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

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

That’s the standard prohibitionist script. It’s been recycled for over a century to justify criminalization, mass surveillance, militarized policing, and billions funneled into a war that has never achieved its stated goals. The fear is always the same: if people have legal access to currently illegal drugs, everything will go to hell.

Let’s be blunt: this is not an evidence-based argument. It’s a moral panic in policy clothing. And it falls apart the second you stop listening to slogans and start looking at actual data, real-world experiments, and the ugly track record of prohibition itself.

The Prohibitionist Claim: Legalization = Social Collapse

Prohibitionists tend to lean on a few recurring claims:

1. “Legalization will cause a surge in addiction.”
If drugs are easier to get, more people will use them, leading to more addiction, more overdoses, more “burden on society.”

2. “Drugs destroy families and communities.”
Therefore the state must criminalize possession and supply to “protect” people, even from their own choices.

3. “Decriminalization sends the wrong message.”
They insist that removing criminal penalties “normalizes” drug use and undermines prevention, especially for youth.

4. “Look at alcohol and tobacco!”
They point to the harms from legal substances and conclude that we shouldn’t “add more” legal drugs to the mix.

Sounds dramatic. Sounds moral. Sounds like something a politician can shout into a microphone. But when you hold these claims up next to Portugal’s decriminalization, regulated cannabis markets, supervised consumption sites, and heroin prescribing programs, the entire narrative disintegrates.

Reality Check: Prohibition Has Already Failed Spectacularly

Before we even talk about legalization, let’s interrogate the status quo that prohibitionists defend.

We’ve tried criminalization for decades:

Over 50 years of the global “War on Drugs.”
Millions of people arrested, incarcerated, and branded with criminal records for possession.
Billions spent annually on policing, courts, prisons, and interdiction.

And what do we have to show for it?

Drugs are everywhere. You can get cocaine or fentanyl faster than you can see a doctor in many cities.
Potency has skyrocketed. Prohibition incentivizes stronger, more compact products (see: fentanyl, nitazenes).
Overdose deaths are breaking records. Especially in North America, overdoses are driven not by “drugs” in the abstract, but by unregulated and adulterated supply.
Racially targeted enforcement. Communities of color consistently bear the brunt of drug arrests and incarceration, despite similar use rates across racial groups.
Organized crime and violence. When a multi-billion-dollar market is illegal, who runs it? Not the Department of Health.

If prohibition were a pharmaceutical product, it would have been pulled from the market decades ago for “does not work; causes massive harm.” Instead, governments double down and blame the patients: people who use drugs.

Portugal: Decriminalization Without the Apocalypse

Let’s get very specific and very real. In 2001, Portugal did something prohibitionists swore would end civilization: it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Not just cannabis. Heroin, cocaine, MDMA, you name it.

Key point: Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. In Portugal, drug supply remains illegal, but possession for personal use is handled as an administrative issue, not a criminal offense. People caught with small amounts are referred to “dissuasion commissions” — panels that can recommend treatment, fines, or simply do nothing if there’s no problem to address.

What happened after Portugal stopped arresting people for using drugs?

Overdose deaths fell dramatically. They went from among the highest in Western Europe to among the lowest. According to multiple evaluations, drug-related deaths dropped by more than half in the years after reform.
HIV transmission among people who inject drugs plummeted. By combining decriminalization with harm reduction (needle exchanges, OST like methadone/buprenorphine), Portugal massively reduced HIV rates linked to injection.
Problematic use stabilized or fell. There was no massive spike in addiction. In some age groups, especially youth, problematic use decreased.
More people sought help. When you’re not criminalized for using drugs, it’s easier to actually talk to a doctor, a counselor, or a social worker without fearing a cop behind them.

Compare this with the fearmongering predictions: “Everyone will get hooked!” “The country will become a narco-state!” None of it happened. Why? Because criminal penalties were never the thing stopping people from using drugs. But those penalties were absolutely stopping people from getting help and driving them into the shadows.

Cannabis Legalization: So Where’s the Collapse?

Now let’s take a look at full legalization and regulated markets, starting with the plant that’s been demonized for decades while alcohol companies quietly cheered: cannabis.

Countries and regions that have legalized and regulated cannabis (Canada, Uruguay, multiple U.S. states, parts of Europe) give us a clear natural experiment: what happens when you stop pretending punishing people for a joint is good policy?

The prohibitionist warnings went like this:

Use will explode.
Teens will all become heavy users.
DUI crashes will skyrocket.
Crime will rise.

Here’s what the data show across multiple jurisdictions:

Youth use has stayed flat or changed only modestly. In many legal states, teen cannabis use has not significantly increased; in some, it has decreased slightly. Regulated stores actually check IDs. Your corner dealer never did.
Arrests plummeted. Hundreds of thousands fewer people — disproportionately Black and brown — now enter the criminal justice system for cannabis possession. That is an immediate and massive public health and civil liberties win.
No credible evidence of a crime wave. Crime trends look much more tied to economic conditions, policing strategies, and other social factors than to legal weed.
Tax revenues fund public services. Billions have been raised and redirected to education, treatment, and community programs — instead of to cartels and unregulated markets.

Is legal cannabis perfect? No. Corporate capture, over-commercialization, aggressive marketing — these are all legitimate concerns. But they’re regulation problems, not arguments for criminalization. When alcohol companies behave badly, no one says “ban beer and imprison drinkers.” They say: regulate, tax, restrict marketing, and inform consumers.

Supervised Consumption & Safe Supply: Lower Deaths, Not Higher Use

Another favorite prohibitionist claim is that harm reduction “enables” drug use. They hate supervised consumption sites, drug checking, safe supply programs — anything that reduces death without threatening punishment.

Let’s look at what actually happens where these services exist:

Supervised Consumption Sites

Places like Vancouver, Sydney, and several European cities operate supervised consumption services where people can use pre-obtained drugs under medical supervision, with sterile equipment and naloxone on hand.

Overdose deaths on-site: virtually zero. Staff intervene with oxygen and naloxone when needed. People don’t die alone in alleys or bathrooms.
Reduced HIV and hepatitis transmission. Clean equipment and safer-use education work.
Increased entry into treatment. Contrary to the “enabling” myth, these sites connect people with detox, medication-assisted treatment, housing, and healthcare.
No evidence of increased local crime. Multiple evaluations find no meaningful increase in crime rates attributable to these services.

Medical Heroin & Safe Supply

Countries like Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and others have implemented heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) and other safe supply options for people with long-term opioid dependence.

Street crime dropped. When people don’t have to hustle or steal to finance an expensive illicit habit, acquisitive crime falls.
Health outcomes improved. Lower overdose risk, less infection, improved stability and social functioning.
No explosion in new heroin users. These programs are targeted, medical, and tightly regulated. They serve existing heavy users, not “create” new ones.

Once again, the reality is the exact opposite of the panic. Regulated access and harm reduction stabilize lives; criminalization destabilizes them.

“Legalization Will Increase Addiction” — Will It?

Let’s engage this argument head-on. Could legalization and regulated supply increase the number of people who try certain substances? Possibly, yes. Prohibitionists love to stop the conversation right there. But that’s not the only metric that matters — and it’s not even the most important one.

Public health, at its core, is about reducing harm, not reducing existence. We don’t measure the success of alcohol policy by asking, “Did we achieve zero drinkers?” We look at violence, liver disease, drunk driving, and early deaths — and we regulate accordingly.

Now, compare two worlds:

World A: Prohibition

People still use drugs, but in secret, with no quality control, wildly variable potency, and contamination (fentanyl, adulterants, novel synthetics).
Overdose risk is high because no one knows what or how much they’re actually taking.
People fear seeking help because cops may be involved or child protection services will be called.
Drug markets are run by criminal organizations, often using violence to resolve disputes.

World B: Legalization & Regulation

Drugs sold with accurate labeling, potency information, and standardized doses.
Age restrictions, licensing, and zoning — same tools we use for alcohol and pharmacies.
Health services integrated: on-site or nearby counseling, testing, education, and safer-use guidance.
Tax revenues going to healthcare and harm reduction, not to criminal networks.

Even if marginal use goes up in World B, harm per user can drop sharply. Overdoses, infectious diseases, and criminalization impacts can fall. People can make informed decisions with real information and real protections — not street rumors and mystery powders.

The core prohibitionist move is to pretend “drug use” and “harm” are inseparable. They are not. Harm comes from how, what, and under what conditions people consume — and those are exactly the things prohibition makes worse.

“Drugs Destroy Families” — Or Does Criminalization?

Another emotionally charged line is that drugs “destroy families,” as if the primary threat to family stability is someone using a banned substance — and not poverty, violence, eviction, or losing a parent to prison over a possession charge.

Let’s draw a clear line: yes, substance use can become chaotic and damaging. That’s precisely why we want policies that minimize chaos and maximize support. Prohibition does the opposite:

Parents are jailed for minor drug offenses; families are torn apart.
Children are thrown into foster systems rather than supported with family-centered treatment services.
People lose jobs, housing, and custody because of a criminal record for simple possession.
Stigma makes it harder to admit there’s a problem and ask for help.

You know what’s actually protective for families?

Non-punitive, voluntary treatment services.
Stable housing and income supports.
Family-based therapy and support programs.
Legal protections against discrimination based on drug use or drug history.

None of that requires sending someone to court or prison. All of that becomes easier when drugs are not treated as a criminal-justice issue.

“It Sends the Wrong Message” — To Whom?

Whenever decriminalization or legalization is proposed, someone will hand-wring about “the message” it sends, especially to young people. But what exactly is the message of current policy?

That the state will ruin your life with a criminal record to “protect” you from the possibility you might ruin your life with a substance.
That alcohol is socially accepted and heavily advertised, while other drugs are treated as moral failings rather than health issues.
That evidence and outcomes matter less than political optics and moral panic.

Here’s a radical idea: The message we should send is that adults have bodily autonomy, that drugs carry risks like many other adult activities, and that the role of government is to provide honest information, strong consumer protections, and accessible health services — not punishment.

Regulated legalization lets us deliver a coherent message:

“These substances exist.”
“Here are the actual risks, without propaganda.”
“Here’s how to reduce those risks if you choose to use.”
“Here’s healthcare and support if things go sideways.”

That message respects adults. Prohibition’s message is basically: “Shut up, obey, and hope we don’t ruin you for breaking rules we can’t justify with data.”

“Look at Alcohol and Tobacco!” — Yes, Let’s

Prohibitionists love to throw alcohol and tobacco into the mix: “These legal drugs kill millions; therefore we shouldn’t legalize more.” This is like saying seat belts didn’t end all car crashes, so we should ban safer cars.

The truth is:

Alcohol and tobacco harm are high largely because they’re normalized and aggressively marketed, not because they’re legal per se.
Regulation actually has reduced harm over time: smoke-free laws, age restrictions, health warnings, advertising limits, taxation, and drunk-driving enforcement all prevent illness and death.

The lesson is not “never regulate.” It’s: regulation must be designed for health, not for corporate profit. If we legalize other drugs, we don’t have to repeat every mistake of the alcohol and tobacco industries. We can:

Ban or severely restrict advertising.
Limit corporate concentration and vertical integration.
Favor public or non-profit supply models, especially for higher-risk substances.
Build in robust warning labels and mandatory education at point of sale.

The alternative — leaving production, distribution, and quality control to unregulated criminal markets — is objectively worse.

Who Really Benefits from Prohibition?

Defenders of the drug war like to frame it as a noble, if imperfect, effort to “protect society.” But look at who actually benefits:

Law enforcement budgets and power grow with every new “threat” and every new surveillance tool justified in the name of drugs.
Private prison companies profit from incarceration — including for non-violent drug offenses.
Organized crime thrives on illegal markets, making immense profits off prohibition-created scarcity and risk.
Pharmaceutical and alcohol industries have long histories of lobbying against competing drug liberalization.

Meanwhile, who pays the price?

People who use drugs — including those who never develop dependence.
Their families and communities, especially in over-policed and marginalized neighborhoods.
Taxpayers, who bankroll a system that burns money and produces harm.

It’s not “radical” to question this arrangement. What’s radical is accepting it as normal.

Decriminalization and Legalization: A Saner Way Forward

So where does this leave us?

We know:

Prohibition has not eliminated drug use.
It has created a dangerous, adulterated supply.
It has filled prisons and cemeteries, not treatment centers.
Real-world examples of decriminalization and regulation have improved outcomes, not worsened them.

The rational path forward includes:

Decriminalizing all drug possession for personal use. No one should be arrested for what they put in their own body.
Legalizing and strictly regulating supply, starting with cannabis and expanding to other drugs. Different substances require different regulatory models, but black markets help no one except criminals.
Massive investment in harm reduction and voluntary treatment. Supervised consumption, safe supply, drug checking, OST, and non-judgmental services.
Expunging past drug possession convictions. If a law was unjust yesterday, those criminal records are unjust today.
Prioritizing community-led and public models over corporate domination. Legalization should serve people, not just shareholders.

People will always use drugs. That’s not a policy failure; that’s a human reality. The failure is insisting on a model that guarantees maximum harm, then calling anything else “irresponsible.”

The real irresponsibility is clinging to prohibition while overdoses climb, prisons overflow, and unregulated markets thrive — all because someone in power is more afraid of losing moral control than of losing lives.

Legalization and regulated supply aren’t a reckless experiment. Prohibition is. And it’s one we’ve already run for generations, with catastrophic results. It’s long past time to try something that actually works.

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