Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:However, here is the thing, it is a gateway drug because, and this is the important bit: It is an illegal substance, and one of the few ways you can buy it is from someone who is connected to the drugs trade.

Gateway drug = illegal/ connected to the drug trade

So it is a gateway drug... because... it is a gateway drug? I am still not sure how that proves your point. Black market shoes and pants are also involved in the drug trade, even balloons and condoms too... and so far as I can see, those should be classified as gateway drugs under your precise definition.

Although as I have stated previously, a lot of pot dealers will also deal other things too. Because other things will make them a lot more money than pot. Which is a good thing for the dealer.

So those pot dealers that sell other drugs can't simply be called drug dealers? Perhaps meth dealers, or coke dealers who sell pot? Are you talking about the mythical creatures, who run around with backpacks full of drugs to get unsuspecting civilians now? When someone sees an ad for a car, and they go to a dealership to test drive that car, they did not go to the dealership to buy a motorcycle; and that much is clear.

There are a very small amount of people who actually take the path you are laying out here; most people on the other hand, can get past all of this stuff just fine. Most people that get stuck on drugs simply cannot find appropriate treatment, or lack the support to find it. In areas where a large portion of the community supports themselves through crime, you do not blame those people, you address the underlying issue.

Ok, I can see this is not going anywhere and that you seem to be focussing on picking apart how I am saying things rather than paying attention to the message.

On the broad things I think we agree; a legalisation of pot would be a good thing, the money it raises could help people who fall off the tracks etc, medical pain treatment, etc...

Perhaps over in the US your guns keep the people selling bad drugs at bay, I don't know. However, it seems fairly rare in my experience that people selling pot don't sell other drugs too.

SilverMK2 wrote:Perhaps over in the US your guns keep the people selling bad drugs at bay, I don't know. However, it seems fairly rare in my experience that people selling pot don't sell other drugs too.

Yeah, but don't you think that might be due to both things being illegal? That if one of the drugs were made legal, that correlation would stop, as marijuana would start being sold in reputable stores much like alcohol is today?

SilverMK2 wrote:Ok, I can see this is not going anywhere and that you seem to be focussing on picking apart how I am saying things rather than paying attention to the message.

On the broad things I think we agree; a legalisation of pot would be a good thing, the money it raises could help people who fall off the tracks etc, medical pain treatment, etc...

Perhaps over in the US your guns keep the people selling bad drugs at bay, I don't know. However, it seems fairly rare in my experience that people selling pot don't sell other drugs too.

We do agree, but I am pretty sure I am not nitpicking here.

You were talking about gateway drugs, and I was getting into the details of what you actually mean by that. So far, you have not really explained what that would really mean, and you have now decided that my in depth perspective, is not even worth addressing.

sebster wrote:Yeah, but don't you think that might be due to both things being illegal? That if one of the drugs were made legal, that correlation would stop, as marijuana would start being sold in reputable stores much like alcohol is today?

I think sebster could carry this conversation a bit further for you, as you have decided that I am totally ignoring what you are "actually" saying.

sebster wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Perhaps over in the US your guns keep the people selling bad drugs at bay, I don't know. However, it seems fairly rare in my experience that people selling pot don't sell other drugs too.

Yeah, but don't you think that might be due to both things being illegal? That if one of the drugs were made legal, that correlation would stop, as marijuana would start being sold in reputable stores much like alcohol is today?

...and if you read my posts on the previous page, that is exactly what I have been saying

SilverMK2 wrote:
Getting drugs is pretty simple. You may get your stuff from a friend of a friend who does indeed sell just pot. However, the thing is that a lot of dealers don't just sell pot.

Really? I've never met a pot dealer who sold other drugs. I also never met a meth dealer who sold other drugs (and yes I did have a problem with meth when I was younger). I've had the displeasure of meeting a crack dealer or two in my time, and they only sold crack. IME drug dealers are pretty selective about what they sell. That's not to say they don't know where to get the other stuff, but they choose not to supply it.

The difference between "most", and "some" dealers, is vast indeed. This is the only point I have disputed from SilverMK2, along with my need for clarification of the term, "gateway drug", in this context. As far as I can tell, everything is a gateway drug, and there is no way to discern that joint, from a taco; mainly because you can have illegal tacos.

Lordhat wrote: IME drug dealers are pretty selective about what they sell. That's not to say they don't know where to get the other stuff, but they choose not to supply it.

Your experience is indicative of basic business sense. As you said, people can get stuff, but why in the feck would they?

Why would a pot dealer want you to smoke crack? They do not sell crack, they sell pot. A crack dealer could use pot to keep customers "happy", but more often than not, there is absolutely no reason for them to run around playing marketing-super hero; especially when crack heads will just show up to begin with... out of the woodwork and snap, like those aliens movies . They had DVD's... it was horrifying...



Anyway though, here are a couple of articles that show the basic differences between the two "more popularized" drugs being used in the U.S. today.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS56517+04-Feb-2009+BW20090204
Try and find an article that shows a way to benefit from the legalization of meth. I am pretty sure we can agree on that one SilverMk2.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html

I appologise Wrex, I guess I was just getting a little bit annoyed as I thought you were not "listening" to what I was saying and were concentrating on taking apart how I was saying things.

Again, sorry for that and would like to hear your take on the subject.

As I say, to put my thoughts clearly, a gateway drug is:

+ A drug
+ A drug which usually has addictive properties
+ Leads users on to taking harder drugs (through either seeking a bigger high, being "pushed" into taking it by dealers, etc).

My personal feeling and experience is that many people who go on to bigger and better things (as it were) did so because they were in contact with people who pushed drugs on them (hence dealers are called pushers).

To compare and contrast legal and illegal gateway drugs for a second here:

Alcohol and tobacco are not illegal. They can be considered gateway drugs, because they are, well, drugs. However, they are legal and their sale is through, most often, reputable traders; shops, pubs, bars etc.

Usually they lead only to higher levels of consumption of either alcohol or tobacco (whichever is your poison). You do not go into a supermarket to by some beer and get offered other drugs... "Want some speed with your bud, sir?"

The reason for this is that legal shops do not usually stock illegal drugs, and they have monitors in place to ensure that they do not, as well as usually selling to a larger client base, and stocking other legal things to buy (such as food, or magazines etc).

On the other hand, you have illegal drugs such as pot. They are often sold by either straight out pot dealers (who deal in nothing else), or by general drug dealers who will sell other things as well.

The point I have attempted to make here is that while there is little to no scope for a user of alcohol etc to purchase other drugs, or be pushed into buying them (because they frequent legal retailers), someone who buys and uses pot is in a very different environment.

They have people who often don't really care about what happens to people so long as they pay up front.

They know that a person who comes to them to buy pot is interested in getting high. Their market comes to them. They can then go about advertising their other wares. A common tactic is to offer free trials (such as a single hit of something seriously addictive) to people buying pot and other soft drugs to get them hooked into the new, more expensive and far more addictive drug.

Now, if you legalised some of the soft drugs, such as pot, you remove the dealers (for the most part) from the equation. You put the drugs in the supermarket, rather than the streets.

This removes users from the grasp of the pushers and so removes their influence to try harder drugs.

I hope this comes across more clearly. I would be grateful and interested to hear your own take on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Indeed, "some" and "most" are quite different terms. I don't think anyone can quantify the numbers in this case. Except perhaps by seizing the books from every criminal in the world

Here I am bowing to other peoples experience, as everyone has a different amount in differenet areas.

I am going to clarify the kinds of dealers that I refer to for the most part. I know that for any particular drug that you want to name, there will be groups of people who exclusively sell that drug. As Lordhat said, if you have an established client base who all want the same thing, it makes sense to supply it. Plus it cuts costs, etc.

The kinds of dealers I refer to the most in my posts are more the opertunistic kind... the sort who frequent night spots (clubs and the like), universities etc. They often, from my experience, carry a wide array of drugs, or know someone who carries drug x, y or z.

It is my experience of them that they seem to want to push the heavier stuff once they have a regular customer, or someone they "trust".

I have no idea of their comparative numbers in relation to the overall numbers of dealers, as I have little experience of interacting with anything past this level of dealing.

SilverMK2 wrote:

My personal feeling and experience is that many people who go on to bigger and better things (as it were) did so because they were in contact with people who pushed drugs on them (hence dealers are called pushers).

I have found this to be pure hype and propaganda, and more than little self denial on the part of the addicts themselves; It's much easier to blame the failure that is their life on some mythical pusher, than it is to accept the responsibility that the choice was their own. This is especially the case, I think, when in court pleading to the judge.

In truth, 'pushing' and to a lesser extent 'peer pressure' are just fabrications. Most of the the time scenario isn't "Hey you like that, try this!" it's "What's that?" "It's <crack, meth, pot, beer, whiskey, LSD, ecstasy, ludes, shrooms, heroin, etc>" "Oh, is it good? Can I try it?" As a matter of fact I've witnessed more attempts to dissuade new users than to push them against their will. Not by the dealers of course, but dealers are not usually a person's first contact with an addictive substance.At worst people who already use and know the pitfalls and traps of hard drug addiction are ambivalent towards non-users, and at best they don't really want to see more people caught in the cycle.

Yay.......Good, maybe soon my drug dealer will have to pay taxes..

And guys, seriously your pot guy has pot.. Your coke guy has coke, if he has pot it's a coincidence, and if your pot guy has coke, it's for him..

Dealing goes in stages... with the stakes and the payoff escalating at each level..
If the guy has heroin and pot, he's a heroin dealer who happens to have pot..
It's like a gas station/convenience store, they offer the munchies, but they really make their money off the gas..

No problem mate, I had just woken up in the middle of the night before a test, and a mornings worth of work... and I hope to get back to that sleep soon .

SilverMK2 wrote:I appologise Wrex, I guess I was just getting a little bit annoyed as I thought you were not "listening" to what I was saying and were concentrating on taking apart how I was saying things.

Again, sorry for that and would like to hear your take on the subject.

No worries bro.

As I say, to put my thoughts clearly, a gateway drug is:

+ A drug
+ A drug which usually has addictive properties
+ Can lead users on to taking harder drugs (through either seeking a bigger high, being "pushed" into taking it by dealers, etc).

This is the only bit I would change, but in doing so, I feel that you are presenting an obtuse definition; one that has been used as a basic "drug-war propaganda" tool for a very long time. Nothing actually leads someone to anything, and I find this to be 99% true; if a person were truly incapable of making a serious decision (frankly, a lifetime of decisions make a true addict), they would be incapable of making any decisions on that same note. Lack of responsibility, which in part is something that AA offers (not truly, but partially; and it is basically a stepping stone to becoming self sufficient), provides a line of reasoning that is not only false, but also delusional.

I do not care if your ice cream sundae in the sky is real to you, as long as I don't have put up with the problems that you are addressing with said sundae. I.E. the sundae is not an excuse, it is a support tool (self reliance, and all that stuff really, but it depends on your perspective of the book/guide about that sundae). If I have to put up with the problems people bring into my life, no magic sundae is going to keep me from holding them responsible for their actions.

My personal feeling and experience is that many people who go on to bigger and better things (as it were) did so because they were in contact with people who pushed drugs on them (hence dealers are called pushers).

Dealers are not pushers, and dealer is a bit of an obtuse term in itself. If you look into the history of the crack epidemic, all of the infrastructure is completely laid out. More often than not, it is little more than a side-business for a large gang, and in turn a tool that can be perceived as a secondary function of that gang; in other words, the gang loses power if a bunch of people get up and addressing the issues in the community. Bringing profuse amounts of hard drugs into a poor neighborhood, will most likely have a huge impact on that neighborhoods ability to make positive changes.

At any rate, I am pretty sure you are talking about little guys, that do such small amounts of business, they could hardly be called a real problem. More of an icon than anything else. So you would have your distributors (south American gangs/drug cartels/guerrillas for your example), then your middle men, of which there may be 3 different exchanges; and then you start to get into the little guys. As we have talked about before, most dealers are not interested in providing the full drug rainbow at all. It is much more to manage, and illogical overall for a small time dealer to actually accomplish effectively.

So you could definitely argue over a trickle effect, but the idea that there are a lot of dealers bent on addicting everyone to everything all over the place; this is just silly quite frankly. It makes much more sense for different dealers to sell different things, hence the idea of a pot-dealer vs. a meth dealer; in essence, who has a gun? If your dealer has a gun... he is most likely NOT, going to be selling marijuana. If you are on a pot-farm and there are machine guns... you should probably be leaving, because that is the real problem that needs to be addressed on the west coast of the U.S.

To compare and contrast legal and illegal gateway drugs for a second here:

Alcohol and tobacco are not illegal. They can be considered gateway drugs, because they are, well, drugs. However, they are legal and their sale is through, most often, reputable traders; shops, pubs, bars etc.

Usually they lead only to higher levels of consumption of either alcohol or tobacco (whichever is your poison). You do not go into a supermarket to by some beer and get offered other drugs... "Want some speed with your bud, sir?"

Wait... no Red Bull? Or Monster? Or some crazy coffee ginseng drink with pomegranates? Really sir, your stores selection is lacking very much in the get get-fethedup-ness aisles. P.S. Look to your right at any safeway checkout... SUGAR CAFFEINE CRAZY BEER BONANZA TIME!!! , got my beer, my red bull, and my smokes... wait... I need some tequila too.

The reason for this is that legal shops do not usually stock illegal drugs, and they have monitors in place to ensure that they do not, as well as usually selling to a larger client base, and stocking other legal things to buy (such as food, or magazines etc).

On the other hand, you have illegal drugs such as pot. They are often sold by either straight out pot dealers (who deal in nothing else), or by general drug dealers who will sell other things as well.

The point I have attempted to make here is that while there is little to no scope for a user of alcohol etc to purchase other drugs, or be pushed into buying them (because they frequent legal retailers), someone who buys and uses pot is in a very different environment.

Did you miss the pharmacy on your way out sir? Do you have your prescription for that Valium, Zoloft, and Painkillers ready?

Really sir, your stores selection is lacking very much in the get get-fethedup-ness aisles.

They have people who often don't really care about what happens to people so long as they pay up front.

They know that a person who comes to them to buy pot is interested in getting high. Their market comes to them. They can then go about advertising their other wares. A common tactic is to offer free trials (such as a single hit of something seriously addictive) to people buying pot and other soft drugs to get them hooked into the new, more expensive and far more addictive drug.

Now, if you legalised some of the soft drugs, such as pot, you remove the dealers (for the most part) from the equation. You put the drugs in the supermarket, rather than the streets.

I agree with this for the most part.

This removes users from the grasp of the pushers and so removes their influence to try harder drugs.

If/when pot is legalized, you will still see the same thing that I am talking about. Where people that want harder drugs, will go and find harder drugs, whether it is through their doctor for painkillers (give them pot , not a bad idea quite frankly), or some random crack dealer for their crack; people want, some even "need", and will find the drugs that they desire.

I hope this comes across more clearly. I would be grateful and interested to hear your own take on the matter.

INCOMING TEXT WALL!!!

SilverMK2 wrote:The kinds of dealers I refer to the most in my posts are more the opportunistic(spellchecker is your friend ) kind... the sort who frequent night spots (clubs and the like), universities etc. They often, from my experience, carry a wide array of drugs, or know someone who carries drug x, y or z.

It is my experience of them that they seem to want to push the heavier stuff once they have a regular customer, or someone they "trust".

I have no idea of their comparative numbers in relation to the overall numbers of dealers, as I have little experience of interacting with anything past this level of dealing.

You must be talking about someone who deals one drug, yet uses another to try and entice people into a long-term addiction. I am sure that things like that happen, but most of the club scenes are simply to active, and more often than not, people at those clubs will know where to get the stuff either way. So, in essence, that club dealer, is doing little more than giving out free drugs, and being incredibly stupid with their "cover". I have seen a few people like this, and more often than not, they are not full time dealers, they are just criminals in general. To call them opportunistic would be very accurate, but hardcore drug dealers? No, not really though. Most often they are some stupid ass kid, who is out to make a buck quite frankly; and not discreetly at all I might add.

I have to agree with you Lordhat, as I have said there usually has to be at least some sort of desire for the drug to start with in order to start taking it.

I've not met a great deal of hard drug users, but I have met a few. Most of them, as you say, are more active in trying to stop people taking them than to invite people back to share a dose.

Although I think the oposite almost holds true for softer drugs (especially alcohol... I don't drink and am constantly pestered to have some, at least until people get used to it).

Pot is similar. Although not as actively pushed in my experience. Though to be fair, some of the people I used to hang around with had clothes that you could get high off just by being within about 10ft and inhaling, and a lot of the gigs I used to go to you could hardly see the stage because of the smoke from peoples joints, so it was less of an issue.

Long live Rock 'n Roll!