I’ve long been confused about why so many people support our so called War on Drugs. I think I may have found part of the answer in this Houston TV station KHOU report. Basically, they define winning in a different way than the rest of the world:
The war against drugs in Houston is heating up. It’s a war some believe we are losing, but a war we can’t afford to lose said Captain Steve Smith with HPD Narcotics. “As long as we are fighting it then we are winning. And as long as you adapt to that and understand that, then you never think that law enforcement is losing the battle.”
Define victory as the fight itself, and you create a war that justifies itself automatically. Of course, the report contains the clues on how to actually win:
But seizing illegal drugs is only part of the battle. Taking the profit out of drug dealing is another. Police said there is a lot of money involved.
Well, of course there’s a lot of money involved, when you criminalize virtually worthless substances that have high demand. I bet the price of coffee beans would skyrocket if we locked up caffeine addicts. If we decriminalize marijuana for example, its "worth" would plummet. One more quote:
(The police) say the drug supply seems never ending and so does the danger… Police say seizure of drugs and guns go hand in hand. The question is can police gain the upper hand in this never ending fight.
“But as we said it is a very lucrative promising business so the suspects and the narcotics traffickers, the cartels, they are always ahead of us,” said Capt. Smith.
Well if the drug supply is never ending, and the police are always going to be behind, the only way to define victory is to say that the battle itself is the win. Or maybe, well, there are other options out there, right?