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.
it would be a little wild if everyone's subjective experience across different kinds of cannabis was entirely driven by some kind of expectancy which I can't imagine is accounting for all of it but I think when we talk about sativa versus indica I think there's a huge bias that's going into there
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.
as far as I know I don't believe there's actually ever been a clinical trial that has blinded people and given them sativas or indicas and actually had them predict what they are or been able to characterize any kind of phenotypic description of what that intoxicated State feels like
you can take a sativa and Inda that have virtually identical levels of THC and yet people will report very different intoxicating states that come out of that