"That just means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect."
In post #95, you wrote:
"I copy and paste to preserve context, since you flit from one failed argument to another."
Apparently, you believe everyone else also "flit[s] from one failed argument to another."
Talking with you reminds me of A.J. Soprano. You come off as childish and foolishly arrogant in your pro-pot posts.
"That just means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect."
In post #95, you wrote:
"I copy and paste to preserve context, since you flit from one failed argument to another."
Apparently, you believe everyone else also "flit[s] from one failed argument to another."
Since you don't say how those two quotations supposedly relate to each other - or to the claim you go on to make about what I apparently believe - I'm going to have to guess; feel free to clarify your intended meaning if I guess wrong.
I'm guessing that the first two quotations are meant to indicate that I changed arguments about pot strength since post #71. This is incorrect - although stronger pot does mean people can get stoned faster, I said nothing in post #71 about how fast anyone got stoned (contrary to your claim in post #94) but addressed only the lesser amount of smoke and its lesser unhealthiness.
I'm guessing that your claim about "everyone else" is based on your noticing that I preserve context in other exchanges and concluding that it must be for the same reason I've done it here. This also is incorrect - there are other reasons in other exchanges that I preserve context (such as making clear which part of my post is a reply to which part of the other FReeper's previous post ... and, for the convenience of others following the exchange, which part of his post was a reply to which part of my still-earlier post).
So ... anything to say about the issues at hand?