Legalization Doesn’t “Destroy Society” — Prohibition Already Did

“If we legalize drugs, society will collapse. Addiction will skyrocket. Crime will explode. Think of the children.”

This is the greatest hits album of prohibitionist arguments — emotionally charged, politically convenient, and factually weak. It’s been used for a century to justify criminalizing people for what they put in their own bodies, while governments and corporations profit from the legal drugs that do kill millions: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription opioids.

Let’s be clear: the problem isn’t “drugs.” The problem is prohibition — an approach that hands control of multi-billion-dollar markets to cartels, guarantees a contaminated supply, supercharges police powers, and then acts shocked when the predictable harms show up in morgues, prisons, and shattered communities.

This article takes the classic “legalization will destroy society” claim, puts it under a spotlight, and then shows — with real-world evidence — that regulating drugs and decriminalizing use is not only safer, it’s the only sane option left.

The Prohibitionist Script: Fear First, Evidence Later (If Ever)

Prohibitionists love simple slogans:

• “Drugs destroy lives.”
• “Legalization sends the wrong message.”
• “If we make drugs legal, everyone will start using them.”
• “Tough laws keep people safe.”

They rarely say out loud what they’re defending: a system where people are imprisoned, killed by adulterated street supply, denied medical care, and stripped of rights — all in the name of “protection.”

Meanwhile, alcohol causes violence, car crashes, organ damage; tobacco kills millions via cancer and heart disease; pharmaceutical companies helped fuel an opioid crisis so severe it slashed U.S. life expectancy. These are legal drugs — and they’re regulated, taxed, and advertised. No one raided a CEO’s house for pushing OxyContin. Plenty of users, though, ended up in court or the cemetery.

So when someone says “legalization will cause chaos,” what they’re really saying is: “We’re fine with chaos, as long as it’s hidden, criminalized, and profitable for the right people.”

Myth 1: “If We Legalize or Decriminalize, Everyone Will Use”

This is the cornerstone fear: that once you remove handcuffs, people will sprint to the nearest heroin stand. Reality disagrees.

Portugal: Decriminalization Without the Apocalypse

In 2001, Portugal did the unthinkable: it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Not just cannabis. Heroin, cocaine, MDMA, you name it. People caught with small amounts don’t get a criminal record; they’re referred to a “dissuasion commission” that can offer health and social support instead of criminal punishment.

Prohibitionists predicted disaster. What happened instead?

• Overdose deaths dropped dramatically. Portugal went from having one of Europe’s worst overdose rates to one of the lowest.
• HIV infection rates among people who inject drugs plummeted, largely due to harm reduction and less fear of seeking help.
• Problematic use stabilized or declined. Drug use did not explode into some national bacchanal.
• Prisons cleared out of low-level users, freeing resources for serious crime and public health interventions.

Portugal didn’t create a drug-free utopia. It did something more grown-up: it traded moral panic for reality-based policy. The sky didn’t fall. The overdose rate did.

Legal Cannabis: The Experiment Everyone Predicted Would Fail

Let’s look at cannabis legalization, since it’s one of the largest real-world tests.

Countries and jurisdictions like Canada, Uruguay, and many U.S. states (Colorado, Washington, California, etc.) have now legalized and regulated adult-use cannabis. Prohibitionists promised:

• Huge spikes in teen use.
• Mass addiction waves.
• Public health meltdowns.

What actually happened?

• Teen use did not meaningfully increase in most places; in some, it stayed flat or even declined. Why? Controlled, age-verified legal supply displaces black market dealers who never ask for ID.
• Arrests for cannabis possession plummeted, sparing hundreds of thousands of people from lifelong criminal records.
• Regulated products came with testing, labeling, and dosing information. People actually know what they’re consuming — a luxury prohibition never offers.

Cannabis use didn’t vanish, but it also didn’t suddenly spiral. What changed was who holds power: less in the hands of police and cartels, more in the hands of consumers, regulators, and (yes, imperfect) legal markets.

Myth 2: “Legalization Increases Crime”

Drug markets don’t disappear under prohibition — they just go underground, where violence is the default conflict-resolution tool. You don’t sue a rival cartel; you shoot them. You don’t call customer service; you threaten or retaliate. Prohibition is not crime reduction; it’s crime outsourcing.

The Black Market Is a Policy Choice

Whenever a government bans a highly demanded product (alcohol in the 1920s U.S., drugs in the modern era), it doesn’t erase the market. It hands that market to unregulated actors whose business model depends on risk, secrecy, and violence. That’s why you see:

• Cartel wars.
• Street violence around territory.
• Contaminated drugs sold with no accountability.

When substances are legalized or decriminalized with regulation, that power dynamic changes:

• Producers and sellers can be inspected, licensed, and shut down if they’re reckless.
• Disputes move into legal channels instead of back alleys.
• Police can focus on actual violent crime instead of harassing people with a joint.

What the Data Says on Crime

In U.S. states that legalized cannabis, fears of crime waves didn’t materialize:

• Studies have found no consistent increase in violent crime linked to cannabis legalization. In some areas, property crimes and certain arrest categories actually decreased.
• Legalization dramatically cuts drug-related arrests, which means less criminalization of users and fewer pretexts for stop-and-frisk style policing, especially against marginalized communities.

Prohibitionist logic is upside-down: it blames “drugs” for violence that is, in fact, a direct product of prohibition policies. Regulated markets reduce the need for shady deals and violent enforcement. The fewer transactions in the shadows, the less blood spilled to protect them.

Myth 3: “Punishment Prevents Addiction”

If punishment were an effective deterrent, the United States — with its massive incarceration apparatus and drug war spending — would be the healthiest, most drug-free society on Earth. It is not.

Instead, it’s a global overdose hotspot, with fentanyl-contaminated street supply, massive inequality in treatment access, and prisons stuffed with people whose main “crime” is being unable to navigate an unregulated, punitive landscape.

Addiction Is a Health Issue, Not a Moral Failure

Addiction is complex — influenced by trauma, mental health, genetics, poverty, environment, and yes, drug characteristics. Locking someone in a cage doesn’t solve any of that. It just adds a new layer of damage:

• Criminal records that block jobs and housing.
• Disruption of family and social support.
• Increased stigma that makes seeking help harder.

Countries that treat drug use primarily as a health matter — not a battlefield — get better outcomes. Again, Portugal is a prime example: shifting resources away from punishment and into treatment, housing, and social support improved public health without requiring some fantasy of total abstinence.

“Tough Love” vs. Actual Care

Prohibition dresses up cruelty as “tough love”: if you make life harsh enough, people will stop using. But research shows fear of punishment often drives people away from help, into more secretive and riskier use.

Actual care means:

• Low-barrier, affordable treatment — including medication-assisted treatment for opioids.
• Safe consumption spaces to prevent overdose and connect people to services.
• Honest, non-hysterical drug education that respects adults’ ability to make informed choices.

None of this is compatible with a system that treats drug use as a criminal defect to be corrected with a record and a cell.

Myth 4: “We Just Need Better Enforcement”

When prohibition fails (again and again), its defenders don’t question the model. They call for more of the same: more raids, more border enforcement, harsher sentences, new surveillance powers. It’s like burning your house down and concluding the solution is hotter fire.

The Futility of Chasing Supply

The global war on drugs has poured trillions into attempting to reduce supply through eradication, interdiction, and arrest. Result:

• Drugs are cheaper, more potent, and more available than ever.
• Producers adapt: crackdowns on one drug (e.g., prescription opioids) push people toward others (e.g., heroin, fentanyl).
• New synthetic substances appear precisely because prohibition creates incentives to innovate around bans.

You cannot win a “war” against products that are cheap to make, easy to transport, and in high demand. You can only make them more dangerous and profitable for the least accountable actors.

Enforcement Targets the Vulnerable, Not the Powerful

Look at who actually gets targeted: poor people, racialized communities, users and low-level sellers. Meanwhile:

• Pharmaceutical companies helped engineer an opioid crisis and paid fines that barely dented profits.
• Alcohol and tobacco giants market addictive substances aggressively with legal protection.
• Politicians who oversaw drug war carnage rarely see a courtroom.

So when prohibitionists talk about “cracking down on drugs,” remember: the crackdown is largely on the poorest and least powerful people, not the corporations and institutions that profit most from addiction.

The Case for Decriminalization and Regulated Supply

So if prohibition is a failure — socially, medically, economically — what’s the alternative? A rational adult society shifts from criminalization and chaos to decriminalization and regulation.

Decriminalization: Stop Treating Users as Criminals

Decriminalization means: possessing small amounts for personal use doesn’t land you in court or jail. It doesn’t require you to love drugs or think everyone should use them; it just accepts that criminal punishment is a dumb, harmful response.

Benefits include:

• Less stigma and fear, making it easier for people to seek help or use harm reduction services.
• Reduced burden on courts and prisons, freeing up resources for serious crime and health services.
• Fewer lives derailed by criminal records for minor possession.

Portugal’s experience shows that decriminalization, paired with health and social support, can stabilize or improve outcomes without unleashing mass chaos.

Regulated Supply: If People Are Going to Use, Make It Safer

Decriminalizing use is necessary but not sufficient. As long as supply is left to criminal markets, people will keep dying from contaminated and unknown potency substances. Regulation steps in where prohibition fails.

Regulated supply means:

• Quality control: drugs are tested for purity and contaminants.
• Known potency and dosing: labels, instructions, and safer use information.
• Age limits and access controls: like with alcohol and tobacco, imperfect but better than “your dealer decides.”
• Tax and revenue: funds that can be redirected into healthcare, harm reduction, and education.

We already do this with substances that kill vast numbers of people annually — alcohol and tobacco. Nobody seriously argues we should go back to alcohol prohibition; we recognize that made things more violent and dangerous. Yet somehow we’re supposed to believe repeating that experiment with other substances is “responsible.”

“Think of the Children”: A Lazy Shield for Bad Policy

Prohibitionists love to hide behind children: “What will kids think if drugs are legal?” As if kids aren’t already growing up in a world saturated with alcohol marketing, pharmacy ads, and news of people overdosing on unregulated supply.

If you genuinely care about young people, you should care about:

• Evidence-based education, not scare tactics that teenagers can debunk with a quick search.
• Reducing black markets around schools, which happens when adults have legal access and dealers lose customers.
• Ensuring parents don’t die from adulterated street drugs because they were too scared to seek help.

“Think of the children” should mean: build a world where they’re not orphaned by bad policy, incarcerated for survival choices, or lied to about the substances they encounter. Prohibition does the opposite.

What a Grown-Up Drug Policy Looks Like

A sane, adult, rights-respecting drug policy would look something like this:

• Decriminalize possession for personal use of all drugs.
• Develop regulated markets for at least some currently illegal substances, starting with safer, better-understood ones, and expand as evidence and systems mature.
• Fund harm reduction at scale: supervised consumption sites, drug checking, naloxone access, needle exchange, peer support.
• Guarantee low-barrier treatment that people can actually access when they’re ready.
• Expunge past drug possession convictions, and reinvest savings from enforcement into communities most targeted by the drug war.
• Center bodily autonomy: accept that informed adults have the right to alter their consciousness, whether with a glass of wine, a joint, or something stronger — and focus policy on reducing harm, not enforcing morality.

This isn’t fantasy. Pieces of it exist already — in Portugal’s decriminalization, in Canada’s and Uruguay’s cannabis markets, in supervised consumption sites worldwide that have reversed tens of thousands of overdoses with zero recorded deaths on site.

The Real Threat to Society Isn’t Drugs — It’s Denial

We’ve had a century-long experiment with prohibition. The results are in: mass incarceration, contaminated supply, endless enforcement spending, entrenched cartels, preventable deaths, and communities shattered by policing rather than “protected” by it.

Every time someone insists that “legalization will destroy society,” they’re defending a status quo that is already doing exactly that — just less visibly, and mostly to people they’d rather not see or listen to.

Decriminalization and regulated supply don’t promise perfection; nothing does. What they offer is something prohibition never has: honesty, control, accountability, and a path to reducing harm instead of recycling it.

Adults deserve the right to make informed choices about their own bodies. Drug policy should be about reducing preventable suffering, not enforcing ideological purity. If society is fragile enough to collapse because people have safer, regulated access to the substances they already use, the problem is not the drugs. It’s the cowardice of the policies that pretend we can jail, shame, and bury our way to “safety.”

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