Alcohol is likely to induce the false self-confidence you speak of, whereas marijuana (and psychedelics) induce a sense of humility, which is one of the reasons for its use in religious groups like the Rastafari.
If your only experience with psychoactive chemicals has been alcohol, and your only 'research' into marijuana has been the spoon-fed government propaganda, I could see your generalization being an easy trap to fall into. Although you can't force life experiences on someone, my advice would be to at least look at what the scientific literature has to say regarding marijuana.

Frankly I think it's a matter of more people now have actually tried it, and the old hardheads are drying out. The Time magazine poll from 1969 put the *lifetime* use of cannabis among the US population at somewhere in the low single-digit percentage - I want to say around 2% but I'm sure you can look it up if you need the exact number. It definitely shocked me. This was already many years into the hippie movement, so weed was firmly embedding itself into the pop-culture mythology, but how many people who weren't hippies had used it? Very few - only the most open-minded.
Lifetime-use numbers did skyrocket through the following decades, reaching near to 50% by 2000. But politically it was/is still a very loaded issue. It's something that's easy to ignore and maintain the status quo, but political suicide to suggest to change, until it becomes such a *big* issue that the number people who know someone who's been fucked by prohibition gets to be bigger than the number of self-righteous assholes who won't listen. Gallup literally did a double-take in 2012 or 2013 when their polls showed, for the first time, that over 50% of the US favored legalization. They had to run the poll a second time. With stats like these rolling in, the political trepidation around this topic will begin to dissolve in short order. I think we've now reached the tipping point, just 40 years later than everyone thought. Presidents and governors now admit that they've smoked pot.

Revolutions happen from the bottom up, not the other way around.

On the other hand, I know of someone who went to Vegas specifically *to* commit suicide.

Windows changes a lot of its behavior as soon as you change that radio button from "Workgroup" to "Domain". Before you even get to the log in prompt, Windows has to connect to a domain controller to download Group Policy settings and the like. Having to run login credentials through a DC and load config from it as well will add at least a slight amount of lag - possibly a lot, depending on how responsive the network and the DC are. Then, there's the matter of which Group Policy settings the admins have chosen, many of those can slow down the computer on their own.

If IT "had their way" with it, they might have also loaded it up with antivirus or some other bloatware.

^ This guy's right, I was thinking Elder Scrolls. Not necessarily Skyrim, since that's the most watered down game in the series. (I thought Oblivion was a step backwards when it came out, but Skyrim came and showed me how consolization is REALLY done.)

1 cup = 8 fl. oz.
Similarly to how a "foot" may be either a unit of measure of a body part.

Hell, US cars have both on the speedometer. (In my location near an airport we even have MPH and KPH both on the road signs). If the UK cars don't, that would be a laugh, and something I need to remember to pull out when the smug British metric fetishists come out of the woodwork.

I think the GP's prediction of "utter chaos" is a bit off, though. The good drivers don't need to rely on speed limit signs to gauge the proper speed, and the bad drivers don't pay attention to the speed limit anyway. I think you'd see little difference.

Hail of bullets indeed... it's telling that one of the only types of gun that have been nationally restricted are automatic weapons. Despite the fact it's commonly called the "Assault weapons ban", that's about as laughable as the name "Patriot act". Although there are sometimes full-auto weapons used in military assaults, the majority of US Army soldiers only carry single and burst-fire rifles (excepting special forces). Full-auto weapons haven't been standard issue since early-Vietnam when it was realized full-auto is just a waste of ammunition in most combat scenarios.
However, where automatic weapons do shine is in defensive positions, particularly belt-fed and mountable weapons like the M249. And any potential militia will probably be doing lots more defending than attacking. Look at the closest organizations we've had to independent militia, like those guys in Waco, and how that played out. They were on the defensive. So it makes sense for the US to restrict access to any defensive weapons that are effective against more than a lone mugger.
Another thing to consider is that these days you need more than just guns to wage war. At a minimum you need anti-aircraft missiles and RPGs big enough to take out armored transports (or better)... Not to mention a whole bunch of stuff that isn't weapons, but is still restricted for military use.
(IANASoldier but I know several active duty and retired.)

I can't speak on the first or third claims (nor can I recall ever hearing them) but I was recently researching various solvents for a particular application, some of which were CFCs, so I do have some information regarding those-
Although the Montreal Protocol limiting CFC use began to come into force in 1989, it is implemented gradually, and the last of the provisions won't come into effect until 2030. Then you have the fact that decades of damage will take decades of recovery; the recovery is estimated to be complete around 2050-2070. You're about half a century too early to start talking about "proven lies". Despite the timetable involved, as of 2010 the ozone layer had already began a measurable recovery.
Wikipedia is a good place to start researching these issues, particularly the article on the Montreal Protocol contains citations to primary sources on all the facts I have mentioned here. If the other two claims you take issue with aren't strawmen, I imagine you can find more information on those as well.

I wouldn't downplay how astounding the sight of Europeans was. There was at least 1 large, well-organized native civilization (Aztec I believe) that did in fact take the Europeans to be gods upon landing. The inhuman color of their skin, hair, manner of speaking, riding on hitherto unknown animals, bearing exotic armor and frighteningly powerful weapons, and yes, the immense ship traveling at unbelievable speed seemingly by magic (no oars!)...
If I'm remembering history class correctly, the perception of the Europeans as gods didn't last very long, though. Within some number of days or weeks it came down to killing eachother, at least on that particular expedition. One of the Spanish ones.

There have been a number of Slashdot articles about the discovery of the elemental properties of exoplanets within the past few years, so it seems we have had the technology for at least that long. IIRC these calculations are made based on the spectrum of radiation coming from those planets - essentially a mass spectrometer in telescope form. Of course, the measurements from current instruments will only tell you the broad chemical composition of a planet, not whether there is any life present.

When you say "We'll be lucky to survive First Contact at all.", this makes a hidden assumption that the aliens would either have warlike tendencies, or some other cause to destroy humanity. Perhaps you can elaborate on that.
To continue with your termite analogy, that implies humanity would be somehow bothersome to the aliens. I think it's just as likely for us to be butterflies to the aliens - inconsequential at worst, maybe something of mild interest or beauty to be studied if there's nothing else to do.

I don't have a citation to support that most Christians take this view, but I can confirm having heard these sentiments in every instance when this topic has been brought up among Christians, whether in casual conversation or a more serious theological discussion like you'd get in Sunday school.

As something of a citation - I just finished reading the book "Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch", by Philip K. Dick, a sci-fi author who sometimes incorporated elements of theology. It was written in 1964 when the societal shift away from religion started accelerating, and aliens were establishing a prominent place in popular culture. In the novel, alien contact has been made, but is not commonplace. Of the people who are still "Neo-Christians" the view is split between: (a) The aliens are God, (b) The aliens are nonhuman creations of God, something akin to spirits, angels, or long-lost brothers of humanity.

There really aren't any alternatives for reconciling Christianity with extraterrestrial life. Although I have heard some theologians toying with idea A, idea B seems a lot more palatable to the average Christian since it's the more conservative position. It also lets the Christian give an answer to "But why don't the aliens worship God?" as "They are misguided heathens." This is the same position that was taken when Europeans discovered the New World full of strange-looking nonchristians.

We would see the same scenario play out if we make contact with aliens. Or molemen who live in the Earth's core. The average Christian doesn't think much about this topic now since that means challenging their assumptions, so it's a question largely ignored, except by the more theologically inclined. Those invariably arrive at conclusions A or B.

As a Breton I fully support the furthering of our national units to promote unity in these divisive times.

Nothing from the 50s is in the public domain. Record companies are still making money re-releasing compilations of Patsy Cline... not to mention their cuts from licensing, like the soundtracks to Fallout New Vegas and LA Noire (those go back to the 1940s and 30s) and the recent Dell commercial that used The Chordettes' "Lollipop", or that recent hyped game that used "Mr. Sandman" in the trailer. Each appearance like this contributes at least six figures to a record label's income that year - and they are innumerable. Occasionally you also have big re-issues like the "Elv1s" compilation and the Beatles' full back catalog reissue in '09 that bring in millions. The record companies make major money for near zero effort on this, and they won't let it slip easily, hence the progressive extension of copyright from 14 years to... whatever it is now, I think 80 years after the death of the author.