Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Can you believe this shit?

Ok Rain have it your way. I didn't want to seriously engage in this argument with you because 1) I suspect your just trolling, 2) I really don't give a fuck at all if you are persuaded by my argument or not and 3) Even if I "win" you and all the other hippie potheads on this forum will still live in your denial that pot could ever lead people to try harder drugs.

That said, I suppose I'll shit all over your half-assed argument if it makes you feel better.

First, you still DO NOT PROVIDE ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE that refute or disprove the THEORY of the gateway drug. Your initial response was to direct me to this link:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=marijuana+gateway+effect&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&as_vis=1

Wow way to go doctor Rainman, a list of articles from Google. That does absolutely nothing to support your argument whatsoever. The vast majority of those articles aren't even on topic. So you throw out a link to a 100 artciles and think that proves your point? Clearly you're also an American.

Let's examine just one of the articles contained in that shitty list. It's titled "The dynamics of alcohol and marijuana initiation: patterns and predictors of first use in adolescence"

The link for this article is here: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/3/360

First, this article isn't even on topic. I only use it as an example because 1) It was one of the first few in the list 2) You're not going to shift the burden of your shitty argument back to me by making me search through tons of articles to find one that supports it, and 3) It's a glaring example of why you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The problems with this article that I found after 3 minutes of reading it were as follows:

1. The study was done by: R Kosterman, JD Hawkins, J Guo, RF Catalano and RD Abbott. Notice there are no PhD's by any of their names? Yea that's a problem.

2. They studied 808 youth. Yea that's a fucking problem too. That sample size is WAYYYY too small. Accurate statistical data requires very large samples.

3. This is a quote from the article, "This study, guided by the social development model, examined the dynamic patterns and predictors of alcohol and marijuana use onset." and so is this, "...808 youth interviewed..."

The problem with number 3 above is twofold.

First off, as I already told you, and you HAVE CONTINUED TO DODGE, they are ATTEMPTING to use the scientific method to anaylyze a "SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT" issue. You simply cannot disprove soft science theories in sociology and psychology WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA. The human mind and it's complex interworkings and social behavior cannot completely be explained with science.

Second, THEY INTERVIEWED the subjects. I guarantee you that any study that's done on whether pot is or is not a gateway drug is dependant upon interviewing people. Well guess what smartbox? PEOPLE LIE. Any study conducted which is reliant upon interviewing of individuals is suspect at its inception for this very reason.

When I call you on your bullshit and tell you that you cannot disprove it because it's not a hard science, you refute by trying to spin the scenario and say that stupid shit I quoted above. Yes I admit that until now I didn't spend even 60 seconds researching whethere or not you are right about the gateway drug theory being debunked. You seem to be insinuating that there is "hard science" to support your argument, yet the best you can do is link me to a list of 8978478974894 semi maybe possibly in the general realm of on topic articles on google and throw out a couple of insults.

WEAK.

If you seriously want to put forth some effort to prove your argument, then I will too.

But I'm not going to waste anymore time on this horseshit if you're just going to link lists of articles and keep dodging my points.