February 24, 2026 — 2 new articles added to the feed
This update centers on a theme that connects both articles: how we measure and compare substance risk, and whether our prevention strategies match the evidence. From head-to-head harm profiles of alcohol versus cannabis to population-level use patterns among teens, these pieces push clinicians and families toward more honest, data-driven frameworks.
⚖️ Alcohol vs. Cannabis: The Relative Harm Conversation We Owe Our Patients
A widely covered comparison of long-term health consequences between alcohol and cannabis reinforces what the clinical data have shown for years — alcohol carries substantially greater risks for organ damage, dependence, and mortality. Cannabis is not without risk, particularly for vulnerable populations, but equating the two substances as though they occupy the same threat level is not supported by the evidence base. For patients using one or both substances for symptom management, this distinction matters enormously when weighing treatment options. Clinicians should be leading these conversations with transparency rather than defaulting to cultural biases that overstate cannabis harm and normalize alcohol use.
🧠 Teen Use Patterns: What Alcohol Epidemiology Teaches Us About Cannabis Prevention
Research from Sweden demonstrates that adolescent cannabis consumption follows the same population distribution patterns long established for alcohol — when average use rises, heavy use rises in lockstep. This is a critical finding because it shifts the prevention conversation from individual intervention alone to community- and policy-level strategy. For parents and clinicians, the takeaway is concrete: focusing only on the teen who is already using heavily misses the broader environmental drivers that push average consumption upward during vulnerable neurodevelopmental windows. Effective public health approaches for youth cannabis exposure will likely mirror what has worked for alcohol — population-wide frameworks, not just targeted rescue.
🔗 The Connecting Thread: Evidence Over Assumption
Both articles this cycle share a common clinical imperative — our frameworks for understanding cannabis risk must be grounded in data, not inherited assumptions. Whether we are comparing cannabis to alcohol at the individual patient level or designing prevention strategies for adolescents, the evidence points toward nuance over reflexive prohibition. Patients deserve relative risk conversations that are honest, and communities deserve prevention models that are proven. When we let outdated narratives drive clinical and policy decisions, we fail on both fronts.
The through line this week is simple: measure cannabis by what the data actually show, not by what decades of cultural stigma have trained us to assume. Our patients — and their kids — deserve that standard.