judgements from the usual court system are enforced by the police, who are authorized to use force - i.e. violence - in the event of non-compliance. this is not a unique feature of the drug trade.
While this is true, the quantity of the violence needed, and like, the legibility of the conditions under which violence is to be meted out, can be much better in the case of, like, laws and state, than,
well, perhaps if there was no state, there could be another mechanism which is comparable or better, but when contract enforcement in a particular area is excluded from state enforcement, while normal areas aren’t, I expect the violence used in that area to be worse.
I’d say the amount of violence is related to the amount of resources available in the economy where trust needs to be established. If you have a lot of resources, you can spend more on monitoring and surveillance, and afford more losses. When resources become scarce, you climb the control ladder faster and resort to physical violence because you can’t afford not to.
Interestingly, the trust is established by the use (and threat) of violence by the state. Not that it is a bad thing, it is worth it for the resulting order. The state "violence monopoly" is essential in a shared value system.
The thing that really opened my eyes to this now-obvious (to me) truth was reading the history of the Scottish clan system. A state is essentially (or at least begins with) organized crime with a monopoly on crime organization. Or put another way, an organized crime majority.
well, perhaps if there was no state, there could be another mechanism which is comparable or better, but when contract enforcement in a particular area is excluded from state enforcement, while normal areas aren’t, I expect the violence used in that area to be worse.