Yeah, probably then. To be honest, I don't know much about how the drugs work. I do remember tasting the poppy and feeling numbness, but that was just me as a young curious little fellow

Okay, from a philosophical point of view, sure, let's let people use drugs responsibly, and only remove those who fail the challenge from society. IMO, that would almost be as bad as our current plan, where the so-called "war on drugs" is a farce that's the worst of all possible options. Wait, surrendering, and just letting the drug tsunami sweep us away would be worse.

There is an argument to be made that the fake drug war is worse, as it completely discredits the law and results in massive levels of crime. That's the only reason legalization might look better in comparison. But the best approach is clearly to completely remove the destructive drugs and the people involved . Those captured alive could be remanded to those FEMA camps, or perhaps facilities could be built in some wastelands. Simply remove the illegals and their substances completely.

We'd achieve a lower population, and the worst and most destructive elements in our society would be eliminated. It's a (near) instant upgrade for society. Crime levels would drop through the floor in all categories. The non-criminals of our nation would see a massive increase in the quality of life. there would be tremendous benefits in all aspects of life.

This might not be the best marketing point to lead off with, but the one of the primary advantages of this approach over surrendering is that the primary demographic targeted here is already the worst and most destructive element in our society. Yes, there is a percentage of illegal drug users who don't rampage in the streets, but they can't deny they're willing to undermine our society for their own selfish reasons. They provide cover for the worst of the worst, both socially and financially. "Tee hee hee, don't we all do a little coke on occasion?"

Anyway, that's my rant. No concluding paragraph.

I am not one of these people that sees things like safety in the workplace and overtime as a horrible thing. Yes, those are socialist ideas. Yes, they've been implemented before with success. However, there is a point of diminishing returns with anything. You also can't discount competition and things like a ban on immigration when looking at the creation of the middle class here in the U.S. When the U.S. banned immigration for most of the 20th century(banning Irish immigrants) that is when you saw a lot of the middle class flourish. Think about the industrial revolution during the UK when the merchants were usurping power from the royalty and royal families. The Blue Bloods, becoming terrified, started supporting the working class and worker's rights. It wasn't anything done out of the kindness of their hearts. It's just like the economic boom America experienced after the revolution. That was due, largely in part, to white males who weren't of royal blood that were allowed to own land and guns to defend that land. That happened because Patrick Henry and the anti-Federalists marched(with guns) and had it added to the Bill of Rights, not because all of the founding fathers just had it in their hearts to give bloodlines that weren't royal the right to own land. That is often how equality is created: a power struggle that results in setting up the board with equal OPPORTUNITY.

Your paragraph about the Irish Potato Famine is equally troubling, as you can't seem to take into account all of the numerous angles there. You had a country where literally half of it starved. If you have a few successful potato farmers during that time, more than likely, they were about to go out of business. They sold their surplus. What if they didn't? Then they go out of business and all their workers lose their jobs and they don't produce anymore potatoes. How would that help anyone there in the long run? Your point about U.S. Dust Bowl farmers is equally uneducated. This reminds me of when I rented out apartment units. People there, people who often did drugs and didn't want to work, would act like I had all the money in the world and it was O.K. if they didn't pay me rent because "I was rich" and they "needed help." Had I let one stay and not pay rent, then more wouldn't pay rent. Then I would have lost everything and a corporation would have bought it (ended up happening anyways) and now no one cuts them any slack.

You pointing out the perceived problems with capitalism doesn't justify any argument for any other type of 'ism' When people make posts like yours that discount so many problems like what caused the dust bowl to begin with or what caused the potato famine to begin with and say "see this was bad and it happened under capitalism" when you and I both know that no one hops a raft to cross the ocean to get to a socialist country. It is easy to criticize. It's a lot harder to build something. If you want to talk about the government clearly enforcing anti-monopoly laws to take down giant corporations like Google, Twitter and Facebook then I'm listening. If you want to talk about curbing corporate welfare then I can listen. However, I typically do not entertain any arguments for socialism or communism, as it takes an already over powered aristocratic class and makes it smaller, makes them even more powerful. Again, it is and always will be next to impossible to create equality by consolidating power into the hands of the very few. They are never, in any system, inclined to give it back.

You making absurd statements like "if the US was still a capitalist country we'd still be working 80 ours weeks in sweatshops" is willful denial on your part and you're looking at things that agree with your viewpoint while not taking into account so many other things like ending slavery, putting the breaks on immigration, women in the workplace, technological increases,etc. I understand you think this.. this is the best way and you seek information that backs up that belief and you ignore things that don't. Why don't you take a look at a lot of other countries where people are STILL working 80 hours a week, losing limbs, dying in the workplace and literally being thrown out with the trash. MOST OF THE WORLD still works this way. If anything, I think the U.S. uses social programs like welfare and our immigration system(again full of welfare) to encourage the worst of us to breed out of control while sucking the life force out of the working middle class and poor to support millions of people that probably shouldn't exist to begin with. I'm fine offering people work details and basic housing(if they will work) but walk into almost any Wal-Mart in this country and try to convince yourself these people are persecuted and don't have enough. Then you take a look at most of us that work in these factories and offices, many of us 50+ hours a week, a lot of us take illegal or legal drugs to be able to put up with the misery. How is that right? How is that 'fair' that the working people's money is taken to ship in those that replace them, to support those that literally eat themselves to death? That's the system we have now. I'm tired of listening to overweight people bitch and moan about being oppressed. We don't need more government. We need less and we need a system that encourages those out there who work and are willing to work and a system that encourages marriages and fathers, not single welfare moms and obese Wal-Mart shoppers and corporate welfare grubbing CEOs. This is done by LIMITING the government's power, not increasing it.