Interesting how you set a double standard where personal attacks are okay for you to engage in, but when I do it, it is somehow wrong?
My main and original point was to argue that drugs should be legal because the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't put into your body. Saying that meth is bad for you and makes you do crazy things really isn't arguing that point. One argument is about safety and the other is about personal liberty. As Ben Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I never once said that it was completely safe to use meth or that you couldn't get addicted to meth, but my main focus is that it is not the government's place to tell people what they can do to their own bodies, only to protect those rights from infringement by other people. The government is not meant to protect people from things they freely do to themselves. I don't see how you can generalize your experience to restrict the rights of other free people? That is like saying peanuts should be illegal simply because many people are allergic to them. It is a completely fascist thing to do.
Also, just because you experience something, that doesn't mean you have a good understanding of what is going on with your brain and body chemistry. Someone, especially an addict, is going to have a very hard time distinguishing between what aspects of their addiction are based on actual physical dependency, and what is psychological addiction. Also, someone who refuses to do any research on the topic really has no place in saying what is true for anyone but themselves, and even then might have no idea what is going on other then "i feel like crap without meth" and "meth makes me feel like crap".