[oddlama]

> “Compared to non-users, regular cannabis users were more likely to engage in high-risk alcohol consumption, smoke tobacco, use other illicit drugs and not be in a relationship at age 35,” Dr Chan said. [...] They were also at higher risk of depression and less likely to have a paid job.

> “Overall, regular use of cannabis [...] was found to have harmful consequences, regardless of the age people began using it.”

I am skeptical that this study is actually representative of the effects of cannabis, and does not instead depend on other, highly correlated effects, which are then presented as the reason. From my general (non-user) perspective, I would assume that there is probably a bias towards groups of people who have a higher chance to use substances in general, or live in a comparatively poor environment.

For example: Children of smokers often become smokers themselves (as numerous credible studies show). If they now start with cannabis, they would be included as the victims of cannabis in the discussed study. However, the causality is probably reversed here.

[CameronNemo]

The use of the phrase consequences is so unscientific. Almost like they deliberately avoided writing correlation or causation.

[ehvatum]

> Compared to non-users, regular cannabis users were more likely to ... not be in a relationship at age 35

In 20 years of various relationships, the only girlfriend who didn’t request that I quit smoking weed was extremely naughty and experimented with all kinds of substances, as she completed her residency at a children’s hospital. She married someone with more money, God help him.

So, it doesn’t surprise me that people not in a relationship tend to smoke more weed.

[mpfundstein]

one would assume they controlled for this. Its a scientific study.

But then I've just finished reading the thread about scientific misconduct.... Not sure what to trust anymore

[Arech]

These's not a word in abstract of the study [0] that they have controlled for anything. (and I don't say that assuming anything about a study is a bad scientific practice, but I do assume it)

[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13239

[deathlight]

>one would assume they controlled for this. Its a scientific study.

My priors have shifted in the opposite direction over time. When I hear studies like this I'm tempted to assume mediocrity in both the collection and analysis of the data that puts the results into questionable utility for me. And not just mediocrity but potential bad faith tricks like p-hacking and its cousins.

It would take a substantial effort from high quality scientists (meaning individual reputation) including replication studies to get me interested.

[mpfundstein]

unfortunately I totally agree. I feel the same and its a shame.

[rorykoehler]

Knowing Australian politics this is more likely a PR exercise.