A) She doesn’t. She completed her phD a few years back and is doing post-doc research at another university. She’s a broke scientist who’s got no stake in the game, just passionate about learning about the brain.

C) It does appear the four studies discussed in the section on marijuana and brain function are sample sets of heavy and prolonged use.

B) I’m not sure if you read this entire lit review. They’re reviewing a huge body of work that hasn’t produced super congruent results, and are discussing the effort that need to be made to better determine patterns. It’s less of a study about the conclusive effects of marijuana use on neurocognition, and more of a methods analysis. The abstract conclusion is even: “Meta-analyses have played an important role in helping to grasp the totality of results from a large body of literature on cannabis effects on neurocognition, yet more research (particularly large-scale longitudinal studies) is needed to identify critical periods or patterns of use that are more likely to result in negative outcomes.”

D) Again, sample sets discussed are regular use, which these researchers define as “samples of cannabis users who had engaged in more than occasional cannabis use.”

Just to be clear, I’m not staunchly pro-pot. Just pro-science. This family member is a pretty vocally against marijuana use among teens, btw. And against alcohol use in general.