The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

Pseudoephedrine restrictions and unintended consequences

• Many argue moving pseudoephedrine behind the counter with quantity limits barely affected meth supply or price, but made effective decongestants harder to obtain.
• Others counter that limits did reduce small “shake‑and‑bake” labs and kept store shelves from being perpetually empty, even if total meth volume didn’t fall.

P2P vs ephedrine meth: chemistry, purity, and contaminants

• Several note that P2P “biker meth” predates ephedrine routes; current trends are a reversion after pseudoephedrine controls.
• Some suspect multi‑step P2P syntheses and certain reducing agents (lead, mercury) could introduce neurotoxic contaminants, possibly compounding harms.
• Others emphasize seized-meth testing, rising purity, and broad P2P adoption since ~2012 as evidence that contamination is not needed to explain worse outcomes; heavier use alone could account for more psychosis.
• One commenter points out the article doesn’t actually show strong evidence that modern users have higher schizophrenia rates; the whole premise may rest on anecdotes.

Prohibition, potency, and market dynamics

• Multiple comments reference the “iron law of prohibition”: harsher enforcement pushes more potent, compact drugs (fentanyl vs heroin, high‑purity meth).
• Some see pseudoephedrine control as shifting production from dispersed amateurs to large, industrial P2P labs, concentrating supply in more sophisticated organizations.

Legalization, regulation, and harm reduction

• One camp advocates legal, tightly regulated supply (dispensary-style, tracked quotas, guaranteed purity) to undercut cartels and reduce overdoses and contamination.
• Critics argue that for highly addictive, neurotoxic stimulants like meth, easy access—even “small amounts”—would fuel mass addiction, citing the opioid crisis as a cautionary tale.
• Others respond that the opioid crisis was driven by deceptive marketing and profit incentives, not simply legalization, and that state-run or non-profit models differ.
• Harm-reduction advocates stress: reliable supply, honest risk communication, and supervised programs; they criticize fearmongering, criminalization, and information censorship.

ADHD meds, prescription control, and black markets

• Commenters contrast shortages of prescription stimulants (due to production quotas and regulatory caps) with abundant illegal meth, arguing central control fails where black markets do not.
• Some tie looser telehealth prescribing to a demand spike; others emphasize that forcing access through medical gatekeeping helps maintain a thriving illicit market.

Health harms, neurotoxicity, and dose

• Several note meth’s strong neurotoxicity and association with long-term neurological disease and disability, especially at recreational doses far above therapeutic amphetamine levels.
• A debate emerges over whether occasional, “small” recreational doses could be relatively safe versus the reality that tolerance drives many users to extreme dosing.

Social impacts and lived experience

• Anecdotes describe rural towns “decimated” by meth use (e.g., widespread tooth loss), and specific subcultures (e.g., gay party scenes) where meth leads from marathon “fun” weekends to severe addiction and isolation.
• Some frame meth’s harms as partly policy-induced: when the only accessible stimulant is cheap, potent meth rather than safer or medically supervised alternatives.

Comparisons to alcohol and opioids

• Alcohol is used as a thought experiment: prohibition initially cut use but illicit markets and cultural factors eroded gains; regulated but restricted systems (e.g., state liquor monopolies) are cited as partial successes.
• Opinions diverge on whether the world would be “unambiguously better” without alcohol versus recognizing its social value despite harms.
• Opioids are invoked both as an example of catastrophic over‑prescription and as evidence that state‑run maintenance (e.g., methadone, medical heroin programs) can stabilize some users but remain narrow in scale.

Decriminalization experiments and policy tradeoffs

• Oregon’s recent broad decriminalization is widely described as a perceived failure that was partially rolled back, though some argue it was half‑measures that kept supply illegal while normalizing public use.
• One view: allowing use but not legal supply is “worst of both worlds”—more demand without displacing cartels. Another: making hard drugs hard to obtain remains a legitimate policy goal.

Miscellaneous points

• Some highlight DEA lab analysis of seized meth as strong evidence that authorities can distinguish synthesis routes and likely identify contaminant profiles.
• Commenters note the uncanny timing between rising meth purity and the cultural focus on purity in TV depictions, while others insist the show merely reflected real DEA intelligence.
• A side thread debates the broader inability of societies to reason about higher‑order effects and to design accountable systems that track real policy outcomes.