this is an important story of a longitudinal research study showing the long-term effects of marijuana on users under 18 years of age. the writer is careful to include potential possibilities for the results as well as other information which offers affirmation for those results. opinions and comments of other experts in addition to the researchers are also included. what might have been include but isn't are some of the facts and figures from which results are concluded.
I don't think that this article is a good example of journalism, because there are not enough evidence to support this claim. The author only introduced one study that supported whether or not marijuana use lowers a persons IQ. I think that there should be many other sources that can express the claim more instensively. The sources help to make the article more reliable, without them for support the article sounds biased and more opinionated, which is what happened with this article. Also, I think that the article had too many quotes from people who were not really relevant to the actual research.