^^ Great Article USER
Quote:
This figure, using data from NIDA's 1991 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, is close to being meaningless. It was calculated by dividing the proportion of marijuana users who have ever used coc*ine (17%) by the proportion of coc*ine users who have never used marijuana (.2%). The high risk-factor obtained is a product not of the fact that so many marijuana users use coc*ine but that so many ******* users used marijuana previously.
[/URL]
|
This is the logical fallacy
cum hoc ergo propter hoc "with this, therefore because of this"
Correlation doesn't prove causation.
The classic example of this fallacy is.... There no ice cream trucks on NY streets in the winter when it's cold and many during the summer when it's hot. Do ice cream trucks cause it to be hot?
It's more logical to conclude that a subset of the people who prefer altered states of consioucness may prefer the effects of more than one consciouness altering substance.