[DannyTN]

"Should that apply to all products, like lumber, swimming pools, and guns? Or just products meant to be ingested, like hamburgers, cigarettes, and whiskey?" "

No. Lumber pools, guns and hamburgers aren't normally considered harmful, whereas cannibis has been deemed such by society. And society has struck it's own balance with cigarettes and whiskey.

My point, is that since cannabis is already a controlled substance, a synthetic version of one of it's key components, should bear that same stigma until proven otherwise. A synthetic hamburger (think soy, not GM foods) should fall under the same food regulations as hamburger. A synthetic alcohol under the liquor regulations, and synthetic pot under pot regs, etc.

"What does safe mean anyway?"

I used the word "safe" primarily with thoughts of the harvard study indicating cannabis causes brain damage. And with thought of the initial congressional debates where cannibis was banned, because the Mexicans using it were noticeably "crazy". LOL.

But should the synthetic be proven to have no lasting damaging effects on the brain or otherwise, and not to cause "craziness". Then society still needs to determine whether mind altering substances other than alcohol and nicotine should be allowed.

[TigersEye]

No. Lumber pools, guns and hamburgers aren't normally considered harmful, whereas cannibis has been deemed such by society. And society has struck it's own balance with cigarettes and whiskey.

If this is the best thinking your brain can do you should submit yourself for a lobotomy ASAP.

[Oztrich Boy]

No. Lumber pools, guns and hamburgers aren't normally considered harmful, whereas cannibis has been deemed such by society.

"Society: is there anything it doesn't know?"