That's easy. Whenever the media need a new hype or pharma corporations need to get rid of stockpiled old antidote.

I think it would be far more sensible to ensure that more interesting and less damaging alternatives are legal. If there's legal heroin from a stable and clean production, there's no need for desomorphine made in less than optimal circumstances with more toxic junk than active substance in the mix.

Pretty much any "horrible" drug has a less dangerous and sometimes even better working alternative, with the "horrible" version only having a market because the cleaner version is either not available or more expensive, and both of these conditions are rather due to their legal status than the actual production cost or possible supply of precursor materials.

Most voters are idiots. Easily swayed by the fear of the unknown and a rather diffuse urge to "protect their children", of anything and nothing. Control their children would be more apt, in most cases, but I don't even want to go there.

People are afraid of change in their life, and they are afraid of things (and people) they do not know. The more conservative and the less contact wanted with "the others", the more fear.

Alcohol was something they knew. And they knew that it ain't bad. They even had a drink or two themselves and did they die from it? No. Of course not. Did they go insane? No, again, of course not. And so the support for the ban was very low outside the overzealous self-proclaimed warriors of moral. It was even "cool" to break that law.

Not just among teenagers.

As you correctly identified, the main reason for the fear of drugs (and yes, I mean fear, it's not just rejection, it is fear) is that drugs are "the unknown", and that we've been told time and again that drugs are bad, bad, bad things. It doesn't have to be as hilarious as "Reefer Madness", but we've all had our share of "drug awareness".

Do you think it's a coincidence that the discussion of the legalization of Marijuana happens now that the "generation of love", the Hippies, are about to reach the age that just so happens to be about the age most top level politicians are in? The generation of politicians that is now in power is the same generation that smoked pot heavily during their teen years, and they learned that it's not really as their parents taught them, that it's not leading to the fall of humanity and civilization.

In other words, we'll probably see the legalization of Ecstacy around 2030.

I used to think that way, but I don't think anymore that this would be a good idea. There are certain drugs that are illegal for a damn good reason. That shit IS deadly. Not because it's cut, not because it's made in a less than perfect process, but because the shit simply is dangerous. Crack being one, and Croc sure being the latest addition to the fold of the horrible few.

Seriously, compared to that shit, heroin is a safe and sane drug. Which isn't so far from truth, though I'd not consider pumping that stuff directly into your veins a sensible idea. It is a very good pain killer, though.

Drugs, like any recreation activity, should be done responsibly and with care. In moderation and with the relevant safety procedures in place. I would at the very least recommend informing people about this. In a sane and sensible way, away from the current scare craze that serves nothing but leading to a "cry wolf" situation where people don't believe any kind of warning you may have for them. Because there IS very nasty shit out there that you should certainly avoid, and that you can easily avoid if more potent and less dangerous drugs (yes, that combination is very possible) are available cheaply.

Alcohol is a far more "acceptable" drug than, say, pot. Because it has a negative side effect. You get a hangover. So you "pay" for having a buzz. With pot, this ain't the case.

Huh? What are you talking about, it's working great! We can incarcerate people and use them for forced labour, serving as a money maker for the prison complex and cheap labor too. We protect the interests of pharma corporations who'd have to compete with drugs that actually DO work against various ailments, maybe even cure them instead of treating them (which is a serious dent in the profit, it's far more profitable to treat than to cure) but have expired patents and could be pumped out cheaply, or even be produced fairly easily in DIY processes. And we protect the interests of alcohol and tobacco corporations who'd have to compete with less dangerous, cheaper and more satisfying recreational drugs.

What's not to like?

Its not possible to stop murder. So we should get rid of the laws against it, why bother if it's not possible?

Just because perfection can't be achieved doesn't mean something isn't worth doing.

I've just recently seen what the web is like without adblockers. Trust me. Suffering IS the appropriate term!

How many companies make Ram, Storage? How much does Ram and Storage cost? Compared to earlier?
How many companies make CPUs and GPUs? How much do they cost? Compared to earlier?
How many companies make operating systems (suitable for average desktop work)? How much do they cost? Compared to earlier?

Well, looking back in our history as a species, it seems to be eventually the only thing that eventually leads to change. Anything else has been tried and failed.

But don't start it too early. First, you need the army on your side. Without, using force is decidedly not a good idea, if history is any indicator.

If you can teach me to play the guitar (and trust me on this one, I've tried EVERYTHING), I'll believe you.

For the better part of the past 5 years I've been trying to learn this instrument. And I don't mean "pick it up every once in a while", I mean learn. Daily. Mostly because I'm not the kind of person that gives something up when I really, and I mean REALLY, want it.

But slowly I think I have to admit defeat. My fingers just don't want to stretch across bars. It takes me half an eternity to put my fingers down on the strings in such a way that they actually "ring". And we better not start with bar chords.

Until I insisted in learning to play the guitar, I would have believed you. Because I eventually learned to do anything. But this seems to be my limit.

You're forgetting who you're dealing with: MBAs. From the old "the knave thinks others are like him" they extrapolate that if anyone can learn what's necessary to push pencils and fill Excel sheets, anyone can learn anything.

Yes, and when did that start? Before or after Intel finally had a competitor for the CPU market (well, one where the CPUs weren't just kinda-sorta-pretty-much-but-not-quite compatible)?

Name ONE SINGLE instance where you can't immediately trace it to stiff competition. Ram and storage are both dirt cheap, due to a lot of suppliers. Even SSDs are rather cheap, despite being the latest and greatest development in the area. In the CPU market you only have two suppliers, and you will notice that the prices reflect that. GPUs you have nVidia as the leader with ATI doing its best to keep up, and the prices show it.

But maybe you could explain to me the price development of de-facto standard software in various areas. You might notice that these prices actually went up with time rather than down. And that there is more often than not no sensible competitor in sight. Or who'd you suggest is a viable competitor to Adobe (be it Acrobat, Flash or Photoshop)?

But everyone and their dog is already rushing for BA degrees. How many more miscreants do you need?

I think it's time we teach our kids valuable skills they'll need in the future. How to hold and use a rifle. How to tie a hangman's knot. How to spot a manager trying to blend into the crowd...