It's a provocative suggestion, isn't it? Shabu (methamphetamine) is destructive to one's health and well-being, so why would anyone say that it should be decriminalized? Wouldn't decriminalization encourage widespread use and lead to a societal meltdown? The short answer is no, it wouldn't.
Decriminalization could mean any number of things, however, so we'll take it one step further: shabu should be fully and radically decriminalized in the Philippines. There should be no government-enforced penalty for the use, possession, sale, or manufacturing of shabu (dangers related to production notwithstanding). Legalization is a viable option, but it implies taxation, which is theft, and governmental regulation, which is unnecessary. (Government as we know it is itself unnecessary, but that is a topic for another discussion.)
Before we talk about some of the reasons why shabu users, dealers, and manufacturers should be left alone, it needs to be made clear that methamphetamine should not be used. The highly-addictive substance is bad stuff, and its use should neither be commended nor encouraged. Within their own, respective spheres of influence, families, churches, individuals, and private organizations should discourage its use and facilitate help to those who need it.
So, why should government step out of the way? The first reason is purely ethical, and it is this: criminalization violates the non-aggression principle. This applies to the use, production, and sale of the drug. If non-violent individuals are engaging in free trade and it involves shabu, their business is their business, and it's wrong for anyone to initiate force against them. Just because a particular product is deemed undesirable for use (and it may very well be), it doesn't justify governmental coercion against those involved in its use, production, or distribution.
Given what has just been asserted, it needs to be plainly stated that all drugs should be decriminalized in the Philippines. Penalties for drug violations are inherently unjust, and they presuppose a view of government that needs to be challenged. As it pertains to drugs, arrest and imprisonment should be viewed as kidnapping, and--take note, Duterte supporters--execution should be seen as murder. Just because it's "the law" that prescribes such penalties, it doesn't make those penalties right. Initiation of force against non-violent individuals is immoral, and drug criminalization makes government an unjustified aggressor.
It might be objected that certain individuals given to drug use or involved in the drug trade are violent. Even so, this does nothing to justify prohibition and it ignores what should be glaringly obvious. Prohibition opens the door to violence, not only on the part of government against non-violent people, but also on the part of drug gangs who will go to any length to secure their monopolized power. It also drives up drug prices, resulting in certain addicts committing various crimes in order to afford purchase. Rather than validate a need for drug criminalization, these facts refute it.
There's more to consider. It has already been asserted that taxation is theft, and it is. Citizens are extorted out of their money and forced to pay for things that are better left to the free market. These things include health care, education, public roads, etc. They also include all of the expenses involved in drug criminalization, and they add up! Given what has been stated thus far, isn't it better to stop persecuting and imprisoning drug offenders altogether? It makes sense monetarily. Housing people in dungeons called prisons ain't exactly free, and neither is funding all of the drug warriors who make a living off of drug prohibition.
For the aforementioned reasons, shabu should be totally decriminalized in the Philippines. All drugs should be, and a step toward decriminalization would be a step in the right direction. The current drug war is more problematic than that which it is purportedly intended to fix. Moreover, it won't be won, but that's a topic for another post.