If the Penalty for Drug Use was Death…
Recently, I was involved in a debate on Andrew Wilson’s debate group “The Crucible.” I lost, but learned a lot. Namely, not to become angry when my opponent resorts to ad-hominem attacks. I was called a “junky retard” at least eight times. I was also threatened with being kicked off of the server for “tone policing.” This occurred after I asked my opponent if calling me a “retard” was conducive to good faith discussions. Before this individual answered, Andrew swooped in to threaten me with removal from the server. You can learn more about Andrew Wilson by visiting his website here. You can also pay for lessons on how to debate people by signing up for his “Debate University.” At one point during the debate, my opponent asked me a question. “Junky retard, what do you think the effect on drug consumption rates would be if the penalty for their use was death?”
I would like to answer that question, in full form, here. Without the insults, the rudeness, and the difficulty that these cheap and childish tactics bring to meaningful debates. Such infantile arguments don’t lend themselves well to changing hearts and minds. So, now that I’ve had time to think about this question, I will answer it.
If people were legally allowed to be put to death for the “crime” of drug use, the consequence is obvious. Usage rates would decline. Still, they wouldn’t disappear, which begs the question:
Why would some people risk their lives to use drugs?
The answer to this question is complex. First, we have to consider this fact: people are already risking their lives to consume recreational drugs. Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin. Carfentanil is 5000 times more potent than heroin. These substances taint the recreational drug supply thanks to prohibition, and people are dying as a result.
One look will tell you that Carfentanil has no place in recreational drug use. A microscopic amount is enough to kill. Even in the medical community, there is no recognized valid use of this dangerous drug in human beings. Its only legitimate use is for sedating large mammals like rhinoceroses and elephants. For this reason, everyone who uses recreational opioids today is risking their life. And this is before we even consider the dangers linked to purchasing drugs (gang violence, shady dealers, robbery, etc).
Yet, despite these risks, people continue to use. Why?
The answer lies in the complex interplay of addiction, mental health, trauma, and human nature. Drug use isn’t solely a product of hedonism or recklessness. For many, it is an escape from pain, a means of self-medication, or a response to environmental and socioeconomic conditions. This is why the notion of deterrence through extreme punishment—like the death penalty—ignores the deeper issue at play.
Take a historical perspective: countries with the harshest drug laws, including executions, still have drug users. Singapore and China execute people for drug offenses, yet neither has eradicated drug consumption. Iran, where drug trafficking is punishable by death, remains a major opioid-consuming country. If the death penalty worked as an absolute deterrent, we wouldn’t see these cases.
Another key factor is desperation. When people are struggling with addiction, fear of death often takes a backseat to immediate relief. This is demonstrated when individuals with severe substance use disorders continue to use drugs. They do so despite experiencing repeated overdoses and near-death experiences. Even after losing friends or loved ones to the same substances. If the danger of dying from fentanyl contamination isn’t enough to stop people, then a theoretical legal punishment—even death—would not eliminate use either.
There’s also the issue of enforcement. Who decides which drug users deserve to die? Are we executing Wall Street bankers snorting cocaine in a penthouse, or are we only targeting the homeless heroin addict under a bridge? History suggests the latter. Drug laws have long been applied unevenly, disproportionately harming marginalized communities while leaving affluent users largely untouched. Instituting the death penalty for drug use would be no different. It would be another tool for oppression, not a genuine solution to substance abuse.
Instead of fantasizing about executing drug users, we should be asking better questions: Why do people turn to drugs in the first place? What policies actually reduce harm and addiction rates? At what point are replacement medications like Suboxone or methadone warranted? The answer isn’t more punishment; it’s education, harm reduction, and access to treatment. Countries like Portugal, which decriminalized drugs and invested in public health, have seen declines in problematic drug use and overdoses. Meanwhile, the U.S., with its long history of punitive drug policies, continues to see record-breaking overdose deaths.
So, to my opponent in that debate: Yes, execution would reduce drug use, but only because dead people can’t use drugs. It wouldn’t solve addiction, it wouldn’t remove demand, and it wouldn’t make society any safer. If anything, it would push the drug trade further underground. It would increase violence. It would drive users away from life-saving interventions and treatment, further isolating them.
If the goal is to reduce drug use, and the death it causes, the answer isn’t more death. It’s more compassion and more science. We need a willingness to rethink failed policies. That wouldn’t make for as edgy a debate question, though, would it?
