Wireless charging is incrementally nicer based on how I use my phone. Would I be fine without it? Absolutely. But getting an extra 2 inches of legroom on a flight costs more than a wireless charging pad so the bar for incremental benefit is pretty low for me.

The small incremental benefit for me is that I often randomly wake up in the middle of the night with something on my mind, if I don't look it up, I won't get back to sleep. Reaching over and grabbing my phone off the nightstand with a cable means possibly knocking things off the stand if I leave it plugged in (I keep a glass of water there usually), if I unplug it then I have to find the plug and replug it in all while trying to not wake up too much. I'm also always anxious about the cable bending too much at the connector so I'm always guarding that carefully. If I get a high gauge cable so I don't worry about it bending too much, then it's even more prone to knocking things over and possibly just pulling the plug out of the wall. Stands aren't much better, when trying to get the phone back on the stand in the dark without getting up it takes both hands usually to try to line it up correctly. The pad is simple, the phone is on the corner of the nightstand, I grab it, look up whatever, drop it back.

As I mentioned it is definitely a small incremental convenience based on my particular use of the product. For less than the cost of economy plus on a single flight, I don't keep knocking crap off my nightstand. Seems worth it (for me). I've definitely paid more for less tangible benefit.

I was responding to a person that was claiming that essentially IP addresses are only personal data for ISPs or ISP like businesses. Which is simply not the case.

I didn't say IP addresses were always considered personal data, I simply said it can be personal data, which you also stated in your post. That it's not cut and dry. The person I was responding to was posting that IP addresses are definitively NOT personal data.

The point is, context for IPs matters. The person I was replying to was way over simplifying.

I'm not entirely sure what claim you think I made that the case doesn't back up as you essentially stated what I did just with more specificity. In any case I totally agree with your post since it's the same point I was making :)

Check Patrick Breyer v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Literally a website just logging IP addresses of visitors.

You’re making it sound incredibly cut and dry when it’s clearly not and there’s case law on record confirming it’s not so simple.

Alcoholism would exist with or without alcohol being illegal, the only difference would be that drinking alcohol would be more dangerous for those wishing to drink responsibly and those drinking irresponsibly would have less options to become well.

Regarding these other substances though I wholeheartedly agree real research is needed. It’s one of the really tragic things about the war on drugs actually, that research was completely stopped. Even if you keep a substance illegal, researchers should still be allowed to investigate these things. There’s life changing non mind altering treatment for cluster headaches for example that has been nearly impossible to research until recently and even still it’s never going to see the light of day in this political climate around drug paranoia even though it has zero mind altering impacts (it’s a chemical related to lsd where they modified to remove the altering effect).

I’m pretty ok with substances being banned (albeit not my preference) in general as long as research is allowed to continue and the ban persists based on information produced from that research. I.E. it’s not based on fear mongering but science.

Another aside, one of the main reasons I think decriminalization (for all) and legalization (for some) is pretty compelling is that it makes it a lot easier to regulate to ensure the products themselves are safe. A large number of the safety issues simply comes from people obtaining unsafe/fake products. Though regulation you have consistency. Nowadays with recreational marijuana you can see the lab report for every single product. Back in the day you just had to rely on some shady character telling you “it’s good”.

People are going to be doing these things, keeping them illegal in the way we have been (serious jail times for personal possession) only creates more harm and cost to society rather than alleviate it (the supposed goal). The war on drugs has created a quite insane cost through mandatory minimums and three strikes laws.. if the goal was to reduce cost to society we’d have saved money providing government supplied drugs to addicts. If the goal is to “save” or prevent harm to addicts, locking them up and making them felons seems to be having the opposite effect. They fear seeking help, and once caught up in our penal system it’s hard to escape.

So what part of criminalization is really benefiting us?

If you looked at those that literally are making those profound advancements you’re worried about losing, you’d also often be looking at those that moderately and recreational partake in some of these substances.

The people that partake but still excel aren’t as visible as those that don’t get themselves off the couch. You mistakingly assume that it’s purely about escapism and wasting away as a result.

I think you’d be quite surprised at the number of successful, motivated people that don’t feel the need to get a “quick fix” that partake.

Many find it helps creativity for example (and research backs this up). If you’re going to put any stock in research then the assumptions your making about motivation and impact simply doesn’t jive with what’s being observed.

It’s all beside the point anyway. Ultimately we have to decide what the role of the government has in regulating things like this and what metrics it uses to decide. Whatever those are they should be consistent. From my point of view though they’ve been anything but that. With so many prescription drugs being more addictive, more deadly, and often with fewer potential benefits than substances that are restricted even from research it’s hard to reason about.

The majority of the drug policy is less about the science (both medical and social) and more about perception and politics.

A quick aside. If it’s escapism you have an issue with then really the entire entertainment industry should be in your laser sights. Capitalism definitely has a strong embrace of promoting and capitalizing on escapism. Drugs are hardly a significant contributor here.

EDIT forgive the rambling nature of the post.