Skip to comments.War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure by 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.
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 2 US Senators from each state are the representatives of their state.
The judiciary is supposed interpret according to Law, not popular sentiment.
Isn't law pretty much based on popular sentiment?
I ask again, are you good with equating 'government' with 'people' in the Tenth Amendment?
In a Republic, yes. Supreme power rests in the people Unfortunately, because of that, we have a POS for POTUS.
“OK fine. You dont like my solution to ending the WOD. You want a clear cut point of victory? How would YOU define victory in the War on Terror?”
Well war on terror is a political correct term, Total war on Islam as Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley has suggested by engaging in full blown nuclear warfare with islam , using nukes on Muslim majority city´s across the world and cause the death of Islam
Destroy Islam you win the war on terror,
Concomitantly I also think that drug users and addicts need to be out of the health care system. None available except for nonprofit charity care and non profit detox and recovery. None. No livers for long term alcoholics, no psych hospital admissions for opioid detox. nada. In other words drug and alcohol users need to own the decisions they make.
“Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding”...
Illinois is not following the Constitution. Nor are a number of other States and most of the FedGov.
A lot of this got it’s start where? That’s right, the degradation of federalism as the States lost power to the Feds under a number of issues... Like the Drug War.
I also think if they test positive they should not get any government support, food stamps, housing, welfare, nothing.
Apparently then, we the people don't GAS or we would elect representatives who would follow the US Constitution..
Well, I never made any of those particular assertions, but in spite of your attempt to say what I think, I will address your concerns.
There is no Constitutional authorization for the Federal Government to regulate what any adult willingly consumes, be that a ribeye, a beer, or amphetamine. If there had been, alcohol Prohibition would not have required a Constitutional Amendment, but could have been accomplished with a simple law. Being popular doesn't make being wrong right.
There is no right to incest, and it is prohibited by State Laws.
Marriage is a matter for the Church--it is a sacrament. No church I set foot in allows any right for homosexuals to attempt to legitimize their abomination with a piece of church-issued paper.
That said, the Government has no business determining Church doctrine. (First Amendment), and should not be in the 'business' of "marriage", either, beyond establishing an age at which a person is considered old enough to enter into such binding agreements.
I believe "Provide for the Common Defense" is a Constitutionally mandated duty of the Federal Government. Perhaps instead of snooping around the back yard looking for moist filled in low spots (filled in "wetlands"), checking to see how much water my toilet uses per flush, or mandating the type of light bulbs I use, the Federal Government would better spend its time doing the things it is supposed to do.
That is part of it. The other part is an ongoing campaign of very successful voter fraud.
So what steps have we the people initiated to address the fraud?
Filed the usual lawsuits with Holder’s DoJ. Which will have the usual results...
Whose fault is that? Which members of congress, the senate or state governor has relentlessly pushed for a thorough, independent investigation?
None of them. Nor will they.
See Issa’s failed Fast and Furious investigation for typical results.
My pleasure. The "perfect" software is written when it satisfies the client's requirements, meets the market demand, delights customers, and can be delivered in such a way that producing it is profitable for those who wrote the code and distributed the software.
that I'm a happily married man. Just pointing that out since you don't even know that about me. Just as you know nothing about social conservatism.
I don't care to know anything about you other than that which you present here on Free Republic. I take it you bristled at me referring to you as "ma'am." I apologize: I assumed you were a woman because your arguments typically flow from a very emotional, irrational source.
Dirty work? Hell yes. I respect the dirty work as you call it the military does.
Wonderful. My Naval Academy classmates, I'm sure, would appreciate the fact that you respect the work they do for you and for all American citizens.
And if you don't agree that our borders are important enough to defend, then I suppose - like Ron Paul - you would like to slash in half our military budgets.
That's quite a leap in logic, my emotionally-wrought, hand-wringing friend. This may blow your mind, but being a libertarian does not necessarily mean one is soft on national defense, including the most important aspect of it - defending our borders.
How libertarian of of you.
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.