I suspect that almost all so-called drug-related crimes are actually prohibition-related crimes. If the gov't stopped prohibiting drugs aggressively, their price would be low and the supply chain would be in the open. The word "drug-related" borders on Newspeak in that it contains the assumption that drugs are _causing_ the violence and gov't force is protecting us from it.

We can look at alcohol, which is heavily taxed, probably 10 times more expensive than the market price w/o taxes. Despite its high cost, we don't hear about robberies to obtain alcohol, even though overdose is only a few times more than desired dose and the withdrawal can be fatal. The hospital every day/night has people in with alcohol overdose, addiction, or long-term abuse issues. That's what we would get if we decriminalized other powerful drugs. It's not good, but what we have now isn't working great either, and it's a justification for the gov't to intrude into everyone's lives.

my point was the war on poverty was always a bookend with the Civil Rights Act. It was always the intention of Johnson especially to secure Blacks' vote. To receive assistance, you are better off being in two households opposed to one. The most assistance goes to single head of household and more children. This has definitely led to the breaking up of families. Your point about the war on drugs. You never answered my question regarding why it was black families stayed together and had the lowest out of wedlock birthrate during prohibition. People certainly went to jail running alcohol and making it during that period. Why was violent crime mostly tied to the mafia etc. and not blacks?

I agree. However, you are ignoring the fact that drug related crimes and violence are often connected.

What if the two sides made a deal: You have to give up a whole bunch of programs that help the needy. In return, we get shorter prison sentences, drugs decriminalized in some fashion, a smaller military.

Even implementing such a deal in a small way would instantly solve budget problems. All spending could be divided into helping people and stopping evil-doers. Cut 20% from each one, and budget problems are solved. There's nothing more Republicans appear to like more, though, than punishing evil-doers; apparently b/c it makes them feel better about whatever hurts them in their life; so it would be tough sell. Sorry for the cheap shot. They get one cheap shot about me having a bleeding heart or whatever.

The point is they could come to a compromise that shrinks gov't. Instead they make compromises that one side keeps its nutrition programs and the other side keeps its military bases.