Adding to my reply:
Have you noticed that there is no black market or underworld control of frying pans? The same principles apply. It is the demand for a product and its banning by the government that causes high prices, and criminal distribution. If a product is regulated by the government, you might notice how similar it is to the criminal operation. To reiterate: Keep government out of commodities. All commodities. The government is there to protect citizens from coercion by levying taxes and fees That is it. Stop making things illegal which, if anything, makes them more desirable.

I'm not advocating legalization any more than I am bothering about legalizing Teflon coated frying pans. Just leave it the F--K alone. Leave alcohol alone. The free market will determine price, distribution, overhead, etc. Pay the same tax on the stuff and treat it the same as the frying pan. There is no reason for the government to be in the marketing business in any capacity.

Purpose and outcome, as I see it, come into play here or should we say: ethics.
If that heroin was used to create healthful value then...sure, we could applaud the effort; However, the outcome is not valuable to one's health nor well being and cost's not just the lives of individuals but it's a cost to society as well in the form of crimes, murder and the general physical, financial and productive health of society as a whole.

By George, you've got it!

Whenever I see the arguments for "legalization" of drugs, I look to the Colorado example. By creating state sanction of marijuana, it was supposed to reduce the drug trafficking crime. However, the price of state-licensed MJ is so high that it's easy for the street thugs to undercut it, and the black market is bigger than ever. The cost of law enforcement hasn't dropped, either. Worse yet, MJ is a very energy and water hungry crop, and there are innumerable illegal growing sites in the state that are harming the environment.

Many European countries have experimented with legalizing drugs, and most have reversed course due to the spread of disease from needle-sharing, and an exploding OD death rate. That should be indicator enough to tread carefully when considering an open drug market.

We're told that an open drug market would soon stabilize, and the number of addicted level off to a manageable percentage of the population. However, I point to the example of the tobacco industry, which kept its market growing with aggressive marketing, aimed at the youth. Do we honestly believe that in a competitive drug trade market, the same tactics won't be used on gullible young consumers?

Bottom line: I condemn the "ambitious business people" in the example, and would have not a problem seeing all swing from the nearest tree.

Nicotine is much more addictive than heroin - its main destructive power comes from the whole prohibition environment that creates:
unknown quality
extreme costs - leads to economic ruin for the addictive population
violence
social stigma (vs. for instance, drinking a six-pack during the game, even if an alcoholic)
all amplified by the host of law enforcement activities

There is an interesting book,
"From Chocolate to Morphine" by Andrew Weil
that looks at the various drugs people use and what their real health effects are. Written in the early 1990's I think but updated since then.

Like I imagine almost all people here in The Gulch, I would leave it up to the individual
to decide what to consume (drink, smoke, eat, inject, watch, listen, feel) - and make them
completely responsible for their resulting actions.

we tried prohibition in the 20th century...it does not work, it corrupts the legal system, over-crowds jails, and turns society violent.

regulating individual behavior is not the job of govt...and leads to what we are currently battling... just holding individuals responsible for their actions will do nicely...

The solution is to hold nobody liable. If a person wants to lose their soul to drugs and/or alcohol, there is really no way to stop them. There will always be suppliers. Where there is a demand, there will always be someone willing to fulfill it. The fact that it's illegal only raises the price. Do I condemn the addictive use of drugs and alcohol -- yes. But I can only do so for myself. There are those who respect my opinion, and at first take my advice. Later, as they become wiser or more learned, they will learn the reasons why and then make their own decision. I am always proud to say that there are no stoners in my immediate family. Cousins, 2nd & 3rd cousins - not so much. An interesting side bar is that the few cousins who are left who are my age are all non-addictive. There may be something to the fact that younger people who were raised in the 90's and later are more prone to overusing the mind-blurring stuff.

Absolutely. Which would amount to less than it costs to raise wheat. Which would mean more food and less dope.

If it weren't for the stupid war on drugs, the prices would reflect the cost of production

A news report the other day said more people die of alcohol abuse than from illegal and legal drugs combined. Which means El Chapo is right: it is the responsibility of the user not the supplier. If the government is to hold the supplier liable, then even Bud Lite is guilty.

Holy smoke, we have a grammarian.
When I first got into the Gulch, I was somewhat of a nagger about it until I realized that I was becoming an annoyance. I applaud your perspicacity.

Fair enough.

I of course agree with keeping government out of it. I only answered the applaud or condemn and chose condemn with my knowledge level.

I don't know of any comparison studies, but I know folks who have destroyed their lives with alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and prescription pills. I also know folks who use that stuff and function in society. I think that there are people who are more prone to addiction than others. My addiction is food and if I didn't curb my desire for it, I'd be one of those 600 pound persons you see on TV. The point is that the government should not be used to regulate individual use of anything so long as it doesn't affect others in a negative way.

I agree. My bad.

"it's main outcome"...ITS main outcome
reads smoother.......

You really think there is a good comparison between the two? As I said, I'm not that familiar with heroin but though it to be very addictive. Much more so than alcohol but maybe I'm wrong.

The same could be said for alcohol. Perhaps it is more elegant, but countless lives have been destroyed by it, yet the majority of "users" don't have that problem.

Re: High calorie food. I'd be both a murderer and a murdered one. Actually I'm with you on this. The image of a junkie lying dead with a needle in her/his arm is an image used to further regulation. I think that there would be less deaths and as you say, the price would drop immensely to the point where even a worker at entry level could afford it. One of the lies frequently put forth is that once you use it you are irrevocably hooked. Perhaps for some, but the majority of users can and often do use it recreationally.

I'm afraid I'm in the legalization camp. If someone wants to purchase and use heroine, it's their own business and government should not be using force to stop them.

Of course if it were legal it wouldn't be worth anything like 40 million dollars.

As for murder, does selling high calorie food count as murder as well?

Good question. I will go with condemn, since what I know about heroin is while it may make a person feel good for a short period of time, it's main outcome is destroying the user. Of course my knowledge of the product is very limited and have never tried it, nor will I.