And, understandably, you probably wouldn't give a damn about them and their issues and addictions. You'd just want revenge.
There are, of course, exceptional cases where people find compassion they never knew they had. But if we narrow it down to two distinct responses, if you had someone close to you hooked on P - most likely you'd want them to get help. And a stranger on P who creates havoc in your life - most likely you'd want them locked up and the key thrown away.
It's a double-edged sword, especially when we consider the recommendations from the Helen Clark Foundation and the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which have looked into the meth problem in New Zealand.
Their conclusion is simple - the war on drugs has failed, and they say it's time to stop making P users criminals because it doesn't do anything to get them off the drug and it only puts them on track for a lifetime of crime.
This makes perfect sense if we look at it from the perspective of someone who feels they're losing someone close to them because they're in the downward spiral of methamphetamine addiction.
Of course, I wouldn't want to see someone close to me locked away. I'd want them to get help.
And one of the things the Helen Clark Foundation and the Drug Foundation are recommending is that we help P addicts the same way we've helped people hooked on heroin for a long time here in New Zealand.
And what they're talking about there is the methadone programme.
You probably don't even blink an eye these days when you see former heroin addicts lining up to get their methadone, which they get to replace the heroin.
In fact, most of us when we see these people probably admire them for doing something to get their lives back on track. I certainly do.
So why wouldn't we do the same things for P addicts? It's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.
The challenge, though, is while we might like this sort of thing for P addicts we want to help. What about the ones we don't instinctively want to help?
The ones we don't know from a bar of soap who have only come into our lives because they're hooked on this awful drug and they only care about themselves - and getting their next hit - and they don't give a damn about anyone else. They certainly don't give a damn about you or me.
Until we can get ourselves to the point of caring enough for all P addicts, not just the ones who might happen to be in our family or friends of ours, then I don't see this idea of the Helen Clark Foundation and the Drug Foundation going anywhere.
Not making P addicts criminals and, instead, helping them get treated for their addiction sounds like a great idea when you haven't been at the receiving end. When you haven't had your house done over by a P addict desperate for anything that might help them buy more of the stuff. When you haven't lost someone who was perfectly innocent but who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and came a cropper because their path crossed with someone off their head on methamphetamine.
And this is the tension that comes with approaches like the ones being suggested by the Helen Clark Foundation and the Drug Foundation. They're saying the war on drugs has failed and instead of condemning P users, we need to care about them.
But are we ready to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Personally, I'm torn on this one. Because, of course, we should be helping anyone who's hooked on this awful, awful drug. But then the people hooked on it can become awful, awful people too - and giving a damn about them doesn't come easy does it?
So I'm ready to care - but there also still have to be consequences. Yes, treat the addiction but don't give someone a licence to do whatever they want and get away with it just because they're hooked on P.
