Review: Better Call Saul Could Only Happen Under Drug Prohibition
The black market for drugs empowers bad actors while imposing serious burdens on innocents.

Better Call Saul was, on one level, a show about the law—its uses and its abuses, its complexity and its morality, and the ways a clever lawyer can bend it to suit his or her purposes, to both good and rotten ends.
The Breaking Bad spinoff, which aired its final episode in August, followed small-time con artist Jimmy McGill as he tried and failed to become an honest corporate lawyer and eventually transformed himself into the sleazy criminal legal defender Saul Goodman. Despite being surrounded by more honorable models—his corporate lawyer brother and a romantic partner whose true passion is helping the downtrodden as a public defender—Goodman becomes a self-dealing legal schemer, and, eventually, a bagman for a murderous drug cartel.
The drug war is what enables McGill to enact his most elaborate and profitable schemes. So on another level, Better Call Saul was also a show about the machinations of the drug war. It didn't feature stirring monologues about the cost and futility of drug prohibition. But its narrative demonstrated, over and over, that the black market for drugs enriches and empowers bad actors while imposing serious burdens on the legal system itself as well as on innocents with few resources or social power. Drug prohibition is shown, correctly, as a complex system created by the law, and thus subject to exploitation by clever legal operators.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
> Despite being surrounded by more honorable models—his corporate lawyer brother [...]
My impression was the exact opposite of this. Jimmy's brother was in no way honorable. The story was quite clear that he was willing to throw Jimmy under the bus every time in order to save his own career, prestige, and reputation.
I agree. And the girlfriend was an enthusiastic participant in the early petty scams. She only got "honorable" late in the show. No one was a stellar role model in either series.
She even loved pulling off authentic, classic scams, as long as she thought her exposure was nil.
The whole Saul-Breaking Bad arc is really about one thing: egos. Slippin’ Jimmy’s brother needed to prove he was the good guy in the family (regardless of their mother’s opinion) by proving that Jimmy was a ne’er-do-well. Jimmy knew he was a ne’er-do-well and needed to prove to himself that he could do better being a sleaze than the normies could being legit. Their father was a professional sucker who’d’ve been sucked dry by someone else if Jimmy hadn’t wound up beneficiary. Heisenberg wanted to prove to himself that he could beat everybody at anything he set himself to. Captain Cook never even wanted to live well, only to stick it to the man.
Drugs never even had to enter the picture. The same plot-in-essence could’ve been constructed around any number of other details.
Exactly. There were no saints in the Better Call Saul cast of characters.
What really " empowers bad actors while imposing serious burdens on innocents." is Netflix vile and tedentious final season of The Crown
The closest that came to sainthood was Mike, the honest, pragmatic, hard-working ex-cop thug. He'd kill whoever needed it, but avoided cruelty where feasible.
Even the kid with cerebral palsy, when it came to his only plot-significant choice, shortly before the end of the whole story, saw where his bread was buttered and decided to say his mother attacked his father instead of vice versa as the camera saw it.
Come to think of it, the Shwartzes were probably AOK.
Where's the rest of the article? Why does this short article exist? [Fill in show about drugs and the riches and devastation associated with same] could not have been made without drug laws and prohibition.
Uh yeah. Blinding insight.
Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul were about fragile characters descending into ego and megalomania. Jimmy had a huge inferiority complex on his brother, and his entire agenda in life was to either prove him wrong or screw over his inner circle. He could not live in his debt or shadows, so he gave up on a cushy corporate lawyer gig, and he encouraged his girlfriend to sabotage he own corporate overlords. Later on their stunts cost Howard his life.
Criminals thriving in a black market merely served backdrop to complex characters motivated their own insecurity and ambition. Would Gus Fring give up on Pollos Hermanos if NM legalized drugs? Would Walter White go back to teaching? No, much like in real life, they would then merely adjust the black market. Fring had Hseinberg working for him at point, he had the only supply of the pure blue stuff.
Bryan Cranston was asked a question about drug legalization in an online Q&A and he gave noncommitted answer. The show isn’t about the drugs. “Drug prohibition” becoming a meaningless term, because the alternative is where no taxes and regulations are placed on drugs and everyone can just make their own stuff. But even then, the drug cartels have the upper hand on distribution and market dominance. The BB universe elaborated on a very complex criminal empire that could rise above any feel good pro legalization fantasy.
Remember that Pollo Hermanos was just one arm of a multinational conglomerate. Who knows what their other arms were engaged in?
Jimmy was not fundamentally good. His childhood was full of petty scams. He was always about cheating others instead of honest work.
If you watched all the series, how did you miss the part where they showed he had been a scammer since he was a kid?
And if you watch Breaking Bad, you see him as an amoral adviser to murderous criminals. So I'm not so sure.
I haven't seen the last season of Better Call Saul, so I'll have to wait and see what you are talking about.
How was he wrong?
They just might if they’re egotistical enough.
Exactly. It's a "fuck you" to the world.