Drug Legalization Doesn’t Destroy Society — Prohibition Does

“If we legalize drugs, addiction will explode, crime will skyrocket, and society will collapse.”

You’ve heard this line a thousand times. It’s the default prohibitionist script: drugs are uniquely evil, people are too weak to handle freedom, and the only thing standing between us and total chaos is criminal law and armed police.

It sounds dramatic. It’s also spectacularly wrong.

When you actually look at the evidence — from Portugal to cannabis-legal U.S. states to heroin prescribing in Switzerland — the story flips completely: it’s not drugs that systematically wreck communities. It’s prohibition, black markets, and punishment masquerading as “public health.”

The Prohibitionist Claim: Legalization = More Use, More Harm, Social Collapse

Let’s steelman the classic argument so we’re not punching a straw scarecrow:

Prohibitionists say:

If we legalize or decriminalize drugs, more people will start using them.
More use automatically means more addiction, overdoses, and mental health problems.
Drug use “destroys families” and “weakens society,” so the state must ban drugs to protect people from themselves.
Harsh laws act as a deterrent. If you remove that fear, everything spirals out of control.

Then they point to the worst-case stories — someone who lost everything to addiction, a tragic overdose — and pretend that’s the inevitable outcome of any non-prohibition approach.

What they never want to talk about is this: criminalization doesn’t eliminate drugs; it just makes them more dangerous, more profitable, and more useful as an excuse for state violence.

Reality Check: Prohibition Doesn’t Reduce Use — It Just Makes It Bloodier

The basic promise of prohibition is simple: ban a substance, punish people for using it, and consumption will drop.

After more than a century of drug war experiments, we can safely say: that promise has failed.

Illicit drug markets exist in practically every country on Earth, regardless of how harsh the laws are.
The United States — global champion of the war on drugs — has some of the highest overdose rates and drug-related incarceration in the developed world.
Countries with brutal penalties (up to and including the death penalty) still have thriving drug markets. The cartels did not get the memo about “zero tolerance.”

If prohibition worked, the U.S. and its allies would be drug-free utopias. Instead, they’re running historic overdose crises while spending billions on policing, prisons, and military-style drug enforcement that never actually ends the market — just reshapes it.

Why? Because as long as there is demand, someone will supply. You cannot legislate basic economics out of existence, no matter how many no-knock raids you greenlight.

Portugal: The Experiment That Prohibitionists Pretend Doesn’t Exist

Portugal is the counter-argument prohibitionists desperately try to wave away with, “Well, that’s different.” Different how? It’s a real country that actually tried the opposite of what they recommend — and got better results.

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the personal possession and use of all drugs. Not just cannabis. All. Cocaine, heroin, MDMA, you name it. Possession for personal use became an administrative issue (like a traffic fine), not a crime.

Prohibitionists predicted disaster: drug tourism, overdose spikes, an army of “new addicts.” Instead, here’s what happened, based on government and academic reports over the following decade and beyond:

Overdose deaths dropped significantly. Portugal went from one of the highest overdose rates in Western Europe to one of the lowest.
HIV transmission among people who inject drugs plummeted. Safer supply and access to services replaced fear and stigma.
Problematic use stabilized or declined. The number of people with serious drug problems did not explode; in some metrics, it declined.
Drug use among youth did not surge and remained broadly similar to comparable EU countries.

Portugal didn’t create a drug-free society. It created a less dead one, a less HIV-ravaged one, a less incarcerated one. The main thing that collapsed was the fantasy that criminalization is necessary to protect people.

“But That’s Decriminalization, Not Legalization!” — Yes, And That’s the Point

Decriminalization and legalization aren’t the same:

Decriminalization = you don’t get arrested or caged for possession/use; supply often remains illegal.
Legalization and regulation = the drug is legally produced, quality-controlled, taxed, and sold under rules.

Portugal shows what happens when you stop treating people as criminals for what they put in their own bodies. The next logical step is: what happens when you also regulate the supply instead of gifting it to cartels and street markets?

We already have a partial answer from cannabis.

Cannabis Legalization: The Sky Didn’t Fall, But a Lot of Myths Did

Prohibitionists promised chaos when U.S. states and countries like Canada started to legalize cannabis. Let’s look at actual outcomes.

Use Rates: No Youth Apocalypse

In U.S. states that legalized cannabis, surveys of adolescent use (for example, from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System and state health departments) repeatedly show:

No consistent, across-the-board surge in teen use after legalization.
In some states, youth use remained flat or even decreased slightly.

Meanwhile, adults did use more openly — which, spoiler, is kind of the point of legalizing: bringing existing use into a regulated, transparent framework instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.

Crime: Black Markets Shrink When Legal Markets Exist

Legal cannabis doesn’t end all illegal activity — especially where taxes are absurdly high or regulations are dysfunctional — but it does:

Shift a significant share of sales from underground dealers to licensed stores.
Reduce arrests for possession, especially among young people and communities of color who were targeted most aggressively under prohibition.
Cut the number of people funneled into the criminal system over small-scale cannabis offenses.

Colorado, Washington, and other legal states saw major declines in cannabis arrests post-legalization. That’s fewer lives derailed over a plant that is — let’s be honest — less dangerous than alcohol, which we not only tolerate but advertise during sports games.

Public Health: Regulated > Unknown

Legal markets bring:

Lab testing and potency labeling.
Age restrictions and ID checks.
Products free of random contaminants, mold, and mystery solvents.

Is cannabis risk-free? No. Nothing is. But legal access means people can actually know what they’re consuming. Compare that to prohibition’s “solution”: close your eyes, buy from whoever’s around, and hope your product isn’t laced, contaminated, or much stronger than expected.

If you were designing a system to maximize risk, you’d design prohibition.

“Legalization Increases Use” — And What If It Does?

Prohibitionists love to fixate on use rates as if that number alone decides whether a policy is good or bad.

Let’s say legalization or decriminalization leads to some increase in use among adults. Then what?

The serious question isn’t “Do more people try a thing?” It’s:

Do deaths go up or down?
Do disease and injury go up or down?
Do incarceration rates go up or down?
Does violence (especially market-related violence) go up or down?

Alcohol use is widespread and legal. Nicotine use is legal. Caffeine use is basically universal. We don’t judge those policies solely by “how many people used caffeine this year?” We look at harm — and then we regulate packaging, marketing, potency, access, and safety standards.

If regulated access to some drugs leads to a slight bump in experimentation but a in deaths, HIV, incarceration, and cartel power, that’s not a failure. That’s a trade-off in favor of human life and liberty.

Evidence from “Hard” Drugs: Safe Supply Works Better Than War

Prohibitionists often pivot: “Okay, maybe cannabis is different. But heroin, meth, cocaine? Legalizing those would be chaos!”

Yet countries that have dared to step out of the drug war script show the opposite.

Switzerland: Heroin-Assisted Treatment

In the 1990s, Switzerland was facing a serious heroin crisis, with open drug scenes and growing public concern. Instead of doubling down on punishment, they did something “radical”: they allowed supervised medical prescription of pharmaceutical-grade heroin (diamorphine) to people with long-term dependence who hadn’t done well with other treatments.

Outcomes of heroin-assisted treatment (HAT), documented in Swiss and international research, include:

Huge reductions in illicit heroin use among participants.
Sharp drops in crime related to financing drug use.
Better health outcomes, including reduced overdose risk and improved social functioning.

The sky did not fall. The country did not drown in heroin. Instead, some of the most marginalized users got stability, safety, and dignity. When your supply is known, clean, and supervised, you don’t have to risk your life on mystery powders or rob people to survive.

Supervised Consumption Sites: Overdose Prevention in Action

Supervised injection/consumption sites in places like Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe provide a legal, sanctioned space where people can use pre-obtained drugs under medical supervision, with naloxone and oxygen on hand.

The result, repeatedly observed:

Zero overdose deaths on site. People may overdose, but they are revived.
Increased access to health services, detox, and social support for people who use drugs.
No explosion in neighborhood crime compared to similar areas without such sites.

Again, the pattern holds: when you treat drug use as a health and rights issue instead of a battlefield, fewer people die, and communities are actually safer.

Who Really Benefits from Prohibition?

Let’s drop the pretense that this is about “keeping people safe.” Look at who actually profits from criminalization:

Police and security agencies gain budgets, toys, and power from the endless “war.”
Private prisons and carceral industries get a steady stream of bodies.
Cartels and organized crime enjoy a tax-free, regulation-free market with predictable consumer demand.
Politicians convert drug panic into campaign ads and “tough on crime” credentials.

The people who don’t benefit?

People who use drugs, who risk death from contaminated supply or rot in jail for personal choices.
Communities, especially marginalized ones, over-policed and over-incarcerated in the name of “protection.”
Taxpayers, who fund a war that never ends and doesn’t work.

Prohibition is not a public health strategy. It’s a control strategy.

“But Drugs Are Dangerous!” — So Regulate Them Like Adults, Not Children

The prohibitionist trump card is always some version of: “But these substances are dangerous!”

Yes. Some drugs can cause serious dependence, health deterioration, and other harms. So can alcohol, tobacco, ultra-processed food, and a variety of pharmaceuticals. The question is not “Are there risks?” The question is: What framework produces the least harm and the most respect for human autonomy?

Prohibition says: ban it, criminalize users, and let unregulated markets supply everyone from teens to adults with mystery products of unknown strength.

Legalization and regulation say: accept that demand exists, bring production into the light, and manage risk with:

Potency limits and standardized doses.
Quality control and contamination testing.
Plain packaging or restricted marketing where appropriate.
Age limits and licensing systems for sellers.
Honest, non-hysterical education about risks and safer use.

You choose: chaos plus punishment, or transparency plus control. Only one of those is compatible with both public health and civil liberties.

What a Rational Drug Policy Actually Looks Like

An honest, evidence-based approach to drugs would start from three principles:

Bodily autonomy: Informed adults have the right to decide what to put in their own bodies, whether other people approve or not.
Harm reduction: The goal of policy is to reduce death, disease, and suffering — not to morally police personal choices.
Regulated supply: If a substance is widely used (and many are), regulating it is safer than pretending you can ban it out of existence.

Put that together and you get a framework like this:

Decriminalize possession and use of all drugs. Nobody should be caged for what they ingest.
Introduce regulated markets for commonly used substances (starting with cannabis, then carefully expanding to others with appropriate controls).
Provide safe supply options (e.g., medical heroin prescribing, stimulant maintenance, supervised consumption) for high-risk users to undercut the toxic illegal market.
Invest massively in voluntary, non-coercive treatment, mental health care, housing, and social support.
End the militarized drug war and redirect those billions toward services that actually keep people alive.

This is not utopian. It’s already happening in pieces across the world — and where it’s happening, outcomes are usually better than under the old punishment model.

Prohibition Isn’t “Conservative” — It’s Reckless

One last twist: prohibitionists often portray themselves as the sober, cautious adults in the room, resisting “radical experiments” like decriminalization or legalization.

But look around. The war on drugs is the radical experiment — an experiment in mass criminalization, militarized policing, and deliberate ignorance of basic market dynamics.

We’ve run that experiment for decades. The results are in:

Drugs everywhere.
Cartels richer and more violent.
Prisons full.
Overdoses soaring, especially where supply is most chaotic and unregulated.

Continuing to do the same thing in the face of this evidence isn’t “cautious.” It’s ideological stubbornness at the cost of human lives.

The Bottom Line: Decriminalization and Regulation Are Not the Risky Option — Prohibition Is

When someone says, “Legalization will destroy society,” what they’re really saying is, “I don’t trust adults with their own bodies, and I’d rather let cartels and cops run the show than admit prohibition failed.”

We know what happens under prohibition: dirty supply, needless deaths, packed prisons, and traumatized communities. We know what happens when we move toward decriminalization and regulation: fewer deaths, better health, less violence, and more respect for human freedom.

The evidence is not perfect, but it’s consistent: the less we punish people for drugs and the more we regulate supply, the safer everyone is.

Prohibition isn’t protecting society. It’s protecting a political fantasy and a very profitable status quo. It’s time to retire the scare stories, look at the data, and admit the obvious:

Drugs didn’t break the world. The drug war did. Ending it is not the radical move. Keeping it is.

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