June 2013 Senate Election Debate

[Maxwell]

Also we do need to hammer hard against dealers because they are contributing to worse crime than just being dealers.

Some, yes, but clearly not all of them. We shouldn't be hammering them for selling drugs if that is all they are doing. I think legalization is the free market solution because it allows companies to get in on the action and get the crime side out of the equation. Chances are, the criminals that commit crimes along with drug dealing will be committing crimes still, and we can catch them on what they are actually doing.

I think we should be going after people based on what crimes they are actually doing, not things we think shouldn't be illegal but think, well it's linked to it, so let's catch them on the thing we aren't so sure should be illegal. That's my main disagreement with Scott and P.J.'s ideas.

My question is how is legalizing meth beyond the role of medicine (which is a problem and precursor to other more destructive actions where I'm from) beneficial or cocaine for that matter? That's why I'm leery of further liberalization.

The legalization of meth and cocaine, certainly, isn't exactly the most beneficial move, for sure. But what are the benefits of keeping it illegal? It remains extremely harmful, as harmful as is now, and there is still that legal gray area of dealers and users. Legalization, on it's surface, doesn't help, sure: Obviously there will be at first an increase in use. I think it's beneficial in the long term: it's safe for people who do want to use, no black markets in that field, and those who don't still don't have to do it. It's physically active, sure, but addicts no longer have to live in the dark, and whatever regulation could make it safer. Obviously, it's not the perfect scenario as my idealism on this issue seems to look at, but I think the legalization route is more beneficial than the non-legalization route.

[tmthforu94]

I've always been fairly liberal on the issue of drug legalization - I'm somewhat disgusted by the RL drug laws, how non-violent drug offenders can sometimes end up in jail for longer than convicted murderers or rapists. In general, I support the legalization of almost all drugs, with heavy regulations and a tax on them. I think regulation will equal more safety than trying to crack down and eliminate them completely, which would only complicate things further.

I would like to go on the record to say I am a staunch supporter of The Jennifer Act, which is being discussed in several states (I believe it passed in Florida), which gives family members of those troubled with drug use to have power to have their relative get the help they need, whether it be voluntary or involuntary. An older friend of mine lost her daughter to drug usage, and has valiantly fought for The Jennifer Act since.

[Poirot]

Hello Mr. Moderator, Senate candidates, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm sorry to join you late (let's blame a nervous bladder). First on the Atlasia common market project I want to say I support free trade of goods. I hope our negotiators for this deal get concessions. In Section IV of the proposed legislation, there is repeal of tariffs on canadian softwood lumber. I hope we get something in return, like Canada giving up cultural industry protection or supply management for some agricultural products.

The same section of the accord mentions a goal of reducing agricultural subsidies. I would like a deal that opens up fully the canadian market for our dairy producers for example by not only reducing tariff barriers but also non tariff barriers.

Like some who spoke before me I have reservations about the freedom of movement for people. Millions of new people will have the right to move around in Atlasia. Do we know who are these people? Twenty per cent of Canadians are foreign born. Who did they let in? I don't trust another country for the security of our nation.

I am running for the Senate in the Northeast and need to protect the region's interest. I am thus concerned with bigger vessels in the St. Lawrence seaway. Not only to protect the fragile ecosystems but for the jobs on the Atlantic coast. Bigger vessels going to the Great Lakes might mean less maritime and transportation jobs on the Northeast Atlantic coast.

On the topic of drugs, I am not in favor of legalizing hard drugs. I think it would send a wrong message, like drugs are not that dangerous. There should be prevention done in high schools to show the bad effects of drugs and a campaign telling doing drugs is not kool.      

[TJ in Oregon]

Cocaine and heroin are very dangerous drugs and should illegal. Allowing the legal purchase of these substances sends the wrong message to children (and adults for that matter) that they're okay to use. In a world that considers banning refills on soft drinks and trans fat, the idea that hard street drugs are legal is backwards.

Drug addiction is a first and foremost a health issue and thus a network of safe-haven treatment options should be made available. Drug laws at their best are not aimed at making examples of the users, but hunting down the pushers and taking them off the streets. That should be the focus of an effective anti-drug policy: to reduce the supply.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have reached a point where the previous policy of make it all illegal and then waged war on it, a policy we had engaged in for decades, has turned out to not be all that effective as we still have millions addicted and thousands being killed in this War on Drugs. I think we are thus long passed the time where we adopted a new course and that is what has happened here in Atlasia over the last several years.

Unfortunately, it has been the case that we have focused solely on legalizing and or decriminalizing the substances in question, but have done little else to adopte a "new comprehensive drug policy". I think that we shouldn't be throwing addicts in jail, as addiction is a condition that needs treatment, not jail time. However, I would create a distinction between the more hard core drugs and say marijuana and on the former continue to pursue an aggressive policy when it comes to the dealer network. I have never been positive towards those who entrap and destroy their "customers" simply so they can make money. As many are a aware, I am very much anti-tobacco to significant extent for the same reason. These drugs in particular are much more damaging though and pose far more risk to user as well as to those around them, and thus we would be wise to focus our limited resources in the criminal system on these people as opposed to a recreational pot user.

It has been recommended in the past and in this debate once more, that there should be a campaign of sorts similar to the one waged against tobacco to target and discourage, especially children from using some or all of these drugs in question. I think that such would be appropriate and would hope to see a situation where the regions adopt such policies, possibly with the federal goverment in a supporting role to provide resources and such if necessary, as well as access to information and research that would be necessary to conduct such an effort. I would especially prefer that the Regions retain the right to determine which drugs are given the most emphasis. For instance out west and in the rural areas Meth is one of the biggest problem drugs and thus the Pacific, Midwest and IDS would probably want that at the top of the list, while the Northeast and Mideast might face a bigger problem with crack or some other drug.

I think this issue is multi-faceted and will require changes in many areas to complete this half-transformation and move toward a more sensible and reasonable drug policy. First and foremost is settling our foreign agreements on this matter and achieving new agreements that reflect our newer, more practical priorities and goals. We have started on this path with the legislation we passed just recently, which withdraw from our previous agreements, which we had already violated when we changed our drug laws. This was the most responsible route to take at this point, having already found ourselves in violation and the one that will lead us to be able to attain these new agreements. Thus our present and future goal must be for the Secretary of External Affairs in both the current and in the future administations to work to achieve such.

On the domestic front we have heard the mention of the Prison Reform Act, and I think that is a key cornerstone to be sure of creating such a new, reasonable drug policy. However, I also think that Mental Health plays role as drug use can become a mechanism to cope with various problems (along with many other things ranging from food to alcohol of course) and therefore improving our systems in this regard will be an important aspect of our domestic policy. It is my hope that both the former and the Mental Health Reform Act, thus make their way to completed and passage before the end of the current term, but typically in this game things often take longer then expected so my first priority will be to ensure that the latter gets completed if it is still not finished when the term ends, should I be reelected.

[Hash]

The National Movement doesn't really care if you smoke drugs as long as it doesn't get too out of hand I guess. I don't think that the 'war on drugs' stuff has really worked, so I support legalization of drugs with regulation and taxation.

Besides, all our great politicians here sure must be smoking some good stuff which blinds them to the real problems of Atlasia, so if they can smoke that stuff, everybody else should too. This debate is another example: basically everybody is agreeing with one another, or if they're not, they don't engage with one another. What purpose does this serve? Yeah, none. Nobody is going to read some verbal diarrhea on a topic totally irrelevant to the real problems facing Atlasia. Only the Mustafinist-Komovists propose solutions to those problems.

[TNF]

Ending the New Jim Crow, euphemistically referred to as 'The War on Drugs', will be one of my top priorities as a Senator. We have made great strides thus far in liberalizing Atlasian law with regard to drug use, but we have not gone far enough in creating a society that emphasizes personal choice, harm reduction, and combats addiction as a public health, rather than a law enforcement, problem. The project of establishing a humane alternative to the New Jim Crow is not only a project of drug liberalization, it is a project of ending the mass incarceration society that we have tolerated and allowed to grow in our midst.

I favor the immediate legalization of Psychedelic Mushrooms and LSD for persons over the age of eighteen. I believe that these products should be regulated in the public interest, and that they prove no harm in that they are not addictive substances. They should readily be available for those who wish to partake in them, as should all 'soft drugs'. If the substance in question is not addictive, if it does not prove harmful in any way, it should not be illegal. Period.

As for harder drugs, I believe that a strategy emphasizing harm reduction is the best way to move forward. Hard drug use be strictly regulated, and I favor the establishment of drug maintenance programs, clean needle programs, and the like to make sure that we are able to wean addicts from the drugs they are addicted to while also reducing the potential harm to those persons addicted. I believe that hard drug use should be regulated through public health agencies, with doctors and nurses responsible for writing prescriptions for these products and the state moving in and taking ownership of hard drug stockpiles. No one should be able to make a profit from addiction, and that includes alcoholism or tobacco addiction. I believe that the status quo is fine as far as tobacco use is concerned, but believe that both the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry should be publicly owned. As for alcohol, I favor the abolition of the drinking age, substituting instead a legal purchase age of sixteen for wine and beer and eighteen for hard liquor. I also favor setting the age for legal Cannabis consumption at sixteen.

[PJ]

I'm also responding to Hashemite as well as Maxwell because of the complaints that no  one was engaging each other. I agree with TJ in Wisco and Poirot that legalizing hard drugs is sending a message to teenagers that using these drugs is ok, and that worries me. If we are going to legalize these hard drugs, I think that we need a more thorough educational curriculum about the harmful effects of hard drugs and a more rigorous campaign, like the anti-tobacco campaign. However, I believe that this needs to be done BEFOREHAND, so that by the time these drugs are legalized, Atlasian citizens will be reluctant to use them. I also believe that these drugs must be heavily regulated and taxed. Then and ONLY THEN will I support the legalization of harder drugs.   

As for TNF, even with drugs that aren't as addictive, I'm still concereed about the health effects from them. For example the spreading of diseases through needles and lung cancer from smoking. One more thing, what is your argument for lowering the legal age to smoke cannabis?

Also we do need to hammer hard against dealers because they are contributing to worse crime than just being dealers.

Some, yes, but clearly not all of them. We shouldn't be hammering them for selling drugs if that is all they are doing. I think legalization is the free market solution because it allows companies to get in on the action and get the crime side out of the equation. Chances are, the criminals that commit crimes along with drug dealing will be committing crimes still, and we can catch them on what they are actually doing.

I think we should be going after people based on what crimes they are actually doing, not things we think shouldn't be illegal but think, well it's linked to it, so let's catch them on the thing we aren't so sure should be illegal. That's my main disagreement with Scott and P.J.'s ideas.

My question is how is legalizing meth beyond the role of medicine (which is a problem and precursor to other more destructive actions where I'm from) beneficial or cocaine for that matter? That's why I'm leery of further liberalization.

The legalization of meth and cocaine, certainly, isn't exactly the most beneficial move, for sure. But what are the benefits of keeping it illegal? It remains extremely harmful, as harmful as is now, and there is still that legal gray area of dealers and users. Legalization, on it's surface, doesn't help, sure: Obviously there will be at first an increase in use. I think it's beneficial in the long term: it's safe for people who do want to use, no black markets in that field, and those who don't still don't have to do it. It's physically active, sure, but addicts no longer have to live in the dark, and whatever regulation could make it safer. Obviously, it's not the perfect scenario as my idealism on this issue seems to look at, but I think the legalization route is more beneficial than the non-legalization route.

The National Movement doesn't really care if you smoke drugs as long as it doesn't get too out of hand I guess. I don't think that the 'war on drugs' stuff has really worked, so I support legalization of drugs with regulation and taxation.

Besides, all our great politicians here sure must be smoking some good stuff which blinds them to the real problems of Atlasia, so if they can smoke that stuff, everybody else should too. This debate is another example: basically everybody is agreeing with one another, or if they're not, they don't engage with one another. What purpose does this serve? Yeah, none. Nobody is going to read some verbal diarrhea on a topic totally irrelevant to the real problems facing Atlasia. Only the Mustafinist-Komovists propose solutions to those problems.

Ending the New Jim Crow, euphemistically referred to as 'The War on Drugs', will be one of my top priorities as a Senator. We have made great strides thus far in liberalizing Atlasian law with regard to drug use, but we have not gone far enough in creating a society that emphasizes personal choice, harm reduction, and combats addiction as a public health, rather than a law enforcement, problem. The project of establishing a humane alternative to the New Jim Crow is not only a project of drug liberalization, it is a project of ending the mass incarceration society that we have tolerated and allowed to grow in our midst.

I favor the immediate legalization of Psychedelic Mushrooms and LSD for persons over the age of eighteen. I believe that these products should be regulated in the public interest, and that they prove no harm in that they are not addictive substances. They should readily be available for those who wish to partake in them, as should all 'soft drugs'. If the substance in question is not addictive, if it does not prove harmful in any way, it should not be illegal. Period.

As for harder drugs, I believe that a strategy emphasizing harm reduction is the best way to move forward. Hard drug use be strictly regulated, and I favor the establishment of drug maintenance programs, clean needle programs, and the like to make sure that we are able to wean addicts from the drugs they are addicted to while also reducing the potential harm to those persons addicted. I believe that hard drug use should be regulated through public health agencies, with doctors and nurses responsible for writing prescriptions for these products and the state moving in and taking ownership of hard drug stockpiles. No one should be able to make a profit from addiction, and that includes alcoholism or tobacco addiction. I believe that the status quo is fine as far as tobacco use is concerned, but believe that both the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry should be publicly owned. As for alcohol, I favor the abolition of the drinking age, substituting instead a legal purchase age of sixteen for wine and beer and eighteen for hard liquor. I also favor setting the age for legal Cannabis consumption at sixteen.

[Maxwell]

I agree with TJ in Wisco and Poirot that legalizing hard drugs is sending a message to teenagers that using these drugs is ok, and that worries me.

And to the argument that legalizing that it makes teenagers think drugs are okay: Don't they already know that? It seems like you are undervaluing the intelligence of our teenagers. They know that drugs are bad, they use drugs in spite, or because, of that. I don't think legalizing makes it any more appealing to the average teenager that is experimenting.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of the terms that you bring up for drug legalization, but my thinking on this is that an education campaign isn't quite as necessary and as thorough as you think it is, and here is why: I think people already know drugs are bad. I think it's plainly clear. I think what an education campaign needs to focus on is details. From there, people can solve those problems.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I addressed that in my post. I want the government to provide clean needles in dispensaries or needle sharing centers. Ideally, I want the state monopoly responsible for heroin or intravenous drugs to employ doctors that prescribe fewer needles and smaller amounts of those drugs in a drug maintenance program so that eventually we are able to wean addicts off of those drugs, period. I believe that a state monopoly on tobacco, plus a rigorous information campaign on the dangers of smoking are in order to combat lung cancer and other associated ills, but I do not favor increasing penalties upon smokers to that end. Smokers are addicts like any other and I would not favor policies that punish the addict for his or her addiction alone. I believe that we should make smoking cessation programs free of charge for those who wish to participate in them and expand the scope of our national health program to cover those kinds of products, which ideally would again be put under the control of a state monopoly.

As for lowering the consumption age for Cannabis, I figure that it will, in the long run, save us money while not being a massive problem with regard to public health. Teenagers are already smoking Cannabis as it is; why waste our resources going after them and fining them for doing so? I think a public health program is in order to encourage teens to consume Cannabis responsibly, but I do not think that restricting access to the product has worked. This will free up our police budget and allow us to focus on more pressing matters.

[PJ]

Legal controlled substances are used more than illegal ones IRL. Cigarettes are more commonly used than any illegal drug. Same with alcohol. Also I knew someone a while back who was not into politics, but thought we should legalize marijuana because, "It's not bad for you." That line of thinking exists. I am supportive of the legalization of marijuana, but I am because I believe that if we regulate it, it will be less harmful. This person believed marijuana was healthy when it was/is illegal, and was opposed to its regulation. Cigarette usage is going down, but that can be attributed to the ad campaign against tobacco plus education. Marijuana usage is going up. It may be covered in education, but not as much as tobacco, and the only ad campaigns against marijuana are those against its legalization.

I agree with TJ in Wisco and Poirot that legalizing hard drugs is sending a message to teenagers that using these drugs is ok, and that worries me.

And to the argument that legalizing that it makes teenagers think drugs are okay: Don't they already know that? It seems like you are undervaluing the intelligence of our teenagers. They know that drugs are bad, they use drugs in spite, or because, of that. I don't think legalizing makes it any more appealing to the average teenager that is experimenting.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of the terms that you bring up for drug legalization, but my thinking on this is that an education campaign isn't quite as necessary and as thorough as you think it is, and here is why: I think people already know drugs are bad. I think it's plainly clear. I think what an education campaign needs to focus on is details. From there, people can solve those problems.

[Maxwell]

Legal controlled substances are used more than illegal ones IRL. Cigarettes are more commonly used than any illegal drug. Same with alcohol. Also I knew someone a while back who was not into politics, but thought we should legalize marijuana because, "It's not bad for you." That line of thinking exists. I am supportive of the legalization of marijuana, but I am because I believe that if we regulate it, it will be less harmful. This person believed marijuana was healthy when it was/is illegal, and was opposed to its regulation. Cigarette usage is going down, but that can be attributed to the ad campaign against tobacco plus education. Marijuana usage is going up. It may be covered in education, but not as much as tobacco, and the only ad campaigns against marijuana are those against its legalization.

That's not exactly what I said. It'll get used more, at least initially, sure. But you are comparing all drugs to cigarettes and alcohol and those effects aren't necessarily the same. Also, my argument isn't necessarily stemming in marijuana, as atlas legalized marijuana a long time ago, and decriminalized basically everything else.

And while marijuana isn't completely healthy, there have been studies, and the argument can be made that it is healthier than alcohol and cigarettes. It's not necessarily the cases, but studies have shown an argument can be made. The person you are mentioning wasn't right, but I bet they also aren't the whole status quo, and the use of that one person seems to be dodging the general point I was trying to make. I think, in general, people know that drug use is harmful.

Marijuana usage is going up, partially because of legalization, but also because the truth is coming out. Drug usage commonly is attack as a whole package in an extremely dishonest way as with the whole drug war. I think we need to learn the good lesson from marijuana that we need to be smarter about the drug war and look at the facts, but what a lot of these education campaigns turn out to be is propaganda campaigns. I think honesty about effects and not just slogans about sending messages to teenagers that something something is okay is the right direction to go in.

When it comes to cocaine and heroine, two things I wish to legalize should I become Senator of Atlasia, there are a couple of things we should enact before we do so. With heroine, shops that would sell it would be required to provide clean needles and help in that area. The Government doesn't necessarily provide needles, but it must be a requirement upon the privately owned shops. Obviously, all the works and then some on the regulation side for cocaine.

I think this stems from a basic belief of mine, and that is that the government should not protect someone from their own decisions.

[PJ]

I know that alcohol and cigarettes do not have the same effects as other drugs. I was simply using IRL data to compare a legal controlled substance to an illegal one. If we look at the big picture, I am not saying that the government should protect someone from their own decisions. What I believe the government's role in this situation is to educate the public about the dangers of drugs so that they can make the right decision. And if elected to the senate, I will vote for increased funding for education about drugs. On a final note, do you know of any studies about teenagers already knowing that drugs are bad, because I have serious doubts about that.

Legal controlled substances are used more than illegal ones IRL. Cigarettes are more commonly used than any illegal drug. Same with alcohol. Also I knew someone a while back who was not into politics, but thought we should legalize marijuana because, "It's not bad for you." That line of thinking exists. I am supportive of the legalization of marijuana, but I am because I believe that if we regulate it, it will be less harmful. This person believed marijuana was healthy when it was/is illegal, and was opposed to its regulation. Cigarette usage is going down, but that can be attributed to the ad campaign against tobacco plus education. Marijuana usage is going up. It may be covered in education, but not as much as tobacco, and the only ad campaigns against marijuana are those against its legalization.

That's not exactly what I said. It'll get used more, at least initially, sure. But you are comparing all drugs to cigarettes and alcohol and those effects aren't necessarily the same. Also, my argument isn't necessarily stemming in marijuana, as atlas legalized marijuana a long time ago, and decriminalized basically everything else.

And while marijuana isn't completely healthy, there have been studies, and the argument can be made that it is healthier than alcohol and cigarettes. It's not necessarily the cases, but studies have shown an argument can be made. The person you are mentioning wasn't right, but I bet they also aren't the whole status quo, and the use of that one person seems to be dodging the general point I was trying to make. I think, in general, people know that drug use is harmful.

Marijuana usage is going up, partially because of legalization, but also because the truth is coming out. Drug usage commonly is attack as a whole package in an extremely dishonest way as with the whole drug war. I think we need to learn the good lesson from marijuana that we need to be smarter about the drug war and look at the facts, but what a lot of these education campaigns turn out to be is propaganda campaigns. I think honesty about effects and not just slogans about sending messages to teenagers that something something is okay is the right direction to go in.

When it comes to cocaine and heroine, two things I wish to legalize should I become Senator of Atlasia, there are a couple of things we should enact before we do so. With heroine, shops that would sell it would be required to provide clean needles and help in that area. The Government doesn't necessarily provide needles, but it must be a requirement upon the privately owned shops. Obviously, all the works and then some on the regulation side for cocaine.

I think this stems from a basic belief of mine, and that is that the government should not protect someone from their own decisions.

[Anna Komnene]

Like Governor Scott and Senator Yankee said, the War on drugs isn't working, and we need a new approach, including rehabilitation programs for addicts on awful drugs like cocaine and heroin.

We have to make sure we take a comprehensive approach with this legislation.  Moving away from mass incarcerations is just a teeny, tiny step in the right direction.  Unfortunately, the drug problem is systemic.  In order to truly reduce drug addiction and gang violence, we have to start trying to tackle poverty.  Education is great, but it can only go so far when so many children live in such dangerous environments in Atlasia today.

Youth community programs are a great project to support.  They provide a place for kids to go to build community instead of hanging out on the street corner.  We also need to make sure all children have access to a good education, not just people from wealthy suburban families.  The education system needs to be reformed to address inner city and rural poverty.  Strong role models are one of the most important things we can provide to children.  These can be teachers, volunteers at boys and girls clubs, tutors, coaches, and so much more.  Pretty much anyone that gets kids interacting, playing, and learning in a positive environment.

Unless we take a comprehensive approach that addresses these issues, ending drug incarcerations will just be like window dressing, but we have a real chance to make a positive impact if we remember to address poverty, education, urban development, and community as well.

[Donerail]

Atlasia's Syrian policy?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'll be honest with the voters and say that foreign policy is not my forte.  However, I believe that our government should do its best to rally for the side of human rights and peace while keeping both the Syrian government and the rebels on communicable standings with one another.

I may elaborate depending on how my colleagues respond.

[TNF]

I support humanitarian aid and help for Syrian refugees, but no military or financial aid for the parties at conflict.

[Maxwell]

My foreign policy view is simply this: unless they encroach on us, military force is none of our business. How a lot of conservatives view fiscal policy is exactly how I view a lot of foreign policy moves: unwieldy, likely to cause harm in ways that ultimately hurt more than the original problem. That's why I believe the best foreign policy is one that invades the least and trades the most. I believe this kind of blanket policy applies to the Syria situation as well.

[PJ]

I support humanitarian aid and help for Syrian refugees, but no military or financial aid for the parties at conflict.

I'll keep it simple. I agree with this.^^^^^^ Sorry to make it boring but I don't have much to say on Syria. Unless one of the candidates is willing to debate me of course.

[MadmanMotley]

My foreign policy view is simply this: unless they encroach on us, military force is none of our business. How a lot of conservatives view fiscal policy is exactly how I view a lot of foreign policy moves: unwieldy, likely to cause harm in ways that ultimately hurt more than the original problem. That's why I believe the best foreign policy is one that invades the least and trades the most. I believe this kind of blanket policy applies to the Syria situation as well.

I agree with Maxwell on this

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I find myself in agreement with many of what's being said regarding Syria. The dilemma I also see is how can we help the Christians that are fundamentally caught in the middle between a despotic madman and a rebel group who could be much worse invoking a radical form of Islamist legal thought that makes Saddam Hussein look like Ron Paul.

[Poirot]

On Syria... (looking desperately at my cards to see if my aides briefed me on this), well the most important thing is to try and stop the fighting, for the syrian population and to avoid the conflict spreading elsewhere like Lebanon. An international effort including Russia and China to get the regime and the rebels to take a break. That would give us some time to analyze the situation and  try to find the better long term solution, such as if we should secretly help the rebels. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You asked about our Syrian policy and it is interesting because when I studied the Secretary of Internal Affair's statement to the Council on Foreign Relations, I detected a reluctance on the part of the Secretary to make any statements specifically as to what that was, though he might have been referring to use of the force specifically when he made those remarks that gave me that impression. In which case, then from what I gather our policy is at present to attempt to rally international support for the people of Syria as a means to try and stop the violence, meanwhile being on guard for the use of chemical weapons. Since then we appear to have obtained evidence of their use now by the rebels and not just the regime.

In that case I think I support the general approach and would state that we need to avoid getting directly militarily involved. However, I would think that we should find a way to try and disable or remove the chemical weapons from the situation if at all possible either through intelligence operations or some kind of sabotage. The situation there is a Civil War, and we would be wise to avoid getting drawn into such a situation if at all possible. One of the biggest problems, and the likely use of chemical weapons is that we have a situation where some of the rebels may be worse then the regime, or the very least just as bad. If we were to try and stand up a certain group amongst the rebels we would have to do so carefully so as to avoid supporting those unsavory elements and possibly contributing to the establishment of a terrorist regime in the country, which can then be used as a bad to launch attacks on Iraq, Israel, or Turkey. We must be careful to keep our eyes on the situation as well, for if the use of Chemcial Weapons were to become a threat to Turkey, then we might see them picking a side and interveening in the situation, hence why we should look at possibly neutralizing these weapons if such is possible.

We seem to be unable to curry a unanimous opinion in the International Community on these matters and therefore I must state that we have to re-examine why this is and seek to apply more effective pressure towards that ends to get countries like Russia and China to cooperate. I don't pretend to be a diplomatic expert on these matters, but if the present actions aren't working then we need to try a different approach towards achieving the same kind of cooperation. Failure to achieve a consensus means that the chance of us or someone else interveening militarily increases and considering the situation, we would do well to avoid that and try everything else possible.

[Donerail]

How would you work in the Senate to improve Atlasian infrastructure?

[Maxwell]

There is a basic sacrifice that must be made in times of crisis like this. While I am not a fan of deficits, I want them as low as possible if null, there is a certain time for running a deficit. In a time of economic calamity, this is the time. I think one way to do so, as most economists would agree, is spending from a Government. I plan on introducing a Repair our Roads bill in the Midwest Althing to evaluate our Roads spending and increase it accordingly. Being from Oklahoma, a place were infrastructure is improving but still shoddy, we need basic improvements if we are going to attract businesses to our region.

The difference between the situation in the main Government in the strange world called the U.S. and the world we call the Midwest is that the U.S. Government is running huge deficits that, while decreasing, are still showing levels that are hard to not wince at. In the Midwest, we just ran a small surplus in the last budget, and if we just run a small deficit in the next one and have a much lower unemployment rate because of that, I view it as a success, not a loss.

That being said, I think infrastructure is something that the regions are handling well on their own and I believe that this is something that a solution could be come up with on a region by region basis. That being said, I don't think it's impossible for a federal government to help, providing something of a block grant for regions to find their own solutions to whatever infrastructure problems they may have.