I was talking about the violence associated with the supply side. Now you're bringing up the violence associated with the demand side. I agree that demand side crime and violence isn't going to change very much if drugs are legalized. Addicts will still commit crimes to feed their habit.

That is why I said it is not simplistic. I am and was bringing up the violence and health effects of the whole deal. Legalization only deals with a small part of the problem.

We have a black market here and across both borders in legal drugs as well.

Neither of these:
will support a war zone:
Despite the end of prohibition, people still make their own alcohol, and in some situations they still do so illegally, but there is no longer a war between moonshiners and cops. Commercially available alcohol is safer, and in many (most?) cases better and cheaper than anything you'd buy out of a pickup.


It sounds like you're letting the lack of the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that all crime and poverty won't end with the drug war doesn't mean that drastically reducing it is too simplistic. Drastically reducing is a good goal in itself.

Dude, you are not going to convince a pharmacy company to produce low cost recreational drugs to a point where it would cheap for you to use and expensive enough for them to make a profit. What I said was that crime and poverty associated with drug use would not change, I doubt it will be reduced a little. Of course neither you or I have any proof that legalization of any kind will or will not work either.

RJ Reynolds and Absolut produce what I am told are passable products for prices that many can afford, and they have very few gun battles over turf.

And they don't spend billions in R&D for new types of drink and smoke. All drugs are regulated by the FDA. These manufactures do not have to go through the hoops required. You compare Apples and oranges. Not even close in your best fantasy of legalized highs.

Why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture a legal drug?

That is not the question.

And Pfizer... we can include Viagra in that group.

Companies love products where demand is constant and there are few alternative products. (If apples are too expensive, eat pears. If smack is too expensive...)

I bet there are more regular users of viagra and cialias then there are regular users of pot.

They spend plenty. And, despite the restrictions in place, they probably spend even more on advertising. Common drugs wouldn't have to be researched all that much. Generic drug companies could jump in immediately. Production methods already exist for research purposes, so all that would be needed would be production facilities.

If a comany thought they could make a patentable version, they might want to pump in the R&D, but it would hardly be a requirement.

Ain't happening dude, not in the US on a Federal level.

I didn't say it was. But that's a completely different issue from whether it would decrease the violence.

What are you talking about? That's the whole point of this thread.

If the laws are changed so that drugs that are currently illegal are made legal, why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture them?

Economics will not be the issue, because large pharma companies have the factories in place to make this stuff cheaply and efficiently.