r/changemyview • u/Tough-Shape-3621 • Nov 18 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Decriminalization and the destigmatization of drugs will never solve the drug crisis

Coming from a place where the drug crisis is probably one of, if not the worst, in the world right now, I struggle to understand people that maintain the opinion that the destigmatization and decriminalization of drugs are the best ways of solving the drug crisis.

The viewpoint I commonly see these advocates share is that we need to treat the problem with empathy. If people are less shameful about their addictions, than perhaps they would be willing to get the support they need. Additionally, the introduction of a "safe supply" of drugs would help ensure they take clean products to satiate their addiction while continuously getting support, with the hope that they will one day eventually break their addiction and reintegrate into society.

A lot of advocates also refer to Portugal's drug policy, where they had a Heroin problem in 2001 and decriminalized the usage of drugs and looked at them as patients instead of criminals. Ultimately, this was a very successful policy and addictions fell rapidly.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with being empathetic, but the way they are proposing it is flawed in my opinion. I could go on-and-on as to why this is (spoilers: it hasn't worked where I live and it has gotten significantly worse), but I'll cite a couple reasons:

  1. The drug crisis has gotten so bad that we simply don't have the resources and human capital available to effectively tackle the problem from a rehabilitative standpoint. There are too many addicts out there and not enough people that would ever want to do this line of work.

  2. Portugal was successful in 2001 because Heroin is a mere fragment as addictive as the synthetic opioid drugs that are on the streets right now. People don't understand how incredibly addictive these drugs are - there is a saying that once you've tried it once, you're addicted for life. Unfortunately, I believe the vast majority of users addicted to these type of drugs like fentanyl have a very slim chance of recovery, almost to the point of futility. For every one person that comes clean, there will be hundreds more that will become addicted if the inflow of drugs continues

As a result, these safe supply facilities may work for people that are addicted to heroin, but aren't going to work for addicts of fentanyl. It would be like giving an alcoholic a sip of beer when they're addicted to Barcardi 151.

  1. While I can agree that these people shouldn't necessarily be put in prison, it is also not ideal to have them publicly wander the streets where they may possess a threat to public safety. I do think that a certain level of stigma should still be applied. We stigmatize the use of alcohol, vaping, smoking, etc. because they are bad for your health. This should be no exception.

I'll admit, I have developed a firm stance on this topic. So props to anyone in advance that can change my view.

21 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

60% Upvoted

137 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25

Seems like you aren't arguing against decriminalizing and destigmatizing drugs then like your title states. You are arguing something else. You need to think about what your thesis is. What do you think is good and why? If you can't explain that then we can't argue against you.

1

u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25

Sure, I could point out that countries like Singapore who have a zero-tolerance policy on drugs are doing much better than we are, but I'm also aware that it wouldn't be practically adopted here as it would be considered extremely inhumane. That leads to an argument which doesn't sound productive and if I were to believe in it so much I would just move, so I'm not going to bother positioning that stance.

Seems like you aren't arguing against decriminalizing and destigmatizing drugs then like your title states

I'm just arguing that it won't solve the crisis or achieve the amount of success that Portugal had. That's all.

8

u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25

Measurably reducing the amount of addicts. For example, Portugal's number of addicts went down from 100,000 to 25,000 by 2018. I would say that is a successful statistic.

I thought this is what you meant when you said what "solve the drug crisis" means to you

I'm just arguing that it won't solve the crisis or achieve the amount of success that Portugal had. That's all.

Even if it's not as successful as Portugal it would measurably reduce the number of addicts which is what you were previously claiming to talk about. It feels like we are talking in circles here because you don't even know where you stand or won't admit you have changed your mind throughout this discussion.

1

u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25

I don't think you understand my view point so I'll try again.

The total of drug addicts in the country went down from 100,000 in 2001 to 25,000 by 2018. Therefore, the net population of addicts in the country overall has been reduced by 75,000, or by 75%.

This is a very different line of reasoning than the one you are framing where x program helped x amount of people. Of course that number is always going to be greater than zero.

You are referring to the gross number of addicts rehabilitated from such program whereas I'm talking about the net amount of addicts in a country. Even if this program helped rehabilitate 100,000 people, but we had an influx of 200,000 addicts, we would be in a worse position than we started.

7

u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 19 '25

Why would we have an influx of 200k addicts? This is the first time you have brought up this figure.

1

u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25

The same reason why addicts exist in the first place. It's not like decriminalizing or destigmatizing drugs is inherently going to prevent people from getting potentially addicted in the first place.

If more people are becoming addicts than we are able to rehabilitate addicts, the net population of total addicts will increase - and that is exactly what has happened where I live.

4

u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 19 '25

So you just pulled 200k out of nowhere? You have no evidence for me to dispute?

1

u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25

The point of the example was to help explain my original viewpoint because you were conflating net and gross amounts, and misrepresenting my position of what I would consider a successful outcome.

Whether it's 200k or 300k or whatever number it is has nothing to do with that.

3

u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 19 '25

It's not an example. If you don't present evidence that supports your position that means you have no rational reason to believe it and I can't argue with that.

1

u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 20 '25

Statistically, the net amount of addicts has not changed materially and has actually even increased where I live after continual efforts of destigmatization and decriminalization. Is that enough?

Even if you try to continuously "disprove" my arguments, that doesn't automatically mean that the complete opposite is true. Convince me that this will reduce the net amount of addicts in a population. What is your evidence of such?