Especially where they don't have to gather food (or fatten up) for winter,

For some people, yes, doing nothing will be a waste; for some, perhaps it will afford the time to be creative in non-remunerative ways. The most important group, hopefully, is people for whom doing nothing will be better for society than expending their effort and creativity doing something criminal and/or destructive. Compare to the idea of "negawatts" - power companies spending money on diminishing electricity use through efficiency rather than on increasing supply (building generating capacity). I would expect that in parallel with a UBI, penalties for theft and robbery and white-collar crimes-for-money should all increase, because there would no longer be any excuse that "I needed the money to survive".

+1 Insightful Where are mod points when I need them?

How's that been doing recently? Especially with the current US administration?

You can walk into libraries all over the world, pull a book off the shelf, and read it. Nobody maintains it; it just sits there. Some things work that way.

It's a Catch-22 situation. The authoritarian crowd would say: A doctor who prescribes a prohibited substance has discredited his own good standing. That's why I say that the stronger argument is that it should be moved to a handle-with-care category - it is certainly no more dangerous than the Schedule 2 opiods and painkillers. And I'm sure that after further study and experience it would be lowered to Schedule 4 like valium, if not removed from restrictions entirely.

Can't run for President; naturalized citizen, not a "natural born Citizen" per the Constitution (usually interpreted to mean born in the US or on a US territory/base/embassy, or child of a US citizen temporarily outside the US at the time of giving birth)

sorry, while I sort of agree with you, your logic is weak and would be knocked down in debate. Yes, marijuana should never have been on schedule 1 and in particular should have been on one of the schedule levels that permits research; at the same time you can't argue that point based on "people use it where it's legal" because that's self-fulfilling. The problem is that the simplest logic, "research first and prohibit later", seems beyond the grasp of the political side that says "it's already prohibited therefore it must have been decided already" without regard for the history.

I question how many "bankers, accountants, lawyers, and propagandists" were working on the explosives under "Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site".

You said "The crime is breaking sanctions". It doesn't matter if Trump is thinking of ending them, they were the sanctions in place at the time, and the company violated the various ITAR conditions on buying technology. Trump ignores contracts, so maybe he thinks it's OK that ZTE ignored its contracts, but Americans get punished severely if they pass technology on to sanctioned countries. (I sit through ITAR seminars and videos every year as part of compliance where I work.) And the Republicans seem to think that the letter of the law is crucial for lots of other things, which would mean that "breaking sanctions" should be punished as the rules in effect at the time were written; but again, Trump seems to think that words don't matter - it's the thought that counts - so the letter of the law doesn't matter if he doesn't think so. I submit that if a Democrat did exactly the same thing, he would be pilloried as weak, and spineless, and failing to enforce the law, and suspiciously forgiving of America's enemies.

Maybe when the Republicans aren't controlling Congress . . . .

"Fox News's hosts and guests contradictorily blasting former President Barack Obama for saying he would meet with dictators and enemies of the United States, but effusively praising current President Donald Trump for agreeing to sit down face-to-face with North Korean despot Kim Jong Un." http://www.newsweek.com/fox-ne...

Would you say the same thing if a Democrat were doing this?

Interstate highways aren't free; they are SOCIALIST! I'm sorry, they are communally paid for through taxes. And the densely populated states tend to be paying for the huge amounts of roads in the sparsely populated states, which amounts to taxation without equal representation since the sparse states get the same number of senators as the 60-times-as-many-people states.

Scandinavian Peninsula countries Norway and Sweden have similar geographic problems, so they made it a national defense priority, and made sure they had hardware companies in-country too. If the US weren't so religiously dedicated to competition, we could have better coverage instead of having 3 or 4 companies covering the same narrow densely-populated bands and the highways connecting them.