Anonymous takes on Los Zetas

[Sean Quixote]

I'd embed if I knew how (mods feel free to do so for me if you are so inclined) but here's a link to the English translation of the video on YouTube (the original Spanish version is embedded in the Houston Chronicle online article): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJORGO1Q2VY

Online hackers threaten to expose cartel's secrets - Houston Chronicle

Anonymous cancels crackdown on Mexican Zetas drug cartel - blog post


Shit's about to get crazy, folks. It's already crazy in Mexico, but this is one of those situations where things have to get a LOT worse before they can ever get any better... and it is about to get a lot worse. Innocent people are going to die, no doubt, in retaliation to this threat. But innocents are already dying in droves. Hell it may even only be a matter of time before Mexico's government swallows its pride (and even after they do that, then it'll have to get bad enough for them to ignore the fact that our military is already over-extended) and asks the USA for military assistance.

This is the kind of thing that almost makes me ashamed to be a stoner: Something that I happen to enjoy also happens to be illegal, and the black market for it provides funding to these monsters that are murdering children, policemen, politicians, et cetera. Lots of people in my position would like to take this opportunity argue for the legalization of marijuana, but the truth of the matter is that the drug cartels aren't just drug cartels, anymore. They're straight-up criminal organizations; drugs are just conveniently a part of that broad category. Just because millions of dollars is a drop in the bucket to these people nowadays doesn't mean that I can shrug it off, or think about it for more than a few seconds without my stomach doing somersaults.

Like I said, obviously, the shit is about to hit the fan. It's going to get worse before it gets better. But, still, I find myself feeling kind of... I dunno good doesn't seem like the most appropriate word, and hopeful just doesn't seem quite to suffice... about the fact that someone is trying to do something about it.

I bet the member of Anonymous who was kidnapped is already dead; but whether or not that is the case, I hope they don't stop even if he is returned safely. I hope they don't ever stop, until some semblance of order is restored in Mexico.

[KnightExemplar]

Los Zetas are the kind of guys to just randomly shoot people and hold generic innocent people as hostage. Sure, it would be a smack in the face against Los Zetas, but the damage they'll do in response would be much more. And I really don't see Mexico asking the US to help...

I don't really know what my opinion on the matter is. But I do want to know how this story will go...

[IcedT]

Doesn't it say right there in the third link that Anonymous has officially dropped the threat and won't be doing anything against the Zetas? Looks like this particular case ain't going anywhere.

[KnightExemplar]

Doesn't it say right there in the third link that Anonymous has officially dropped the threat and won't be doing anything against the Zetas? Looks like this particular case ain't going anywhere.

And that will stop Los Zetas how?

Los Zetas has Street Cred on the line now. Whether or not Anonymous even does anything.

[Iulus Cofield]

If we were a little more responsible with our drug use, the problems in Mexico wouldn't be as severe. I tell my friends and acquaintances who are inclined to casual drug use that they should know where those drugs are coming from, not just because American drug users are a primary source of income for the drug cartels, but also because Mexican drugs can be very dangerous, for example, all that cocaine contaminated with cattle dewormer. If the first argument doesn't sway them, the second one usually gets to them.

Of course, we'll never see government sponsored education about this, because the intractable American drug policy will never go half way like that.

[sardia]

If we were a little more responsible with our drug use, the problems in Mexico wouldn't be as severe. I tell my friends and acquaintances who are inclined to casual drug use that they should know where those drugs are coming from, not just because American drug users are a primary source of income for the drug cartels, but also because Mexican drugs can be very dangerous, for example, all that cocaine contaminated with cattle dewormer. If the first argument doesn't sway them, the second one usually gets to them.

Of course, we'll never see government sponsored education about this, because the intractable American drug policy will never go half way like that.

Yea, BUY AMERICAN, stupid junkies should be more patriotic than that.
That was in jest, but I couldn't help but get that idea in my head from your post.

[CorruptUser]

If the US really wanted to help, the best way would be to eliminate the drug use, preferably through rehab.

No drug use = no funds from smuggling drugs = no drug smugglers = no Los Zetas.

[Iulus Cofield]

If we were a little more responsible with our drug use, the problems in Mexico wouldn't be as severe. I tell my friends and acquaintances who are inclined to casual drug use that they should know where those drugs are coming from, not just because American drug users are a primary source of income for the drug cartels, but also because Mexican drugs can be very dangerous, for example, all that cocaine contaminated with cattle dewormer. If the first argument doesn't sway them, the second one usually gets to them.

Of course, we'll never see government sponsored education about this, because the intractable American drug policy will never go half way like that.

Yea, BUY AMERICAN, stupid junkies should be more patriotic than that.
That was in jest, but I couldn't help but get that idea in my head from your post.

I know right? In this case, just don't buy Mexican or Afghan or Columbian or from anywhere else where there is a known and clear connection between drug sales and violence.

[cpt]

If the US really wanted to help, the best way would be to eliminate the drug use, preferably through rehab.

No drug use = no funds from smuggling drugs = no drug smugglers = no Los Zetas.

"Eliminate drug use" is a simple, and yet wildly unreasonable and completely unrealistic request to make of the US. Apologies if there's sarcasm I'm missing.

[CorruptUser]

Only some sarcasm. It is practically impossible to eliminate all drug use. About as realistic as 'eliminate chauvinism'.

But realistically, dealing with drug use does more damage to the cartels than going after the cartels themselves. Gang mooks are replaceable, drug users not so much.

[sardia]

I'd be interested if the US could price the cartels out of business by legalizing drugs, but judging by what happened during the end of prohibition, the cartels would just move on to other forms of organized crime.

[Ghostbear]

I'd be interested if the US could price the cartels out of business by legalizing drugs, but judging by what happened during the end of prohibition, the cartels would just move on to other forms of organized crime.

While that is almost certainly true, it would still be somewhat of a success. If the other sources of revenue were more profitable to the Cartels, they already would have switched to those options. Selling drugs is either more profitable, safer (in either a financial or physical sense), more reliable, less competitive, or has some other benefit over, whatever alternative method of making money they'd move to. There is always the danger that the new method would end up working out better for them, and they just hadn't chosen it because it didn't seem like it would, but I see that as less likely overall.

[Sean Quixote]

Doesn't it say right there in the third link that Anonymous has officially dropped the threat and won't be doing anything against the Zetas? Looks like this particular case ain't going anywhere.

Yeah, I was going to also comment on that link but I forgot. Though, all that link really says is that they got a hold of two Anonymous namefags (which if you're paying any attention then you know that's an oxymoron, or at least supposed to be... ) who said that "officially", Anonymous has canceled #OperationCartel. But, the other thing that they say, which again, goes without saying if you know anything at all about Anonymous, is that anybody (re: Anonymous) can go out and make a video on behalf of Anonymous. Which is kind of what it seems like is how this started out, which was actually early on this month even though it only hit mainstream news sources -- only reason why I know about it -- yesterday and today.

So, "unofficially", certain anonymous individuals, whether the A is capitalized or not, will still most likely be taking action against the cartels. Or, hell, who knows. Maybe Anonymous just wants the cartels to think they're calling off the dogs just as a PR move, or something. I dunno... I honestly don't see what the risk is for Anonymous -- that is, again, if the individuals participating actually manage to remain anonymous -- really, there is none, assuming they're better hackers than the cartels have at their disposal. Though, that is indeed at least a slightly credible threat: I was just watching something on C-SPAN last week, it was actually a panel at the Texas Book Festival with two people who wrote books about the cartels, who spoke of the citizenry of Mexico striking back against the cartels via social networking, but then the cartels finding them, the citizens who were posting tips on Twitter and whatnot, and murdering them.


As for eliminating drug use, aside from that being a bit of a pipe dream at the end of the day, remember the cartels are no longer merely drug cartels. They are, more generally, criminal organizations: the drug trade is no longer, and hasn't been for a good while, already, their only source of income; they don't just kidnap people to make a political example of them, they do it for ransom, and what's worse, it works. I can't remember what other enterprises the cartels are also involved with, but I remember hearing a figure of well below 50%, as to what the drug trade now represents as their total income.

[Qaanol]

If the US really wanted to help, the best way would be to eliminate the drug use, preferably through rehab.

No drug use = no funds from smuggling drugs = no drug smugglers = no Los Zetas.

I think we all agree that society as a whole would be better off if fewer people were addicted to drugs like cocaine, heroin, nicotine, and methamphetamines.

The best solution I have heard of is this:

People who are already addicted, are unlikely to stop being addicted. Yes, it is possible, and some people succeed, but by and large most addicts are going to remain addicted for the rest of their lives. Therefore, to decrease the total number of addicts, we must decrease the number of new addicts who become hooked each year, then just wait for the existing addicts to pass on.

How do we reduce the number of new addicts each year? By eliminating the incentive for people to try to get other people hooked. Currently, drug dealers and suppliers can make a lot of money, and the more customers they have the more money they make. So there is significant financial motivation for dealers to push their product and get more people addicted.

Since people who are already addicted are going to remain addicted, they are going get their fix however they can. If we don’t want them going to drug dealers, we need to provide an alternative. Drug addiction is best viewed as a disease, and the only effective treatment is providing the drug to the addict.

Therefore, it follows that the entire problem of drug use will be directly solved by giving to addicts treatment in the form of free drugs. This may sound radical, but when we look at all the consequences it is actually one of the best possible solutions in every sense.

First, drug addicts get the fix they need, legally and free. So they do not resort to violent crime such as robbery in order to afford to buy those drugs. This immediately reduces violent crime.

Second, drug dealers are no longer able to earn money by selling drugs. This is because they are competing directly against another provider of drugs, namely the state, which is giving the drugs away for free. Drug addicts will get their drugs for free and will not buy from dealers. Therefore dealers will get no money. This quickly causes all drug dealers to stop dealing drugs, since they cannot make money doing so.

Third, no one has incentive to get other people hooked on drugs. The drug dealers who used to make money selling drugs, and thus did everything they could to get new people addicted, can no longer make money and thus no longer try to get people addicted. As a result, rates of new addiction plummet.

Fourth, all the people who are currently getting arrested on possession and dealing charges, will not be arrested for those things, since those actions are no longer illegal. As a result, the prison population will decline substantially. This means far less tax money goes to prisons, and no tax money at all goes to prosecuting drug offenses. Taxpayers save a lot.

Fifth, the “war on drugs” is ended, so all the tax money going to combat drug growers and cartels in other countries no longer gets spent. Taxpayers save a lot more.

Sixth, a lot of the money that addicts currently spend on drugs goes outside the country, and all of it goes outside the taxable economy. By implementing the free drug system, no money is drained from the economy and given to drug cartels. This makes our domestic economy immediately stronger. The money that addicts would have spent on drugs, they can spend on other things so that money will remain in circulation.

Seventh, as time goes by, the old addicts will eventually die, and there will be fewer addicts remaining since the rate of new addiction is lower. Therefore, even the cost of providing free drugs to addicts will decrease over time.

For all these reasons, this solution to the drug problem makes society as a whole better off. It saves tax money immediately. It stops sending money to cartels and gangs. It eliminates drug-related robbery. It drastically reduces the prison population. And most of all, it lowers rates of new addiction.

Note that this only applies to addictive “hard” drugs. For non-addictive or less-addictive substances, such as marijuana and caffeine, the best solution I know of is legalization (since it’s an individual-liberty/bodily-autonomy issue) and taxation (to the extent that society prefers to disincentivize their use).

Additionally, the specific drug-intake method of smoking should be banned in public and in places where children frequent, since carcinogenic smoke is a public health issue. Other forms such as patches, injections, pills, drinks, food, and possibly vaporization are fine, however.

[Iulus Cofield]

Um, first of all, I think you may find rehab can actually be pretty effective and addiction is not always a lifelong condition, although many organizations preach that. Second of all, I think you may have failed to account for the costs of supplying millions and millions of addicts free drugs for the rest of their lives when you were calculating taxpayer savings. Lastly, this plan doesn't address other reasons why people use drugs, especially entertainment and depression.

[Qaanol]

I think you may find rehab can actually be pretty effective and addiction is not always a lifelong condition, although many organizations preach that.

Indeed, rehabilitation should also be available for free.

Second of all, I think you may have failed to account for the costs of supplying millions and millions of addicts free drugs for the rest of their lives when you were calculating taxpayer savings.

Those are merely the costs of farming some crops and distributing the resulting drugs. In other words, far cheaper than the essentially military operations being carried out in other countries, and far cheaper than prosecuting and imprisoning drug users.

Also, the street prices of drugs are currently inflated because they are illegal, so dealers and suppliers charge a mark-up to cover their own risks. This means the cost of supplying drugs for free is far less than addicts are currently spending on drugs. The money they save (meaning the full black-market price right now) gets put into the domestic economy when they spend it on other things, rather than sent to foreign cartels. Since it is in circulation, it gets taxed just about every time it changes hands.

Furthermore, if we follow the current route of zero tolerance, costs to fight drugs will only go up, and crime by addicts in search of their next fix will only go up. Worse yet, the number of addicts will only go up, since there is a large incentive for dealers to get new customers. Conversely, if we follow my plan, the cost to fight drugs becomes immediately zero, as does crime by addicts trying to afford their fix. Those savings can be put to providing the free drugs and rehab, with billions left over to spend on other programs or simply lower taxes and shrink government spending.

Even if there would be an up-front cost—which there won’t, there will be an up-front savings—and even if there would be a long-term cost—which there won’t, there will be a long-term savings—my plan would still be worth it for the benefits it brings in terms of decreasing addiction rates and violent crime.

Lastly, this plan doesn't address other reasons why people use drugs, especially entertainment and depression.

Who is going to supply drugs for entertainment, if the market price for drugs is zero? Nobody. There will be no one around selling drugs for recreational use, since there will be no money in it. I’m not sure where you’re going with “depression”, but again there won’t be people pushing addictive drugs, so the culture of drug use will be defeated.

[Iulus Cofield]

So these free drugs provided for addicts will also be available for anyone who wants them? That alone is going to be a gateway for young adults to get hooked on drugs simply because they were bored, curious, heard it was good, and the government said they could have it at no cost to them. Also, some people do drugs because they are depressed and use them to self-medicate. That's kind of the traditional American reason for alcoholism.

What I'm saying is, there are many reasons that people do drugs beyond the marketing of drug dealers and in my second-hand experience, from quite a few people, they didn't start because a pusher was like, "Try this, it's good!", but because their peers did it and shared with them for free, then sought out dealers to pay for the experience.

[aoeu]

If drug production is moved to the US, what's to stop its problems moving to the US?

[Qaanol]

So your “objections” merely amount to a wish that I had made a longer post giving more details on exactly how the program would be operated, made to filter out people who are not actually addicted, and overseen to prevent addicts from taking their allotment elsewhere and sharing it with others?

To your last point, Iulius, suppose someone does get introduced to a drug at a party. If they get addicted from that, they can head down to the local free clinic to get a fix when they need it, so they are not sending money to gangs and cartels. Additionally, if they go to the free clinic after just one or two times using the drug, they are far more likely to have successful rehabilitation than they would be after using it for a long time. By eliminating the threat of legal repercussions, people who have used a drug are more willing to admit that fact, and thus more likely to seek treatment.

If drug production is moved to the US, what's to stop its problems moving to the US?

The fact that it is overseen and regulated by the federal government.

[cpt]

If we tried this out with alcohol, instead of the less legal drugs, I think that civilization would end violently during the first weekend of free state-supplied liquor and beer (at least in North America. I can't comment on the habits of the good folks that inhabit the rest of the world). I can't imagine it would be better if all kinds of illegal drugs were given freely to anyone interested, and I highly doubt that the result would be fewer total addicts.

[Qaanol]

I’m not talking about handing out free drugs to everyone who asks for them. I’m talking about providing safe doses in a controlled environment to people who would otherwise suffer severe withdrawal symptoms. I recognize that the details of implementation need to be designed properly. However, the basic premise is solid: undercut gang and cartel pricing, and they’ll stop dealing and pushing drugs.

Alcohol is a topic for a different thread, and I am not suggesting any policies regarding it at this time.

[Lucrece]

I’m not talking about handing out free drugs to everyone who asks for them. I’m talking about providing safe doses in a controlled environment to people who would otherwise suffer severe withdrawal symptoms. I recognize that the details of implementation need to be designed properly. However, the basic premise is solid: undercut gang and cartel pricing, and they’ll stop dealing and pushing drugs.

Alcohol is a topic for a different thread, and I am not suggesting any policies regarding it at this time.

And this is where cartels rise back up. Because too many people, your restrictions won't be acceptable. They'll want more. They may know they'll fail to meet some criteria, so they'll seek business with people who don't have said criteria. Even if it costs a little more, because more is still better than no fix.

Cartels will be much more easily countered when financial immobility and income equity are directly addressed. If people can find worthwhile jobs that don't have ridiculous access gating such as tuition costs/training length and we raise standards of living and education, they'll be less inclined to risk illegal activity.

You'll still have to cope with white collar crime, but it's a considerable reduction in the pool of violent criminals and gang cycles a society has to deal with.

[Cleverbeans]

The DEA estimates "tens of billions of dollars" are smuggled in cash across the border every year, and we know that Wacovia was laundering money to the tune of $100 billion/year for cartels in 2004-2007. If I had to guess, I'd guess it's easily a $200 billion+ a year industry which is ~1/4 of Mexico's GDP. The Mexican government is absolutely helpless to stop them.

With that being said, cannabis is the most profitable drug, and represents nearly 90% of the cartels their volume. It's only slightly more addictive than alcohol, and has a much lower correlation with violent crime. Simply decriminalizing the least dangerous, most socially acceptable of these drugs would seriously cripple the cartels and in all likelihood would be their downfall since they'd lack the financial resources to attract and retain membership, or to acquire weapons.

[Jahoclave]

If drug production is moved to the US, what's to stop its problems moving to the US?

A lack of illegal immigrants to pick the base plant.

[BaronSweetly]

A bunch of junk about giving away free narcotics.

Your heart's in the right place, but your thinking is naive. Someone else pointed out taxpayer costs related to supplying these people, but you're forgetting law enforcement. They are the largest contributors to lobbying to keep marijuana illegal, and for good reason. Keeping drugs illegal is big business, and not just to those selling them. Even simply legalizing them would cause an immediate and massive increase in the number of people who are unemployed in what is right now an economy already full of them.

You also seem to think that drug dealers actively try to get people on drugs. This is pure fiction. If you are a drug dealer, you have no need whatsoever to try and drum up new business. People will be banging down your door to get what you have (literally, if necessary). The common myth that circulates now and again and goes something like, "Oh noes! The dealers are giving teh drugs to our childrenz to get dem hooked!" is an outright lie used as a scare tactic. I have never once seen or heard anything credible regarding a drug dealer even offering his wares to a non-user. The people who get others started on drugs are either themselves, through curiosity mostly, or their friends ("Dude, you've gotta try this stuff!) No program is ever going to do away with curiosity or social pressures. Based on my observations, I suspect there will always be some irreducible minimum of the population that chooses to use intoxicants.

A much better solution, and one I've been touting for years now, is a simple threefold plan: legalize, tax, and regulate. It removes the money from criminal organizations and puts it into taxable businesses. It creates new jobs to help offset the unemployment. It also reduces instances of harm and death from adulterants and overdoses by instituting quality controls. No more people dying from taking what they thought was heroin when it was, in fact, fentanyl. There could even conceivably be a program instituted to monitor usage and identify candidates for things like rehab (again potentially offsetting unemployment), though this has some controversial aspects and is largely secondary to the main benefits. I would also support such a plan being applied to all forms of vice, including prostitution and gambling. These are outside the scope of this discussion, however. It is worth noting, though, that after the end of prohibition (as someone noted earlier), organized crime did not disappear, but went into other areas. Most of those fall under this general heading of vice: activities which society may not approve of, but that people are going to engage in regardless of whether it is approved of or even legal. There may always be some areas left for organized crime to turn a profit, but the elimination of vice legislation helps to reduce those areas to a bare minimum and benefits society overall.

[sourmìlk]

If drug production is moved to the US, what's to stop its problems moving to the US?

Hopefully the fact that it would be legal in the US. Most problems related to the drug industry stem from the fact that it's illegal. With a few exceptions, crime rates, murders, etc., all stem from the fact that drug manufacturing is, by necessity, a criminal enterprise.

[BaronSweetly]

. . .[Cannabis is] only slightly more addictive than alcohol. . . .

Not sure where you get your information, but you need to do more research or something. Firstly, we should make a distinction here. There is a difference between dependence, which is a physical phenomenon, and addiction, which is a psychological one. Literally anything can be addictive. It's only a matter of the person's mindset and susceptibility. One can make arguments for certain things being more addictive than others, and those arguments have merit, but I will not address those here except to say that even such an argument in favor of this position loses, as addiction backed by dependence trumps simple addiction every time. I will instead address dependence, and make such references from this point forward.

To begin, marijuana does not cause physical dependence at all. Studies have shown that, while some of the chemical constituents of marijuana can potentially form such dependence, their lipid-soluble nature causes them to linger in the body for so long that they effectively wean the user off of the substance naturally, as one might do with patches or gum to overcome a nicotine dependence. While I have seen no evidence either refuting or confirming it, I also suspect that the dependent effect is likely much weaker than that of alcohol or nearly any other drug to demonstrate such an effect, if for no other reason than this next point.

Conversely, alcohol is one of the four 'great scourges' that plague humankind, the other three being opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines. These all cause high levels of dependence and are harmful to human health. The idea that marijuana causes anything even remotely close to the same level of dependence as any of these, let alone more, is laughable at best to anyone even somewhat informed on the subject, even if only through personal experience, let alone through proper study and education.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

I'd post here, but my mind is enjoying some EtOH

[alexh123456789]

I’m not talking about handing out free drugs to everyone who asks for them. I’m talking about providing safe doses in a controlled environment to people who would otherwise suffer severe withdrawal symptoms. I recognize that the details of implementation need to be designed properly. However, the basic premise is solid: undercut gang and cartel pricing, and they’ll stop dealing and pushing drugs.

Alcohol is a topic for a different thread, and I am not suggesting any policies regarding it at this time.

And this is where cartels rise back up. Because too many people, your restrictions won't be acceptable. They'll want more. They may know they'll fail to meet some criteria, so they'll seek business with people who don't have said criteria. Even if it costs a little more, because more is still better than no fix.

Cartels will be much more easily countered when financial immobility and income equity are directly addressed. If people can find worthwhile jobs that don't have ridiculous access gating such as tuition costs/training length and we raise standards of living and education, they'll be less inclined to risk illegal activity.

You'll still have to cope with white collar crime, but it's a considerable reduction in the pool of violent criminals and gang cycles a society has to deal with.

Why even make the drugs free? Right now, the price of marijuana is massively inflated. If you legalized it, people could either grow their own almost for free or could pay a few bucks for a pound of it. There's no way the price could get anywhere near the current price. There's a reason there's no black market for things like, for example, lettuce; it just isn't worth the risk.

[Darryl]

I’m not talking about handing out free drugs to everyone who asks for them. I’m talking about providing safe doses in a controlled environment to people who would otherwise suffer severe withdrawal symptoms. I recognize that the details of implementation need to be designed properly. However, the basic premise is solid: undercut gang and cartel pricing, and they’ll stop dealing and pushing drugs.

Alcohol is a topic for a different thread, and I am not suggesting any policies regarding it at this time.

And this is where cartels rise back up. Because too many people, your restrictions won't be acceptable. They'll want more. They may know they'll fail to meet some criteria, so they'll seek business with people who don't have said criteria. Even if it costs a little more, because more is still better than no fix.

Cartels will be much more easily countered when financial immobility and income equity are directly addressed. If people can find worthwhile jobs that don't have ridiculous access gating such as tuition costs/training length and we raise standards of living and education, they'll be less inclined to risk illegal activity.

You'll still have to cope with white collar crime, but it's a considerable reduction in the pool of violent criminals and gang cycles a society has to deal with.

Why even make the drugs free? Right now, the price of marijuana is massively inflated. If you legalized it, people could either grow their own almost for free or could pay a few bucks for a pound of it. There's no way the price could get anywhere near the current price. There's a reason there's no black market for things like, for example, lettuce; it just isn't worth the risk.

*sidles up in a trenchcoat* psst... Got some Romaine here for you, still in the heart, picked this morning. For you, my friend, I'll give a special price. 10 dollars.

I apologize, but I just couldn't help it.

[Роберт]

Another article.

Relevant bit.

The group says one of its members who had purportedly been kidnapped in the Gulf coast state of Veracruz has been freed.

That would explain why they called it off.

[addams]

A bunch of junk about giving away free narcotics.

Your heart's in the right place, but your thinking is naive. Someone else pointed out taxpayer costs related to supplying these people, but you're forgetting law enforcement. They are the largest contributors to lobbying to keep marijuana illegal, and for good reason. Keeping drugs illegal is big business, and not just to those selling them. Even simply legalizing them would cause an immediate and massive increase in the number of people who are unemployed in what is right now an economy already full of them.

You also seem to think that drug dealers actively try to get people on drugs. This is pure fiction. If you are a drug dealer, you have no need whatsoever to try and drum up new business. People will be banging down your door to get what you have (literally, if necessary). The common myth that circulates now and again and goes something like, "Oh noes! The dealers are giving teh drugs to our childrenz to get dem hooked!" is an outright lie used as a scare tactic. I have never once seen or heard anything credible regarding a drug dealer even offering his wares to a non-user. The people who get others started on drugs are either themselves, through curiosity mostly, or their friends ("Dude, you've gotta try this stuff!) No program is ever going to do away with curiosity or social pressures. Based on my observations, I suspect there will always be some irreducible minimum of the population that chooses to use intoxicants.

A much better solution, and one I've been touting for years now, is a simple threefold plan: legalize, tax, and regulate. It removes the money from criminal organizations and puts it into taxable businesses. It creates new jobs to help offset the unemployment. It also reduces instances of harm and death from adulterants and overdoses by instituting quality controls. No more people dying from taking what they thought was heroin when it was, in fact, fentanyl. There could even conceivably be a program instituted to monitor usage and identify candidates for things like rehab (again potentially offsetting unemployment), though this has some controversial aspects and is largely secondary to the main benefits. I would also support such a plan being applied to all forms of vice, including prostitution and gambling. These are outside the scope of this discussion, however. It is worth noting, though, that after the end of prohibition (as someone noted earlier), organized crime did not disappear, but went into other areas. Most of those fall under this general heading of vice: activities which society may not approve of, but that people are going to engage in regardless of whether it is approved of or even legal. There may always be some areas left for organized crime to turn a profit, but the elimination of vice legislation helps to reduce those areas to a bare minimum and benefits society overall.

Yeah. All of that and Pot gets a place on the shelf between tomatoes and beer.
Grow or brew your own or go to the professionals that do what they do so well.

Humans and animals get high. It is, just, a truth. Not all highs are the same. Not all humans are the same.