[2thumbsup]

The thing is, that there is really no or only little commercial incentive to study the effects of products that cannot be patented.

That is also one of the reasons why the study of e.g. cannabis for treating epileptic patients, or as anesthesia, has taken such a long time, because once the study is done, you cannot always attribute those effects to your own product, so few will go ahead and sponsor it.

[brna-2]

It would be nice to have a decentralized recipe database with feedback and grading. I mean decentralized in a non-profit way, where cash flow does not matter.

[bayindirh]

Unfortunately that's very true and sad. Moreover, if you find that non-patentable thing is better than your product you spent that much time and money to develop, that's some nightmare scenario. I use some, more natural products which work way better than their "researched" counterparts, which is funny.

What I'm happy about letting cannabis free is the long tail research done on their effects after recreational use. Putting a finger on its negative effects will allow us to understand it better and promote more responsible use of it.

Maybe we can slow down the "capitalist, line shall go up" machine and be more in peace with the nature itself, and can make better drugs and substances for our needs which are not as expensive and dangerous. One man can dream, I guess...

FN: While it's not about drugs, leaded-gas used lead because it was patentable. However ethanol was cheaper, much safer and easier to produce. Albeit, it was unpatentable hence lacked shareholder value (https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/thomas-midgley-and-t...).