Yes yes, ofc they “controlled for”. It’s always the same argument with these studies. And you know it isn’t remotely enough so you appeal to authority by saying “reputable universities and institutions”, as if there hasn’t been literally hundreds of billions put into anti-cannabis research and there’s still only massively vague correlations instead of being able to show a single causation. Unlike with alcohol, which you can clearly demonstrate a sudden onset psychosis from pretty much anyone as long as you’re giving them something above say 8% ABV for a few hours on an empty stomach.

Yet you’ll also be able to find millions of people smoking weed daily without issues. You can’t say that for alcohol. Yet the implication is still one of “we can’t legalise more drugs” as if legalising made people less aware of the risks and less likely to abuse those substances, when we *know" it doesn’t. It actually does the opposite. Prohibition increases abuse and associated risks.

But hey, let’s spend another day arguing about how theres definitely a “link” between cannabis use and mental health disorders, even though not a single person can say what the link is how it forms or why.

Last time I did it I ended up having to read and Google all sorts of “reputable institutions” and once I did find the material, turns out even though they claimed to have controlled for all of those aspects, every single cannabis user was from a lower socioeconomic group than the control groups, which were in areas which were distinctly higher in average socioeconomic class. Then they just claimed that they had “controlled”. They clearly hadn’t. They had done the exact opposite.