(Don’t) Legalise P

Blair Mulholland thinks that legalising P is a good idea.

What would happen if we legalised P?  Would more people try it?  Possibly.  Would more people become addicted to it?  Maybe.  How many?  Probably not many. … 99% would try it once for the novelty value, stay awake for the next two days, and that would be it.

So lets assume that we legalise P, and, despite the complete lack of logical sense it makes, all our worst fears are realised – “meth dens” are set up all over the country and it becomes the recreational drug of choice for the masses.  Even then, would we get the same level, or greater, of crime as we see now, while the drug is illegal?  Of course not.  If you can pay five bucks for a hit, the motive to rob a bank, the motive to set up your own lab and blow yourself up, the motive to shoot undercover cops and liquor store owners all disappears.  You’d still get people going crazy from staying awake for a week and you wouldn’t stop tragedies like the death of Coral Burrows, but would those problems increase enough so as to make prohibition a viable preventative step over and above what we know the fruits of prohibition to be?  The answer is an emphatic no.

There’s one problem with this. Pure methamphetamine is so addictive that people would most emphatically not stop after the first try. They’d try it again. All I have heard (and I even had a neighbor who was previously addicted to it) is that this drug captures you the first, or at most second time you use it and then that’s it – you’re addicted and it’s incredibly hard to get out. So if only 25% of the population try it, that’s at least 20% who are going to be addicted.

What happens then? Addicts are able to purchase it for $5, so their money would last longer – assuming that they didn’t just ramp up their addiction instead. So a year or two down the track they’ve lost everything. What do they do then?

Well, my bet would be that the portion of the population who would be addicted by that stage would start stealing. Sure, you don’t need to rob a bank to get $5. You can just purse snatch for that, or smash someone’s window or whatever. Trivial stuff.

Except that every time my window gets smashed for the sake of $5, the cost to me or my insurance company is more like $100 or more. Who pays for that? Why, I do and the jolly taxpayer who has to foot the bill for increased police to fight petty crime and people “going crazy”.

So I end up paying at least twice for some libertarian’s “victimless crime”. I’ll pass, thanks.

Now, it could well be that these people are able to maintain jobs, or stay on the dole. But this drug affects the ability to perform various tasks, meaning that non-drug takers have to make up for the lesser performance of their drug taking colleagues (assuming office work, those working outside or on machinery are at risk of injury or death), or through their taxes. Wait, aren’t taxes supposed to be abolished in a libertarian society?

Yep, I’ll pass on the cheap P. No thanks.

Come to think of it, didn’t the gangs declare war on this drug some time back? So criminal gangs have banded it, why do liberterians still think it’s ok?


  1. Blair Mulholland: There’s no way something should be legalised just because it’s legalisation would act as a sort of deterrent to try it. What do you think, that things such as gay marriage and prostitution were legalised just because there was a possibility that less people would adopt these lifestyles if they were legalised? Possibly that was a major reason why some politicians backed the legalisation of those things but, when it really comes down to it, it’s perfectly acceptable for people to be gay (they can’t actually help it, and so that’s why it should continue to remain legal), it’s perfectly acceptable to be a prostitute (it’s their body and so it’s their choice), but it’s not acceptable at all to be a P addict (and this is why it
    shouldn’t be legalised, because it only takes one time to become an addict). It’s so pure and so potent that it’s like a possession the devil left behind after he visited earth or something like that, you know what I mean?

    Make it about 5% methamphetamine (or something like 2% to be even safer) and I’d be there in a heartbeat, have a good old time and get high and definitely bring along some tinnies to get us started, but the pure stuff? No fucking way I’m trying that. I’ll never be that much of a druggee! 🙂

    And by the way, in regards to the concept that legalising things makes people have less of a desire to try them: before prostitution was legalised, a lot of the pubs were about one quarter full of hot young blonde ladies willing to fuck a guy for free (at least in central Auckland and Wellington). They were hesitant to prostitute themselves because it meant they faced a high risk of getting caught and going to prison. What do you think happened after prostitution was legalised? Suddenly, my son has to go to the bank, withdraw the equivalent of about three bloody weeks worth of his savings, and bloody well pay for some action in the sexual department. Hey, as I said, I’m all for the continuation of legal prostitution, but it just illustrates how your way of thinking is off on this issue.

  2. There are obvious flaws in these arguments.

    Firstly, why would you necessarily stop earning money if you were addicted to P? It’s a stimulant. Darren McDonald read the evening news on it. People actually take methamphetamines to improve their productivity.

    Secondly you are assuming a 100% addiction rate. I know plenty of people who have tried it and are not addicts. I’m not sure the legal status made any difference to those people.

    Your allegations of secondary harm are highly hypothetical and do not justify your argument. What if the moon is made of green cheese too?

    As for Jane’s prostitution analogy – WTF?!

  3. Interestingly, a day or two after writing this post (which you appear to have not read very carefully) I saw a cop program from LA.

    Crack there is something like $10 a hit.

    Yet the crackheads were committing crime to pay for it.

    Yes, many people manage to hold down jobs while addicted. But due to the nature of the addiction, those who don’t get help end up on the street sooner or later, having spent their last dollar trying to get high.

    Then, they start the petty crime.

    Just because a drug is cheap, doesn’t mean it can’t destroy your life.

    ….oh, and that’s not an uncommon response to Jane 😉

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: