Yeah that's mostly true... But it's not like a hangover... I had a friend bitten by a snake out in the Mojave once and I'm sure she would have strong opinions about how strenuous the recovery was from it. Neurotoxins, especially potent ones, can be disruptive enough to create long term disabilities. If you are someone who performs a lot of skilled fine motor movements as part of your job or as part of a hobby or something it could be a significant amount of time for you to fully recover from a neurotoxin.
Cytotoxins are interesting as well, though generally not considered deadly they can really mess up your quality of life and be extremely debilitating, even disfiguring.
Generally just a good idea to stay away from anything venomous.
It's so funny I was just having a similar conversation about neurotoxic venomous animals in another thread. Lethality is an obviously concerning threshold, but there are substances out there that can easily destroy your quality of life and livelihood that never reach the concern of being lethal.
I think for mostly rational people concerned about fluoride in their water is that it was a public health decision made with little to no actual science proving it's safety or efficacy when it was first decided that they were going to add it to the public water supply. The proposed benefits of it weren't even supported by scientific evidence, it was just supposed that exposure to sodium fluoride could potentially reduce tooth decay for some.
Personally, I've suffered from the cosmetic damage of dental fluorosis, and I'm not necessarily thrilled about fluoride. But I have way more issues with public mandates founded on pseudoscience than I am with sodium fluoride. Especially now that we can see evidence that for some people fluoride can be especially beneficial.
So what was wrong with giving people the option of using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes... Why did it have to go into the public water supply?