Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong (I have been plenty of times)…marijuana is legal,
Not in Britain, though possession of small amounts is I think ignored.
but you oppose its use because it's "psychologically and physically harmful," yet you don't abstain from alcohol (or smoking? Not sure if you do), despite it also being "psychologically and physically harmful?" Many, many studies over many, many years show this to be the case with both (alcohol and smoking).
Yes tobacco is very harmful, alcohol causes huge suffering, and costs to the state through illness, and violence.
What is it that differentiates between these legal, adult activities for you?
I don't understand what you are struggling with. The scientific evidence is that alcohol is harmful, even in moderation and in exess it is very harmful. However, I enjoy a beer or two on Friday evening, a relatively harmless pleasure. Most consumers enjoy it with little harm. But significant numbers do drink to excess. I see little difference between occasional alcohol consumption and infrequent cannabis consumption. Regular cannabis consumption is however psychologically harmful, and it's little different to being drunk regularly. There are associations with schizophrenia, causation has not been proven. I see children smoking cannabis, it's a scourge.
Drugs are a complex subject. Give heroin addicts pure drugs for free, so they don't steal to fund a habit, and criminal gangs don't profit from them. But making heroin legal would be a big step as it is extremely dangerous. Legalising cannabis would at least remove the criminal gangs, but we don't want children and young people to spend their days bonged out. Not an easy subject at all.
Hopefully you can see that my views are nuanced, and that I am in many ways undecided as to the best approach. I am open to pursuasion.
While I could be mistaken, I don't think too many people would lump CH in the same boat, or room, or even arena, as multiple YouTubers out there. He existed in a time where people debated face to face and did so well on many platforms. I believe he probably felt sure of his own cleverness because, honestly, he proved it verbally beyond a doubt. Every man is wrong on some, and often many, occasions. Excepting for faith based believers, very few could argue with him though, and even those believers that did often found themselves admitting they had nothing but their faith to fall back on. And as we all know, the onus to prove extraordinary statements and/or beliefs rests upon those making such claims, not on those denying them.
Yes he was clever, and eloquent. But often he was expressing his opinion, based on assumptions. If you don't accept those assumptions, then the arguments fall. And you might have a different view on what kind of world you want. There are many similar YouTubers, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro come to mind. Their fans describe them as wiping the floor with opponents through logic and facts.
I don't know much about PH, other than he seems to have somewhat of the same temperament his brother had, with more perceptible outward anger.
Yes he seems quite angry. From what I have seen, he uses his booming voice to talk over people and shut them up, he's dreadful on panel shows, a boar. He lacks the debating skills and charm of his late brother.