The “Drugs Destroy Society” Myth: Why Prohibition Does More Damage Than Any Substance

Every drug war sermon has the same greatest hit: “Drugs destroy society.” The script is predictable—if we decriminalize or legalize, addiction will explode, crime will soar, kids will be ruined, and civilization will collapse by Tuesday.

That’s the fearmongering. Now let’s talk facts.

In reality, it’s prohibition—not drugs themselves—that has done the most damage to people, communities, and basic civil liberties. When you compare places that doubled down on punishment with those that moved toward decriminalization and regulation, a very clear pattern emerges:

• Punitive prohibition = more deaths, more crime, more disease, more incarceration.
• Decriminalization & regulation = fewer deaths, safer use, less crime, more control.

This isn’t a philosophical debate anymore. We’ve got decades of real-world evidence. The “drugs destroy society” talking point is not just wrong—it’s upside down.

The Core Prohibitionist Claim: “If We Legalize, Everything Gets Worse”

Let’s steelman the prohibitionist argument as cleanly as possible. It usually boils down to a few claims:

1. Drugs are uniquely dangerous and inevitably lead to addiction, crime, and social decline.
2. Criminalization is necessary to deter use and keep people safe.
3. Legalization or decriminalization “normalizes” drugs, increases use, especially among youth, and overwhelms health systems.
4. Regulated markets are just “Big Tobacco 2.0” that will market addiction to everyone.

Sounds dramatic. It’s also historically illiterate, scientifically flimsy, and politically convenient for the people who profit from mass punishment while pretending it’s public health.

Reality Check #1: Prohibition Has Never Stopped Drug Use

If banning a substance actually worked, the war on drugs would have something to show for the billions poured into cops, courts, and cages. Instead, the global picture is brutally clear:

• UN data shows the number of people using drugs worldwide has been rising steadily for decades, despite prohibition.
• In the U.S., one of the most punitive countries on earth, overdose deaths have soared—especially under crackdowns on prescription opioids that simply pushed people toward a toxic illicit supply.
• Drugs are widely available in prisons, the most controlled environments we have. If you can’t even run a drug-free prison, you’re not going to run a drug-free society.

Prohibition doesn’t eliminate drugs; it just hands the entire market to unregulated suppliers who have every incentive to maximize profit and zero obligation to minimize harm.

That’s how we got fentanyl flooding street heroin. Not because “drug users got worse,” but because prohibition created the perfect conditions for ultra-potent, ultra-profitable, untested chemicals to take over.

Reality Check #2: Portugal Proved Decriminalization Reduces Harm

Portugal is the case that prohibitionists hate to talk about—or they lie about it. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs for personal use. Not just cannabis. Heroin, cocaine, everything.

Important detail: Portugal did not “legalize” the drug market. Supply still exists in the underground economy. But personal possession stopped being a criminal offense and became a health matter, paired with expanded treatment and harm reduction.

What actually happened in Portugal?

• Overdose deaths plummeted. Portugal went from one of the highest drug-related death rates in Western Europe to one of the lowest. This coincided with decriminalization and expanded health services—no coincidence.
• HIV infections among people who inject drugs dropped dramatically. Needle sharing declined as harm reduction became accessible and non-criminalized.
• Drug use did not explode. Lifetime and recent use rates are comparable to or lower than many strictly prohibitionist countries. Some groups even saw decreases.
• Prisons stopped being a default “treatment center.” Fewer people were dragged into the criminal system for simple possession, freeing up resources for actual health services.

The line we were fed—“If we decriminalize, chaos will reign”—was tested in a real country. It failed. The opposite happened: less death, less disease, more sanity.

Reality Check #3: Cannabis Legalization Did Not Trigger the Apocalypse

Prohibitionists swore that legalizing cannabis would open the gates of hell—sky-high addiction, kids permanently stoned, carnage on the roads, general moral collapse.

So far, that prophecy has aged about as well as 1930s reefer madness posters.

What do we see in legal cannabis jurisdictions?

• No massive surge in teen use. Studies from the U.S. and Canada show that youth cannabis use has remained flat or even decreased in some places after legalization. Teens are often less interested in something once it’s boring and regulated rather than forbidden contraband.
• Fewer arrests and less contact with the criminal system. In U.S. states with legal cannabis, possession arrests dropped dramatically—especially important for Black and brown communities historically targeted for low-level drug enforcement.
• Better product safety and labeling. Licensed producers are subject to testing, potency labeling, and some quality controls—things that never existed in the illegal market.
• Tax revenue redirected (sometimes) to health, education, and social programs. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than spending those same dollars on raids and SWAT gear.

Is legal cannabis policy flawless? No. Corporations have moved in; equity is often an afterthought; some regulations are absurdly punitive in disguise. But none of the “society will collapse” claims have come true. If anything, legalization exposed that years of cannabis criminalization were a wildly disproportionate response to a relatively mild psychoactive substance.

Reality Check #4: Punitive Policies Supercharge Overdose Risk

Ironically, the people crying “drugs destroy lives” are often defending policies that make drugs far deadlier than they need to be.

When you criminalize possession, you don’t stop use—you just force people to use more quickly, more secretly, and in more dangerous conditions:

• People use alone to avoid detection, increasing the risk that no one is there to respond to an overdose.
• People are afraid to call for help because they don’t want cops involved, leading to preventable deaths.
• People rush doses in alleys, stairwells, cars—hardly ideal settings for careful titration.
• People get yo-yo patterns of tolerance when cycling through incarceration, detox, or forced abstinence, then going back to the same dose and overdosing.

Safe supply initiatives, supervised consumption sites, and decriminalization policies flip that script. Instead of playing hide-and-seek with your own survival, you get:

• Uncontaminated or at least tested substances (where safe supply or drug checking exists).
• Supervision by people trained to reverse overdoses.
• Environment where people can take their time, adjust doses, and ask questions.

Every single overdose reversed at a supervised consumption site is a direct rebuke to prohibitionist logic. The site didn’t cause the drug use; it stopped it from turning into a funeral.

“But Legalization Increases Use!” – Missing the Point

One of the most common moves from prohibitionists is to scream that legalization or decriminalization might increase use. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is sometimes true. Here are two key problems with the panic:

1. Use is not the metric that matters. Harm is.
2. Some increase in reported use is actually increased honesty, not new behavior.

Ask yourself which scenario is better:

• A society where 10% of people use drugs under prohibition, with a chaotic, toxic supply, heavy stigma, and high death rates.
• A society where 15% of people use under regulation, with a known supply, access to honest information, and low death rates.

If your answer is “the one with fewer corpses,” then you’re already on the side of regulated, health-based policy whether you admit it or not.

We don’t judge alcohol policy by whether it perfectly prevents all drinking; we judge it by how it influences harm: deaths, disease, violence, injuries. The same standard should apply to other drugs. Prohibition fails this test miserably.

“Decriminalization Sends the Wrong Message to Kids” – Actually, Lying Does

Another favorite scare line: “If we decriminalize, we’re telling children that drugs are fine.”

Here’s what we’re currently telling them under prohibition:

• “All illegal drugs are basically the same.” (They absolutely aren’t.)
• “One hit and you’re addicted forever.” (Medically false.)
• “We criminalize people because we care about them.” (They can see the police van. They’re not idiots.)

Young people grow up, try drugs, and very quickly realize adults have been lying—or at least grossly exaggerating. That kills credibility. When they later encounter genuinely risky substances or patterns of use, they’re less likely to trust actual warnings because the earlier messaging was propaganda, not education.

Decriminalization and regulated supply allow a different message:

• These substances exist. Some people use them. Here’s what they do.
• Here are the real risks and ways to reduce them if you choose to use.
• The law’s job isn’t to control your body, but to minimize preventable harm.

That’s a message based on truth and respect—not moral panic.

Follow the Money: Who Really Benefits From Prohibition?

Prohibition isn’t just a bad idea that stuck around by accident. It serves powerful interests beautifully:

• Law enforcement budgets swell with drug war funding—militarized gear, special units, overtime, asset forfeiture revenue.
• Private prison companies and contractors make money off caging people for nonviolent drug offenses.
• Pharmaceutical companies historically enjoyed less competition from herbal or illicit alternatives while they aggressively marketed their own addictive products—often with government blessing.
• Politicians score cheap “tough on crime” points by sacrificing other people’s freedom.

Meanwhile, who pays the price?

• People who use drugs—responsibly or not—who get criminal records, job loss, family separation.
• Black, brown, Indigenous, and poor communities relentlessly targeted by drug enforcement while wealthy users quietly snort in private.
• People with pain, trauma, or mental health issues who turn to the underground market because the legal system either abandons them or punishes them.

If prohibition worked, it might at least be a devil’s bargain worth arguing about. But it doesn’t. It fails on its own stated goals while enriching the same institutions that built the mess.

Regulated Supply: Control, Not Chaos

Prohibitionists like to pretend the only two options are their way (cops and cages) or a lawless free-for-all. That framing is dishonest. The third option is:

Legalization with regulation and harm reduction.

We already know how to regulate potentially risky substances. We do this with alcohol, tobacco, prescription meds, even caffeine:

• Age limits
• Licensing for sellers
• Quality standards and testing
• Clear labeling and dosage information
• Restrictions on marketing and packaging
• Taxation to fund public health and treatment

Now apply that logic to currently illegal drugs, calibrated to their actual risk profiles. Compare two heroin scenarios:

Scenario A: Prohibition

• Unknown potency, unknown contaminants.
• Cash-only, no standards, no labeling.
• Criminal sanctions for possession, encouraging risky use and isolation.
• Overdose death as a constant background threat.

Scenario B: Regulated Supply

• Known dose, pharmaceutical-grade product.
• Access via medical channels or licensed programs.
• Optional, non-coercive support: counseling, housing, health care.
• Overdose risk drastically reduced because the main killer—surprise potency and contamination—is minimized.

Which scenario gives society more control? It’s obviously not the one that hands the whole game to cartels and clandestine chemists.

Decriminalization vs. Legalization: Why Both Matter

Decriminalization and legalization are often lumped together, but they tackle different parts of the problem:

• Decriminalization = You stop arresting and prosecuting people for personal possession/use. The market might still be illegal, but users aren’t treated as criminals.
• Legalization with regulation = You bring the production and sale out of the shadows and subject it to rules, quality controls, and oversight.

Decriminalization alone, like in Portugal, can dramatically reduce the damage from policing and stigma. But it doesn’t fix the toxic, unpredictable supply. People still die from contaminated products.

Legalization without thoughtful regulation risks replicating alcohol and tobacco’s worst corporate abuses. That’s why smart legalization must include:

• Strict marketing limits (no targeting kids, no glamorizing addiction).
• Real community ownership and social equity structures, not just handing everything to conglomerates.
• Price and tax policies that don’t drive people back to illegal markets.
• Strong investment in harm reduction, treatment, and social supports.

The goal isn’t to build “Big Cocaine, Inc.” It’s to drag the market into the light, cut out the most dangerous risks, and stop pretending criminal law is a medical intervention.

The Real Threat to Society Isn’t Drugs – It’s Inflexible Ideology

Every time prohibitionists say “drugs destroy society,” what they’re actually doing is dodging the hard questions:

• Why are we still criminalizing adults for what they choose to put in their own bodies?
• Why do we accept a preventable overdose crisis while rejecting proven harm reduction measures?
• Why do we keep funding a strategy that has never met its own goals?

Societies are not destroyed because some adults use psychoactive substances. Humans have always used them—for pain, for pleasure, for ritual, for coping. Societies crumble when they cling to failed dogmas, crush civil liberties, scapegoat marginalized groups, and refuse to adapt policy to reality.

Decriminalization and regulated supply are not radical. What’s radical is continuing a century-long experiment in prohibition that keeps producing the same bloody results and calling it “protection.”

Where We Go From Here

If you actually care about reducing harm, the path is straightforward:

• Decriminalize personal possession and use of all drugs. No more criminal records for what you ingest.
• Invest massively in voluntary, evidence-based treatment, housing, and mental health.
• Roll out supervised consumption sites, drug checking, and widespread naloxone access.
• Develop regulated supply models for currently illegal drugs, starting with those causing the most overdose deaths (e.g., opioids, stimulants).
• Redirect drug war money away from enforcement and into health and social support.

Will this produce a utopia? No. Humans are messy. Some people will still struggle with addiction. But they’ll be struggling in a world that isn’t actively stacked against survival.

Drugs don’t inherently “destroy society.” Prohibition, on the other hand, has a long rap sheet: mass incarceration, racialized policing, preventable deaths, and the empowerment of violent black markets.

It’s time to stop blaming molecules and start blaming the policies that turn manageable risks into full-blown disasters. Decriminalization and regulated supply aren’t the problem. They’re the exit ramp from a century of state-manufactured chaos.

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