What Would It Take to Change Your Mind About Drug Policy?

Let's Have an Honest Conversation

Let's Have an Honest Conversation

Let's be honest. Absolutely everyone has an opinion about the drug crisis. Your neighbour who crossed the street last week when they saw someone who looks homeless. Your coworker who still quotes something their Uncle Harold said about "junkies" back in 1984. Your Facebook friend who shares every scary news story about fentanyl but has never actually talked to someone in recovery.

Here's the uncomfortable truth. Most of our opinions about drugs aren't based on science or evidence. They're built on a foundation of fear, half-remembered stories, and whatever gets the most angry reactions on social media. We've absorbed these beliefs from politicians who discovered that "rage-farming and tough on crime" wins elections, from news outlets that know addiction stories get more clicks when they're terrifying, and from our own very human tendency to judge people whose struggles we don't understand.

Maybe you've walked past someone experiencing homelessness and addiction and felt a mix of fear, disgust, and helplessness. Maybe you've seen the desperation in someone's eyes and thought, "They chose this." Maybe you've watched a loved one struggle with addiction and felt angry that they couldn't just "get clean" through willpower alone. Even the language we use when we talk about “these” people drives inappropriate stigma.

These reactions are completely normal. They're also completely wrong as a basis for science-driven policy that will help the toxic drug crisis in our communities.

Ever seen that Cary Grant movie, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House? If not, you’re in for a real treat. Once you watch the movie, this metaphor will resonate BIG time! Imagine you're building a house. You've been using the same blueprint for 50 years, but the house keeps falling down. The roof leaks, the foundation cracks, and every repair costs more money while making the problems worse. At what point do you admit the blueprint is flawed and try a different approach?

That's exactly where we are with drug policy. For decades, we've been trying to build a safer society using a blueprint called the "War on Drugs." But instead of creating the secure, drug-free community we wanted, we've built a system that's more like a house of cards, expensive, unstable, and has basically collapsed since fentanyl appeared on the scene.

The problem isn't that we haven't tried hard enough or spent enough money. The problem is that our blueprint is fundamentally wrong. But changing your mind about something this big isn't easy, especially when politicians, media personalities, and community leaders keep insisting we just need to build higher walls and lock more doors.

Let's take a step back and look at what the evidence shows. Not what politicians say during election campaigns, not what makes for dramatic news stories, not what is rage-farming, not what drives fear, but what works in the real world. And, yes, this is all backed up by scientific research. Check out the links to references at the bottom of this article. Here’s the first science-driven reference > (Timotijevic et al., 2013).

The Shaky Foundation We've Built Our Policies On

How We Got Stuck with a Bad Blueprint

The "War on Drugs" wasn't designed by public health experts or addiction specialists. It was designed by politicians in the early 1900s who were more concerned with moral panic than medical evidence. Think of it like building a hospital based on what sounded good to a town council, rather than asking doctors and nurses what patients actually need (Windle, 2015).

These early drug laws spread around the world not because they worked, but because powerful countries pressured others to adopt them. It's like a construction company convincing entire neighbourhoods to use their faulty blueprint, not because the houses were sturdy, but because the company had the best marketing department (Windle, 2015; Kammersgaard, 2019).

Over time, this approach became so deeply embedded in our legal and social systems that questioning it felt like questioning gravity. We built entire industries around this blueprint: prisons, court systems, enforcement agencies. Changing course would mean admitting that decades of construction were based on flawed plans (Inchaurraga, 2003; Windle, 2015).

The Weight of Bad Construction

Here's what happens when you build policy on a shaky foundation: instead of solving problems, you create new ones. Instead of reducing drug use, prohibition often makes it more dangerous. Instead of protecting communities, it often tears them apart.

Consider this. In the United States alone, they’ve spent over a trillion dollars on the War on Drugs since the 1970s, yet drug use rates have increased. It's like pouring concrete into a foundation that has a massive crack; the more you pour, the more it spreads (Csete, 2020; Pūras & Hannah, 2017).

What the Architects of Fear Don't Want You to Know

Politicians Playing with Blueprints They Don't Understand

Many conservative politicians at every level of government have built their careers on promising to get "tough on drugs." But here's the thing. Being tough and being effective are completely different. It's like insisting that hitting a broken machine with a bigger hammer will fix it, when what you really need is a different tool entirely.

These politicians often ignore the mountain of evidence showing that treatment and health-focused approaches work better than imprisonment. Why? Because "I supported evidence-based harm reduction programs" doesn't fit on a campaign bumper sticker as easily as "Lock up the drug dealers" (Vainio, 2019; Raisio, 2010).

Here's the real ringer. No province in Canada has yet to invest significantly in publicly funded detox, recovery centres and harm reduction facilities, so that these options are readily accessible. Wait times in the best provinces are measured in weeks and months. Why? Money! No Government has the will to invest at levels that will make a difference. Based on the current public perception, the would be a recipe for disaster for a political party wanting to retain its government mandate. So, in all provinces today, we apply bandages to a huge gaping crisis wound, in the hope that we’ll stem the bleeding.

When Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, conservative politicians worldwide predicted disaster. Instead, Portugal saw dramatic decreases in drug-related deaths, HIV infections, and overall drug use. But admitting this would mean acknowledging that their tough-on-crime platform was built on sand (Khan et al., 2014).

Media Building Walls of Fear

News media often act like a contractor who only shows you pictures of houses that burned down, never the thousands that are built safely every day. Drug stories get coverage when they're scary, not when they're hopeful or nuanced.

Every overdose death becomes a reason to build higher walls, but successful treatment stories rarely make headlines. Every drug bust is front-page news, but the opening of a new treatment center might get a small mention in the local section. Frankly, the media around drug treatment initiatives is most likely to get bad press. Not in my backyard! NIMBYism This creates a distorted blueprint in the public mind, one where the only solutions involve more locks, more walls, and more punishment (Vainio, 2019).

Moral Conservatives Treating Health Issues Like Character Flaws

Some moral conservatives approach drug addiction like it's a design flaw in a person's character rather than a health condition. Imagine if we treated diabetes this way, insisting that people with blood sugar problems just need more willpower and moral guidance instead of medical treatment.

This perspective has led to policies that prioritize punishment over healing, shame over support. It's like insisting that people with broken legs should be locked up instead of taken to a hospital. The approach not only fails to help, it often makes the problem worse by adding trauma and stigma to an already difficult situation (Inchaurraga, 2003).

What a Solid Foundation Actually Looks Like

Learning from Master Builders

Countries that have rebuilt their drug policies on evidence-based foundations have seen remarkable results. Let's look at some real examples:

Switzerland's Approach: In the 1990s, Switzerland was facing a heroin crisis. Instead of just building more prisons, they tried something radical: they started treating addiction like a medical condition. They opened clinics where people could receive pharmaceutical-grade heroin under medical supervision. Critics predicted chaos, but instead, they saw dramatic reductions in crime, improvements in health, and many people eventually transitioning to abstinence-based treatment (Khan et al., 2014).

Portugal's Transformation: When Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, they didn't just tear down the old structure; they built something better in its place. They invested heavily in treatment programs, job training, and social support. The result? Drug use among young people dropped significantly, drug-related deaths fell by 95%, and new HIV infections among drug users fell by 95% (Khan et al., 2014).

The Strong Materials: Harm Reduction Programs

Think of harm reduction programs as the steel beams that make a building earthquake-proof. They don't prevent all damage, but they prevent catastrophic collapse. These programs include:

Needle Exchange Programs: Like providing hard hats on a construction site, needle exchanges don't encourage dangerous behaviour; they make unavoidable risks safer. Studies consistently show these programs reduce HIV and hepatitis transmission without increasing drug use (Inchaurraga, 2003; Rhodes et al., 2010; Lavarello et al., 2003).

Supervised Consumption Sites: These are like having a first aid station at a construction site. They don't encourage accidents, but when accidents happen, trained professionals are there to help. These sites have prevented thousands of overdose deaths and connected many people to treatment services (Inchaurraga, 2003; Windle, 2015).

The Human Cost of Our Faulty Construction

Real People, Real Consequences

Let's talk about Sarah (not her real name). She's a 34-year-old mother of two who became addicted to prescription painkillers after a car accident. Under our current system, when her pain management turned into a substance disorder (addiction), she turned to street drugs (when her doctor cut her off her pain medications), she spiralled down the dark tunnel of addiction, lost her job, and had her children placed in foster care.

In Portugal, Sarah would have been referred to a counsellor, offered treatment, and provided with social support to keep her family together. Which approach do you think is more likely to help Sarah recover and become a contributing member of society? (Csete, 2020)

The Price Tag of Poor Planning

The economic costs of our current approach are staggering. In 2020 (latest data available), Canada spent about $10.0 billion on criminal justice costs associated with substance use, which amounts to $262 for every person in Canada. $1.1 billion alone on Opioid related public safety measures. It's like spending $90 on security systems for a house but only $8 on actual maintenance and repairs.

Provinces that have reformed their drug laws have seen significant cost savings. For example, British Columbia's shift toward treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one has saved taxpayers millions of dollars annually. These savings have been redirected into mental health services, housing programs, and community supports. Similarly, when Ontario expanded its supervised consumption sites, the province saw reduced emergency room visits and hospitalizations, saving the healthcare system substantial costs (Csete, 2020).

The Racial Inequality Built Into Our Blueprint

One of the most troubling aspects of our current drug policy is how it's been constructed to disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Indigenous people, mentally ill, people in poverty or homeless folks.

This isn't an accident or a side effect; it's like building a house with separate, inferior entrances for certain groups of people. The result has been the systematic destruction of families and communities, with lasting impacts on employment, housing, and educational opportunities (Pūras & Hannah, 2017; Csete, 2020).

Addressing Your Legitimate Concerns

"But What About Public Safety?"

This is probably your biggest concern, and it's completely understandable. You want to keep your family and community safe. Here's the thing. The evidence shows that treatment-focused approaches improve public safety more than punishment-focused ones.

When people with addiction get treatment instead of prison time, they're less likely to commit crimes to fund their drug use. When they're not afraid of arrest, they're more likely to call for help during an overdose emergency or reach out for treatment. When they're not stigmatized and excluded from society, they're more likely to become productive community members.

In Switzerland, crime rates in areas around supervised injection sites decreased after the sites opened. Property crime dropped by 30% and drug dealing dropped by 50% (Khan et al., 2014).

"Won't This Send the Wrong Message to Kids?"

Parents naturally worry that treating drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal issue will make their children think drugs are okay. But the evidence shows the opposite.

In Portugal, drug use among teenagers actually decreased after decriminalization. Why? Because treating addiction as a health issue allows for honest, educational conversations rather than fear-based messages that often backfire. It's like the difference between teaching your teenager safe driving versus just telling them "never get in a car because it's illegal" (Khan et al., 2014).

"What About Accountability?"

Treatment-focused approaches don't eliminate accountability; they redirect it. Instead of being accountable to a prison system that often makes problems worse, people become accountable to treatment providers, counsellors, and their own recovery goals.

This kind of accountability is more effective because it's focused on solving the underlying problem rather than just punishing the symptom. It's like making a contractor fix the foundation rather than just painting over the cracks.

Building a Better Blueprint

The Construction Materials We Need

Creating an effective drug policy requires different materials than we've been using:

Evidence-Based Treatment: Like using steel instead of wood in earthquake zones, we need to use approaches that have been tested and proven effective. This includes medication-assisted treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy, and comprehensive social support services (Dubljević, 2018).

Community Investment: Just as a strong house needs a solid neighbourhood, effective drug policy needs strong communities. This means investing in detox and recovery facilities, education, job training, mental health services, and economic opportunities in the areas most affected by the drug war (Baker et al., 2019).

Public Health Infrastructure: We need to build systems that can respond quickly and effectively to drug-related problems, just like we have emergency response systems for natural disasters. This includes overdose prevention sites, mobile treatment units, and rapid access to addiction treatment (Davies & Mehta, 2015).

The Renovation Process

Changing drug policy isn't like demolishing a house and starting over. It's more like a careful renovation where you need to maintain stability while rebuilding from the ground up.

This means:

• Gradually shifting resources from enforcement to treatment

• Retraining criminal justice personnel to work with public health professionals

• Creating new systems while maintaining public safety

• Engaging communities in the planning process to ensure changes meet local needs (Pantoja et al., 2018; Legge & Gleeson, 2015)

What You Can Do

For Everyday Citizens

You don't need to be a policy expert to help build better drug policy. Here's what you can do:

Get Informed: Look at the actual evidence, not just the headlines. Organizations like the Moms, Stop The Harm, Drug Policy Alliance and Transform Drug Policy Foundation provide research-based information about what works.

Talk to Your Elected Officials at all Levels of Governments: Let your city council members, Provincial MLAs, and federal MPs know that you support evidence-based approaches to drug policy. Ask them tough questions about the effectiveness of current policies.

Support Local Initiatives: Many communities are implementing harm reduction programs at the local level. Support these efforts and advocate for their expansion.

Change the Conversation: When drug policy comes up in conversation, steer the discussion toward what actually works rather than what sounds tough. Share stories of successful treatment and recovery rather than reinforcing stigma.

For Policymakers and Community Leaders

If you're in a position to influence policy, you have a special responsibility to follow the evidence rather than popular opinion:

Invest in Treatment: Every dollar spent on addiction treatment saves $4-7 in reduced crime and healthcare costs. This isn't just morally right, it's fiscally responsible (Csete, 2020).

Implement Harm Reduction: Start with proven interventions like needle exchanges and naloxone distribution. These programs save lives and money while connecting people to treatment services.

Reform Criminal Justice: Focus law enforcement resources on serious crimes rather than low-level drug possession. Divert people with addiction to treatment rather than prison.

Engage Affected Communities: Don't make policy about communities without including those communities in the process. People with lived experience of addiction and recovery should have a voice in creating solutions.

The Foundation for Future Success

Why This Matters for Everyone

Even if you don't use drugs and don't have family members who struggle with addiction, drug policy affects you. It affects your tax bill, your community's safety, your healthcare costs, and your children's future opportunities.

Current drug policy is like having a major construction project in your neighbourhood that never gets finished, constantly disrupts traffic, costs enormous amounts of money, and makes the area less safe rather than more secure. When the road is covered with potholes, it’s time to resurface the entire road. Eventually, everyone suffers from the chaos and expense.

Building Something Better Together

The good news is that we know how to build better drug policy. We have the blueprints, the materials, and the expertise. What we need is the political will to start construction.

This isn't about being "soft on drugs" or "hard on drugs." It's about being smart about drugs. It's about using approaches that work rather than approaches that just sound good in political speeches.

Countries and communities that have rebuilt their drug policies on evidence-based foundations haven't become drug-ridden wastelands. They've become safer, healthier, and more prosperous. They've reduced crime, saved money, and most importantly, they've saved lives (Dubljević, 2018; Khan et al., 2014).

The Choice is Ours

We can continue to pour resources into a system that doesn't work, like throwing good money after bad on a house that will never be stable. Or we can acknowledge that our current blueprint is flawed and start building something better.

The evidence is clear. The alternatives are proven. The only question is whether we have the courage to admit that our current approach isn't working and the wisdom to try something better.

What would it take to persuade you? Hopefully, it's the same thing that would persuade any reasonable person: evidence that there's a better way to build a safer, healthier community for everyone.

The foundation is cracking. The walls are crumbling. But we have the tools and knowledge to build something better. The question is, are we ready to start construction?

Moving Forward: A Blueprint for Change

The time for incremental repairs is over. We need a fundamental reconstruction of our approach to drugs and addiction. This means:

Immediate Steps:

• Decriminalizing personal drug possession to reduce incarceration and stigma

• Expanding access to readily accessible evidence-based treatment, including medication-assisted treatment

• Implementing harm reduction programs like needle exchanges and supervised consumption sites

• Redirecting law enforcement resources from low-level drug offences to serious crimes (Csete, 2020)

Long-term Construction:

• Building comprehensive treatment systems that address the underlying causes of addiction

• Creating economic opportunities in communities devastated by the drug war

• Developing public health responses to drug-related problems

• Address poverty and homelessness.

• Engaging communities in ongoing policy development and evaluation (Baker et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2020)

The blueprint for effective drug policy already exists. It's been tested in countries around the world and proven successful. The only question is whether we're ready to stop patching the cracks and start building something that works.

Your voice matters in this construction project. Whether you're a concerned parent, a community leader, or someone who's been personally affected by addiction, you have a role to play in building better drug policy. The foundation of change starts with conversations like this one, with people like you demanding evidence-based solutions rather than fear-based rhetoric.

What will you choose to build?

References

APA 7: American Psychological Association 7th edition

Timotijevic, L., Brown, K. A., Lähteenmäki, L., de Wit, L., Sonne, A.-M., Ruprich, J., Řehůřková, I., Jeruszka-Bielak, M., Sicinska, E., García, N. B., Guzzon, A., Jensen, B. B., Shepherd, R., Barnett, J., & Raats, M. M. (2013). EURRECA—A Framework for Considering Evidence in Public Health Nutrition Policy Development. In Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (Vol. 53, Issue 10, pp. 1124–1134). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.747485

Windle, J. (2015). A Slow March from Social Evil to Harm Reduction: Drugs and Drug Policy in Vietnam. In Journal of Drug Policy Analysis (Vol. 10, Issue 2). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0011

Csete, J. (2020). More Harm Than Public Health in Drug Policy? A Comment. In Revue internationale de politique de développement (Issue 12). OpenEdition. https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3988

Pūras, D., & Hannah, J. (2017). Reasons for drug policy reform: prohibition enables systemic human rights abuses and undermines public health. In BMJ (p. i6586). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6586

Kammersgaard, T. (2019). Harm Reduction Policing: From Drug Law Enforcement to Protection. In Contemporary Drug Problems (Vol. 46, Issue 4, pp. 345–362). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091450919871313

Inchaurraga, S. (2003). Drug Use, Harm Reduction, and Health Policies in Argentina: Obstacles and New Perspectives. In Clinical Infectious Diseases (Vol. 37, Issue s5, pp. S366–S371). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1086/377564

Dubljević, V. (2018). Toward an Improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment Process and Evidence-Based Drug Policies. In Frontiers in Pharmacology (Vol. 9). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00898

Rhodes, T., Sarang, A., Vickerman, P., & Hickman, M. (2010). Policy resistance to harm reduction for drug users and potential effect of change. In BMJ (Vol. 341, Issue jul13 1, pp. c3439–c3439). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c3439

Lavarello, D., Lottero, M., Chavero, M., Toledo, A., Espínola, M., Gerlero, S., & Liborio, M. (2003). Harm Reduction Actions as a Health Care Construction Process at a Public Health Center in Rosario, Argentina. In Clinical Infectious Diseases (Vol. 37, Issue s5, pp. S353–S357). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1086/377545

Webster, P. C. (2014). Canada opposes harm reduction policies for drug users. In Canadian Medical Association Journal (Vol. 186, Issue 4, pp. 256–256). CMA Joule Inc. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4714

Khan, R., Thorens, G., & Zullino, D. (2014). SY09-4 * TRANSLATING, HARM REDUCTION INTO POLICIES, THE SWISS EXPERIENCE. In Alcohol and Alcoholism (Vol. 49, Issue suppl 1, pp. i11–i11). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agu052.44

Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). Public Policy and Health. In Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 222–230). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549472

Vainio, H. (2019). Public health and evidence-informed policy-making: The case of a commonly used herbicide. In Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health (Vol. 46, Issue 1, pp. 105–109). Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3851

Loncarevic, N., Bertram, M., & Tanggaard Andersen, P. (2019). Danish policymakers and research evidence in public health policy process. In European Journal of Public Health (Vol. 29, Issue Supplement_4). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz185.597

Bambra, C. (2013). The primacy of politics: the rise and fall of evidence-based public health policy? In Journal of Public Health (Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 486–487). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdt113

Pantoja, T., Barreto, J., & Panisset, U. (2018). Improving public health and health systems through evidence informed policy in the Americas. In BMJ (p. k2469). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2469

Raisio, H. (2010). The Public as Policy Expert: Deliberative Democracy in the Context of Finnish Health Care Reforms and Policies. In Journal of Deliberative Democracy (Vol. 6, Issue 2). University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.111

Davies, S. C., & Mehta, N. (2015). Public mental health: evidence to policy. In World Psychiatry (Vol. 14, Issue 1, pp. 44–45). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20188

Legge, D., & Gleeson, D. H. (2015). Unpacking “Health Reform” and “Policy Capacity” Comment on “Health Reform Requires Policy Capacity.” In International Journal of Health Policy and Management (Vol. 4, Issue 10, pp. 703–705). Maad Rayan Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2015.135

Lam, H. Y., Rey, K. L. R., Zarsuelo, M.-A. M., Silva, Ma. E. C., Mendoza, M. A. F., & Padilla, C. D. (2020). Rationalizing Health Personnel Financing Schemes for Evidence-informed Policy Reforms: Policy Analysis. In Acta Medica Philippina (Vol. 54, Issue 6). University of the Philippines Manila. https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.v54i6.2611

Baker, T., McCann, E., & Temenos, C. (2019). Into the ordinary: non-elite actors and the mobility of harm reduction policies. In Policy and Society (Vol. 39, Issue 1, pp. 129–145). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1626079