• Aether Mechanic@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    The article itself says cannabis effects are ‘not completely understood’ and that treatments need ‘careful selection of active compounds,’ which shows THC’s anti-inflammatory action is limited and not reliable on its own. LMAO

    Dude, I voted pro-legalization. Just stop acting like it’s anything more than people like to get high. And that’s fine, but stop acting like it’s some medical magic. lol

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I literally just linked the first google result. Not the only research about it.

      Why does it being limited mean anything? Is limited the same as non existent now, or…?

      Edit: You can pick and choose quotes, but this is directly from the abstract:

      In multiple experimental models, both in vitro and in vivo, several phytocannabinoids, including Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG), exhibit activity against inflammation.

      I honestly could not give less of a shit about your position on legalization. But to pretend that established medical uses for cannabis are just fake is ignorant as fuck.