A paternalistic video title on an old topic earns a downvote and no view.

If there is a thesis, that needs to come first or else why waste my time on old arguments?

I watched the first 5 minutes of the video... the whole premise is flawed. "You need to quit weed (but we only mean the one super rare instance where a person can get hyper addicted)"

Well no shit, Dick Tracy. An addiction that ruins your life and causes issues should be quit regardless. You're addicted to gambling? Seek help. You're addicted to junk food? Seek help. You're addicted to alcohol? Seek help

See the theme? It's not the weed that is bad, it's the addiction. Now don't hear me as up here championing weed, it's just like any other vice. Alcohol, tobacco, porn, gambling, food addiction, all can become addictive. However, all things in moderation, and it is not an issue until it starts ruling your life.

So either this video is a tongue and cheek and I missed the point, or it's some "holier than thou" diatribe. Either way, I can absolutely see why you're being down voted.

You posted it elsewhere, it "got a lot of down votes[sic]", and you're surprised when the same happens here? 🫩 Thafuq. Are you high?

Hell, you can't even decide if "downvote" has a space or a hyphen in the same comment, consistently rebut with tone-deaf & half-cocked "yeah, but" comments, and seem to presume this source is somehow accurate despite its well-known corpo bias. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Simmer, citizen. Breathe. Think a little. Please.

probably dont like what it says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

I think it attributes a lot of things like being depressed from poverty and the state of the world to weed. It's no surprise that depressed individuals use substances to cope, and it's also strange that they seem to avoid that. I think not putting smoke into your lungs is healthiest of course, but I think they're making the wrong correlation here.