So can getting married, having children, going to college, financial stress, alcohol, and a slew of other things. That doesn't mean that we should make all of these things illegal. To me, it means that we should be upfront and honest about this - but it is going to take some work since we've used scare tactics and misinformation for so long.
I don’t think the person above is saying that weed should be banned, just that it has risks that need to be pointed out. See also in this discussion someone pointing out that even small amounts give them panic attacks, and the response had been variously “ok, just given yourself smaller amounts then” and also “have you considered intentionally giving yourself panic attacks” instead of respecting the decision that smoking any weed may be bad for someone or exacerbate abt mental conditions they have.
Without qualifiers on this stuff, it often reminds me of scare tactics. I did see the bit about panic attacks, and I know it happens - but generally all that is needed for some of this stuff is prudent education. Pointing out, "While most folks tolerate the substance well, some might find it makes a mental or medical condition worse" is considerably different.
It is kind of like Ibuprofen or cough and cold medicine. It is pretty safe for most folks to take, yet a few folks are allergic or have other conditions that makes it dangerous to take. It is worth mentioning the hazards - but if you leave off the safety qualifier, it can scare folks away from taking it. Advice to treat the underlying condition is prudent in some cases, others might be advised to avoid it entirely or take smaller doses - much like the advice for the person that gets panic attacks.
To what extent is, weed giving a person panic attacks a bigger cause of panic attacks such as "being in a crowd" or "occupational stress"?
Nobody is saying that weed is for everybody but they're not forcing it on anybody either. For whatever downsides there are, are they significant when compared to just about anything else?
That person never claimed they were the norm, or even remotely so. They mentioned having plenty of friends who had no ill effects beyond being perceived as lazy by the poster. They shouldn’t have to put a disclaimer on their post saying their negative experience may be an outlier any more than anyone espousing a positive experience should put a disclaimer saying that negative experiences are possible. By arguing that all people espousing negative experiences should also add that they might be outliers, I don’t see how it isn’t merely presenting a skewed view of the situation from the pro-marijuana side.
I should also note that when people have bad experiences with medication like ibuprofen and decide that it isn’t for them, people don’t respond by invalidating their experiences and position in the assumption they just aren’t educated enough about how to use it.