http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60545&page=2 first read that Ok well the political angle is this: can people who make laws for our society act apon their oppinions if their oppinions are based on superficial observations? drugs are just an example, other examples perhaps would be making judgement on religious issues, on ethnic conflicts, on anything that affects a situation that the politician has no actual knowlege of. dont you think politicians should require more real-comrehension of the things they pass judgement apon? politicians that have stains in their names (and dont have powerful parents) often have hard times, and its the nicer, cleaner politicians that usually have upper hands. For example, shouldnt it be a requirement of service in combat for a politician to be allowed to start a war or send any military order? and if anyone brings it up, just remember that you can never remove all bias from humans. sorry if this is a common issue discussed on this forum, i dont come here much
LOL to all the above. Well in theory in a democracy such as the US the politicians are there as an extension of the people. In theory the people vote them based upon their own knowledge. In theory, the politician is to reflect the will of the people. So, in theory they would rely upon the experience and knowledge of their constituents rather than their own personal opinions. Theory is nice ain't it? Because in that theory we wouldn't have a drug war, we wouldn't be facing a health care crisis, we'd have school supplies instead of bombs, the list goes on .... my.02