But your “actual endangerment” didn’t actually happen either? They ate weed gummies and had no demonstrable negative effects afterwards, according to the article. Why am I required to address your “potential harm” that never occurred while you get to ignore the other side?

Did it say that in the article? I would still consider non consensual drug consumption to be harm in any case, not to mention there may be negative aftereffects that are not immediately obvious.

Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence?

True, but how was that about wording?

Anyway, I dont think were getting anywhere, we just seem to have different views about the harmfulness of some actions.