[jack9]

> The counterargument is that if drugs are legalized then the crime syndicates will need to find a new line of work

Is that a counter argument? There are bad actors (in society). Some bad actors have social, moral, physical, intellectual barriers that prevent them from acting WORSE. Raising the social barrier (marketplace) isn't any different than the social barrier (legality). If you rather not compete bad actors out of the market because of what they might do, why legally punish them out of the market? Why bother trying to stop them at all?

[krapp]

Society doesn't want to consider certain transactions to be legitimate.

Allowing a marketplace for murder or human trafficking (or the other nefarious things organized crime gets up to) allows the most efficient and effective bad actors to prosper, as markets are designed to do. But society doesn't want bad actors to prosper, it wants them prevented from acting badly.

[jack9]

I agree. This is why the "counter-argument" doesn't make sense. It assumes that it's not preventative (so it's a negative effect?). Might as well let them carry on?