The War on Drugs Is a War on People — It’s Time to Surrender

The war on drugs is not a policy failure; it’s a policy success for exactly the people it was built to serve: politicians who need a scapegoat, police departments hungry for budgets, private prisons looking for bodies, and corporations that profit off both legal and illegal markets. It is, however, an absolute catastrophe for everyone else — especially poor people, Black and brown communities, and anyone who believes adults should have the basic right to control their own bodies.

Let’s stop pretending this is about “public health” or “safety.” If that were true, governments wouldn’t be criminalizing people for what they put in their own veins while handing out tax breaks to alcohol companies and subsidizing opioids into half of America’s medicine cabinets.

The Core Lie: Prohibition Protects Us

Prohibition’s sales pitch is simple: if we ban drugs, fewer people will use them, and society will be safer. A century of evidence says that’s garbage.

Look at the numbers. In the United States, the federal government has spent an estimated over $1 trillion on the war on drugs since the 1970s. And what do we have to show for it?

• In 1980, U.S. prisons held about 40,000 people for drug offenses. Today it’s closer to 400,000.
• Overdose deaths in the U.S. hit more than 100,000 per year in recent years, driven largely by the unregulated, poisoned illegal supply — not because drugs suddenly appeared, but because prohibition made them more dangerous.

If prohibition “worked,” drugs would be rare, overdoses would be low, and prisons would be nearly empty of nonviolent users. Instead we have the exact opposite: more drugs, more deaths, more incarceration, and zero accountability from the institutions that created this mess.

Poison by Policy: How Prohibition Creates Deadly Drugs

One of the dirtiest secrets of the war on drugs is that it doesn’t eliminate drugs; it just makes them more chaotic, more potent, and more lethal.

Under prohibition, there is no quality control. There is no dosage labeling. There is no consumer protection. There is only a black market that rewards potency and concealability. That’s how we got from relatively stable heroin markets to a fentanyl-drenched supply where a few bad grains can kill you.

The logic is simple: the more intense the crackdown, the more profitable it becomes to move smaller, stronger product. We saw the same thing during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s — people shifted from beer and wine to hard liquor because it was easier to smuggle. Today, that pattern repeats with opioids, stimulants, and synthetic analogs.

Let’s be crystal clear: people are dying from contaminated, misrepresented, and unpredictable drugs — not from the idea that adults choose to alter their consciousness. Prohibition is not reducing harm; it is manufacturing it.

Example #1: Portugal Proved the Fearmongers Wrong

Portugal did something revolutionary in 2001: it refused to keep pretending punishment equals safety. The country decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs and shifted its focus from criminalization to health.

Contrary to every dire prediction from prohibitionist pundits, the sky did not fall. Portugal did not become a nation of heroin zombies. Instead:

• Drug-related deaths plummeted. Portugal’s overdose rate became one of the lowest in Europe.
• HIV infections among people who inject drugs dropped sharply, thanks to harm reduction and healthcare access instead of prison.
• Problematic use stabilized or decreased, especially among youth, because people weren’t being driven underground by fear of arrest.

Did Portugal magically create a drug-free utopia? No. That’s not how any of this works. But it did something much more honest: it accepted that people use drugs and decided that human lives are worth more than moralistic theater.

Meanwhile, countries that doubled down on prohibition kept racking up overdose deaths and arrests, then had the nerve to call Portugal “radical.” The real radical position is believing that caging people and poisoning the supply is a legitimate public health strategy.

Example #2: The Fentanyl Crisis Is a Policy Failure, Not a Moral One

Let’s talk about fentanyl, the new favorite bogeyman of every tough-on-crime politician.

Fentanyl didn’t drop from the sky one day. Its dominance is a direct side effect of enforcement. When authorities cracked down on prescription opioids, many people with physical dependence were shoved into the illegal market. When they cracked down on heroin, dealers shifted to fentanyl — cheaper to make, easier to smuggle, more potent in tiny amounts.

Now we see:

• Street “heroin” that’s mostly fentanyl or fentanyl analogs.
• Cocaine and meth laced with fentanyl in some regions.
• Pills pressed to look like pharmaceuticals (Xanax, oxycodone, etc.) that contain unknown fentanyl doses.

Overdose deaths exploded, and what did governments do? Largely more of the same: harsher penalties, more cops, more border theater. Meanwhile, the basics of harm reduction — widespread drug checking services, supervised consumption sites, safe supply programs — are blocked or sabotaged for political reasons.

Let’s be absolutely blunt: if drugs were legally regulated, with labeled doses and known ingredients, the fentanyl crisis as we know it would not exist. People die because they don’t know what they’re taking. That’s not a personal failing; it’s a state-engineered hazard.

Hypocrisy, Incorporated: How Governments Protect Some Drugs and Punish Others

Prohibition isn’t about which drugs are “dangerous.” It’s about which drugs are profitable to the right people.

Alcohol is a perfect example. It’s one of the most harmful substances in terms of social and health impact — linked to liver disease, violence, car crashes, and more. Yet it is perfectly legal, heavily marketed, and politically untouchable. Why? Because it’s regulated, taxed, and deeply integrated into corporate capitalism.

Meanwhile, possession of a small amount of certain plant leaves or powders can ruin your life, cost you your job, take away your kids, or land you in prison. The difference isn’t about pharmacology; it’s about power and money.

And then there’s the opioid story. Pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. (hello, Purdue Pharma and friends) aggressively pushed high-dose opioids, underplaying the addiction risks. Doctors were incentivized into overprescribing. Regulators largely looked the other way. Millions became dependent.

When the political heat got too high, the response was to clamp down on patients, crack down on prescriptions, and drive many dependent users straight into the illegal market. Corporations got fines and settlements. People got criminal records and funerals.

If an underground drug crew misrepresented their product the way some pharmaceutical companies did, they’d be in prison for life. But when you wear a suit and have lobbyists, the legal system somehow discovers “nuance.”

The War on Drugs as a Tool of Social Control

The war on drugs isn’t just bad policy; it’s a convenient excuse to surveil, harass, and cage certain groups of people.

In the U.S., Black people and white people use drugs at roughly similar rates. Yet Black people are far more likely to be arrested, charged, and incarcerated for drug offenses. This is not an accident; it is design.

The infamous disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing for decades is a textbook case. For years, U.S. federal law punished crack cocaine 100 times more harshly than powder, even though they are pharmacologically the same substance. Who used more crack? Poor, urban, disproportionately Black communities. Who used more powder? Wealthier, whiter users. The law didn’t follow science; it followed class and race.

Even where that particular disparity has been reduced, the core structure remains: drug laws give police a reason to stop, search, and arrest almost anyone they want, especially those who are already marginalized. It’s a blank check for everyday authoritarianism.

Harm Reduction: Reality-Based Policy for Grown Adults

Harm reduction starts with a simple, adult assumption: people will use drugs. Some will do it for pleasure, some for coping, some for exploration, some because our medical and social systems failed them. You can accept that reality and try to keep them alive, or you can lie about it and let people die.

Pragmatic, evidence-based measures exist:

• Needle and syringe programs reduce HIV and hepatitis transmission.
• Supervised consumption sites prevent overdose deaths and connect people to services.
• Drug checking/test kits help people avoid contaminated or misrepresented substances.
• Opioid substitution and safe supply programs give people consistent, known doses instead of roulette from the street supply.
• Decriminalization removes criminal penalties for personal use and possession, keeping people out of cages and in their communities.

Every time these policies are tried honestly and resourced properly, they work. Not perfectly — nothing is perfect — but far, far better than punishment. Overdose deaths drop, infections drop, contact with services increases. The data are clear. The only thing in the way is ideology.

Beyond Decriminalization: The Case for Legal Regulation

Decriminalization is a critical step, but it’s not the endgame. As long as supply remains entirely illegal, we leave the most dangerous part of the system — the unregulated market — intact.

We regulated alcohol after prohibition not because it was suddenly safe, but because we realized prohibition was more destructive than the substance itself. The same logic applies here.

A rational adult drug policy would:

• Legally regulate production, distribution, and sale of currently illegal drugs.
• Impose quality control, dosage labeling, and age restrictions.
• Tax the market and use the revenue for health services, education, and harm reduction — not more cops.
• Allow people with lived experience and communities most affected by the war on drugs to shape policy, not just technocrats and lobbyists.

Will some people still struggle with addiction under a legal model? Of course. Just like with alcohol, gambling, or anything else that can be compulsive. But they won’t have to navigate a poisoned supply while dodging police and stigma just to survive.

“But What About the Children?” The Favorite Shield of Bad Policy

Every time meaningful reform is proposed, prohibitionists suddenly discover children. They ignored kids when they let parents be jailed for possession, when families were broken up over minor drug charges, and when unregulated drugs flooded communities. But the moment you suggest evidence-based reform, they clutch their pearls and cry, “Think of the children!”

You know what actually protects young people?

• Honest drug education, not D.A.R.E.-style propaganda that teens see through in five minutes.
• Parents who aren’t in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.
• Communities with services, housing, and harm reduction — not just cops and empty slogans.
• A regulated market where products are labeled, and underage sales are enforced, instead of anyone’s big cousin handling distribution.

Prohibition doesn’t shield kids. It exposes them to a world where the only drug “regulation” is what the local dealer feels like doing that day.

Bodily Autonomy Includes the Right to Alter Your Consciousness

At the core of this debate is a simple question: Who owns your body?

If you believe you own your body, then you have the right to put substances into it, whether that’s caffeine, alcohol, psilocybin, MDMA, or heroin. That doesn’t mean those choices are always wise, or without risk. It means they are yours.

The state’s role should be to provide:

• Accurate information.
• Safe, regulated options.
• Support for people who experience harm or dependence.

Not to criminalize you, spy on you, strip you of your rights, or throw you in a cage for making autonomous decisions about your own consciousness. We don’t criminalize rock climbing because it’s risky. We don’t outlaw motorcycles because people crash. Yet somehow, when it comes to certain molecules, suddenly “risk” becomes an excuse for authoritarian control.

Time to End the War — Not Just Tweak It

The war on drugs cannot be “reformed” into something humane while keeping its core logic intact. You don’t humanize a system built on punishment, control, and propaganda by sanding down a few rough edges. You dismantle it and replace it with something grounded in reality and respect for human autonomy.

That means:

• Ending criminal penalties for personal use and possession.
• Expunging past drug convictions that never should have existed.
• Redirecting law enforcement budgets into health, housing, and harm reduction.
• Building legal, regulated drug markets designed around safety and transparency, not corporate capture.

We tried prohibition for a century. It gave us mass incarceration, racialized policing, poisoned drug supplies, and overflowing morgues. At some point, continuing the same strategy isn’t just stubborn; it’s malicious.

Adults have the right to make informed choices about their own bodies and minds, including choices the state disapproves of. The job of a halfway civilized society is to make those choices as safe and informed as possible — not to wage war on the people who make them.

It’s time to admit the obvious: the war on drugs is a war on people. And it’s a war that needs to end — unconditionally, unapologetically, and as soon as possible.

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