And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Russian roulette with newly synthesized drugs.
People are taking a big risk with some of these designer drugs. Just because a drug looks like an illegal drug doesn't mean a dam thing. Sometimes a simple modification of a molecule (methyl changed to ethyl or a hydrogen replaced by a bromine) can completely change the safety profile of a drug.
We've found that legalizing marijuana has so far been helpful. I just hope it's not the last step.
The same thing is starting to happen to the fast-food companies like Mcdonalds. They are starting to take the blame for a person's free choice to consume their unhealthy food.
How can a company (or government) possible allow the legalized consumption of something like Cocaine/heroin/Meth? Will there be tort reform so a company can't be sued for deaths or addiction?
Until we have a little more personal responsibility, I don't think illegal drugs should be legalized. It's even apparent in your comment:
"And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Russian roulette with newly synthesized drugs."
It's your personal choice to play roulette with drugs. They aren't required to live and the ones you are talking about have almost no health benefits (we aren't talking about weed here). Yet, you someone blame the government for forcing a person to make this choice. Complete and utter bullshit.
We see big companies frequently taking part in tax avoidance by going overseas. Should we also blame the US government for having taxes that are too high? It's the same logic you are using.
The government is the organisation that chooses to regulate the behaviour of it's citizens. Why should the citizen need to make a case for need? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
All the big cases I'm aware of are the ones stemming from their decades-long lies that smoking was not a health risk.
No matter if you forbid it or not people will want to take drugs. The government can either forbid it and cause the raging war on drugs that claims lives, leads to the development of underground mafia organizations, or choose to regulate it and make profit from it while keeping the prices reasonable and under tight control in terms of quality and supply.
Your tax money going to the war on drugs has been proven to be completely useless so far, so I can see the benefit of the other point of view.
Yes, the frequency of tax avoidance is proportional to tax rates.
This is a common argument in finance and economics articles.
That doesn't make sense to me.
Also, as MarkPNeyer said, a lot of drug users are rather depressed.
Few are going to huff gasoline if cocaine is available on a liquor store shelf.
Likewise, putting myself in this driver's seat, an overdose on my part is my own fault: If I chose to gamble in such a fashion, it does not seem fair that medical staff should have to labor over rescuing me. I made a decision, it only seems fair that I abide by the consequences. Assuming I had not previously entered into a contractual agreement that was pre-financed, an insurance of sorts, premiums paid up, expectations laid out (DNI/DNR, etc.).
I guess the rub would be if the dosage was administered to me without my consent, or a substance included (cut in) that I did not authorize...
With the same preface, this would logically extend to some other "for your own good or the lesser financial burden on others" laws, possibly like helmet laws.
I get the overall feeling that we have short-circuited the benefits of natural selection/survival of the fittest/most able to adapt. Which probably explains my enjoyment of the Darwin Awards books...
Oh, you meant only the "bad" drugs, not the "good" drugs. Never mind.