What does the U.S. Republican party stand for?

[Warren Dew]

Seriously though, buses are great for traveling a few hundred miles. They're about as comfy as a train.

How much intercity travel have you done on trains and buses? In my experience, the size of the seats on trains is like business class on airlines; bus seats are like coach or worse. In both cases, the cleanliness and general atmosphere is much worse than on airlines, of course.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on what a privately developed internet might have been like.

Today's internet is largely privately developed. Even HTTP, which is used for everything these days, was developed after the government was no longer driving the research.

[JimC]

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

From the Republican standpoint, the "war on drugs" is probably part of the "social issues" category that scored so low, so there's some hope there. I don't think it would save much money, but it's something that was always pointless anyway.

On the other hand, I believe Obama promised Calderon to try to cut down on drug consumption in the U.S., so we'll have to see how that works out too.

Wouldn't save much money? You're joking. Besides the savings on policing, courts, and prisons, the overseas military anti-drug operations could also cease. Also, could be a mass increase in cash flowing TO the government by taxing and selling drugs.

I think you are probably right, but it also worries me that there may be an explosion of health problems...

A start could be made by at least decriminalising the possession of cannabis for personal use, and growing a few plants at home.

Other drugs to only be sold to 18+, buy licensed providers, with mandatory quality testing. Even then, I would still be anxious (it's unknown territory...)

And yes, I know that at least we would be removing the danger from street drugs contaminated with all sorts of shit, which would be something. And pulling the rug from under the feet of some very nasty criminal cartels...

[sandinista]

Stopping the war on "drugs" would also be fiscally responsible.

From the Republican standpoint, the "war on drugs" is probably part of the "social issues" category that scored so low, so there's some hope there. I don't think it would save much money, but it's something that was always pointless anyway.

On the other hand, I believe Obama promised Calderon to try to cut down on drug consumption in the U.S., so we'll have to see how that works out too.

Wouldn't save much money? You're joking. Besides the savings on policing, courts, and prisons, the overseas military anti-drug operations could also cease. Also, could be a mass increase in cash flowing TO the government by taxing and selling drugs.

I think you are probably right, but it also worries me that there may be an explosion of health problems...

A start could be made by at least decriminalising the possession of cannabis for personal use, and growing a few plants at home.

Other drugs to only be sold to 18+, buy licensed providers, with mandatory quality testing. Even then, I would still be anxious (it's unknown territory...)

And yes, I know that at least we would be removing the danger from street drugs contaminated with all sorts of shit, which would be something. And pulling the rug from under the feet of some very nasty criminal cartels...

Nah, there wouldn't be an explosion of health problems. If anything, health problems would be reduced through many elements, mostly due to clean, safe drugs (not the shit mixed on the streets), dealing with addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one and removing the stigma associated with drug use (certain kinds of drug use...of course drinking/coffee/pharmaceuticals are perfectly OK). I always find it funny, and very odd, that a country that seems to pride itself in "personal freedoms" will put a citizen in prison for exercising their own personal freedoms. US hypocrisy at it's best...or worst.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

What does the U.S. Republican party stand for?

Maybe they don't have chairs to sit on?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The
High
Earning,

Usually
Strictly

Religious,
Ethnically
Pure,
Unabashedly
Bush-
Loving,
Independent,
Conservative,
Anti-
Nationalisation,

Pro-
Armed-
Response,
Traditional
Yankees.

[Tero]

I just found the Tea Party is about 80% republican and some holy rollers in that, plus the rest are more gun nuts and libertarians. The libertarians will soon leave since Koch is pulling the strings. It quit being a grass roots movement really fast.

[redunderthebed]

Help those who can already help themselves.

[Seth]

Nah, there wouldn't be an explosion of health problems. If anything, health problems would be reduced through many elements, mostly due to clean, safe drugs (not the shit mixed on the streets), dealing with addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one and removing the stigma associated with drug use (certain kinds of drug use...of course drinking/coffee/pharmaceuticals are perfectly OK). I always find it funny, and very odd, that a country that seems to pride itself in "personal freedoms" will put a citizen in prison for exercising their own personal freedoms. US hypocrisy at it's best...or worst.

Yeah, the "War on (some) Drugs" is a ten-billion dollar a year drain on our economy that needs to stop.

My preference is that we create "drug houses" in major cities that are large hotels...well, more like roach motels. You can enter, but the only way you leave is either clean of drug addiction or dead.

In these facilities you can get, for free, the very finest, pure, uncut pharmaceutical-grade hard narcotic drugs known to mankind in unlimited quantity. You get a bed and meals too. So, you can shoot up as much as you like, as often as you like, but as long as you're using any drugs, you CANNOT leave the facility and go harm others.

Those who can rehabilitate themselves and get clean under such circumstances are likely to succeed, and can safely be released. Those who can't will eventually overdose and die, and in the meantime they won't be robbing and hurting others or spreading diseases. But, get caught high on the street on anything but pot, or doing drug-related crime, and you get sent to the roach motel for "rehab."

And pot should absolutely be decriminalized.

[Warren Dew]

Nah, there wouldn't be an explosion of health problems. If anything, health problems would be reduced through many elements, mostly due to clean, safe drugs (not the shit mixed on the streets), dealing with addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one and removing the stigma associated with drug use (certain kinds of drug use...of course drinking/coffee/pharmaceuticals are perfectly OK).

I think JimC's point, and I agree with him, is that removing the stigma would increase usage. Health problems would decrease for current users, but increase for people who aren't users right now and take up the drugs. That said, there could still be a social stigma for drug abuse, as there is to some extent for alcohol.

I always find it funny, and very odd, that a country that seems to pride itself in "personal freedoms" will put a citizen in prison for exercising their own personal freedoms. US hypocrisy at it's best...or worst.

The country as a whole doesn't pride itself on personal freedoms. The lack of personal economic freedom is directly tied to the attitudes on drugs; if taxpayers weren't forced to pay to solve drug addicts' health problems, there would be less resistance to legalizing drugs.

[laklak]

GOP = Grotty Old People.

[sandinista]

Nah, there wouldn't be an explosion of health problems. If anything, health problems would be reduced through many elements, mostly due to clean, safe drugs (not the shit mixed on the streets), dealing with addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one and removing the stigma associated with drug use (certain kinds of drug use...of course drinking/coffee/pharmaceuticals are perfectly OK).

I think JimC's point, and I agree with him, is that removing the stigma would increase usage. Health problems would decrease for current users, but increase for people who aren't users right now and take up the drugs. That said, there could still be a social stigma for drug abuse, as there is to some extent for alcohol.

I always find it funny, and very odd, that a country that seems to pride itself in "personal freedoms" will put a citizen in prison for exercising their own personal freedoms. US hypocrisy at it's best...or worst.

The country as a whole doesn't pride itself on personal freedoms. The lack of personal economic freedom is directly tied to the attitudes on drugs; if taxpayers weren't forced to pay to solve drug addicts' health problems, there would be less resistance to legalizing drugs.

I don't agree that drug use would even increase. Possibly, maybe alcohol consumption would decrease? Really makes no difference, the war on drugs is archaic, outdated, and both useless and completly unwinable. Your second statement makes little sense. Taxpayers are paying for policing, prisons, health costs, courts, and all the social issues related to putting people in prison for a personal choice. Besides that, higher health costs result from legal substances anyway, cigarettes, fast food and alcohol.

[JimC]

Seth weote:

...So, you can shoot up as much as you like, as often as you like, but as long as you're using any drugs, you CANNOT leave the facility and go harm others...

I pulled this bit out of the rest of the hyperbole, because it is particularly illogical. Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Of course, there are other problems, such as motor vehicle accidents caused by drug inytoxication, but they can be addressed by current laws, with increased penalties if deemed necessary.

[sandinista]

Seth weote:

...So, you can shoot up as much as you like, as often as you like, but as long as you're using any drugs, you CANNOT leave the facility and go harm others...

I pulled this bit out of the rest of the hyperbole, because it is particularly illogical. Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Of course, there are other problems, such as motor vehicle accidents caused by drug inytoxication, but they can be addressed by current laws, with increased penalties if deemed necessary.

Surprised you would even address the madness above! haha. Yes, i agree, Alcohol, by far, is involved with "harming others" more than any other drug...perhaps more than all other drugs combined.

[Warren Dew]

Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Not entirely clear. Drug addiction contributes to crime in two ways: one is by introducing a cost that may be paid for through robbery, yes, but the other is by keeping people from being gainfully employed. The latter effect would be no different if the drugs were legal. Drugs that make people unemployable might cause them to turn to crime even if the drugs were legal.

Frankly, I suspect the latter effect is stronger than the former. There are plenty of employed illegal drug users, and they don't generally seem to turn to crime to supplement their legal incomes just because they have drug expenses.

[JimC]

Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Not entirely clear. Drug addiction contributes to crime in two ways: one is by introducing a cost that may be paid for through robbery, yes, but the other is by keeping people from being gainfully employed. The latter effect would be no different if the drugs were legal. Drugs that make people unemployable might cause them to turn to crime even if the drugs were legal.

Frankly, I suspect the latter effect is stronger than the former. There are plenty of employed illegal drug users, and they don't generally seem to turn to crime to supplement their legal incomes just because they have drug expenses.

I'm pretty sure that crimes committed to support a habit would go down a lot, particularly if the legal drugs were very cheap in comparison. However, there may be a societal problem if there was a major increase in people who cannot be bothered to do any serious, productive work. In addition, the health issue is still a big unknown; some health problems may disappear, but if there is a large increase in drug use across the board, others may emerge.

However, this is all fantasy land, particularly in the US. In the current political climate, there is absolutely zero chance of this happening in the near future.