Breaking the Taboo–the film

In a post credit bubble world there is less money to go around–less money to waste. All of the ways in which tax revenue is allocated must be subject to fresh review. The American led war on drugs is certainly one area ripe for review.

“Narrated by Oscar winning actor Morgan Freeman, “Breaking the Taboo” is produced by Sam Branson’s indie Sundog Pictures and Brazilian co-production partner Spray Filmes and was directed by Cosmo Feilding Mellen and Fernando Grostein Andrade. Featuring interviews with several current or former presidents from around the world, such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the film follows The Global Commission on Drug Policy on a mission to break the political taboo over the United States led War on Drugs and expose what it calls the biggest failure of global policy in the last 40 years.”

Here is a direct link.

This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Breaking the Taboo–the film

  1. michael says:

    Thanks for posting this doc. The takeaway is that governments and regulators inevitably take the wrong approach and, as with the financial industry, needed change will not come from the heavy hand of big government but from change in mindset of the people.
    “Illegal” narcotics stories tend to make the front page but an ever growing and more problematic narcotics story is the one concerning prescription drugs.
    A good and long lasting economic depression similar the the “dirty thirties” would go a long way to correct many of the societal ills facing our world today.

    Off topic but equally important is the war on obesity… check out the article attached.

  2. Barry says:

    Ever since I became conscious of marijuana and its discontents some 45 years ago I’ve been shaking my head at the cost of keeping legalization/decriminalization at bay. To me it’s always been a poorly designed, almost pathologically insane policy choice which will never dent our very human desire for a fix – be it alcohol, coffee, tea or pot. At any given time there has always been an orchestra of voices decrying some drug – or food – as the devil incarnate. All of the above have/had their detractors, or more curiously, apples in the late 19th century were vilified by the Temperance Movement as easily distilled cider was the main drink of choice on the American frontier.

    You gotta wonder what they’ve been smoking.

  3. Chris says:

    The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. People see the bad effects of current policy, but don’t appreciate the negative effects of legalization.

    Unlike alcohol, which had been legal for centuries before prohibition, the new crop of drugs has never been legal. Many people are still dissuaded by the illegality of these drugs, their high price, and the taboos against them — probably just as many (or more) as make a rational decision to avoid the drugs because they’re just plain bad for you.

    Legalizing these drugs will just push drug criminals to find and develop harder, more addictive drugs to push on people, to maintain their profit margins. And, as they do with alcohol and tobacco today, they’ll smuggle cut-rate drugs to avoid official channels.

    The net effect will be that more people will be taking more drugs, with all the attendant problems: the spread of disease, bad health, eventual debilitation or death, higher costs to the medical system, and (depending on the drug) more traffic accidents.

    Crime may be reduced for a while, but probably not over the long term. And, many of today’s current criminals will gain power and prestige because they control the production of suddenly-legal, addictive substances. You might as well pay the mafia to infiltrate our governments.

    Legalization is a strategy fraught with peril. You may be dooming a lot people to miserable lives and early deaths. Economically speaking, this will end up giving us lower productivity, lower GDP, more government corruption and therefore wastage, and higher medical costs.

  4. rolling stall says:

    Smoking marijuana’s effects are miniscule compared to eating high-fat, sugar-loaded fast food. If anything there should be a war on its legalized junk food.

    Its been often noted as to why SUV’s were developed in America: To haul fat people thru the drive thru’s at McDonalds.

  5. William says:

    1. The situation in Holland shouldn’t idealized. There’re still a number of problems to be solved.
    2. Back in the 1990s the Taliban nearly entirely eradicated poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. But under the US occupation the cultivation of poppies resurfaced.
    3. It’s a deliberate US policy to not block the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan into Russia. It’s meant to destabilize the enemy called Russia.
    4. It’s refreshing to see that a new approach is being tested.
    5. Demand for narcotics in developed countries – IMO – will go in the next years as result of “financial problems”. Shrinking demand will lead to less violence in the producing countries.
    6. There’re still too folks inside the US that profit from the narcotics trade. E.g. without the USDs generated by that trade the US would have gone “belly up” decades ago.

  6. Robert Lynn says:

    It’s funny but smoking marijauna is notorious for encouraging eating high-fat sugar-loaded fast food. And who could seriously consider smoking anything in this day and age with all our knowledge of the damage caused by smoking?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.