The first source is an excellent example of why peer reviewed primary sources matter.
theconversation.com is not a peer-reviewed scientific forum, and the author is a "Research Associate in Education". This makes him less likely to have the necessary scientific literacy to discuss this topic, a situation he proves and celebrates with the statement "Busting the “Weed Myths” should not be left to doctors and health practitioners. Pursuing research-based, evidence-informed policy and practice means getting behind those on the front lines of high school education."
Yeah THAT's the ticket! Get rid of those doctors and other people with their annoying numbers! We'll get MUCH better results using people with MY sort of education!"
To find something resembling a fact, I had to dig to the third layer to find this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162686/
The second citation is from Newsweek, definitely not a primary source, with the references stripped out and the content filtered through a journalist's perceptions. Another unreviewed synopsis whose collateral aim is to take science out of the hands of scientists.
The third one is published in
Substance Abuse Rehabilitation whose title displays no anti-drug bias at all. The first listed name is a postdoc and the second listed is a psychiatrist working for HM Government.
Best not let
@Singlemalt see these. He is not only good at dismembering flawed "studies" but also enjoys doing it. He'll damn them more comprehensively than I am inclined to. That is the benefit of getting a science education in an actual science.
This is an abstract of what looks like a review of research. I don't think it says anything to support giving or withholding weed to/from your kids. This is not a study but a literature review. Since I cannot check which cognitive deficits were tracked and how, I cannot judge the quality of the work. I would not draw hard