What we publish

Dehaze writes about cannabis: quitting it, withdrawal from it, cravings, tolerance breaks, sleep, and what changes when you stop. People make real decisions off this kind of writing, often at a bad moment, so we hold it to a standard that is stricter than most app blogs and more honest than most recovery content.

The short version: sourced claims, published ranges instead of flattering point estimates, no invented people, and corrections in the open.

Sourcing

Factual claims about withdrawal, timelines, prevalence, and health effects are drawn from primary and authoritative sources — the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), SAMHSA, peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed, and major academic medical centres. We name the source in the text where the claim is load-bearing.

We do not cite other content-marketing blogs as evidence. If the only support for a claim is somebody else’s SEO article, that is not support and the claim does not run.

How we handle uncertainty

Cannabis cessation research is real but uneven. Sample sizes vary, definitions of “heavy use” vary, and effects differ a lot by age, duration, and quantity. Where the evidence gives a range, we publish the range. Where a finding is preliminary or contested, we say so in the sentence rather than in a footnote.

We do not convert “some studies suggest” into “science shows.” Anyone quitting has heard enough confident nonsense already.

What we will not publish

Fabricated testimonials. No invented users, no composite “stories,” no stock photos captioned as real members. If a quote appears on this site, a real person gave it to us and agreed to its use.
Review we did not get. We never label an article “medically reviewed” unless a clinician actually read that article, and we never put a review date on one they did not. Articles written to our reviewed clinical standard say exactly that, and nothing more.
Guaranteed outcomes. No promised timelines, no “quit in 7 days,” no claims that the app treats or cures a condition.
Scare content. Exaggerating harm to drive downloads is the mirror image of denying it, and it is just as useless to somebody trying to stop.

Medical review

Articles are drafted by the Dehaze editorial team to a clinical standard reviewed by Dr. Lu Chong (陆崇) — Associate Chief Physician, Associate Professor and Director of the Health Examination Department at The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, with nearly 20 years in medical oncology and health examination work since 2009. The reviewer’s credentials, and a link to verify them on the hospital’s own website, are on the reviewer profile.

What Dr. Lu reviewed. The clinical standard every article is written to: the article template, the sourcing rules above, the symptom ranges we are permitted to publish, and the escalation rules that decide when an article must stop and send the reader to a clinician — severe withdrawal, polysubstance use, and co-occurring mental health conditions among them.

What Dr. Lu did not review. Individual articles. Dr. Lu does not read each article before it is published, so our articles do not say “medically reviewed” and carry no review date. Each one instead carries a banner saying it was written to a clinical standard Dr. Lu reviewed, linking back to this page.

We are telling you this precisely rather than vaguely because the distinction matters: a review of a defined content standard is not the same thing as a physician having read every sentence of the page in front of you, and health publishers who blur the two are doing something we would rather not do. If you find something in an article that does not meet the standard, email us and we will correct it.

Dr. Lu reviews content standards only. Dr. Lu does not endorse the Dehaze app, and no article presents the app as a treatment.

AI use

We use AI tools in drafting and editing. Every published article is read, fact-checked, and edited by a human who is accountable for it, and no article is published straight out of a model. Sources are verified by hand — models invent citations, and a hallucinated study on a page about withdrawal is a real harm, not a typo.

Updates and corrections

Articles are revised when the evidence moves or when we get something wrong. Substantive corrections are noted on the article rather than quietly patched.

To report an error, email hello@infinique.org with the article URL and the specific claim you believe is incorrect. We review every correction request within 5 business days, and we will tell you what we changed or why we disagreed.

Commercial disclosure

Dehaze makes money from subscriptions to the Dehaze app, and this blog exists partly to bring people to it. That is the whole commercial relationship: we take no payment for coverage, run no sponsored posts, and have no affiliate links. When an article mentions the app, it is our product and we say so.

Editorial Policy