Heroin was "invented" in the late 1800s as a less addictive alternative to morphine. By 1920 it was strictly regulated as a response to the 200,000 heroin addicts in the US. As such, heroin was readily available for maybe 50 years in the US and it was indeed addictive, which is what caused congress to act with the Dangerous Drug Act.

Addiction is not a biochemical disorder. It is a biochemical process. Opiates, by their very nature, trigger responses in the brain that lead to addiction. It does not matter that some people can become addicted more readily than others. Heroin was an attempt to alter the physical property of morphine to make it less addictive. It worked, heroin IS less addictive than morphine, but it is still easy to become addicted to it. This is not because of a biochemical disorder in the brain, but because of the very way our brains work.

Except that many things are addictive without a genetic predisposition. So even if all of the people with some sort of addiction never bred again, there would still be addictions. Most addictions do not have a genetic trait as much as we want to be able to say it's not our fault.

There are approximately 254.4M registered vehicles in the US and of those about 6M are in an accident each year. That equates to 2.4% of the registered vehicles are in some sort of accident. From the AP report, 4 out of 48 autonomous vehicles were in an accident which equates to 8.3%. Based on the information presented, autonomous vehicles are 3.5 times more likely to be in an accident than non-autonomous ones.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. -- unknown, but known not to be Mark Twain

No, it won't. Regardless of whether somebody addicted to porn or video passes on their genes, future young men can still develop the addiction. One's parents don't have to use heroin for their offspring to develop an addiction to it.

Cars, in locales that have emission testing, are only required to meet the emission requirements in place for the year manufactured. This is a good thing, because otherwise, emission standards could be tightened and everybody would be forced to buy a new car. Since older cars have a finite life, the problem of poorly running old cars will eventually resolve itself. When that occurs, the studies will show that overpowered high horse-powered cars and SUVs are the major polluters. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a desire to limit those.

Up next on the news US Congress votes that pollution from cars is not a man made phenomenon, but part of a natural cycle..

Cash for clunkers wasn't about pollution. It was about bailing out auto companies. Both initially by the government subsidizing the purchase and later by removing late model vehicles from the used car market causing used cars to increase in price to a point where new cars were seen as an attractive option.

Ironically, the upper middle class would have purchased new vehicles anyway, but the lower middle class and the poor were priced out of the "good" used car market and had to stick with what they had or replace it with somebody else's clunker.

Cash for clunkers is a prime example of unintended consequences of a government program when quick fixes are implemented without looking at the long term effect.

Actually, capitalism is blind to age, it is about supply and demand. On the other hand the actual managers involved in the decisions have their own bias and prejudice. Capitalism may cause many problems, but ageism isn't one of them.

If you can afford tuition of $28,750/yr for elementary school, then you don't need a charity to subsidize the cost for you. This is nothing more than the 1% helping the other 1%. The promise of trickle down is merely a teaser for the other 99%.

Condemning 1.6B Muslims, because they can't reign in a some violent Muslims seems a bit extreme. In the US, it is innocent until proven guilty. Go after the extremists, no problem, but leave the innocent alone.

Nobody said that Muslims should get special treatment, but then again, it sounds like that is what you are proposing. We don't single out all Christians because Timothy McVey was one or the Westboro Baptist Church are. So, why should we single out all Muslims because of the actions of a few? If if there were a million Muslims who were extremists, that is .06% of the estimated total Muslim population in the world.

As for other religious groups shooting or killing others because of religious mockery, one only has to go back a few decades to Ireland or Croatia to see exactly that. As for atheists doing so, one only has to look at China and the former Soviet Union.

Should we condemn all Chinese because of the actions of small percentage? No, of course not. So, why should we condemn all Muslims for the actions of a small percentage? It seems like doing so is the very different treatment you are complaining about.

There are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many in countries that that value free speech. Maybe what you meant to say was that terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qeda are incompatible with a society based on free speech. Of course that ignores the PM who wants to ban the Quran, so maybe society is not really based on free speech but acceptable speech, instead. Of course, then who is to decide what is acceptable or not?

However, it is no more accurate to use ISIS as the definition of Islam than it is to use Quakers as the definition of Christianity.

As for poking them to show who loves freedom and who does not, that sounds more like bullying versus exercising freedom.

I was taught that a wounded animal is more dangerous than one that is not. There are people who are greatly offended (wounded) by the mockery of their strongly held beliefs. Why keep poking them with a stick and acting surprised when they strike back?

Of course, even poked, that doesn't make their reaction acceptable (shootings), but then again, shooting somebody for their shoes or purse or wallet or color of their skin or what they believe in, etc. is hardly acceptable, either. Those acts of violence occur all the time and at a far greater statistical rate than over the this. It's just that the media doesn't fixate on them.

Just like not all cops are bad because some are, neither are all . Banning the Quran, as the PM wants to do is not the answer. A book is not the cause of this problem. If people in his country or here are being induced to do violence because of it, then something else is wrong and unless you figure out what that is, you can't solve the problem.

If you want peace, work for justice.

Instead of trying to predict riots, wouldn't it be better to prevent them in the first place? Putting effort into righting the injustices that cause the riot would be the best thing for everybody.

Pope John XXIII said "If you want peace, work for justice." Seems to be some wisdom there.

Well, the creationist is making his decision of what to do about climate change out of ignorance. The other is consciously putting financial gain over the common good.