Counter-arguing a few opposing points. Alcohol provides taxes yes, however, the profits are negated in reality as it's a heavy burden on the tax system via police and health funding due to the increases in crime and health risks that are associated with alcohol. Furthermore, one can argue that the economic loss of work by brewers and other various areas within the alcohol industry will again be negated by the increased productivity of other economic sectors and also by the results of a healthier overall workforce with less unemployment.
Making alcohol illegal is a difficult matter as it will start becoming sold illegal by drug dealers. This is an unavoidable dilemma as is evident with various other illicit drugs. It may be impossible to stamp out alcohol 100%, however, concentrating on the fringes proves unrealistic and you have to look at it from a 'majority' perspective. If a ban on alcohol results in the majority following the laws and ceasing alcohol consumption, then that is proof of a successful policy in my opinion in regards to achieving the desired results.
Yes according to common sense People need to get the facts right. Millions didn't die from the two bomb drops.
The reason why the bomb had to be dropped was because it had been calculated that dropping the two bombs would have resulted in less deaths than an invasion would have. And this means less US soldier deaths and less civilian deaths. Prior to the planned invasion of Japan, US troops landed on a nearby Island that was to be used as a stepping stone to the final invasion of the mainland. It was on t his island however that approx 130,000 US troops confronted approx. 80,000 Japanese solders who used suicide tactics and proved themselves to be extremely difficult foe to fight against. 1/3 of the US 130,000 soldiers that landed on this island died (and these were the soldiers who were suppose to be used on the mainland invasion). The US realised that if 80,000 soldiers who were poorly equipped (yet used such devious tactics, and were actually prepared and almost expecting to die) proved to be such an obstacle, then how would a land invasion against millions of them fare? It would be near impossible. They calculated that such a large scale invasion would have resulted in the deaths of 10,000,000 civilians and 1,200,000 US troops. This is obviously unimaginable. So as you can see, no matter how bad the bomb is, it was the lesser of two evils. Dropping the 2 atomic bombs was actually rather efficient, approx. 200-300,000 civilians died, but this amount is nothing in comparison to the estimated 10 million (which I really do believe to be an accurate figure due to the size of their population). For comparisons sake Germany lost approx. 8.5 million and Russia lost 25 million.
Therefore in conclusion dropping the bomb was a necessity to stop the Japanese Empire and forced them to forfeit the war. Dropping the bombs prevented millions of unnecessary deaths from occurring. Something the figures also didn't mention however was further potential deaths, i.E. From Japanese occupation of foreign Pacific countries such as Burma, Indonesia, PNG etc. If Japan weren't forced to forfeit then who knows what would have came in these countries also.
Also, people who argue that the fact US used a bomb led to other countries creating their own WMD? I think it's safe to say that it was inevitable. Other countries would have created nuclear bombs and other weapons regardless.
Yes ban guns. The USA have among the highest reported crimes rates in the world. Obviously this data can be interpreted in many different ways, and it's due to many different factors, not just guns. You can perhaps even argue the reason it's so high is because they have more effective police compared to other nations. However, that doesn't explain why the US is also the highest murder by gun rate country in the western world. I believe that it's essential for the USA to start improving it's standards of living. It currently is a very wealthy country yet it fails in statistics when compared to countries such as Australia and Norway when it comes to standards of living i.E. Life expectancy / medical availability, average wealth per person, average education levels etc. So essentially the people living there are poorer and dying earlier than in other western countries. I believe that banning guns is an essential part of the greater challenge of improving Americans standards of living.
No it won't benefit the average Australian. It'll only provide more power to the government, to the politicians and the political system will become over-bloated. There is literally no benefit to Australia becoming a republic. The queen is a historical and ceremonial figure. We still essentially already act as a republic today, however, the one true benefit of still having a queen is that it prevents the Australian parliament from becoming too bloated. If Australia becomes a republic we will therefore require a president. And from judging how the last election campaign ran, we will most likely start mimicking the US political system over time. Which is something we want to avoid. The US political system is far too over-powered, far too bloated and wastes far too much money. Keeping the Queen, which we don't have to pay for (only when she comes on rare visits) keeps our parliament in check. It provides a balance from the politicians and the general public. It's no wonder why many politicians are pro-republic, they only want more power. The average Australian who is pro-republic has been brainwashed and 99% of them can't even explain how a republic will benefit Australia? They just say 'because Australia deserve it' and other faulty social reasons. It's because essentially it won't benefit the average Australian, it'll only provide more power to the politicians and government. This is why so many politicians are constantly challenging the system.