A mix of clouds and sun. A stray shower or thunderstorm is possible. High 73F. Winds W at 10 to 15 mph..
Partly cloudy this evening, then becoming cloudy after midnight. A stray shower or thunderstorm is possible. Low around 45F. Winds NW at 10 to 15 mph.
Updated: May 13, 2026 @ 2:09 pm
When the CEO of a national advocacy group misrepresents a scientific paper to support a pre-existing bias, the public deserves a correction. Kevin Sabet’s op-ed in STAT News last month argues that a new Lancet Psychiatry systematic review proves medical marijuana should no longer be prescribed for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. It doesn’t, and the gap between what the study says and what Sabet claims is significant.
Let’s start with what the paper actually says.
The review in Lancet Psychiatry examined 54 randomized controlled trials spanning 45 years — a body of evidence shaped by a major structural barrier: federal prohibition. Schedule I classification in the United States has made rigorous, large-scale clinical trials of marijuana nearly impossible to fund, conduct and complete.
The authors are clear about this. Their headline conclusion is not a rejection of marijuana but a call for more research. “Overall, there is a crucial need for more high-quality research,” they write. “Given the scarcity of evidence, the routine use of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and [substance use disorders] is currently rarely justified.”
Read that carefully: scarcity of evidence. That doesn’t mean marijuana has been proven ineffective or harmful; it means there isn’t enough high-quality research to draw firm conclusions. And that lack of evidence is partly the result of the very legal restrictions that have limited research for decades.
Sabet quotes the lead author’s claim that the review found “no evidence” that marijuana is effective for anxiety, depression or PTSD. In scientific terms, “no evidence” simply means that existing studies don’t provide strong evidence; it does not mean the treatment doesn’t work. That distinction is critical. The most reasonable response would be to call for more scientific research, not to fear-monger about marijuana.
The review also found some evidence of benefit for marijuana to treat insomnia, Tourette’s syndrome and autism spectrum disorder. Sabet didn’t mention that part because it doesn’t fit his narrative and his long-held bias against marijuana. Even limited positive signals across multiple conditions suggest the science is still developing, not settled.
Sabet then pivots to a familiar argument: that marijuana causes psychosis, schizophrenia and depression. These observational studies matter. They largely examine unregulated use in uncontrolled settings rather than physician-guided medical use. That’s an important difference. Population-level associations do not directly translate to clinical outcomes under medical supervision.
This distinction matters for veterans and trauma survivors who report meaningful relief from PTSD symptoms with marijuana. Their experiences shouldn’t be dismissed. Patient-reported outcomes guide future research and clinical practice. A lack of strong evidence is a reason to study further, not to ignore patient experiences altogether.
The medical institutions Sabet cites — Cochrane, JAMA, Lancet — are doing what good science does: assessing current evidence and calling for more. None recommends eliminating medical access. That leap — from limited evidence to ending state programs — is a policy stance, and a poor one, driven by emotion, not a scientific conclusion.
State medical marijuana programs are imperfect, and the evidence base is uneven. Clinicians should move forward carefully, with informed consent and monitoring. That’s all true. A call for more research is not a mandate to abandon patients who are finding relief.
The appropriate response to limited evidence is to generate better evidence. That requires improving the regulatory and funding environment for research, which has long been hindered by federal policy. The best policy response is for the federal government to finish the process of rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
For decades, marijuana’s Schedule I status, which classifies it in the same category as heroin and LSD, has meant that the federal government has made it prohibitively difficult for scientific and academic institutions to study marijuana. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III will make it much easier for that research to be done but will not legalize the substance.
Reversing existing laws allowing medical use or opposing rescheduling won’t do anything to help us understand marijuana and its potential benefits or harms.
Whether you support or oppose marijuana use, we should all agree that it should be easier to do scientific research and better understand it. Rescheduling is the answer.
Jamie Haase is a former special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Account processing issue – the email address may already exist
Must be at least 8 characters, not contain repeating characters (e.g., 111), and not contain sequential numbers (e.g., 123).
The latest in news, sports and opinion delivered directly to your inbox
The weekend’s biggest headlines in one convenient package
Sign up with
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Invalid password or account does not exist
Sign in with
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Must be at least 8 characters, not contain repeating characters (e.g., 111), and not contain sequential numbers (e.g., 123).
Secure transaction. Secure transaction. Cancel anytime.
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
A receipt was sent to your email.