Completely agreed. I glossed over this aspect because I felt like it distracted from discussing the core claim that amphetamine lacks potential as a recreationa

Completely agreed. I glossed over this aspect because I felt like it distracted from discussing the core claim that amphetamine lacks potential as a recreational drug, or that calling it 'speed' is somehow fundamentally inaccurate. (It's inaccurate in the sense you describe, that of regulated versus unregulated dosage. But saying you can't get a therapeutic benefit from what 'speed' refers to, often methamphetamine, triggered my pedant senses.) I've been told the same thing about meth's neurotoxicity, and that the major difference between the two drugs is that amphetamine is slightly neurally beneficial and methamphetamine is slightly neurotoxic at therapeutic doses.[0] I figure any neurotoxicity involved has to be slight enough for Desoxyn to stay out of Schedule I in the US. As a counterpoint, there's evidence that points to brain damage from antipsychotics and those are still definitely prescribed with regularity. (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/antipsychotics-and-shrinking-brain http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/antipsychotics-and-...) Of course, to my knowledge there's no real therapeutic replacement for antipsychotics whereas if methamphetamine was doing significant damage to patients it could almost always be swapped out for a safer drug. (Not to mention that methamphetamine was invented in the east and amphetamine in the west, so historically amphetamine has always been more popular than meth in western medicine to begin with.) [0]: A quick check of wikipedia corroborates.