> The article itself isn't even saying that. If the title says it, it doesn't matter what the article says. My objection is to the title, and to the sleazy jou

> The article itself isn't even saying that. If the title says it, it doesn't matter what the article says. My objection is to the title, and to the sleazy journalistic practice of promising something in the title that can't be supported by the article. "Cancer Finally Cured!" -> "researchers report modest progress in alleviating melanoma in cockroach fingernails." (just an example, not real) "Marijuana use leads to psychosis" -> "marijuana use correlated with a higher rate of psychosis" (this actually happened recently, multiple examples, but correlation is not causation) Link: "http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Cannabis_and_psychosis http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pag... Quote: "Cannabis use can cause drug-induced psychosis, trigger the first episode of a psychotic illness, or make a pre-existing psychotic illness worse." It's entirely false, of course. There is no scientific evidence to support these claims. It's a classic case that confuses correlation with causation.