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.
>Objectively worse performance in life and in mentally taxing work.
OK. 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. I took a cannabis edible. My test score improved. Now what? You still haven't provided any evidence for your claim that cannabis is objectively neurotoxic.
Are you autistic? You seem incredibly dense. I was talking about my opinion and direct personal experience. I explained this multiple times.
You can't demand a study/citation for someones personal experience. That is absurd.
>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 data about the 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?
You are welcome to perceive all sorts of things, but that doesn't make these perceptions factual, objective, or even grounded in consensus reality. The plural of "anecdote" isn't "data".
You can't just perceive something and say it's a fact (aka objective). Perception is inherently subjective. Feelings are not facts.
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.
This is such a simple concept.
> Personal experience is subjective.
Tell that to a schizophrenic who is prescribed medication. Seriously how are you so confused about such a basic concept?
"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.
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.
Search on Google Scholar for "neurotoxicity of cannabis". There is evidence for and against. It is debatable.
Yes, that's the subjective part, but you also argued that it is objectively neurotoxic. Where is your evidence for that?