My main question around legalization is how the transition happens. It seems to me that people who are already in the drugs business are at an advantage if we change the law to make things legal. I don't like the idea of enriching people who earlier made a living out of murdering their rivals, and I get this suspicion that they aren't going to immediately drop their whole muscle operation when they go legit.
I simply disbelieve the idea that a random legit businessperson could decide to go into the drugs trade without fearing harassment from the existing players, as well as gain knowledge in the area without having to associate with the formerly criminal.
What are some ways to address this? Any early indications from other places?
The difference between a legit businessperson getting into the trade and an existing criminal is that one has the protection of the state/police etc. and the other does not.
One could argue the same about the illegal bootleggers during the prohibition - might have taken a while to get rid of the criminal elements, but it did work out in the end, not?
How great would the benefit to humanity be, pricing in uncertainty of a practical legalisation scheme, before you'd be happy for the cartel leaders to get off scott-free?
I haven't done the numbers in this case, but surely there are instances in the world where giving up on the prospect of individual retribution is worth the societal gain?
Though not an absolute parallel, the conversion of gambling in Nevada from being primarily a mob controlled business into a corporate controlled one might give some insight into how legalizing illicit drugs for which their is an existing underground supply infrastructure will go.
(Reply to nmca below, not sure why this shows above). If you make something legal you give them an incentive to obey rules. Yes they're very bad people, but it will attract better people as well. Once they become legal businessmen they will have something to lose.
It will take time yes. But it will happen. Policy should still be very tough on actors using violence, for example those private cartel armies should not be tolerated in the legal model.
But as the price drops due to legalisation they will have no way to pay for all those things anymore.
And yes the US prohibition is a great example as others have mentioned. The alcohol trade went mob-free pretty quickly.
Either way, in the United States, we used to have a prohibition on alcohol. When the prohibition ended, most of the old brewers either went legit, or went into politics. The Kennedys were such former criminals and they actually did a pretty good job as politicians if you ask me.
I would say most of the time, criminals are just people who want to compete with the government, which is the biggest gang. So criminals are not these unambiguously evil troublemakers Ronald Reagan would like us to think they are.
prosperity preaching has no bearing on any reality or factual circumstance and having people trying to link prosperity to morality just slows down market forces unnecessarily for a short time span
they are going to leverage their supply chain and likely have lower overhead costs
I simply disbelieve the idea that a random legit businessperson could decide to go into the drugs trade without fearing harassment from the existing players, as well as gain knowledge in the area without having to associate with the formerly criminal.
What are some ways to address this? Any early indications from other places?