The gateway theory is NOT that pot smokers become addicted to heroin more often than non-pot smokers become addicted, or that they will consume more heroin once addicted -- the theory is that they are more likely to TRY heroin. Period.
And what does the author say about this? "Her study doesn't speak to whether they'd be more likely to try the drug."
What a waste of time. Common sense says that pot smokers are more more likely to try others drugs, including stronger drugs.
Both groups of rats became addicted at the same rate. This was not reported in the MSM.
Indeed. But the party line is that the problem lies in the substance, not the people.
Why does "common sense" say that? The study that is cited in the article seems to indicate just the opposite.... 97 million pot users, 3 million heroin users. What percentage of the 97 million that have tried pot have tried heroin? Any figures on that? Perhaps it's just the opposite of what you believe to be "common sense" - pot smokers think that pot, mind-altering but less addictive than heroin, is a warning not to venture further.
You're making an assumption about attitudes, and then an assumption about a connection between attitude and behavior. Are people who ride bicycles as children "more likely" to drive autos as adults, because they become used to personal transportation by machine? (Just "common sense", after all.) Or do they learn to drive at the same rate as the rest of the population? I don't know. But I cannot assume the causation.
And I certainly couldn't logically argue that bicycle-riding is the "gateway" to drunken driving. Common sense needs to be supported with facts, or it's just superstition.
You may not appreciate this distinction, but I would say those who would smoke pot are more likely to be willing to try other drugs. In other words, I truly don't believe that there is anything inherent in smoking marijuana that causes someone to try other drugs. But obviously, there's a large group of people unwilling to try illegal drugs at all, and a smaller group that is willing. It makes perfect sense that there would be more heroin users coming from that smaller group. I'm quite sure that the incidence of heroin use among non- potsmoking church ladies is extremely low. Sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?
Do you get what I mean? But that doesn't mean that smoking pot causes heroin use or cocaine use or even makes it more likely. I guess what I'd say is that all this boils down to is that someone who does drugs is more likely to do drugs. Duh. It's like saying high school football players are more likely to play basketball than science club geeks. But that doesn't mean football LEADS to basketball. It just means that from the group that does the one, you'll get more who do the other. Reasonable?
Because pot smokers demonstrate a willingness to "risk" in order to acquire and smoke pot? I can see the sense in that. But that says nothing at all about whether pot should be criminalized . . . it only says that people willing to take a small risk are probably more willing than others to take a bigger risk.