You can't wage a war on a word

I thank con for the intriguing rebuttal. So I am not sure if con thinks that being a "suspect" and being "innocent" are the same thing, as con says "you are labeled a "suspect" until proven guilty, in other words; you are innocent until proven guilty". However, being innocent would imply nobody suspects you of anything. While being suspect means you are thought to be guilty and, in this case, police are looking for proof. If someone is innocent there is no need for things like DUI checkpoints as there is no reasonable suspicion while driving through a checkpoint. However during the holidays, everyone is considered a suspect of doing a drug (alcohol) and police are now checking for evidence. Con uses the word "conspiracy" and questions how big pharma is even relevant to this debate. I guess I need to explain better. If there is a "war on drugs", and it is actually a war on using or selling drugs, lets draw the logical conclusion. Pharmaceutical companies produce and distribute drugs. So, u.s. government declares "war on drugs". Big pharma makes and distributes drugs. Can we now see why I have addressed this? The u.s. government wants to stop people from using drugs, yet allows companies to sell drugs as long as there is money paid in the form of fees. This is why you cant have a war on a word or for that matter a concept. This is why it in fact is relevant to this debate. It is too broad. There is no war on drugs. It is a war on people, but only certain people who don't pay fees to make or sell their drugs. Con says the following: "Pro then says that not declaring war on people is "reckless" and "endangers millions of people". Pro also says that governments just go after whomever they want in war. This is completely false; the government uses a variety of methods to achieve their goal in a war, as far as in the Drug War they burn drug farms and educate children about the dangers of drugs and take away and punish people who use drugs". Now the paragraph I laid out above this one logically proves I am not false in my statement that government just go after whomever they want in this war. If you pay up, the government is fine with you peddling your drugs (pharmaceutical companies). Con then says, "the goal in the War on Drugs is not to arrest every person who does drugs; it is to stop people from doing drugs. We are attacking the drugs not the people". This statement is false. For example certain drugs are allowed to be sold to certain people, yet not to others. Someone can be prescribed Xanax, while another person cant because they are not prescribed it. A war on drugs would mean no one could use Xanax. This is why it is an attack on people, not the drug. Also it is why we cant have a war on a word. It is too broad. Con goes on to say the following: "Pro says that a government cannot declare war on terror because then it would have to declare war on itself because the government is a terrorist. Whether or not the government employs terror or not is another debate entirely, for now let"s focus on whether or not we can declare war on a concept". I have laid out the definition of terrorism. I don't think anyone can debate that when a government uses a drone strike on a town, it scares the people of that town. To say that it does not scare people would be irrational. So I think either con is evading my comments of the "war on terrorism" because con cannot or does not want to refute my argument, or may agree with me. Regardless, lets continue with the "war on poverty". Con claims LBJ declared war on the concept of poverty and then goes on to say how this example negates my main idea. I must disagree. Without PEOPLE there is no concept. Concepts or ideas are in PEOPLE's minds. There are many rulers throughout history that have put PEOPLE to death for having an idea or concept that went against the ruler, or the ruler simply did not like. So when one declares a war on poverty, one is declaring a war on people by default. Without people, there is no concept. Lets look at the word "war". The end goal in a war is obviously to win. We still have drugs, terror, and poverty. These wars cannot be won. I will agree, anyone can say whatever they want. You can say "we are declaring war on dirty socks!", but just like the other concepts (poverty, terrorism), or objects (drugs), it is irrational. It is as irrational as me saying, "go find me this poverty so we can lock it in a cage and make it a prisoner of war!". You can only have a war on people.