But if relatively safe & harmless nicotine use (such as patches or e-cigarettes) is a gateway to the unsafe & harmful smoking, then that’s an argument worth taking seriously.
I don’t recall seeing this argument until now. On the concept of the “gateway” anything, it’s often abused. If some subset of patch users—who had not smoked yet—go on to smoke, then technically I suppose the patch could be called a gateway to smoking. But by the same token, playing video games could be called a gateway to playing them to death. Becoming a priest could be called a gateway to abusing children. And so on. Technically, even visiting a tobacco shop with its wonderful aromas could be called a gateway to smoking, because some will want to try a cigar.
Rather than lean on the easily abused “gateway” argument, attempting a quantitative argument would be more genuinely informative.
I don’t recall seeing this argument until now. On the concept of the “gateway” anything, it’s often abused. If some subset of patch users—who had not smoked yet—go on to smoke, then technically I suppose the patch could be called a gateway to smoking. But by the same token, playing video games could be called a gateway to playing them to death. Becoming a priest could be called a gateway to abusing children. And so on. Technically, even visiting a tobacco shop with its wonderful aromas could be called a gateway to smoking, because some will want to try a cigar.
Rather than lean on the easily abused “gateway” argument, attempting a quantitative argument would be more genuinely informative.