Obviously biased when talking about myself, but I think you can split your judgement into a frequency argument rather than a binary yes or no.
They all believe it doesn’t affect them negativity, that people can’t tell.
They are all wrong. We can see the changes in them. Good or bad.
The ones that make an effort to get off for awhile are usually shocked when they realize how they were being affected.
I have never seen positive long term affects in anyone of them. Even though they all claim otherwise.
My 2 cents
> They are all wrong. We can see the changes in them. Good or bad.
Well the post you replied to didn't address being able to tell.
> The ones that make an effort to get off for awhile are usually shocked when they realize how they were being affected.
5 years is a while, surely?
> I have never seen positive long term affects in anyone of them. Even though they all claim otherwise.
Do they still claim that after 5 years of non-use?
This basic claim is like saying an ocasional drinker who's become more social because alcohol helps them with talking to groups of people in certain specific situations is no different from an alcoholic because both drink and behave differently while drinking. Context, quantity and quality all make defining differences. How tedious it is to be judged harshly by someone who can't see this and takes any example of consuming something as a case of not admitting addiction. Often there really is no addiction.