No, if you claim you bloody well cite. It's not on us to fill in your omissions. Given that, your 2nd paper is interesting and supports you. The first seems (e

No, if you claim you bloody well cite. It's not on us to fill in your omissions. Given that, your 2nd paper is interesting and supports you. The first seems (emphaisis: seems) to back up findings that most damage is done to the adolescent developing brain with cannabis, but still reading it. Edit: 2nd paper doesn't seem to ask when cannabis use started so it's quite possible the damage was done in adolescence, not adulthood: "Cognitive tests were conducted at ages 7, 9, and 11 using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised and again at age 45 using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV. Additional neuropsychological tests were administered to measure the participants’ verbal learning, attention, memory, processing speed, and more" so tested as pre-teens then at age 45. That seems a very big gap between them.