Check this out, Bothered:
(caps for emphasis, not volume)

Where claims of addictive cannabis generally trace back to:

“Therefore, the national increase in the prevalence of marijuana use disorders was attributed to increases in risk within users, speculatively explained by a marked strengthening of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) potency…”

NOTE: SPECULATIVE EXPLANATION is the same as guessing. Junk science is just guessing.
EX: “I guess that the gun killed the victim, not the person holding the gun.”

See: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2464591
for “scientific” source of quote.

ALSO NOTE: The source doesn’t speculate about ANY other potential causes. Not environmental, economic, other substance use or otherwise. Doesn’t even mention them, as if they’re just suddenly IMPOSSIBLE. That’s called having a predrawn conclusion before the science was attempted. ESPECIALLY in light of the KNOWN concurrent increase in use of addictive painkillers and other known addictive substances, it’s pretty biased to assume they’re not in any way linked and it just must be the stronger cannabis.

EX: “Yeah, I know he was drinking and driving, which is wrong. But, I’d guess that his accident was caused by the increased tidal pull of the super moon on that night.”

If you can honestly say that those two arguments would be reasonable to you, then keep your opinion.

Otherwise, I’d suggest you reconsider it so you don’t inadvertantly seem unintelligent because of manipulative, biased people with private agendas.

Last thought, “cannabis use disorders,” used above, or any substance use disorders are defined as, “the continued use of (substance) despite clinically significant impairment, ranging from mild to severe,” from the good ol’ DSM-V.

Which is a psychiatric, NOT biomedical, standard.

We all love Psychs, don’t we?
Because by their definition of substance abuse, LITERALLY every time a person drinks alcohol they are abusing it.

Why? Because biomedically speaking any use of alcohol causes “impairment ranging from mild to severe.” (just ask CHP!) Kinda just depends how much a person drinks where they fall on that range.

Psychiatrists are just slapping the label of “abuse disorder” on ANY use of ANYTHING which may have an “impairing” component like sleepiness or drowsiness.

EX: A patient has problems sleeping and takes a substance that impairs their ability to drive in an emergency before going to bed. No emergency occurs and the patient awakes happily rested for the first time in a long time. According to this manual for psychs the patient has a substance abuse problem, even if “mild.”

It’s like how they want to block perfectly healthy gun ownership by labeling everyone “depressed.” Everyone gets depressed, the world isn’t perfect. Depression for normal reasons that only lasts until the patient changes their situation, shouldn’t be called a mental disorder to pad a white coats paycheck and deny citizens rights.

Same applies here. Psychs will always happily add “conditions” they need to treat to their manuals and definitions. Sure, there’s moral reasons for them not to; but, when they’re openly backing up their stuff with straight up guesses, there’s no moral component. They just want to create an excuse to get paid more.