Those Dominican coke dealers on the Hill in Harlem weren't tricking down anything to the community in the 80s and 90s. They bought store fronts all over Broadway but that was their shyt. Any profits they saw went to them not us. Poverty still existed and people were on welfare, food stamps and going to free lunches and food pantries from churches. People were still getting evicted from their homes from lack of rent. Homeless shelters were a thing. The Jamaicans who sold weed down the Hill were struggling with the rest of us and would look at you funny if you asked for credit on a 5 dollar bag of weed. Drug dealers ate for a while but then would go to prison. How could drugs keep the hood from starving when the ones on drugs sacrificed food to get high? I Always hated that fake story that used to be told in the early 2000s as if dope dealers were really helping their communities financially like that.
Going to speak more generally, but the people who worked for the major traffickers, they made money. Their families did better. Their businesses whether fronts or not employed people. The money they spent in the community, on whatever it was, that contributed to businesses bottom line. Whenever there is an influx of money/assets in a community, there are benefits.
You can parse it down by race or category, or levels, or say it came with too high of a cost, which are fair arguments, but it's basic economics in some ways, that crazy capital surplus benefited people in that area, directly, or indirectly.
Like in places like Sinaloa, someone like Ovidido Guzman was beloved by parts of the community he lived in, the reason? He built a lot of ranches and houses and businesses, and who worked on them? Members of the community. Did it lift them out of poverty? No. But did it allow them a living? Yes. No one else was going to do anything. Not the government. Not the legit business owners. I would make a similar argument for places like Harlem in the 80's.