First thing I notice, they make no distinction between dried cannabis, and oil, or edibles, or weed crack (wax), or hash. They just lump it all together as marijuana.
Second thing is, they are going over multiple studies and publishing only the adverse effects. Which mostly are all common sense. Driving, mental illness, pregnancy, are all things a person should know weed is going to affect you in an adverse way.
Then the suggestion at the end, that you need a prescription to buy it legally.
I'll place my wager the article was bought and paid for by big pharma.
It reminds of people who have never fired a rifle in their life, making gun laws. You mean there is difference between a .22 and Vulcan cannon? They are both guns.
You have to read between the lies, and think critically. But if you don't know, you don't know, take these doctors words for it, vaccines good, weed bad.
It reminds of people who have never fired a rifle in their life, making gun laws. You mean there is difference between a .22 and Vulcan cannon? They are both guns.
Both sound like ARs to me, which is pretty terrifying.
You make decent points. For the most part, though, I see your comments as somewhat of a leap. To be able to tie increased drug/substance abuse to increases in adverse affects doesn’t equate to increase in big pharma instead. If anything, my takeaway from all of it is to avoid taking anything.
You’re absolutely right, though, that we should always question what we read…never take anything for face value. Who is funding these is 100% relevant, and was not so cohensidentaly left unsaid.
(post is archived)