"We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas"... and process them (including censor them) through our Facebook algorithm for selfish reasons.
There is no doubt that internet data is required for fair market competition throughout our economy.
Given that the legitimate public concern is over private sector dominance against the public good, unfair data discrimination should be treated as an antitrust violation.
Antitrust laws were put in place to stop monopolies and such, so it makes sense.
Net neutrality law is on path to fall, but antitrust law likely will not.
"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
But we do not leave our doors unlocked, nor instead give the police (or basically anyone else who does not reside there) a key to use when they deem fit (abusively or not).
Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.
"...does not mean that they expect their intimate data to be monitored by the government without a warrant"
No, those tech companies just want marketing companies to monitor our intimate data "for limited purposes" (and pay the tech companies handsomely to do that).
After watching the Alexa ads, I wonder what happens when someone named Alexa (e.g. someone's wife) lives in the area of its use.
Alexa confusion is not a joke (but it attempts to be).
At least that (at least likely) won't happen with Google.
Overall, I still agree with everyone citing the obvious problem in allowing microphones permanently on within a private context generally known as home.
Devices with microphones and cameras that I'm unable to truly validate that I can turn them off have no home with me.
Of course, eventually all devices will have them (because the public at large simply refuses to care about the aforementioned serious risk), so that will make my decision a much more painful one.
One critical problem with science pertaining to cannabis (the science term for marijuana, if unclear) is the unscientific factoring of three key variables.
Intake Method (smoking versus vaporization versus edibles...):
Any study that only relies upon smoking cannot detach the possibility (probability, or even certainty) that the act of smoking itself is the relevant issue of that research.
When more people learn about cannabis vaporization, and how amazingly more efficient and healthy that intake method is (that efficiency being seriously great for losing wallet weight, if you will), the popularity of vaporizing cannabis logically increases upon that educational increase, so at least factoring in vaporization into cannabis research is critical for scientific accuracy.
Intake Amount:
Measuring intake amount in joints (or such) is scientifically reckless, because a joint can be any size (for all intents and purposes), and can contain one or more strains of varying psychoactive and other powers.
A rigorously established "estimate" for consistent joint size has recently emerged, but not a concrete scientific measurement.
Intake amount (which can vary dramatically) obviously is a critical factor in determining health impact for worst through best, so that recklessness is unacceptable, and places any research resulting from that recklessness firmly in the category of basically (if not utterly) useless.
Strain Differential:
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of different cannabis strains, and strain effects can vary dramatically between each other to a degree that can leave the user feeling like they're different drugs entirely.
This is not just about THC and CBD amounts (the two most popular cannabinoids these days), but about the fully detailed strain signature literally involving hundreds of compounds (cannabinoids and terpenes).
Just the psychological impact alone can vary to a degree at which generically stating 'study finds cannabis is good (or bad) for n% of people' is meaningless without scientific rigor being applied to strain consistency.
Conclusion:
Despite perhaps coming off as an uptight douche (certainly not my perhaps cannabis-exhaling intention), I appreciate the positive efforts in cannabis research, and I'm glad people are finding benefit from cannabis use for pain (my mom uses a very mildly vaporized "Cheese" strain daily to brilliantly manage Alzheimer's disease symptoms with some hopeful signs of even working against the disease itself – supposedly an impossibility, but recently scientifically suggested to work against the unhealthy protein buildup commonly believed to cause AD).
I wrote this comment in hopes of doing my small-but-tractional part to help raise public awareness of the need to raise scientific awareness going forward along these research lines that are significant in tune with cannabis popularity.
Of course, a disastrous limit against genuine cannabis research is the remaining prohibitionary elements unethically kept in place by the people controlling the illegality of cannabis – those people having a serious financial interest to demonize cannabis demonstrably with no respect for public safety.
Anyone still believing prohibition is the right way to solve drug abuse (which is scientifically distinct from use, and is clearly a health – not criminal – issue) must understand the fact that no concrete (so credible) evidence proves literally any effectiveness from prohibition. At least nationally speaking, we don't even have a "drug free" prison system, but are expected to shell out billions of taxpayer dollars yearly for a "drug free" America.
In addition to literally no experimental science confirming the contrary (you pathetic jackass), even the Controlled Substances Act (your terrible reply suggests that you probably don't even know what that is, so it's basically the judicial basis for Certain Drug Prohibition) confirms that distinction by stating the most dangerous drugs have a "high potential for abuse".
Everything I carefully wrote is factual, but your hideous reply is the kind of brainless nonsense pressed into your so-called brain by people with a seriously high and unethical financial stake in mass rights infringement to ruin millions of lives. Way to go, tool.
Those same people are the same ones proclaiming those drugs are the most dangerous, while the science they cite is weakly suggestive at best (demonstrably junk science in the case of cannabis, which is statistically reported to be about 73% of "illicit" drug intake).
Now do you want to go back and read it carefully with civility and intellect, so the lame insults can cease for genuine progress, drinkypoo?
While much less than 1% of the (at least American) population abuses "illicit" drugs (at least according to consistent U.S. government usage statistics combined with the Institute of Medicine's dependency rates table), literally millions of non-violent (so sanely innocent) lives have been demonstrably ruined to varying degrees (including horrific and even deadly ones) by Certain Drug Prohibition (if you will) – the 'bigger and badder' sequel to Alcohol Prohibition, which "mysteriously" required a federal constitutional amendment to judicially establish and enforce.
Another similar amendment ended Alcohol Prohibition for basically the same reasons that should have intelligently prevented Certain Drug Prohibition in the "land of the free".
Several decades ago, the Commerce Clause ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes") was illegally judicially redefined (according to the public record combined with the English language) to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce. By "interpreting" that clause, our Supreme Court granted Congress the authority to ban (not regulate) the mere possession of a certain plant, for prime example. That's why I put illicit in unrealism quotes above.
Factually speaking, the war on (some politicized) drugs is ineffective, destructive, expensive, unconstitutional, and unwarranted.
We don't even have a "drug free" prison system, nor one shred of concrete (so credible) evidence proving we live in even a slightly more "drug free" America as a result of spending many billions of taxpayer dollars annually.
Drug abuse (which is clearly distinct from use, despite the prohibitionists unethically interchanging use and abuse merely for their demonizing convenience) is a health – not criminal – issue by any sound reasoning.
The war on some drugs can only be righteously described as sanctioned thuggery.
Prohibition provides an enormous (and otherwise unachievable) profit margin to black market organizations of all sizes. That money empowers them (even small gangs) with military grade weaponry, bribery power, and so on – so is a much more serious threat to genuinely good members of law enforcement (including border patrol) and even those criminal organizations horrendously violently competing with each other.
Legalization (with a firm educational push involving the actual risks of any given drug in the Information Age logically leading to the Education Age) instantly cuts that serious financial supply line (as it did with Alcohol Prohibition), and the idea that drug use increases upon legalization must involve the assumption that prohibition works (which it clearly doesn't) – as opposed to market saturation theory (i.e. a minority of people desire the use of these drugs, apparently like a minority of people desire to skydive, and they already have workable channels to secure access to those drugs).
Drug prohibition addiction is the genuine drug "scourge" and "epidemic" (as the mainstream media loves to call the drug problem), ironically speaking.
Drug prohibition addicts deceive the public and effectively steal taxpayer money to get their prohibition fix – hypocritically the macrocosm of the stereotypical heroin addict.
Only a proper public intervention against drug prohibition addicts suffices to save literally millions of more innocent lives in the coming decades from yet another baseless and selfishly reckless form of minority persecution in the "land of the free" that was sold to the public in the pathetically traditional form of "protecting the children".
I want to boost your comment with my "moderator points", but my script blocker only allows the obvious/. domains (slashdot,org, and slashdotmedia.com), so the script running the moderator system coincidentally doesn't work here.
I suppose while I'm here, I should inject my newbie/. request to learn what domain(s) I should unblock for scripting purposes here, so plz feel free to enlighten me on this front.
I also suppose, along my starting sentences with "I" run, that probably everyone reading/. knows about script blocking, but security issues among the mainstream public are seriously problematic (at least in terms of potential attack vectors). It's not a knock against your valid point, but just a reasonably relevant informational nook where people can feel free to discuss it fwiw.
"None of this impressed Einstein. He believed quantum mechanics was correct, but desperately wanted to find a way to 'complete' quantum mechanics so it made sense."
RWT completes quantum mechanics, so it makes sense (i.e. a purely sinusoidal reality).
RWT even justifies Einstein's instincts against quantum physics, while fully preserving the tried-and-true results of that well-established area of physics.
Never to yank my own chain that I don't own (or such), but no science-minded person should avoid understanding RWT.
Cannabis (scientific term for marijuana, if unclear) is a symphonic drug that (at least scientifically suggestively and anecdotally) is recognized to press against many (if not most, or perhaps even all) major health problems – and its lawful medical (and sometimes recreational) use has been on the rise over the past couple of decades.
Someone very close to me has a state license to use cannabis to oppose Alzheimer's disease, and the results have been thankfully impressive (symptom management has been literally brilliant, side effects virtually non-existent with no user complaints, financial cost friendly, and no sign of permanent mental decline with a reasonable sign of steady cognitive improvement).
Cannabis use is a complex (oceanic) subject, so blindly using whatever strain (or strain combination) available (among the hundreds, if not thousands, of strains in existence possibly with dramatically different psychological effects between two strains) at any intake amount and method is reckless and logically discouraged (fittingly noting that I don't condone criminal activity here – albeit no logic justifies the war on some drugs as being constitutional via the Commerce Clause, and drug use without objectively conclusively proven harm is clearly upheld by the ninth amendment logically constitutionally upholding our fundamental and supposedly unalienable right to liberty).
Strains that gently but firmly produce stable mind effects (e.g. Cheese) should be electronically vaporized (with precise temperature control for consistent intake), and at least in the case of mild dementia, a very small pinch of leafy material per dose (four doses daily – one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and two before bedtime) is all that's needed (i.e. the user gently feels the effects, so basically remains soberly competent for all intents and purposes).
I cannot state with certainty that cannabis is the cause of disease reduction as reported in this article, but there's interestingly fitting evidence demonstrating a connection worthy of further scientific scrutiny of a highly evolved plant (with hundreds of compounds) upholding homeostasis (balance, so stability necessary for survival) via the endocannibinoid system throughout the body and hypothetically leveraging the same mental system responsible for the Placebo effect upon proper use.
Scientific conclusions can be (and too often are) unethically skewed (i.e. the term science is too often abused), but the scientific method itself is a nice and simple certainty incapable of being corrupted (i.e. fully meeting the demands of that method only becomes purely agreeable results without possible exception) – one that must be powerfully leveraged to remove (inclusively intentional) confusion from language to form concrete law (instead of the muddy mess passing for law these days).
Without objectivity, there is no fairness, so (by definition) no justice.
The fundamental problem is objectively defining harm.
In a purely energetic reality (e.g. this one, at least according to mainstream physics), harm is subjective, so impossible to objectively define.
The solution required by any society with an unalienable right to liberty is harm must be maximally conclusively (never suggestively, or such) defined in strictest accordance with the scientific method. Murder, assault, theft, and slander clearly fall into the category of harm as such, but holding a plant (e.g. cannabis) in your hand does not (among thousands of other prohibitionary examples to "regulate" society by mass rights infringement).
Tragedy is demonstrably inherent within our always-pros-and-cons reality (e.g. each one of us eventually dies, regardless of how the rule-of-law is structured), so regulations (euphemism for prohibitions) can only serve to determine the targets of tragedy, and you can probably easily conclude which group of people have better odds of not being those targets – the oligarchy (spanning the private and public sectors) controlling the regulations.
Scientific constitutionalism is genuine power for the people, because the certain and simple social construct that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. liberty – the condition of being free from restriction or control – is limited only by the right itself) logically simply prevents the ratification of corrupt laws (when the public is righteously taught to maturely passionately care about that critical right enough to publicly defend it properly – which should not be too challenging of a task upon considering the undeniable popularity of liberty).
The only other option is yet another sick flavor of 'we can trust our rulers to define liberty according to their subjective – e.g. weakly "scientific" – conclusions' and all of the elitist-sourced abuses from favoritism that inevitably creeps and spreads out against too many generations of people vulnerable to that selfish elitist manipulation of law – allowing the unbearably dumb cycle of oppression repeat until death does humanity part.
In short, scientific constitutionalism majorly includes bringing certainty to language, so law – and leverages the anchor certainty (one that cannot be undermined) that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. balanced liberty) for optimal liberty within a civilized society.
One prime example of such language improvement is forming a hard-line distinction between use and abuse. Use is always a harmless action, while abuse is always a harmful action. Use disorder, being used (i.e. taken advantage of), misuse (redundancy of abuse), and so one would be logically deprecated by language experts for clearer (i.e. better) communication. That negates (for solid example) the mass destructive ability by 'certain drug' prohibitionists to unethically swap use and abuse merely to their convenience to (likely intentionally) confuse the public to ironically support drug prohibition addiction (sanctioned thugs lying and effectively stealing billions annually from taxpayers to get their prohibition fix without even resulting in a "drug free" prison system, nor one shred of concrete, so credible, evidence proving we live in even a slightly more "drug free" America).
Each time I enter the healthcare industry, I have to fill out the same "wonderful" multi-page form by including basic personal information and health history therein.
So what data is being hacked?
Yes, I'm being facetious, if that fails to go without saying.
Slashdot Mirror
"We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas"... and process them (including censor them) through our Facebook algorithm for selfish reasons.
No thank you, Zucker.
There is no doubt that internet data is required for fair market competition throughout our economy.
Given that the legitimate public concern is over private sector dominance against the public good, unfair data discrimination should be treated as an antitrust violation.
Antitrust laws were put in place to stop monopolies and such, so it makes sense.
Net neutrality law is on path to fall, but antitrust law likely will not.
"Rather than putting such a core tenet of the internet in the hands of politicians, whose whims and interests change with their donors"
"There has never been a better time to... build political support for new, local-government owned networks."
See? The solution isn't politics. It's politics.
Understanding that the leaders of our society form an oligarchy seamlessly spanning the private and public sectors, let us rephrase that.
The solution isn't empowering our oligarchy.
The solution is empowering our oligarchy.
See the difference?
Me neither.
There apparently is no way around the greedy oligarchical gatekeeper(s) and their conflict of interest against positive societal health.
But defeatism is never the right choice.
"People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
But we do not leave our doors unlocked, nor instead give the police (or basically anyone else who does not reside there) a key to use when they deem fit (abusively or not).
Any backdoor basically completely bypasses the security of encryption, because history clearly shows that any such backdoor will likely quickly become common knowledge for hackers.
"...does not mean that they expect their intimate data to be monitored by the government without a warrant"
No, those tech companies just want marketing companies to monitor our intimate data "for limited purposes" (and pay the tech companies handsomely to do that).
Security? Meh.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, if unclear.
After watching the Alexa ads, I wonder what happens when someone named Alexa (e.g. someone's wife) lives in the area of its use.
Alexa confusion is not a joke (but it attempts to be).
At least that (at least likely) won't happen with Google.
Overall, I still agree with everyone citing the obvious problem in allowing microphones permanently on within a private context generally known as home.
Devices with microphones and cameras that I'm unable to truly validate that I can turn them off have no home with me.
Of course, eventually all devices will have them (because the public at large simply refuses to care about the aforementioned serious risk), so that will make my decision a much more painful one.
Wheee!!! I love the future!
I wonder how Dilbert would feel about this.
One critical problem with science pertaining to cannabis (the science term for marijuana, if unclear) is the unscientific factoring of three key variables.
Intake Method (smoking versus vaporization versus edibles...):
Any study that only relies upon smoking cannot detach the possibility (probability, or even certainty) that the act of smoking itself is the relevant issue of that research.
When more people learn about cannabis vaporization, and how amazingly more efficient and healthy that intake method is (that efficiency being seriously great for losing wallet weight, if you will), the popularity of vaporizing cannabis logically increases upon that educational increase, so at least factoring in vaporization into cannabis research is critical for scientific accuracy.
Intake Amount:
Measuring intake amount in joints (or such) is scientifically reckless, because a joint can be any size (for all intents and purposes), and can contain one or more strains of varying psychoactive and other powers.
A rigorously established "estimate" for consistent joint size has recently emerged, but not a concrete scientific measurement.
Intake amount (which can vary dramatically) obviously is a critical factor in determining health impact for worst through best, so that recklessness is unacceptable, and places any research resulting from that recklessness firmly in the category of basically (if not utterly) useless.
Strain Differential:
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of different cannabis strains, and strain effects can vary dramatically between each other to a degree that can leave the user feeling like they're different drugs entirely.
This is not just about THC and CBD amounts (the two most popular cannabinoids these days), but about the fully detailed strain signature literally involving hundreds of compounds (cannabinoids and terpenes).
Just the psychological impact alone can vary to a degree at which generically stating 'study finds cannabis is good (or bad) for n% of people' is meaningless without scientific rigor being applied to strain consistency.
Conclusion:
Despite perhaps coming off as an uptight douche (certainly not my perhaps cannabis-exhaling intention), I appreciate the positive efforts in cannabis research, and I'm glad people are finding benefit from cannabis use for pain (my mom uses a very mildly vaporized "Cheese" strain daily to brilliantly manage Alzheimer's disease symptoms with some hopeful signs of even working against the disease itself – supposedly an impossibility, but recently scientifically suggested to work against the unhealthy protein buildup commonly believed to cause AD).
I wrote this comment in hopes of doing my small-but-tractional part to help raise public awareness of the need to raise scientific awareness going forward along these research lines that are significant in tune with cannabis popularity.
Of course, a disastrous limit against genuine cannabis research is the remaining prohibitionary elements unethically kept in place by the people controlling the illegality of cannabis – those people having a serious financial interest to demonize cannabis demonstrably with no respect for public safety.
Anyone still believing prohibition is the right way to solve drug abuse (which is scientifically distinct from use, and is clearly a health – not criminal – issue) must understand the fact that no concrete (so credible) evidence proves literally any effectiveness from prohibition. At least nationally speaking, we don't even have a "drug free" prison system, but are expected to shell out billions of taxpayer dollars yearly for a "drug free" America.
Use is distinct from abuse.
In addition to literally no experimental science confirming the contrary (you pathetic jackass), even the Controlled Substances Act (your terrible reply suggests that you probably don't even know what that is, so it's basically the judicial basis for Certain Drug Prohibition) confirms that distinction by stating the most dangerous drugs have a "high potential for abuse".
Everything I carefully wrote is factual, but your hideous reply is the kind of brainless nonsense pressed into your so-called brain by people with a seriously high and unethical financial stake in mass rights infringement to ruin millions of lives. Way to go, tool.
Those same people are the same ones proclaiming those drugs are the most dangerous, while the science they cite is weakly suggestive at best (demonstrably junk science in the case of cannabis, which is statistically reported to be about 73% of "illicit" drug intake).
Now do you want to go back and read it carefully with civility and intellect, so the lame insults can cease for genuine progress, drinkypoo?
While much less than 1% of the (at least American) population abuses "illicit" drugs (at least according to consistent U.S. government usage statistics combined with the Institute of Medicine's dependency rates table), literally millions of non-violent (so sanely innocent) lives have been demonstrably ruined to varying degrees (including horrific and even deadly ones) by Certain Drug Prohibition (if you will) – the 'bigger and badder' sequel to Alcohol Prohibition, which "mysteriously" required a federal constitutional amendment to judicially establish and enforce.
Another similar amendment ended Alcohol Prohibition for basically the same reasons that should have intelligently prevented Certain Drug Prohibition in the "land of the free".
Several decades ago, the Commerce Clause ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes") was illegally judicially redefined (according to the public record combined with the English language) to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce. By "interpreting" that clause, our Supreme Court granted Congress the authority to ban (not regulate) the mere possession of a certain plant, for prime example. That's why I put illicit in unrealism quotes above.
Factually speaking, the war on (some politicized) drugs is ineffective, destructive, expensive, unconstitutional, and unwarranted.
We don't even have a "drug free" prison system, nor one shred of concrete (so credible) evidence proving we live in even a slightly more "drug free" America as a result of spending many billions of taxpayer dollars annually.
Drug abuse (which is clearly distinct from use, despite the prohibitionists unethically interchanging use and abuse merely for their demonizing convenience) is a health – not criminal – issue by any sound reasoning.
The war on some drugs can only be righteously described as sanctioned thuggery.
Prohibition provides an enormous (and otherwise unachievable) profit margin to black market organizations of all sizes. That money empowers them (even small gangs) with military grade weaponry, bribery power, and so on – so is a much more serious threat to genuinely good members of law enforcement (including border patrol) and even those criminal organizations horrendously violently competing with each other.
Legalization (with a firm educational push involving the actual risks of any given drug in the Information Age logically leading to the Education Age) instantly cuts that serious financial supply line (as it did with Alcohol Prohibition), and the idea that drug use increases upon legalization must involve the assumption that prohibition works (which it clearly doesn't) – as opposed to market saturation theory (i.e. a minority of people desire the use of these drugs, apparently like a minority of people desire to skydive, and they already have workable channels to secure access to those drugs).
Drug prohibition addiction is the genuine drug "scourge" and "epidemic" (as the mainstream media loves to call the drug problem), ironically speaking.
Drug prohibition addicts deceive the public and effectively steal taxpayer money to get their prohibition fix – hypocritically the macrocosm of the stereotypical heroin addict.
Only a proper public intervention against drug prohibition addicts suffices to save literally millions of more innocent lives in the coming decades from yet another baseless and selfishly reckless form of minority persecution in the "land of the free" that was sold to the public in the pathetically traditional form of "protecting the children".
The fsdn.com one worked, thank you.
I want to boost your comment with my "moderator points", but my script blocker only allows the obvious /. domains (slashdot,org, and slashdotmedia.com), so the script running the moderator system coincidentally doesn't work here.
I suppose while I'm here, I should inject my newbie /. request to learn what domain(s) I should unblock for scripting purposes here, so plz feel free to enlighten me on this front.
I also suppose, along my starting sentences with "I" run, that probably everyone reading /. knows about script blocking, but security issues among the mainstream public are seriously problematic (at least in terms of potential attack vectors). It's not a knock against your valid point, but just a reasonably relevant informational nook where people can feel free to discuss it fwiw.
I just hope the future doesn't contain the sole option of buying a TV or monitor that has a camera and microphone built in.
With those two features inevitably embedded, all bets are off in terms of fully guaranteeing the avoiding of privacy infringement.
I want full control over the cameras and microphones in my home (car, business, and so on).
That includes ensuring my 'smart' phone is on the other side of the 'do not disturb' sign, but that probably goes without saying.
Quantum physics is incomplete, because otherwise it would be the 'theory of everything'.
From "Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he'd be a convert today":
"None of this impressed Einstein. He believed quantum mechanics was correct, but desperately wanted to find a way to 'complete' quantum mechanics so it made sense."
RWT completes quantum mechanics, so it makes sense (i.e. a purely sinusoidal reality).
Everything (nonetheless nothing and something) is fully logically cleared up in the nascent Reality Waveform Theory, which you can conveniently freely read at: https://spiritwave.wordpress.com/reality-waveform-theory
RWT even justifies Einstein's instincts against quantum physics, while fully preserving the tried-and-true results of that well-established area of physics.
Never to yank my own chain that I don't own (or such), but no science-minded person should avoid understanding RWT.
Cannabis (scientific term for marijuana, if unclear) is a symphonic drug that (at least scientifically suggestively and anecdotally) is recognized to press against many (if not most, or perhaps even all) major health problems – and its lawful medical (and sometimes recreational) use has been on the rise over the past couple of decades.
Someone very close to me has a state license to use cannabis to oppose Alzheimer's disease, and the results have been thankfully impressive (symptom management has been literally brilliant, side effects virtually non-existent with no user complaints, financial cost friendly, and no sign of permanent mental decline with a reasonable sign of steady cognitive improvement).
Cannabis use is a complex (oceanic) subject, so blindly using whatever strain (or strain combination) available (among the hundreds, if not thousands, of strains in existence possibly with dramatically different psychological effects between two strains) at any intake amount and method is reckless and logically discouraged (fittingly noting that I don't condone criminal activity here – albeit no logic justifies the war on some drugs as being constitutional via the Commerce Clause, and drug use without objectively conclusively proven harm is clearly upheld by the ninth amendment logically constitutionally upholding our fundamental and supposedly unalienable right to liberty).
Strains that gently but firmly produce stable mind effects (e.g. Cheese) should be electronically vaporized (with precise temperature control for consistent intake), and at least in the case of mild dementia, a very small pinch of leafy material per dose (four doses daily – one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and two before bedtime) is all that's needed (i.e. the user gently feels the effects, so basically remains soberly competent for all intents and purposes).
I cannot state with certainty that cannabis is the cause of disease reduction as reported in this article, but there's interestingly fitting evidence demonstrating a connection worthy of further scientific scrutiny of a highly evolved plant (with hundreds of compounds) upholding homeostasis (balance, so stability necessary for survival) via the endocannibinoid system throughout the body and hypothetically leveraging the same mental system responsible for the Placebo effect upon proper use.
Scientific conclusions can be (and too often are) unethically skewed (i.e. the term science is too often abused), but the scientific method itself is a nice and simple certainty incapable of being corrupted (i.e. fully meeting the demands of that method only becomes purely agreeable results without possible exception) – one that must be powerfully leveraged to remove (inclusively intentional) confusion from language to form concrete law (instead of the muddy mess passing for law these days).
Without objectivity, there is no fairness, so (by definition) no justice.
The fundamental problem is objectively defining harm.
In a purely energetic reality (e.g. this one, at least according to mainstream physics), harm is subjective, so impossible to objectively define.
The solution required by any society with an unalienable right to liberty is harm must be maximally conclusively (never suggestively, or such) defined in strictest accordance with the scientific method. Murder, assault, theft, and slander clearly fall into the category of harm as such, but holding a plant (e.g. cannabis) in your hand does not (among thousands of other prohibitionary examples to "regulate" society by mass rights infringement).
Tragedy is demonstrably inherent within our always-pros-and-cons reality (e.g. each one of us eventually dies, regardless of how the rule-of-law is structured), so regulations (euphemism for prohibitions) can only serve to determine the targets of tragedy, and you can probably easily conclude which group of people have better odds of not being those targets – the oligarchy (spanning the private and public sectors) controlling the regulations.
Scientific constitutionalism is genuine power for the people, because the certain and simple social construct that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. liberty – the condition of being free from restriction or control – is limited only by the right itself) logically simply prevents the ratification of corrupt laws (when the public is righteously taught to maturely passionately care about that critical right enough to publicly defend it properly – which should not be too challenging of a task upon considering the undeniable popularity of liberty).
The only other option is yet another sick flavor of 'we can trust our rulers to define liberty according to their subjective – e.g. weakly "scientific" – conclusions' and all of the elitist-sourced abuses from favoritism that inevitably creeps and spreads out against too many generations of people vulnerable to that selfish elitist manipulation of law – allowing the unbearably dumb cycle of oppression repeat until death does humanity part.
In short, scientific constitutionalism majorly includes bringing certainty to language, so law – and leverages the anchor certainty (one that cannot be undermined) that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. balanced liberty) for optimal liberty within a civilized society.
One prime example of such language improvement is forming a hard-line distinction between use and abuse. Use is always a harmless action, while abuse is always a harmful action. Use disorder, being used (i.e. taken advantage of), misuse (redundancy of abuse), and so one would be logically deprecated by language experts for clearer (i.e. better) communication. That negates (for solid example) the mass destructive ability by 'certain drug' prohibitionists to unethically swap use and abuse merely to their convenience to (likely intentionally) confuse the public to ironically support drug prohibition addiction (sanctioned thugs lying and effectively stealing billions annually from taxpayers to get their prohibition fix without even resulting in a "drug free" prison system, nor one shred of concrete, so credible, evidence proving we live in even a slightly more "drug free" America).
A lot more detail exists in the Liberty Shield informational roots
This problem has to be a myth.
Each time I enter the healthcare industry, I have to fill out the same "wonderful" multi-page form by including basic personal information and health history therein.
So what data is being hacked?
Yes, I'm being facetious, if that fails to go without saying.