What I wanted to say is the endangerment didnt cause actual harm in that case. It doesnt make it right but its still much better than causing actual harm.

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?

Also its not a strawman, I literally said “its like saying”, I made a comparison

Did you not just complain about being pedantic about wording immediately before this sentence? Yes, a comparison can absolutely be a strawman. You’re concocting a scenario that is more favorable to your argument than the one that actually happened.