How so? Wouldn't new and better recreational drugs be a good thing? Wouldn't drug manufacturers be in the best position to tailor drugs for maximum high at minimum of side effects? This is assuming, of course, they're willing to accept the liability.
Have, for instance, cigarette companies tailored cigarettes to be less harsh on a smoker's lungs? From what I know, many cigarette companies have instead made a relatively more lethal cocktail to heighten addiction to their product (though, yes, some cigarette companies did make "lighter" cigarettes).
I have some bad experiences with drugs. My grandfather died horribly of lung cancer thanks to cigarettes, my father was an abusive drunk, and I know at least a couple others that have greatly diminished mental states at a very young age (think sophomore high school) thanks to heavy drug use, and their futures are entirely gone thanks to these drugs they were addicted to.
While I support the legalization of marijuana, I am leery on the idea of legalization of
all drugs, without care to short-term or long-term affects. And the argument that it's only the drug user's business is dead wrong. When a man drinks and drives, it's no longer just his problem; meanwhile, when a guy gets cranked up on PCP, goes on a trip, and decides to cause havoc, it's not just his problem. When a man's mental state puts others around him at risk, then it's no longer just his problem.
Laws aren't designed just to protect the individual, but to protect the individuals around the individual.
As for the claim that illegalization makes the product more attractive... while that could potentially be true, it is usually far more difficult to obtain an illegal item than a legal item.
