That fact that they still happen isn't evidence that efforts to reduce it are ineffective. Most criminal orgs are running businesses, increasing the costs of doing businesses via enforcement or AML. On the margin, increased costs are passed to consumers which would reduce drug use. Cocaine is cheaper in Europe than in the US despite the US being a lot closer to the source, much of it due to the costs due to enforcement/AML. That's one of the points of the article, do you think drug consumption would be the same in Holland if the drugs weren't 15% more expensive?
The lens through which to look at is what level of enforcement/AML do we need to reduces societal harm cost effectively. Because you can't track every object that enters or every dollar that leaves.
So the question is more whether reducing the harms of drug consumption that amount is worth the impact on legitimate business. Then again the merits AML is that it hits most organized crime and costs a lot less than specific enforcement to stop trafficking and distribution. Now with fentanyl, you can't reasonable prevent trafficking at any cost because 5 tonnes can supply the entire USA, so you have to turn other the screws
The lens through which to look at is what level of enforcement/AML do we need to reduces societal harm cost effectively. Because you can't track every object that enters or every dollar that leaves.
So the question is more whether reducing the harms of drug consumption that amount is worth the impact on legitimate business. Then again the merits AML is that it hits most organized crime and costs a lot less than specific enforcement to stop trafficking and distribution. Now with fentanyl, you can't reasonable prevent trafficking at any cost because 5 tonnes can supply the entire USA, so you have to turn other the screws