Salutations Ryasco,
Exactly, but within a multi-ratios spectrum which the bigot anti-cannabic prohibitionists won’t brag too much about, as far as i’m concerned:
My reason is simple. The “application range” located along the quarter-arc curve linking a vast sample of average viable genetics (as illustrated above) goes from THC-centric (X) to CBD-centric (Y) if we rotate counter-clockwise, euh… These recent years we heard a lot about CBD oils and 1:1 “High-CBD” varieties besides the traditional THC-centric ones, but i suspect there’s some overlooked benefits in 2:1 or 3:1 THC:CBD groups as well… In other words i feel the extremes should be reserved for breeding and/or medical purposes perhaps, because i’m not sure what most people would choose in the end once given a full palette of options. If we agree that THC-centric cannabis affects, say, ~2 % of the consumers negatively then i may want to point out that it’s still sufficient for a sensationalist mass-media press to focus on habit disorders falling into the medical category anyway, misrepresenting the remaining 98 %…
M’well, that’s only me. But the thing is i don’t hear anything like this on late night TV news ever. How come? Are powerful “expert$”/“spe¢iali$ts” just blind, or conveniently (self-serving) selective in setting the agenda??
Which to me is a matter of self-vilification serving the enemy camp…
Then this:
Good day, have fun!! 