Mike_12345

LOL you actually sound like ChatGPT. Are you a LLM?

[flagged]

Go to Google Scholar and search for "neurotoxicity of cannabis"

You can find studies showing that even pure THC is neurotoxic. It depends on dosage and frequency.

> 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?

Yes, price = quality because they require supercomputing resources to train. GPT-3 required hundreds of Tesla GPUs running for several weeks. That's millions of dollars just for hardware, not including power (the GPUs cost $15k each)

Ask ChatGPT

> 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.

> "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.

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

Try reading the article before commenting.

> 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.

> 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.

Isn't that the entire point of the article and study that we are commenting on?

> I firmly believe that psychedelics are triggers and not the cause of mental disorders

If a neurotoxic drug such as cannabis causes psychosis in someone who would otherwise never have become psychotic without the drug, then whether you call it a cause or a trigger is quibbling over semantics.