[aeturnum]

> but who says they wouldn't be fighting anyway?

This is a totally fair question. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Al Capone's level of violence had nothing to do with his criminal syndicate. He just liked shooting people.

However, shooting people is expensive, especially given that they employed reasonably advanced weapons (sub-machine guns). So, he's not going to get as many bullets when liquor is legal. Also, though Capone is believed to have killed people, far more people were killed on his orders[0]. Without an unregulated and lucrative source of income, it's hard to see him having the money to hire people to kill others.

No one is saying that, absent the drug war, the cartel's enforcers would be in the peace corps. However, the extremely high street price of drugs finances a level of violence that would not exist otherwise. If you want an example, look at the history of Mexico in the last 20 years and compare it to any other nearby country.

[0]http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/Al-Capone.htm

[jlgreco]

Furthermore, while Al Capone could have found other crimes to orchestrate to make himself rich, he wouldn't have been able to perform those crimes as well as liquor smuggling, limiting his supply of cash (lets face it, he was probably doing those things in our history timeline as well as smuggling).

Alternatively, if we suppose some crime that he really did neglect in favor of smuggling, why did he neglect it in favor of smuggling? Because it was not as profitable or carried greater risk (in our history timeline, he was able to manage his risk effectively. He wasn't killed in the act and was only eventually caught for tax evasion. Had he been, say, robbing banks instead, he undoubtedly would not have lasted as long.)

Any way you slice it, prohibition made dealing with Capone worse than it otherwise would have been.