Marijuana legalization arguments were my first introduction to motivated reasoning. I was pretty inclined to agree that locking up non-violent drug offenders was a net-harm to society. But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
It seemed obvious to me that you could make a more realistic argument and just stick to an argument which states that due to drunk driving and domestic abuse, marijuana is less harmful overall than alcohol, but is treated as more dangerous. (and yes, the other side was a bit crazy too. "When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11")
Later research (such as this) has suggested a link between marijuana and psychosis, however the actual risk factors do seem difficult to nail down. (however, this is still a far cry from the claim that it's totally harmless)
What I ultimately learned is that in a pitched political battle, people actually damage their credibility because they're afraid to cede _any_ ground to the opposition, even when that means making unrealistic claims. A centrist (or just someone who is undecided) is not really taken in as much by these extremist argument, and to their eyes it damages the credibility of one or both sides.
> But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
Who seriously claimed that it “cures cancer”? There have been some claims that it helps alleviate nausea associated with chemotherapy, which is quite reasonable and will likely be proved out by evidence over time.
I am firmly against marijuana legalization. This is partially because of this insanity of the pro-legalization arguments. When I would see friends/family that started smoking regularly become noticeably less intelligent while pro-legalization proponents would argue there are no negative side-effects, or people who were obviously compelled to smoke every day or as often as they could.... like some sort of addiction, while pro-legalization proponents argued it was totally not-addictive.
The anti-legalization side had a few odd arguments as well, and some old claims that were unfounded. So no hands were totally clean.
> I am firmly against marijuana legalization. This is partially because of this insanity of the pro-legalization arguments.
this is also just motivated reasoning
The insanity of the fringe pro-legalization arguments has no bearing on whether legalization is a good idea or not.
> When I would see friends/family that started smoking regularly become noticeably less intelligent while pro-legalization proponents would argue there are no negative side-effects
This is also just ripe for cognitive bias which is why we should use science to understand these types of claims.
all legalization frameworks in the US already limit legal age of purchasing possession and consumption to 21 and over, specifically as a form of seeding ground to the opposition, specifically for the previously only anecdotal link to psychosis and underdeveloped minds of minors
It's weird to frame regulating cannabis the same way we regulate other recreational drugs as some kind of compromise. Is the ideal pro-cannabis situation that anyone can buy it at any age?
> all legalization frameworks in the US already limit legal age of purchasing possession and consumption to 21 and over, specifically as a form of seeding ground to the opposition
This plainly says that legal frameworks limit the age of consumption as a way of ceding ground to the opposition (implicitly the opposition to legalization). So I'm questioning, if there was no opposition to legalization, what would the legalization frameworks look like? Legal for anyone at any age?
Edit: To put it another way, what's the ground that has been ceded here?
>But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy. I'm very involved in legalization and I don't know anyone that is for legalization that thinks any of those things, never even heard anyone say such garbage. I think you may be cherry-picking the crazy here.
>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.
This was over 20 years ago, long before "nut-picking" became impossible to avoid. This is what I was hearing from my peers on my college campus. They may have had had extreme views, but this was long before modern social media surfaced only the craziest people for any given position.
>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.
Also, I disagree with this characterization. I am not crazy, it was unnecessarily rude to suggest otherwise. I'm repeating the arguments I heard from my actual peers. I'm not just finding extremists on the internet and painting the whole group by its worst members.
I don't think you can frame some of these arguments as belonging to a fringe minority. I remember watching an episode of "Penn & Teller's Bullshit"[1](2004) where they featured several pro-legalization advocates. These folks said or implied similar things (it's not bad for you, it helps cancer patients). These were not marginal "crazy" voices.
Yes, what you observed is people making unrealistic and disingenuous responses in reply to equally unrealistic and disingenuous reefer madness type propaganda.
What happened is that the people making these disengenuous comments in bad faith did not realize that so many others would watch them and without understanding hte context woudl pick up those same disingenuous arguments and take them as truth.
This is all the long term consequences of allowing Reefer Madness tier propaganda be published and not repudiated immediately.
"But by excluding teens who were already showing mental health symptoms, the new study points to a potential causal link between cannabis use and later mental health diagnoses. Additional research is needed to understand the link fully."
Hm, but this does not exclude the possibility that the being prone to mental illness comes with a little bit higher tendency to consume cannabis...
Similarly, cigarettes also have a very strong correlation with schizophrenia. Completely non-causal, but it's hard to find a non-hospitalized schizophrenic who does not smoke.
When I read this article the other day I had the exact same thought. Is this simply correlation, or is it causation? Is teenage usage an indicator of a possible underlying condition that hasn’t fully manifest? Is it an early form of self medication?
From the article: "Teens who reported using cannabis had twice the risk of developing two serious mental illnesses: bipolar, which manifests as alternating episodes of depression and mania, and psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia which involve a break with reality."
That 2X factor is big. If it was something like 10% - 20%, it might be noise or some other factor, but that big a number is real.
For what's it worth for an N=1 study I watched a relative's young family fall apart because of cannabis induced psychosis. They had two young kids, husband was smoking pot recreationally (not sure how long he was doing that) but at some point he started hearing aliens talking to him from the cracks in the wall. Naturally you can't just keep doing all the regular life and family stuff when you have more pressing issues like visitors from out of space in the walls talking about attacking earth.
I am not saying anyone should or should not use these substances, but that was enough of a lesson for me to know never to touch that stuff.
But also let's remember that there are tens of million Americans using weed products (legally in many states) who are having a great time with it. Which is why we need large-scale studies like this, and why any individual anecdote shouldn't offset a large study.
Whether or not cannabis makes psychosis more likely isn't proven, but your N=1 study illustrates how bad it often is. People should know that psychosis isn't just having some weird ideas, but often destroys lives and families.
There is no established causal link between the two. Cannabis is so ubiquitous that it is often the case that people with underlying psychiatric problems find it calms them and then blame cannabis for it if they get worse, because that's saving face in a twisted way.
Good point, you may very well be right. But seeing how that tragedy unfolded was enough to convince me at least to never consider it, just in case there is a causal effect.
I used to read forums for schizophrenics (self disorders fascinate me, look the term up if you want to understand schizophrenia), and it was the consensus there that out of all the recreational drugs cannabis caused the greatest deterioration in one's mental state. Those are generally fairly sick people, but I don't think one can just ignore this signal. I personally went catatonic once after consumption, and I'm not schizophrenic at all. And that was in Amsterdam, so it wasn't some trash spiced up by a 17-years old dealer with whatever he found in his grandma's medical cabinet.
I don’t know what things are like in Amsterdam, but weed being “high quality” is not a good thing. The potency has skyrocketed over the past few decades. It’s like saying you went to Amsterdam to drink alcohol for the first time and had a bottle of tequila and passed out and puked; the fact that it was high quality tequila does not mean it’s better than a low quality glass of wine or beer. The issue is the doses are way too high.
Problem with recreational marijuana is that it’s so insanely strong. It would be like giving a child 190 proof azeotropic grain alcohol and being shocked that they immediately vomit. I can’t smoke pot - it’s just too strong.
I’ll admit to feeling a bit dumber and foggier after a few weeks of ingesting cannabis nightly though. That’s a real thing.
"Based on data from 2023–2025, approximately 15% to 17% of American adults currently consume cannabis." - Gallup
So though this may be technically true in some sense, it should also be understood that if cannabis had any major immediate drastic effects we would have noticed them decades ago. Perhaps weed, like alcohol, needs a legal minimum age of 21.
Right we have studies, and they are 30 page documents that only academics read, and so they get poorly summarized by articles that try to make them sound more noteworthy than they are. Usually by saying "X linked to Y" without establishing causality or even if that link is a significant risk (is it a .1% increase in risk?)
When it's a drug more than 10% of the US population uses, we can immediately say the risk increase can't really be that big or we'd have noticed it by now.
Edit: after looking at the paper, it looks like among the weed group the prevalence is roughly twice as high -- so instead of 1/100 having psychotic issue it'd be 2/100... and again for people who used when they were 13-17 year olds, which is underage in every state.
So you could frame that as doubling the risk OMG, or a 1 percentage point increase in risk, or it could all just be self-medicating, we really don't know much. Probably still safer than alcohol.
I always see whenever a study mentions risks of cannabis, it's always met with "it only happens to those with innate tendencies" but then I ask them do they even understand what those effects are? Do we understand what schizophrenia and psychosis is, it's exact mechanisms?
Western medicine can't even explain any of these ailments, where it comes from, how it happens, what triggers it but so many cannabis users shield and attack any new research or study that questions the risks of cannabis for the young.
If it truly is harmless then are those same people suggesting that they light up a joint with their children ? Doctors hand out edibles when they catch a cold or can't sleep?
While I do think there are deeply helpful properties of cannabis we are still early, new research is only beginning to come out as it gets scrutiny. It took us many decades to learn the harmful effects of tobacco while for a long time everybody just shrugged it off as conspiracy. It took heavy lobbying from those that stood to gain most to delay the truth of the product they were selling and a lot more political will from the other side to warn the public.
Right now what worries me is the marriage of profiteering and political ideology that have neutralized the similar movement that existed around tobacco and alcohol in the Western hemisphere. Many see money to be made or their political statement that they will defend vigorously. The real risks that I see is raising the THC % content to extreme levels for chronic users who built a large tolerance through long term habitual use and claim they aren't addicted, proliferation of white/grey dispensaries that make it even more accessible to the young. This really needs to be addressed when we don't even understand the mechanisms or can reliably explain the after effects of those risks coming to fruition.
I’m in two minds about this, on the one hand I spent a week with acute psychosis after smoking weed when I was a teenager, so I really think people have to be more aware of the risks. On the other hand, I think it’s clear that this is not a perfect research design, and there are obvious possible confounds.
What about legalisation as a natural experiment? Has anyone done diff-in-diffs of US states and simply looked at eg mental health diagnoses or hospital admissions?
4000 out of 460000, that's about 0.8% or so? At the face of it, it doesn't seem a lot higher than the 3% lifetime risk of psychosis and whatever it is for bipolar disorder.
To me it doesn't seem like they control much for confounding factors, or the possibility that young people who might develop psychiatric illness could also be more drug seeking or irresponsible in their drug use.
The correlation used to cite heavy (daily repeated administration across the day; what the kids call "the chronic.")
But now its just any degree of use.
I should add that I happen to know of more than one heavy user who subsequently progressed to Schizophrenia or bipolar disorders so I don't personally doubt the cause and effect.
But this blanket correlation seems to me to be overbroad.
From what I hear, cannabis on sale today is rather stronger than when I was young. That sounds bad to me. Curiously I see this as a pro-legalization arguement, if it were available in a shop I could select a mild flavour, rather than the skunk that the criminals grew, and is all that is on offer
I've heard that too but if you go to any dispensary you can get a gummy with an exact dosage of THC and CBD on the label. It's actually a much superior system now to backchannel dried flower.
Yeah but it’s hard to even find a 5mg these days. Most are 10 or 20 by me. Edibles aren’t immune from the increase in dosage.
Edit: also these aren’t pharma companies. It may have gotten better but I think manufacturing consistency isn’t good either. Highest I’ve ever been was from a single “2.5 mg”
What a strange study. Only less than 1% even developed these conditions.
They excluded people with a mental health diagnosis, and their data for already having symptoms was having a diagnosis?
Why do they assume this shows marihuana causes mental disorders, as opposed to being undiagnosed whilst already showing symptoms leads to self medication, for example?
I’m sorry, but most psychology research is just so incredibly badly done.
The experiment to get to the root of this is forbidden. They’d have to perform double blind (kind of a fools errand when being high is so obvious) experiment where they gave matched patients and controls either weed or placebo. Then they’d measure effects long term with enough of a sample size to overpower latent factors.
But this study will never be approved for obvious reasons so we will never know one way or another.
Unless you blind this, I’m not sure it’s possible to get past the correlation or causation problem. Weed use is not yet so destigmatized for teens that usage itself is not a marker of deviance (in the math sense, not any kind of judgement).
Marijuana legalization arguments were my first introduction to motivated reasoning. I was pretty inclined to agree that locking up non-violent drug offenders was a net-harm to society. But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
It seemed obvious to me that you could make a more realistic argument and just stick to an argument which states that due to drunk driving and domestic abuse, marijuana is less harmful overall than alcohol, but is treated as more dangerous. (and yes, the other side was a bit crazy too. "When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11")
Later research (such as this) has suggested a link between marijuana and psychosis, however the actual risk factors do seem difficult to nail down. (however, this is still a far cry from the claim that it's totally harmless)
What I ultimately learned is that in a pitched political battle, people actually damage their credibility because they're afraid to cede _any_ ground to the opposition, even when that means making unrealistic claims. A centrist (or just someone who is undecided) is not really taken in as much by these extremist argument, and to their eyes it damages the credibility of one or both sides.
> But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
Who seriously claimed that it “cures cancer”? There have been some claims that it helps alleviate nausea associated with chemotherapy, which is quite reasonable and will likely be proved out by evidence over time.
Really … who genuinely claimed it “cures” cancer?
I am firmly against marijuana legalization. This is partially because of this insanity of the pro-legalization arguments. When I would see friends/family that started smoking regularly become noticeably less intelligent while pro-legalization proponents would argue there are no negative side-effects, or people who were obviously compelled to smoke every day or as often as they could.... like some sort of addiction, while pro-legalization proponents argued it was totally not-addictive.
The anti-legalization side had a few odd arguments as well, and some old claims that were unfounded. So no hands were totally clean.
> I am firmly against marijuana legalization. This is partially because of this insanity of the pro-legalization arguments.
this is also just motivated reasoning
The insanity of the fringe pro-legalization arguments has no bearing on whether legalization is a good idea or not.
> When I would see friends/family that started smoking regularly become noticeably less intelligent while pro-legalization proponents would argue there are no negative side-effects
This is also just ripe for cognitive bias which is why we should use science to understand these types of claims.
I never understand this line of thinking.
So the easiest way for an opposition to a good idea to get their way, is to go argue insane things on the opposite side?
Imagine if the oil industry starts paying people to go throw soup on paintings just to make the pro “let’s prevent climate change” people look stupid.
Oh. Wait.
all legalization frameworks in the US already limit legal age of purchasing possession and consumption to 21 and over, specifically as a form of seeding ground to the opposition, specifically for the previously only anecdotal link to psychosis and underdeveloped minds of minors
It's weird to frame regulating cannabis the same way we regulate other recreational drugs as some kind of compromise. Is the ideal pro-cannabis situation that anyone can buy it at any age?
That’s not what that person was arguing?
How so?
> all legalization frameworks in the US already limit legal age of purchasing possession and consumption to 21 and over, specifically as a form of seeding ground to the opposition
This plainly says that legal frameworks limit the age of consumption as a way of ceding ground to the opposition (implicitly the opposition to legalization). So I'm questioning, if there was no opposition to legalization, what would the legalization frameworks look like? Legal for anyone at any age?
Edit: To put it another way, what's the ground that has been ceded here?
>But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy. I'm very involved in legalization and I don't know anyone that is for legalization that thinks any of those things, never even heard anyone say such garbage. I think you may be cherry-picking the crazy here.
To be fair, the example they gave from the other side is far more fringe
> When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11
>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.
This was over 20 years ago, long before "nut-picking" became impossible to avoid. This is what I was hearing from my peers on my college campus. They may have had had extreme views, but this was long before modern social media surfaced only the craziest people for any given position.
>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.
Also, I disagree with this characterization. I am not crazy, it was unnecessarily rude to suggest otherwise. I'm repeating the arguments I heard from my actual peers. I'm not just finding extremists on the internet and painting the whole group by its worst members.
I don't think you can frame some of these arguments as belonging to a fringe minority. I remember watching an episode of "Penn & Teller's Bullshit"[1](2004) where they featured several pro-legalization advocates. These folks said or implied similar things (it's not bad for you, it helps cancer patients). These were not marginal "crazy" voices.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penn_%26_Teller:_Bulls...
I know that I too say and heard those arguments a lot. You do yourside a disservice by claiming it doesn't exist
Good thing they didn't claim any such thing, then.
Yes, what you observed is people making unrealistic and disingenuous responses in reply to equally unrealistic and disingenuous reefer madness type propaganda.
What happened is that the people making these disengenuous comments in bad faith did not realize that so many others would watch them and without understanding hte context woudl pick up those same disingenuous arguments and take them as truth.
This is all the long term consequences of allowing Reefer Madness tier propaganda be published and not repudiated immediately.
"But by excluding teens who were already showing mental health symptoms, the new study points to a potential causal link between cannabis use and later mental health diagnoses. Additional research is needed to understand the link fully."
Hm, but this does not exclude the possibility that the being prone to mental illness comes with a little bit higher tendency to consume cannabis...
Similarly, cigarettes also have a very strong correlation with schizophrenia. Completely non-causal, but it's hard to find a non-hospitalized schizophrenic who does not smoke.
When I read this article the other day I had the exact same thought. Is this simply correlation, or is it causation? Is teenage usage an indicator of a possible underlying condition that hasn’t fully manifest? Is it an early form of self medication?
From the article: "Teens who reported using cannabis had twice the risk of developing two serious mental illnesses: bipolar, which manifests as alternating episodes of depression and mania, and psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia which involve a break with reality."
That 2X factor is big. If it was something like 10% - 20%, it might be noise or some other factor, but that big a number is real.
For what's it worth for an N=1 study I watched a relative's young family fall apart because of cannabis induced psychosis. They had two young kids, husband was smoking pot recreationally (not sure how long he was doing that) but at some point he started hearing aliens talking to him from the cracks in the wall. Naturally you can't just keep doing all the regular life and family stuff when you have more pressing issues like visitors from out of space in the walls talking about attacking earth.
I am not saying anyone should or should not use these substances, but that was enough of a lesson for me to know never to touch that stuff.
So I'm sorry that happened to your friend...
But also let's remember that there are tens of million Americans using weed products (legally in many states) who are having a great time with it. Which is why we need large-scale studies like this, and why any individual anecdote shouldn't offset a large study.
Whether or not cannabis makes psychosis more likely isn't proven, but your N=1 study illustrates how bad it often is. People should know that psychosis isn't just having some weird ideas, but often destroys lives and families.
There is no established causal link between the two. Cannabis is so ubiquitous that it is often the case that people with underlying psychiatric problems find it calms them and then blame cannabis for it if they get worse, because that's saving face in a twisted way.
Link is not the same as "it causes it".
Good point, you may very well be right. But seeing how that tragedy unfolded was enough to convince me at least to never consider it, just in case there is a causal effect.
I used to read forums for schizophrenics (self disorders fascinate me, look the term up if you want to understand schizophrenia), and it was the consensus there that out of all the recreational drugs cannabis caused the greatest deterioration in one's mental state. Those are generally fairly sick people, but I don't think one can just ignore this signal. I personally went catatonic once after consumption, and I'm not schizophrenic at all. And that was in Amsterdam, so it wasn't some trash spiced up by a 17-years old dealer with whatever he found in his grandma's medical cabinet.
I don’t know what things are like in Amsterdam, but weed being “high quality” is not a good thing. The potency has skyrocketed over the past few decades. It’s like saying you went to Amsterdam to drink alcohol for the first time and had a bottle of tequila and passed out and puked; the fact that it was high quality tequila does not mean it’s better than a low quality glass of wine or beer. The issue is the doses are way too high.
> it was the consensus there that out of all the recreational drugs cannabis caused the greatest deterioration in one's mental state
Methamphetamine and PCP might take issue with this statement.
Problem with recreational marijuana is that it’s so insanely strong. It would be like giving a child 190 proof azeotropic grain alcohol and being shocked that they immediately vomit. I can’t smoke pot - it’s just too strong.
I’ll admit to feeling a bit dumber and foggier after a few weeks of ingesting cannabis nightly though. That’s a real thing.
Weed can make you paranoid, every smoker knows this. It is patently obvious that it could trigger something worse, too, if you are already sensitive.
I think only young people in their weed honeymoon phase get defensive about this.
So just for context
"Based on data from 2023–2025, approximately 15% to 17% of American adults currently consume cannabis." - Gallup
So though this may be technically true in some sense, it should also be understood that if cannabis had any major immediate drastic effects we would have noticed them decades ago. Perhaps weed, like alcohol, needs a legal minimum age of 21.
> Perhaps weed, like alcohol, needs a legal minimum age of 21.
Generally, it already does have a legal minimum age of 21.
> major immediate drastic effects
Very few things in life pass that test, which is why we have research studies
Right we have studies, and they are 30 page documents that only academics read, and so they get poorly summarized by articles that try to make them sound more noteworthy than they are. Usually by saying "X linked to Y" without establishing causality or even if that link is a significant risk (is it a .1% increase in risk?)
When it's a drug more than 10% of the US population uses, we can immediately say the risk increase can't really be that big or we'd have noticed it by now.
Edit: after looking at the paper, it looks like among the weed group the prevalence is roughly twice as high -- so instead of 1/100 having psychotic issue it'd be 2/100... and again for people who used when they were 13-17 year olds, which is underage in every state.
So you could frame that as doubling the risk OMG, or a 1 percentage point increase in risk, or it could all just be self-medicating, we really don't know much. Probably still safer than alcohol.
I always see whenever a study mentions risks of cannabis, it's always met with "it only happens to those with innate tendencies" but then I ask them do they even understand what those effects are? Do we understand what schizophrenia and psychosis is, it's exact mechanisms?
Western medicine can't even explain any of these ailments, where it comes from, how it happens, what triggers it but so many cannabis users shield and attack any new research or study that questions the risks of cannabis for the young.
If it truly is harmless then are those same people suggesting that they light up a joint with their children ? Doctors hand out edibles when they catch a cold or can't sleep?
While I do think there are deeply helpful properties of cannabis we are still early, new research is only beginning to come out as it gets scrutiny. It took us many decades to learn the harmful effects of tobacco while for a long time everybody just shrugged it off as conspiracy. It took heavy lobbying from those that stood to gain most to delay the truth of the product they were selling and a lot more political will from the other side to warn the public.
Right now what worries me is the marriage of profiteering and political ideology that have neutralized the similar movement that existed around tobacco and alcohol in the Western hemisphere. Many see money to be made or their political statement that they will defend vigorously. The real risks that I see is raising the THC % content to extreme levels for chronic users who built a large tolerance through long term habitual use and claim they aren't addicted, proliferation of white/grey dispensaries that make it even more accessible to the young. This really needs to be addressed when we don't even understand the mechanisms or can reliably explain the after effects of those risks coming to fruition.
Since when does NPR use generic buzzy words like "huge" in their title ?
I’m in two minds about this, on the one hand I spent a week with acute psychosis after smoking weed when I was a teenager, so I really think people have to be more aware of the risks. On the other hand, I think it’s clear that this is not a perfect research design, and there are obvious possible confounds.
What about legalisation as a natural experiment? Has anyone done diff-in-diffs of US states and simply looked at eg mental health diagnoses or hospital admissions?
Not a skeptic, but I've seen these studies for a while. Do we have any idea what the mechanism could be?
4000 out of 460000, that's about 0.8% or so? At the face of it, it doesn't seem a lot higher than the 3% lifetime risk of psychosis and whatever it is for bipolar disorder.
To me it doesn't seem like they control much for confounding factors, or the possibility that young people who might develop psychiatric illness could also be more drug seeking or irresponsible in their drug use.
The correlation used to cite heavy (daily repeated administration across the day; what the kids call "the chronic.") But now its just any degree of use.
I should add that I happen to know of more than one heavy user who subsequently progressed to Schizophrenia or bipolar disorders so I don't personally doubt the cause and effect.
But this blanket correlation seems to me to be overbroad.
The NPR article seems to confuse causation and correlation.
The actual paper doesn't, and merely implies correlation. Which is fascinating (and well-known) and might still prove useful in one way or another.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic...
As well as the correlation/causation problem...
From what I hear, cannabis on sale today is rather stronger than when I was young. That sounds bad to me. Curiously I see this as a pro-legalization arguement, if it were available in a shop I could select a mild flavour, rather than the skunk that the criminals grew, and is all that is on offer
I've heard that too but if you go to any dispensary you can get a gummy with an exact dosage of THC and CBD on the label. It's actually a much superior system now to backchannel dried flower.
Yeah but it’s hard to even find a 5mg these days. Most are 10 or 20 by me. Edibles aren’t immune from the increase in dosage.
Edit: also these aren’t pharma companies. It may have gotten better but I think manufacturing consistency isn’t good either. Highest I’ve ever been was from a single “2.5 mg”
And in states like NY, 5mg is standard.
Why not cut it in half?
Yeah that's what I do and it works great for me
What a strange study. Only less than 1% even developed these conditions.
They excluded people with a mental health diagnosis, and their data for already having symptoms was having a diagnosis?
Why do they assume this shows marihuana causes mental disorders, as opposed to being undiagnosed whilst already showing symptoms leads to self medication, for example?
I’m sorry, but most psychology research is just so incredibly badly done.
The experiment to get to the root of this is forbidden. They’d have to perform double blind (kind of a fools errand when being high is so obvious) experiment where they gave matched patients and controls either weed or placebo. Then they’d measure effects long term with enough of a sample size to overpower latent factors.
But this study will never be approved for obvious reasons so we will never know one way or another.
Unless you blind this, I’m not sure it’s possible to get past the correlation or causation problem. Weed use is not yet so destigmatized for teens that usage itself is not a marker of deviance (in the math sense, not any kind of judgement).