After all, is cannabis a gateway to other drugs?
A Japanese study involving 3,900 users questions the idea that cannabis, on its own, is responsible for progression to other drugs. Check it out!
For decades, the idea that cannabis is a “gateway drug” has been ingrained in public perception, prevention campaigns, and family discussions.
However, a study conducted in Japan challenges this assertion: among 3,900 individuals who reported cannabis use, researchers found no evidence of an inevitable progression to other drugs.
Published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology Reports, the study observed that alcohol and tobacco frequently preceded cannabis. Furthermore, among participants who used cannabis as their third substance, 54.7% reported no subsequent progression to another substance.
These findings do not suggest that cannabis is entirely free of risk. The primary contribution of the research lies in challenging a linear explanation: using cannabis does not necessarily mean an individual will go on to use other drugs.
What did the study discover about cannabis?
The study analyzed data gathered through an online survey where participants reported their history of cannabis and other substance use.
One of the most notable findings pertains to the sequence of consumption. Alcohol and tobacco frequently appeared before cannabis, while subsequent progression to other drugs was uncommon.
Among participants who used cannabis as their third substance, more than half reported no subsequent use of another substance.
According to the authors, these results do not follow a pattern consistent with the so-called “gateway hypothesis,” which posits that cannabis consumption inevitably leads to the use of harder drugs.
There is, however, an important caveat: this analysis is based on self-reported data from participants recruited online, using a non-randomized sample. Therefore, while the results are significant, they do not settle the debate on the subject.
READ MORE: Cannabis is not a “drug”: science and medicine dismantle the stigma
Is cannabis really a “gateway drug”?
According to psychologist Dr. Lauro Pontes, a postdoctoral researcher in Emotional Trauma at UFRN/IEC and a cannabis researcher for 11 years, the issue must also be examined through the lens of social behavior.
In his view, rather than studies simply “questioning” the gateway hypothesis, the scientific literature already presents evidence that fails to support the concept.
“From a pragmatic, logical, and scientific standpoint, it is not a gateway. It is a drug along the way, placed on the same shelf as other drugs due to prohibition. And from there comes access.”
In Pontes’ assessment, alcohol plays a central role in this discussion. He states that alcohol consumption stands as one of the primary entry points into the realm of substances, a phenomenon that can also be observed in social behavior.
How does society perceive cannabis and other substances?
For the psychologist, the persistence of the idea that cannabis is a “gateway” stems partly from the way the substance is framed socially.
“This remains in the public consciousness because there is no educational outreach beyond what we are doing. There is constant reinforcement.”
Pontes also points to the impact of imagery and narratives tied to the criminalization of cannabis.
“Every time you see images of police raiding a grow site and criminalizing the plant, it reinforces the perception that it is inherently harmful. It reinforces all the constructed stereotypes.”
His observation highlights an element that statistics and figures cannot always convey: the way a society constructs its perception of a given substance directly shapes how that substance is understood.
Does behavior precede the substance?
The question surrounding the “gateway drug” theory can also be viewed from another angle: rather than merely asking what a substance does, one must understand why an individual seeks out a particular substance.
This is precisely the point Pontes considers essential. “The view that one substance leads to another is deeply flawed. We shouldn’t look at the trajectory of cannabis. We must look at the trajectory of the individual.”
In the psychologist’s view, reducing a history of substance use to a mere sequence of drugs overlooks critical psychological and social factors.
He points, for instance, to emotional distress, anxiety, compulsions, and repetitive behaviors. “Every drug, every substance, every addictive behavior is repetitive. It serves to mitigate emotional distress. And in that sense, it doesn't matter whether it is cannabis, alcohol, coffee, or any other behavior.”
Pontes' perspective does not imply that all substances, such as cannabis, have identical effects, risks, or abuse liabilities. Instead, the comparison emphasizes that human behavior cannot be explained solely by the substance consumed.
READ MORE: Drug-testing devices: what changes for medical cannabis patients?
Does this study imply cannabis carries no risks?
No.
This is perhaps one of the most critical caveats required to interpret the research correctly.
Challenging the “gateway drug” hypothesis does not mean asserting that cannabis is harmless.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) notes that the majority of people who use cannabis do not subsequently transition to harder drugs.
At the same time, associations exist between cannabis and other substance use disorders, and individual factors must be taken into account.
Consequently, age of initiation, frequency of use, social environment, personal history, and patterns of consumption are critical parameters when assessing risk.
It is also vital to distinguish between use and misuse. As Pontes explains, compulsive behaviors can reflect different coping strategies to alleviate or manage emotional distress.
This perspective does not dismiss the specific risks inherent to each substance, but broadens the conversation beyond the assumption that one drug simply “pushes” a person toward another.
After all, is cannabis a gateway to other drugs?
Science does not substantiate the idea that cannabis is an inevitable gateway to other drugs.
The Japanese study contributes to this dialogue by demonstrating that, among the 3,900 participants evaluated, alcohol and tobacco frequently preceded cannabis, and subsequent progression to other substances was rare.
Nonetheless, the study must be interpreted within its limitations. It was conducted on a specific cohort in Japan utilizing self-reported data. Therefore, its findings cannot be generalized into a universal conclusion.
For Pontes, however, the most critical shift must occur in how the question itself is framed: “We shouldn’t study cannabis alongside the person using it. We must study the person who uses cannabis.”