What does marijuana have to do with this? I regard the whole war on drugs (let alone the criminalization of low level drugs such as cannabis, khat and kratom -- the last of which the DEA might unban today).
As a witness to the beneficial effects of medical marijuana (where lab-made THC has failed) and noting the amazingly low incident rate of marijuana use leading to injury or death, we should have decriminalized it a long time ago.
Of course, there are a number of industries and ideological institutions that want to suppress cannabis for their own reasons.
Free states have to be protected. Otherwise it falls back to feudalism and divine right (e.g. the right of might).
Our nation of men is the natural state. We do what is possible. Those with power dominate those without.
But then they can't really complain when terrorists fly planes into buildings or madmen shoot up schools can they? Hatred-fueled subterfuge and having no moral high ground is the consequence of ruling by force.
But think of it, we might be able to stop freaking out about teen nudity, and about people whose naughty bits made it onto the internet when they were teens. Even our elected officials might be a bit more humble if they knew that somewhere pics of themselves as reckless teens were out there waiting to be found.
Heck, I bet we could put a big dent into the child porn industry if teen sexts were decriminalized.
Let's say the tobacco companies develop Tomacco or some other addiction-driven consumer product that is removed enough to be regarded as its own thing, and not qualify for the carve out?
Because they will.
And other enterprisers will develop other tobacco-like products that we cannot trust end-consumers to use responsibly, and they will have the advantages of corporate sovereignty to scuttle national health measures.
If Clinton gets into office, it may look like the continuation of the Obama administration, which is to say she will have to be pressured to make changes.
But she'll be open to pressure.
If Trump gets into office, then he's going to change bunches of stuff, few for the better, and the admin's going to look a lot like George W's. And then his advisors and intimates just have to convince him that the policies they want will hurt Trump's enemies, and he'll push them.
Bush did steal the election from Gore in 2000, and the majority of the people were left to sulk about it while Bush tossed his compassionate conservative stance in the trash and immediately started gutting clean water regulations and adding the most litigious signing statements in history.
I suspect those on the losing side, even if they were defeated by obvious and provable voter fraud, they will be left to sulk as well, and not even tossed a bone.
What that doesn't take into consideration is the cost for switching to a different product.
For many pieces of software, you only get the version for a single platform, and that's if that software exists for the other (though nowadays, there are is a lot more multi-platform software). I'm not sure if Mac developers still have to work around the one-button problem.
But Android and iOS products are certainly sold separately. I don't know if you can even access media purchased on Google Play or The Windows Store on iOS.
So yeah, once you've been on a platform for a while you have a lot of disincentive to migrate. And if that's not taken into consideration regarding antitrust, it damn well should be.
The FBI have proven to be bad actors before, not only pushing for just this once exceptions and then later insisting you helped us before, but also vacating cases so as to evade a precedent. We still only have their word that prior phones were cracked.
(Without Apple's help opening iPhone backdoors, the TPM tech has been cracked since 2010. It's just delicate and expensive.)
At this point, the only reason to willingly help the feds is following a sufficiently substantial bribe.
That's an excellent question. The most terrifying answer (and probably the accurate one) is that it depends on the judge, and once you take it to court, you can also be charged with violating the gag order, if filing to challenge require publication of what you're trying to challenge.
I suspect there's a way to do it legally with a string of lawyers, but I am completely unqualified even to speculate.