Do Drugs Destroy Society – Or Does Prohibition? A Reality Check on the War on Drugs

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

That’s the prohibitionist greatest hit. You’ve heard it in campaign ads, police press conferences, and every time a politician needs a distraction from corporate corruption or a failing healthcare system. Drugs, we’re told, are the existential threat — not inequality, not violence, not environmental collapse, not predatory capitalism. Just “drugs.”

Let’s be blunt: this argument is propaganda. It survives because it’s emotionally powerful, not because it’s true. When you actually look at the evidence — countries that decriminalized, states that legalized cannabis, cities that embraced harm reduction — the scare stories fall apart fast.

This isn’t a debate between “chaos” and “order.” It’s a choice between two models: unregulated criminal markets policed by violence, or legal, regulated systems that treat people like adults with bodily autonomy. One of those systems is already failing on every metric. Spoiler: it’s prohibition.

The Prohibitionist Claim, in One Sentence

The core prohibitionist argument boils down to this:

If drugs are decriminalized or legalized, more people will use them, addiction will increase, health outcomes will worsen, and society will bear unbearable costs.

Wrapped around that core are some familiar sub-claims:

• Legalization “normalizes” drug use and sends “the wrong message.”
• Decriminalization leads to “drug tourism” and chaos.
• Harsh punishment “deters” use and protects young people.
• Harm reduction “enables” addiction instead of fixing it.

Sounds serious. But there’s a glaring problem: when we test these claims against real-world policy experiments, they simply don’t hold up.

Portugal: The Case Study Prohibitionists Pretend Doesn’t Exist

Portugal is the go-to example for people who actually read data instead of press releases. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the personal possession and use of all drugs — heroin, cocaine, MDMA, you name it. Not legalized and sold in stores, but removed from the criminal code for personal amounts. People caught with drugs are referred to “dissuasion commissions” — health and social workers — instead of being branded criminals.

Prohibitionists predicted exactly what you’d expect: a drug apocalypse.

Here’s what actually happened, as documented in multiple evaluations (EMCDDA, peer-reviewed studies, and the Portuguese health ministry):

• Overdose deaths dropped dramatically. Portugal went from one of the highest overdose rates in Western Europe in the late 90s to one of the lowest. In 2017, it had around 6 overdose deaths per million adults. The EU average was roughly 23 per million. That’s not a rounding error — that’s lives saved.
• HIV infections among people who inject drugs plummeted. New HIV diagnoses linked to injecting drugs fell by more than 90% compared to pre-2001 levels, thanks to decriminalization plus harm reduction (needle exchanges, treatment access).
• Drug use did not explode. Lifetime use of most substances rose modestly (as it has across Europe), but problematic use and injecting-related harms went down. Crucially, there was no “mass addiction wave.” Portugal’s drug use rates are now unremarkable compared to its neighbors.
• Prisons and courts were relieved of thousands of low-level cases. People were pushed toward services, not cells.

In other words: when you stop treating drug use as a crime and start treating it as a health and social issue, health outcomes improve and society does not collapse. The sky stayed exactly where it was — overhead.

“But That’s Just Portugal!” – No, It’s Not

Prohibition fans love to dismiss Portugal as a one-off, like some magical Iberian exception. So let’s zoom out.

Cannabis Legalization: More Freedom, Less Panic

Cannabis is the test case the world is already running. Dozens of jurisdictions have moved from prohibition to legal, regulated markets: Uruguay, Canada, and U.S. states like Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and many more.

Prohibitionists promised carnage: shattered brains, stoned drivers everywhere, a generation of lost youth. The results are much less cinematic and much more boringly rational:

• Use didn’t skyrocket, especially among teens.
  • In Canada, post-legalization surveys show adult use up modestly, teen use largely flat or declining.
  • In many U.S. states, youth cannabis use either stayed stable or fell slightly after legalization. Some states saw small increases in some years, small decreases in others — nothing like the panic narrative.
• Arrests plummeted. Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people a year are no longer being dragged through the criminal system for possession. That alone is a massive civil liberties win, especially for Black and Indigenous communities who were disproportionately targeted.
• Illicit markets shrank — but didn’t vanish. Regulation undercut a lot of black-market activity, though high taxes and overregulation in some regions kept a shadow market alive. Lesson: regulation has to be sane, not punitive in disguise.
• No sign of social collapse. Funny how that part never materialized. The biggest “crisis” has been that legal industries look like every other late-capitalist industry: overconsolidation, corporate lobbying, and predictable government favoritism — but that’s a problem of capitalism, not cannabis.

Supervised Consumption Sites and Heroin-Assisted Treatment

Then there’s harm reduction at the sharpest edge: people injecting heroin and other opioids. Here, prohibitionists insist that safe consumption sites (SCS) and heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) will “attract addicts,” “normalize use,” and “trap people in addiction.”

So what actually happens where these services exist? Let’s look at places like Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and some European cities:

• Overdose deaths drop locally. Supervised consumption sites are associated with fewer fatal overdoses in the surrounding area. Staff intervene, administer naloxone, and prevent deaths that would otherwise become statistics.
• Public injecting and discarded syringes decrease. People use indoors, with sterile equipment, instead of alleyways and parks. Communities are cleaner and safer — something prohibitionists claim to want but keep blocking.
• Infectious disease risk drops. Needle exchange and safer use support reduce HIV and hepatitis C transmission.
• People are more likely to connect to treatment and services. When your first contact with “the system” isn’t a cop and a cage, but a nurse and a social worker, the path to stabilization and recovery is actually possible.

Heroin-assisted treatment programs — where long-term dependent users receive medical-grade, supervised heroin — have shown similar benefits: reduced street crime, improved health, and less chaotic use.

The pattern is consistent: when you stop pretending prohibition “protects” people and start giving people tools, options, and a safe supply, outcomes improve.

Prohibition Isn’t “Prevention” – It’s Organized Harm

Let’s flip the debate. Instead of assuming prohibition is the “safe default” and alternatives must justify themselves, ask: what has prohibition actually done?

1. It Creates the Most Dangerous Possible Drug Market

Prohibition guarantees one thing: no quality control. When a substance is illegal, supply is shifted to criminal networks, which operate with zero product standards and zero accountability.

Result:

• Fentanyl and analogues flood unregulated opioid markets because they’re compact and profitable.
• Cocaine and meth are cut with unpredictable adulterants.
• Pills sold as MDMA, benzos, or painkillers may contain absolutely anything.

People don’t die because “drugs are bad.” They often die because they’re lied to by the market that prohibition created: one where potency, contents, and dosage are a mystery. No labeling, no testing, no recourse.

A regulated market solves at least three core problems immediately:

• Accurate dosing and clear labeling.
• Contaminant and potency testing built into production.
• Transparent channels for recall and oversight.

We do this for alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco — all psychoactive, all potentially dangerous. No one has to buy bathtub gin from a guy in an alley anymore, and surprise: the mass blinding and toxicity of the Prohibition era ended when regulation returned.

2. It Supercharges Violence and Organized Crime

When there’s demand and you make supply illegal, you don’t get “no supply.” You get violent supply. You hand a multi-billion-dollar industry to cartels, gangs, and anyone willing to take the risk — and use violence to protect their trade.

Alcohol Prohibition in the U.S. proved this almost a century ago: the illegal booze trade drove corruption, gang wars, and homicide. When alcohol was re-legalized and regulated, that specific violence declined. We’re replaying the same failed script with other substances, just with more militarized police and better PR budgets for prohibition.

The “drug war” has:

• Destabilized entire regions (e.g., parts of Latin America) through cartel violence.
• Justified police militarization and surveillance at home.
• Fueled corruption at every level of enforcement.

None of this exists because adults like altered states. It exists because we chose a legal framework that guarantees the black market is the default supplier.

3. It Targets the Vulnerable and Protects the Powerful

Prohibition is sold as “tough on crime.” In practice it’s “tough on the poor, the racialized, and the already marginalized.” Enforcement is never equal:

• Wealthy users quietly consume behind closed doors with little risk.
• Street-based users and poor communities are subjected to constant policing, arrest, and incarceration.
• Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are arrested and imprisoned at far higher rates despite similar or lower use compared to white populations.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical corporations flood entire regions with prescription opioids, juice profits, then pivot to blame “addicts” when the overdoses stack up. Politicians who took pharma money turn around and endorse “crackdowns” on the very people those companies helped hook.

This isn’t about safety. It’s about control, profit, and a convenient excuse to police already overpoliced communities.

“Legalization Increases Addiction” – Does It?

Back to the core claim: does loosening criminal penalties or legalizing and regulating supply actually increase addiction?

Sorting myth from reality requires a few basic distinctions:

• “Use” is not the same as “addiction.” Most people who use psychoactive substances do not meet criteria for a substance use disorder.
• Short-term increases in self-reported use after legalization may partly reflect people being more honest in surveys when the law is less punitive.
• Health outcomes (overdoses, infections, treatment access) matter more than raw “use” percentages.

Looking at real-world evidence:

• Portugal: No wave of addiction. Problematic heroin use decreased; treatment access increased.
• Cannabis-legal states and Canada: Some increases in adult use, youth use roughly stable, no clear surge in addiction rates. Societal collapse absent.
• Harm reduction regions (e.g., supervised use sites, robust treatment): Reduced mortality and morbidity without evidence of mass new dependence caused by the services themselves.

The belief that “legal = more addiction” mostly rests on moral panic and a simplistic assumption: that the only thing standing between society and total intoxication is a cop with handcuffs. As if people are just waiting for a law change to suddenly start injecting fentanyl for fun.

The reality: people use drugs for reasons — trauma, pain, pleasure, curiosity, coping. Criminalization doesn’t erase those reasons; it just makes the outcomes more dangerous and the options fewer.

What a Rational Drug Policy Actually Looks Like

We don’t have to choose between “drug free” fantasies and chaotic black markets. There’s a third option: legally regulated supply plus robust harm reduction and treatment.

1. Decriminalization of Personal Possession and Use

First, stop arresting people for what they put in their own bodies.

Decriminalization means:

• No criminal penalties for possession of small, personal-use amounts.
• Redirection to health or social services where appropriate — but without coercive, punitive strings attached.
• Courts and prisons freed up from pointless, harmful low-level cases.

Portugal shows this is workable. It reduces stigma, increases willingness to seek help, and stops turning people into “criminals” for having a substance in their pocket.

2. Regulated Supply for High-Demand Substances

Decriminalization alone doesn’t remove the black market; it just protects users from prosecution. To actually defang illegal networks and improve safety, you need legal, regulated supply channels.

That can look like:

• Cannabis: Licensed production, age limits, potency labeling, taxation, and public health campaigns.
• Opioids: Prescribed safe supply for dependent users; heroin-assisted treatment for those who need it; pain management that treats patients as humans, not suspects.
• Stimulants and other substances: Gradual introduction of regulated forms and supervised access programs informed by evidence, not hysteria.

The details will vary by country and culture, but the guiding principle is simple: if adults are going to use something (and they are), they should be able to get it safely, predictably, and without funding organized crime.

3. Fully Funded Harm Reduction and Voluntary Treatment

Regulation without harm reduction is just neoliberal window dressing. Real reform means:

• Supervised consumption sites wherever they’re needed.
• Drug checking / pill testing services so people know what they’re taking.
• Free, widely available naloxone.
• Non-judgmental, low-threshold treatment: methadone, buprenorphine, heroin-assisted treatment, residential care, mental health support.
• Housing, income support, and social services — because “addiction” is often poverty and trauma wearing a chemical mask.

None of this is radical from a health perspective. It only looks “radical” compared to the deeply irrational status quo where we prefer funerals and prison cells over clean syringes and safe supply.

The Real “Wrong Message”

Prohibitionists say legalization “sends the wrong message.” Let’s talk about the messages prohibition actually sends:

• That your body is not yours — it’s the state’s, to be searched, tested, and caged as needed.
• That some drugs (alcohol, pharma meds) are fine when sold by corporations, but criminal when accessed outside those channels.
• That people who use banned substances deserve punishment more than they deserve healthcare or respect.

The war on drugs is not a moral crusade; it’s a control system. It has never been about saving lives. If that were the priority, overdose deaths and HIV spikes would trigger public health interventions, not raids and press conferences.

The “wrong message” is criminalizing people for trying to alter their consciousness or manage their pain in a society that offers plenty of trauma and very few tools to cope with it.

The Counter-Argument, Summed Up

Let’s put it plainly:

• Drug use has been part of human societies for millennia. It isn’t going away.
• Prohibition does not stop use. It just makes it riskier, more violent, and more unequal.
• Decriminalization and regulation, when done seriously and paired with harm reduction, improve health outcomes, reduce deaths, and undermine criminal markets.
• The true “drug problem” is not that adults alter their consciousness; it’s that our policies force them to do so in the most dangerous possible environment.

You don’t have to love drugs to oppose prohibition. You just have to prefer reality over fearmongering — and value human autonomy more than a failed, punitive fantasy about a “drug-free” world.

So the next time someone warns that decriminalization or legalization will “destroy society,” ask them to name a country where prohibition has worked — where drugs disappeared, deaths plummeted, and prisons emptied.

They can’t. Because that place doesn’t exist.

The choice isn’t between a drug-free utopia and chaos. It’s between continuing a deadly, hypocritical war on people, or finally acting like grown-ups and regulating what we know will always exist. If society is going to collapse, it won’t be because adults can legally access tested substances. It’ll be because we let fear and control trump evidence and basic human freedom for too long.

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