In the article's main image, cited directly from the paper in question (https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/recreational_opiates.png htt

In the article's main image, cited directly from the paper in question (https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/recreational_opiates.png https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/...), there doesn't really appear to be much of a correlation. Looking at the high variance in the opioid death data (because there are - fortunately - so few samples), so I'm not really certain if one can extrapolate a trend so soon after the legislation was enacted. The data simply appears to be too noisy. Even the paper states that the upper limit of its 95% confidence interval is a net reduction in deaths by a whopping... 0.03 per month. I've said this before, but; by all means, we should embrace the (clearly very real) medical value of this plant by allocating funding and legal frameworks to research it properly. Lots of current cannabis research is plagued by bad experimental methodology, statistically insignificant conclusions, extrapolation of non-existent trends, and broad hand-wavey statements that aren't really backed up by facts, and it's a shame because it cheapens the value of a genuinely promising medical treatment that offers hope for people suffering from a litany of conditions (myself included).