I would challenge even this framing. Amphetamines were widely used and abused between the 1940s and 1960s without social stigma. They are for sure a problematic class of chemicals, but I think the perception that they are uniquely dangerous is tied up in their present association with societal out groups, classism, and disdain for the rural poor, whereas cannabis has become accepted among the upper class.

You could make some arguments about relative health effects, but those just as easily apply to alcohol which we readily accept and consume in polite company.

In addition to classism, one of the consequences of the war on drugs is there's not much trustworthy data on drugs' relative impact. Nobody wants to teach high schoolers there are any safe drugs.

So I know people who smoke and drink without obviously destroying their lives. But if you asked me to rank those alongside meth, cocaine and chainsaw juggling for danger I've got nothing but guesswork.

OK I'm gonna challenge you on that. Amphetamine causes (even at low and occasional doses) insomnia, mania, extreme loss of appetite. When used for longer periods, it can cause disordered thinking, delusions, paranoia, invasion of Russia..

We already does millions of people in America at least with Adderall which is an amphetamines not molecularly very different from Methamphetamine. It turns out to be mostly safe for most people, whether it good for you or me to use is a different question.

Also linking amphetamines to Nazis in order to demonize users is just ridiculous.

My mother has had dental problems her whole life because of the 1950s fad of putting little kids on meth to lose weight.

The primary mechanism for "meth mouth" and similar oral health issues are dry mouth and teeth clenching which can be caused by a number of stimulants including caffeine(at moderate to high doses of ~6 cups of coffee). The remedy for which seems to be drinking a lot of water.

That said, it's obviously bad to give children diet drugs but that has no real bearing on how we treat recreational drug users who are adults.

What the hell?! Do you have a link or source on that? That sounds horrible :(

This was likely the brand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obetrol

Part of the problem is that the education is left to less reputable corners of the web.

There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence of the damage that can be done by abuse of internet porn. I could add to that.

But we have those with credentials who have made a good career out of attacking the very notion that porn can be harmful or can be abused. I'm not saying it's shilling, it could just be success by contrarianism, but it's still rather invalidating.

If you are in a position where you think porn is doing you harm, it probably is. But one of the first things you find if you go down that path is that information tends to be on the extremes.

But it is something like a person selling both weed and meth next to each other, without any communication or acknowledgement that one is significantly more likely to cause harm.

Maybe. I propose that it's a question of context.

If pot were legal, maybe people would be happy to get high on that at stop there. I think there are two issues at play, both going in the same direction.

1. If buying pot is going to carry the same risk as buying meth, and I can get higher for the same quantity of meth (I assume meth is more potent per unit of volume) it would make some sense for me to try to get meth, or at the very least to be interested when someone offers, especially if I'm not 100% sure when I'll be able to buy more pot.

2. There is also a question of trust. If the government says pot is as bad as meth (both schedule 1, I hear about big police operations taking down pot dealers, etc) they I might believe them. After all, what do I know? I just want to get high. So when I get to try some pot, see that I like it, see many people smoking pot without much harm, I figure I might as well try some meth. Especially given point 1 above.