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 ...
When are they planning to legalize tobacco?
Nope. Instead the regulation, oversight, enforcement and control of drugs would only worsen the problems you bring up. For example, modern day revenuers from the IRS would still be busting Mom and Pop for growing pot in the backyard without a permit and without paying taxes. And while, God forbid, it might be legal to possess meth, the millions of new meth heads in our society will simply destroy us.
By ending the war, the cartels would dry up and wither away or have to find more legitimate enterprises.
The only way to end the war is to win it. If we surrender and legalize it, the cartels win as they will suddenly become legitimate taxpaying corporations.
Can you define what constitutes 'victory'?
Can you define what constitutes ‘victory’?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes I can. It begins with our borders. I and many others on this thread have correctly identified one of America’s greatest weaknesses is our open borders. To date we have allowed some 20-30 million illegal immigrants in and the results to our economy and welfare roles have been disastrous.
But more than that, the flow of drugs accross the Rio Grande has created a drug culture in the US that is destroying us.
What are our options in fighting the War on drugs? Should we surrender and let the cartels win and face the economic and social problems of millions of new users? That’s the cowards way out.
No, instead we should fight. And I mean FIGHT. I do agree that our current WOD is a failure. But only because state and federal agents are not allowed to do their jobs.
As in any war, we need a strong military to do the job. We need the military on our borders to 1)stop the inflow of illegals and 2)stop the millions of pounds (billions of dollars) of illegal drugs.
This is just a start. I would hesitate to send armed forces into our ghettos and slums to fight the cartels already entrenched here in the US, but if we contol our borders, then real reductions in drug usage will happen.
Evidence, please.
Actually, if we were to strictly control the borders and at the same time get rid of the totalitarian tactics used to fight the "war on drugs" at home, I completely agree.
"Domestically grown cannabis accounted for 10 percent of all marijuana consumed in 1980, and increased to about 25 percent in 1992, despite the efforts of the Program. The potency of cultivated marijuana has also increased significantly as a result of modern agricultural methods and techniques." - http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/DEA/a9520.htm
The American entrepreneurial spirit can easily replace any reduction in imported supply.
Mom and Pop don't need to get a permit or pay taxes on personal-use amounts of the home-brewed/fermented drug alcohol.
And while, God forbid, it might be legal to possess meth, the millions of new meth heads in our society will simply destroy us.
What reason is there to believe there would be millions? Are YOU itching to use meth but are deterred only by its illegality?
If we surrender and legalize it, the cartels win as they will suddenly become legitimate taxpaying corporations.
Like the Prohibition rumrunners went legit and became today's legal suppliers of the drug alcohol? LOL!
That's describing tactics, not an end result that would constitute 'victory'. Is sealing the border the end-game? Right now, the WoD extends it's reach much farther than just what's coming across the border, and beyond just controlling drugs (the DEA was a willing participant in Fast and Furious).
From a standpoint of legitimate federal authority, control of drugs crossing our international border is within the original intent of the powers granted to the federal government. They have used fradulent interpretations of the Commerce Clause to extend that far beyond the powers that were understood and intended by the people who wrote and ratified the enumeration of powers granted to them by the states.
So William F. Buckley Jr. wasn’t a Conservative in your book.
And Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a *REAL* American because of your disagreement with him on (fill in the blank:) ___________________.
Have a nice day!
Really. Nice.
:-)
I wondered when you would show up. Your sole purpose at Free Republic is to promote drug usage. You never post on other threads of interest. Just drugs.
You are a one note wonder. Is this all you do? Stalk my threads and troll drug threads to spew out your rhetoric?
Sad.
While it may sound cold and heartless, things like meth would be self correcting as those people don't last long. I would rather see the very effective advertizing campaign against meth stepped up. I don't know if you have seen the billboards or heard the radio adds but that is far more preferable than the jack booted thug approach that impacts all of us by stripping us of our Constitutional rights. I would guess that it is more effective too. I believe that there would actually be less meth heads around because once the obscene profit is removed, the drug pusher would be too. He could make more money at McDonald's. This source of targeted corruption of our youth would largely go away. Look at the "glamorous" lifestyle that rap videos promote with gangsters rolling in money. It would be a different story when the gangsters are driving second hand Yugos. Not quite as attractive to foolish urban youth.
The war on drugs is a charade. It was never fought to be won. There is too much money to be made. As you astutely observed, the natural place to start is at our borders. Interesting and very telling that in our war on drugs border control has been assiduously avoided. You also noted that to win the war we must FIGHT. Our borders have only been opened up more. Put up a wall and use troops? That's just crazy talk when we have a "virtual fence" /s 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.
A far better way to do it is through education. Smart education. Having a stupid, fat "D.A.R.E. officer show up at schools all dressed up like some sort of fat ninja soldier in his custom painted, taxpayer funded Daremobile is counterproductive. The kids just laugh behind his large backside. If anything that has a negative effect. This becomes the face of the war on drugs and it loses all credibility. Shooting the neighbors dogs doesn't help much either when they are busting down the wrong door at 3:00 in the morning.
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?
It takes a wise man to decide what’s right for himself.
To decide what’s right for others isn’t wisdom, it’s arrogance.
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? How about the War on Murder.
OK, since we will always be “at war” with these problems, do you dare suggest the libertarians are right and we should just surrender in our WOD, WOT, WOM etc?
If we legalize it, then its not a crime; its not a problem; and we can all go stick our heads in the sand and pretend everytings is fine.
Mom and Pop don't need to get a permit or pay taxes on personal-use amounts of the home-brewed/fermented drug alcohol.
And while, God forbid, it might be legal to possess meth, the millions of new meth heads in our society will simply destroy us.
What reason is there to believe there would be millions? Are YOU itching to use meth but are deterred only by its illegality?
If we surrender and legalize it, the cartels win as they will suddenly become legitimate taxpaying corporations.
Like the Prohibition rumrunners went legit and became today's legal suppliers of the drug alcohol? LOL!
Your sole purpose at Free Republic is to promote drug usage.
Wrong as usual: "My recommendation to others is to use none of these harmful substances, just as I myself use none of them." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2956184/posts?page=85#85)
You never post on other threads of interest.
Wrong as usual:
post #37: "Vanity--Spin off of Another Thread--What Is Your Fav Christmas Music?" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2964512/posts?page=37#37)
post #29: "Poll: Should the US defend Israel..." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2964263/posts?page=29#29)
post #28: "Hope Solo’s fiance arrested before wedding" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2959442/posts?page=28#28)
post #27: "Washington Bishops Seek Stronger Catechesis After Same-sex Marriage Vote" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2957486/posts?page=27#27)
Now feel free to actually address the subject at hand.
Dunno ‘bout the money. The things I object to are door kicking and pet shooting. Especially kicking the WRONG doors.
The War on Drugs needs to end not because of the cost, but because of it its threat to freedom and civil rights.
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?
Oh, get over yourself.
I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your solution is. You say the way to end the WoD is to "win" it. I just want to know what "winning" looks like. Will your "solution" really end the WoD, or just insure that it never ends because nobody can say when we've really won?
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.