The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

Is marijuana an entrance drug to harder drugs such as coke or ecstacy?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 100605
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I do not believe marijuana is an entrance drug. What are your thoughts?


Sorry for the delayed response, I have been busy.

I will be arguing that Marijuana is a gateway drug, or as you worded it, "an entrance drug".


Marijuana - (noun) cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettes.

Gateway Drug - (noun) a habit-forming drug that, while not itself addictive, may lead to the use of other addictive drugs.

I figured it would not be fair for me to formulate an argument in round one, as my opponent has not done so. For an competition of equity in opportunity, I use round one as acceptance, and give the opponent first argument.

Thank you for this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay I can understand the way you setup the debate with a unreliable word definition. Because the subjective part of the word cannot be defined by one person. But lets move on. First of let me point out that im Danish, and thats why my english may include some mistakes here and there.
Okay so many people believe that marijuana is a gateway drug. They put it up as following: 99 % of all who have tried coke or other hard drugs started to smoke weed before that, or tried it. And i see why you would then think that it's obvious but unfortunately it's not that simple. My statement is that i does not matter when you start, what matters is when you stop.
For example my dad have always liked to drink a beer on the couch at night sometimes. But that has not lead into any kind of alcoholism or dependency on alcohol, even though your argument probably is that every alcoholic once only drank one beer a night. So just to be clear it does not matter when you start, what matters is when you stop. Maybe instead of looking at the 99% that tried marijuana before any other drug look at the percentage of people who tried drugs after weed. Look at it this way. You are gonna eat a big meal. There is a starter and then the main course. So in this case 99% who ate the main course started of with the starter. So if we just avoid to eat the starter we won't eat the main course? I don't think so. Like i said it's unfortunately not that simple. So we remove the starter from the table and guess what happens. You are just gonna eat the main course of course. So i believe that marijuana is not a gateway drug even though people try marijuana first. Thank you for reading


I understand the mistakes, and encourage the voters not to take that under consideration while reading the opponents argument.

I will begin by lining out this rounds argument. First off I will present my argument, and then a rebuttal to my opponent in this round.

There is a myriad of proof that marijuana is a gateway drug, ranging from studies done by the CDC and other nonprofit organizations, to crime and law enforcement stats. Unfortunately the latter is due to the fact that harder narcotics are directly linked to more violent and domestic crime.

Anyhow, back onto the matter of interest.

According to a study done by the NDIA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), when rodents (a similar brain template to man) were exposed to cannibinoids with similar potency to that of typical weed, the reactivity of the brain to the neurotransmitter dopamine was significantly lowered. When THC enters brain it triggers the release of massive amounts dopamine, which burn out the receptors in the synapse, between the dendrites and axon terminals. To this extent higher and higher amounts of dopamine, triggered by harsher stimulants in illegal narcotics are needed to generate the high. In this sense it is concluded that "the increased vulnerability for addiction" is one of the consequences of the use of cannabis. According to science, Marijuana is a pathway to harder drugs.


In another national study, it was shown that children who use marijuana are eighty five percent more likely to move on to harder drugs. Additionally, adults who use marijuana are seventeen times more likely to become habitual users of cocaine. So not only has it been recorded in labs, but also out in society. Again, marijuana always is a key factor to the progression of harder drugs.


Even further, another drug study from the NDIA again concluded that nearly half of illicit drug users began using small time drugs such as marijuana.


There is also I direct correlation to unemployment and the use of marijuana.

Another study from the BJS (Department of Justice) also reported that most dealers of illicit drugs also had dealing in marijuana.


In conclusion to all these statistics:

1 - Marijuana has been proven in a lab setting to increase the need for harder stimulants in order to produce the same high (Increases chances of addiction to illicit drugs).

2 - This is factually supported in society.

3 - Marijuana is directly connected to unemployment of regular users.

4 - Most illicit drug dealers also deal with cannabis.

5 - In conclusion, it is only logical that with these factors users of cannabis have a much higher chance of turning to illicit drugs to generate the same high.

As to your argument, no one is denying that marijuana can be used in recreation (I disagree with it on a personal level) but the continued use of marijuana only makes your chances of falling to illicit drugs that much higher. And regarding your analogy, I get where the logic comes from, but one fact remains. I simply don't get high off of shrimp cocktail before my main meal...
Debate Round No. 2


So I understand your thoughts. It seems you are one of the many. You look at the results of the statistics and then you think wow marijuana is a PROVEN gateway drug. The definition of a gateway drug to me is ridiculous and doesn't need to exist.
Why is it important how many who smoked marijuana before harder drugs, and why is it important how big the chance is to try harder drugs, if you already have smoked marijuana. These statistics are just no necessary.

The dopamine released in your brain will make your brain want more i get it but why is that important for the discussion of a gateway drug? What im saying basically just is: If you imagine we just removed marijuana, no one would use drugs?

You probably still believe all the statistic (which it is) but the mindset of the statistics are just off. So tell me where the line is crossed. What is not a gateway drug? Can you drink a beer or is that a gateway drug to marijuana? Im sure that a high percentage of marijuana smokers have enjoyed a beer (in denmark, not sure alcohol culture in us) before they tried marijuana. But is beer also a gateway drug then? What im trying to make clear is that gateway drugs does simply not exist. The "gateway drug" is not what is important. The important thing is to help the ones who can't control it and not just remove marijuana because it's a gateway drug. Cause as i said before if you remove a step, people will just jump right over it.
Thank you for reading again.


Thank you for a hasty response.

I strongly disagree.

The reason it is important to draw the correlation between the initial use of marijuana and the transition into harder drugs is due to the fact that many of these harder drugs are associated with not only crime, but health hazards. Surely you would not deny that harder drugs such as cocaine and meth amphetamine do not pose health hazards to the public? Hell, meth can render an entire living space uninhabitable due to how toxic the substance is.

The point is that given marijuana is scientifically proven to make you more likely to transition into harder drugs, through multiple tests, and this is actively displayed in society via patterns.

And to go further into your point, Im not trying to argue that everyone who smokes marijuana is going to do cocaine and other illicit drugs, or you cannot transition straight from no use whatsoever of any drug into illicit drugs. The point is that by smoking marijuana, your chances of doing so are astronomically higher, not only due to biology, but also the environment that many drugs are acquired and sold in. To this extent marijuana IS a gateway drug, for all intents and purposes. The people who cannot control their use of this substance are doomed to participate in other narcotics.

As to your point of "removing the first step". If it is removed, less people will jump right over it, resulting in less crime and less deaths by overdose of illicit drugs.

I again cite my previous sources.
Debate Round No. 3


Hey I understand what you're are saying and if I am to argument against I'm just going to repeat myself.
We will probably never agree on this, and it's totally fine and the way it should be.
But thank you so much for a wonderful debate i have wanted to bring up so many times.
I respect your way of looking at it and i hope it goes the other way around too.

Thank you!


Danke Schoen.

I thank my opponent for a enlightening debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Conduct equal.

Props, but no points, to Con for S&G for being completely comprehensible in a non-native language, being that Con is Danish. Pro's S&G was fine as well.

The definition for entrance drug was agreed, without direct contest from Con, to be the definition for gateway drug which boils down to "a drug that may lead to the use of other addictive drugs."

Therefore Pro has to affirm that marijuana may lead to the use of other addictive drugs.

Pro lays out an arsenal of well substantiated, credible statistics from the US government, the DOJ's drug and crime facts, and Columbia University which, upon inspection, all indicate that marijuana is very likely leading to the use of other addictive drugs.

What's worse is that Con gives me no reason to reject Pro's sources or the data they espouse.
The problem?
This data 100% impacts the resolution that marijuana *may* lead to the use of other addictive drugs and Con spends absolutely no time refuting the data.

I loved that Con alluded to a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning behind harder drug users who used marijuana first, which implies correlation not causation, but Con never applied this logical fallacy to any of Pro's sources...why not Con?

Con also attempted to show Pro's fallacy of the beard, "So tell me where the line is crossed. What is not a gateway drug? Can you drink a beer or is that a gateway drug to marijuana?"
Pro never combated this and it gave some ground to Con, because the term "gateway drug" is subject to the fallacy of the beard and Con exploited that.
But not enough to have me avoid all of the credible data Pro laid out on Con.

So while Con claims "These statistics are just no necessary" these statistics, without doubt of them given from Con, are the most damning to Con's refute.

Given the uncontested, credible data on marijuana-->other addictive drugs, arguments to Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: kgbisafterme// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I found both of you well informed and quite prepared in this debate and I approve your conduct as quite civilized.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter is required to do more than congratulate the two debaters " it must be clear why he is awarding every point.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by TheDragon5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins. I agreed with him before and after, not that that matters here. Conduct on both sides was excellent, no insults at each other. If Con was not Danish, I'd give S/G to Pro, but Pro said that he did not want the voters to vote against him over that. So I'll list that as Tied. Sources goes to Pro, since he was the only one who used sources, AND his sources were very credible (.gov and .edu). Finally, Pro wins Arguments. In Round 1, Con only uses an example of his dad drinking beer. Beer is not a drug. Meanwhile, Pro defines the key terms and points to several studies showing that Weed is a gateway drug. Later, Con just asks questions about Pro's stance, and completely rejects the credible statistic. Pro wins.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.