Yeah I used to think that, until I actually started hiding things I didn't want to see. It creeps back in. At one point I wondered about starting my own log of how many times I "unfollowed" or clicked "I don't want to see these kinds of posts." Facebook clearly doesn't do what you want it to sometimes for other reasons. I could hide some people entirely maybe, or put them in a personal group I'd have to visit to see their posts, that would help, but they aren't human beings lost to me that I never want to hear from again.
I didn't say the effects were unknown, I questioned your belief that we know as much about cannabis and/or heroin as we know about alcohol and tobacco, that there effects are very well understood. No matter how you look at it IMO we know more about alcohol and tobacco because they're legal drugs that have a known history of use versus the illegal drugs, people freely admit to taking legal drugs, you get asked if you smoke or drink by most health professionals as a matter of course. Doesn't it strike you as odd that we ask everyone if they smoke when an estimated 20% of the population smokes, yet nothing is said about cannabis when that stands at an estimated 10%
The risks associated with smoking cannabis are pretty well understood. There's unlikely to be any nasty surprises 10, 20 or 30 years down the line because people have been using it for hundreds of years (at least). The new synthetic cannabinoid compounds and their effects on health are completely unknown. Ingesting them is like playing Russian roulette. I don't know how I can put it in any simpler terms.
I'm not questioning that we know even less about synthetic cannabinoid compounds, I'm question your belief that there would still be a market for synthetic cannabinoid compounds and the such even if the real stuff wasn't illegal, I'm questioning your belief that pot or heroin are both very well understood in comparison to alcohol and tobacco despite being illegal.
We've already covered that. It seems to me that you're changing the argument each time I address the points you raise. We're not going to get anywhere with this, are we?
Sorry but how am I changing the augment, I have said in two post now that I'm questioning your belief that we know as much about pot & heroin as alcohol & tobacco, and that there would still be a market for the synthetic varieties if the real stuff wasn't illegal. Perhaps if we have already covered that you could point me to the post where you addressed those questions, or are you just trying to avoid the issues I've raised.
No, I'm not avoiding your questions - I've already answered them. I'm just bored of going around in circles.
If you not avoiding them then please point me to them, after re-reading all your posts in this topic I can't find a single one where you address the questions I raised.
Getting back on track again, here's an interesting video (bottom of page) of an interview with Dr John Huffman, the guy who's synthesised cannabinoids found their way into many of the earlier "legal highs". He developed the compounds as part of a bona-fide research project and their names are all prefixed with his initials, JWH. "People being people, they're gonna do dumb things." Straight from the horse's mouth. Very interesting stuff and well worth a watch.
