I've seen the first two series and, like you, enjoyed them very much. I started series 3 but again, like you, was disappointed and it lost my attention.
Pablo Escobar is an interesting figure (and the actor is good, aint he?!). I'm not sure that I agree with you that he was 'pure evil'. I'd agree that he committed very many evil crimes and that by the time he got shot dead he was consumed by evil.
However, the reason that he was so loved by the community was because he did provide for them in a way that nobody else was, or had done previously. He really was a Robin Hood figure. And in the early days he didn't need to commit any really evil crimes against innocent people, that all came later.
I'm not really defending Escobar here. It seems pretty obvious that once he'd started to establish himself it was inevitable that he was going to have to commit more and more evil crimes just to continue to survive and maintain his control. But I think it was that that made him 'evil' rather than being evil to begin with. For me the very fact that he was so loved and adored by people (over 25,000 mourners at his funeral) is testament to the fact that as well as committing heinous crimes he definitely did a lot of good for a lot of people. Perhaps not, 'pure evil', but rather, 'corrupted by money and power to the extent of evil'.
In answer to your question, yes, when people are desperate then it's unlikely that they're going to consider the well-being of people in a far away and wealthy land. Why would the poor people of Medellin be concerned about the problems that cocaine was causing in the United States? They had far more pressing problems of their own. And if wass cocaine money helping them out of poverty, well then that's still better than no money and no help.
It's all very well considering from a wealthy western perspective whether or not it would be morally acceptable to receive charity if you knew it was being funded by evil things but that's not the same as actually living in conditions of poverty with no real hospitals or schools and then considering the question. The wealth of this country was created through largely evil means and loads of people have been killed to secure to wealth, power and territory. We and generations before us have all benefited from the crimes of the past. Do we question this? Maybe now we are just beginning to. But it has taken time for us to reach this stage.
I don't think you can blame those poor Colombians for idolising Escobar. They've probably got it wrong, his crimes mean he probably doesn't deserve such adoration. But had things not been so shit to begin with he'd not have had that opportunity. He did have the opportunity and he did some good with the wealth he created.
All in all probably some parallels with Colston. A man who made his wealth in an immoral way and through evil acts but who spent their ill-gotten gain improving the lives of the poor. Celebrated by the poor at the time but, after reflection, probably not deserving of a statue to memorialise him.