Feb 10, 2014 at 23:47:37
“This is tragic. Mexico has a terrible corruption problem, particularly in Juarez, Monterrey, Acapulco, and Guerrero state. Crime will never end, but I'm sure cutting billions in untaxed, black market methamphetamine, cocaine, and morphine revenue wouldn't hurt. In other words, I'm suggesting we legalize coca leaves, opium poppies, and cannabis plants.”
“I appreciate the comprehensive response. I mostly agree, but the extraction of oil sands is in fact going ahead, regardless of this pipeline. The benefits of having landlocked oil that must be sold at a cheaper price may be too much for the States to pass up, but American interests aside, there is currently a refinery being built in Alberta, making it less dependent on gulf coast refineries. And lastly, Arctic exploration has hardly even begun. If you didn't notice, Canada owns most of that.”
“That's simply not true. There are proposals for pipelines going to both the Pacific and Atlantic coast from Alberta, Canada. The pacific one, called the "Northern Gateway Pipeline" has a shot of being built.”
1) The alternative is transport via rail, which is more prone to spills, explosions, and derailing
2) Your car won't run with out oil
3) That includes Tesla motors
And just for fun here are three more:
4) Middle east oil is less ethical, since it comes from war zones where dictators rule
5) Solar panels produce less than 1% of energy in the world, making them an unrealistic replacement for oil. Rather, they can be used in combination.
6) Nuclear power is a reasonable alternative to oil and coal, but it comes with a new set of environmental concerns”
yozampj on Feb 10, 2014 at 23:38:04
“"The alternative is transport via rail, which is more prone to spills, explosions, and derailing." True...but a spill/explosion/derail has a finite radius of damage. The Keystone XL Pipeline expansion, if compromised, could contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer affecting a large part of the county and its population. Why take that risk for no gain?”
Christopher Nagy on Feb 10, 2014 at 20:54:42
“Well, number 1 presumes that expansion will proceed apace regardless of whether or not the pipeline gets built, and Canadian oil companies have already said flat-out that not getting the pipeline built means scaling back their expansion plans.
Number 2 might mean something if there was an oil crunch, but there isn't. We benefit from the fact that Canada can't move enough oil to Gulf Coast refineries. So yes, your car won't run without oil but expect to pay more for that gasoline if the pipeline is built, as Canadian oil companies have zero promises to sell anything that flows through the pipeline to the US--and why would they, when overseas markets will pay more?
Ethics has nothing to do with oil--our Middle East engagements are seen as potential national security problems. The fact that they are pulling oil out of the ground isn't something we can stop, but that doesn't mean we need to enable our neighbors to the north in their expansion of the oil industry.
I love how detractors act like a transition from fossil fuels would only work if it could be done in a few years time. The transition will take decades and everyone knows it. Solar doesn't need to power the world tomorrow.
The bottom line is that Keystone XL provides no significant benefits to the US. It does pose significant environment and health concerns. We have no obligation to enable their greater profits at our greater risk, nor should we.”
“So? The United States isn't perfect either. The olympics are about looking past the political differences and playing sport. It would be easy to turn these arguments 180 degrees into why the international community should have boycotted the Salt Lake winter olympics. Just for fun here's an example... the United States has the most prisoners per capita in the world. It has the legally allowed torture of detainees in Guantamano Bay... it has killed countless civilians in various operations in the middle east.”
Valentine Azbelle on Feb 8, 2014 at 21:32:15
“Please quote me where I said that the US was perfect. In fact please quote me anything I said about the US in that comment. What does the US have to do with this? All I did was address a ridiculous hypothetical statement from the original poster.”
“The illicit heroin trade is the main source of income for the Taliban. The drug courts have failed to keep it out of the hands of the public, and whats more, the stuff on the street is tainted with adulterants that are more harmful than heroin itself. The addiction that heroin causes is comparable, if not lower, to that of cigarettes, yet cigarettes are a legal product that have been successfully regulated. Citizens must demand regulation of heroin as well. Regulation aims to prevent use, but accept that it happens, and to inform those who choose to use it about the potential dangers, and how to avoid them. Zero tolerance is what killed this man, may he rest in peace.”
“Drug dealers also currently sell on the street corner; that is what legalization aims to change, so something resembling a liquor store, that pays taxes, ID's minors, and loses it's license to sell if it violates these rules.”
“Yes necessarily. The chemical composition is a factor in overdose rates. When it is tampered with by dealers, and cut up with adulterants, that makes it riskier to administer in one's vein. Another property of legalization is that there would be recommended dosages and reliable information on how much to administer. Take a look at the frequency of alcohol poisoning cases during alcohol prohibition, and after. The spike during prohibition is not a coincidence, it is an avoidable death trap.”
“There is a federal bill aiming to do just that, but it hasn't gone up for a vote. It is called HR499 and it is sponsored by D-CO Jared Polis. I hope it passes.”
peacekitten on Feb 3, 2014 at 22:52:21
“i'd love to see it pass too, but with this congress, i won't hold my breath. they can barely agree on what to name a post office, i wouldn't expect them to do something as sensible and ultimately helpful as decriminalize any drug.”
“The DEA claims cannabis is more addictive than methamphetamine. It is listed as a schedule 1 substance with no medicinal value. This contradicts the medical marijuana laws of 22 states. They are not a reliable source of drug information. I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, I'm just pointing out that drug statistics are not reliable because dealers try their best to avoid detection.”
peacekitten on Feb 3, 2014 at 21:37:39
“i realize that dealers do their best to avoid them. at least, i would expect that of them. perhaps it would make more sense to qualify it with that information being drawn from what *is* known about. marijuana is a huge part of their income, and legalizing it at the federal level would be a good idea, because it would take the crime out of it. that's something we should do with all drugs, decriminalize them and bring them out into the open. otherwise, they will always be a terrible problem that we can't do anything constructive about to help those who use them.”