was their personality or other factors that drove them to want to try harder drugs, not necessarily the use of pot. Certainly, having a stepping stone in the transition between alcohol and harder drugs is a boon, but it's not necessarily the fault of marijuana.

I have begun lately to waffle about my opinion of pot. I think any drug, legal or otherwise cannot be used irresponsibly. Alcohol can be drunk to excess, and all manner of consequences can result. Same with pot smoking.

I have HEARD that it's impossibly to OD on pot, but I have NOTHING to back that up.
I know for a fact that people can and do succumb to alcohol poisoning.
Coke and onwards can all be easily OD'd on.
I don't believe that all drugs are inherently evil or bad.
Marijuana has medicinal uses. Morphine is a hospital-grade painkiller.

I think that (from what I know) legalizing marijuana might be an OK idea, so long as the same restrictions and consequences are placed on it that are on alcohol. Perhaps more regulation of it would be prudent as well, I can't say for sure.

I don't feel the same way about meth or crack or coke or heroin. One could argue that we should legalize everything and let the Darwin effect weed out the stupid ones. Perhaps as a sardonic theory, that's a great idea, but in practice it would only result in a greater drain on society, more heartbreak and suffering among families, and outlash from those who were previously punished for breaking the newly-repealed law. I don't think that legalizing pot will lead to the legalization of hard drugs. ANY idiot can see a difference in the societal, physical and social effects of those drugs. Who in their right mind would legalize meth or crack?




I'm long winded today I guess.

Out of curiosity (and I can't guess for myself as I'm not a pot smoker), how much would one be willing to pay for a 100% legal marijuana cigarette? Let's say a pack of 20, just like tobacco.