Drug Prohibition: The Policy That Creates the Very Harm It Claims to Stop

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

That’s the prohibitionist greatest hit. You’ve heard variations a thousand times: drugs “destroy communities,” “ruin families,” and “turn cities into war zones.” The implied solution is always the same: criminalize, punish, and police our way to safety.

Here’s the reality: the worst harms people point to—overdoses, cartel violence, contaminated supply, mass incarceration—are not caused by the simple existence of drugs. They are caused, supercharged, and entrenched by prohibition itself.

When you strip away the fear-mongering, the data are pretty clear: punishing people for using drugs does not stop use, does not prevent addiction, and does not create safety. What it does do is hand a multi-billion-dollar market to unregulated dealers and organized crime, while destroying countless lives through criminal records, stigma, and unsafe supply.

The Prohibitionist Claim: “Legalization Will Make Everything Worse”

Let’s steelman the argument instead of attacking a strawman. The more thoughtful prohibitionist position usually goes like this:

“Drugs are dangerous. If we decriminalize or legalize them, more people will use them, more people will become addicted, and more families and communities will suffer. The only responsible policy is to keep them illegal, crack down hard on supply, and send a clear moral message.”

There are a few assumptions buried in this:

• Illegality significantly deters use.
• Criminalization reduces addiction and overdoses.
• Legalization inevitably leads to large spikes in use and harm.
• Policing and punishment are effective tools for managing drugs.

All four are contradicted by real-world evidence. Not abstract theory—actual countries and states that tried something different and didn’t collapse into Mad Max.

What Actually Happens When You Decriminalize: The Portugal Example

Portugal is the prohibitionist nightmare that never came true.

In 2001, facing a serious heroin crisis, Portugal did not double down on drug war theatrics. Instead, it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Not “sort of.” All. Heroin, cocaine, MDMA, you name it.

Important detail: decriminalization in Portugal did not mean a free-for-all. Trafficking remained illegal. But people caught with small amounts weren’t treated as criminals. They were sent to “dissuasion commissions,” usually offered health and social support rather than jail and a record.

Prohibitionists predicted disaster. More use, more addiction, more overdoses, more crime.

Here’s what actually happened, according to data from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and multiple peer-reviewed studies:

• Overdose deaths dropped dramatically. Portugal went from one of the worst overdose rates in Western Europe to one of the lowest. This was not magic; it was policy.
• HIV infections among people who use drugs plummeted. New HIV cases linked to injection drug use fell by over 90% compared to the pre-2001 era, thanks to harm reduction and less fear of seeking help.
• Drug use did not explode. Among adults, lifetime use rose in line with broader European trends, but there was no apocalyptic surge. Among youth, rates stayed relatively stable and, in some age groups, declined.
• Problematic use stabilized or decreased. The proportion of people considered “problematic” users (e.g., dependent heroin use) went down or remained stable while health outcomes improved.

In other words: when Portugal stopped criminalizing users and invested in health and social support, things got better, not worse. The “if we’re not harsh, people will go wild” story simply didn’t materialize.

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

The “Portugal is a special case” defense only works if you ignore a mountain of other evidence.

Cannabis Legalization in North America

Over a dozen U.S. states and the entire country of Canada have legalized cannabis for adult use. Prohibitionists promised an apocalypse of stoned teenagers and wrecked highways. Instead, we got:

• Stable or declining youth use. Surveys in legalized U.S. states often show no significant increase in teen cannabis use, and in some cases, a slight decrease. It turns out ID checks work better than street dealers.
• No consistent explosion in cannabis use disorders. Some increase in adult use? Yes. A societal meltdown? No. Most people use occasionally, not compulsively.
• Fewer arrests and criminal records. Hundreds of thousands of people spared from the lifelong consequences of a drug conviction. In some states, past records have been expunged—an actual reduction in state violence.
• Legal, regulated products instead of mystery weed. Testing, labeling, and dosing guidance are standard. You know the THC content; you can choose lower-potency products. That’s harm reduction by design.

Are cannabis markets perfect? Not even close. Corporate capture, aggressive marketing, equity failures—absolutely worth criticizing. But even with messy implementation, legalization beats prohibition on basically every measurable health and justice outcome.

Decriminalization and Harm Reduction Elsewhere

Other jurisdictions have experimented with decriminalization or extensive harm reduction without chaos:

• Czech Republic has long had relatively liberal possession policies and lower rates of problematic use than many EU countries that are more punitive.
• Switzerland introduced heroin-assisted treatment and supervised consumption spaces in the 1990s; overdose deaths plummeted, crime linked to heroin use fell, and people stabilized enough to rebuild their lives.
• Canada and parts of Europe have expanded supervised consumption services and safer supply pilots; these reduce overdose deaths and infections and do not increase overall drug use.

The pattern is clear: when you shift from punishment and repression to health and regulation, outcomes improve. Not “utopia,” but measurably better lives, fewer deaths, and less chaos.

The Myth That Criminalization Reduces Drug Use

Prohibitionists love the deterrence story: laws are harsh, so people are scared, so they don’t use drugs. But global data don’t support that fairytale.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)—not exactly a radical anti-drug-war organization—has repeatedly acknowledged that despite decades of aggressive enforcement, the global drug market remains massive and resilient. In many places, drugs are cheaper and more available than ever.

Compare countries by policy severity and you don’t see a neat pattern of “tough laws = low use.” Some of the harshest regimes (including those that execute people for drug offenses) still have active and thriving markets. Meanwhile, some places with more tolerant approaches don’t have sky-high usage rates.

The reason is simple: people don’t make drug decisions primarily based on statute books. They make them based on culture, social environment, mental health, stress, opportunity, and desire. The law mainly decides whether they’ll get safer regulated products—or roll the dice in an unregulated market and risk their entire future if the cops show up.

What Prohibition Actually Does: Maximizes Harm

Let’s be precise. Prohibition doesn’t eliminate drugs; it changes how they exist in society—and it does so in the worst possible way.

1. It Creates a Violent, Unregulated Market

When you ban something with steady demand, you don’t erase the demand; you hand the supply to whoever is willing to break the law for profit. That means:

• No product testing.
• No dosing information or labeling.
• No age checks.
• Disputes resolved with violence instead of contracts.

The cartel violence prohibitionists love to cite as proof that drugs are evil? That’s a direct result of prohibition turning a commodity into a black-market jackpot. Alcohol prohibition in the U.S. did the same thing: it created organized crime empires. When alcohol was re-legalized and regulated, the gang wars vanished. Funny how that works.

2. It Supercharges Overdose Risk

In a regulated market, you know the dose and contents of what you’re taking. In a prohibited market, you’re guessing.

The current “opioid crisis” is a textbook example. When the state cracked down on prescription opioids, it didn’t magically cure pain or dependency. It pushed people into the illegal heroin market—and then into fentanyl, which is cheaper, more potent, and far riskier when unregulated and unlabeled.

That’s not a natural disaster; it’s a policy-inflicted one. A safe, regulated supply of known-dose opioids for people who want or need them would drastically reduce overdose deaths. Instead, governments cling to prohibition, then act shocked when people die from the poisoned supply they created.

3. It Criminalizes Health Issues and Poverty

People with drug dependency often already face poverty, trauma, or mental health issues. Prohibition adds a criminal record on top of that, making work, housing, education, and family stability harder.

Then politicians point to the resulting homelessness, petty crime, and visible suffering as evidence that “drugs ruin lives”—conveniently skipping their own role in turning a health and social issue into a policing bonanza.

4. It Wastes Resources on Punishment Instead of Help

Billions are poured into surveillance, raids, prisons, border theatrics, and militarized policing, while treatment, housing, and voluntary harm reduction services are underfunded or politically attacked.

You don’t need a PhD in public health to see the problem: if you invest in cops instead of care, you get more arrests and the same or worse drug problems. You also get bloated enforcement agencies with every incentive to keep the “war” going.

The Hypocrisy: Corporate Drugs Good, Other Drugs Evil

Prohibition isn’t about “protecting health.” If it were, governments wouldn’t treat different psychoactive substances with such glaring double standards.

• Alcohol causes enormous harm—liver disease, cancer, violence, accidents—yet it’s legal, marketed everywhere, and politically untouchable in most countries.
• Tobacco kills millions worldwide each year but remains legal; the focus has (rightly) shifted to regulation, labeling, and taxation, not mass incarceration of smokers.
• Pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketed addictive opioids, fueling vast waves of dependency and overdose—and what happened? Civil settlements, fines (often just a cost of doing business), and no meaningful dismantling of corporate power structures.

Meanwhile, an individual caught with a few grams of an illegal substance—sometimes pharmacologically milder than what corporations sell—can lose their job, kids, housing, and freedom.

This isn’t about which molecules are “good” or “bad.” It’s about which molecules have lobbyists and profit pipelines protected by the state, and which ones are criminalized to justify policing, moral panic, and control.

What Legalization and Regulation Actually Look Like

Prohibitionists love to pretend that decriminalization or legalization means chaos: drugs in vending machines, dealers handing meth to toddlers, society turning into a 24/7 rave. That caricature is useful propaganda, but it’s not how serious drug policy reformers think.

A sane legalization and regulation framework includes:

• Age restrictions and ID checks for purchase.
• Licensed, accountable sellers instead of anonymous street dealers.
• Clear labeling of strength, ingredients, and dosage guidance.
• Quality control and testing to prevent contamination and wildly variable potency.
• Restrictions on marketing, especially to youth.
• Taxation, with revenue directed into harm reduction, treatment, housing, and social support.
• Non-criminal responses to personal possession and use—at most civil fines or referrals, ideally nothing at all.

Different substances warrant different frameworks. LSD is not alcohol is not heroin is not cannabis. But across the board, a legal, regulated framework is better for managing risk than total criminalization, which pretends we can wish drugs away and then punishes reality when it refuses to comply.

Harm Reduction: The Middle Finger to Prohibitionist Fatalism

Underlying prohibition is a puritan logic: if we can’t get people to stop, we’d rather watch them suffer than give them tools to be safer. Needle exchanges, supervised consumption sites, drug checking, naloxone distribution—these are all proven interventions that reduce death and disease without increasing overall use.

Countries and cities that embrace harm reduction see:

• Fewer overdoses.
• Lower HIV and hepatitis transmission.
• More engagement with health and social services.
• No evidence of large-scale increases in drug initiation.

This isn’t controversial among researchers. It’s only controversial among politicians and moral entrepreneurs who would rather cling to symbolic “toughness” than admit their beloved war on drugs has been a five-decade failure.

“But Won’t More People Try Drugs If They’re Legal?”

Maybe. Some will. Many already do and just stop at the line of what the law officially blesses (alcohol, prescriptions, etc.).

The relevant question is not “will some use go up?” The relevant question is: Will overall harm go up or down?

If drug use becomes:

• Less deadly (because of known quality and dose).
• Less criminalized (no cages, no lifelong records).
• Less stigmatized (easier to seek help early).

then an increase in some forms of use does not automatically mean worse outcomes. We already accept this logic with alcohol and cigarettes: we regulate, tax, educate, and reduce harm instead of pretending we can prohibit our way to purity.

From Punishment to Autonomy: The Moral Argument

Beyond data and case studies, there is a core ethical question that prohibitionists rarely confront honestly:

Do adults own their bodies, or does the state?

If an informed adult chooses to alter their consciousness, with full knowledge of risks, what gives the state the moral authority to cage them for it? “Protecting them from themselves” is a flimsy cover for outright control. If that logic were applied consistently, half the food industry, much of the alcohol market, and a chunk of extreme sports would be illegal.

Regulation respects autonomy while managing collective risk. Prohibition tries to override autonomy entirely through force—and fails even on its own terms, because people use anyway, just more dangerously.

Time to Stop Pretending Prohibition Works

We’ve run the experiment. For decades. Across continents. The results are in:

• Drugs are everywhere.
• Overdoses are rampant where supply is toxic and unregulated.
• Cartels and organized crime thrive on prohibition-created profits.
• Millions of lives are derailed by criminal records for non-violent drug offenses.
• Black, brown, Indigenous, and poor communities bear the brunt of enforcement.

And every time someone proposes a different approach—decriminalization, safe supply, regulated markets—the same tired horror stories get dusted off: “Addiction will explode! Society will collapse!”

Portugal didn’t collapse. Cannabis-legal states didn’t collapse. Countries using heroin-assisted treatment and supervised consumption sites didn’t collapse. What did collapse, in those places, was the illusion that punishment is the only way to respond to drugs.

So the debate isn’t really “prohibition vs. chaos.” It’s “evidence vs. fear,” “autonomy vs. control,” and “regulated reality vs. the fantasy that we can ban human desire.”

Drugs are here. They’re not going away. The choice is simple: keep clinging to a prohibitionist model that maximizes harm and empowers the worst actors—or embrace decriminalization, legalization, and regulation that treat people like adults, prioritize health, and finally stop pretending that handcuffs are a public health tool.

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