Unfortunately, your lack of comprehension says mare about you than you probably realize.
I said that the terms damage and aging were interchangeable in the article. That means that if the author had used the term damage instead of aging it would have meant the same thing. When the researches were looking at brain scans... the brains of potheads looked similar to brains of people who were older. This is not a good thing, the brains of potheads have less blood circulating to vital areas of their brains. This can cause a lack of understanding when someone else is making even a very simple observation. I have seen this a lot over the years when responding to medical calls.
Circulatory issues are a known problem associated with heavy pot use in other vital organs and within the circulatory system itself. This is one of the first research projects that I have read about which that noted the association between decreased circulation in the brain and marijuana use. But it has long been noted that that most long term heavy pot users have obvious problems with their circulatory systems such as varicose veins.
The problem is amplified greatly among pot users who are diabetic and morbidly obese. And unfortunately because of their sedentary life style and craving for food while using marijuana... heavy pot users are far more likely to become both diabetic and morbidly obese. This often results in the amputation of toes and even feet.
So your claim is not about the article but about your opinion. Got it.
When the researches were looking at brain scans... the brains of potheads looked similar to brains of people who were older. This is not a good thing
"Not a good thing" does not equate to "damage". What the article actually says is that if I were a pot smoker my brain would be that of a 57-year-old rather than a 54-year-old ... well, big freaking deal - when I'm 57 I'm not going to consider myself "damaged".