That's why drug legalization is happening in a wholly different way. Over the last two decades, the FDA has become increasingly open to drugs designed for the treatment of depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their nature, likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is the product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice that began under Clinton and has increased under Bush. But another part is the widespread public acceptance of the idea that the effects drug users have always been seeking in their illicit drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now "treatments" as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because they're depressed or want to function better at work, that's drug trafficking; but taking antidepressants for similar purposes is practicing medicine.
This guy really needs to read more Erowid if he thinks that pharmaceuticals are closely matching the effects of many drugs. As far as I know there are non-Schedule I opiates and stimulants, and basically all of the benzodiazepines are legal-but-controlled. But the pharmaceutical industry is not exactly stumbling over itself to create a legal version of LSD or prescription Salvia or one-a-day his-n-hers Ecstasy doses, and I don't know of any legal analogue to marijuana (much less any particular strain).
This guy really needs to read more Erowid if he thinks that pharmaceuticals are closely matching the effects of many drugs. As far as I know there are non-Schedule I opiates and stimulants, and basically all of the benzodiazepines are legal-but-controlled. But the pharmaceutical industry is not exactly stumbling over itself to create a legal version of LSD or prescription Salvia or one-a-day his-n-hers Ecstasy doses, and I don't know of any legal analogue to marijuana (much less any particular strain).