Nearly a year ago, I made the observation here (see the comments to this post) that it seems odd that, if countries are going to legalise cannabis use, they don't also regulate it to make it safer. I mean, they do it with alcohol (at least within venues where it is served - and I see some places ban the sale of nearly pure ethanol as an alcoholic beverage); why should another legal drug avoid nearly all regulation as to its content?
It's been well recognized for years that THC content has been increasing, for example: why not legalise strains with a set upper limit? Also, it seems reasonably well established CBD can be protective of the brain - why not regulate that the sold product has to have a certain balance between it and THC?
Anyway, my very reasonable suggestion has been endorsed by some researchers in the UK.
They do note that not much is known about what a protective does of CBD might be, and the problem might be (I would guess) how many years of research it may take to be more certain about it.
But I thought its protective effects were established enough to at least know you would be doing no harm to take a stab at mandating a certain content for it.
I expect John will be along to comment on this!