The Myth That “Legalizing Drugs Will Destroy Society” — And What the Evidence Actually Says

“If we legalize drugs, society will collapse. Addiction rates will skyrocket, crime will explode, and our streets will be flooded with zombies.”

That’s the greatest hits album of prohibitionist fearmongering. It’s emotionally powerful, politically convenient, and almost completely detached from what actually happens when we stop treating drug users like criminals and start treating drug use as a public health issue.

Let’s be very clear: the claim that decriminalization or legalization inevitably worsens addiction, crime, and social decay is not supported by real-world data. It’s supported by vibes, moral panic, and a century of propaganda.

The Prohibitionist Premise: Fear in Place of Evidence

The standard prohibitionist argument goes something like this:

“Drugs are dangerous. If we make them legal (or even just decriminalize possession), more people will use them. More use means more addiction, more overdoses, more broken families, more crime. Therefore, the only rational policy is strict prohibition, harsh penalties, and zero tolerance.”

There are a few core assumptions embedded in this:

• That criminal punishment effectively reduces drug use.
• That fear of arrest is what keeps most people from using drugs.
• That increased access necessarily means increased harmful use.
• That prohibition reduces crime and protects communities.

These assumptions fall apart the moment you compare them to the actual evidence from countries and jurisdictions that have tried something different.

Portugal: The Case Study Prohibitionists Pretend Doesn’t Exist

Portugal is the prohibitionist’s least favorite word.

In 2001, facing spiraling heroin use, HIV infections, and rising overdose deaths, Portugal did something radical by drug war standards: it decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs — heroin, cocaine, MDMA, cannabis, the lot. Not a free-for-all, not commercial legalization, but a fundamental shift from criminal punishment to health-based responses.

What Actually Changed in Portugal

Instead of dragging people through the courts, Portugal set up “dissuasion commissions” — panels that can recommend treatment, fines, or other administrative responses, but not jail time, for personal possession. Supply-side trafficking remains criminal, but users are not treated as criminals just for possessing drugs.

Prohibitionists predicted disaster: mass addiction, children hooked on heroin, social collapse. None of that happened. The data instead show:

• Problematic use and addiction stabilized or fell. Studies over the following decades found no explosion in drug use; if anything, problematic use declined, especially among youth.
• Overdose deaths dropped dramatically. Portugal went from having one of the worst overdose rates in Western Europe to one of the lowest.
• HIV infections among people who inject drugs plummeted. Needle sharing dropped as harm reduction and health services expanded.
• Prisons were no longer stuffed with low-level users. Law enforcement could focus more on higher-level criminal activity instead of punishing addiction and poverty.

No mass chaos. No apocalyptic addiction wave. Instead: fewer deaths, less disease, less suffering, and a system that respects that caging people for what they put into their own bodies is both cruel and ineffective.

The Portugal Lesson: Decriminalization Is Not the Villain

Portugal did not become a libertine paradise, and it did not solve every social problem. Housing, poverty, and mental health still matter — shocker. But the disaster that prohibitionists promised never came.

What actually happened was simple: by removing criminal penalties for use, Portugal made it easier for people to seek help, easier to implement harm reduction, and harder to ruin someone’s life over a personal health decision.

If the core prohibitionist story — “less punishment = more chaos” — were correct, Portugal should be a pile of rubble by now. It’s not. Which is why prohibitionists avoid talking about it unless they’re cherry-picking out-of-context stats to pretend it “failed.”

Cannabis Legalization: The Apocalypse That Never Showed Up

Cannabis offers another real-world stress test of prohibitionist logic. For decades, we were told legalization would unleash a wave of addiction, crime, psychosis, and societal decay.

Instead, we got tax revenue, expunged records (in some places), and a reality far more boring than the panic merchants promised.

What We’ve Seen Where Cannabis Is Legal

Across multiple U.S. states and countries like Canada and Uruguay, cannabis has been legalized and regulated. The pattern is remarkably consistent:

• No dramatic surge in teen use. Survey data from places like Colorado and Washington show that youth use stayed flat or even decreased after legalization, contradicting the “think of the children” hysteria.
• Arrests for cannabis possession plummeted. That means fewer lives derailed over a plant. Racial disparities in arrests narrow — not magically vanish, but get less obscene.
• Illicit market shrinks, though doesn’t disappear. A regulated supply competes with underground dealers, especially where taxes and regulations aren’t absurd.
• Tax revenue funds public services. Schools, infrastructure, treatment programs — all funded by a substance that used to just fuel arrests and cartel profits.

Do some people develop cannabis dependence? Yes. They always did, long before legalization. The difference now is they can do so in a context where the product is labeled, potency is known, and there’s at least a chance of funding support services instead of prison cells.

Cannabis and the Hypocrisy Problem

The way governments treat cannabis vs. alcohol makes prohibitionist rhetoric look especially ridiculous.

• Alcohol is widely legal, heavily marketed, and responsible for vastly more deaths and social harm than cannabis.
• Pharmaceutical opioids are legal, heavily pushed for years by corporations, and helped ignite a massive overdose crisis.

So when the same governments and institutions that greenlit the opioid disaster and worship at the altar of alcohol say, “We must ban cannabis because we care about your health,” that’s not public safety — that’s rank hypocrisy.

They’re not protecting you. They’re protecting certain industries and a century-old control regime.

“But Drug Use Will Increase!” — And Then What?

Even when prohibitionists reluctantly admit that decriminalization or legalization doesn’t cause social collapse, they fall back on another argument: “Yes, but use might increase. That’s inherently bad.”

This only makes sense if you treat all drug use as automatically harmful. That’s simply not true.

• Many people use psychoactive substances — including illegal ones — without experiencing major problems.
• Some drugs (like psychedelics) show therapeutic potential in treating depression, PTSD, and addiction itself when used in controlled settings.
• Adults navigate risk with substances every day: caffeine, alcohol, SSRIs, benzodiazepines, nicotine, and more.

The important question isn’t, “Does use go up or down by a few percentage points?” It’s, “Do harms go up or down?” Decriminalization and regulated supply consistently shift things in the direction we claim to care about: fewer deaths, less disease, less violence, less incarceration.

Countries with harsh drug laws do not magically have low use. The United States proves that point every single day: decades of aggressive enforcement, trillions spent on the drug war — and one of the highest overdose rates on the planet, with widespread availability of almost anything if you know where to look.

Prohibition Makes Drugs More Dangerous by Design

There’s an elephant in the room that prohibitionists love to ignore: the most dangerous thing about many illegal drugs is that they’re illegal. Not because “illegal things are bad,” but because prohibition hands the entire supply chain to unregulated, profit-driven underground markets.

Contamination, Unknown Strength, and Fentanyl Roulette

Under prohibition:

• There is no quality control.
• There is no accurate labeling.
• There is every incentive to increase potency in smaller packages to avoid detection, which pushes the market toward stronger, riskier substances.

That’s exactly what we see with fentanyl and its analogues flooding opioid markets. People think they’re buying one thing and get something far stronger. Overdose follows. Not because they “chose fentanyl,” but because prohibition created a contaminated, opaque, and ruthless supply chain.

A regulated model — with testing, labeling, dosage control, and legal accountability — directly tackles these issues. It doesn’t magically make all use safe, but it eliminates the insane roulette that prohibition forces on people who use drugs.

Violence Isn’t Caused by Drugs — It’s Caused by Illegal Markets

When alcohol was prohibited in the United States, we didn’t discover that ethanol molecules inherently cause gang violence. We discovered that banning a popular substance hands its production and distribution to unregulated criminal networks. Surprise: those networks often settle disputes with bullets, not lawyers.

Same pattern, different substance.

• Illicit drug profits fund cartels, gangs, and corrupt officials.
• Communities in both producing and consuming countries suffer violence fueled by prohibition-created markets.
• Legalizing and regulating doesn’t make all crime vanish, but it undercuts a massive revenue source for organized crime.

If your policy produces more violence, more deaths, and more corruption than the substances you claim to be fighting, maybe the problem isn’t “drugs.” Maybe it’s prohibition.

Criminalization Targets People, Not “Drugs”

Prohibitionist rhetoric loves to talk in the abstract: “drugs,” “crime,” “safety.” In practice, drug laws don’t fall evenly across a population. They are tools of social control, and they land hardest on the already marginalized.

Who Actually Gets Arrested

Across multiple countries, we see the same pattern:

• Drug use rates are relatively similar across racial and class lines.
• Arrests, prosecutions, and incarceration are wildly skewed toward poor communities, racialized groups, and people with the least political power.

In the United States, Black people are significantly more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than white people, despite similar use rates. Prohibition is the fig leaf; the body underneath is structural racism and class control.

Decriminalization and legalization — when done properly, with expungement and equity measures — directly reduce the state’s ability to selectively criminalize certain populations for what others do with impunity behind gated doors and ivy-covered walls.

Harm Reduction vs. Moral Panic

At the core, this debate isn’t “drugs vs. no drugs.” Humans have always used psychoactive substances and will continue to do so. The real question is:

Do we want a world where drug use is:

• Hidden, criminalized, and driven into unsafe, stigmatized corners where people die alone?
• Or openly acknowledged, managed, and supported with accurate information, safer supply, and health services?

Supervised consumption sites, drug checking services, safe supply programs, and non-punitive treatment models all reduce harm. They are most effective in a framework where people aren’t terrified of arrest every time they seek help.

Prohibitionists accuse harm reduction of “sending the wrong message.” But the message of prohibition is clear: better you die than we admit our policy failed.

What a Rational Drug Policy Actually Looks Like

An adult, reality-based drug policy doesn’t start from “how do we scare people straight?” It starts from:

• People will use drugs.
• People have a right to bodily autonomy.
• The state’s role is to reduce harm, not dictate moral purity.

Decriminalization: Stop Treating Use as a Crime

First step: remove criminal penalties for personal possession and use of drugs. Not half-measures where police still harass people, but a clear shift: your consumption choices are not a criminal issue.

This:

• Reduces incarceration and its lifelong collateral damage.
• Frees law enforcement resources to focus on actual violent crime.
• Makes it easier for people to access health and social services.

Legalization and Regulation: Take the Market Back

Decriminalization alone doesn’t fix the poisoned well of the illicit supply. For that, we need regulated legal markets tailored to each substance’s risk profile.

• Regulated production with standards for purity and contamination.
• Controlled access models — some substances via pharmacies, some via licensed outlets, some via medical programs.
• Accurate labeling of dose and potency so people know what they’re taking.
• Age limits and marketing restrictions based on evidence, not moral panic.
• Taxation that funds harm reduction, treatment, and social services.

That’s how you reduce overdoses, prevent fentanyl-type crises, and undercut the underground economy. Not by pretending you can arrest chemistry into submission.

Why Prohibition Refuses to Die

Given the overwhelming evidence that prohibition fails on its own stated goals, why is it still the dominant policy in most of the world? Because it serves interests — just not yours.

• It feeds massive law enforcement, prison, and surveillance bureaucracies that depend on a steady stream of “offenders.”
• It gives governments a convenient tool to police and discipline marginalized populations.
• It protects legal drug monopolies — alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals — from competition by demonized “illicit” substances.

Every time someone says, “We can’t legalize drugs; it would be chaos,” ask: chaos for whom? Because for many people on the receiving end of raids, forced treatment, and lifelong criminal records, the chaos is already here. It’s called prohibition.

The Real Risk: Keeping Things as They Are

Let’s flip the script. Instead of demanding endless proof that decriminalization and regulation won’t cause harm, let’s look at the harms of the status quo:

• Thousands of preventable overdose deaths every year due to toxic, unregulated supplies.
• Vast resources wasted on arresting and jailing people for possession.
• Deep racial and class disparities in enforcement.
• Violence and corruption fueled by illicit markets.
• Stigma that keeps people from seeking help.

We know what prohibition delivers because we’re living it. It’s not safety. It’s not health. It’s a slow-motion humanitarian disaster wrapped in the language of “protection.”

Decriminalization and regulated supply aren’t reckless experiments. They’re overdue attempts to correct a century-long policy failure. The burden of proof is no longer on those arguing for change; it’s on those defending a system that demonstrably kills, cages, and contaminates in the name of “saving” people.

Drugs are not going away. Adults will continue to alter their consciousness — with legal substances, illicit ones, or both. The grown-up choice isn’t between a drug-free fantasy and a drug-filled dystopia. It’s between a world where people are punished, poisoned, and pushed into the shadows, and a world where we treat them as autonomous adults deserving of accurate information, safer options, and non-judgmental support.

If that world looks like “societal collapse” to you, the problem isn’t the drugs. It’s your faith in control over consent.

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