Interestingly enough, it was the Left (then styling themselves as Progressives) that pushed to make many of these substances illegal in the first place, not to mention they were behind the 18th Amendment.
Myself, I’m on the fence regarding legalization of drugs. I regard it as a personal choice, and as such anyone who chooses to use them should be prepared to bear the consequences themselves. That said, given that most of present-day America abhors personal responsibility, legalization is not a good idea at this time.
But I’ll also submit that the main benefit of Prohibition was to bootleggers. Without it, chances are we might not have gotten the Kennedys, as this was where much of Joe Kennedy’s fortune was made.
Papa Joe is a good example of the benefits of Prohibition. After the 21st Amendment was passed, Kennedy went legitimate.
If and when drugs are legalized, the drug cartels will also become legitimate taxpaying corporations.
Is this really what we want and need for America?
Interestingly enough, it was the Left (then styling themselves as Progressives) that pushed to make many of these substances illegal in the first place, not to mention they were behind the 18th Amendment.
1.) You weren't supposed to notice.
2.) It was about social control then; it's about social control now; it's always going to be about social control. That's what self-styled "benevolent" oligarchies do in the foreground. Do you suppose it's a mere coincidence there's nothing self-styled "benevolent" dictators and theocrats and oligarchies won't do to expand and extend their powers of control while making high-sounding speeches and waving flags for their "benevolent" goals?
3.) If you deliberately look away from the frantic activity in the foreground, all of it kept in motion by the foot soldiers and officers of middle high rank and useful idiots, and poke about among the highest of the high, you'll always find the rampaging psychoses of compulsive control, hatred of numerous forms and kinds, revenge, racism, classism, compulsive lying, delusion, anti-realism, grandiosity, et alia. You'll encounter Lenin's syphilis and accompanying psychological warpage, Stalin's pederastry and paranoia, Mao's pederastry and artistic pretensions, Hitler's paranoia and artistic pretensions and aversion to meat, Idi Amin's sexual perversions and cannibalism, et cetera ad infinitum.
4.) The first lesson history teaches is that very few people ever seem to learn the obvious lessons of history.
Yes, that was one point that I wish he had gone into bigger depth about.
Fact is, the main "skill" that's needed to make big money in the drug trade is the use of violence to protect a monopoly. Beyond that, and basic reliability of delivery, nothing is needed. Once you've got the knack of intimidating, threatening or killing your competitors, and mastered the art of keeping the cops off your back, your return is huge.
Obviously, a large majority of business talent is deployed in legal businesses. Very few entrepreneurial types have the stomach to do the dirty work necessary to run an illegal business. Consequently, "Ganja Wayne" has absolutely nothing to fear from Molson-Coors. "Coco Rico" doesn't have to waste a moment's worry about competition from Sandoz. Neither of those character have to worry about big corporations going Wal-Mart on their azzes :)
If drugs became legal, the returns on the trade would drop hugely. In the legal market, outside of the computer industry, a net profit margin of 20% is huge. Of course, the costs would go way up too. In fact, one of the costs would be accounting for potential legal liability. One argument for drug legalization that's not often made is that the corporations dispensing the drugs would be held legally liable for their products. They'd be exposed to all the precedents in tort law that have exacted money from cigarette companies, et. al.
A smart government lawyer could actually sue them to recompense the government for added welfare costs for addicts. That would give those companies a big-$ incentive to come up with treatments to break drug addictions. If heroin were legal, a pharmaceutical company coming up with a pill that cures heroin addiction would make a huge amount of money. And, save a huge amount of money if that same company was in the heroin trade [as Bayer was when H was legal.]
The same thing goes for other deleterious effects from mind-altering drugs. If there proved to be something about brain deterioration caused by regular marijuana use, a corporation in the marijuana trade would be liable for a huge class-action lawsuit unless they took pre-emptive action.
"There is no such thing as an illegal contract" is an axiom in tort law. That's why "Ganja Wayne" and "Coco Rico" can't be sued for a single dime even when the damage their products do is obvious. Needless to say, they can't be leaned on for it either. A corporation can be sued, even by the government for welfare costs attributable to addicts.