You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Rohrabacher–Farr amendment

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment (also known as the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment) is legislation first introduced by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey in 2001, prohibiting the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. It passed the House in May 2014 after six previously failed attempts, becoming law in December 2014 as part of an omnibus spending bill. The passage of the amendment was the first time either chamber of Congress had voted to protect medical cannabis patients, and is viewed as a historic victory for cannabis reform advocates at the federal level. The amendment does not change the legal status of cannabis, however, and must be renewed each fiscal year in order to remain in effect.

Legislative history
Initially introduced by Rep. Hinchey in 2001, the amendment was withdrawn before it could be brought to a vote. In 2003, Hinchey joined with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher to introduce the amendment, leading to a 152–273 defeat the first time the amendment was voted on. The Hinchey–Rohrabacher amendment failed five more times over the next decade, until it passed the House (as the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment) by a 219–189 vote on May 30, 2014, as an attachment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015. The amendment was then introduced in the Senate by Sens. Rand Paul and Cory Booker on June 18, but was not allowed a vote. In December, however, the amendment was inserted into the $1.1 trillion "cromnibus" spending bill during final negotiations, and the bill was signed into law by President Obama on December 16, 2014.

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment passed the House for a second time on June 3, 2015, by a 242–186 margin. It was voted on by members of the Senate for the first time on June 11, 2015, winning approval in a 21–9 Senate Appropriations Committee vote led by sponsor Barbara Mikulski. The amendment remained in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bill that was signed into law by President Obama on December 18, 2015.

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment was not voted on by the House in 2016, but did pass the Senate Appropriations Committee for a second time on April 21, 2016, by a 21–8 vote. The amendment was later renewed through a pair of spending bills signed into law on September 29 and December 10, and again for an additional week on April 28, 2017.

On May 5, 2017, the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment was renewed until September 30, 2017, as part of a $1 trillion spending bill signed into law by President Trump. In regards to the medical cannabis provision, Trump added a signing statement that read: "Division B, section 537 provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories. I will treat this provision consistently with my constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Days before the spending bill was signed into law, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to congressional leaders urging that the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment not be renewed.

On July 27, 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved inclusion of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in the CJS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018, in a voice vote led by sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy. On September 6, however, the House Committee on Rules blocked a vote on the amendment, due to Republican leadership viewing it as too divisive. The amendment was then renewed on September 8 as part of an emergency aid package, and again through a series of stopgap spending bills on December 8, December 22, January 22, and February 9. On March 23 the amendment was renewed as part of the FY 2018 omnibus spending bill, in effect through September 30, 2018.

On May 17, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee approved inclusion of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in the CJS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019, in a voice vote led by sponsor Rep. David Joyce. The Senate Appropriations Committee followed on June 12 by approving a base CJS appropriations bill with the amendment included. The amendment was then renewed through a series of short-term spending bills signed on September 28, December 7, and January 25. On February 15 the amendment was renewed through the signing of the FY 2019 omnibus spending bill, effective through September 30, 2019. President Trump added a signing statement regarding the amendment similar to the one he added in May 2017.

On May 16, 2019, a House subcommittee released a base appropriations bill with the amendment included. On September 26 the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a base appropriations bill with the amendment included. On September 27 the amendment was renewed through a stopgap spending bill, and again on November 21. On December 20 the amendment was renewed through the signing of the FY 2020 omnibus spending bill, effective through September 30, 2020. President Trump added a signing statement regarding the amendment similar to the ones he added in May 2017 and February 2019.

House votes
The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment has been introduced on the House floor nine times. It was initially known as the Hinchey–Rohrabacher amendment until Rep. Hinchey retired in January 2013, after which Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr took over as lead sponsor and co-sponsor. Rep. Farr then retired in January 2017 with Rep. Earl Blumenauer taking over as future lead co-sponsor.

The vote totals for the amendment are as follows:

The passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in 2014 was noted for its rare bipartisan support, garnering the approval of 49 Republicans and 170 Democrats. Among the notable "no" votes was DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was the only member of Democratic leadership to vote against it. The medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access subsequently targeted Schultz with a TV ad criticizing her vote against the amendment.

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment passed the House in 2015 with the support of 67 Republicans and 175 Democrats.

Amendment text
The full text of the 2014 House amendment was as follows:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Implementation
The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment became law in December 2014, but initially failed to have its intended impact, due to the Justice Department interpreting the amendment in an incorrect manner (as later determined by a pair of court rulings). Contrary to the amendment's popular interpretation, the DOJ argued that only state officials were protected from prosecution, and not private individuals or entities involved in the production or distribution of medical cannabis. Since state officials were not being prosecuted to begin with, the DOJ's position was essentially that the amendment had no effect. This stance conflicted with the DOJ's earlier position (leading up to the May 2014 vote), when it advised members of Congress that the amendment's protections could actually apply more broadly than intended, to cover recreational cannabis as well (in addition to medical).

After the amendment's enactment, DOJ enforcement efforts continued (per the new interpretation) against medical cannabis providers who were following state law. These prosecutions drew protests from Rohrabacher and others, who charged that both the letter and the spirit of the amendment were being violated. The DOJ publicly addressed the matter for the first time in April 2015, when a spokesperson confirmed the much more narrow interpretation of the amendment that was being employed. In response, both Rohrabacher and Farr strongly denounced the interpretation, and a letter was sent to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an end to the prosecutions. A letter was also sent to Inspector General Michael Horowitz in July 2015, seeking a government investigation into the matter.

In October 2015, a court ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer affirmed the meaning of Rohrabacher–Farr as the authors originally intended, providing supporters of the amendment with a key legal victory. Judge Breyer in his decision was especially critical of the DOJ interpretation, stating that it "defies language and logic" and "tortures the plain meaning of the statute", and was "counterintuitive and opportunistic". The ruling lifted an injunction against a California dispensary, the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, and was considered to set important legal precedent inhibiting future prosecutions. The Justice Department appealed Breyer's ruling, but in April 2016 it withdrew the appeal. In August 2016, the DOJ interpretation was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well, in a separate case consolidating the appeals of 10 medical cannabis providers in the states of California and Washington. The unanimous ruling of the three-judge panel is binding on the nine western states of the Ninth Circuit, and is considered likely to hold influence on other circuit courts.

References

Category:2001 in cannabis
Category:Cannabis in the United States
Category:Cannabis law in the United States
Category:Cannabis law reform in the United States
Category:Drug control law in the United States
Category:Drug policy of the United States
Category:Federalism in the United States
Category:Medicinal use of cannabis