[CapstanRoller]

>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.

[Mike_12345]

> 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.

[CapstanRoller]

>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?

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

[Mike_12345]

> "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.

[CapstanRoller]

>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?

[CapstanRoller]

>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?

[Mike_12345]

> Where is the objectivity?

Objectively worse performance in life and in mentally taxing work. It really isn't that complicated.

Go smoke a massive bong hit then do a calculus exam and compare your score.

[CapstanRoller]

You're talking in circles.

>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"