> Corporations actually have a reason to be pro legalization.
There are lots of corporations that exist in market niches that benefit from or even exist entirely because of the drug war; they obviously have reasons to be anti-legalization.
There are lots of potential corporations that do not exist because of the drug war whose interests would be served by legalization, but the potential investors in those potential corporations are largely instead invested in actual corporations based on the incentives in the actual status quo situation.
> There’s lots of industry to be made around medicinal and recreational uses of drugs.
Much of which competes with existing medical and recreational business, and would open fields around which incumbents have moats to new competition. Which is why existing corporations with lots of money have reasons to oppose, rather than support, it.
> It might even make jobs in rural America in the form of additional cash crops.
That's a reason for people needing jobs and living in rural America to support it, but a reason for corporations employing those people currently to oppose it (as the additional competition for labor would drive up labor prices.)
> Further, imagine the societal impact of removing the money for cartels. I think Mexico and central and South America would become dramatically less violent over night.
Yeah, and pretty much every powerful moneyed and political interest in those countries is invested, on one or sometimes both sides, in the continuation of the drug war and associated conflicts.