Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.
That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.
Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings.
In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...
Obvious based on what? Is there recent polling on this?
This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion at all in 2022, with major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking and rapidly evolving/shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general.
I think you're overblowing both the "major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking" and the "shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general".
Some (all?) states legalized weed use in some cases, it's not like it's some welcome acceptable thing in the average global working/middle/upper class family, and E/MDMA much less so...