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 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 last
To: Alaska Wolf
Whose interpretation? IOW, you wouldn't be pissed off if the state in which you reside banned firearms?

I would. They'd have a hard time of it though. To start with it would require amending our state constitution. I believe CA is the only state that doesn't explicitly acknowlege their citizen's right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution, and IMHO, admitting them into the union without that was a mistake.

By the same token, the federal government can ban firearms if they can get an amendment ratified to grant them to authority to do that. I don't like the idea, and there could well be another civil war over it if they tried, but that's how it works.

201 posted on 12/07/2012 1:11:10 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug

OK, point taken.


202 posted on 12/07/2012 1:13:29 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

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

I neglected to dot my i's in my previous post by noting that the 14th Amendment extended Bill of Rights restrictions to state governments. But if states want to have, say, California's onerous 'environmental' regulations, nothing in the federal Constitution prohibits that.

203 posted on 12/07/2012 1:15:35 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Thank you.


204 posted on 12/07/2012 1:16:57 PM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

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

Can't. Second Amendment and Art 6 Para 2 should be more than enough to stop that nonsense.

You appear confused over how a Federated Republic works...

205 posted on 12/07/2012 1:17:30 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Define people. Isn't government, local, state and national, we the people?

Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed?

____________________________________________________________

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'

____________________________________________________________

206 posted on 12/07/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
This prohibits the states from banning firearms

Then what about Illinois and municipalities within states?

207 posted on 12/07/2012 1:19:25 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
I neglected to dot my i's in my previous post by noting that the 14th Amendment extended Bill of Rights restrictions to state governments.

The 14th was only "necessary" because of deliberate misinterpretation of Art 6 para 2. Also, selective incorporation of the 14th has only made matters worse. Under ratification, the 14th should have applied everywhere within the US under Art 6's Supremacy clause requiring no judicial review to allow it force.

Judicial activism planted the seeds of our own destruction early in the life of our Republic. We are now seeing those seed sprout their deadly fruit...

208 posted on 12/07/2012 1:21:21 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Then what about Illinois and municipalities within states?

There's nothing to keep any state or city from trying to do something unconstitutional.

Assuming a sane Supreme Court, those attempts are overturned.

209 posted on 12/07/2012 1:30:57 PM PST by Notary Sojac (Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed?

The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed. Yet many people pass laws, state and locally restricting and in some cases outlawing that right. Why do the people allow it?

210 posted on 12/07/2012 1:31:28 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
The right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed. Yet many people pass laws, state and locally restricting and in some cases outlawing that right. Why do the people allow it?

First, what is your answer to my question? To repeat:

Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, YES or NO? '

211 posted on 12/07/2012 1:37:36 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
There's nothing to keep any state or city from trying to do something unconstitutional.

People/government can't always be expected to do what is moral and right.

212 posted on 12/07/2012 1:42:31 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

and where in that do you find a right to drugs, incest, gay marriage, open borders and no more agent of consent?


213 posted on 12/07/2012 2:40:30 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, YES or NO?

Yes. Can you provide a legitimate reason why people in government can't have the right to keep and bear arms?

You aren't very observant, are you? (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)

214 posted on 12/07/2012 4:42:43 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Can't. Second Amendment and Art 6 Para 2 should be more than enough to stop that nonsense.

Illinois and many municipalities have severely restricted or banned possession of certain firearms.

215 posted on 12/07/2012 4:53:45 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Me: Do you think the Second Amendment means that the right of 'local, state and national governments' to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, YES or NO?

You: Yes.

Me: Credit for giving a straight answer. Good luck with that position.

You: Can you provide a legitimate reason why people in government can't have the right to keep and bear arms?

People in government, as citizens with unalienable rights, have the RKBA. Governments don't have the RKBA. You're conflating what shouldn't be conflated.

Let's try the Tenth Amendment with your novel interpretation of the term 'people':

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 local, state and federal governments.

Do you not see how laughable your position is?

216 posted on 12/07/2012 5:08:28 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Do you not see how laughable your position is?

No, I see how ignorant you are. Government is of the people, by the people, for the people,

217 posted on 12/07/2012 5:21:13 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
So you're good with equating 'government' with 'people' in 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 government.

218 posted on 12/07/2012 5:37:39 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Do you disagree with, Government is of the people, by the people, for the people?
219 posted on 12/07/2012 5:48:29 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Do you disagree with, Government is of the people, by the people, for the people?

In some cases, yes. For example, the Senate - as opposed to the House - was supposed to represent the States. The judiciary is supposed interpret according to Law, not popular sentiment.

I ask again, are you good with equating 'government' with 'people' in 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 government.

YES or NO?

220 posted on 12/07/2012 6:16:01 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
the Senate - as opposed to the House - was supposed to represent the States.

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.

221 posted on 12/07/2012 6:48:10 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“OK fine. You don’t 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,


222 posted on 12/07/2012 7:11:37 PM PST by The Right wing Infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: The Right wing Infidel; Responsibility2nd
Oh, I think our FRiend Responsibility2nd got tired of being used as the business end of a mop and left this thread. Or perhaps can now see the Conservative reasons for ending the so called “war on drugs” I hope that it's the latter.
223 posted on 12/07/2012 8:22:27 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 222 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Actually I am pretty conservative and I think that there should be legalization of all illegal substances for people over the age of 18.

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.

224 posted on 12/07/2012 8:31:02 PM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

“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.


225 posted on 12/07/2012 8:41:38 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

I also think if they test positive they should not get any government support, food stamps, housing, welfare, nothing.


226 posted on 12/07/2012 8:42:46 PM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Illinois is not following the Constitution. Nor are a number of other States and most of the FedGov.

Apparently then, we the people don't GAS or we would elect representatives who would follow the US Constitution..

227 posted on 12/07/2012 9:18:42 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
and where in that do you find a right to drugs, incest, gay marriage, open borders and no more agent of consent?

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.

228 posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:51 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

That is part of it. The other part is an ongoing campaign of very successful voter fraud.


229 posted on 12/08/2012 7:18:09 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The other part is an ongoing campaign of very successful voter fraud.

So what steps have we the people initiated to address the fraud?

230 posted on 12/08/2012 12:09:03 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

Filed the usual lawsuits with Holder’s DoJ. Which will have the usual results...


231 posted on 12/08/2012 2:29:27 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
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?

232 posted on 12/08/2012 2:43:18 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

None of them. Nor will they.

See Issa’s failed Fast and Furious investigation for typical results.


233 posted on 12/08/2012 3:20:36 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
You wanna use the software world to boost your argument? Fine. Tell me when that perfect software is written. Define it please. Let me know when we can end our need for new software. When we have that perfect "success metric" and no new metrics are necessary.

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.

Thank you.

234 posted on 12/10/2012 5:56:01 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 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