> This of course doesn't solve the real problem which is consumption.

I object to your use of the definite article here. We can argue about the degree to which consumption is a problem vs. it leading to problems, moderate use, what particular drugs, etc... but making the police into the enemy of a large swath of our population is itself a real problem, gang violence to control distribution territory is itself a real problem, etc.

If people are doing things that hurt themselves that's bad, but it's important we don't cause worse problems (for those people or the rest of us) in trying to stop it, and legalization frees up huge resources that we could put toward educating people about the dangers of various drugs and cleaning up the mess when they don't listen.

Street price doesn't even need to drop: it is safer for customers to buy it at the local drug store (legal, pure drug) than on the street (unknown quality).

It might be safer but I'm not sure it's preferable. You see the local drug store owner knows you and there's still a stigma for drug consumption. Your local dealer on the other hand doesn't know you and you don't risk been exposed or stigmatized buying from him.

If on the contrary you take the huge profits part out of the equation then the whole network collapses; there just aren't enough money to support all the individuals involved in trafficking.

Re. your first paragraph, here is a counter-example: go to another town where they don't know you, purely to obtain your coke; problem solved.

Besides, haven't you heard the saying: "Always know your dealer"?

When the US legalized alcohol its use doubled, but alcohol abuse only went up around 15%. That is, people who will only use a substance if its legal will tend to use it responsibly. I expect that if we legalized other intoxicants they'd mostly displace alcohol, which would actually be a public health win for many currently illegal drugs. For the others, I expect that having the FDA ensuring a pure supply would be enough to make it a net good idea, even if its one with disadvantages.

Why is consumption the real problem?

Even if so, moving to a harm reduction / medical model is more likely to fix the addiction problem than criminalizing (or worse, militarizing) the consumption side of the equation.

Meth is very cheap already. Any changes?

From what I understand meth is produced really poorly by regional producers.

I think it would end up more expensive at your local pharmacy if legalized. The benefit would be you know you won't lose your teeth from the odd chemicals the producer is using.

(I could be horribly off on the details)

You are horribly off.

Methamphetamine is currently available at your local pharmacy. It's a generic drugs and costs less than a $1 per dose.

You don't lose your teeth from meth because of chemicals used in it's production, you lose them due to a combination of poor oral hygiene and reduced saliva production. The same thing happens if you abuse the stuff you can get at the pharmacy.

No because Meth can't create huge profits for drug cartels. Street price is too low when compared to heavy drugs. And it's the money that makes cartels invincible.