A matter of simple economics

New York Times, March 26, 2009.
Quotation of the day:
"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, on a visit to Mexico.

Why hadn't the most capitalist of the capitalists realized that as long as there was demand there would be supply, not the opposite? It's Economics 101! What did it take for the USA government to admit that the problem was not just combating the supply? Was it that the violence generated by drug trafficking was too close to home and it started to massively enter their territory?

As a person born in Colombia, the most stigmatized country with drug traffic in recent history, I was surprised to read this quotation and the full article on that subject this morning. I was always puzzled by the way the "war on drugs" was handled. Millions of dollars were sent to producer countries to arm antidrug forces to destroy the marijuana crops, then coca and more recently amapola. And what about the spreading of glyphosate on those crops and its environmental impact. And what about the very high number of deaths in countries producing these kinds of plants or involved in drug smuggling? And what about the financing of terrorist organizations with drug money?

It's only till today that an American Government Official makes this admission publicly. And one can only wonder why not before? The war on drugs always looked like a waste of money because data indicated that the illegally crop-cultivated land was not decreasing; it has continued to grow. As long as there is demand for drugs there will exist supply. If the demand grows, prices increase, making the business more attractive. What interest was there that did not allow USA officials to see this simple economic principle. Was it a matter of image? Or was it some hidden interest?

What does it imply that Mrs. Clinton had made this admission? Would the war on drugs strategy change? It is my stronger desire it changes. If Americans cut their demand for drugs there is hope for a chain reaction: decreasing prices; production reduction; drug smuggling business becoming less lucrative and thus less attractive; decreasing income sources for illegal movements, including terrorist groups; decreasing political and economic influence of illegal organization; decreasing number of drug-related deaths, including American victims of overdose.

Do I have a reason for hope?