What does 100% certain even mean, if it's unclear with what else that cannabis may have been laced/contaminated(has subject been in quarantine under exactly controlled conditions, and consumed drugs measured with gas chromatography?), and/or which other drugs may have been consumed(but not disclosed)? Or maybe had some sports induced brain lesion, but don't remember anymore?
I don't give a shit about statements like these. They are no better than a bunch of screaming monkeys throwing sticks up in the sky during a thunderstorm.
Ouk! Ouk! Ouk!
> And psychoactive effects of canabbis are well documented in other cases
So what? The same goes for alcohol, some foods, countless prescription medications, even social circumstances, maybe even the phases of the moon.
> Daily cannabis use was associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder compared with never users (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·2, 95% CI 2·2–4·1), increasing to nearly five-times increased odds for daily use of high-potency types of cannabis (4·8, 2·5–6·3).
I'm still unconvinced. Because which 'cannabis' are we talking about here?
Some organically grown sweet stuff, or sprayed with isecti-, fungi-, herbicides which usually contain organophosphates, which are neurotoxic, thus ARE a constituent of bug spray. Not to mention all the other shit it can be laced with to make it more heavy, tacky, and glittery. Does the blood work even account for those ? Even gas chromatography is not star-trekky tricorder-like.
Even if it could be, would it be used under budgetary constraints?
edit: Meanwhile I've read that whole f-ing thing, and it is like I imagined. A prime sample of the so called replication crisis.
The only useful information is: Meta-analysis shows a dose–response association with the highest odds of psychotic disorder in those with the heaviest cannabis use.
Oh really? Who would have thought?
Furthermore they DIDN'T test the samples provided by the 1130 participants, because that would only show a single point in time, instead relying on even less samples from the participating regions, fabricating statistics. And only testing for Delta9-THC.
I don't give a shit about statements like these. They are no better than a bunch of screaming monkeys throwing sticks up in the sky during a thunderstorm.
Ouk! Ouk! Ouk!
> And psychoactive effects of canabbis are well documented in other cases
So what? The same goes for alcohol, some foods, countless prescription medications, even social circumstances, maybe even the phases of the moon.
Ouk! Ouk! Ouk!