| HN Mirror

> That's not a settled debate; not remotely.

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.

mandmandam 1140 days ago

> Cannabis is blatantly toxic filth

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.

xupybd 1139 days ago

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.

> No, it isn't. It's medicine, and remarkably harmless recreation.

Try reading the article before commenting.

>plus my own direct personal experience

How do you measure neurotoxicity on yourself?

>Go take a massive bong hit, then tell me your mind and lungs feel healthy.

Smoking is far from the only way to consume cannabis.

>the smoke is carcinogenic (like tobacco)

All smoke is carcinogenic, because it is smoke. This is not a function of cannabis, but a function of organic matter.

> How do you measure neurotoxicity on yourself?

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.

[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.5956...

>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.

Are you commenting on the right article?

>I explained this was my opinion based on experience

Yes, that's the subjective part, but you also argued that it is objectively neurotoxic. Where is your evidence for that? Where is the objectivity?