>>13351856why you feel the need to write like a sissy condescending pseudo full of shit? Just answer the points directly
>> still some how the same amount of power bloodshed and local disruption>The point of passing a LAW is not to 100% solve a problem but make it better.All your point is based on your own made up assumption that I meant this. I'm not saying this won't have any effect on the problem, but considering the three arguments I presented, your solution is so inefficient, full of flaws and loopholes that shouldn't be taken seriously.
You say I'm using a strawman and proceeds to pull the biggest strawman of all in this kind of discussion: muh prohibition. You can't compare alcohol, a drug that so large chunk of society is already addicted or accustomed for so long, that is so easy and cheap to produce, that is so less profitable, with cocaine. My point is that cocaine drug dealers won't happily let an ATF inspect the 'quality' of their products or burden their profits in any way. They are not some shady italian guy, they are more akin to generals and warlords than a simple mafia.
Of course they will feel when clean entrepreneurs start selling cocaine legally, but they have economical power enough to react and break this competition. This is what a cartel means. They don't watch competitors freely take their clients. It's a monopoly imposed by force. They already have this force, and the scratch legalization will do will be irrelevant since smuggled cocaine is so lucrative, it won't be a fatal hit, they will be still up to defend their business.
Problems are rarely 100% fixed, but your solution is just trash.
If you like so much my heckin citations, google Brazilian milicia as I referenced. We don't have an experiment of cocaine liberation but they proof how you can just kill your competition and keep your business. They will kill you if you try to sell normal legal stuff in their territory, as I say drug dealers will do based on simple logic.
