> What I'm saying is that there effectively exists a non-partisan international agreement to actively surpress the emergence of the free (as in speech) drugs trade.

I agree that there's an attempt to suppress. My point is that this attempt hasn't produced a significant shortage or any of the benefits that we'd supposedly get from making drugs unavailable.

It's sort of like running an air conditioner outdoors. One can feel a temperature differential if one stands in exactly the right place but otherwise it's a complete waste of energy.

> If this pressure were to let up, even in only a few of these countries, this would surely cause an economic vacuum that would be for all intents and purposes like a gold rush(?).

Legalization might change the players, but there's no vacuum.

> Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.

Huh?