One of two things will happen, depending on whether a drug is inherently harmful or not:

1) if a drug is inherently harmful, its (ab)users will not be able to reach any influential position in society, and the stigma will stay

2) if a drug is not inherently harmful, a certain percentage of its users will reach influential positions and thus remove the stigma by being the proof of its harmlessness

For some drugs, like meth and heroin, 2) will most likely never happen. Those drugs are very hard to control and have a tendency to take over users' lives, rendering everything else in their lives irrelevant.

For other drugs, like marijuana, we are already seeing 2) happening in many countries around the world, including USA and European Union.

Meh meth is prescribed for some adhd cases today and those people are totally functional and fine. Same with their other cousins. Same with painkillers.

Its just they have abuse potential, especially opioid’s, and that is why you have to be careful about it.

Its the entire schedule 1 bullshit that prevents usage of some, and those are political.

Methamphetamine is perfectly safe when used correctly. The problem, obviously, is trust and self-control. Because it's so potent and crosses the blood-brain barrier easier, IIRC it has less intense physical side effects compared to the equivalent (in terms of mental effects) D-amphetamine dose.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-many-surprising-health-...

Desoxyn (meth) works the best out of all adhd meds for me. Magically light and effective touch.

How exactly do you go about asking your doctor to try meth?

Even asking for D-amphetamine (superior to Adderall imo, because Adderall contains L-amphetamine which has unpleasant physical effects) is already a tall order. I've read of doctors getting "flagged" for prescribing it.

You don't go in asking for a specific med. You go in for ADHD symptoms and work with your doctor from there trying different medications and dosages to find one that fits you.

It has the best patient rating of any drug. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/know-your-amphetamines...

"Hart is known for his research on drug abuse and drug addiction, for his advocacy for the decriminalization of recreational drugs, for his controversial view that drug use is not necessarily unhealthy, and for his acknowledged use of heroin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart

Meth is less neurotoxic/harmful than MDMA.

It is far more powerful, and cheaper, and prevents sleep - that is the most dangerous. The tendency to re-dose is high enough to be difficult for low-willpower people to not succumb to.

Heroin, opiates, and opoids, can also be used with a relatively decent risk-profile. The potential for addiction is higher, once tolerance is established.

Xanax makes meth and heroin look like kid's toys.

Don't take Xanax except for when you genuinely feel like you may hurt yourself.

What’s the science behind Xanax being more potent than the other drugs you listed? How about compared to fentanyl or morphine?

This argument doesn’t seem sound. Stigma for drugs increases and decreases over time. That wouldn’t happen if it was a question of the drug being inherently harmful or not. You seemed to have missed a third case of opponents of a drug becoming more powerful than its users and sympathizers. See US prohibition of alcohol and the global criminalization of many drugs in ~1971.

Hitler was a pretty regular drug user of both meth and Heroin.

Given Nazí occultism, I think he was not the only one, and that they didn't have it entirely under control too. I think the occultists got themselves stimulant psychosis.