I gave up on 23. xD

And I was, in fact, a robot.

I don’t mind ads, probably because I never see them. :)

So when conservatives routinely go on shooting sprees they’re mentally troubled, but when one MAGAt kills a hateful shitlord, it’s antifa’s fault. Makes sense.

Add a third category for those who willingly oppress others.

Reminds me of a little fantasy I had as a kid. But with dicks.

“He was actually an FBI informant against Epstein” and that’s why he’s not prosecuting despite all the evidence he helped gather. Makes perfect MAGA sense. 🙃

I don’t mind women showing off their bodies, but I will criticize her trashiness every day of the week.

Only to get knocked down again

Therapist: No

Only if your name is Ade.

It’s true, and neither did Putin specify which two weeks of which year that would be…

Lots of commenters here either didn’t read the article or are missing the point of the study entirely. And a couple are going straight for conspiracy theories.

None of this is certain

This is a statistical study, so it’s not meant to be. Nobody in the field expects it to be because it’s measuring relative risk to guide decisions.

none of this was precise

Yes, it was. Parameters were constrained to realize the statistical comparison of the sample, as it’s standard practice. Also note the huge sample size that only adds to its precision by reducing the margin of error.

scientists primarily focus on our diets - our eating frequency, activity levels, digestion, metabolism

This is what the article is doing, but in the context of a behavior-altering substance like cannabis.

demonizing cannabis unfairly.

No part of the article does that. If you’re only reading clickbait titles, you’re doing it wrong. Quite the contrary, it’s fully transparent and reasonable in its purpose.

There is no mechanism or pathway the authors have proven exists that cannabis or a particular cannabinoid damages the endocrine system/etc. by itself

No part of the article suggests that, and directly states the possible explanation is a change in eating habits.

There are some true aspects to what you’re saying in the overall field of publishing, but the article doesn’t read that way.

Did you read it? What conflict of interest can you spot? What aspects of it (besides the clickbait title) sound like a commissioned study to you?

Read the article

I feel the need to clarify that sugar doesn’t cause diabetes, but being overweight is linked to it. Sugar only helps you get there in high amounts.

E: Someone beat me to it.

It’s not marijuana itself that’s bad, but how you consume it and what you do when you’re high.

If you’re smoking it you risk lung cancer. If you’re eating low nutrition, high calorie food while you’re high without exercising, you risk other diseases. This article is about that.

I want to think the delivery probably made it hilarious

Yes! I’m not crazy. All the liberal spaces have been slowly disappearing and it feels like they’re being taken over every time under the guise of capitalism. I’m not one to call a conspiracy, but…

They’re stupid. Source: I have stupid extended family in the US voting for him