This reminded me of what a probability professor once told our class. I can't remember what the context was, but it was something along the lines of how some statistics don't show what they seem to show. He pointed to a PSA that said "80% of heroin users smoked pot first." Then he asked us what percentage of heroin users drank water first.
Although i understand what the professor at your class was trying to say i still find it a flawed example.
Because if water would have the same effects on the brain as pot has, many people would not even start to drink alcohol anymore... Heineken and more would go bankrupt...
During the 1900 and the first world war, such an argument may have worked, but then it was definitely true that people who used opium (the source of heroin) also used alcohol (and also used water).
It is just that comparing mind altering substances with water (which is a necessity) is just flawed.
Many drugs (hard drugs) legalization advocates claim that the body is addicted to minerals and certain essential proteins and water. Thus according to them there is no such thing as addiction. A flawed view indeed.
The difference is that you start to act weird if you are low on these necessities. This is the opposite with mind altering substances, were people start to think weird or even act weird while having surplus of these substances in their bodies...
I think it is not wise to use alcohol or weed when being a teenager since the brain is still developing. But when matured, one can say that in general a lot less accidents, violence and rapes happen when people are happy and relaxed because of smoking weed in comparison to alcohol consumption.
Facebook
Twitter