The history of the "gateway" argument demonstrates ANTZ are desperate

[VNeil]

After 20 pages now of this Gateway discussion, you can only come to the conclusion that the gateway argument is simply another reason for the government to take away our choices by arguing that something "might be dangerous", or our children "might" want to use it, and etc.

This is not a discussion about Gateways and what is or is not, or what might be. it is all about taking away more rights.

 

[Jman8]

One person's experiences do not lend validity, ever, to a scientific postulate. Valid scientific theories do not rely on anecdote, bias, prejudice, or subjectivity.

This does not explain what makes for scientific validity. Instead it postulates, or asserts, what does not. I submit that there are in fact versions of science precisely because science has nearly ALWAYS relied on subjectivity. Not solely subjectivity, but one would be hard pressed to disprove this claim I make. Examples from Carl's piece (among the thousands of examples I could, very easily, provide) include (bold emphasis mine, to make the point):

When learned societies started creating journals, one or a few editors served as gatekeepers for everything that appeared, and often solicited it. This worked because a few top polymaths could know enough about most every science to be able to separate the grain from the total chaff.

So much science was being produced that necessitated having advanced and specialized knowledge to assess it that a handful of editors could not judge most of what was being produced, even in the subdivided fields that they now worked in. An elegant solution was that a few experts on the particular paper could be identified and asked for their opinions, so that they played the role that the polymath editors once did.

Einstein’s objections were based on much weaker concerns than exist in health science now.

The solution to this is the next logical step in scaling, made possible by modern technology: working papers and crowdsourcing the review process to the whole interested community.

If someone does what the journal reviewers should have done — carefully analyzes a paper and identifies fundamental errors or omissions in it — and submits it as a letter to the editor, there is little chance it will be printed.

If public health were really a truth-seeking science, publishing it anywhere that has a high profile in the subfield (say, this blog) would be sufficient.

 

[Tranquility Base]

Most kids start off with a single Flintstone Vitamin. Then on to the aspirin and cold meds, and it isn't long before they're into the Ritalin and the Abilify. Then before you know it they're addicted to the ...... and the finally the Preparation-H. They are Flintstone Kids. Ten million strong, and growing.

 

[AndriaD]

After 20 pages now of this Gateway discussion, you can only come to the conclusion that the gateway argument is simply another reason for the government to take away our choices by arguing that something "might be dangerous", or our children "might" want to use it, and etc.

This is not a discussion about Gateways and what is or is not, or what might be. it is all about taking away more rights.

You're right; it's a very lame-duck excuse the gov't or whoever is latching onto, since they can't come up with anything better to damn e-cigs with. But I think what prompted all this verbosity is the fact that the very IDEA that someone might use e-cigs to "gateway" to real cigs or anything else, is positively LUDICROUS, and shows no relationship with reality WHATEVER. There doesn't seem to be any kind of real consensus as to whether gateways really exist, or philosophically exist, or psychologically exist -- but even if they do -- the notion that using an e-cig could somehow incite someone to try something else... it's just sillyass crazy! Non sequitur at its finest!!

Andria

 

[Nate760]

But I think what prompted all this verbosity is the fact that the very IDEA that someone might use e-cigs to "gateway" to real cigs or anything else, is positively LUDICROUS, and shows no relationship with reality WHATEVER.

Especially when the data continue to suggest, right across the board, that the relationship between vapor products and cigarettes is that consumption of the former suppresses consumption of the latter. At this point they might as well be arguing that water causes forest fires.

 

[AndriaD]

Especially when the data continue to suggest, right across the board, that the relationship between vapor products and cigarettes is that consumption of the former suppresses consumption of the latter. At this point they might as well be arguing that water causes forest fires.

EXACTLY! Or... that 17 causes purple!

These are very small people with very small minds, which makes them very challenging for intelligent people to deal with -- kinda like a 4 yr old who answers everything you say to them with "WHY?"

Andria

 

[Tranquility Base]

If it smokes like a duck, it's an e-cig that needs to be regulated. That's the kind of garbage legislation that will probably be tried until we try something better. Just get it over with so we can talk about something else. ha. I agree with Andria. Gets old. That's why I live on the moon. Or try to most of the time. No traffic either.

 

[Nate760]

These are very small people with very small minds, which makes them very challenging for intelligent people to deal with -- kinda like a 4 yr old who answers everything you say to them with "WHY?"

Hell, I've got a 16 year old and an 11 year old who still do that.

 

[AndriaD]

If it smokes like a duck, it's an e-cig that needs to be regulated. That's the kind of garbage legislation that will probably be tried until we try something better. Just get it over with so we can talk about something else. ha. I agree with Andria. Gets old. That's why I live on the moon. Or try to most of the time. No traffic either.

I would truly welcome the chance to hop a rocket off this rock, and all the stupid people. Alas, even if I had the money and interstellar travel were commonplace, I have motion sickness/vertigo, so I could never deal with free-fall.

In my next life, I wanna be an astronaut!

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

Hell, I've got a 16 year old and an 11 year old who still do that.

LOL! I always swore I would never utter my mom's stock phrase: "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"... but I actually did find myself saying that, once... my son thought I had totally lost it when, in the middle of arguing with him about something, I busted out laughing -- at myself!

Andria

 

[Nate760]

LOL! I always swore I would never utter my mom's stock phrase: "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"... but I actually did find myself saying that, once... my son thought I had totally lost it when, in the middle of arguing with him about something, I busted out laughing -- at myself!

When you've already given them a clear explanation and things are just going around in circles, playing the "because I said so" card is perfectly justified. With me it usually takes the form of "I am the parent, you are the child, the answer is no, the discussion is closed." If they want to prattle on indignantly just to hear the sound of their own voices, they'll have better luck with their mother.

 

[AndriaD]

When you've already given them a clear explanation and things are just going around in circles, playing the "because I said so" card is perfectly justified. With me it usually takes the form of "I am the parent, you are the child, the answer is no, the discussion is closed." If they want to prattle on indignantly just to hear the sound of their own voices, they'll have better luck with their mother.

That was usually our method too, and we were *very* good at "parenting in stereo" -- sending the boy back and forth between us because we could each tell if the other had already been consulted. But sometimes, just to keep the kid on his toes, I'd surprise him by turning it back around on him, and asking him if he could provide any logical, convincing reason why I should change my mind -- he'd stand there with his mouth open for a while, I'd turn back to my computer or my book and tell him to let me know if he came up with anything. And he actually did, once or twice, find a good, convincing *reason* to back up his argument -- which was fine; he always knew I would be *reasonable* with him, and it taught him how to THINK, rather than just stand there and whine like an idiot.

Andria

 

[Berylanna]

If it smokes like a duck, it's an e-cig that needs to be regulated. That's the kind of garbage legislation that will probably be tried until we try something better. Just get it over with so we can talk about something else. ha. I agree with Andria. Gets old. That's why I live on the moon. Or try to most of the time. No traffic either.

Have you tried cloud-chasing up there? Even at 1/6 gravity it should fall like a rock.

 

[Nate760]

Have you tried cloud-chasing up there? Even at 1/6 gravity it should fall like a rock.

He's probably too busy cleaning up Buzz Aldrin's urine bags.

 

[DC2]

I don't know anything about the science of this "gateway effect", but I do have my own experience -- "anecdotal" evidence -- once you step thru a "gateway" -- in any context -- the next step becomes much easier. Particularly with this "substance A" -- being currently illegal in most areas, once you do an illegal thing, the next illegal thing becomes much easier, less scary, not such a big deal. So no, I certainly don't think using substance A *causes* a person to take the next step, but I know very well that it makes the next step a much smaller step.

Usually I am all about making sure I don't think my situation applies to ANYONE other than me...

But as I probably noted earlier in this thread, I'll try just about anything once, because it's how I'm built.
But trying various things never led me to trying the one thing that I feared, which I guess I can call "horse" at this point.

I am too old to even think I may some day try it now.
But if I ever did try in my younger days, it wouldn't have been because I was less afraid of it due to other things I tried.

But that's just me, and we're all different.

 

[DC2]

that doesn't mean anything.
a lot of people go through their lives with out ever ingesting
A through Z even once.never will get addicted to any thing.
good for them.
some people will manage to avoid for whatever reason A,B,and C and
somehow try D. bammo,there hooked.
remember the vast majority of people that have used tobacco or alcohol,(A and B),
never try C and or D. of those that do even fewer will get by the once used phase
and progress into the addictive phases.
those that reach the problematic stages of usage represents a very small percentage
of those that have actually may have used it.tobacco use takes a long time to get
to the harmful stages as alcohol.other things take very short time in relationship
to tobacco and alcohol.
do to their prevalence tobacco and alcohol would be used first as a percentage
of the total population.that doesn't make it a gateway. its just the way the numbers wash out.
the abuse of prescription drugs is a classic example.its just as prevalent in the segments
of society that never used A,B,C or D as any other segment.
what was their gateway?

mike

Excellent points.

 

[Nate760]

Usually I am all about making sure I don't think my situation applies to ANYONE other than me...

But as I probably noted earlier in this thread, I'll try just about anything once, because it's how I'm built.
But trying various things never led me to trying the one thing that I feared, which I guess I can call "horse" at this point.

I am too old to even think I may some day try it now.
But if I ever did try in my younger days, it wouldn't have been because I was less afraid of it due to other things I tried.

But that's just me, and we're all different.

Aside from some brief forays into psychedelics, I never had the slightest inclination to try anything harder than [Name of semi-illicit flowering herb redacted], and so I never did. I really liked it, and I really liked beer, and there was no place of intoxication I needed to go that the two of them couldn't get me to.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled "gateway drug" hysteria.

 

[AndriaD]

Usually I am all about making sure I don't think my situation applies to ANYONE other than me...

But as I probably noted earlier in this thread, I'll try just about anything once, because it's how I'm built.
But trying various things never led me to trying the one thing that I feared, which I guess I can call "horse" at this point.

I am too old to even think I may some day try it now.
But if I ever did try in my younger days, it wouldn't have been because I was less afraid of it due to other things I tried.

But that's just me, and we're all different.

I never did either (even though my middle name might as well be "12 step addict"), for the same reason -- that stuff terrified me -- so I went and got addicted to that other one -- the C one -- instead. I know there are many recovering people who won't use any opiates for any reason, but I think that's basically cutting off your nose to spite your face. When I went to the e-room with a septic appendix, I was so GRATEFUL for the morphine; it didn't remove the pain entirely, but it brought it from "unendurable agony" to "this hurts, would you hurry up and get it out of me?" But after the surgery, I switched from the prescribed hydrocodone to ibuprofen within 2 days -- because I have no need to get addicted to a whole new substance for a pain as mild as that was.

Andria