It’s not a helpful coping mechanism, but there’s a reason double blind studies are considered so important. Untangling complex mechanisms especially when they have feedback in both directions is inherently difficult.
You're really going to call for a double blind study here checking if excessive cannabis is bad for people conditional on their lives falling apart? How do you propose to get that past an ethics board?
You can still do a randomized trial and that's the one that wouldn't pass the IRB.
(Or, use high school freshman for the study and really convincing upperclassmen as actors to convince them it is a real bag.)
There aren't many studies on what are the real impacts of CBD.
Are we to presume that the high itself isn't potentially a causative factor?
Sometimes we’re stuck with “I don’t know” and recognizing that is IMO important.
So, I know.
Clearly, smoking a shit ton is bad for people with marginal mental health or marginal emotional health.
Clearly, weed is good
I mean, it kind of does. If you want to design intervention, it helps to know which causes the other to a greater degree.
But, should we (the gov) spend 10 million dollars on social services to prevent people's lives from going to hell, should we spend 10 million dollars on anti-alcohol addiction services or should we spend it half and half, are questions we as a society need answers to.