Public officials, especially police, should not be allowed to claim that violence is “drug related” without explaining exactly what they mean.

“Drug related” violence sounds intituive after decades of copaganda and stigmatizing drug users, but the link is not obvious at all.

The key question is how much of “drug related” violence is actually *enforcement* related?

Where is the cost benefit analysis of every drug busts — we know they don’t change demand for drugs, but do they create vaccums in a market that are filled with violence?

A couple of years ago, a Wawa opened across the street from the CVS in my neighborhood. There was no shooting in this turf war. The things that can happen in a non-criminalized market !

How lucrative would the drug market be if it wasn’t clandestine?

Our entire illicit drug market is a huge bubble. Costs are inflated by costs of clandestine operations (secrecy/ security).

Legalization of marijuana led to price drops. We can make this biz less lucrative.

So if you are talking about “drug related violence” please be clear and honest about the relationship. People don’t take fentanyl and go on killing sprees. Most fentanyl sellers in the world (Pharma / hospitals) are nonviolent. Maybe it’s about the market the Drug War set up.

And if after all this you still want to talk about the “drug related violence” the real phenomenon you should talk about is that considering the amount of cash that is circulating on the streets every day, it’s shocking that there isn’t much more violence.