Quote:
We took Vioxx off the market because a small number of people had serious complications, despite the large number of people who were happily using it.

That's true, but the complications weren't due to misuse and it was impossible to find the subset of people who would get those complications.

In addition, comparing prescription drugs to recreational drugs isn't a very good path. After all, alcohol can cause lightheadedness, reduced motor function, liver dysfunction, and death in everyone, not just a subset, and it's still legal. In fact, some of those "side effects" are the reason it's ingested in the first place. For that matter, peanuts can cause serious complications in a subset of people, but they're not restricted. That's because alcohol and peanuts are effectively both recreational. (I know the peanut thing is a stretch, but you get my meaning.)

Quote:
the criminal element would disappear (which appears to have worked with alcohol, but it's less clear that it's worked with gambling)

Yes, but gambling is an incredibly easy way to launder large sums of cash, whereas alcohol sales are not, nor would sales of other products, including meth, be.

Quote:
Who would be willing to take on the liability and lawsuits that would result?

Are there lawsuits against Pernod Ricard now? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Of course, there are lawsuits against tobacco manufacturers. What's the difference there?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk