Should meth be legal?

[Occulus]

71. In reverse order:

"If prescription Meth is so safe, why is such a warning needed?"

Read the warning. That's why. But the real question is why is methamphetamine legal and occasionally prescribed to children, given it is so dangerous, yet medical cannabis is such an issue? "Should meth be legal" is already settled; it is legal, by prescription (which answers your first question as well).

"In any case, please allow me to re-phrase my original statement:

"I am of the opinion that when it comes to legalization of non-medical street drugs used for pleasure: if it comes from a seed bearing plant (or well spore!) and requires no refinement or other tweaking by man... then have at it!"

But why, exactly? Wherein lies the intrinsic moral or ethical difference between a naturally-occurring molecule and one that is synthetically produced? Is the application of heat, and anything beyond it, going too far? When, exactly, does the one become the other?

"LSD is a fine example of another drug I feel should not be legal (no matter how much i've enjoyed it). The simple fact is you really cannot predict how one will react to the substance with any degree of certainty. "

Actually, that is a one of those famous "known unknowns": LSD produces a different effect for each user. That's one of the most interesting things about the drug, actually. I haven't done it myself, but I've been told more than once that everyone should try it once.

"However, Meth from my perspective has zero actually valid uses"

I bring up Desoxyn as it relates to both cannabis and drug policy in general every time the topic comes up for this exact reason: the FDA, in fact, has already decided meth has valid medical uses (even in children), but cannot bring itself to say the same about cannabis. It's the absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy between the two that makes me question the entire concept of drug prohibition.

"Not exactly. As I understood the thread, this was about street drugs - drugs used to get high - not specifically for medical use. You assume a little too much base on what little i've said, but that's cool. My reply should be framed within the context of street drugs/drugs used for pleasure and not as an attack on things such as penicillin. "

The problem here is that the line between the two has become increasingly blurry over the years. Drug that were accepted as having medical value are suddenly prohibited, while others are being found to have more than one purpose, medical and non-medical, and becoming increasingly acceptable, both socially and in treatment scenarios, when they weren't before. Common prescription drugs are being abused more and more commonly, yet we won't even consider prohibiting outright a drug like Vicodin, despite its potential for abuse.

Our drug policy is a complete mess; we really ought to reconsider complete prohibition in general. I just don't see how complete prohibition helps the situation at all.