If people really want to make a difference in THEIR OWN LIFE, then they would take the step in doing so. Arresting, or charging them won't make a difference because when they are released, all they have to do is get into "Grandma's pills" for another high.

Just a quick point I would like to make, abusing drugs should be treated as a matter of public health, but the topic does in fact state "illegal drugs". We should keep in mind that to obtain and use or do something illegal would be against the law, and would be a matter of criminal justice.

Question: To obtain and use illegal drugs would be committing a crime would it not?

I agree. You can't force someone to stop doing drugs, as it is their own responsibility and their own choice whether to use them or not.

I agree in that perspective. But what if one uses and abuses illegal drugs? It is still their own personal responsibility, but it is something they should be aware enough of the consequences to prevent beforehand. If it were just drugs like medicine or pills, then it would lie in the responsibility of the pharmacies that provided them.

You ask what happens when the other countries have nuclear weapons, and answer that everyone will have fear. That is exactly the point why we even have weapons. FEAR. Fear of attack, fear of losing our power. The reason that the weapons were so intensely built up during the cold war was because the countries didn't trust each other. Having a nuclear arsenal eases the fear. The only way an apocalypse would ever happen would be if NEARLY ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS WERE FIRED.

Nuclear weapons on their own cost around several billion dollars, but the total cost of everything needed to produce weapons and maintain them cost around 5.5 trillion dollars from 1940-1996. But not included with that amount there is an estimated 320 billion for any storage or disposing of the weapons in the future. (SOURCE: http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_atomic_audit.html). .) This argument, which you don't seem to quite understand, is based on whether or not we should HAVE nuclear weapons. Not whether or not we should PRODUCE them. May I ask you, why would we waste time and money taking apart the nuclear weapons that we already spent so much money on to build, and yet only spend more money? These nuclear weapons have an ultimate source of protection that no other weapon can provide. We shouldn't just throw them away because not only are we throwing away the bombs, but we are also throwing away money and power. Two things that are essential to a powerful country. Besides, you may be able to take apart all nuclear weapons in the U.S.A., but how are you going to get rid of all nuclear weapons in Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, etc.? You can't just barge into a country and say, "Hey I'm gonna take away your power!" Can you?

Nuclear weapons were last used in 1945, ending WW2. That was 60 years ago. In WW1, we did not have any nuclear technology, and we had another world war after that. That was about a 30 year difference. Do YOU sir, see any nuclear winter happening right now? Has there been a total war either? Thus, preventing a nuclear war does NOT require a nuclear winter.

Since you have yet again failed to provide me with a source for your ways to detect nuclear weapons, (and are obviously too lazy to google it yourself), your statements are proven false. Anyway, even if satellite imaging technology were at all able to detect nuclear weapons, what would we do about it? We can't bomb the country, we can't just go in and take their weapons, we can't tell them to dismantle them either. They aren't going to just listen when we tell them to because if they were really modest they would have done it earlier. Back to my main point, if one country isn't going to get rid of their nuclear weapons, then what reason would the rest of the world have to get rid of theirs?

ONCE AGAIN, my argument is not for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is for whether or not nations should keep nuclear weapons. Please clarify your definition of proliferation. Nuclear weapons are maintained and stored in a way that they don't randomly blow up. When nuclear weapons are stored, their core is removed, thus preventing the bomb from exploding. My "proposed world" would certainly thrive better than your proposed world.

Your proposed world is obviously just a naive dream world that cannot possibly come into existence. For, quoting Ronald Reagan, "Peace through strength." Without strength, we cannot achieve peace. Quoting Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Taking the time and spending the money on these weapons would be more worth spending on than having to go through another total war. Just think of how much a TOTAL WAR would cost.

When was the last time nuclear weapons been used for warfare? The purpose of their usage in 1945 was to end WW2. I agree that they do create a form of fear TO THE OTHER COUNTRIES. That is why no other country will bomb the U.S.A., because we have nukes. We have the power, and we shall use it for defensive purposes. If another country such as Pakistan were to bomb the U.S., it would basically be a suicide. No country would try to attack another if the other country had nuclear weapons.

Also, each nuclear weapon cost approximately 5.5 trillion dollars overall. Another billion or so dollars would be the cost to store them, or take them apart. (Source: www.nti.com). Actually the sole purpose of nuclear weapons was first intended to stop WW2 like I previously mentioned, but now their purpose is to prevent another World War, and to PROTECT the citizens of our country (like the other countries have theirs to protect themselves). "Murder" is not the sole purpose of nuclear weapons for the reason being that it would not just randomly be used on other countries, it would only be used for defensive purposes, and technically "murder" is not a valid reason for the purpose of nuclear weapons.

For the last reason, you disputed that there are "many ways to detect an atomic weapon"? I would like you to specify all the techniques used to detect these nuclear weapons. Another thing, my argument was not based on whether there was a way to detect atomic weapons, but rather to make sure that there were absolutely no more being produced or possessed in another country.

The last paragraph you included in your dispute stated that "there is no domination of one nation to another, no survival of the fittest" (although the survival of the fittest doesn't make the least bit of sense in this situation). Well, let me ask you sir, how do we know that EVERY country has rid of their nuclear weapons? What will happen if all nuclear weapons are destroyed in every country EXCEPT for COMMUNIST COUNTRIES, or SECRETIVE CLOSED COUNTRIES? What would happen if the last remaining nuclear weapons in the world landed in the hands of the Taliban, Pakistan, Iraq, or so forth? They would know that we don't have ours because the media is free to scrutinize and report all areas of the government, and like you said, it could get to the other side of the earth in less than a second. Nuclear weapons will NEVER disappear, because the technology used to create them will always be held in the hands of humankind.

I wish to negate the statement "States ought not possess nuclear weapons."

First, don't countries reserve the right to protect their citizens? Protection and security of a nation is one of the main purposes of a government. Taking away nuclear weapons is like tearing down a wall that keeps you safe from the enemy.

Second, why should we waste the trillions of dollars we spent on these weapons by just taking them apart, costing us another billion or so? We made these weapons for a purpose, so we should have the right to keep them for the safety of our country, as other countries should have the right to keep theirs.

Finally, is there an actual, verifiable way to make sure that other countries have abolished their weapons? If we were to get rid of our weapons, only to find out that another country still has theirs, they could easily overpower us and dominate us.