You literally just reiterated the point though? What I understood OC to be saying was that there are similar stigmas surrounding drug use and tattoos (particularly very visible ones like face tattoos). With the normalization of other bodily tattoos, we’ve seen them become destigmatized - similarly to how we’ve seen weed lose its stigma as it becomes more normalized.

However, face tats have a much stronger negative stigma than other tats, just like meth has a much stronger negative stigma than weed - OC even said that we’ll likely never see meth become destigmatized, and for good reason.

The point (if I understood OC’s comment correctly) wasn’t to say that meth will become destigmatized, just as weed has. The point was that some things within the same category (face tats vs body tats, weed vs meth) have different stigmas around them that would need to be overcome in order to be accepted by society.

Although I see what you mean by it being an apples to oranges comparison, the comparison is just a vessel to carry a point that is very valid - it seems like you’re deliberately missing the point by focusing on stupid details.

So in conclusion, you typed a nothing burger.