The Economist has been editorially pro-legalization of cannabis for a long time so any propagandizing agenda you think you're "sensing" just isn't there; in fac

The Economist has been editorially pro-legalization of cannabis for a long time so any propagandizing agenda you think you're "sensing" just isn't there; in fact their agenda is literally the complete opposite of what you "sensed". They pretty obviously used "cannabis" here because these products were designed + marketed as legal cannabis replacements or alternatives. They're called "synthetic cannabinoids" for a reason. I hardly think that using "cannabis" as a comparison to "synthetic cannabinoids" is "twisting things", or using "foul language", either.