Suggesting that anyone who uses meth must have a general disregard for the law is just prejudice.

It's perfectly rational to think that the law against meth use is unjust while being otherwise law abiding. Most people would consider drug use an issue of personal freedom.

>It's perfectly rational to think that the law against meth use is unjust while being otherwise law abiding.

"Otherwise law abiding"? That makes no sense. If you're considered law abiding by following only the laws you consider "just", then everyone is law abiding.

Law abiding literally means you follow the laws.

I would love to meet this person who wants to try meth, believes laws against possession of meth are unjust, and yet still follows them.

>> Most people would consider drug use an issue of personal freedom.

Not Trudeau or Biden.

USA's OSHA attempted to mandate use of a new drug. Canada still requires use of the new drug to visit or live there. Most of EU-country vaccine drug mandates expired June 1, and OSHA lost their court case months ago.

The difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine is small enough that different factions in the World Wars chose different molecules. Meth probably was the worse choice, but not by much.

There are millions of legal amphetamine users, some of whom are prescribed meth.

This kind of conversation is pretty useless without considering the health outcomes for that group of people, since those consequences are overwhelmingly positive.

Paul Erdös?

Maybe they would see it as less harmful when they can buy it at the corner store. Especially a generation growing up into a world where it is legal vs the one that saw it go from illegal to legal.

Decriminalition is not legalization. Those drugs will still be illegal to produce and distribute.

Still illegal to sell it at the corner store