I think you’re targeting the wrong person here. My point is that violent groups don’t stop being violent because the source of their income is legalized. Isn’t that the same thought you’re expressing?
In a sense, yes. But I don’t think a solid case can be made that ending prohibition had no positive effect on attacking organized crime.
And no, the Mexican cartels will not suddenly become the Kennedy’s and others and cease their violence. They are a menace that will have to be hunted down and killed like Escobar.
But huge amounts of their violence is goal oriented for control of the trade, and is used to terrorize the government and people into paralysis. Again, to protect their trade. So i do think legalization would help. But mostly, i think our government has damaged our civil rights so badly with the war on drugs that we would be better off with the pot smokers being legal.
Search and seizure law is in tatters. It bears no resemblance to the Bill of Rights. Most of that is from drug prohibition.
But the worst effect of alcohol prohibition wasn’t a few gang shootouts. It was the widespread corruption of police, politicians, banks, businesses, etc. Most people liked to drink. When it became illegal, huge swaths of our nation found themselves deeply corrupted in numerous ways.
Medicinal whiskey anyone? Sacremental wine? Speakeasies? Pillars of the community widely known as rum runners? Moonshiners?
Our society was harmed far more by prohibition than just creating a few shootouts.
I think there would be a reduction in violence, but it wouldn’t end. But there are many other ways the current prohibition badly damages our society.