News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stalking her daughter’s killers across Mexico, one by one by xenadu02 on Sunday December 13, 2020 @09:55PM (#25413024)
There just isn't nearly as much money in any alternatives. At its root money is required to maintain cartel power.

Sure they aren't going to disappear overnight. But cutting out their most profitable product lines would make a huge dent without a doubt.

We have a real-world example of that from Prohibition so it isn't entirely theoretical.

Re:Stalking her daughter’s killers across Mexico, one by one by addicted on Monday December 14, 2020 @06:36AM (#25415883)
If there isn’t enough money, it only ends up making gangs more ruthless as they now have to compete for a smaller share of money with other gangs.

They end up extorting even more money from the local populace, and try and extend their fangs into other activities.

I’m not saying that legalizing drugs won’t help at all. But it’s unlikely it will help in places that already have gangs without other actions in addition.

Re:Stalking her daughter’s killers across Mexico, one by one by tschwimmer on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @03:26PM (#25434777)
What I'm about to say is a broad generalization, but an important one:

Gangs exist as the most promising form of employment for people without other options. If you destroy the gang's single largest source of revenue, then it reduces their relative attracting as an employer. There are alternative to drugs like human trafficking, arms dealing and the wildlife trade but they have much much smaller markets. Perhaps in the short term violence would increase as gangs try to find a replacment for drugs, but even in the medium term I strongly believe that recruitment would plummet and attrition would rise as the money ran out.

Re:Stalking her daughter’s killers across Mexico, one by one by JamesBarney on Monday December 14, 2020 @09:59AM (#25418276)
It took a little while, but why did it help so much when we ended prohibition but wouldn't when we end other drugs?