My objections are a) there is so much more to a drug than how addictive it is, b) no one said anything about deregulation per se (you can have a regulated legal

My objections are a) there is so much more to a drug than how addictive it is, b) no one said anything about deregulation per se (you can have a regulated legal market), c) your analysis has an implicit anti-capitalistic and snobbish bias against the public to make its own decisions, d) it isn't even true that only huge corporate players will have a hand, especially in drugs that have a very low barrier to entry in cultivating such as cannabis, e) your argument from the ill-defined "medical utility" ignores that illegality hampers medical research to lesser or greater extent, f) you are ignoring regulatory capture is a significant issue in pharma company troubles and g) you clearly do not understand public choice theory. Though I think it's clear you believe in copious use of intervention against individuals and have a hatred or fear of capitalism and free association in order to make such a batshit argument as arguing for cartel violence and regional destabilization because the prospect of corporate profits terrifies you so much. EDIT: Scanning your post history, you make a reference to "the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine". You might have been facetious at that time, but I believe it reflects a general attitude you hold that is spiteful. I hope you at least do not believe in discredited economic doctrines such as tendency for the rate of profit to fall, or labor theory of value. EDIT #2: You also believe that free market players are purely profit-maximizing "with behavior only moderated by applicable government regulations". This is plain false, even by a left-leaning Post-Keynesian analysis. You also again do not understand public choice theory in the slightest and how endogenous regulations emerge by transaction costs and private property (e.g. Coase theorem). You hold a lot of fallacies.