You're correct, I was generalizing from other prohibitions that have happened (one example being Alcohol in the US, similar has happened with other drugs too).

The war on drugs fails by the definition you use (and by the one I would use, which is weather the government policy improves society or not). The war on drugs is devastating to society and public health, but common sense, and past prohibitions show us that it most likely has reduced usage (somewhat on the demand side most likely, and almost certainly dramatically on the supply side (look how rich drug lords get growing and distributing coke, vs farmers get with corn, one can see that this agricultural commodity is clearly artificially scare, the increased prices this scarcity cause DO reduce use (see heroin since the war on terror opened up the poppy growth in Afghanistan))).

Yest, and all of those people forgoing it (or using other companies for support even) keep the ecosystem thriving. Red Hat is good at competing with that. If they are the ones throwing on the code, they will be experts, they sell expertise and accountability.

Red Hat better hope that throwing on the code isn't all it takes. Being an Enterprise Linux company takes more than throwing code on top of the kernel, and that's why Red Hat made a billion dollars, and Slackware didn't (not trying to knock Slackware, just trying to contrast two fairly early distros I used 15 or so years ago).

If all it takes is the code, Red Hat is screwed.

Proof that the *AAs hate the children!

I'm willing to be that there are less drugs due to the drug war, just as there was less alcohol during prohibition (a 30% reduction).

This is not to support the war on drugs, a 50% increase in drug use would be a small price to pay for the money saved, and not destroying the lives of those motivated enough to be entrepreneurs.

This action could be argued to be bad because it is technically reducing supply without touching demand.

Quick, say that the terrorists make all their money with CP, then you can do both.

We could at least verify the 300 number, and that all that exists is names and phone numbers.

I assume you mean the government couldn't do such? I see no reason the lack of criminality of someone saying something false interferes with my ability to sue for the damages of the falsehood. We are allowed to sue for many non criminal acts that Congress has made no laws about mild negligence for examples.

House, though generic, usually refers to the lower house.

In my experience with jury exit interviews (civil only), the jury ignores all experts, and votes their gut, using any credible explanation that matches any snippit of what they've heard.

In the US, the idea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (the term most frequently used) implies the type of insanity that is actually defensive. Yes, over the centuries it has been narrowed down as to be consistently applied, but it is a plea that the defendant can make, and the jury gets to determine weather or not it is valid.

I don't have specific access to cases or rulings (where the interpretation is certainly already spelled out, but a quick reading of a random law dictionary gives "ordinary or usual in the circumstances". Like insanity though, it is almost certainly an issue of fact, and not law, meaning the judge can guide the jury as to what reasonable means, with un-related (and usually farcical, but illustrative examples), but cannot make the determination of insanity or reasonableness.

Winning the lotto implies you have the money to do those things.

If I had 40 more hours of free time, but the same amount of money I have now, I'd love it, but I certainly wouldn't be able to just do more of the things I love. Also, I like doing things with the people in my life, and they'd still all have jobs. It can see how it'd get tedious.

Correct, and if you look at ancient law (Code of Hammurabi for example), you will see that it was not particularly intuitive throughout history (or even now, really).

Isn't the reasonableness of the act a matter of fact, not a matter of law?

I would expect the jury questionnaire to read along the lines of

"...
If you answered yes to the above, do you believe that the act was reasonable for the circumstances?", which would lead to a not guilty if answered yes. Reasonable may be broken down into specific questions, rather than over-all just reasonable, but it sounds very unlikely a judge would deem reasonableness as a matter of law (though in an extreme case the affirmative defense could be bared from being let in).

IANAL, but I've sat through a dozen (civil) verdicts for cases lasting over a month, and obviously the US isn't Canada (and I am US).

Hmmm, in this area (delaware) they make that claim in all the driving classes, but the reality is that without other evidence they cannot force the test. You aren't in violation of the refusal to submit until you refuse after being arrested. You're best bet (aside from being legal of course, or hiring a cab) is to crack the window, and refuse all field tests, and hope the judge doesn't decide "glassy eyes, smell of alcohol" counts as probable cause. But to submit to the official test that happens after arrest (the field breathalyzer is in admissible in court, but used to establish probable cause).