I read it. And checked the links.
That is how I know that none of them support the claim that it is a gateway drug.
The studies that debunk that claim are not 'pro pot'. The ones done by the who, and national drug institute, and all other reputable health and science organisations say it is not.
If you have more faith in your own speculation than in hard evidence, then there is nothing I can do to change your mind.
A Google search will confirm that, or I can send you some links later.
Try finding a reputable source that backs you up. You'll have a hard time.
Ya it's always the same with you guys.
I say observation, you say I said speculation.
I think we're done here.
Ignoring evidence is not science.
You observing, then making guesses and assumptions is what speculation is.
It is the weakest form of evidence.
And I'm not the one ignoring evidence. My opinion is based on the solid evidence that is available.
Yours seems based on anecdote and an obvious propaganda peice.
You're right though that we're done.
Because I asked you for evidance or reputable support for your claim.
That is something you are not able to provide, so we can't go further.
So you didn't even look at the article?
There are studies and 'experts' referenced.
Never mind that fact that it is patently obvious that pot is a gateway drug. You don't need a fancy piece of paper in a frame on your wall to figure that out. Simple powers of observation.
Pro pot studies always gloss over the cultural/peer aspect in favor of what they can put under a microscope. As if nothing exists outside the very small. 'Science' often fails in this regard. Not to mention that 'science' is always bought and payed for.