Which is exactly what it is. A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.
Taking your stand of "but everything is chemically altering" is being intellectually dishonest in this argument and serves no real purpose beyond derailing conversation BACK to defining the constraints to which we're using to discuss the actual implications of actual, out of the normal baseline, mind altering substances.
You're not contributing anything with the ridiculous position you take by doing so, and make yourself and the rest of the "recreational user" group look bad by such poor arguments.
>A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.
This is so vague. Ironic that you feel the need to claim I am being intellectually dishonest. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself compared to when I eat sugar? Based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is no. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself than when I drink coffee? Again, based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is probably no. In fact caffeine is more likely to be harmful to me for a multitude of reasons.
>group look bad by such poor arguments.
Meanwhile, the entirety of your statement is condensed down into "lol bad argument." Also, I don't actually smoke marijuana (I've tried it, it was "okay"), so your personal appeals are not only completely irrelevant and self-serving, they're useless as well.
You would do well to take all your charged criticism at my statement and apply it to your own; it fits it a bit better.
