And when then, (say) financial authorities say they can’t track criminal money transfers (e.g tax avidance, insider trading, various criminal activities, et al), then they are wrong ..

Because I can (given the data of course).

I use that term with some thought. I take drug use as an example. Now there was a time (pre Margaret Thatcher) when you could go to a doctor, say you were a heroin addict and then get prescribed heroin. Advantages, less users dying, more could cope and deal with their addiction with the income from a normal job (rather than having to work in criminality to support their habit), ortganised crime could not get a look in the UK as the profits were .. zero. Now look at the UK, same issues as the US, wow that really worked, using the US model.

Advantages to the wider community of the socialisation approach, less crime (of all types), huge savings of money (far cheaper than sending users to prison) and less corruption.

Now, if I was a smart drug lord (and they can hire the best experts in the world) then I would pour money into the anti-drug politicians, because (the market rules) that makes me more money. My real enemy is someone who wants to socialise and medicalise drug problems.

Conclusion (backed up what has happened in Afghahistan) is that drug money is a major factor in US and other countries decision making. Simply by the politicians who want to (say) create an old UK system will not get all that money . So their opponents, who get this money will win (through cut-outs of course, so it can’t be traced or be seen as illegal).

The market wins, though not exactly in the way that some people think. The ‘illegal’ drug industry needs it to be illegal for them to make a quid! Oh yes there WERE deals with the CIA, et al.

Just as the oil and coal indutries pay for their lobbyists to push their line, organised crime (largely funded by drug money) push, albeit subtely, their agenda .. and they have high contacts in the US (and other countries of course).