I genuinely don’t understand how the race or gender of the prosecution has any bearing here. We’re not talking about a jury, we’re talking about the people who are presenting state’s evidence in the trial. The prosecution does not decide whether Diddy is innocent or guilty, a jury does. If a jury in the trial of a black man is composed of 12 white women, that could be a real point of issue in our justice system, but the prosecution? It makes no sense
You can direct your investments in your 401k to international funds much more easily
I worked inpatient psych for a long time, and can tell you first-hand the link between psychosis and cannabis is real. No, this does not mean “if you smoke weed you’re going to get psychotic!” What it does mean is that if you’re someone with a genetic predisposition for schizophrenia (e.g. you have a known family history) weed is a potential trigger for a psychotic episode. If someone has already developed schizophrenia, smoking weed can make their symptoms worse and more difficult to manage with medications.
80% of people coming through the psych hospital, whatever, I don’t care if you smoke weed. Honestly, I wish people would smoke weed rather than use meth, K2, or a bunch of other drugs that fuck people up. But for that subset of people prone to psychotic episodes, the conversation centers around “some people can smoke weed and be fine, and you are not one of those people.”
The most common ages for men to develop first episode psychosis are 18-25, and while it’s dumb that this article focuses on teenagers, the risk in that age group is genuinely higher. This article really is dumb overall and does not explain any of this well
The language used in the lawsuit makes it sound like these shareholders are trying to highlight that UHC has to engage in anti-coksumer practices in order to reach their profit goals. We don’t know anything about who they are. Doesn’t take much to be a shareholder