betiko wrote:well I guess that if you look at it from a too liberal standpoint it wouldn't work, because the drugs market price would plumet and the drug use would probably skyrocket.
The insane margin rates comming from the drug economy should somehow end in the government's pocket, like for tobacco or petroleum.
Adam Smith's theories don't apply to all industries and there needs to be some sort of regulations.
Well, from what I've seen in Portugal and Denmark, that didn't happen. Probably because there's only so many drugs individuals wish to consume in a given time period--regardless of the price (i.e. demand is very inelastic). That's an empirical matter though, so if anyone's familiar with research on individuals' reactions to price changes of drugs, then speak up. (inb4 someone says, "THEY DECRIMINALIZED IT!@!!" Sorry, there's more to it than that explanation).
Government doesn't deserve much of your money. If they taxed everyone 10% of net income, then I would hardly mind about them taking a cut from consumer goods too. Since they don't, then they don't deserve another excuse to be irresponsible with other people's rightfully earned money.
With regulations, there's other ways (even from the government) than simply granting a monopoly to bureaucracies or privileged businesses in handing out certifications. Besides, given the abuse of opioids, it becomes apparent that even current government regulation is a "failure"--depending on one's criteria of failure. I see the abuse of prescription pills as something more systemic, and the wrong tools of government are being applied.