The problem is, the same kind of people who did this research would look at that 90% and say that marijuana causes people to do harder drugs. They feed off of falacies.
Is there not a strong correlation between the two? If some of those harder drug users had never been exposed to marijuana would they have still gotten into those harder drugs? If the answer is no, then don't the answers to the previous two questions suggest some form of causation?
What they are saying is pretty much the same as saying 100% of drunk driving accidents are done by people who drive a vehicle, so vehicles are the cause of drunk driving accidents.
What they are saying is pretty much the same as saying 100% of drunk driving accidents are done by people who drive a vehicle, so vehicles are the cause of drunk driving accidents.
The analogy is specious. A vehicle is a requirement in order to have an accident whether you are drunk or not. It is not a variable that is being tested. On the other hand, smoking marijuana at some time is not a requirement for being addicted to harder drugs. It is the variable that is tested. The results, however uncomfortable they may make you, incontrovertibly suggest that marijuana can be, and is a gateway drug for many people. The disparity is not slight, it's enormous.
Hybrid Mode
