This actually got my wife and I talking about our beliefs in legalisation; whilst we definitely 100% agree with decriminalising ice and legalising everything else - including heroin (for a LOT of very good reasons) - it is actually quite hard to argue for legalisation of ICE. (Though it should definitely be decriminalised).
I agree. I mean I have to establish that yeah, I believe that possession should 100% be decriminalized, turning users into criminals achieves nothing. But beyond that, most of the harms methamphetamine causes to it's users are inherent to the drug itself, not side effects of illegality that could be addressed by different controlled and legal distribution systems (like MDMA, opiates, hallucinogens, marijuana, etc). No amount of legality will make it less neurotoxic, less addictive, less likely to alter people's behavior, less likely to harm various organs (kidneys and cardiovascular system, directly, but the whole body indirectly via self harm, lack of sleep, etc. which seem to emerge in the majority of addicts).
Stimulants in general are a hard sell for legalization, for the same reason. Likewise, I would never in a million years support the legalization of cocaine, it's just too toxic in it's natural state.
The best I could get behind, given what we currently know, is oral dexamphetamine, made in abuse-proof formulas to prevent snorting/injecting (I know it's generally not the done thing here, but IV amphetamine use - racemic amphetamine at that, although god knows what the appeal is - is a big problem in some areas of the world, so it could become a problem if availability was increased by legalization if steps weren't taken to prevent it). Even then, I'm iffy, given the failure of the use of d-amp in attempts to create replacement therapy for meth addicts. Or perhaps another stimulant synthesized without the neurotoxicity and kidney damage (which granted could be a side effect of poor production methods, as I don't believe it occurs with pharmaceutical amphetamines) of meth or the awful cardiovascular damage of cocaine, a shorter duration to prevent it messing with sleep as much as meth does - a milder version of a methylphenidate/MDPV style dopamine reuptake inhibitor? Of course the latter is famous for inducing erratic behavior, sexual misconduct and fiendishness, and I've even seen similar fiendishness in people injecting methylphenidate.
In the end, I dunno. I'm just thinking out loud (metaphorically). I guess like every drug (and each individually), we need to be careful as we move along the spectrum from complete prohibition towards a form of regulated legality, taking small steps and scientifically evaluating the effect each time until we hit the ideal point which minimizes the overall harm caused by both the drug itself and the attempts to control it's use. We know the current system is failing horribly, but until we risk the first step along that spectrum and evaluate the effects, we won't know for sure which system
will work. But my suspicion is that when the dust settles in a century or so, stimulants will be the class of drug under the tightest control.
I don't bother even arguing with people about stuff like that anymore. Can't convince someone who thinks they're an expert because their mate told them something while they were smashed 2 years ago.
