3 ms·

All of which would equally apply to alcohol or tobacco. And the data to support such a link for alcohol or tobacco is apparently just as strong, if not stronger

All of which would equally apply to alcohol or tobacco. And the data to support such a link for alcohol or tobacco is apparently just as strong, if not stronger. But this whole line is a canard. The question is, would prohibiting any or all of those help anyone? Does prohibition help or not? Because prohibition is the one part of the equation that a debate could actually have any affect on. But I think it is quite clear why so much time, energy, and dubious argumentation is spent avoiding that question.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The consequences of a statement are irrelevant to the truth of that statement. My point, as I wrote, is that it may or may not be true that marijuana is a gateway drug even if few marijuana users actually go through that gateway.
- SirHound 5y ago
  Everyone who has ever crashed in a car first entered a car.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Do you dispute that getting into a car is a gateway to car accidents?
    - SirHound 5y ago
      No I'm agreeing with it to highlight its uselessness as a thought.
    - bregma 5y ago
      Getting into a car is necessary for having an accident, but it is insufficient. The "gateway drug" argument is that any amount of cannabis is sufficient for becoming a skin-popping fentanyl junkie, but it is not necessary.
      - lolinder 5y ago
        > The "gateway drug" argument is that any amount of cannabis is sufficient for becoming a skin-popping fentanyl junkie That's an extreme, and not representative of what most people mean when they say "gateway drug". My understanding of the gateway drug argument is this: someone who starts with a seemingly-innocuous mind-altering substance is more likely to end up wanting more and going for harder stuff than someone who has never used any drugs at all. By normalizing the light drug, some percentage of the new users will end up addicted to hard drugs that wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to have an opinion on the accuracy of this argument, but it's not helpful to take the most idiotic framing of it and attack it, even if it is the framing with the greatest meme value.
        bregma 5y ago
        The correlation is that those who use "hard" drugs have often also previously used other drugs, including alcohol and prescription medication. Flipping that around to say the using cannabis leads to injecting heroin is the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Perhaps the correlation is a result of cannabis being illegal in your country: if you break one law (cannabis use), the barriers are down and you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and explore stronger remedies for your troubles. So the questions that need to be investigated are these. Is there in fact any kind of correlation? If there is a correlation, is it causative? Of course, no true believer needs these questions answered, which is why the research into these things in not legal in countries where prohibition enforcement and punishment is big industry.

ALittleLight 5y ago

The consequences of a statement are irrelevant to the truth of that statement. My point, as I wrote, is that it may or may not be true that marijuana is a gateway drug even if few marijuana users actually go through that gateway.

SirHound 5y ago
Everyone who has ever crashed in a car first entered a car.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Do you dispute that getting into a car is a gateway to car accidents?
  - SirHound 5y ago
    No I'm agreeing with it to highlight its uselessness as a thought.
  - bregma 5y ago
    Getting into a car is necessary for having an accident, but it is insufficient. The "gateway drug" argument is that any amount of cannabis is sufficient for becoming a skin-popping fentanyl junkie, but it is not necessary.
    - lolinder 5y ago
      > The "gateway drug" argument is that any amount of cannabis is sufficient for becoming a skin-popping fentanyl junkie That's an extreme, and not representative of what most people mean when they say "gateway drug". My understanding of the gateway drug argument is this: someone who starts with a seemingly-innocuous mind-altering substance is more likely to end up wanting more and going for harder stuff than someone who has never used any drugs at all. By normalizing the light drug, some percentage of the new users will end up addicted to hard drugs that wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to have an opinion on the accuracy of this argument, but it's not helpful to take the most idiotic framing of it and attack it, even if it is the framing with the greatest meme value.
      - bregma 5y ago
        The correlation is that those who use "hard" drugs have often also previously used other drugs, including alcohol and prescription medication. Flipping that around to say the using cannabis leads to injecting heroin is the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Perhaps the correlation is a result of cannabis being illegal in your country: if you break one law (cannabis use), the barriers are down and you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and explore stronger remedies for your troubles. So the questions that need to be investigated are these. Is there in fact any kind of correlation? If there is a correlation, is it causative? Of course, no true believer needs these questions answered, which is why the research into these things in not legal in countries where prohibition enforcement and punishment is big industry.