The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
and so I think when we're talking about if you're talking about someone who's a chronic cannabis user they're going to have done a lot of cognitive tasks while they're under the influence and so if you acutely test them the impairment you might see in them is probably less than you would see in someone who's relatively naive or much less experienced user
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.