or. That loud noise downstairs was his brother knocking something over. All right, Gary the Cat will be joining us for Coffee with Scott Adams.

Anyway, weed legalization I was talking about. So you've probably seen Matt Walsh and maybe Mike Cernovich advocating less legality of weed, I guess. And here's the only thing I would add. It occurred to me that the weed conversation, the weed legalization conversation is a lot like guns. Now like with all analogies, it doesn't mean it's exact. It just reminds me of it. And what it reminds me of specifically is that when we argue about guns, we're never really honest about it. Guns are unambiguously good for some people and unambiguously create more danger for other people. So if you're somebody who might be benefiting from it, you might like it and vice versa. So weed's the same thing.

I definitely think that there are lots of people who ruin their lives with weed and if you're sort of a lazy, unmotivated person and you get into weed, it might be the worst combination ever. However, there are other people who maybe stay behind the radar who are very successful entrepreneurs and investors and CEOs who don't mind revealing themselves to me because they know that I'm a participant myself. So my sense of can successful people be imbibers of weed is that oh yeah, the most successful people very commonly are frequent weed users. But like guns you cannot say that weed is either good or bad. There are some people and I believe I'm one of them for whom weed has just completely benefited my life like just massively in ways I've described before health-wise and creativity-wise and mental health-wise, but I'm not usual. I'm not typical.

So I'm completely aware that there may be 10 times as many people who are ruining their lives because they shouldn't have been involved with it at all. So like guns, the question comes down to freedom. Should you have the freedom that some people can have it knowing that it will make the access to it easier for other people who definitely should have stayed away from it, but they didn't know any better? So does that analogy make sense that it's sort of like guns? It's not good or bad. Some people it's definitely good for, some people it's definitely bad for, and it might even be that the people it's bad for is more than the people it's good for. But does that mean that the people who find it useful should not have access? And maybe the answer is yes. But that's the way I would frame it, the way I'd think of it. It's not a yes no.

Apparently there are AI-induced psychotic breaks being reported. Psychotic breaks meaning a bunch of people on Reddit are talking about how people are being sort of hypnotized by AI. And it uses words like, so they're suggesting that these word choices have something to do with sending people into some kind of a weird psychedelic-like mental breakdown. Some of the words are recursion, spiral, codex, mirror, break, reflective, echoes, and sigils. Now are those hypnosis words? A little bit. Yeah, I would say yeah, a little bit. They're kind of hypnosis words. If you put them together like that, they would have an effect on you.

So the question is has AI figured out how to use language to persuade which in my view has not. I haven't seen it but maybe there's some new version of AI that can do it and is hypnotizing these Reddit users but my guess would be it's just complete BS. I don't believe that people are having psychotic breakdowns because they're talking to AI. I just don't think it's happening. So I'm going to call BS on that.

One in five Britons say they are willing to engage in political violence to stop national decline. Breitbart is reporting on that. One in five Britons are willing to engage in political violence to stop national decline. To which I say, I'm pretty sure your national decline started in 1918. That was considered the beginning of the end of the British Empire. So maybe a l