When I say "the entire world", I'm also including the United States. But you're right; The U.S. needs to get it's shit together along with everybody else.



Unfortunately, I don't think that we'll be the last ones to drop an atomic weapon during war. I see two scenarios with allowing everyone to have nukes: The more nukes spread around the world, the greater chance that at least one of them will be used on another country by a government. The second scenario would be since regime changes can happen, destabilized governments by radical anti-western factions will grab the nuke and either keep it for themselves or sell it to the highest bidder. Muslim extremist groups are in the market for one that much I know. Once that happens there is a high likelihood that it will be smuggled in and used on a major city anywhere in the world, and we all know that just because you don't live in the U.S. or the U.K. you aren't immune to terror attacks.

Now, imagine The Cold War and the tension that it brought times 30 now that every country has nukes. If a few people have it that tension would be less severe than if everybody had one. That's just how I see it.

As for the drugs, I agree the government has done some pretty harsh things in this drug war, and I do believe in a small government enforcing only our basic rights to survive. But when you have something as devastating as meth or crack out there that's very easy to get hooked to I don't see any other solution than to drop the hammer hard on these substances and those who create them. I think that with these types of drugs harsh crackdowns are necessary, but on lesser drugs such as pot, alcohol, and so on there should be zero crackdown. Even though I never tried pot (zero interest in it) I don't think that it has a detrimental effect on society. The worst that can happen is obesity from the munchies, or people who say some idiotic things .

...wait. Pot needs to be illegal at least for 10 days before an election.

Rumour has it that Russia has used tactical nukes in Chechyna. Sadly there is no hard evidence for this that I can find, so it has to stay rumour.

It is plausible, We had the Davey Crockett, and I'm sure the Russians had an equivalent so that is entirely possible. There are also lots of nukes not accounted for in Russia.

I wholeheartedly disagree, and I will tell you why. Rather than making them illegal, we need to educate people about how fucking horrible these drugs are for you. Education is a huge reason why there's been a decrease in tobacco use over the past couple of decades. Also, by making all drugs legal you open up drugs like DMT for use in drug-rehab therapies.



Again - I think kids should be taught about how harmful alcohol can be rather than it being celebrated and commercialized to the extent that it has been. It's the third leading cause of mortality in the US, yet most sporting events are sponsored by companies like Budweiser and Coors. I'd rather they be sponsored by High Times or something because I would rather my son get blasted out of his mind on pot when he decides to sneak off and party in high school than potentially die from alcohol poisoning.



Nah, just leave a trail of Doritos that leads to the polls and put all the ballots on tie-dyed paper and they'll be fine.

~spidey

We have DARE; which is pretty much a drug education program. Thing is you can educate people all day, but there is plenty of people that will just do it because they wanna fit in the wrong crowd, rebel against society, escape from reality, and so on. And those people more often than not adversely affect other people like stealing personal property in order to perpetuate their habits Higher drug use in an area goes hand-in-hand with elevated crime.



Again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. We've invested a great deal of resources in educating the youth in drug abuse but it's still a problem. Regarding the pot vs. alcohol discussion between you and I it bulls down to drug preference. I'd rather enjoy alcohol than pot; that's just me, but either way stoners and alcoholics both sound like dumb asses in my opinion when they partake in their drug of choice. I wouldn't be offended if high times decided to sponsor the NFL since I don't really watch football anyway, but I think part of the allure of pot is that it's out of the mainstream anyway. There isn't really a subculture of alcoholics like there is with pot, and no the AA does not count .

But if my kid comes home either blasted out of his mind on pot or drunk as hell from having too many beers his world and liberties are going to be fucked, and he'll placed on restriction no matter what drug he chose to do.



As long as it's not ranch flavored; even I can't resist those lol.

There are a lot of things that go "hand-in-hand with elevated crime," and there are a lot of habits and expensive tastes with consequences that lead some people into stealing the personal property of others. It's not always drugs, and I don't even think it's mostly drugs when it comes to individuals making bad choices.

The people that you have to be scared of aren't the occasional recreational drug users, or the junkies (who are often so physically debilitated from what they've done to their bodies that they're more likely to nod off on a city sidewalk than mug you). It's the organized, top-of-the-food-chain gangsters who have made a lucrative business of dealing very deadly concoctions, in the same way that bootleggers and gangsters back in the Prohibition Era made a lucrative business of dealing illegal (and also deadly) concoctions of liquor.

Prohibition didn't work back then, and it doesn't work today. It only serves to create a black market for a violent criminal element to get rich and more powerful. While government, through its failed War on Drugs, stupidly continues to drive up the human cost of illegal drugs after having driven the market dangerously underground.

-- Nephele

Actually, no. DARE is simply a drug abstinence program carried forward form the 80's "Just Say No" program. Abstinence doesn't work like education does and this program is a HUGE failure.

I think if we started showing our pre-teens pics of people before and after meth, they will surely remember that and be more likely to stay away from it. I think our big societal problem is that we like to treat all of our children like delicate little flowers to be sheltered from the big bad world.

My kid will not be that delicate flower. If anything I'll be the mom getting angry calls from other parents because my kid speaks the truth and doesn't sugar coat reality.

~spidey

-- Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:25 am --



you speak truth. If you have a chance, I highly recommend watching the new documentary "Prohibition" by Ken Burns. You can compare it point for point against drug prohibition and the rise of the cartels. It's amazing to think that someone could look at that and still say that drug prohibition works.

I caught part of Burns' documentary on PBS earlier this month. My mom was watching it in her bedroom, and it sounded so interesting that I went in and sat down with her to watch it.

I was mostly amazed to learn how the Women's Christian Temperance Union pushed their agenda (as depicted in the documentary). Mostly through fear-mongering (not unlike today).

I'm going to get this documentary for my public library's collection (I didn't get to watch the whole thing on tv).

-- Nephele

I don't really watch T.V., but I will say that I like Ron Paul and his politics.

It's not always drugs, but certain drugs such as meth which causes over aggression among other things increases that likelihood to a much larger degree.



The junkies I was never concerned about, most I've met were more creepy than anything. I am however concerned with the criminals like you just said. Though I disagree about being worried about only the to-of-the-food-chain gangsters, as the ones lower on the totem pole are much more likely to commit violence since they are out to make a name for themselves, but that's another story.



You can never completely eliminate any drug off the street. Since I was in the Coast Guard I never joined so I could rid the world of drugs, because I knew that it would never happen, and I really don't believe that the government thinks that it can accomplish that goal either. The whole purpose of the war on drugs is to keep substance abuse from spreading to unmanageable levels by attacking the cartels abroad, and whatever drugs make it through to the U.S. and other parts of the world are then . If there were no people interdicting the boats and freighters (yes, actual freighters) this country's addiction problem would be worse than it already is. Remember the Opium Wars? Opium became such a huge problem with the Chinese they finally reached the point where they felt that war was the only way to stop the drug from poisoning their society. If something this big happened then, who's to say history won't repeat itself? The drug trade will become much more organized and much more powerful if we gave them a legitimate way to do business. Mexican and South American cartels don't operate like the gangsters during the prohibition era, they are more powerful than you think, just take my word on this.

Also, alcohol is legal but it is still being regulated, but you cannot compare different drugs as to being on an equal standing with each other when some have worse or less severe effects than the other. Some drugs need to be outlawed, and some need to be legalized. But we shouldn't legalize all drugs because the war on drugs isn't doing what it was never intended to do in the first place. [/quote]



Actually it was during the mid 90's too. When I went to school on base while I was in Japan in 1995 we were educated about drugs and it's ill effects. It was a huge failure I agree. I saw those very same meth pictures in DARE.

Regarding kids though, the best we can really do is educate them. We won't know more than what we see, and our kids are rarely the angels (or alternatively demons) we think they are or will be. I'd like to think when I have kids they will do the right thing when it matters most, only time will tell what their reaction will be.
----


You know, to be honest it feels really bad to be all for small government but then see the necessity for huge government intervention in other areas. In some areas I think I can live with small government, but in other areas I think government intervention is necessary. I like some of Ron Paul's beliefs, but not all. He may of served on the defense committee, but I don't think he sees the big picture in regards to Iran and the wars, then again, I don't think anyone does.

This is a bit off topic, but it's times like this where I'm glad I'm saving up to retire in the Alaskan wilderness at 35 after I end my career fightin' around the world (lol sorry for the Russel Crowe reference just trying to break the tension). The problems I'll encounter then are much more practical than worrying about who has nukes or which politician got caught in a scandal. Besides, I love the wilderness it simplifies things y' know? And if there is one thing Americans need the most is to simplify their lives and reduce their stress if only to get a clear perspective on what they really want in their lives.

Jon Stewart was the first to call it. Now others are saying it.



Read full article here.

Ron Paul's social conservatism is somewhat of a point of issue with me, but even his social conservatism is not what I would consider to be in the same league with his fellow Republican candidates.

-- Nephele

In social conservative terms Ron Paul is to Michele Bachmann as Winston Churchill is to Adolf Hitler.

Yeah I went there.

The lesser evil?

Potentially!

When you put it that way Ron Paul does sounds pretty attractive .
-----------------------------------------------
Though I wonder if Ron Paul ran against Obama in 2012 who would win. I'm seeing Ron Paul is much more popular in everyday conversation than Obama presently.