Wisp

Killed today? Damn.

What makes alcohol special? It's a drug, just like any other mind altering substance. And not even a safe one, comparatively.

The same point as anything that's pretty much purely for fun. Some drugs give people useful effects (see: caffeine), some can help people figure out more about themselves (hallucinogens), stress relief, and so on. I'm not saying they're good necessarily, but just trying to give a few "points" of them.

The reason people drink is because it can be a lot of fun. You're exaggerating the bad parts by not mentioning any good parts. Yea, you can do stupid things, forget stuff, and do things you'll regret, but that's why drinking in moderation, or actually knowing your own limits is key. I've never gotten hungover myself, but that'll probably come later in life. Drinking can lead to stupid things, no doubt, but it has it's upsides. Keep in mind, I'm talking about getting full on drunk. People who go to parties "to get wasted" is what I'm targeting here. I've gotten tipsy before and I had a great time - I'm not denying the usefulness of alcohol, but the far extreme that the term "drinking" is paired with. And thanks for the tip, I'll look into it. Oh, fair enough. Yeah, I rarely drink, and when I do I usually only have a few beers or shots, but I dislike going out and having far too much. Just noticed you're in California. Well, you have it really easy in terms of getting a license, consider yourself lucky. at above: People don't generally smoke a pack and a half a week if they're smokers, a lot will go through that in a day. Tobacco, again, when you count in medical costs over a lifetime is 220,000$

A smoking habit costs several hundred thousand dollars over a lifetime. I don't think alcohol comes near that. Though, medical expenses from alcohol could come close to those of smoking, though it's much less common since it's a lot more difficult to heavily abuse alcohol than tobacco.

Marijuana has a low potential for abuse compared to both major legal drugs, and almost all illegal drugs. It's only a gateway drug because it's a illegal, you're only likely to get introduced to harder drugs your dealer might have. Tolerance for weed is highly exaggerated. You will never get to the point where you will not get effects from smoking, it'll just take a bit more than at the start, and taking a few week break will reduce that to zero. Acid arguably has a chance of flashbacks a few days after taking it, but I think it's minimal, and shrooms are pretty much harmless. Meth is rarely made from pills, it's made from over the counter ingredients. Pills can already be sold (they're already amphetamines, huge market for those as it is), but we are over-prescribing amphetamines as it is, but that's another problem altogether.

The reason people drink is because it can be a lot of fun. You're exaggerating the bad parts by not mentioning any good parts. Yea, you can do stupid things, forget stuff, and do things you'll regret, but that's why drinking in moderation, or actually knowing your own limits is key. I've never gotten hungover myself, but that'll probably come later in life. Drinking can lead to stupid things, no doubt, but it has it's upsides. Google mmj in your state, and that'll set you on the right path to finding the steps to get a license. I don't know if it's that great a help for headaches, though. And at above poster, alcohol is pretty [cabbage]ty for your body. Weed will never kill you directly. But yeah, moderation is key in all substances.

I've done quite a few substances, and I respect anyone who chooses not to. There are a handful of illegal drugs that are much less harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, as most people know, and the reasons many of them are illegal are questionable. I have had a friend destroyed by heroin addiction, and they may not ever recover from it, I don't know. But, I also know a few people who have done "hard" drugs, and do them on occasion without letting them consume them, and I feel like that is their choice, and they know the risks they are putting themselves in, but I don't think anyone should have the right to tell them otherwise. I myself choose to stay away from the three common hard drugs, coke, heroin, and meth, and of course random less common drugs like PCP, but that is my choice, and does not have much to do with the legality of the drugs. I personally won't touch cigarettes. Tobacco is the most deadly drug of all, (I don't mean when compared directly to say, Heroin, in terms of how easy it is to overdose) killing over 4 million a year, if I remember right. I see no reason for tobacco to be legal, when drugs like cannabis, mushrooms, ecstasy, and so on are illegal. In my opinion, the War on Drugs is probably one of the most ineffective, pointless, and terrible policy the US government has, it has caused literally nothing good. I think that a much more effective way to deal with drug problems is proper education into the risks and drawbacks of drug use, but factual information, rather than scare tactics and threat of massive sentences.

Anyhow, with the last of our budget, we fund another two habitats.

I think my boyfriend of almost 2 years and I are going to break up permanently... It's gonna be a tough few months if that happens, I have such a tough time getting over people..

If the Cartel are using weapons and ammunition illegally bought from shops in which the ATF authorized illegal sales, then yes, the blood is on the ATF's hands. There is no way that the blame can be placed, or for that matter, reduced by any degree, anywhere else but on the ATF. Oh, I dunno, how about placing the blame on the killers? This. Off topic a bit, but I was watching CNN last night, and they kept blaming the pastor who burnt the Koran for the attack on the UN compound, as if he did it himself. Not sure where you're getting the 10k for an AK in the states though. Depending on the state, you can get a Eastern European one for less than 1k legally. Authentic Russian ones may run you a bit more, but they aren't that expensive. AKs are really expensive in North America due to high smuggling costs and really stiff penalties (both in Mexico and the US) so $10k is about right. Anywhere east of Poland, you can buy AKs for around hundred bucks, same as in North Eastern Africa and The Middle East. And as long as they aren't made in South East Asia or South America, an AK is an AK so don't bother paying for one that is Russian made. I'm talking about a legal full auto ak-47, so a pre-ban registered one. Black market is undoubtedly cheaper, but a gun store wouldn't be selling those. http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/ak47?set=30&sz=800x600 http://www.gunsamerica.com/946126068/Guns-For-Sale/Gun-Auctions/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/Class-3-Subguns/AK47.htm http://www.gunsamerica.com/985720344/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/Class-3-Subguns/POLY_TECH_AK47.htm http://www.gunsamerica.com/959157130/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/Class-3-Subguns/Polytech_full_stock_AK47.htm ^examples.

Expand your interest elsewhere. Make peace with them. Become less radical in your expansionism. I dunno.

If the Cartel are using weapons and ammunition illegally bought from shops in which the ATF authorized illegal sales, then yes, the blood is on the ATF's hands. There is no way that the blame can be placed, or for that matter, reduced by any degree, anywhere else but on the ATF. Oh, I dunno, how about placing the blame on the killers?

Could always just have your country sit around researching and growing, and then if you feel like playing you can.

Come on Retech, stay in the game. Just adjust your goals, focus on improving your country and whatnot.

Should there be any attack on a European country or player, we will attack them with full force. As will Germany, I believe, and probably a few EU npc's. These are hazardous times. Don't risk a World War over something trivial.

Huge over exaggeration. The murders mostly likely would still have happened regardless of the ATF. Oh? You've worked with the Cartel and are aware their armory included .50 BMG ammunition that can cut through an armored personnel carrier before this incident? At least I should hope you're not going by Hollywood movies. Even if they could obtain them otherwise, and in this case got them much easier, justifying allowing such armaments to walk with an organization responsible for horrific massacres in Mexico and all along the border of the U.S. is at best, disturbing. .50bmg isn't some magical ammunition available only to the military and the sacred war gods. I could go to a store, having recently turned 18, and buy some. It's no more regulated in most states than .22 ammunition, and while I don't know exactly how easy it is to get in other countries, they wouldn't have a hard time obtaining it if they needed. And I highly doubt that any of the people who were killed were driving around in an APC. A bullet's a bullet. If your shot in the head or in a vital area by a 9mm, you're just as dead as being hit by a .50 BMG. A look at some of the gun stashes confiscated by various agencies from Mexican cartels prior to this incident would show that they really can get whatever guns they want. People need to stop making .50 BMG as some rare, highly difficult to find magical bullet, it's not even that great for crime compared to other rounds, since it makes a huge noise, you have to carry around a 30lb rifle, and the rifle costs close to 10 grand for a good one. News articles like to make a big deal about .50 BMG ammo, and even if only one or two rifles in that caliber were sold they would base most of their argument around it. In the same way the said "AK-47"s were bought, when I would bet the farm that they were just semi auto rifles, since a fully auto Ak-47 in the US will cost you 50x what you could get if for on the black market. I know, again, it's a US website, but still. http://50bmgsupply.com/ammo.shtml You can buy some armor piercing incendiary .50BMG rounds online. I think a mexican drug cartel can manage to find them without the ATF's help. I am not denying that the ATF messed up, and made stupid choices, but these Cartels would have obtained guns by other means. Blaming the ATF for these deaths directly is a stretch.

Spain eases off of the drills, though advices the people to keep alert, and ready. Spain apologizes for any deaths caused in the raids, though there is a large amount of uncertainty about the events. We will provide the funding in the event that all of our intelligence from multiple sources was incorrect. We had legitimate reason to believe that there was a nuclear threat from the United States on Europe, and we do not take threats like these lightly. We ask for a Russian and Swiss joint investigation, with spanish inspectors aswell, as they seem pretty neutral. We request that they have unrestricted access to all bomb sites.

Huge over exaggeration. The murders mostly likely would still have happened regardless of the ATF.

Wait, what's going on?

Well, I guess if this turns into war, and there is any attack on a EU country, Spain will probably do something. Now that's a firm stance on war.

Eh, doesn't really matter. Just nitpicking.

Let's say you have achieved +20% efficiency with this, up 50% from reality, that means you'd need to put out the equivalent of 15 billion barrels of oil a year to power your country, not to mention the extra needed to convert to hydrogen, or to export more. And if you had the capacity to produce the equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil a day (which is what you'd need), why do you even bother turning it into hydrogen? It's a waste of energy. Either way, you have 2 farms producing the equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil, in biofuel. This includes what goes back into making more biofuel, which is a significant chunk. Even if you had an essentially impossible 80% efficiency, you'd still need to be producing over 10 million barrels of oil equivalent a day from those 2 farms.

I know Icu, but I'm asking how are you producing about 150-200% of the energy in your country you were, while also removing fossil fuels. Biofuel does not have a large net gain. In real life, currently we lose about 30% of the energy that we put into biofuel, so even with improvements biofuel wouldn't get you too much net energy. There's simply not enough land in Germany to produce enough biofuel to power 80-150% of what your country used in 2010. Plus those countries will have no way of creating enough energy to produce their own hydrogen, without relying completely on fossil fuels to produce that energy, negating the point.

Icu, just wondering where you're getting all the energy to produce all this excess hydrogen? I understand you have biofuel or whatever but hydrogen does take a lot of energy to create, so if you're exporting large amounts you need to have a large excess of energy, atleast 200+% of the energy you had before converting to hydrogen. 16.1% of germany's energy was provided by renewables, and they had plans to stop using all nuclear power. So, I assume you replaced oil, but that means your biofuels would have to fill about a 70-80% gap in energy, plus another 100+% to be exporting all this excess hydrogen. Biofuels also take a large amount of energy to make in fertilizers, and you only get even with new technology I'm guessing a return of 120% of the energy you put in (so 20% gained). So I really don't see where your getting this energy.