Drug Legalization Doesn’t Destroy Society — Prohibition Does

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

If you’ve ever sat through a lazy TV debate or a politician’s stump speech, you’ve heard some version of that line. It’s the prohibitionist greatest hit: drugs are the problem, not poverty, not trauma, not inequality, not decades of failed policy. Just “drugs.”

Let’s be clear: people can and do experience real harm from drugs. But the idea that legalization or decriminalization inevitably leads to chaos is not just wrong — it’s politically convenient nonsense that props up a failed, brutal system.

This isn’t a moral debate about whether humans should alter their consciousness. Humans already do — with alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceuticals, nicotine, and more. This is about which policy model produces less death, less disease, less violence, and more freedom. Spoiler: it’s not prohibition.

The Prohibitionist Claim: “Legalization Increases Addiction and Destroys Society”

The standard anti-legalization argument usually runs like this:

• If we legalize or decriminalize drugs, more people will use them.
• More use automatically means more addiction, more overdoses, and more ruined lives.
• The only way to protect society — especially kids — is to keep drugs illegal, punish possession, and send “a strong message.”

It sounds intuitive if you don’t think about it too hard. But that’s the problem — it falls apart the second you look at actual data, history, or reality outside a politician’s soundbite.

Reality Check #1: Prohibition Has Had a 100% Failure Rate

We’ve tried prohibition. Repeatedly. Aggressively. Brutally. It has never done what it promised.

Alcohol Prohibition: The Original “War on Drugs” Flop

In the United States, alcohol prohibition (1920–1933) was sold with exactly the same rhetoric: ban the substance, protect society. What actually happened?

• Organized crime exploded. Bootleggers and gangs made fortunes off the black market.
• Violence increased. Alcohol didn’t disappear; it just moved into an unregulated, violent economy.
• People drank anyway. But now what they drank was sometimes toxic or adulterated.

When prohibition ended and alcohol was re-legalized and regulated, the chaos declined. That experience should have been a warning. Instead, governments hit the copy-paste button and did it again with other drugs — this time with even more prison, more policing, and more surveillance.

The Modern War on Drugs: Trillions Spent, Problems Worsened

Since the 1970s, the global “war on drugs” has cost trillions of dollars and filled prisons worldwide. What do we have to show for it?

• Drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available than ever.
• Overdose deaths are at record highs in many countries.
• Cartels and organized crime groups are profitable precisely because drugs are illegal.
• People are jailed not for harm they caused, but for what they put in their own bodies.

If drug prohibition worked, we’d have seen some sign of it by now. Instead, we’ve built one of the most reliable machines for human suffering and called it “drug control.”

Reality Check #2: Legal Doesn’t Mean Harmless — and Illegal Doesn’t Mean Rare

The prohibitionist logic assumes something very simplistic: illegality = less use, legality = more use. That’s not how this works.

Alcohol vs. Other Drugs: The Hypocrisy Test

If we truly believed “dangerous drugs must be banned,” alcohol would have been the first to go and never come back.

• Alcohol is linked to violence, liver disease, accidents, cancers, and family breakdown.
• Yet it is legally produced, regulated, taxed, and advertised during sports events watched by children.

No politician is seriously proposing to go back to alcohol prohibition (for good reason). Why? Because we know prohibition didn’t work and regulation — though imperfect — is far better than gang-controlled supply. But instead of applying that logic consistently, governments carve out exceptions for culturally accepted drugs and demonize others.

This is not about pharmacology; it’s about power, racism, and control.

Illegal ≠ Unused

Heroin, cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine — all banned for decades. Yet there is no country on Earth where they’ve been “eliminated.” What illegality does is:

• Push production into the hands of unregulated criminal networks.
• Encourage more potent, riskier products (fentanyl, anyone?) because high-potency is easier to smuggle.
• Discourage people from seeking help because they fear arrest, stigma, or losing their job and children.

Prohibition doesn’t stop demand; it just maximizes the harm associated with that demand.

Portugal: Decriminalization Without the Apocalypse

Portugal is the case study prohibitionists hope you never read about.

What Portugal Actually Did

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Not just cannabis — heroin, cocaine, MDMA, everything. Possession for personal use became a civil infraction (like a traffic ticket), not a crime. Trafficking remained illegal, but users were no longer treated as criminals.

Instead of prison, people could be referred to “dissuasion commissions”: panels that evaluate whether a person needs support, treatment, or nothing at all. Crucially, Portugal also invested in harm reduction, treatment, and social reintegration.

What Happened After Decriminalization

According to multiple evaluations and public health data:

• Drug-related deaths fell sharply. Portugal went from one of the worst overdose death rates in Western Europe to one of the lowest.
• HIV infections among people who use drugs plummeted. Syringe sharing decreased thanks to harm reduction services.
• Problematic use stabilized or declined. There was no explosion of addiction.
• More people accessed treatment. It’s easier to seek help when you’re not treated as a criminal.

Portugal did not become a drug tourism hellscape. The streets did not fill with “zombies.” Society did not collapse. Instead, health outcomes improved and the justice system stopped wasting resources punishing people for possessing small quantities.

Does Portugal have zero problems? Of course not. No policy does that. But compared to pre-2001 Portugal — and compared to countries clinging to harsh criminalization — the data is very clear: decriminalization plus health-based responses beat punishment and prohibition.

Cannabis Legalization: The “Gateway Drug” That Wasn’t

Cannabis is the most obvious real-world test of legalization at scale. Many jurisdictions have either legalized or heavily decriminalized it. The results are about as far from the prohibitionist horror stories as you can get.

United States: The Lab of the States

Dozens of U.S. states have legalized recreational cannabis. Prohibitionists promised chaos: mass addiction, stoned carnage, breakdown of social order. Instead, what the data generally show is:

• No consistent, dramatic increase in adolescent use. In some states, teen use has stayed flat or even declined after legalization.
• Arrests plummeted. Hundreds of thousands of people are no longer being cuffed and processed for simple possession.
• Tax revenue surged. Billions of dollars that used to fuel unregulated sellers now fund public services.
• No collapse of productivity or social function. People still go to work, pay bills, live their lives — they just do so with legal weed.

Are there issues to manage? Yes. Edible dosing, driving under the influence, commercialization pressures — these are real policy problems. But they’re regulation problems, not arguments for going back to cartel-controlled supply and mass arrest.

Canada and Beyond

Canada legalized cannabis nationwide in 2018. Again, the sky did not fall. What changed?

• The criminal market lost a major revenue stream.
• Consumers gained access to labeled, tested products.
• Research and public education became easier because the substance was no longer locked behind prohibition.

Other countries followed with medical and recreational models: Uruguay, parts of Europe, more U.S. states every year. None of them experienced the dystopia prohibitionists promised. Because — and this is the uncomfortable bit for drug warriors — those claims were never based on evidence.

Regulated Supply: Why “Legal” Is Safer than “Street”

The core harm of prohibition is not that it stops people from using drugs (it doesn’t). It’s that it forces them to use unregulated, often contaminated substances in unsafe conditions.

The Fentanyl Disaster Is a Prohibition Problem

The spike in fentanyl-related deaths isn’t because people suddenly became more “reckless” or “immoral.” It’s the predictable outcome of a system where:

• Supply is controlled by criminal networks maximizing profit per gram.
• There is no ingredient list, no dosing control, no quality assurance.
• Consumers have no legal recourse when they’re sold something deadly.

In a regulated model:

• Products can be dosage-standardized, tested, and labeled.
• Adulterants like fentanyl can be eliminated or tightly controlled.
• Health warnings and usage guidelines can be mandatory, not optional.

No one seriously argues that legal, regulated pharmaceuticals are risk-free, but imagine if your prescription meds came from a guy in a parking lot with a backpack and zero oversight. That is what prohibition normalizes for millions of people.

Supervised Consumption Sites: Reality vs Hysteria

Overdose prevention centers (a.k.a. supervised consumption sites) are another real-world demonstration of what happens when you treat drug use as a health issue instead of a crime:

• People use their own drugs in a supervised environment with trained staff.
• Staff can intervene during overdoses — and they do, constantly.
• People can connect to health services, housing support, and treatment on their terms.

Evaluations from countries like Canada, Switzerland, and others show:

• Overdose deaths plummet in the surrounding area.
• No increase in crime; some sites are associated with reduced public injecting and discarded syringes.

Again: the opposite of the prohibitionist fearmongering.

“But If We Make It Easier, More People Will Use!”

This is the last refuge of the prohibitionist: even if the harms of prohibition are bad, they say, legalization or decriminalization will lead to more people using drugs — and that’s automatically worse.

There are several problems with this argument.

Use vs. Harm: Not the Same Thing

Not all drug use is problematic. Many people use substances — including currently illegal ones — without meeting criteria for addiction or severe harm. The question is not: “Can we create a drug-free society?” (we can’t). The serious question is:

Under which system do fewer people die, fewer people get infected, fewer people end up in prison, and fewer families are destroyed?

Sometimes, the total number of people who have ever tried a substance may go up a bit under a regulated model. That doesn’t automatically mean worse outcomes. If risk is lower (because dose, purity, and context are safer), overall harm can fall even with stable or modestly increased use.

The “Message to Kids” Myth

Another favorite argument is symbolic: if we legalize or decriminalize, it “sends the wrong message” to children. As if criminalization is working now. Young people already know drugs exist. Many see their peers, parents, or teachers using them. They see right through the lie that “illegal drugs are deadly poison but alcohol is just fine.”

The message prohibition actually sends is:

• We care more about punishment than your safety.
• If you get into trouble, you should hide it, not ask for help.
• Some drugs (usually tied to big corporations) get a pass; others get you a prison record.

Honest, age-appropriate education, combined with regulated supply and harm reduction, respects young people enough to tell them the truth instead of cartoon propaganda.

Who Really Benefits from Prohibition?

If prohibition fails on its own stated goals, why does it keep going? Because it delivers for the people who matter most in our political economy — and no, that’s not you.

• Private prisons and carceral systems get a steady stream of inmates.
• Politicians get to posture as “tough on crime” while ignoring structural inequality.
• Law enforcement agencies justify bloated budgets, military-grade toys, and surveillance powers.
• Corporate interests (alcohol, pharmaceuticals, etc.) face less competition from unpatented alternatives.

Meanwhile, who pays the price?

• People who use drugs, especially the poor, racialized, and marginalized.
• Families torn apart by incarceration and criminal records.
• Communities destabilized by over-policing and under-investment in anything that actually helps.

This isn’t a war on drugs. It’s a war on people, selectively enforced.

What a Rational Drug Policy Looks Like

Decriminalization and legalization with regulated supply are not radical ideas. They’re what you get when you stop treating adults like property of the state and start designing policy around reality.

Step 1: Decriminalize Possession and Use

No adult should be arrested, caged, or branded a criminal for what they put in their own body. Decriminalization of possession for personal use:

• Removes fear of punishment for seeking help.
• Massively reduces the burden on courts and police.
• Allows resources to be shifted into health, housing, and harm reduction.

Step 2: Legalize and Regulate Supply

To actually control drugs, you need to bring them into a legal, regulated framework. That can mean different models for different substances:

• Cannabis-style retail for lower-risk substances.
• Medicalized or supervised models for higher-risk or injectable drugs.
• Heroin-assisted treatment for entrenched opioid dependence, as seen successfully in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands.

The goal is not to create a giant commercial free-for-all, but to replace criminal monopolies with accountable, controllable systems that reduce harm.

Step 3: Invest in Harm Reduction and Social Support

Drug-related suffering is often tied to housing instability, trauma, unemployment, mental health issues, and social isolation. A sane policy invests in:

• Evidence-based treatment on demand, not months-long waiting lists.
• Safe supply programs to replace toxic street drugs with known, tested alternatives.
• Syringe programs, supervised consumption, drug checking services.
• Housing, income support, and de-stigmatizing care.

We know these approaches work — because they’re already working wherever they’re tried seriously.

The Real “Radical” Position

At this point, the truly fringe position is not “legalize and regulate.” It’s insisting, in 2025, that we should keep doubling down on a century-old policy that has never delivered on its promises, has generated staggering levels of violence and incarceration, and has turned a public health issue into a permanent excuse for state control.

You don’t have to love drugs. You don’t have to use them. You can personally abstain from everything stronger than coffee and still recognize that adults have the right to bodily autonomy — and that the role of the state is to minimize harm, not legislate purity.

“Legalization will destroy society” is not an argument. It’s a fear tactic used to defend a system that is already destroying lives on an industrial scale.

The evidence from Portugal, from cannabis legalization experiments, from supervised consumption sites, from heroin-assisted treatment programs, all point in one direction: when you stop waging war on people and start treating drug use as a health and human rights issue, things get better.

The real question isn’t whether we can afford to decriminalize and regulate drugs. It’s how much longer we’re willing to pay the price of prohibition.

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