[lambda]

You are not going to eliminate organized crime, but you can reduce it substantially. Drugs are in incredibly high demand, and are quite easy to hide and trade illicitly. Many people get into organized crime because they see that it's an easy way to make lots of money. Take away one of their biggest moneymakers, and you're not going to eliminate it entirely, but you will cut off quite a lot of their money, making it harder for them to recruit and less powerful.

You can also reduce their profits in other areas. The whole reason they are able to make money is that there is demand for services that cannot be provided legally. Now, some of these services really should be illegal, as they are scams or have very harmful externalities, but for many of the more lucrative ones, you need to ask yourself "is banning this really worth the cost of enforcing it and the costs of the black market generated?"

For instance, human trafficking happens due to demand for labor that isn't being met by local markets, and the illegality of prostitution. Could that demand be better met by making our immigration easier, and making prostitution legal, spending the money saved on programs to help people who may be trapped in bad situations rather than perpetuating the situation by putting them into a permanent criminal class?

I don't pretend to know all of the answers. But I think it's a question that we need to consider seriously, and without resorting to knee-jerk "soft on crime" rhetoric against anyone who suggests that maybe this system is incredibly expensive, damaging to liberty, and producing more harm than good.