To anyone who still thinks globalization is good, I highly suggest you look at Argentina in the 1970's, Chile in the 1980's, and Russia in the 1990's.

I'm not really sure how to tag this argument, so I'm just picking the side that has less going for it.

For me, the story in the description holds true: I've grown up having some friends who drank anything from wine to rye to vodka and did drugs ranging from pot, to acid. I never really got into the whole scene, but I'm pretty libertarian about the whole issue (read: I could really give a shit less if they do, just don't try to force me to). I never really felt pressured to do it, because I felt like I was better than that, that despite all the other shit in my life, I didn't need to turn to drugs and alcohol to feel cool or to drown my sorrows. That being said, I still believe it is a major problem for kids who may not be as strong-willed/principled, and who fall into that kind of shit more easily. At the very least, it is an issue that needs more media/mainstream news coverage

I read:

XKCD

Cyanide and Happiness

Indexed (thisisindexed.com)

Questionable Content

Dinosaur Comics (qwantz.com)

A Softer Wold

just for the record, I got confused by the title and immediately switched my response to false after I realized what it meant. So people aren't confused.

With countless Geneva Convention violations and numerous accounts of blatant disregard for international law, there is no question that he should be at least prosecuted under the ICC, where objectivity would be at its paramount, instead of a domestic court in the US. The only possibly defense (which has a gaping hole that should immediately become obvious to even your casual observer) is that he was the President of the United States/was acting wartime/blah blah blah, but even that falls apart under close scrutiny because many of the Geneva Convention's protocol specifically refer to wartime policies, plus we were never even in a state of war, just some imaginary war on terror. there is absolutely no concrete justification for it, historically, and former president George W. Bush is a criminal who should be prosecuted.

I'm pretty sure your title gives away which side you'd be on if you actually were going to argue this, but from someone who supports the legalization of marijuana and doesn't smoke pot regularly (not at all, even) I can tell you that there are numerous avtivist groups lobbying for the legalization who are committed enough to make a difference (see the recent massachusetts ballot question, my home state! woo, repreSENT!) I plan on being an active member of the SSDP (students for a sensible drug policy) group when I get to college in a few weeks, and for every pot-smoker who is too lazy to give a shit, there are at least 3 who are either active smokers themselves but make time for campaigning, or non-smokers who believe that the criminalization of marijuana is a dumb practice that is based on faulty logic and should be done away with as soon as possible.

Don't miss the forest for the trees; or in this case, the plant for the leaves.