4 ms·

I may not be doing the article justice, but it seems a bit misleading how this is presented. The title reads almost like "science clickbait" and there's a lot

I may not be doing the article justice, but it seems a bit misleading how this is presented. The title reads almost like "science clickbait" and there's a lot of talk about "safe" and "lower risk" but the study seems to only have actually computed lethal dose. This is an almost entirely useless statistic from my perspective, and by presenting it as justification for any sort of "safeness" seems almost deceptive. They do nod to this with a small section on the other impacts of use, but it seems heavily deemphisized when compared with the core message. Here's hoping I'm just reading this wrong and looking for the worst possible interpretation; I just worry that when presented without an even hand that these sorts of statements will only impede the goal of more reasonable drug policy and culture.

ertdfgcb 12y ago
Wether you're right or not, I've noticed that a common clickbait title strategy is to make sure that the title is technically correct. In this case, a higher ld50 would mean weed is "safer" in the sense that it's harder to overdose. But it's already nearly impossible to OD on weed so that doesn't really mean much, and it certainly isn't what the title implies. This way, when you read it and the article is different than the title it almost feels like your fault for interpreting the title in the wrong manner instead of theirs for push an article about something few people care about.