You are on a cannabis fan site. Not liking the guy who claims we are all "bad people" isn't "political".
I don't "like" him either. I think he is a sneaky little shit that could affect my life in a negative way. Expressing that dislike in a public way is inherently political. Based on my perception of your bias, let's go with the definitional, "relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics."
ONE study claims a statistical link in Colorado showing a slight increase in opioid use. Most other studies show that legalization reduces opioid use and deaths. Looking at the preponderance of evidence is how science works.
The gateway theory has more than one study out there and even those on our side of the debate USED to fight the data that came up again and again with "correlation is not causation" argument. One way we would distinguish the facts (relationship between illicit opioid use and prior cannabis use) is the logical argument which was essentially EVERYONE who uses opioids has PREVIOUSLY drunk water. There was also the side distinction we would allow by noting that since marijuana is illegal, then the data might be explained from the very fact it is illegal makes it more likely further illegal things might happen. In other words, it was the illegality of cannabis and not the cannabis that caused the relationship between the two in the data.
Since we still have the relationship data (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25168081) and we are starting to find (From studies like the one you presented.) it is not substantially because of the legal status of cannabis, we are starting to get stuck in finding a distinction other than correlation is not causation.
I will have to disagree with you on "how science works". Preponderance of the evidence is good for courts that have to make some decision at some time certain. Here's why one scientist disagrees with that as a standard:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/29/will-lawyers-destroy-science-12340
In any case, Sessions is at least a little premature in claiming that marijuana use leads to opioid abuse, no?
Premature? No. Fixed position without fair consideration of additional data? Yes. Right? I believe no. I agree with you that my experience with most who use cannabis is that it does not progress to problems with harder drugs. I also know a few where it did progress. The way I square that circle is that they guys I know were always wildmen. Johnny Cash, Ozzy Osborne, John Belushi et al were going to use hard no matter what. Just because pot came first does not mean it caused anything.
In a recent article, the Conservative/Libertarian site "Reason" listed 6 studies that say the reverse of Jeff's stupid claim.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/07/jeff-sessions-says-opioid-addiction-star
Personally, the wacky weed has never made me want to start popping pills. I can't believe we are going back to the silly "gateway drug" theory.
I'm pleased we have finally gotten to the point where we are talking about a stupid claim rather than a stupid person. i also agree with the article that shows why the study that started this discussion was a minor improvement in the argument for our side of this particular issue. I'm less pleased with your final paragraph as it seems you don't understand the gateway theory.
Most things in life are multivariate in that many things come together in certain ways to get a result. Much of the math in such studies is to try and eliminate variables other than the one(s) we are looking to explain. No one, even Sessions, claim that a puff of the marijuanas makes one a heroin addict. They just claim that, when you look at heroin addicts, a higher percentage than the general population have taken a puff of the marijuanas. (I'm just making the claim up as an example. The precision in writing that would be required to make their actual claim would take more time than it's worth.) That you puffed the marijuanas and didn't want to inject heroin does not refute the claim.
Now for some love from a wise Latina:
She encouraged students not to limit themselves. Instead, she said, they should widen their nets and take bits of workable guidance wherever they could find it — whether it was Bob Dylan, Billy Joel or a blockbuster movie.
"You learn that you can find your courage in unlikely places," she said. "Be open to watching what other people are doing. Adapt from them" whatever suits, and leave out what doesn't.
Sotomayor repeatedly returned to the theme of empathy during her remarks.
"A lot of people start with derision as their first response" to a disagreement, she said.
But she suggested it's better to forge relationships built on common ground even if you disagree with someone. She singled out Thomas as the justice "with whom I probably disagree the most.
"Yet I can stand here and say that I just love the man — as a person."
https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...tomayor-vanderbilt-clarence-thomas/474260002/
