• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The "Gateway Drug" LIE

I got to wondering if we really should blame Bill Clinton for those annoying ads, and found this:

Liz Moench thought it was obvious. During her job interview with Boots Pharmaceuticals in 1981, at its Shreveport, La., offices, the 23-year-old Moench asked company president John Bryer to describe the drug maker’s main customers.“Doctors,” Bryer said.
Moench was surprised. “Why isn’t it the consumer?”
advertisement




She got the job, and the rest is history. On May 19, 1983, Boots aired the first broadcast television commercial in the United States for a prescription drug, the pain reliever Rufen.
Click to expand...

It goes on to say how the AMA wants to end the ads, but the First Amendment stands in their way. Silly me, I thought the First Amendment pre dated 1983, and Bill Clinton was still in Arkansas then.

If we can ban cigarette ads, we should be able to ban ads for Crapitrol as well.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Almost 20 years ago (1999), the Institute of Medicine published a report entitled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base." In the report, it addressed the LIE that marijuana is a "gateway drug" which compels users toward using harder drugs. Here's what it said:

"It does not appear to be a gateway drug to the extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse; that is, care must be taken not to attribute cause to association.” [p. 101]

"There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a steppingstone on the basis of its particular physiological effect.” [p. 99]

“Instead, the legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug.” [p. 99]

http://docshare03.docshare.tips/files/26497/264976788.pdf

That was almost 20 years ago.

Due to a lawsuit from ASA (Americans for Safe Access) claiming a violation of the Information Quality Act, the DEA finally took down this LIE (and dozens of others) from its website earlier this year:

https://www.civilized.life/articles/dea-stands-downbacks-off-on-gateway-drug-theory/

But here's Attorney General Jeff Sessions two months ago:

"Good people don't smoke marijuana. (snip) You'll see cocaine and heroin increase more than it would have."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on legal weed - Business Insider

And here's DHS Secretary John Kelly just TODAY:

"Let me be clear about marijuana. It is a potentially dangerous gateway drug that frequently leads to the use of harder drugs,"

Almost 20 years ago, doctors who actually knew what the hell they were talking about tried to put this LIE to rest. Almost 20 years later, we still have willfully-ignorant fossils in our government continuing to repeat this LIE.

Why do we put up with this bull****? Why isn't the MSM (and the public at large) holding these LIARS to account?
Click to expand...

I am a little late to the thread, but let me point it out, science discussed this already, mary jane is not a gateway drug, but rather people who try mary jane are often pre dispositioned to use harder drugs anyways, and old marijuana is often the easiest to aquire especially for first time users.

This leads to the belief it is a gateway drug, which it is not. Gateway drugs themselves only gateway into stronger variants of themselves anyways, like for example someone hooked on cocaine who is no longer feeling the rush is not going to move to shrooms or acid, they are going to move to stronger forms of coke like crack, or they are going to another stimulate in the class like meth or mdma.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I got to wondering if we really should blame Bill Clinton for those annoying ads, and found this:



It goes on to say how the AMA wants to end the ads, but the First Amendment stands in their way. Silly me, I thought the First Amendment pre dated 1983, and Bill Clinton was still in Arkansas then.

If we can ban cigarette ads, we should be able to ban ads for Crapitrol as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. The article goes on to say the ad for Rufen was pulled shortly thereafter. It's been years, but it is generally acknowledged that the Rx advertising practice was changed during the Clinton administration, and just from memory, that seems reasonably accurate to me. From high school until later I worked in a small drug store, and can remember that prescription drugs were advertised only in professional journals like AMA.

Ibuprofen had been Rx only, but was eventually taken off. Perhaps that's when the ad described in the article took place? I noted it was 400mg, and I think the Rx doesn't start until 600 or 800mg.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thanks for that link. The article goes on to say the ad for Rufen was pulled shortly thereafter. It's been years, but it is generally acknowledged that the Rx advertising practice was changed during the Clinton administration, and just from memory, that seems reasonably accurate to me. From high school until later I worked in a small drug store, and can remember that prescription drugs were advertised only in professional journals like AMA.

Ibuprofen had been Rx only, but was eventually taken off. Perhaps that's when the ad described in the article took place? I noted it was 400mg, and I think the Rx doesn't start until 600 or 800mg.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly when the pill ads started to dominated TV advertising. I think at first, back in the '80s when they started, the companies had some qualms about trying to advertise directly to patients, but that's not the case any longer. It seems like there are more and more of them all the time.

One thing they never seem to mention: the cost. If the patients had to pay the full cost of the crap they're hawking constantly, few of them could afford it.

And one of the best inventions of the 21st. century is the DVR. Record your shows, then skip the ads. If enough people do that, advertisers will quit paying to have their commercials aired, and then what? We'll have to go to subscription TV, but how will we ever know what pills to tell our doctors we need?

And, how will we ever know which politicians to vote against?
 
Tigerace117 said:
But human nature means that regardless of a chemical property in the drug itself, it does act as a gateway drug in a way.
Click to expand...

The way is caused by the weed being illegal. I was shown the movie "Reefer Madness" in one of my HS classes. When I first tried it, it didn't make me act like the people in the movie. So that was a lie. Once I knew that the authorities were stupid and the heads were cool, I did try other drugs.

But alas, I left all that behind me many years ago. Legalize it and it won't be a gateway anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom