[explaininjs]

Solidly false. Just a few days ago I was held from behind with a knife to my neck by a Colombian who was sure I had cocaine and was demanding I hand it over. After insisting I didn't, he threw us both to the ground and choked me out until I went limp. I was mentally aware of the sensation of him stealing all my shit (as a backpacker, everything I had was on me), but was too out of breath when I came back around to do anything about it.

Keep in mind cocaine goes for $6/g there, and that's gringo street price.

Degenerate coke fiends can't be rationalized into "poor byproducts of the war on drugs". They're gnarly, and I'm glad to be away from them. God bless the USCG.

[standardUser]

The vast majority of documented violence related to drugs is from the black market drug trade. There will always be drug addicts and antisocial behavior. But the black market violence only exists because government refuse to end those black markets.

[explaininjs]

I mean yeah sure whatever but you've moved the goalposts into a tautology: "the war on drugs is the sole cause of drug-related violence" => "black markets and their constituents wouldn't exist if governments got rid of them".

You should also consider that your idea of the "vast majority of documented violence related to drugs" is probably very far from the real set of violence related to drugs, in no small part because as you admit: it happens in black markets, where documentation is notoriously unreliable.

And, FWIW, my case is in all likelihood present in 0 "documentations". I was able to talk to the police briefly after, but it was treated as a robbery (and completely disregarded).