No such thing as persistent "failed" policies

"As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed." - Robert Higgs

I think this is a fantastic lens through which to begin interpreting policy. For example, take the War on Drugs. If the purpose of the War on Drugs is to stop the importation, sale, and use of illicit drugs then the War on Drugs has been an abject failure for decades.

Higgs however suggests to us that if the policy where indeed failing then it would have long since been changed. Since it hasn't been changed then we must conclude that the purpose of the War on Drugs must be something else which is indeed succeeding as the policy could be rightfully described as "persistent".

Gary Webb exposed how the CIA was selling drugs to LA gangs in order to use the profits to fund a guerrilla army in Latin America. For his trouble his career and life were destroyed and then he "committed suicide" via two gunshots to the head. That's called being suicided.

The Taliban in Afghanistan had nearly eradicated poppy production by 2001 before the US invaded. After the US invaded production has skyrocketed. Then low and behold by 2016 Heroine use in the US reaches 20 year highs. Pretty sure we have seen this play before. Selling drugs is one of the ways the alphabet soup agencies in the US have funded their black budget projects for decades.

So whenever you see what appears to be a longstanding "failed" policy the question you should ask yourself is not, "Why is this failed policy still in effect?" but rather, "What is the actual purpose of this "failed" policy?"