I do agree that the BBC debate was heavily under researched or perhaps heavily influenced to push a false narrative.

The debate being interrupted with pre-recorded segments was annoying, this never occurred during the Brexit TV debates and in fact experts were shunned during the debates yet here they are directly influencing the message/content being delivered to the TV audience. The format should have been a panel of the most qualified individuals (the first row in the audience perhaps minus the heroin/crack lady) at a desk debating topics and taking questions/input from the audience with a longer time slot.

The didn't mention the different species of cannabis (indica, sativa, etc) nor the potential explanation for individuals bad reaction to cannabis might not have been solely down to the thc:cbd ratios but rather the specific strains being inappropriate for the consumer.

Like if you've got extreme anxiety problems, you shouldn't take anxiety inducing strains - simply visiting leafly to understand the 'effects/medical/negatives' of a strain before consumption should drastically improve an individuals relationship with cannabis, much like how mature advice for pill harm-reduction is to visit pill test websites.

I do think that the thc:cbd ratios is a middle ground which forces the government to acknowledge that some cannabis is good, and perhaps that could be a foot in the door to demonstrate that in fact the high thc content strains are fine too. That said, simply glancing at leafly you can see that the vast majority of the popular strains would fall under this category & if these strains are pushed to become class A that's a serious regression in terms of drugs laws.

Unfortunately, given the lack of regulation the average cannabis consumer doesn't know what they're smoking nor do they have access to the most suitable strains for their needs.

Resteem'd!