I've seen the study regarding cannabis use and psychosis and it is interesting, but I just want to clarify that I meant there is no physical dependency mechanism for cannabis compared to other classes of drugs such as opioids.

"link".

From that article:

"""Conclusions Despite all of the uncertainties surrounding the cannabis-psychosis link... The evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk of psychosis when it is used frequently. Whether cannabis can trigger a primary psychotic disorder that would not have otherwise occurred is unclear.

However, in most individuals who use cannabis, psychosis does not develop, which suggests that the increased risk must be related to other vulnerability factors (genetics, frequency, or age of onset of cannabis misuse)."""

"The evidence for a link between Cannabis and increased risk of psychosis is increasing"

Yes, but only to those who are already disposed.

I don't really want to deal with the schizophrenia article because frankly, the way it's used in the debate, it's hard to have a fair and honest conversation about it other than: "The science is weak because no one CAN know because it's fucking illegal to study." (er, this sounds like a dismissal of the article, please don't take it as such, it's not meant to be)

That having been said, I think that it is different than what the GP was referring to which is a chemical addictive property (like nicotine) rather than a long/short term side effect (smoking side effects, whether it be tar in your lungs or increased risk of schizophrenia)

[1] Sorry for the language, but the biggest joke of this entire debate is that Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug.