I don't like it at all. There is absolutely no reason to try to clear up the baggage of what meth is. I realize that some people can binge on it and have a lot of fun, and it's up to their discretion, but this comes with responsibility and being informed about what it is capable of.
This guy is, for some reason, trying to clear up something nobody I've seen tries to argue. It just makes no sense to me why he would spend his time on this drug, as opposed to working about the glaring, and 100x more powerful misconceptions about much more important illegal drugs such as LSD and Psilocibin mushrooms.
It boggles my mind why anyone would want to go the way of, 'oh, meth isn't so bad, we treat kids with it.' No. We don't. We give them amphetamines, and way too much of them as it is. It's incontrovertibly addictive and destroys people, and yet we should spend some time and divert our efforts from things that should be a priority.
At the very least, the article in question is misleading. (this may have to do more with the author of the article, not the researcher, actually, now that I read it again.)
Growing familiarity with marijuana has been accompanied by growing support for legalization because people discovered through personal experience that the government was lying to them about the drug’s hazards. But it is easier to demonize less popular drugs such as crack cocaine and methamphetamine, which in the public mind are still linked, as marijuana once was, with addiction, madness, and violence. Any attempt to question the use of force in dealing with these drugs therefore must begin by separating reality from horror stories.
This first paragraph mentions legalization as if it applies to meth and crack. No serious movement exists to support the cause. Also, it is off course because it says we should dispel the horror stories in order to fight the use of force when dealing with an addictive substance, completely failing to mention that it doesn't matter what the drug makes someone do when it comes to the war on drugs. It fails to mention that it is already apparent to a sober mind that treating addicts as if patients, rather than criminals, is much more effective. Effective, period. Again, off track, and a diversion.
It then goes on to say that "only 10-20%" of people become addicted. Wtf? How is that a remotely low figure? Madness.
Honestly, it's the reporter. Any neuroscientist working on illegal drug research is at the forefront of his field. The conclusions this article draws are ridiculous, though.