The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Can marijuana be a gateway drug

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
jo154676 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 96814
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I think that for people who have a predisposition to addiction or who have problems with impulsive behavior, that marijuana can be a gateway drug. I am not postulating that it is always one but there are certain people, myself being one of them, that struggle with self control and moderation and for who marijuana is a gateway drug to pills, heroin, or psychedelics.


I accept.
I also wish to clarify my position, analyze the resolution, and provide some definitions.
Thanks for the debate, Pro.

*My Position*

It is impossible for marijuana to be a gateway drug, and it's pretty obvious why.
Whether or not you agree that an opening can even physically be colored, you at least have to accept that marijuana would make an awful outdoor colorant for a fence's opening.

In fact, marijuana would make a lousy drug, because it doesn't really have an affinity to the substrate to which it is being applied.
Try as one might, marijuana will not successfully dye material, especially an opening in a fence.

I get it.
Marijuana is the panecia for human ailments, it can likely reduce the size of glioma cells, and more and more states are legalizing it for its wonderful medicinal properties.

But what about marijuana indicates that it could color an opening in a fence in such a useful and sustainable way that it earns the title of gateway drug?

*The Resolution*

The burden is certainly on Pro, given this particular resolution, but I fear Pro has made some bizarre claims about the properties of marijuana, while ignoring the core of this resolution.

I mean, what do pills, heroin, or psychedelics have to do with gateway drugs?
Seems wildly irrelevant, no?

There were no definitions provided round 1, so I shall supply my own.


marijuana - a tall plant with a stiff upright stem, divided serrated leaves, and glandular hairs especially as smoked in cigarettes.

gateway - an opening in a fence that can be closed by a gate.

drug - a substance used in dyeing operations.

I reject that marijuana can be a substance used in the operation of dyeing an opening in a fence.
Debate Round No. 1


Even if you want to flip the discussion because you had no real defense of the issue we can do that. If you were to extract the pigment in the marijuana plant by placing it into a solvent that strips the pigment and then removed all of the solvent you would be left with green chloryphll a and b maybe with some caratenoids for some contrast. So the gate that occupies this gateway could be dyed with the pigments from a marijuana plant.

How do you like dem apples?


Thanks for that Pro.
I'm glad to see that Pro has no issues with the definitions provided in my round 1.
I'm puzzled however, as to why Pro didn't bother to address the crux of this debate.

*An Opening*

Pro claims that chlorophyll can be extracted from the marijuana plant and that its variants chlorophyll A and B "with some caratenoids" would be able to dye *the gate* that occupies the gateway.

What Pro egregiously neglects is that a gateway, as agreed by Pro to be, is an *opening* in a fence, not a gate.
In fact, a gate would serve to eliminate this opening by virtue of the gate's presence in said opening.

So Pro, has not done anything to show that an opening in a fence, not the fence itself, can be dyed by ANYTHING.
Pro how do you dye empty space?

*Chlorophyll as a Drug*

Chlorophyll can be used as a drug, it's just not a very good one.
Chlorophyll is only considered a fiber reactive dye.

Fiber reactive dyes form a covalent bond with the fiber to which they are affixed.

Well if Pro wishes to demonstrate that the iron in an iron fence's gate, which is still not an opening, can covalently bond to the chlorophyll specifically extracted from the marijuana plant, then Pro needs to show the covalent bond between the two.

But more likely, Pro would claim that marijuana is a gateway drug assuming the fence and gate were made of wood.
The problem is, that in order to bond extracted chlorophyll to plant fiber, in this case wood, one needs to use an alkali catalyst which allows for the bond to occur.

Unfortunately for Pro, alkali substances, like soda ash, deplete the cellulose in wood.
"...increase in alkali solubility serves as an index of the extent of cellulose depletion in any given sample of decayed

This is why marijuana isn't a gateway drug, because it doesn't even meet the qualifications of drug being that it is, rightly so, not used in dyeing operations, especially on wood.

I request that people vote Con for these reasons:
1. It's impossible to dye the empty space that composes an opening.
2. Being a fiber reactive dye, chlorophyll must covalently bond to a fiber, requiring an alkali catalyst that would destroy wood and wouldn't allow for bonding with iron.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
What I meant was, would you want to have our debate deleted, so that you may put the debate you intended to up for an open debate?
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Would you like to reset our debate with airmax so you can include the definitions you wished for, or do you want me to continue with my charade?
Posted by jo154676 2 years ago
I was under the impression that anyone would understand the basic terms that were used.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
I think the moral of the story is if it's a serious debate, it should have serious definitions or else, well, you gonna get rocked.
Posted by jo154676 2 years ago
I think the moral of the story is don't try to have a serious debate with an arsehole
Posted by Tree_of_Death 2 years ago
The moral of the story here is: define your terms before the debate.
Posted by Conceptua 2 years ago
ur dirty semantricks are creul

jk lol
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.