Drug Legalization Doesn’t “Destroy Society” — Prohibition Does

“If we legalize drugs, society will collapse. Addiction will skyrocket. Streets full of zombies. Crime everywhere.”

That’s the nightmare reel prohibitionists run any time decriminalization or legalization comes up. It’s been the same script for over a century: fear, exaggeration, and a generous helping of moral panic — all while alcohol marketing is on billboards and pharmaceutical giants get rich on addictive prescriptions.

Let’s be clear: drugs are not destroying society. Prohibition is.

In this article, we’ll take the most common anti-legalization claims and actually test them against reality — real data, real countries, real people. Spoiler: the scare stories fall apart the second you look at what happens when governments treat drug use as a health and human rights issue instead of a criminal one.

The Core Prohibitionist Claim: “Legalization = More Use = Social Collapse”

The classic prohibitionist equation goes like this:

Legalization → more people use drugs → more addiction → more crime and social decay.

Sounds neat. Very logical. And completely unsupported by how humans, markets, and public health actually work.

What this argument ignores:

The massive harm created by criminalization itself: incarceration, violence, contaminated supply, HIV, overdose, and crippling criminal records.
The difference between chaotic, unregulated black markets and transparent, regulated legal markets.
The reality that people already use drugs under prohibition — they just do it more dangerously.

If prohibitionist logic were correct, the countries with the harshest drug laws would be the safest and healthiest. They’re not. And the countries trying decriminalization and regulation would be falling apart. They’re not either.

Reality Check #1: Portugal Decriminalized — The Predicted Disaster Never Came

Portugal is the go-to example because it directly challenges fear-based policy. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use — heroin, cocaine, MDMA, everything. Not legalized and sold in shops, but decriminalized: no more criminal records for small possession; instead, a health-centered response.

Prohibitionists said exactly what you’d expect: Portugal will become a drug tourist nightmare; use and addiction will explode; chaos is coming.

What actually happened?

Overdose deaths plummeted. Portugal’s drug-induced death rate became one of the lowest in the EU. People stopped dying in such huge numbers because they weren’t being pushed into the shadows.
HIV infections among people who inject drugs crashed. Clean needle programs, health services, and reduced stigma worked better than prisons ever did.
Problematic use stabilized or declined. Drug use did not explode. Young people did not suddenly start injecting heroin because it was “legal-ish.” Most data show either stable use or only modest changes — not the apocalypse promised by prohibitionists.
People actually sought help. When you’re not treated like a criminal for using drugs, you’re more likely to talk to a doctor than hide from cops.

Portugal’s model isn’t perfect — especially now, as some politicians flirt with rolling back reforms — but two decades of experience utterly destroy the “decriminalization = chaos” claim. If that were true, Portugal would be the cautionary tale. Instead, it’s the benchmark.

Reality Check #2: Cannabis Legalization Didn’t Turn the West Into a Stoner Wasteland

Cannabis legalization is the easiest real-world test case because so many jurisdictions have moved beyond prohibition: multiple U.S. states, Canada, Uruguay, parts of Europe, and more on the way.

The fearmongering before legalization was intense: roads will be unsafe, teens will all become daily users, psychosis everywhere, productivity wiped out.

What’s actually happened where cannabis is legal and regulated?

Arrests collapsed. Hundreds of thousands fewer people are dragged into the criminal system for simple possession. That means fewer lost jobs, fewer shattered families, fewer people branded with a record for a plant.
Legal markets replaced a big chunk of the illegal trade. No, they didn’t erase it entirely — tax policy and access matter — but they shrank it dramatically and undercut organized crime’s monopoly.
Youth use did not explode. The data are messy by jurisdiction, but over and over: no consistent pattern of massive increases among teens. In some places, youth use has stayed flat or declined, likely because regulated markets check ID and don’t operate on the “dealer doesn’t card” business model.
Product safety improved. In regulated markets, cannabis is tested, labeled, and tracked. You know THC content. You know if it’s contaminated with pesticides or mold. That’s impossible under prohibition.

Are there challenges? Yes. Commercialization, aggressive marketing, high-potency products — all of this requires smart regulation. But those are regulatory questions, not arguments for criminalization. We don’t ban alcohol because some companies advertise badly; we regulate advertising.

The big picture: the sky didn’t fall. The main measurable immediate “disaster” was for the easy-arrest business model local police departments enjoyed.

Reality Check #3: Safe Supply and Supervised Consumption Save Lives, Not Destroy Communities

Another favorite prohibitionist talking point: “Injecting centers / safe supply programs just encourage drug use.” This is usually said by people who have never read a single study and whose main source is tabloid panic.

Look at countries that have taken a health-based approach to people who use opioids:

Switzerland pioneered heroin-assisted treatment for people with long-term dependence who didn’t benefit from other treatments. Result: decreased illicit heroin use, reduced crime, better health outcomes, and increased social stability.
Canada and parts of Europe run supervised consumption sites where people can use pre-obtained drugs under medical supervision. Result: fewer fatal overdoses, fewer public injections, lower risk of HIV and hepatitis C transmission, and more connections to health and social services.
“Safe supply” pilots in Canada show that when people have access to pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the toxic street supply, overdose risk drops dramatically.

Community destruction doesn’t come from providing sterile equipment and naloxone. It comes from a poisoned, unregulated supply and relentless criminalization. The same politicians who pearl-clutch over supervised consumption are perfectly comfortable with people dying in alleyways out of sight.

Prohibition’s Body Count: The Part Prohibitionists Never Want to Talk About

The “legalization will destroy society” narrative conveniently ignores that current policies are already doing a spectacular job of destruction — just not in the way the nightly news likes to frame it.

Contaminated, Unregulated Supply

Under prohibition, there is no regulation, no quality control, no labeling. Heroin may contain fentanyl or benzos. Cocaine might be cut with levamisole. MDMA can be anything from pure to lethal mystery powder. People are not dying because they decided to use “a drug.” They’re dying because prohibition ensures the product is random, toxic, and inconsistent.

When you buy alcohol, you know the approximate strength. Imagine if every bottle were unlabeled moonshine of unknown potency. That’s what prohibition does to every illegal drug.

Mass Criminalization and Structural Violence

Prohibition is a job creation program for police, prisons, and the surveillance industry — and a disaster for civil liberties. It’s also deeply racialized.

In the U.S., Black and Brown communities are disproportionately targeted for drug enforcement despite similar usage rates across races.
Criminal records for drug possession make it harder to get jobs, housing, and education — pushing people deeper into marginalization.
In many countries, people are imprisoned for tiny amounts, or even executed, while large-scale traffickers and corrupt officials operate with virtual impunity.

This isn’t drug policy; it’s social control dressed up as “public safety.”

Enriching Organized Crime

The war on drugs is the best business partner cartels ever had. By making drugs illegal but not eliminating demand, governments hand entire multi-billion-dollar markets to criminal organizations.

Legalization and regulation don’t magically make crime disappear, but they do remove a huge revenue stream from violent groups. Just as the end of alcohol prohibition undercut bootleggers, regulating today’s illegal drugs would rip away one of organized crime’s most consistent profit engines.

“But Legalization Will Increase Use!” Let’s Actually Think That Through

First, the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as prohibitionists pretend. Different substances, cultures, and policies produce different patterns. Some increases may happen with certain substances; others stay flat; some harmful use actually decreases when harm reduction and treatment are accessible.

But even if some increase happens, here’s the crucial point: use is not the only metric that matters. Harm matters. Death, disease, criminalization, stigma, and violence matter.

Say you have two scenarios:

A smaller number of people using drugs in secret with high overdose, high HIV risk, and a high chance of prison.
A larger number of people using drugs in a regulated context with dramatically lower death rates, less disease, and no criminal records.

Which is the better outcome? If your only answer is “whichever involves fewer people using drugs, full stop,” you’re not doing public health — you’re doing moral purity politics.

Adults make risky choices every day: driving, drinking, extreme sports, unprotected sex, unhealthy diets. The state doesn’t raid people’s homes for owning deep fryers. It regulates, educates, and sometimes taxes. Drugs should be no different.

A Regulated Market Is Safer Than a Criminal One — Every Time

The heart of the legalization argument is simple: we can’t get rid of drug use, but we can choose what kind of market exists around it.

Two options:

Option A: Prohibition
Products are untested, doses unpredictable, profits go to cartels, disputes resolved by violence, users afraid to call for help.
Option B: Legal Regulation
Products labeled and tested, age limits enforced, taxes fund healthcare and education, disputes handled in courts, users have legal protections and access to services.

We already know how this story ends with alcohol and tobacco. Regulation doesn’t make them harmless, but it makes them manageable. We can set potency caps, control marketing, restrict where and how they’re sold, and provide honest education. None of that is possible with a criminal market.

“But What About Kids?” — The Favorite Political Shield

Whenever drug policy reform is on the table, someone inevitably says, “We have to think of the children!”

Yes. Let’s.

Under prohibition, dealers don’t check ID. A 14-year-old can buy weed (or worse) if they know the right person.
Under regulation, sellers lose their license or face penalties for selling to minors.
Under prohibition, honest drug education is often replaced by fear-based nonsense that teens don’t believe (and rightly so).
Under regulation, we can do what works for sexual education and alcohol: reality-based information, not propaganda.

If your policy makes drugs more dangerous, more mysterious, and more controlled by criminals, that is not “protecting kids.” It’s throwing them into a rigged game and then acting shocked by the results.

Cui Bono? Who Actually Benefits From Prohibition?

Follow the money and power and you’ll see why prohibition clings on despite mountains of evidence against it.

Law enforcement and prison systems get funding, gear, and political relevance by treating drug use as a criminal problem.
Cartels and traffickers enjoy a legally guaranteed monopoly over massive markets.
Some politicians win points by looking “tough on crime,” even if that “toughness” means more body bags and broken families.
Pharmaceutical and alcohol industries have historically lobbied heavily against competing substances entering the legal market.

The people who do not benefit:

People who use drugs.
Communities heavily policed and incarcerated.
Families losing loved ones to overdoses and prison.
Taxpayers funding a war that never ends and never works.

Prohibition isn’t about health. It’s about control, profit, and political theater.

What a Rational Drug Policy Looks Like

If we stop letting fear run the show, a sane drug policy is not hard to imagine. It includes:

Decriminalization of all drug possession for personal use. No more criminal records for what an adult chooses to put in their own body.
Legal, regulated markets for currently illegal drugs. Different substances can have different models — from pharmacy-style controlled access to licensed retail, to supervised administration for high-risk drugs.
Quality control and accurate labeling. Potency, ingredients, and risks right on the package. Third-party testing. No guessing games.
Harm reduction as standard practice. Needle services, drug checking, supervised consumption, take-home naloxone, and non-judgmental health support.
Accessible treatment on demand. Voluntary, evidence-based, non-coercive treatment options — not “go to rehab or go to jail” ultimatums.
Public education rooted in reality, not propaganda. Honest information about risks, interactions, safer use, and how to recognize trouble.
Reparative justice. Expunging past drug convictions, freeing people locked up for nonviolent drug offenses, and investing in the communities most harmed by the war on drugs.

This is not some utopian fantasy. Pieces of it already exist — in Portugal’s decriminalization, Switzerland’s heroin programs, Canada’s supervised consumption sites, cannabis legalization across the Americas. The evidence is in. It works better than the current mess.

The Real “Radical” Position

Prohibitionists like to call legalization “radical” or “dangerous.” But what’s actually radical is clinging to a century-old policy that has failed on every stated metric while filling prisons and graveyards.

It is radical to accept tens of thousands of preventable overdose deaths a year as “the cost of doing business.”

It is radical to criminalize people for the contents of their bloodstream while corporate actors legally advertise addictive products during sports events.

It is radical to keep doubling down on a war that has never achieved its own goals, just because admitting failure would be politically inconvenient.

Legalization and regulation are not about pretending drugs are harmless. They’re about finally admitting that prohibition is far more harmful than the substances it claims to control — and that adults deserve the right to make informed choices about their own bodies without the state kicking down their door.

If drugs “destroy society,” explain Portugal. Explain Switzerland. Explain why, after years of cannabis legalization, the main people panicking are politicians whose scare tactics are aging badly.

Drugs didn’t destroy society. The war on drugs just tried very hard to.

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