The Myth That “Legalizing Drugs Would Be a Disaster” — And What the Evidence Actually Shows

If the prohibitionist “floodgates” theory were true, Portugal should be a public health cautionary tale. Instead it’s one of the strongest counter-examples on earth.

Cannabis Legalization: Less Drama, More Boring Normalcy

Multiple U.S. states, Canada, and Uruguay have legalized and regulated cannabis. If legalization was inherently catastrophic, we’d see it there first.

What the data show so far from places like Colorado, Washington, and Canada:

• No consistent large spike in youth use. Some places show small increases, some show no change, some even show decreases in teen use — likely because legal markets card people and underground dealers don’t.
• Adult use increases modestly (because people substitute from illicit to legal supply, or feel safer admitting use), but not some runaway epidemic.
• Arrests for cannabis possession plummet, which means fewer lives derailed by criminal records for something millions were already doing.

So yes, when you legalize and regulate a substance, reported use may rise somewhat because people no longer have to lie about it. But the apocalyptic vision of a society instantly consumed by addiction? It’s just that — a story.

Myth #2: “Legalization Fuels Crime”

This one’s especially backwards. Prohibition literally creates drug markets that are only governed by violence. When distribution is illegal, you can’t sue over a bad deal, you can’t call the police if someone robs you, and you can’t advertise or compete on quality openly. The enforcement mechanism becomes guns and intimidation, not contracts and regulators.

Ending Prohibition Shrinks the Illicit Market

Look at cannabis legalization again:

• Legal markets have cut deeply into the illegal trade, especially for local supply. Cross-border smuggling to those regions drops because why smuggle into a place where people can buy tested product in a store?
• Police, court, and prison resources once spent chasing low-level cannabis offenses are freed up for actual crimes with victims.
• Violence associated with illicit cannabis trafficking falls because the profit margins and monopoly power of criminal organisations shrink.

When something is legal and regulated, disputes go through lawyers, regulators, or consumer protection channels — not through shootings. That’s not a theory; it’s how we handle literally every legal product, from alcohol to cars.

The Black-Market Violence Prohibitionists Never Own

Drug prohibition is a subsidy to organized crime. It artificially inflates prices, keeps supply unregulated, and guarantees a steady flow of desperate customers whose addiction or dependence is treated as a police issue instead of a health issue.

Making substances legal and regulated doesn’t magically eliminate all illicit markets. But it absolutely shrinks them and undercuts their profit. Just ask the bootleggers what alcohol prohibition repeal did to their business model.

Myth #3: “We Need Harsh Laws to Protect People from Themselves”

This is the paternalistic argument: adults can’t be trusted with their own bodies, so the state must punish them for their own good. Somehow this logic never seems to apply to alcohol, tobacco, fast food, or extreme sports — all of which can be lethal. Funny how that works when there’s major corporate money and tax revenue involved.

Criminalization Doesn’t Prevent Use — It Just Adds Trauma

People use psychoactive substances for all kinds of reasons: pleasure, pain relief, coping with trauma, curiosity, cultural practice, self-medication. Slapping handcuffs on them doesn’t magically resolve those reasons — it just adds new ones:

• Criminal records that wreck employment and housing prospects.
• Incarceration that exposes people to violence, trauma, and stronger drugs.
• Stigma that pushes people away from honest conversations and health services.

Every time a government claims it’s “protecting” people by arresting and jailing them for drug use, it’s lying. It is protecting its own authority, budgets, and law-enforcement machinery — not human beings.

Health Approaches Work Better Than Handcuffs

Countries that treat drug use primarily as a health and social issue do better than the punishment model:

• Portugal redirected people to “dissuasion commissions” and health support instead of prison. Result: fewer deaths, more treatment, less HIV. Still not utopia, but objectively better.
• Switzerland and other European nations that introduced heroin-assisted treatment saw large drops in overdose deaths, HIV, and crime among participants, while stabilizing chaotic lives.
• Supervised consumption sites in places like Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe show clear reductions in overdose deaths, public injecting, and syringe litter — without increasing local crime or use.

If the real goal is to reduce harm, you follow evidence. If the goal is moral theater and control, you cling to punishment long after it’s failed.

Myth #4: “Regulated Supply Sends the Wrong Message”

“But if we legalize or regulate drugs, aren’t we saying drugs are okay?”

No. We’re saying reality exists. We’re saying that adults make choices — some wise, some reckless, some in between — and that public policy should reduce avoidable harm rather than pretend abstinence is the only respectable option.

Also, let’s not pretend the current message is coherent. Governments that sell alcohol and tobacco — two of the most harmful drugs by any serious metric — while jailing people for possessing a gram of powder, do not have the moral high ground. They have a revenue stream and a hypocrisy problem.

Regulation Is Literally How We Manage Risk Everywhere Else

For substances, “regulated” doesn’t mean “harmless.” It means:

• Known dose and purity instead of Russian roulette with fentanyl, adulterants, or mis-sold pills.
• Age restrictions, packaging rules, and marketing limitations.
• Clear labeling, warnings, and access to accurate information.
• Taxation that can be used to fund treatment, education, and harm reduction.

We do this with alcohol. We do this with pharmaceuticals. We even do it with products like energy drinks and supplements. But for many psychoactive substances, we choose the one model guaranteed to be the least safe: total prohibition, with zero quality control, and all safety decisions outsourced to the underground market.

Reality Check: Prohibition Is the Dangerous Experiment

The prohibitionist narrative frames legalization and decriminalization as risky social experiments. In truth, the giant, deadly experiment has been the century-long global war on drugs — and it has failed on its own stated terms.

• Drugs are more available than ever, in more potent forms, via more channels (including the internet).
• Overdose deaths in places like North America are catastrophic, driven overwhelmingly by an unregulated, unpredictable illicit supply.
• Entire communities — particularly Black, brown, Indigenous, and poor communities — have been over-policed, over-incarcerated, and economically gutted in the name of “drug control.”

This isn’t collateral damage; it’s the design. Criminalization gives law enforcement enormous discretion — which, in unequal societies, always means selective enforcement.

The Fentanyl Crisis: A Prohibition-Made Disaster

The current synthetic opioid crisis is presented as proof we need harsher crackdowns. It’s actually Exhibit A for how prohibition constantly makes things worse:

• As law enforcement cracks down on one substance, suppliers move to more potent, compact, and profitable alternatives (heroin → fentanyl → nitazenes, etc.).
• People who use drugs have no reliable way to know what they’re actually taking or in what dose — so overdoses skyrocket.
• Instead of providing safe supply, drug checking, and widely available opioid substitution therapies, many governments double down on punishment and rhetoric.

If these same substances were under a regulated framework — with known content, supervised options, and accessible treatment — the landscape of overdose deaths would look radically different. Not perfect. But not this.

So What Does a Sane Drug Policy Look Like?

If handcuffs, stigma, and black markets are the problem, what’s the alternative? A rational, rights-respecting drug policy would have at least these pillars:

1. Decriminalize Personal Use and Possession

No adult should face criminal penalties for possessing drugs for personal use. Full stop.

• Remove criminal penalties for possession and use.
• Expunge prior convictions for such offenses where possible.
• Redirect resources from policing to health, housing, and social support.

This doesn’t mean “no rules.” It means stopping the uniquely harmful and pointless practice of branding people as criminals for what they put in their own bodies.

2. Create Regulated Supply Systems

Different substances will need different models, but the core logic is simple: bring production and supply out of the shadows and under regulatory control.

• Cannabis: licensed production, retail storefronts, age limits, labeling, tax, and quality control — as many jurisdictions already do.
• Opioids: expanded opioid substitution therapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine), plus heroin-assisted treatment and safe supply for those who don’t respond to or want substitution alone.
• Stimulants and other drugs: controlled access models (e.g., prescriptions, regulated clubs, or specialized dispensaries) with strong harm reduction integration.

The point isn’t to create a new corporate free-for-all, like Big Tobacco in the 20th century. It’s to design markets — or non-commercial access models — that prioritize health, transparency, and community control over raw profit.

3. Fund Harm Reduction Like We Actually Care If People Live

Harm reduction is not a radical idea. It’s simply meeting people where they are, with tools that reduce risk instead of pretending abstinence is the only morally acceptable behavior.

• Supervised consumption sites and overdose prevention centers.
• Drug checking services (reagent tests, spectrometry, etc.).
• Widespread naloxone access and training.
• Needle and syringe programs.
• Non-judgmental education that covers dosage, interactions, and safer use practices.

Every serious evaluation of these services shows the same thing: they prevent deaths and disease, and do not increase overall drug use. Prohibitionists hate them because they blow up the fiction that you have to choose between “enabling” and “condemning.” You can simply choose keeping people alive.

4. Center Bodily Autonomy and Civil Liberties

At the core, this is about power. Who controls your body — you, or the state? If the government can cage you, take your kids, or strip you of your rights because you used the wrong substance, your bodily autonomy is conditional at best.

Adult, informed consent should be the baseline principle. That doesn’t mean no boundaries or social responsibilities; it means the state doesn’t get to claim ownership of your nervous system in the name of “protection.”

The Real “Disaster” Is Sticking With a Policy That Keeps Failing

Prohibitionists sell fear. They promise safety, but deliver unsafe supply, mass incarceration, corrupted policing, and staggering death tolls. Then, when those harms materialize, they point to the chaos they helped create and say: “See? Drugs are the problem.”

This circular logic has had a 100-year run. It’s time to retire it.

Decriminalization and regulated supply are not silver bullets, and no serious person claims they are. They are simply better tools — evidence-based, rights-respecting, and grounded in reality — compared to the blunt weapon of prohibition.

Adults will continue to use psychoactive substances. The real choice isn’t “drugs or no drugs.” The real choice is:

• Prohibition: uncontrolled black markets, contaminated supply, preventable deaths, racialized enforcement, and lifelong punishment for personal choices.
• Decriminalization + Regulation: safer supply, fewer deaths, reduced crime, honest education, and respect for bodily autonomy.

One of those models has already failed in plain view. The other is imperfect, but demonstrably better where it’s been tried.

So when someone insists that legalization or decriminalization would be “a disaster,” ask a simple question: compared to what? Because staying the course on the war on drugs isn’t neutral. It’s a decision to keep doing what we know is killing people — and to pretend that’s what “safety” looks like.

—
Tags: drug policy, harm reduction, legalization, antiprohibit, debate