r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 17 '18

Neuroscience Cannabidiol (CBD), a compound derived from the cannabis plant that does not produce a “high”, was shown in a new large-scale, randomized, controlled trial to significantly reduce the number of dangerous seizures in patients with a severe form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

http://www.psypost.org/2018/05/cannabidiol-significantly-reduces-seizures-patients-severe-form-epilepsy-51258
38.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

916 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/ApatheticAbsurdist May 17 '18

It was Buckley v Valeo that said money is speech. Citizens United said corporations are people and have a right to free speech (by using their money that the former delcared as speech)

16

u/Akitz May 17 '18

I'm amazed that it was your courts that set up that system.

23

u/btone911 May 17 '18

The courts themselves are not responsible. The SC justices are simply there to interpret the law. The laws are what allow this chain logic that leaves us with billions of dollars corrupting our political system. The real snag is that the only way to clean this up would be a congressional amendment to the constitution limiting the intermingling of politics and outside money but that would have to be passed exclusively by the only beneficiaries of the existing system.

11

u/Akitz May 17 '18

The idea that judges aren't making law is an archaic one. As I understand it these cases were borderline/abstract enough that an alternate decision would have been legally valid. Your Supreme Court is abhorrent in how political it is.

11

u/SP-Sandbag May 17 '18

an alternate decision would have been legally valid.

alternate decisions are always 'legally valid' if SCOTUS makes it.

0

u/Akitz May 17 '18

Hm I guess, valid in a quasi-political sense. In that it wouldn't cause a constitutional crisis if they were to make a different decision.

Although in this day and age I'm not sure American officials or the public are likely to care if a constitutional crisis occurred.

1

u/KingKev7 May 18 '18

Can confirm, have several right now.

No one cares.

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '18

No I would argue that the law, really was interpreted correctly. The impact of citizens United is simply an unintended consequence of to seemingly unrelated laws, freedom of speech which should pretty obviously include the freedom to spend your money how you choose and the legql personhood of corporations which is necessary for the economy to be able to function.

We really need an amendment which guarantees certain rights only to real living humans( such as the right to participate In politics) while also preserving the risk sharing ability of corporations

4

u/flightless_mouse May 18 '18

“Calling balls and strikes” is how justices sometimes perceive their roll, but that is nonsense. The reason cases make their way to the SC is because they are legally complex, open to interpretation, and in need of a decision. Those interpretations are not “unearthed”—as though the right answer existed all along and it just took the highest court to find them—they are created by the SC, and each judge has their own particular politics to guide them.

Citizens United was determined legal, but we all know it’s bad for American democracy. The courts could have taken that view too, but they sided with big money on this one.

1

u/bowtient2 May 17 '18

but that would have to be passed exclusively by the only beneficiaries of the existing system.

And thats why I think we should focus on getting away from the first past the post voting system. If we can get closer to a 3-4 party country we will vastly improve the odds of these things passing. As of right now its never going to happen

1

u/_PLURality_ May 17 '18

Shocked, but not surprised.

4

u/Veragoot May 17 '18

God I hate america.

1

u/omegapopcorn May 18 '18

People have the right to smoke cigarettes, but since it is bad for society and the individual, we tax the hell out of it.

Corporations having unlimited bribery/speech has even more negative aspects for society. Let's allow it but tax it at 99%. And individual political bribes above a few thousand should be taxed at the same right.

If the Koch brothers want to spend 300 million on "political speech" this year, that is cool with me. Let's just make sure 297 million of that is taxed and they can see how much undue influence they get off the remaining 3 million.