In my opinion it is neurotoxic, based on studies I have seen (such as this one that we are commenting on) plus my own direct personal experience. Even without the psychoactive components, the smoke is carcinogenic (like tobacco) and toxic to all cells, including neurons. Go take a massive bong hit, then tell me your mind and lungs feel healthy. Cannabis is blatantly toxic filth.
> because you can't make the assumption that people would "never have become psychotic without the drug"
Somehow you are ignoring the entire point of the article/study that we are commenting on.
No, it isn't. It's medicine, and remarkably harmless recreation. It saves many lives, and enhances quality of life for millions of people. It has a smorgasbord of health benefits.
It does have side effects, and drawbacks. It's not a panacea, and it doesn't suit every one. It's not for kids (except when it's medically worth it).
But calling it "blatantly toxic filth" is wildly inflammatory... Which is funny, because cannabis reduces inflammation. With far less toxic effects than most anti-inflammatories.
> you are ignoring the entire point of the article/study that we are commenting on.
I disagree with the methods and conclusion. As do plenty of people here, who have pointed out the flaws with the article and the study, for example, the very serious correlation/causation issues.
To talk about schizophrenia and cannabis without ever mentioning CBD is remarkably dishonest. THC concentration merits a single sideways mention. This is bad science and worse journalism, and it smells like big pharma.
Which wouldn't surprise me at all. Cannabis hurts their profits. Painkiller use goes way down after legalization and decriminalization - as do prescription painkiller deaths.
Most medicine is toxic to some degree. It's all about the cost vs the reward.
I like sugar, salt and caffeine. I consume them to a degree that causes me low lever physical harm. I enjoy them and am happy with the cost. Many cannabis users do the same with cannabis but some seems to think it's a magic cure all. I'm strongly sceptical of such claims.
If you consume it, and it subjectively and objectively harms your mental health and cognitive abilities, then basic common sense and reasoning tells you it is harmful to the brain (neurotoxic).
This is my opinion based on my experience. If you smoked this shit and it gave you an extra 20 IQ point boost, then congratulations.
> All smoke is carcinogenic, because it is smoke.
That's the point. Neurons don't get healthier from carcinogens.
>and it subjectively and objectively harms your mental health and cognitive abilities,
Objectivity is good. So how often do you measure these things, what tools do you use, and what data do you collect? How do you analyze the data?
>then basic common sense and reasoning tells you it is harmful to the brain (neurotoxic).
"Neurotoxic" does not mean "alters your cognition"
"Alters your cognition" does not mean "harmful to the brain"
"Basic common sense" is not a synonym for "science"
>That's the point. Neurons don't get healthier from carcinogens.
There's no evidence to indicate that cannabis is carcinogenic or neurotoxic. In fact, there is evidence to suggest it has neuroprotective effects [0].
The carcinogens come from burning plant matter (or really, burning almost anything). There are many ways to consume cannabis and its derivative products without burning it or inhaling smoke. By your logic, all plant matter is carcinogenic because it's possible to burn it and inhale the smoke. Time to ban trees and vegetables?
> "Basic common sense" is not a synonym for "science".
I explained this was my opinion based on experience multiple times so you're just arguing with a strawman. You are absolutely wasting your time here and completely missed the point.
Try reading the article if you want to see a study showing scientific evidence of the neurotoxicity of weed.
>Try reading the article if you want to see a study showing scientific evidence of the neurotoxicity of weed.
The article doesn't say anything about the neurotoxicity of weed. It doesn't even contain the word "toxic". The study doesn't talk about neurotoxicity or use that word either.
>Objectively worse performance in life and in mentally taxing work.
Very interesting! I'd love to learn more. Please show us the data supporting this assertion.
>Go smoke a massive bong hit then do a calculus exam and compare your score.
I don't smoke, so I took a cannabis edible or vaped some concentrate. My calculus exam score improved. Now what? You still haven't provided any evidence for your claim that cannabis is objectively neurotoxic.
"Objective" is not a synonym for "strongly-held opinion"
> Very interesting! I'd love to learn more. Please show us the data supporting this assertion.
You can't demand a study/citation for someones personal experience. That is absurd. You are being an absolutely illogical clown.
I was talking about my opinion and direct personal experience. I explained this multiple times but you are incapable of understanding this basic concept.
"Objective" means observable and measurable. Are you genuinely so clueless that you believe no one can perceive anything objective about their own performance and abilities and actions in the external world?
Please stop insulting me, thanks. I will ignore your hostility for now.
>You can't demand a study/citation for someones personal experience. That is absurd.
Personal experience is subjective. I am not questioning your subjective experience, because that would indeed be absurd.
What I am questioning is your claim that cannabis is objectively neurotoxic. I am asking you to substantiate your claim about this supposed objective fact.
Where is the evidence? Show us.
>Objective" means observable and measurable.
Correct. Observable AND measurable. Observing is not enough to claim something as an objective fact. Where are your measurements about these observations? Where is the evidence about the "objectively neurotoxic" effects of cannabis?
>Are you genuinely so clueless that you believe no one can perceive anything objective about their own performance and abilities and actions in the external world?
Perception is inherently subjective. Feelings are not facts.
You are welcome to perceive all sorts of things, but that doesn't make these perceptions factual, objective, or even grounded in consensus reality. Some people perceive that the Earth is flat. Does that make Flat Earth an objective fact? Obviously not, because we can disprove these perceptions with concrete replicable measurements using instruments that do not wholly depend on the fallible perceptions of humans.
You keep using the word objective without any evidence, and when questioned about it you deflect by saying it's a subjective observation. Which one is it?
This entire conversation feels crazy-making. What I am trying to explain to you is the scientific method, something most children learn in grade school.
>If I smoke weed, and it causes cognitive impairment such that I am unable to perform certain tasks (such as driving, or my job) or it causes psychosis, then that is an objective observable result.
"Cognitive impairment" is not shorthand for "neurotoxicity"
>Have you ever experienced an extremely bad hangover? Would you say that was obviously neurotoxic or not?
It has already been proven that alcohol kills brain cells. The hangover is caused by the direct effects of ethanol and acetaldehyde (its primary metabolite).
There is no evidence that cannabis kills brain cells. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
You are claiming there is evidence of cannabis neurotoxicity, that cannabis kills brain cells. Where is the evidence for that? Despite what you may believe, being stoned is not a type of brain damage.
> Despite what you may believe, being stoned is not a type of brain damage.
Schizophrenia and psychosis in general is not "getting stoned". That outcome strongly indicates neurotoxicity.
Apologies for the harsh confrontational tone in my previous comments.
Here's a point I was trying to make earlier:
The statement: "Led Zeppelin is better than the Beatles" is subjective because it expresses an opinion that is open to interpretation.
The statement: "I have a preference for Led Zeppelin versus the Beatles" is objective, because it is a statement of fact about your personal experience, and is not subject to interpretation or debate. It also doesn't require "data" or cited research.
In my opinion it is neurotoxic, based on studies I have seen (such as this one that we are commenting on) plus my own direct personal experience. Even without the psychoactive components, the smoke is carcinogenic (like tobacco) and toxic to all cells, including neurons. Go take a massive bong hit, then tell me your mind and lungs feel healthy. Cannabis is blatantly toxic filth.
> because you can't make the assumption that people would "never have become psychotic without the drug"
Somehow you are ignoring the entire point of the article/study that we are commenting on.