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 ...
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.
For those of us who apparently missed it, can you please provide the section where drugs/pharmaceuticals are specifically addressed?
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.
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.
That’s a stretch.
No. It isn't.
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.
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?
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.
So you are comfortable with the states having the authority to ban firearms?
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 . . .
There was a poll on the Commerce Clause a while back. Drug Warriors got stomped big time:
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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.
"Original intent" interpertation of the Constitution does not make allowances for personal comfort.
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."
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.
Whose interpretation? IOW, you wouldn't be pissed off if the state in which you reside banned firearms?
Having seen who is "in the minority", he has decamped.
Define people. Isn't government, local, state and national, we the people?
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.
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.