Please teach me about the chinese welfare.

From a french point of view, the far right is mostly gaining ground in the medias, people tend to support the high school kids. Also, we are used that important movements of protest be surrounded by black blocks, police disguised into rioter to rise violence, and thiefs coming to still easy targets. Some real manifestants have been extremly violent on some police officer, but exceptionally.

Some of the most dangerous amunition of riot police has been changed for a bit less dangerous ones... not a big victory yet. Parents tend to take side with their kids, teachers too, and a large part of those having younger kids. Those turning to far right were just waiting for an excuse to do so, the good news is that kids know how to fight (they will need it again soon).

"The Jews" aren't related to the eviction of the first ministers. They were choosen by the president despite not having a majority at parlement, and they have choosen to force their view despite being in minority. It is a choice of the president to make parlement weak and to deny democratie. The president not being jew, it is not the jews.

From where do you get this informations and numbers?

Black market suffer too much after loosing hand on canabis?

Which prohibition has ever been good for health?

Has it been set illegal to disobey "multiple commands" of a privately owned robot?

I just wished to drop here a novel from old times...

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Portrait

I live in France, in a working class/poor side of town. During last riots (2023), some shops got looted and burnt, some only looted (and some fully spared). They were not multinationals, just local shops. All of them got rebuilt and renewed, or reimboursed of the stolen goods. None has closed. I care about them, they are the shops where I buy things.

I may check what international news say in their analysis ; but understand that it is not that easy to believe this time will be very different from the previous one, while the previous one was already as the one before it.

And no, violence toward humans isn't the same as stealing from a shop, nor violence against goods. Should some hurt, even lightly, a shopowner, it would be a big thing in my opinion. Violences against material things aren't that important, some may not be smart nor usefull ; some can be helpful for the cause.

Also, keep in mind that since at least 15 years, in France, the gouvernment won't try to listen the people if there are no huge damages. So you may hate it, but that has became a rule. When a pacific dialog was possible, there were no riots here, just peaceful manifestations.

Education and freedom, yes!

But please don't push, making addicts guilty doesn't help health issues.

Once more, only insurances lost some money. Shopowners will be fine. Their shop will be renewed with insurance money. It is not the first time such happens, last was about a year ago...

Which shop hasn't been covered by insurance after Nahel's death?

Second hand smoke is a thing, and it is dangerous for health... so are pollutions from cars, and most production of electricity... but other things as well. Banning everything isn't a good way.

Education and health campaign are a good way to make people willing to protect themselves and others ; or at least less of a charge on others.

Those who pay attention to depollution systems on their car pollute less, and those who pay attention to where their second hand smoke goes aren't much of a danger. And when a majority makes efforts for the comon good, those who don't make efforts are seen socially wrong. A bit as someone who doesn't shower more than once a year: it is not illegal, but the way they are seen is a social cost. And you may notice fewer people go for never washing themselves than for smoking. In my opinion, because there is nothing "cool" at never washing self. Smoking give a shady vibe, a bit gangster, a bit "cool". Treat it as a pure health problem, and it will become a sickness (and it is not "cool" to be sick).

Cancer is an health issue. Without health consequences at all, smoking would not be a problem.

I don't see how moral could be related to smoking...

I strongly disagree.

Driving involves other people in your car and around you. And the public power should be used to protect them if you represent a threat toward them.

If you drive on some private road or circuit, you may drive how you please (according to the private rules). And this freedom is important.

The barrier you want to put on smokers life are abusive, in my opinion, not only as it restricts liberties, but mostly because it comes with criminalization of smoking. If it is a crime or a shame, people are most likely to hide it, do it worse, and make it cause more harms. And it also make it harder to help those who want to stop.

The thing to address seem simple in theory: copy a model that works fine. It may mean to change some rules, and it may have an impact on the american way of life.

Also, neighbours such as Mexico, and far more Canada do far better on that point. So there should be a way to do better without even push too hard... But it would be very impressive if USA could find a way working really well.

Should one of the main aim of the war to feed weapons makers with public money (and avoid to let public money available for social welfare) it would be totally logical to prevent the war ends too fast.

Nor her appearance, nor her party membership, nor even if she was the one worse human would justify that police kills her 1 year old kid.