Wish I had mod points, AC.

Quick answer, because prohibition is a proven failed policy, it would just create a new black market and a new revenue stream for criminals.

The real problem here is that it is *not* our place to tell people what to do when it is not interfering with our (eroding) right to do the same.
We need to stop being a nanny for other people's decisions in life and trying to control people, because it expands the scope of government.
The need of people to control/persecute others is human nature and a constant threat to our freedoms.
One may have a chosen cause for the best of reasons but it still sets a dangerous precedent.

Let me say I don't smoke because it is bad for your health but it is just not my place to tell other people what to do when it is not causing me undo harm.
I am fine with not allowing people to smoke indoors because of the proven health risks to non-smokers; beyond that, a little whiff of smoke from someone smoking outside is orders of magnitude less dangerous than say driving or having a poor diet.
You want to have your car outlawed?
The government decided what and when you can eat?
How about government mandated exercise programs?

If one has some cause they believe in they should feel free to express it through culture but not turn that belief into a function of government.
Trying to live forever is not the only ideal in life.
Maybe quality of life might be more important to some than quantity of life.
I am will to protect that and allow people to make their own decisions because I want to be able to make mine as well.

Close your Facebook account.

The real downside is they interview continually, haven't hired anyone, and yet managed to complete several difficult projects with fresh new ideas.

They have BS patents on BS stuff and are using their market position and wealth to prevent the free flow of goods and consumer choice.
I happen to own a ton of Apple gear and really like their products but that is not the issue.
If it was a Microsoft product a consensus would be flipping their lids but somehow Apple gets a pass?
I guess their advertising really is that good.

Sites like google and netflix are good reasons why I have a data access in the first place and thereby the ISP my business.
The shameless money grab based on our increasing dependence on network technology by ISPs is despicable.
If we followed their logic we would all be on dial-up forever because it "cost too much" to provide what we were sold.

The reason that it expires (just like a lot of tax loopholes) is so that another round of fund raising can begin for both sides of a divisive issue.
Setting it to expire is how they keep the campaign coffers full.
It is the government version of vendor lock in.

Oh this tactic again.

Declare something misguided and extreme, see if anyone notices, if so compromise to something slightly less deplorable.

How about D none of the above?

I am sick of our government being purchased with campaign *cough*bribes*cough* contributions.

My problem is that the criminalization of recreation drugs is far worse than the problem of people using recreational drugs. Unregulated trade always leads to underground economies and criminal organizations. Being unable to resolve disputes through legal means leads directly to violence for conflict resolution. If someone doesn't pay you for drugs you provided what other recourse do you have? These are the very problems our legal institutions are well adapted to and could solve. If you could just sue someone for not paying for the drugs then why form and maintain a gang of tough guys? The war on drugs is an expensive farce. It has proven to be ineffective (we still have the drugs) it just creates an environment for gangs to profit from unregulated trade. Look at who gains; the criminals, our legal system, the prison manufacturers, and law enforcement. They whole time they play cowboys and Indians, and we put more people in prison than anywhere else in the world *we* pay for it. We financially support the prisoners, the guards, the cops, the administrators, the wardens, the judges, the clerks, the oversite committees, etc... and we as investors get nothing for it. We are not made safer; we are not living better lives. It is a complete waste of money and resources. We finance a delusion of doing the right thing no matter the real cost. A delusion so zealously perused they have alienated entire segments of our population. If drugs do cause a real problem there most likely already is another crime (one with a victim) that could and should be enforced. If it only causes the drug user a problem it really shouldn't be any business of the government in the first place.

I think it has a lot to do with recorded music itself not being a social experience like it used to be.

I used to buy and listen to a lot of music because listening to music was a social event where friends would gather, hang-out, and listen to music together.

I very rarely have experiences like that anymore.

Things like going over to someone's house because they had a great stereo.

I am sure those who loved knitting bees or some other past social outlet experienced much of the same thing only there wasn't a YIAA (Yarn Industry Artists Association) suing them for copying knitting patterns.

I now spend most of my at home time reading and communicating with friends online, and when my friends do come over craving some electronic entertainment, we play video games and watch movies.

Music just never enters into the social event unless it is the social event (live music) or something like going out to a bar, dancing, or to a party and then the music is already ubiquitously provided instead of being personally collected.

Maybe the alternatives are just better and people are consuming what brings them the experiences they want, which unfortunately for the recording industry, happens to not be their products.

Ever asked for help in a Debian forum as a newbie? (muahahahah sorry could not help myself please don't troll me)

Seriously though, thinking about outcomes instead of emotions, these parents should probably spend more time looking at themselves and how they are raising their children rather than attacking the source of the information.

I see two general options upon hearing this sort of information and I think about the outcomes of each.

Option A, Internalize the information, take ownership of the problem, become more involved, and change how you raise your kids.

Option B, Maintain an emotionally rewarding delusion, absolve the responsibility of your child's future to the state, and attack anything that might disrupt that delusion.

IMHO it was seriously unprofessional for her to write about such things publicly because of the negative impact on her school and classroom. That being said, I don't feel our education system bears sole (or even majority) responsibility for the education of our children. It is good that we try to for our collective good, but push come to shove it is the parents' responsibility alone.

Sadly once again a messenger suffers for delivering a little truth.

Soylent gas is people!

This might be as close as I have ever seen to "The Last Starfighter" in real life. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597

I think they are confusing speculation with reality. The USCG lawyers are sending letters to people who are not guilty of anything (not until they are found/proven guilty). They are only asserting that they are guilty. Now they are suing someone for making it possible for the defendants to contest their speculation and requiring them to actually prove guilt in a court of law. The people they are threatening owe them nothing unless found guilty and someone enabling them to contest their speculation even less. Gaming the legal system in this way shows that their intent is to extort money using threatening letters with dollar amounts calculated to be cheaper than mounting a defense (as a zero sum game) not prove guilt. Not too much different from "you have a nice place here, I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it".