It might cause a few deaths but it also sustains the multi billion dollar prison industry and employs well over 1 million people in the US alone

None of those jobs help the economy. Why should people be employed in occupations that have no benefit to society whatever and are in fact detrimental to society?

The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.

Colorado's pot legalization and the multi-billion dollar alcohol industry shows that governments profit a lot more from legal, regulated drugs than outlawing them.

I've known drug addicts, and the WHO is also right about compulsory addiction treatment; compulsory treatment flat out doesn't work. The addict has to want to stop, and it's very hard even when they want to. Alcoholics and other drug addicts relapse more often than not after treatment.

However, should they ever invent the fictional drug in the novel I'm writing (see my journal, the first crude draft is being posted there) I sure hope it's not legal!

>On the other hand, if the +apple runs into a brick wall at several km/sec, itâ(TM)s going to make a fair-sized hole. Where did the energy to break the bricks come from? You donâ(TM)t expect the wall to reform as the â"apple deals it a second blow, do you?

Nope, nothing of the kind, at most I would expect the bricks it knocks lose to land a tiny bit further away.
The +apple hits, transferring kinetic energy to the wall (it had to have a lot if it was moving at several km/h as in your hypotheses) - which knocks the bricks out and makes the hole.

Now what happens when the -apple hits depends on what the nature of the particle's are, more specifically whether they obey the Pauli exclusion principle. If not, it passes straight through the wall without breaking it at all (though the repelling between the particles as it passes through might cause some micro-cracks). This is the prevailing theory.
If it does obey the exclusion principle - then you have energy transfer just like with the +apple, and the +bricks move WITH the energy regardless of the source, so the bricks fall in the same direction - however because as they are knocked out they are ALSO repelled by the -apple's negative mass, they fall a few microns further than when the +apple hit.

At least, that's my understanding. I am not a physicist, just a fan of physics.

If it exists, we can do something so much better - we can build Alcubiere Drives - that is, the real version of what Star Trek called "Warp Drives".

(This reference is not accidental - Star Trek inspired Alcubiere's research as he himself pointed out in an e-mail to Shatner - he wanted to test if Star Trek's loophole was really possible, and he found out it is at least theoretically possible, but only if negative mass exists).

>As it should be. We need fewer laws, not more of them.

While I agree with the general principle you DO need enough of a functioning system to be able to actually pass the good laws and revoke the bad ones.
A government that cannot get either done at all (which is what the US has today) is nothing but a massive and worthless expense.

As an anarchist the system I favour would make new laws much easier to suggest and pass than any govenrment but, with a much greater level of oversight (since everybody votes on every proposed law) and by removing politicians you make corruption far more difficult and oligarchy all but impossible.
On the other hand - libertarians generally hate the idea because they know that an anarchism is likely to be stronger welfare state with the sensible ideas from socialism in place and the bad ones ignored (or rapidly revoked) instead of their "unregulate everything" madness. A small government gives you all the downsides of a government with none of the potential benefits.
No government or big government are both better ideas (actually - I would argue that no government is the biggest government of them all - since now EVERYBODY is part of the government).

So, considering that the average person is still paying in almost 4 times as long as they are gaining, there should be no reason why this cannot be solved.

On the other hand - that should pretty much destroy your unemployment worries, since you'll have more retirees than new entrants - looking for work should become a seller's market (which I consider the ideal economic situation) - where wages once again rise, benefits are stronger and quality-of-life over-all goes up tremendously for the entire population. The happiest and wealthiest nations are the ones where for each job-seeker you have several companies competing for their services, trying to outbid one another to get you to work for them.

Thanks! I'm getting ready to post chapter thirty in a minute. I screwed up in this post, though, I forgot I already posted the chapter where Knolls finds that Green is Destiny's dad.