[varispeed]

Author obviously has a conflict of interest. He fails to acknowledge that correlation is not causation and that these studies fail to take into account other variables that could influence the outcomes.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I don’t think you’re using conflict of interest correctly. You’re saying here the author has secondary motives, such as being sponsored by an anti-weed org or something, which they would have to disclose in their own section (as per basic academic standards).

You might want to instead if you want to criticize the research say the authors clearly have a personal agenda or bias.

[edgyquant]

This is par for the course. When anyone suggests that weed may not be beneficial to your health people who consume it tend to get very defensive.

[varispeed]

It is common for people working with addiction to demonise drugs, so that they can have stream of scared patients lined up.

[starkd]

I don't think they have any shortage of patients in rehab. There is already a steady stream of them. Rehab counselors are often former addicts just trying to help others live through what they did. It is not exactly a way to get rich.

[austin-cheney]

I read the article and did not see anything that would qualify as a conflict. Correlation is not causation only on its face, which is why researchers compare their findings against control groups.

[varispeed]

> a psychiatrist who specializes in addiction medicine.

And typically their are missing confounding variables.

[f6v]

> correlation is not causation

True. But then there’s something that makes you stupid and makes you use cannabis at the same time. This is as bad as just cannabis making you stupid.

[varispeed]

It's the same situation as observing that people who take pain killers have headache, therefore pain killers are causing headaches.

This is the level where OP's article is at. It's baffling that people upvote that drivel.