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We do not cite other content-marketing blogs as evidence.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. A reviewer’s name goes on an article only after that reviewer has actually read it, and the date shown is the date they read it. We do not back-date reviews, apply one review across a batch nobody looked at, or attach credentials to work they never saw.
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 and reviewed for clinical accuracy by Dr. Lu, MD — an Associate Chief Physician and Director of a Health Examination Department with nearly 20 years of clinical experience in internal medicine, preventive health, and routine substance-use screening.

Her review covers three things: whether the evidence cited actually supports the claim being made, whether symptom timelines are presented as ranges rather than promises, and whether the article routes the cases that need a clinician — severe withdrawal, polysubstance use, co-occurring mental health conditions — to professional care instead of answering them itself.

What the review date means. Dr. Lu has reviewed and approved the clinical standard this blog 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 refer the reader to a clinician. Articles are published under that standing review, and each one carries a “Medically reviewed” banner showing the reviewer and the date the article was cleared. She reviews published content on an ongoing basis and can pull or correct anything that does not meet the standard.

We are telling you this precisely rather than vaguely because the distinction matters: a standing clinical review of a defined content standard is not the same thing as a physician having read every sentence on the day it went up, and health publishers who blur the two are doing something we would rather not do.

Dr. Lu reviews content. She does not endorse the Dehaze app, and no reviewed 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