You are implying that the National Institute on Drug Abuse is biased and has an agenda. What evidence do you have of that? What about the rat studies which demonstrate that marijuana is a gateway drug, which can potentially harm not only the direct individual user but also their offspring? Some of the posters on this thread are under the impression that marijuana is completely harmless, like water, which isn't true. It's a powerful drug and should be treated as such.
Well, it is a site about "drug abuse". They fail to point out any of the actual positive benefits of it. By it's own existence, it is meant to be biased towards making points toward the addiction potential of that substance. Which goes to my next point
The fact that the NIDA has stated that "NIDA does not conduct research on alcohol", in their own words. When we can all agree, alcohol is a *drug*, can potentially be extremely harmful, and has hundreds of thousands of cases every year of addiction. To an exponential degree of documented "marijuana addiction" cases. That doesn't make much sense.
Additionally, on their very own informative page on marijuana they state "It is important to note that other factors besides biological mechanisms, such as a person’s social environment, are also critical in a person's risk for drug use. An alternative to the gateway-drug hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances like marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with other substance users increases their chances of trying other drugs. Further research is needed to explore this question."
Further research is needed, but zero efforts have been put forth to examine what, is in all likelihood, the actual cause. When writing up agreements, contracts, and other legally enforceable documents, we call this a CYA paragraph. (Cover your ***).
Could marijuana truly be a gateway drug? I don't know, probably i guess. Can't say anything for certain. But, it's impossible to tell because in almost all cases, alcohol and nicotine has been readily available and used before using marijuana. And, this may seem like a reach, but if you look at sugar you can see intermittent sugar consumption fires off a dopamine response, the same "reward center" activity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
"That this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive."
"Rats maintained on intermittent sugar access and then forced to abstain, subsequently show enhanced intake of 9% alcohol (
Avena et al., 2004). This suggests that intermittent access to sugar can be a gateway to alcohol use"
There are other studies as well.
In America, (most) humans are subjected to sugar dosing at levels that repeatedly target this reward system since infancy. More recently, obesity has turned into an epidemic. Current estimates put obesity costs at 150-200 billion per year. Everyone knows these foods are bad for them, but they don't/can't stop. Isn't that definition of addiction? If you want to define this substance according to the DEA standards, Sugar should be Schedule I because of it's abuse potential and lack of medically relevant uses.
These same entities like the NIDA also don't point out its benefits, which can be attributed to medical treatment, anti anxiety/depression that's more effective than the SSRI's that your primary care physician hands out like Skittles. Or the inherent, or lack of, danger of the substance. Overdose potential is basically nonexistent, i'm sure long term use can cause lung damage, but nothing like the already legal product cigarettes.
Really, this all just goes to say that I actually don't think marijuana is harmless. It, like anything else, should be used carefully in moderation. Also, like anything else, can absolutely be psychologically addictive, especially in cases where there's preexisting psychological issues (the actual cause of all addiction, in my opinion, there's a reason people want to escape from reality). However, given the legality of other things, I don't really see the point in all the hubbub about it's dangers, and if you really want to be technical, which we should be in trying to make definitive statements about something, it's impossible to prove it's a 'gateway' anything. You'd be much more accurate listing sugar or alcohol as the gateway drug.