For the record, I've been for decriminalizing (de facto legalization) certain ***** for a long time. But I have that belief because I'm not keen on the government telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies in their own homes, or what they can or can't put in their own bodies in their own homes. Like most libertarians, I also (admittedly) tend to gloss over what the social affects of such a policy would be. I have a certain (somewhat hard) attitude of "you pays your money, you takes your chances" on the after affects. And I'm not certain that decriminalizing or legalizing would remove the criminal element. It might lessen the ******** in some cases. But criminal organizations are businesses, just like any other. And when one market becomes less profitable, they simply move to another or choose another form of involvement. If, in addition to *********, ****, heroin and meth were legalized/decriminalized, there still has to be suppliers, right? And who would own these suppliers? They wouldn't necessarily be in the U.S., so legalization here would just provide legalized distribution... not production. So we might find that one of El Chapo's many, many shell companies owns the same portion of production that it does now.
Plus, we can't let the lazy media refer to these cartels as just **** dealers. Like any "good" diversified business, they make lots of money from lots of sources. And not all of them could be legalized or should be legalized.
In July, Ulloa told the Guardian Mexican **** cartels made $10 billion last year from the enforced sexual exploitation and enslavement of thousands of women and girls.
It may also simply be a matter of profits. As sources explained to Time and the Guardian, while a **** shipment can be bought and sold a finite number of times, a person can be sold again and again, making sex trafficking extremely lucrative.
. Let's hope he doesn't mastermind another escape any time soon.
