Later in the 1990’s, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded research that had the goal of proving that cannabis is addictive. But instead of identifying any biochemical pathway that could cause addiction, any research defined addiction by the presence or absence of some degree of withdrawal, with no specific parameters for withdrawal actually defined. In other words, if you’re thirsty, this NIDA-funded research could argue that this means you are addicted to water.

So am I to assume, due to no response/deleted comment that my simple question was too difficult to answer? With all the technical & correct information you have on you GREAT website, can someone (?) not simply correct or acknowledge the FACT the your NOT using nano-particle size product? I am truly interesting (for my wife) in CBD, have done my research, and I love working with numbers which is why if found this discrepancy. Comments welcome, but avoidance is disturbing.