General US Politics

[Rezzy]

Michigan

Obama vs McCain: 2,872,579/2,048,639

Clinton vs Trump: 2,268,83/2,279,543

Trump made progress, but Hillary dropped millions of votes in this state. It could be blamed on her horrible campaigning in this state, but even Obama dropped from his numbers in 2008 in 2012, just not as much as Hillary did. Obama isn't exactly what I'd call a Blue Dog, yet he stumbled across something, and got his highest numbers back from when he was campaigning as the firebrand newcomer progressive that was ready to shake things up. Noting there is definitely something in campaigning in a similar matter to 08 Obama isn't some insane conspiracy theory. Clinton's numbers among Democrats remaining constantly + the obvious existance of the progressive wing abstaining from voting from Obama's numbers isn't a crazy conclusion to draw...

I believe your belief in a Blue Dog Democrat having the best chance at winning ignores all those former 08 Obama voters that vanished, although some remained for 2012.

My Blue Dog comment was because the Democrats are losing the working class votes that they relied on previously in the rust belt. This is coupled with Trump appealing to union working class people in previously blue wall states. McCain and Romney were seen as typical Republicans that could not connect with working class people. Trump does appeal to them, and he will have the power of the incumbency in 4 years. To win in four years, Democrats will need to appeal to this demographic. As one who lives in this area, I can say that many union Joes feel the Democrats don't really care about them anymore. This was a demographic that voted reliably democratic for decades. Obama still had their residual support, but they were lost under his watch, so his successor will need to win them back.

[Radiant head]

What exactly is a blue dog? if it's a centrist, that's literally the strategy that caused the loss in working class support

[eclipse]

Dismiss them if you want, I honestly don't care.

These are just conclusions I've drawn from Hillary's low Rust Belt turnout and slightly lower overall votes than Obama in 2012.

The theory that Obama lost tons of progresive minded people stems from the massive decrease in overall votes he experienced from 08 to 12. The existance of BernorBusters didn't make themselves evident through the votes, seeing Clinton and Obama's similar overall numbers, so saying a major reason for Obama hue 08 boom and eventual decline are disillusioned progressives isn't exactly an insane statement to make.

I'm not going to hold your hand. If you seriously cannot bother googling the 2008 and 2012 election results and notice the sharp decrease in overall support Obama experienced, then I seriously don't know what to tell you. (Sourcing is hard on what I'm using to type this, message gets deleted if I go off tab for too long).

I'm not saying there's not other reasons people wouldn't vote for Hillary, but that would basically only be provable by risking incubent advantage and seeing if Gillibrand can beat Trump. I have no observable data on people who didn't vote for Clinton because of her scandals (I do know she generally retained the standard democratic support, judging by her similar turnout to Obama).

An obvious reason for the Rust Belt springing Trump and not Hillary would be the fact that his rhetoric favorably targetted them, so it's the only reason I'm using right now as a basis. Both candidates had equal amount of dirt on them, so it isn't like the Rust Belt only had her dirt to consider.

I'm asking this partially because your sources tell me where your biases are (this isn't a bad thing), and partially because it tells everyone else how you're drawing your conclusions. With nothing BUT conclusions, and more labels than the grocery store down the street, it sounds like you're talking about whatever YOU think is the truth. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

[Rezzy]

I think it's a good thing for our government to have at least two competitive parties. As most people in the thread probably know by now, I have Libertarian leanings that don't really fit into either party. So my wishes for the Democrats to get their act together is mainly a desire to avoid the Republicans having a monopoly on government, and having multiple, preferably more than two, parties is the best for democracy. However, I want them to do this by winning future elections, legitimately. I'm annoyed by the recount challenges.

What exactly is a blue dog? if it's a centrist, that's literally the strategy that caused the loss in working class support

Being more centrist is part of it. It's also an image of the person being a fighter for and of the working union class types. Bill Clinton was arguably one in the 90s. Hillary Clinton is about the polar opposite, now.

Though I would dispute that being Blue Dog lost them the working class. If anything, the Democrats have moved farther left in the last decade or so. Obama is not a blue dog and neither is Hillary. If you look at the states that Bill Clinton won in the 90s, there were plenty in the heartland and all over the map. Today, the Democratic party is getting pretty much all its support from coastal states, with the island of Illinois in the middle.

A lot of it has to do with the Democrats over emphasizing climate change policy. Most people don't want factories dumping radioactive waste in the river, but also feel we can't have draconian policies that make it almost impossible for the coal industry to do business. The are plenty of coal miners in the midwest who moved from the Democrats over to the Republicans over this issue. West Virginia is a good example of this trend. It was a Democratic stronghold for decades, until recently, it started being overwhelmingly Republican. Another issue is gun control. In the midwest, hunting and owning guns is a way of life. Constant attempts to curtail the Second Amendment don't win many votes in the heartland.

If I were a Democratic strategist, that would be my angle. Polosi almost lost her bid to get re-elected as minority leader, and I honestly think it would have been better if she had lost, but she refuses to give up her dwindling power.

Personally, I would love for the Democratic party to keep its social policies and relax its economic policies a bit, as well as distance itself from the corporate corruption that Hillary was so intertwined with.

If I'm rambling, sorry, it's been a really rough day.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Rezzy

[Radiant head]

sorry still completely unclear here. not only was bill not anything resembling a champion of the working class (the working class declined from his presidency, ie. union busting, welfare "reform", glass-steagal repealing, etc.), but obama and hillary are complete continuations of the third way politics that his presidency introduced. what is the difference here? the democrats have not been moving to the left, they responded to reagan's popularity by doing the exact opposite of that.

the democrats had the support of the working class because they're thought of as the party that brought the new deal, and running away from that legacy is what got us here now, and why it's argued that new deal democrats like sanders are a viable way forward.

the idea that climate change is emphasized too much by the democrats sounds absurd to me, but i'll just stick to the relevant points right now.

[Emperor Petitt]

sorry still completely unclear here. not only was bill not anything resembling a champion of the working class (the working class declined from his presidency, ie. union busting, welfare "reform", glass-steagal repealing, etc.), but obama and hillary are complete continuations of the third way politics that his presidency introduced. what is the difference here? the democrats have not been moving to the left, they responded to reagan's popularity by doing the exact opposite of that.

the democrats had the support of the working class because they're thought of as the party that brought the new deal, and running away from that legacy is what got us here now, and why it's argued that new deal democrats like sanders are a viable way forward.

the idea that climate change is emphasized too much by the democrats sounds absurd to me, but i'll just stick to the relevant points right now.

Well the larger issue is the way I've seen it Democrats at larger are looking at say climate change the wrong way. The biggest issue I see for greenhouse gasses is not CO2, it it was the temperatures would be much worse than they are now which is now hitting the mini ice age we were due for. The biggest issue I see is Methane, produced mainly from livestock. Guess vegans leaving more cows alive is an issue after all. Regardless it agriculture that is the largest producer of these problems, modern ones anyway that take up allot of land. The EPA even admits carbon while the most plentiful in the atmosphere has very little effect because of the lack of energy it can hold, methaneand other greenhouse gasses however while shorter lived so much more damage, especially to the ozone. Guess what I'm trying to say is, kill more cows to save the planet seems like the logical way to go. Though cars emitting N2O is also an issue as well that I'd rather put more carbon in the air than those gasses

[Phoenix Wright]

Even better would be boundless, non-regulatory energy. Sadly, Wind, Hydroelectric, Solar, and Geothermal energy have fatal flaws that make them far from serviceable for the entire planet. And I would argue that the Dems have always been weak-willed, easily corrupted, and wishy-washy on their principles since Jackson created the party back in 1824. I'm not totally on board with Climate Change as a problem (I know it occurs, and what we as a race are doing certainly isn't natural), seeing as though we are 75,000 years overdue for an event that would flood the ozone layer, thereby over-correcting the current problem we face.

rather than making myself do all the work, please source scientific papers that argue remotely this, 'cause you're really fucking wrong. you in particular are quick to ignore hundreds of years of research based on nothing but hearsay so i'd rather you do the work this time around.

the republican party is easily just as wishy-washy and corruptible. but they are strong-willed, at least in recent history. they are strong-willed to a fault, however, in their stubbornness.

i have no idea what you're talking about wrt the 75000 yrs overdue for an event that would "flood the ozone layer." it doesn't even make sense physically speaking.

Yes we can only get inefficient solar panels, and wind turbines that can only work for a few areas. Too bad both parties are not interested in atomic energy research

if we actually funded research for both of these things, we'd be in business. and of course, my favorite source of energy is nuclear reactors. there's also that farming thing a user brought up in the other topic on climate change.

i know people in these fields now, particularly solar cells, and it's promising. we're making progress in efficiency via discovering better-suited materials, but we need funding! no one can do scientific research for free.

solar panels could easily, easily provide all of california with power if we actually gave a shit about renewable energy.

[Rezzy]

my favorite source of energy is nuclear reactors.

I think nuclear power would be the best way to provide for our energy needs in the USA, but nuclear power gets such bad PR, that it's borderline impossible to increase the nuclear share of energy nowadays. If my quick Google search is accurate, it's been twenty years since the USA last opened a nuclear plant.

[Res]

I agree with Radiant Head in that the Dems haven't moved to the left, but quite the opposite. About the only move towards the left we've really seen is on certain social issues (i.e. marriage rights) and the mess which is the ACA (which is barely an improvement, and nothing like the socialized healthcare of other countries).

Income taxes, in general, have lowered over the past few decades.

Salaries for the top 5% have drastically increased over the past few decades, while salaries for most have remained stagnant (accounting for inflation); the rich/poor divide is greater than it's been in decades.

Gun control hasn't changed much - some introduction of stricter background checks, but overall people's gun rights haven't changed much. In fact, the only states in which gun control has really grown a little stricter (though not by much) are the blue coastal states, anyway.

Obviously college tuition has increased drastically, even accounting for inflation, as have student loans. Corporate tax rates are lower than in the past. Abortion rates have been steadily declining since 1985.

Of course I only have a narrow view of society, but most left-leaning people I know are abandoning the Dems for being too far right of their ideals. I also think a more leftist, radical candidate would be a good option.

[Phoenix Wright]

I think nuclear power would be the best way to provide for our energy needs in the USA, but nuclear power gets such bad PR, that it's borderline impossible to increase the nuclear share of energy nowadays. If my quick Google search is accurate, it's been twenty years since the USA last opened a nuclear plant.

yep. just furthers my point that we americans, mostly for negative reasons, won't get what we need.

I agree with Radiant Head in that the Dems haven't moved to the left, but quite the opposite. About the only move towards the left we've really seen is on certain social issues (i.e. marriage rights) and the mess which is the ACA (which is barely an improvement, and nothing like the socialized healthcare of other countries).

Income taxes, in general, have lowered over the past few decades.

Salaries for the top 5% have drastically increased over the past few decades, while salaries for most have remained stagnant (accounting for inflation); the rich/poor divide is greater than it's been in decades.

Gun control hasn't changed much - some introduction of stricter background checks, but overall people's gun rights haven't changed much. In fact, the only states in which gun control has really grown a little stricter (though not by much) are the blue coastal states, anyway.

Obviously college tuition has increased drastically, even accounting for inflation, as have student loans. Corporate tax rates are lower than in the past. Abortion rates have been steadily declining since 1985.

Of course I only have a narrow view of society, but most left-leaning people I know are abandoning the Dems for being too far right of their ideals. I also think a more leftist, radical candidate would be a good option.

also yep. the new generation is very liberal and dems are stuck in the past. 18-24 is a huge voting block, and sooner or later they'll be forced to listen.

[eclipse]

also yep. the new generation is very liberal and dems are stuck in the past. 18-24 is a huge voting block, and sooner or later they'll be forced to listen.

Values change as people age (the 18-24 block has different financial concerns than the 40-49 one, exceptions apply of course). I hope they never forget what times are like NOW, and change politics for the better (and no I'm not being sarcastic).

[VantagePoint]

I'm asking this partially because your sources tell me where your biases are (this isn't a bad thing), and partially because it tells everyone else how you're drawing your conclusions. With nothing BUT conclusions, and more labels than the grocery store down the street, it sounds like you're talking about whatever YOU think is the truth. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

I can only provide you with my thoughs, It's entirely up to you if you take it or leave it.

Trump's "bring jobs back to the Countries that have been steadiy losing jobs for years is the biggest difference between him and normal Republican nominees, and he recieved the most votes for a Republican ever."

And it is't like a Blue Dog has the answers.

The reason Clinton didn't address these people is because there really is no easy answers. It's inevitable that as automation advances, these important jobs in the Rust Belt will be taken over by machines. You could create a government program teaching people new skills to move to different jobs, but that doesn't fix the fact that many will still be left unemployed due to all those jobs being replaced by Machines. There's no way to suddenly turn the dial back on progress.

Trump basically sold the Rust Belt snake oil. No amount of bribing these corporations with taxpayer money will sudenly bring those jobs back and any temporary pauses in some jobs not leaving will be only that, temporary. But amongst news of Trump saving thousands of jobs, they will enthusiastically vote for Trump again in the hopes that eventually he can bring those jobs back to the United States. What exactly will a Blue Dog Democrat be able to do to convince those voters to vote for them instead?

Edited December 3, 2016 by VantagePoint

[VantagePoint]

Double post, apologies.

Edited December 3, 2016 by VantagePoint

[Phoenix Wright]

Values change as people age (the 18-24 block has different financial concerns than the 40-49 one, exceptions apply of course). I hope they never forget what times are like NOW, and change politics for the better (and no I'm not being sarcastic).

ok, but financial concerns don't change how we feel about climate change, healthcare, etc etc. (ie, facts) being fiscally conservative (that is, in this case, having a balanced budget) and leftist is possible. and if you're not talking about libs becoming conservative, i'm not sure what you're getting at.

[eclipse]

I can only provide you with my thoughs, It's entirely up to you if you take it or leave it.

Trump's "bring jobs back to the Countries that have been steadiy losing jobs for years is the biggest difference between him and normal Republican nominees, and he recieved the most votes for a Republican ever."

SOMETHING has to influence those thoughts, whether it be conversations from the people around you, what you hear on the news (Fox/MSNBC/your local news station/other places), stuff from online, etc. From the one thing you cited, I had a completely different interpretation of the article than you - it's not necessarily bad, but it's important when trying to discuss stuff.

For more concrete examples, this topic has seen supporters for both Clinton and Trump, someone who's Libertarian, and at least one person who thought all the horses in this past race were awful. It certainly made discussion a LOT more interesting.

EDIT: Oh, the thread finally reloaded!

ok, but financial concerns don't change how we feel about climate change, healthcare, etc etc. (ie, facts) being fiscally conservative (that is, in this case, having a balanced budget) and leftist is possible. and if you're not talking about libs becoming conservative, i'm not sure what you're getting at.

It's something I've noticed, from the people I've known for that long - a shift from progressive to authoritarian. I can't tell whether it's life experience, fear, or something else that causes it. Regardless, I'd rather things be kept somewhere in the middle, but I doubt I'll get my way.

Perhaps there's an argument regarding finances and climate change (if it's more profitable to keep things as they are versus investing into the future), and as financial values change, the view on climate change will shift as well. Hopefully, this theory of mine is wrong, in which case I'll gladly admit to being full of hot air.

Edited December 3, 2016 by eggclipse

[Phoenix Wright]

it's because adults don't like change. financially, it's because they remember a "golden time" that never actually existed, but memory fails us.

of course, some people's values change, and that's ok. but it's not a huge phenomenon.

[Rezzy]

I guess I'm that one Libertarian Eclipse mentioned. It can get lonely in my own little corner over here.

It's been a definite trend in US history that the below 30 demographic becomes more conservative after it ages into the next age bracket. http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

That's not everybody. I'm 30 now, and I've never really fit into the mold of either party. I've become more left wing on issues like drug legalization (I think pretty much everything should be legalized) and death penalty (I used to be on the fence, and now I'm firmly against it), but I've become more conservative on fiscal and regulatory issues. Being LGBT in the early 2000's, most of the community leaned left, but I was never a single issue voter. Thankfully, Marriage equality is the law of the land now.

Anthony Kennedy may very well be retiring in the next 4 years. I hope that Trump nominates someone like him, or several, since there will likely be at least 3 vacancies coming up. The Supreme Court will be getting conservative replacements, but I think Libertarian leaning votes like Kennedy would be the best way to go. You can't really expect any hard let-wingers as replacements, and Kennedy has been pivotal on defending things like Marriage Equality

You have Kennedy 80, Ginsberg 83, and Breyer 78. The next oldest is Clarence Thomas at 68.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Rezzy

[Phoenix Wright]

I guess I'm that one Libertarian Eclipse mentioned. It can get lonely in my own little corner over here.

It's been a definite trend in US history that the below 30 demographic becomes more conservative after it ages into the next age bracket. http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

but what i'm saying is it's because people don't like change. progressives have to constantly knock dominoes down one by one because adults are afraid of change. sure, people now think lgbt is fine (roughly, i'm not trying to say the problem is solved), but polygamy is still looked down upon. open relationships are still looked down upon. and these people that are 18-24 will still hold these beliefs until whenever, but they never had to fight against anything before. but as we make social progress they do. does that make sense?

fiscally, it's because people are selfish. i experienced this myself. this past summer was the first time i ever really had to pay rent, utilities, etc. and it took over half my pay check each month. i can only imagine the effect of having a child or two and a middle-class job would do. but people want lower taxes (and therefore cut medical insurance, decrease education funding etc etc) because they're selfish; although it sucks ass, i'm still ok with it because i realize how vital taxes are. i realize how vital these social safety nets are.

i understand why people say others get conservative with age. but i don't think it's as pervasive as those who argue it make it seem.

[Lord Raven]

I also don't think it's as universal as people make it seem; my parents mad 6 figures for a few years and still wish we had more taxes. Part of that is my dad paying 600/month for health insurance at some point due to his cancer.

I guess it also helps that we spent a lot of time being of the working class, and we worked our ass off for little gain for the most part. And it was vindicated by being lower class again after the business burned down.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Res]

Yes; a lot of people I know have leaned more firmly left as they grow older. I'm pretty certain my dad's assets are in the millions right now, but he hasn't forgotten that he's partially where he is due to no student loans, low housing prices in the late 80s, better job opportunities and lower interest loans.

Phoenix - same here. And I recognize that selfishness in myself. We're pretty much living paycheck to paycheck, and if taxes were lower, yes, I might give to charity a little more but it wouldn't be as much as the taxes I'd pay. I'd rather have higher taxes and maintain the social safety nets.

[Dwalin2010]

I've become more left wing on issues like drug legalization (I think pretty much everything should be legalized)

Even heroin? I understand about "light" things like marijuana etc, but heroin is deadly, lethal; just because people inject it into themselves without being physically forced by the dealers, it doesn't mean they actually want to die. They might be simply naive, overconfident, in some cases stupid, they might think "I will try what it feels like just to have more knowledge", whatever, but once they understand it's time to get off, it's too late, they can't and die. I know a person who is a former heroin addict and managed to get off it (as far as I know, these are are exceptions, people can get off cocaine, maybe ecstasy, I am not really sure, but heroin is one of the deadliest and quickest to kill). Is there even one person in the world who, after going through the state of nearly dying from heroin, but managing to get off and saving themselves and is still thinking it was worth it and willing to try again?

Last but not least, I think the feelings of the relatives and friends who don't want to see their dear ones die of drugs, they should also be considered and respected. I once said this on another forum and was simply told "it's not their choice to make" or "it's not their business", something like that. If people dismiss the concern of their family members, where will the world be going? Apart from the fact they are wasting great sums of money on heroin, stealing from the family too....

Edited December 4, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Moblin Major General]

i have no idea what you're talking about wrt the 75000 yrs overdue for an event that would "flood the ozone layer." it doesn't even make sense physically speaking.

Yellowstone is what I'm talking about. No man-made pollution or climate change can equal out to the amount of ozone this single volcano can spew. It usually erupts every 600,000 years, but the last eruption was 675,000 years ago, so that means Earth is 75,000 years overdue. As for research, Wind Turbines are actually fairly fragile, solar panels require too many rare earth metals to build (as of right now, subject to change), and only a few places are able to harness geothermal without considerable difficulty and/or risk, not to mention hydroelectric power tends to permanently disrupt ecosystems. Nuclear seems great on paper, but there's really no good way to store the waste, and I personally don't feel it's worth the risk there either. I heard a town in Australia is using a Tesla coil, but the overhaul needed to use them worldwide would reach into the trillions of dollars, meaning no money would be saved short term. In short, energy is a crapshoot.

[Rezzy]

Even heroin? I understand about "light" things like marijuana etc, but heroin is deadly, lethal; just because people inject it into themselves without being physically forced by the dealers, it doesn't mean they actually want to die. They might be simply naive, overconfident, in some cases stupid, they might think "I will try what it feels like just to have more knowledge", whatever, but once they understand it's time to get off, it's too late, they can't and die. I know a person who is a former heroin addict and managed to get off it (as far as I know, these are are exceptions, people can get off cocaine, maybe ecstasy, I am not really sure, but heroin is one of the deadliest and quickest to kill). Is there even one person in the world who, after going through the state of nearly dying from heroin, but managing to get off and saving themselves and is still thinking it was worth it and willing to try again?

Last but not least, I think the feelings of the relatives and friends who don't want to see their dear ones die of drugs, they should also be considered and respected. I once said this on another forum and was simply told "it's not their choice to make" or "it's not their business", something like that. If people dismiss the concern of their family members, where will the world be going? Apart from the fact they are wasting great sums of money on heroin, stealing from the family too....

Even heroin. The government should not be telling adults what they can put in their own bodies.

For your family argument, my family is stopped in addictive behavior. I have had a cousin die from a drug overdose, and I recently had a cousin be hospitalized for severe organ damage, but thankfully she's doing better now. That's not to mention the two friends I had that also died far too, young in their 20's. People in my social circles had a high level of depression for reasons I won't go into here, but I won't make excuses for them, since they made their decision. And then there's also the rampant alcohol abuse prevalent in my family. This is the main reason that I've never smoked or tried any illicit drugs, not for fear of the law, but because I see what it does, and I want to be better than that.

I'm about as anti-drug you can be on a personal level, but think government should not be legislating morality.

[Dwalin2010]

Even heroin. The government should not be telling adults what they can put in their own bodies.

For your family argument, my family is stopped in addictive behavior. I have had a cousin die from a drug overdose, and I recently had a cousin be hospitalized for severe organ damage, but thankfully she's doing better now. That's not to mention the two friends I had that also died far too, young in their 20's. People in my social circles had a high level of depression for reasons I won't go into here, but I won't make excuses for them, since they made their decision. And then there's also the rampant alcohol abuse prevalent in my family. This is the main reason that I've never smoked or tried any illicit drugs, not for fear of the law, but because I see what it does, and I want to be better than that.

I'm about as anti-drug you can be on a personal level, but think government should not be legislating morality.

Mi sincere condolences for all the deaths and I hope your cousin gets better... But especially considering these tragedies, it's even harder for me to understand that your are saying that even heroin should be allowed. Life is more important that freedom imo, because the word "freedom" can be used as a very extensive concept. Theoretically, somebody could say that complete anarchy and chaos is freedom too, even more, it's the epitome of complete freedom if we interpret it literally. I think the concept of resposibility is more important that those kinds of freedom that are based on temporary impulsve decisions.

On the other hand, you have mentioned depression; I don't know what was the case exactly, I don't want to invade anybody's privacy, but cases involving depression or worse are completely different: if people are depressed and tired of life, and in some other cases even take drugs and drink themselves to death on purpose, because they actually WANT to die, or at least the REALIZE they will die and still continue with this because they don't care, not being able to bear with the hard life, depression, tragedies etc, this is completely different in my view. I don't "condemn" such people in any way and feel genuinely sorry for them. I myself suffer from depression (not to this point yet, but still) and can imagine how it can hurt. What I was talking about in the previous post, weren't cases like these, but cases when people become heroin addicts for fun or for being curious without realizing what they are doing, later they would be happy to get off the drug themselves, but it's too late in the advanced stages of addiction.

It's not just about "morality" because if we talk about that, somebody will surely start to derail the discussion about the non-existance of such thing or about it being different from person to person. I am talking about the concept of "responsibility" and respect for the feelings of family members and friends first of all.

But again. it's very important to me that you understand that I draw a clear line between people who sink into alcohol and drugs or kill themselves because of depression, hardships of life, or psychological problems, I don't know etc, and it's a competely different thing when somebody does it just for fun or curiosity or to "make a point" that they want to spend their money on whatever they like, just because they think this will show their alleged "independence". But in reality, what's worse, being dependent on strict parents (for example) or being dependent on heroin? Strict parents at least don't kill you quickly....

Edited December 4, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Yojinbo]

Mi sincere condolences for all the deaths and I hope your cousin gets better... But especially considering these tragedies, it's even harder for me to understand that your are saying that even heroin should be allowed.

Heroin being 'disallowed' didn't prevent that tragedy from happening so what good did its illegality exactly do in that case?

I'm all for the legalization of drugs but the government should have a 100% monopoly of the business.