[parineum]

> But the laws don't cause the violence, they make it so violent individuals are the only one's willing to fill the supply.

The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well.

If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does.

[grayhatter]

> The laws prevent relying of the police in protecting your business with violence. The law creates jobs where violent people excel but those same violent people would not necessarily be violent without it, they may also be really good pianists, it just doesn't pay as well.

100% agreed.

> If you pass that law knowing full well that it will create a violent black market, you certainly are responsible when it does.

I'm not sure you could say knowing full well. At least not when the laws were enacted. And knowing that it could create a black market, isn't the same.

Also, if your calculations also lead you to believe that you could control the market, keeping the violence to a small minimum. You're at worst responsible for a small mistake in calculation. Not the violence that you were unable to predict.

The argument of who's to blame currently is the people with access to all the information who still refuse to act.

[8note]

At the time of beginning the war on drugs, there was already examples to take from prohibition.

This calculation seems negligent. Like, I could shoot you in the face, and it wouldnt be my responsibility if you died. I could only know that it's a possibility that you could die, not that you would definitely die