@4DQSAR interesting post quite a bit to unpack here!
right drug right time - sure I get that, but you could say the same for LSD which is still around
historic pricing - yes agree as well, but price/demand elasticity is a big factor here, smaller current market/demand = lower production = higher pricing
RC market and low prices - yes that's definitely a factor for RC and how things have gone with that market, and agree that's driving the produces down a certain direction, but it's the eternal cat and mouse game for them trying to "find the next big thing", given where regulation has gone my gut feel is we won't have a similar explosion of new drugs hitting the market because there won't be such wide spread availability of people to try things again (unless they target markets with poorer regulation e.g. africa), in other words we lack the ability for large scale human trials of new illicit drugs, this dents confidence for people buying new things and therefore slows down market adoption
Does methaqualone have an economic disadvantage because of it's low potency - if it were a new drug entering the market then I think you would have a much stronger point, though I do agree that from a producers perspective the issue is that you have a larger barrier to wait for people to become addicted to it due to it's potency, addiction drives repeat business....and there are alternatives which work (arguably) better than ludes to achieve better results i.e. benzos.
I guess a different way of looking at this is, do the cartels/OCGs want a share of the pharma benzo market by introducing something that competes with it directly, either benzo RC, or alternative compound that takes some of the market down a different route. OR is selling pharma products with a smaller margin profitable enough that they just don't care. Ludes are already an established drug, so launching them into the market is much easier.
it's a simple thing to look at imho, market size, market share. margin, sales, production cost - I've not run the numbers but in my head I'm struggling how this doesn't add up. Maybe it's more an issue of finite resources v return.
Lude related deaths - no doubt whatever the underling reason there was harm caused by ludes at the time, this was a big driver for the ban. But I think this is so so much lower in numbers that the opioid crisis we're currently in, like multiple orders of magnitude difference, I'm not sure it's relevant enough to today.
Survivor bias - hmm, I get your point but not sure I buy it to be honest. Yes people look back with rose tinted glasses, but there are plenty of contemporary reports, studies and papers that looked at lude use at the time which I think mitigate this from a being a major issue imho. I think we have a decent and true enough reflection of the impact that ludes had both good and bad that I suspect survivor bais isn't a major issue. If anything my perception is actually the other way, most modern reports I read from people who use ludes at the time generally enjoyed/loved them but didn't think there were as good as the romanticised view that the media has created around them