Methamphetamine is a derivative in the class of amphetamines (amphetamines being the family that was originally established by amphetamine). I know that's confusing. But, it has its own chemical structure, N-methylamphetamine, which is chemically distinct (yet extremely similar).
If your point is 'meth is an amphetamine', that's fine but it doesn't strengthen your arguments.
It’s basically bullshit to dismiss what they were saying on the basis of this pedantry.
Amphetamine is a structural class.
It’s also clearly true that people not versed in chemistry associate meth with amphetamine.
What’s ‘technically’ correct to a chemist really isn’t relevant to this debate.
We wouldn’t generally argue that it’s incorrect to say that champagne is wine, even though it’s more technically accurate to say that champagne is a wine.
In the case of amphetamine, we feel the need to make the distinction more strongly because the word has two meanings.
This is only true for those of use who are aware of the presence of both meanings.
Those who think of amphetamine as a class and don’t distinguish it from the substance are not wrong. They are just less precise.
This should be clear?
This should be clear?
A lot of people are going to think of meth when they see the word amphetamine. Likely most people.
Look no further then to this very thread.
This has always been true. Wouldn’t you say?
The end result is that the merge of the two ends up in the dictionary. Perhaps it's time to update the definitions but I doubt that 'amphetamine' will be defined as slang for 'meth' when in fact 'meth' is slang or short for 'methamphetamine'.
Just that as a lay term people think of meth as amphetamine in the way that people think of champagne as wine.
Meth is amphetamine.