Extreme poverty in the United States is the lowest in history. (Still needs work domestically and (even more so) internationally but progress has been made and should continue to be made).
"Racism" is now used to define "Cultural Bias" more than anything else. Actual "racists" (those who believe they are "racially superior" to other "races" simply because of "race" are an overwhelming minority in the United States.
Social Media, among other things, tends to highlight "racist" injustices, actions, etc and they are typically brought to the forefront. This can cause the "illusion" that a large portion of the country is racist simply because of the political party they follow, the news channels they watch, the events they attend, the people they associate with, their faith/religion, etc.
Most people in the US are not racist (at least not in the most extreme/damaging sense of the word). Culturaly/poltically biased? A good portion could be. But that's something ingrained in almost all cultures worldwide. You are "allowed" to be "proud" of your culture and heritage. What folks shouldn't do (or think) is that their "culture" or heritage" makes them a "better" or "superior" person
simply because of their "culture" or "heritage" - that's when it can cross the line and be considered "racist", imo.
"The War on drugs" was a valiant effort and done with good intentions initially. No one wants to become addicted to drugs or see a loved one addicted to drugs. Unfortunately, over the years, it has become politicized and has lost (most of) its initial "good intention".
Is there a solution? There could be. But the solution isn't necessarily eliminating (or fighting a war) with drugs. Why continue to "wage war" on an enemy that will never play by your rules but could (and does) infiltrate "good people", loved ones, friends, associates, etc? And the amount of violent crime that is directly correlated to "the war on drugs" can (and does) affect millions of innocent people that have nothing to do with it.
The United States spends billions and billions of dollars on military technology (smart weapons) that are intended to drastically reduce the amount of innocent casualties during times of war. Why do we not treat the "war on drugs" the same way?
Could decimalization on possession of small amounts of drugs help? In all likelihood, yes - it could be a start. The vast amounts of money spent currently on arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people for possessing small amounts of drugs could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. It could also lead to safer streets for both police and citizens. (A drug addict won't likely commit a violent crime (especially against a police officer) if he/she knows they won't be prosecuted and/or jailed for possession.
It seems to work in the countries that have taken a "decimalization" approach -
Drugs like cocaine, marijuana, and heroin have been decriminalized in numerous countries. To date, these include somewhere between 25 and 30 countries.
www.worldatlas.com
At the end of the day, the "war on drugs" should be focused on trying to reduce addiction at the lowest levels by treating addicts with rehabilitation programs - instead of costly incarceration (where many addicts tend to become even more addicted to drugs and/or come out with more issues than they had going in).
My 2 Cents.
