Ah, the old victimless crime excuse. Like the Libertarians, let's lump in suicide, gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc. I suppose you support these "victimless crimes" also. Crimes with or without victims are still crimes.
Nevertheless, that was not the issue. See my post #169:
"My point was only to illustrate that petty criminals of all types can, and do, come in contact with more experienced criminals. I don't believe that the answer is to legalize the petty crime."
The post was not about the nature of the crime, just the criminal association.
Ah, the old "if you don't believe something should be outlawed, you must support it" excuse. From your list: pornography is not illegal, so that one's out the window, although I certainly agree with the majority of the regulations in place to contain it. I'd love to hear you explain how suicide is a crime, other than "because it's illegal", but that's a topic for another day. As for gambling and prostitution, I don't believe either should be regulated by the federal government, and that states should be free to deal with them as they wish, which is pretty much the system we currently have in place. It's quite a stretch to say that constitutes "support" of gambling and prostitution, but it's sadly a stretch the most virulent anti-libertarians around here frequently make.
As for the topic at hand - the fact is your "point" has no bearing on the original poster's theory, which was that not only is there no documented causation between marijuana use and later use or abuse of hard drugs, but that the current system frequently forces an unnatural connection between marijuana users and dealers of hard drugs. I understand the point you were attempting to make, but you did so by separating the two related issues of the original post, which was, at best, a case of "completely missing the point", and at worst, a deliberate attempt at confusing the issue.