I am both brown and from a third world (both in the original unaligned sense and in the newer impoverished sense) country. You fucked us over with Trump.
The slaves didn’t care that Lincoln said in his debates with Douglas that whites were superior to blacks and that he supported an Illinois law against miscegenation. They cared that he removed them from bondage. Smart people take whatever progress they can get.
Section 702 isn’t a mass surveillance program. It has its problems (the main sticking point being that the surveilled non-Americans living outside the US communicating with other non-Americans outside the US might discuss Americans or forward communications from Americans, and now Americans’ data is collected), but let’s at least accurately describe the law being discussed.
The legislative branch will write the laws that their voters want. The voters that won the elections voted for Republicans, so that’s what we get.
The superdelegates vote for whoever the primary voters vote for. https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/superdelegates-surge-to-obama-010792
Superdelegates existed in 2008 as well. They were mostly in Clinton’s camp, but when Obama got ahead in the primary voting, not even anywhere close to as big a margin as Clinton had over Sanders, they switched. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
When she ultimately lost the primary, she threw her support behind Obama in the general election. https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/senator-hillary-clinton-2008-convention-speech/194032
You’re confusing the DNC with the primary voters, who gave Clinton a landslide victory over Sanders. You can’t get any closer to the will of the people than that.
Cannabis has been found to be ineffective for most of the conditions it’s prescribed for.
No, it hasn’t.
From the very beginning of the linked article: “Medical cannabis lacks adequate scientific backing for most of the conditions it is commonly used to treat”
Reading is hard, as you say.
Cannabis has been proven to be a very effective treatment for nausea and seizures
Not “very” and not for “nausea and seizures” in general. It has shown effectiveness specifically for “chemotherapy-induced nausea” and “certain severe pediatric seizure disorders such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome” according to the very article that you claim to have read. For more, Dr. Chung explains
“Recently, cannabidiol (CBD) is the one that showed efficacy, but people tend to extend that into any other epilepsy… It is confined, as evidence suggests, to those 2 syndromes, but not other types of epilepsy.”
The standard of care treatment for chemotherapy induced nausea is antiemetics. More recently, Dravet Syndrome can be treated with Zorevunerson with over 90% efficacy. This is without the risk of cannabis associated psychotic symptoms. I have personally witnessed a smart kid at a top university succumb to debilitating marijuana induced schizophrenia and get banned from campus as a safety risk. That is not a side effect that patients should accept.
Regardless, cannabis has been an effective treatment for many medical issues for centuries for a reason,
Mercury was a mainstay in medicine for treating syphilis, constipation, and infections (using calomel) from the 16th to 20th centuries, often causing severe toxicity. Medical science is a relatively new concept. Doctors didn’t start sterilizing their instruments until the late 19th century.
What am I ignorant about? Are you just going to let me wallow in my ignorance? So far, I have only stated things that are true as far as I know and presented my sources. You and the other lady say that I am misinformed but don’t care to inform me.
You embarrassed yourself online because you have a weird offense to even the notion that weed can be used for medicinal purposes
Not embarrassed at all. If anything, I take offense to people being given bad medical advice. If you were prescribed cannabis, you would be among them.
What have I said that is demonstrably false? Please demonstrate. I’m all ears. What should I have researched instead of the HSA website?
Chill.
Take a chill pill. I did look up the HSA application for medicines. Cannabis and chewing gums were specifically banned, but nothing else was called out.
As far as I know, all other narcotics prescribed in the US are allowed in Singapore with an HSA approval, which is exactly my point.
You might want to get a better doctor. Cannabis has been found to be ineffective for most of the conditions it’s prescribed for. The very few that it has shown effectiveness for have better treatment options available. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/evidence-lacking-medical-cannabis-most-conditions
It is about California. The comment you replied to was about California. My comments replying to you have been about California. That original comment you replied to and my own comments have said that California’s law is reasonable. You keep saying it isn’t, but you have yet to present any reason why.
Once again, that post is about age verification, so it doesn’t apply to the California law. If there are no documents or pictures stored for age verification, there is nothing to breach.
He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.
what is the point of the OS asking
Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.
Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.
Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.
This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.
deleted by creator
La Ville Derrière
The US messed up most of Latin America. USAID makes things better. Removing USAID makes things worse. It doesn’t matter whether it is out of benevolence (the real reason is that making Latin America better means the US doesn’t have to deal with a migrant crisis). What matters is that it’s better than the alternative.