Raider5678

In america the teachers are blamed when kids don't pass test. Seems like its slightly related. Just thought I'd mention it.

Alrighty.... I meant making it a lot less harder for people to open up small buisnesses., not taking away air pollution regulations etc.

Please do that So..... Smokings good for you? How about acholoics? Drug addicts? If they were legal it would be easier to get to drugs. Can you, without a dought, say drug use will decrease if we were to make it legal? Also, are there any other outcomes we want to add? I want to add less regulations on businesses.

Doesn't matter. I used the same argument against you before, and to say what you said.... It doesn't matter what they think. The fact is as it is. The experiment failed, multiple studies show it, in fact, most of them do.

As I pointed out, and multiple people agreed, The link you gave me seems to spit in the face of almost EVERY SINGLE other study. I already showed this link, as I looked at it too.

They tried using the money they used regulating drugs in colorado for rehab and education. To do this they made small amounts legal. It has shown it hasn't even come close to decreasing the cost even a little, but instead raised it quite considerably. This, is a bad consequence. While the other idea to make drugs illegal isn't the ideal one, its better than the one your proposing. Maybe we can find a way to make your plan work, and when we do, I say we do it. But for now, this idea didn't work when tested, so why would we try it again? Imagine a Number line. The idea you proposed, resulted in -10. The current idea, which is have drugs illegal, results in -8. Either one, while not ideal, has different results. And the current idea, is doing better.

Mmmm.. Proof? You know, you seem to love starting controversies, and joining them too. What would you have us do? Make drugs legal, decriminalize them 100%? We already discussed that. Now are you're telling us, saying drugs are bad and making them illegal, results in more deaths than just letting them go? Your including driving accidents, murders, overdoses, gang wars, innocent people, etc?

The speed of something is how far it traveled in a certain amount of time, not how fast a gap closes I think.

Agreed.

Well then, it shouldn't matter if we make them illegal then eh? http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931 If thats whats going to happen, we better make sure it NEVER becomes legal, or if it does, it does extremely slowly. http://katv.com/news/local/new-report-examines-marijuana-legalizations-impact-on-colorado It seems to be having an opposite effect. There's higher than ever marijuana use in kids, teens, and adults, as well as an 8% increase in traffic fatalities. http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%20NSDUH%20Results-%20Jan%202016%20Release.pdf This is a study by the NSDUH. https://www.rt.com/usa/316148-marijuana-related-deaths-injuries-study/ And another study. Now please note, most of these are literally just the first results that came up, I'm not cherry picking. http://www.nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Legalized_Marijuana_Practical_Guide_for_Law_Enforcement.pdf And another one, this one done by the police. I haven't gotten a chance to read it all, so I'm not sure what the outcome they think has resulted. AND then theres this...... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-way/colorado-and-marijuana-le_b_6397664.html https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_One_Year_Status_Report.pdf Now these guys both supported it, and they seem to be saying the government, studies, math, science, are all wrong. Any ideas? Also, the point of this legalization was mainly "to bring money to our economy" which apparently it did. In taxes, but it has cost them a whole ton more for law enforcement costs.

Good idea. Though I'm also against abortions...... Either way, I'm not big on the idea of simply making a small amount of drugs legal so people wont do it, but if it works, then I guess I can't argue. My only problem is what would happen in america if drugs were suddenly all legal?

You may be right, but if you look back at the outcomes we decided on, we want public safety. Drugs, are in fact, not safe, no matter how much people say they aren't. If punishment is bad, then what would you suggest?

Drugs, in my opinion, are really not helping anyone. I'm not talking medical drugs, I'm talking Heroine, Cocaine, etc. People die from them, people have been ruined by them, innocent people also die because of them. They create a snowball effect, and it doesn't make a good one either. That's my opinion, and I've seen drugs not only destroy many people's lives, but end them many times. Also, I'm thinking harsher punishments usually steer people away from doing things. If the penalty for stealing was getting your hand cut off, do you think many people would still do it, or even take it lightly? And using at least 1,000 nails in the construction of a house doesn't really relate to this. If anything, we're trying to limit the use of them.

Mmmm. Where would you start? I also considered the populist problem, and I believe that we could find ways to prevent that kind of stuff. Like not giving the public the decision to start a nuclear war or not. I mean, that's just a minor opinion but....... Also, maybe it WOULD be a bad idea, but we'll discuss that when we get to it eh? Also, instead of simply saying it could never work, try and do stuff to figure out how it might work, and while doing that figure out the problems. I would like to add: Limited Regulations Harsher Punishments to Rape of a minor. Harsher Punishments to Drunk Driving Harsher Punishments to Drugs. to the list. Any objections? We can decided on the punishments when we get there, and what regulations we would need and stuff like that.

I did take that into account. I figured only basic law that we today think should never be broken should be added, and the definitions could change. I rarely do things without a back door, as I'm a person whose ideas rarely work, but I also don't really like pointing out the backdoors. THough in this case, Maybe we could come up with a perfect definition, I'm still not sure.

Well, I would agree with not starting a war with someone for no reason, but I think should it be a matter of destruction or survival of us or an ally, we intervene to prevent the worst. Eliminating poverty is going to be hard. Giving people jobs would work better then welfare, but we'll cover that later. No poverty has been added to the list. I thought about that. The problem is that if a religion's main purpose is to do stuff like that, I would say not. Take Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, they would be fine. I think if a religion is dangerous, it shouldn't be hard to tell. The problem with that religion is that even though satanic rituals are not allowed in the united states, the satanic religion is. And when people become so endorsed in the simple teaching "If you don't do as stated in the holy book, you will spend all of eternity in hell." That motivates people to do those things. Obviously only with insane people, but it's still motivating you to do them. Now where would you draw the line of disturbing? I would say the court can say its "disturbing" if it involves things most people would find horrifying, deadly, inappropriate.... Yeah, let's kick this one out. Bad idea. See my other post. Below are the desired outcomes so far. Heres a list of the desired outcomes so far. Let's just come up with them first, and once we have a large list, we will go over each one and decide it ifs a good one or not, and specific details. Here's the list: No discrimination. Religious Freedom. Public Safety. Guns allowed. Direct Democracy. Funded Space Program. (I would love this) Universal Health Care. Truth in advertising laws. No more gerrymandering. Tight limits on time spent fundraising. Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient. Make voting compulsory. Make election days national paid holidays. No war. No poverty. That IS the list so far. Add some more. Remember, we are ONLY coming up with them first, then we will go over them 2 or 3 at a time, discussing specifics. Also, if you object to a current outcome, we will discuss it later, and you can state your objections. After we do this, I'm not sure what we do then. Maybe come up with some laws. Also, while thinking about some laws, I think we should have a document that CAN NOT be changed, edited, or over ruled. Like, murder is illegal, etc. Simple stuff. Just to get that out of the way.

I would agree win truth in advertising laws, not really sure what you mean by no gerrymandering. I know the definition, but I don't understand it very well. By tight limits on time spent fundraising, do you mean for already elected officials, or ones running for election? I would say a percentage of the budget rather than the dollar, but it's about the same thing. I would agree for compulsory voting, and election days national paid holidays. Also, what would you consider the best parts of their health cares? Discrimination would be classified as "A different treatment of any sentient person, creature, or thing based solely on the differences between the discriminator and the discriminated, whether it be gender, color, size, or religion." I'm sure i'm missing some stuff, so feel free to modify until we all agree that it covers everything fairly. Religious freedom would be "the freedom to practice religious practices anytime, anywhere, for any reason, as long as that religious practice doesn't break any laws, or is ruled disturbing by the court." I.E. RUnning in circles naked to pray to gods. That would be ruled disturbing. Satanic rituals are in my opinion disturbing. You? Also, if a religion constitutes human sacrifices, murder, torture, etc, I would say we make it illegal. We would have to refine that part, but you guys get the idea right? Public safety would include police, hospitals, firefighters, etc. For gun control, read the last few pages. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/

How would you get a "Direct democracy" to work? Also, what are your standards for universal heathcare?

Since nobody wants to start, I will...... No discrimination. Religious freedom. Public safety. Guns allowed, though regulated. Add some more guys.

They are related, but their limited in their relationship. The founding fathers couldn't have meant you could use your gun to shoot the intruder. Back then it took 20 seconds to load the gun if you were really quick! They meant you could have it for milita use. If someone were to invade america today, while we wouldn't be able to completely stop invaders if their military, we could put some SERIOUS hassle in doing so. Hunters have rifles that could shoot from long distances, so they would have to make sure if they ever traveled it would have to be in armoured vehicles, or out in the wide open where hunters couldn't hide. WHich is just about nowhere. They would have to SLOWLY invade america using guerrilla tactics, which would be next to impossible due to our sheer size, and the fact we have a powerful military that could easily fight most armies. Obviously there are exceptions. If say for example, China, Russia, England, France, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc all invaded, we wouldn't stand much of a chance. And it wouldn't take anywhere near that many either. But that's just a point. They could also nuke us, with the risk of getting blown up themselves, which they would also risk the same thing if they invaded. In other words, it DOES offer protection, but its limited to a wide scale invasion pretty much. Or a rebellion, which wouldn't do anything.

You would practically have to make one of those, collect a planet, just to get the resources to make it. Not really, it's just gonna take a TON of stuff to make it. Also, welcome to scienceforums

Hello guys, I wanted to try something. Now this is going to seem a little odd, but I think it would be fun. I would like to try and create a "perfect" government. Now obviously it won't be PERFECT to everyone, but it would do the best to make everyone happy, while also presenting the best possible life for the people ruled under it. I.E. protection, education, good living conditions, etc. Now someone once told me that the best way for deciding on whats good is too come up with that desired outcome, and then create the path to that desired outcome. So to get started, I would like it if we came up with our thoughts of a perfect government, then create "laws" and stuff like that to get that desired outcome. After we get the outcome, we will work on all the details to this "government" until we have a government we wouldn't mind living in if it was real. Once again, obviously it won't be your "perfect" government, but it should be good enough to like. Now as a basic rule, if this topic ever does get started, your not going to get exactly what you want. Thats why we will decided on a compromise.DO NOT BE UNMOVABLE. An example would be gun control. While 1 person may be all guns blazing with few gun control laws, someone else may want NO guns whatsoever. We would try and come with a compromise, rather then simply stating what we want and nothing else. (as a note, public safety should be one of the outcomes we want. Meaning either no guns at all, or heavy safety laws IMO.) So, anyone who wants to start, just start coming up with an idea on how you want the life people living in it would have, and we will start from there. A draft of the government will be contained below:

I'm about 5 years away from paying taxes

http://www.persecution.com Maybe there's a biased against Muslims, which is wrong, but people in political positions have repeatedly blamed christians for things, while saying we want to kill Muslims, murder others yadayadayada. Also, in the Koran it says to kill all infedels, and infidels are people who do not believe in allah. They're out to get you. Not really. While it does say to kill infidels, some of the Muslims don't listen to that, and are called shitites. They are the peaceful ones, and the mean ones do what their holy book tells them. Also, why is it discrimination against people usually only goes one way? Us vs them mentality, where they only show one side, while making Tue other side seem demonic. So something CANNOT be true just because something else might be true? Hmmmm. Also, what is so unclear by saying a bat is a bird? What's so confusing that your mind can't absord it? In the bible, once again, a bird is anytin that can fly but isn't an insect.

Crowd funding NASA.... People like crowd funding because it makes them feel good."I donated to cure cancer!" Tends to make people feel better then saying "I donated to advance science!" That's my opinion. I would crowdfund NASA though if it were an option