Green, I wasn't speaking about illegality, but about civil liability relating to these products. You might think that these drugs should be treated like alcohol by the courts. Courts have generally held that alcohol per se isn't harmful; that is, they have ruled that alcohol isn't inherently dangerous unless abused.* As a result, alcohol manufactures have generally been shielded from civil action. But the dirty little secret is that judges are influenced by societal norms and pressures that cause them to make rulings that won't restrict access to alcohol or increase the cost of alcohol. Such policy concerns would generally not come in to play with hard drugs. Judges would not face societal pressure to shield manufacturers and distributors from the harms associated with their products. Consequently, I don't see drug stores carrying such products for fear of civil action.
*It's reasonably foreseeable that a substantial percentage of alcohol users will become addicted to their products and will harm themselves and others. It's difficult to see why the costs associated with alcohol should borne by society as whole, and not by alcohol producers, distributors, and retailers--the ones profiting from its sale.
