> Sure, what you're saying may be true of coffee vs. cocaine and aspirin vs. heroin, but there are plenty of pharmaceutical companies establishing new markets i

> Sure, what you're saying may be true of coffee vs. cocaine and aspirin vs. heroin, but there are plenty of pharmaceutical companies establishing new markets in the vast swaths of grey that lie in between. That's the whole point here. I understood the point, which I would summarize thusly: We can't have a law enforcement regime of prohibition against "drugs" because who can say what a "drug" is, anyway? Was the article well researched and well-written? I don't deny it and don't need to. This, to me, is unbelievably stupid and utterly unconvincing to anyone who supports the current approach to prohibition. Call me a nitwit all you want, but this argument is exactly the wrong one to end the drug war.