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's always been in the plant and available to use but it's because people were so entranced with the idea of let's get stoned or then let's do some science on this stoning aspect of THC that that drew most of the attention it's just really in the last two or three years that CBD because of its non hallucinogenic effects has become interesting to people because it appears to have it does have so many medicinal applications
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.