Drugs cost money. And as such, drugs cost lives. Yet while those lives aren’t usually lost along the lines of “Reefer Madness,” they certainly are lost along the lines of “The Wire.”

That’s why President Barack Obama’s recent announcement that he will not attempt to revive the federal assault-weapons ban makes little sense.

As we all know, Mexican cartels that provide us with illegal drugs have been stepping up the violence lately. They’ve been doing so with the help of assault weapons, some of which were purchased legally in the U.S.

Assault weapons are firearms intended for military use. These include some pistols and shotguns, but generally mean AR-15-style weapons that replicate the assault rifles — such as the M-16 and the M-4 — used by American soldiers.

While there are many ways to kill someone, assault weapons like the AR-15 are the most efficient at it. They are designed to kill people, not to be used for hunting or other legitimate private purposes.

So, it stands to reason that if some weapons would be outlawed to the average consumer, assault weapons would be some of the first to go.

But Obama backed away from banning assault weapons last week during a visit to Mexico, saying that he will not attempt to revive a law that ended in 2004 to ban those weapons. This marks a significant departure from one of Obama’s campaign promises, as he vowed to resurrect the ban during his candidacy.

Such a stance is frustrating. Assault weapons are dangerous and represent a threat not only to Mexicans at the hands of cartels, but also to us at the hands of our fellow citizens. Moreover, a federal ban on assault rifles doesn’t infringe on our constitutional rights much more than similar bans on shouting “fire” in crowded theaters do.

Obama’s unfortunate decision wasn’t made alone, though. It took a lot to temporarily change his mind. Specifically, Obama backed off from his promise because of us. We are the reason why the sounds of assault rifles may soon be heard on our nation’s streets.

Obama didn’t suddenly decide to change his entire stance on gun regulation. Rather, as recorded by several news media, Obama said, “[N]one of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.” In other words, political support for an assault-weapons ban has dropped off the map.

Why do most politicians apparently no longer care about restricting the purchase of assault weapons?

Well, that’s because so-called guns-rights enthusiasts have taken up the issue and made their voices heard. Politicians fear they will lose too many votes if they step up to the plate.

If we want politicians to reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons, we’ll need to clarify that some people still do think the Constitution shouldn’t excuse the sale of such dangerous weapons.

Brett apologizes if his article brought you down during today’s festivities. Give him crap for it at blivingo@asu.edu.