It’s not clear to me that making it legal was the problem. The marketing was catastrophic. The amount of messaging, in doctors’ offices and otherwise, about using long-acting painkillers, getting ahead of the pain, making sure your pain was treated, etc was ridiculous.
Nowadays, the messaging is quite different. And we’re starting to learn that the opioids may not even work for the things people like using them for, regardless of how dangerous they are:
I'm sure the marketing for legalized Meth will be more responsible (just like it is for everything else that isn't good for us).
What is the compulsion to find some tiny fragment of an argument to go against the obvious? Maybe it's because you'd need an absolutely idealized scenario to take legalizing drug use seriously.
You know those countries that legalized drugs? Feel free to look up how well that's going.
We should stop all the current Meth marketing...that'll solve the addiction problem for sure.
What are all these scenarios where policy makers have absolute control of how drugs are sold and consumed? Meth is illegal, as in we don't allow "marketing" today. But if it was legal, it'll only be the marketing that will be the potential problem? What is the point of these arguments? The low enforcement/legalization options have been tried in various places in various ways, not one has gone well. Besides magical thinking, what is the actual argument that legalizing drugs makes it less of a problem?
Marketing of legal prescription drugs can be restricted in certain ways, but it has to be allowed unless we modify the First Amendment. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and can't be casually eliminated just because we don't like the results.
Advertisements for prescription drugs are very heavily restricted in the US. And, as far as I know, companies selling prescription drugs may not encourage doctors to use them arbitrarily.
I don’t know whether anyone has ever tested the constitutionality of the relevant laws and regulations, but they exist and are enforced.
Is that the overwhelming opinion of legal scholars?
I think I would be just fine with a change like that. If sales of a product can be restricted, why should advertising for that product need to be unrestricted?
It doesn't feel to me like advertising is more of a fundamental right than engaging in sales.
I don’t, and never have, seen posters in doctors’ offices suggesting that patients get ahead of their symptoms (of hunger? sleepiness? distraction?) by taking prescription meth. And I’ve never heard any suggestion that the high incidence of methamphetamine is caused by its legality.
I didn't say that, just pointing out that a lot of these illegal drugs have already legal analogs that are quite similar in chemical composition. (If I were to make an argument here, it'd be more along the lines that we're overdiagnosing ADHD and overprescribing stimulants)
If you had any experience with this at all you would realize how profoundly ignorant it is to conflate the downstream effects of meth with adderall. Anyone reading this please please do not make this mistake.
I know some people that are (former) meth addicts, and you know where they got their start? I'll give you a hint, it happened when the doctors stopped prescribing their ADHD meds or they wanted a higher dose. Just sayin'
Nowadays, the messaging is quite different. And we’re starting to learn that the opioids may not even work for the things people like using them for, regardless of how dangerous they are:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Yes, that’s an RCT with oxycodone users reporting more pain after 6 weeks compared to placebo.