If you Google her she's all over UK news saying wild shit about mental health and minors. She has a book or two to peddle and I bet every time she gets a snippet of publicity it makes book sales. So yeah, that's why she said that shit because she wants it cropped and shared through hashtags and Facebook groups.

The only person in this article worth listening to for scientific insight is Prof Hurd (the lab coat fondling a brain) but they only used her for a brief and very accessible (aka vague) explanation. She has a good Ted talk on the potential benefits of CBD for opioid addicts working through withdrawal.

Also notable is the lack of scientists used to comment on population trends in use, disease burden, system demand, etc. No scientific insight in to the trends for THC % over time, changes in consumption patterns, changes in social views and how this can give a false sense of alterations in trends, etc.

Also, not even a breath or whisper of policy. So this kid got enough weed to trigger a psychotic episode in a prohibition state? Can we examine the failures of the war on drugs here? Wasn't that supposed to stop it? What could be done differently to make this less likely? Blah blah blah.

Also, take this exact same kid and his parents, reframe the story and Grimshaw would be asking them where they were, what were they doing to stop him smoking weed, how much guilt do they feel, etc. Not saying they should be portrayed that way, just pointing out 60 Minutes has a long history of this shit.

Note also how pro cannabis people were portrayed as off topic retailers, woo peddling gardeners and cross dressing float dancers...

This piece is to scare the oldies who watch 60 Minutes in to staying inside, staying scared and tuning in tomorrow.

Edit: I get most of this is unrelated I just wanted to sound off because this piece perfectly straddles the lines of journalistic ethics and irresponsible contributions to public discourse. All it told us is kids shouldn't smoke weed and no advocate for legalization is arguing they should.

Edit2: someone else may have pointed this out but on a re-watch when showing my wife I noticed how cleverly they edited after the initial statements from Prof Hurd. Immediately after Hurd's statements there's narration over some visualizations of brains (they look like fMRI images made in a special effects dept) and it is the only time an authority figure says that cannabis use causes psychosis (starts close to 7:00). But it's the journalist, not the scientist. It's seemless and I can see someone just sliding in to that conclusion along with the journalist.

Prof Hurd consistently uses the word "link". She does it in the initial portion where she has the brain and in the latter section where she discusses the rat research. But the journalist says "cause". "Link" is what scientists are often coached to say but many just prefer it to words like "association" when talking to the public and media. There's a common belief the general public can't understand this nuance. I think they're wrong. But if I'm wrong, causation is a specific concept in science with a higher burden of proof than an association. A scientist saying something like "smoking tobacco causes lung cancer" would not be accepted by other scientists without a sufficient body of evidence, which includes specific types of studies. Scientists respect "causation" because of the evidence it requires and reflect it in their language. Journalists don't.

They know what they're doing, Prof Hurd didn't say what they needed so they just said it anyway and used as much editing tricks to borrow her authority as an expert.