To modify your point:

Better question: why does $_GOVERNMENT so frequently think the right answer to a problem is $_GOVERNMENT_ACTION?

Examples include: $_HUGE_SPENDING_PROGRAM, $_HUGE_SOCIAL_WELFARE_PROGRAM, taxpayer-funded bailout of $_INDUSTRY, massive new regulations for $_INDUSTRY, price controls on $_PRODUCT, etc.

Maybe it's simply the general distrust of the individual and free markets by those in government, combined with voters who believe what politicians promise regarding that same government.

Legalization means allowing the people to choose to engage in an activity, thus shifting to the permissive oversight role of government. In this case, the citizen has the implicit trust of the government in that he may act as he chooses toward the previously-banned item. If this second route involves more parts of government, so be it, but at least it returns some autonomy / choice / liberty to the individual.

Depending on what politicians do, we may be stuck in a bad in-between state where you have the full police state going strong to prevent non-authorized dealing as well as the oversight / regulation function.

I fully trust that the politicians will continue to pursue power at any cost, including the liberty of the people and the sovereignty of the nation.

Opposite of how we all like to think of the tech industry, politics are slow, clunky, and bureaucratic — for good reason. It takes a long time to go from "random HN/reddit commenters talking about legalizing drugs" to "politicians talking about legalizing drugs."

* Edit: well 'most' is highly subjective, but I hope we can agree on 'many.'

Drug trade has a very tangible economic driver that can be modified with legalization.

For terrorism, or other warfare methods, there isn't a simple economic driver you can attack. People are struggling for power and resources. You simply cannot make everyone happy.

You of course have the choice of simply withdrawing from the struggle, but as soon as you start doing this there really isn't an end in sight. This is not a choice US can take without dire consequences.

In wars between states, you can negotiate, but in wars of ideology/religion, that's not so easy.

That's based on the flawed assumption that people just are out to get you.

People are out to get the US to a large extent because of how much the US has been meddling all over the place.

Stop the one sided support for Israel, and stop supporting Middle Eastern dictators, and don't invade any more countries, and a large part of the recruiting-basis for islamic fundamentalists for actions against the US would start falling away pretty quickly.

> In wars between states, you can negotiate, but in wars of ideology/religion, that's not so easy.

It might not be so easy, but it is far more effective than military actions that breed new generations of people who hate you for ever person you kill - whether a legitimate target or "collateral damage".

this is off-topic, but did you see that article in Businessweek about the bomb detector.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/in-iraq-the-...

Ok, that's pretty obviously a fraud. But what it made me start thinking is if you can take an empty plastic handle and a radio antennae and sell millions of dollars of them ... there must be a ton of stuff that doesn't really do what its supposed to but people buy anyway.

This is one of the reasons I make sure I know how everything I own works. That, and the good ol' hacker ethic.

Moreover, the typical political response to problems these days is to throw money, regulations, or laws at it to force it to be fixed. It's hard for politicians to realize that society and culture can't simply be commanded around.