> maybe they would think of some other illegal shit to kill each other over if drugs were legalized, but I find it hard to believe that the violence wouldn't subside a bit if their main revenue stream were cut off.
You might think that but the data doesn’t really support it: http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/uscentury.gif. Homicide rates were spiking in the US long before prohibition. Likewise, after going down post WWII, homicide rates started spiking before the drug war. They had almost doubled from the previous low point by the time Nixon was elected. Nixon coined the phrase drug war, but didn’t really fund it aggressively. That was Reagan. But homicide were near the peak by the time he was even elected.
> also, it seems questionable to extrapolate the outcome of legalization in the US based on data from mexico.
Not really—the cartels supply demand for drugs in the US. And OP was blaming the US drug war for violence in Mexico.
You might think that but the data doesn’t really support it: http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/uscentury.gif. Homicide rates were spiking in the US long before prohibition. Likewise, after going down post WWII, homicide rates started spiking before the drug war. They had almost doubled from the previous low point by the time Nixon was elected. Nixon coined the phrase drug war, but didn’t really fund it aggressively. That was Reagan. But homicide were near the peak by the time he was even elected.
> also, it seems questionable to extrapolate the outcome of legalization in the US based on data from mexico.
Not really—the cartels supply demand for drugs in the US. And OP was blaming the US drug war for violence in Mexico.