Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure by Richard Branson
CNN ^ | 12/06/2012 | Richard Branson

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; legaldrugs; libertarianagenda; libertyagenda; prodope; profreedom; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-234 next last
To: Responsibility2nd
And the DEA answers and reports to.......?

And they knew they were doing it to manufacture evidence that was going to be used to justify more gun control regulations.

More of the same is just going to get us more of the same.

Everything the liberals do starts out with lofty ideals and end up being a fuster cluck because they deny the unintended consequences. I'm not getting on that bandwagon.

181 posted on 12/07/2012 10:39:13 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
Oh, you mean the people who have read the Constitution?

For those of us who apparently missed it, can you please provide the section where drugs/pharmaceuticals are specifically addressed?

182 posted on 12/07/2012 10:40:22 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Did anyone here suggest otherwise?

Some are saying that this move is mostly about having greater access to recreational pharmacology.

It isn't true, entirely, but this is played up by the Drug Warriors as the primary motivation behind the Anti-WoDdies argument.

For those like me, it's all of the Drug War laws and judicial activism being used to strip me of my guns Rights, Property Rights, and wasting over a trillion dollars of our tax money for no real effect.

183 posted on 12/07/2012 10:52:29 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf; Daveinyork
How about those who are against any restrictions on drugs/pharmaceuticals?

Oh, you mean the people who have read the Constitution?

For those of us who apparently missed it, can you please provide the section where drugs/pharmaceuticals are specifically addressed?

They're not - which means the federal government has no Constitutional authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs/pharmaceuticals.

184 posted on 12/07/2012 11:01:52 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Now you are trying to tie gun right infringements to the WOD.

That’s a stretch.

No. It isn't.

185 posted on 12/07/2012 11:04:59 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
If we were to have a poll here on FR, and ask every registered Freeper to select one of:

1 - Increase the government's enforcement/punishment efforts in the WOD (apparently your position)
2 - Keep the WOD as is, no change
3 - Keep all currently illegal drugs illegal, but drop the police-state enforcement tactics
4 - Legalize some currently legal drugs
5 - Legalize all drugs

....I think we would have a clear bell curve. An overwhelming vote for (3), rather less for (2) and (4), and a tiny fraction for (1) and (5).

Personally I can live with (3) or (4) very easily.

186 posted on 12/07/2012 11:07:02 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
They're not - which means the federal government has no Constitutional authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs/pharmaceuticals.

Aircraft, motor vehicles, electronics, most medical equipment and procedures, etc., aren't either. So who has the authority to regulate and where did they get it? Who decides what is to be regulated, controlled, restricted, licensed or banned?

187 posted on 12/07/2012 11:09:47 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
As I often point out - there is no serious conservative anywhere who endorses legal drugs. This is a leftist issue.

What you mean is neo-conservative. Traditional conservatives supported our Constitution. Neo-cons like yourself despise the US Constitution and believe big government is the solution to all problems.

Neo-Cons are much more like liberals than traditional conservatives.
188 posted on 12/07/2012 11:10:32 AM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
They're not - which means the federal government has no Constitutional authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs/pharmaceuticals.

Aircraft, motor vehicles, electronics, most medical equipment and procedures, etc., aren't either. So who has the authority to regulate and where did they get it?

The states have the only Constitutional authority over these intrastate matters. The feds seized unConstitutional power over them with the FDR Court's Wickard v Filburn "substantial effect" perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which empowered liberal big government.

Who decides what is to be regulated, controlled, restricted, licensed or banned?

Under our Constitution, the states.

189 posted on 12/07/2012 11:46:54 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Under our Constitution, the states.

So you are comfortable with the states having the authority to ban firearms?

190 posted on 12/07/2012 12:02:43 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Okay let me see if I understand you correctly. You want to pull out all the stops, overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, have open warfare in the streets against American citizens without due process of law, do away with the tenth amendment, the fourth, the fifth and probably a few others and spending trillions of dollars on prosecuting a war that you don't see as winnable, with no final goal in sight.

While you are at it why don't you throw in the rest of the things that are bad for people? Let's get those 32oz soft-drinks out of the hands of minors! And transfats! That stuff'll kill ya! Let's get those abusers in jail where they belong too! Let's add alcohol, how can we leave THAT out? Let's appoint a new czar to decide what is bad for others to put in their own bodies and just get it all in one war. We can just call it the war on bad stuff. Let's make it all illegal and bust down the doors of anyone that is stupid enough to have that second helping of mashed potatoes and gravy. The cholesterol is through the roof on that stuff! "Hey kid, is that a candy bar you're eating?" BOOM, the dog gets it right between the eyes! Here, have this government apple and a condom instead. Let's not stop there. Air pollution is bad, let's ban coal. Oh, wait a minute . . . say, you're not with the Obama Administration are you? Hey, did you know that guns can kill people? Maybe something should be done about those . . .

191 posted on 12/07/2012 12:24:40 PM PST by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Another made-up "fact". There are no polls on FR any more, so there's no way to be sure who's in the minority.

There was a poll on the Commerce Clause a while back. Drug Warriors got stomped big time:

____________________________________________________________

FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms? | 11-3-05

When the poll was first posted, I expected the "yes" votes to gain a solid majority. My guess was that "No" would be exceedingly lucky to get 30%; and that only a couple of hundred FReepers would even be interested enough to vote. Imagine how SHOCKED and STUNNED I was when I clicked here and these numbers appeared!

Member Opinion

No 85.4% 1,074
Undecided/Pass 9.6% 121
Yes 5.0% 63
Total 100.0% 1,258

244 posted on Sun Nov 06 2005 01:59:48 GMT-0500 (EST) by Ken H

____________________________________________________________

192 posted on 12/07/2012 12:40:19 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
How very conservative of you to believe that an all powerful, national government should decide what is bad for people to do to themselves and violently enforce those restrictions by any means necessary. nevermind the collateral damage done to innocents.

Drugs are bad but an out of control government is worse. The end in this case does NOT justify the mean, especially when as you have abundantly clear, there IS NO END. What you describe is a recipe for tyranny and authoritarian rule. Many things are bad but most of us don't want a police state over all of us to protect a few people from themselves.

193 posted on 12/07/2012 12:51:44 PM PST by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
So you are comfortable with the states having the authority to ban firearms?

"Original intent" interpertation of the Constitution does not make allowances for personal comfort.

194 posted on 12/07/2012 12:53:08 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
So you are comfortable with the states having the authority to ban firearms?

Do prohibitionists ever read the Tenth Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

195 posted on 12/07/2012 12:55:22 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
As I see it, state governments have the right to do anything that (1) is not an infringement of individual rights specifically granted by the Constitution as written, or (2) does not usurp the specific powers granted the Federal Government in the Constitution as written.

That's the deal each state agreed to when it ratified the Constitution.

This prohibits the states from banning firearms, as well as from banning churches, taxing imports from other states, declaring war, or making treaties with foreign governments.

There is neither a right to use drugs in the Constitution nor a delegation of drug law authority to Washington, therefore it is in every way an appropriate issue for state by state decision making.

In order to ban the sale and manufacture of alcoholic drinks, the proper Constitutional amendment process was carried through (even though a terrible idea).

Likewise, if we were to amend the Constitution to prohibit the possession of marijuana, that would also be an acceptable process, although toward a dubious goal.

196 posted on 12/07/2012 12:56:05 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
interpertation of the Constitution

Whose interpretation? IOW, you wouldn't be pissed off if the state in which you reside banned firearms?

197 posted on 12/07/2012 12:57:14 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; Responsibility2nd
I think the "poll results", on this thread at least, are crystal clear to "Responsibility2nd".

Having seen who is "in the minority", he has decamped.

198 posted on 12/07/2012 12:59:03 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Define people. Isn't government, local, state and national, we the people?

199 posted on 12/07/2012 1:02:34 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Just a bit of a nit pick.

The Constitution does not grant individuals rights. Those rights were reserved to individuals and not granted. The Constitution enumerates what powers were granted to the government by the people, not the other way around. The people and States reserved to themselves whatever rights they did not specifically cede to the federal government. Government can't grant rights, only license.

200 posted on 12/07/2012 1:08:30 PM PST by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-234 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson