TL;DR
Turn your wind-down time into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
A review of 63 studies found an association between cannabis use and violence, but it does not establish that cannabis causes violence. The reported “twice as likely” figure draws on studies that measured both at one point in time; studies following people over time found a smaller association, and the review rated the evidence’s certainty very low.
A King’s College London systematic review found an association between cannabis use and violence across 63 studies involving more than 265,000 people, but the evidence does not establish that cannabis causes violence. A critique published by The Conversation says recent Daily Telegraph coverage overstated the result by describing cannabis users as “twice as likely to be violent,” without giving sufficient weight to study limitations and the review’s very low certainty rating.
The review did find a link between cannabis use and violence, according to the source material. But the studies did not all establish which came first, and their results varied. Of the 63 studies, 46 were cross-sectional: they measured cannabis use and violence at one point in time. That design cannot show whether cannabis use preceded violence, followed it, or occurred alongside other conditions related to violence.
The critique reports that cross-sectional studies found more than twice the odds of violence among cannabis users, while longitudinal studies that followed people over time found 17% higher odds. The figures are not equivalent to a demonstrated increase in the likelihood of violence. Odds compare the number of people experiencing an event with those who do not; likelihood describes the chance of the event occurring in a group.
The review’s authors considered the association likely to be real, but the certainty of evidence was rated very low in the supplementary material, according to The Conversation. That rating means there is little confidence in the size of the estimate. The critique also says the review’s results varied substantially across studies, including three analyses of the same US national drug survey with odds ratios ranging from about 1.3 to nearly 10.
Why the Risk Claim Needs Qualification
The distinction matters because a headline linking cannabis with violence can be read as a claim of cause and effect, while the review, as described in the critique, identifies an association. Readers may otherwise take a relative statistic as a reliable prediction of an individual’s behaviour, despite uncertainty about how cannabis use and violence were measured and whether other factors explain some of the relationship.
The findings do not show that cannabis and violence are unrelated. They show that the available studies, particularly those measuring both at one point in time, cannot by themselves establish that cannabis use makes a person violent. The critique argues that giving the headline figure without its methodological limits may leave the public with more confidence in the estimate than the evidence warrants.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Studies Differ
The review brought together studies with differing definitions of both cannabis use and violence. Use could mean a single occasion, recent use or daily use; violence could include a shove, a fight or a criminal conviction. The review also grouped outcomes such as domestic incidents, sexual assault, fights and robbery, which may have different causes.
The critique identifies possible confounders, including poverty, alcohol use, other drugs and difficult upbringing. These factors can be associated with violence and may be more common among cannabis users. The review tried to account for other factors, but, according to The Conversation, its authors generally favoured study versions adjusted for fewer of them, leaving alternative explanations harder to rule out.
Large sample sizes can reduce random error, but do not automatically correct systematic problems in how studies collect or classify information. The critique also reports signs that studies finding little or no association may be less likely to be published; the review’s attempts to account for possible publication bias could not exclude it.
““twice as likely to be violent””
— The Daily Telegraph, as quoted in The Conversation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Limits on the Violence Estimate
The available information does not establish whether cannabis use causes violence, or how much of the observed association may reflect confounding factors, study design or measurement bias. The very low certainty rating also means the size of the association is uncertain, even though the review authors considered an association likely.
It is not clear from the supplied material how the review’s authors selected their preferred adjustments in every case, or how much publication bias affected the pooled result. Nor does the reported 17% higher odds in longitudinal studies translate directly into an individual’s absolute chance of violence; the source does not provide a baseline risk for that calculation.
marijuana safety informational books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Further Evidence Must Show
The next step is not a new finding reported in the supplied material, but stronger evidence capable of clarifying timing and alternative explanations. Longitudinal research that follows participants over time and uses consistent definitions of cannabis exposure and violence could help establish whether use preceded an incident and whether the association persists after accounting for other factors.
For now, the review’s association should be reported alongside its limitations: the contrast between cross-sectional and longitudinal results, the variation among studies and the very low certainty assigned to the estimate. The source material does not describe a scheduled follow-up study or a planned change to the review, so no further milestone is confirmed.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Did the review find a link between cannabis use and violence?
Yes. The review found an association across 63 studies, but an association does not establish that cannabis use causes violence.
Did the studies show cannabis users are twice as likely to be violent?
The “twice as likely” wording reflects a result from cross-sectional studies, which measured cannabis use and violence at one point in time. The critique says these findings are about odds, not necessarily the same as likelihood, and cannot establish which came first.
What did studies following people over time find?
The critique reports that longitudinal studies found 17% higher odds of violence among cannabis users than non-users, a weaker association than in the cross-sectional studies. The result does not, on its own, prove causation.
How certain is the evidence?
The review’s supplementary material rated the certainty of the evidence very low, according to The Conversation. The review authors considered an association likely, but the size of the estimate remains uncertain.
What factors could affect the association?
The critique names poverty, alcohol, other drugs and difficult upbringing as possible confounders. Differences in how studies defined cannabis use and violence, along with possible publication bias, may also affect the results.
Source: fediverse
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
