They certainly didn’t conduct themselves in a polite or persuasive manner during their argument(s). As others have said in this thread: he has attacked everything but the topic and when they did they (purposefully) seemed very confused about the overall goal and desire of the campaign.

Is this a case of being wrong about your initial conclusions and doubling down? Or is this a bad actor spreading purposeful misinformation? Going by the video alone it’s hard to see an alternative.

LibreVox (if audio books are more your thing):

https://librivox.org/

Cocaine.

we’ve been rumbled!

Ponyo or Pom Poko. Maybe Spirited Away? It’s hard to pick… good question OP.

Exactly, so “blind” really isn’t the best descriptor of our understanding on cannabis, by the looks of it we’re quite informed.

I’m not sure, you’ll have to look into that and let me know as I’d be interested to know about that myself.

The issue is I had was with the use of the word “blind”. As if cannabis was a new and unknown substance. While I’ve no doubt we’ve a lot more to learn about cannabis to say we’re “blind” is disingenuous at best.

not sure I agree with you. we’ve had generation after generation after generation of people smoking/using cannabis. Whatever ramifications using cannabis has would have shown up by now.