Eric Swankoski has glibly dismissed marijuana legalization proponents' arguments as "persuasive fallacies." But in fact, "persuasive fallacy" is a perfect name for the "gateway drug" theory he (and the government) so doggedly promotes. The assertion that 90 percent of hard drug users have also used marijuana and therefore, marijuana prohibition reduces hard drug usage, is flawed both logically and statistically. Logically, it is equivalent to "90 percent of drug users brush teeth in the morning (likely true), hence toothpaste must be outlawed."

Statistically, this is asking the wrong question. If one seeks to verify a causal relationship between pot and heroin, the relevant statistical questions one should ask is whether a significant percentage of pot smokers go on to use heroin (no), and whether this percentage is higher than among non-smokers (probably yes). But statistical correlation alone does not prove causality, especially since in this case it can be easily explained by the only property pot and heroin have in common: They are both illegal.

People who end up using drugs are prone to risky behavior to begin with, and once your mind is open to trying illegal stuff, marijuana is likely to be the first thing that comes your way, simply because it is the most widely available illicit drug. In light of this, legalization of marijuana may even reduce hard drug usage by separating the markets: fewer people would want to enter the shady world of dangerous drugs and thugs if a relatively safe and legal alternative existed.

In any event, no argument prohibition proponents have put forth can possibly justify the persecution of millions of responsible and conscientious people in the name of deterring the few who have self-destructive tendencies, which don't work anyway.