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 ...
The Mexican drug cartels are a billion dollar industry. The Mexican government is powerless to stop them. Do you think the US government can control them? Do you think the US could enforce price controls on drugs? Why would they? This is still a free market economy and if legal, idiots will still pay a hundred bucks for a hit. AND the government will happily add an exorbitant sales tax (like cigarettes) on top of that. We already know there will be no one else to provide dangerous drugs if legalized. Do you think Big Pharma will suddenly start mass producing meth and cocaine? No, as we know, if legalized, The Cartels will incorporate into legitimate industries and the US will happily begin collecting taxes. Legal or illegal - the cartels win.
Well, what if the point is not to win? There is far too much money to be made by not winning and keeping the war funded. Too much power and control to lose. What do you want a free society or something? The border issue is the root of many problems and perhaps, just perhaps it might be better controlled without lots of money changing hands to look the other way.
I get it. You maintain the gubmint benefits from the WOD. Its all about power and control. Yet we know (from ending Prohibition) that legalization will ONLY INCREASE the power and control of government in our personal lives. How many thousands of laws are there now on the books regulating the sale of alcohol? When it can be sold? To whom it can be sold? What taxes (very important) can be assesssed? What fines and punishments are placed on violators? And on and on we go. Legalizing drugs is a liberal wet dream. That means they get to GROW the size of government and INCREASE the tax (and spending) revenue.
If you think the gubmint benefits (and they do) now, just wait till its legal. I call your attention to today's news from Seattle where extra police on duty to CONTROL the new marijuana laws.
Well, this statement should be examined a little bit given the way drug laws are written and enforced. For example, when it comes to pot, if you're busted in possession of a certain amount, you're considered to have "intent to distribute;" whether or not you've actually distributed, or further, profited from it, is not material. That's why you often see dual charges of "possession" along with "intent to distribute."
In the common vernacular a person who has "intent to distribute" may indeed be a pot dealer, but in the eyes of the law, a "distributor" is anyone who possesses in excess of a certain amount, real-world intent be damned. So while you can claim "only pot dealers go to jail," the reality is that pot dealer = intent to distribute = anyone caught with an excess of a fixed amount.
That is foolish.
What are our laws and courts for, except to define right and wrong for others?
I’ve told you. We will never know when we’ve won. We may never win. If you makes you happy, I’ll say we will NEVER WIN.
OK?
But the point you keep missing it this: We CAN LOSE the WOD. How? I’ll let you explain since losing (surrendering) is not an option for me.
You're absolutely hilarious.
You posit that no serious conservative would oppose drug prohibition, and then when others point out well-known conservatives who do, your counter is to suggest that those people aren't serious conservatives.
This is your idea of a rational argument? Seems to me you'd just rather bash and berate those who you feel are inferior to you. Why not be more honest about it and just start threads listing people you'd love to round up in a gulag and work to an early death?
“to secure these rights...”
To secure YOUR RIGHTS...
BUT NOT TO IMPOSE YOUR IDEA OF A GOOD LIFE ON OTHERS!!!
It is hard to win a war when the people who make the laws work both sides.
Then you can you claim to have a solution to ending the war?
Yes, that’s my idea of a rational argument. And lets cut/paste the rest of the argument I made in that post:
“SoCons are pro-God, pro-Constitution and pro-family. The drug scourge is anathema to these values.”
Got any smart-mouthed negative comments to make on being “pro-God, pro-Constitution and pro-family”? Last time I looked Jim Rob himself was posting threads affirming that statement.
I suppose you find that “absolutely hilarious” as well?
No you cannot.
So far, all you've done is provide a list of rubbish, like securing our borders, and using our effing MILITARY to conduct search & destroy missions in "ghettos and slums."
What's the end game, here, ma'am? When you put down the things that go boom and excite you, and all the people you don't like are either dead or in prison, what does victory in the War on Drugs look like? A world where a jazz musician can no longer find a bud, and more than that, no longer wants to?
Define victory. Don't give us your militaristic fantasies.
No, but under legalization more skilled legal businessmen can outcompete them - as happened in the market for the drug alcohol when Prohibition was ended.
Do you think the US could enforce price controls on drugs?
No, but under legalization increased competition will drive down prices.
Why would they? This is still a free market economy and if legal, idiots will still pay a hundred bucks for a hit.
Or even more happily pay less - as increased competition will allow them to.
AND the government will happily add an exorbitant sales tax (like cigarettes) on top of that.
Or a less exorbitant sales tax like that on alcohol. And either way, that tax can be avoided by not buying the product, which is more than you can say for the income taxes I pay to fund the War On Drugs.
We already know there will be no one else to provide dangerous drugs if legalized. Do you think Big Pharma will suddenly start mass producing meth and cocaine? No
Why not?
Yet we know (from ending Prohibition) that legalization will ONLY INCREASE the power and control of government in our personal lives. How many thousands of laws are there now on the books regulating the sale of alcohol? When it can be sold? To whom it can be sold? What taxes (very important) can be assesssed? What fines and punishments are placed on violators? And on and on we go.
Those don't add up to more power and control of government in my personal life than the War On Drugs.
That means they get to GROW the size of government
Where is the evidence that regulation takes more government than prohibition?
and INCREASE the tax (and spending) revenue.
By your "logic" we should ban all taxable goods and services.
If you think the gubmint benefits (and they do) now, just wait till its legal. I call your attention to today's news from Seattle where extra police on duty to CONTROL the new marijuana laws.
I see no evidence for your claim here: https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+police+marijuana&tbm=nws
I know. That's your major malfunction. And every time you make one of your "rational arguments," you weaken the nation.
Stop playing games and asking stupid questions. It makes you look stupid.
Here’s an idea. You tell me your answer to the problem.
Then I can come back - reply after reply - and ask dumb questions.
I'm not the one who claimed to have an answer.
Ah. I see you both now want a clear definition on ending the WOD.
And because I can’t give you one, you attack any efforts to fight in the WOD.
You two use the same liberal talking points that ended the term War on Terror. Excuse me, I mean our Overseas Contingency Operations.
And when I repeatedly compare the WOD to the WOT or even the WOM (murder) you ignore that argument, and as a result your logic stands that since the WOD is a failure then so is the WOT or the WOM. We should just quit.
And so we follow your advice and dumb down our definitions and legalize murder. Or terror. Or drugs. What a nightmare you libertarians want for our Country.
“Define Victory”.
OK, so I can’t. Not to your satisfaction anyway. But I sure as hell can define losing the WOD. Or surrendering in the WOD. My many replies on this thread detail many horrific realities if you two ever got your way.
So it’s not acceptable to object to meaningless blather about “ending the war by winning the war”?
Evidence, please.
Again with the stupid questions.
And this one makes no sense. It is more “meaningless blather” by a surrender monkey.
I refuted that argument in post #138:
"According to the FBI, in 2011 64.8% of murder cases were solved (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/10Clearance.gif). How many drug sales do you think are even detected by the authorities: 0.000648% maybe?"
I own me.
I am my own ruler.
My life is my own and mine alone.
My income and material things belong to me.
My things are my own and mine alone.
My time is my own and mine alone.
I do not owe my time or labor to anyone.
No one else is entitled to one second of my time.
Sound vaguely familiar?
How libertarian!
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.