I think you're still misinterpreting me. My whole point was that yes, tear gas is literally a chemical weapon, but the comment I replied to is using the term in bad faith because it's not a Chemical Weapon in the war treaties sense where it's assumed all weapons are lethal. I've literally never heard someone refer to tear gas as "a chemical weapon" before this thread, and I've been reading about wars for over 3 decades.

And yes, it causes damage, but functionally insignificant damage compared to the other methods for riot control that use physical force.

The example you're referencing I'd have to look up the details for that protest, because again I've only seen videos of the gas being used where I could also see the protesters throwing bricks and charging cops with metal poles and such. If they were truly non-violent, then yeah they shouldn't have used tear gas.