Posted on 12/06/2012 2:25:44 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
Editor's note: Richard Branson is the founder of Virgin Group, with global branded revenues of $21 billion, and a member of the Global Drug Commission. Sir Richard was knighted in 1999 for his services to entrepreneurship. Watch today for Branson's interview with CNN/US' Erin Burnett Out Front at 7pm ET and tomorrow (12/7) with CNN International's Connect the World program at 4pm ET
(CNN) -- In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished."
This week marks the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933, but Mencken's plea could easily apply to today's global policy on drugs.
We could learn a thing or two by looking at what Prohibition brought to the United States: an increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production and distribution and widespread anger with the federal government.
~snip~
As part of this work, a new documentary, "Breaking the Taboo," narrated by Oscar award-winning actor Morgan Freeman and produced by my son Sam Branson's indie Sundog Pictures, followed the commission's attempts to break the political taboo over the war on drugs. The film exposes the biggest failure of global policy in the past 40 years and features revealing contributions from global leaders, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
It is time we broke the taboo and opened up the debate about the war on drugs. We need alternatives that focus on education, health, taxation and regulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I have never touched pot, crack, coke anything ever. However, i think the police state built up around this thing is scary beyond words
Do you equate restrictions with prohibition? If street drugs were legal, wouldn’t you want children to be prohibited from possession and use?
How do you feel about open borders and unlimited immigration?
How do you feel about giving the vote to illegals?
When these guys get around to agitating for legalizing incest and abolishing the age of consent, maybe you will see where this is going?
Make no mistake the liberturdians want a world where a 12 year old dope smoking prostitute and her foreign wife can feel secure in public knowing that government has given their lifestyle the stamp of approval and probably taxpayer funded benefits too.
I think that is pretty scary
Well that just can't be. Drugs are illegal and the war on drugs has prevented drug abuse. Obviously, these people could not have even obtained drugs since the war is such a great success. Next you will be telling me that Chicago has a high number of shootings even though guns are illegal there.
Correct.
The war on murder is a complete failure, time to pack it in
Aren't children prohibited from using and possessing street drugs/narcotics now?
Liberturds do not see any difference between an adult and a child and believe the artificial and unconstitutional "age of consent" be abolished.
Younger persons have all the Constitutional rights of older persons, unless specifically limited by the Constitution.
This includes drugs, sex and porn.
Yes, they will be saying this publicly sooner or later
You seemed to be saying restrictions were the same as prohibition
I notice that you like to switch topics when you respond to people and then only address the new topic that you have inserted. I said nothing about murder. I said S H O O T I N G S. I was clearly talking about Chicago’s outlawing guns.
I see that we are in agreement here.
No, I'm stating that illegal drugs are prohibited now and they are still available to children. Do you believe illegal drugs would be less available to children if they were legalized, but restricted?
So when you lived in that crackhouse, why didn't you report all those drug users and have them arrested? Are you some kind of libertarian or do you think that laws are only for some people? If the later, I guess that would make you a liberal. I know that a REAL conservative would never live in a crackhouse. Now, about these people, are you advocating just killing the people that you were shacking up with?
We agree
Yes, that was one point that I wish he had gone into bigger depth about.
Fact is, the main "skill" that's needed to make big money in the drug trade is the use of violence to protect a monopoly. Beyond that, and basic reliability of delivery, nothing is needed. Once you've got the knack of intimidating, threatening or killing your competitors, and mastered the art of keeping the cops off your back, your return is huge.
Obviously, a large majority of business talent is deployed in legal businesses. Very few entrepreneurial types have the stomach to do the dirty work necessary to run an illegal business. Consequently, "Ganja Wayne" has absolutely nothing to fear from Molson-Coors. "Coco Rico" doesn't have to waste a moment's worry about competition from Sandoz. Neither of those character have to worry about big corporations going Wal-Mart on their azzes :)
If drugs became legal, the returns on the trade would drop hugely. In the legal market, outside of the computer industry, a net profit margin of 20% is huge. Of course, the costs would go way up too. In fact, one of the costs would be accounting for potential legal liability. One argument for drug legalization that's not often made is that the corporations dispensing the drugs would be held legally liable for their products. They'd be exposed to all the precedents in tort law that have exacted money from cigarette companies, et. al.
A smart government lawyer could actually sue them to recompense the government for added welfare costs for addicts. That would give those companies a big-$ incentive to come up with treatments to break drug addictions. If heroin were legal, a pharmaceutical company coming up with a pill that cures heroin addiction would make a huge amount of money. And, save a huge amount of money if that same company was in the heroin trade [as Bayer was when H was legal.]
The same thing goes for other deleterious effects from mind-altering drugs. If there proved to be something about brain deterioration caused by regular marijuana use, a corporation in the marijuana trade would be liable for a huge class-action lawsuit unless they took pre-emptive action.
"There is no such thing as an illegal contract" is an axiom in tort law. That's why "Ganja Wayne" and "Coco Rico" can't be sued for a single dime even when the damage their products do is obvious. Needless to say, they can't be leaned on for it either. A corporation can be sued, even by the government for welfare costs attributable to addicts.
Actually prohibition is a left wing issue hugely influenced by Marxism , Stalin Mao and Karl Marx were all in favor of drug prohibition,
In my view supporting the war on drugs is being in favor of big goverment communism
1. I have a harsher view on immigration then Tancredo , i would go so far as to ban Muslim immigration and automatically deny citizenship to any Muslims
2.Giving illegals the rights to vote would be the death of America
3. War on Drugs is about big goverment nanny and needs to be stopped, its a waste of tax payers money.
I am dead set again illegals and would mine the borders and set u guard towers w .50 cal BMG sniper outposts
THat´s a start.
But i would rather raise a 20 feet high electric fence that would shock anybody who touches with enough voltage to kill the individual across the border then having a mine field,
But i do agree with adding a mine field to such a fence as well plus sniper towers or turrets too.
They might try, but the tabacco executives stonewall because they've been doing so since the Surgeon-General's Report of 1964. Up until relatively recently, stonewalling has worked well for them. Thus, they're stuck in the stonewalling rut.
But nowadays, stonewalling doesn't work, as this list of lawsuits against tobacco companies shows. Lacking that rut, and starting from the legal environment as of today, the lawyers for "Marijuana Inc." would be assertive in recommending pre-emptive spending to mitigate the damages in advance of a lawsuit.
Come to think of it: it would be wise if the baccy companies banded together and offered an "X Prize" for a workable and reliable cure for lung cancer. (And, secured the patent right to it.) But they won't, because their top execs are too used to the good ol' stonewall. Plus, a pharma company would see synergies that the baccy boys won't.
“How about those who are against any restrictions on drugs/pharmaceuticals? “
Oh, you mean the people who have read the Constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.