Legalizing Weed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You’re a bigger idiot than I originally thought. Even a borderline moron would realize that if I didn’t want to respond I would not have gone on for 13 pages debating people far and away brighter than you on this topic (granted that’s not saying much). So don’t wear your arm out patting yourself on the back it is unwarranted. You are not my match on any topic be it the legalization of pot or anything else politically related. You’re just not smart enough.[/quote]

And yet you still duck and dive…

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Furthermore if you had read the entire thread you would realize that you did not respond to my many prior points. I have stated them and restated them. So far the only thing you “tore the shit out of” was the waist line of last years jeans. All you’ve done in this thread is what you usually do storm around name calling and make a general nuisance of yourself.

As for ad hominem attacks you are the king![/quote]

I love how you’re still leading with ad hominems, while pissing and moaning about my supposed name calling. LOL…you’re such a dipshit. Glad to see you putting your douchebaggery on display for the entire forum, yet again.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Once again, I’m not hitting the reset button for you. Where were you 13 pages ago when we were debating this issue inside and out? You wanted none of it did you? Now that the thread is on its last legs you decide to come in and revive it. Were you afraid to jump in earlier? Did you feel you needed more cover before you tried to make your (foolish) point? Regardless, I am not going to restate my arguments for you because you are too lazy to go back and read a dozen pages.

If you want to answer my primary argument go back to pages 2 through 12 and have at it. If you can actually refute my many points I will jump in again and respond. But your usual blow hard tactics won’t work.

So get busy and actually read the entire thread. Then post back regarding my specific points. If you do that I’m in. If you fail to do that and respond once again like an ignoramus I will do what about 10-15 of my peers on this site have already done and put you on ignore.

Got it? [/quote]

Piss off, ZEB. You’re just looking for an out, and a reason not to respond to my links. That would be easy for you wouldn’t it? Just keep crying about all my “big meany talk” while continually throwing ad hominems my way, put me on ignore, and just slink away. Then just do it and be done with it, douche, slink away. Fucks sake you whine alot.

You seriously pissing and moaning because I haven’t been involved in this thread since your first post in it? That’s all you have!? LOL…classic.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
“WAAAAAAAAA! bigflamer’s late to the party! and he’s pissing in my cheerios!! He can’t jump in NOW!! He hasn’t been involved since the beginning!! WAAAAAAAAAA!! I’ll just put him on ignore!! WAAAAAAAAA!!”[/quote]

You sound like some old ass conservative honkey; moaning and groaning about “that damn marijuana”. You probably yell at kids to get off you lawn too, don’t you, jack ass.

Try this; respond to my links, or just piss the fuck off. All you’re doing is moving the goal posts and avoiding the argument. And if you want to put me on ignore, then just fucking do it. It’s the pinnacle of sad watching you set that whole thing up.[/quote]

One more post by you and still no response to my many, many posts. You just don’t want to do the work do you?

Why am I not surprised.

The reset button will not be hit for you Assflamer so go do the work…run along now.[/quote]

More bullshit from you. I responded to you, with links to back me up. You STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO MINE.

Still haven’t responded.

Still whining and blathering.

Still ducking and diving.

Still ZEB.[/quote]

You are not as big a moron as Pittski but you are close.

Just because you jump into a thread that has been going on for 12 pages before you got here and drop a half dozen links does not mean that you have answered any of my arguments. You want it to all begin again because you are soooo very special. Funny stuff![/quote]

This whole “you haven’t been involved in this thread from the beginning!” tirade is childish at best. You need to grow the fuck up, let’em drop, and just admit that you don’t want to have the discussion for whatever reason.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
So, for the last time if you really want to have a debate on this topic, instead of your usual blather go back through the thread and answer my many arguments that were presented in detail and at length. For the third and final time I will not hit the reset button for you! I know you’re not the brightest bulb in the pack but even you should understand this by now.

Otherwise, I am going to do what many other T Nation members have already wisely done, I’ll put you on ignore. And by the way you will be the first person that I have put on ignore in T Nation history.

The choice is yours. You can do the work and have that debate that you pretend you want, or you can continue to play a part which mother nature groomed you for…Ass Clown.

The choice is yours. [/quote]

Oh ZEB, all the ad hominems in the world can’t cover up the fact that you’re avoiding the discussion. It’s convenient for me that I don’t really have to even say what a douche bag you are, it’s plain for everyone reading this thread to see. You’re doing a terrific job all on your own of illustrating what a clown you are.

Your constant blather about this “reset button” is just fucking stupid. Answering my argument in no way constitutes hitting a “reset button”; it’s a piss poor avoidance tactic that for whatever reason, you don’t seem willing to give up on. Whatever, you’re choice.

You talked about the effects of marijuana vs alcohol; I answered and provided links. You talked about the effects of consumption w/r/t the legalization of marijuana; I answered and provided links.

All you’ve done is rant and rave about not hitting some reset button, and have refused (so far) to answer my links. Fuck off, ZEB. I’ve got better things to do than entertain the ravings of an old ass conservative honkey like you.

Respond or avoid, the choice is yours.

EDIT: And seriously ZEB, if you’re gonna put me on ignore, then just fucking do it. Nobody wants to listen to you piss and moan about what you’re gonna do. If that’s what you want to do, then be a pussy like the others, and just do it. A man could grow a vagina listening to you cry about this.

402

bigflamer,

LOL you stupid bastard! I just posted a long and detailed response on this topic to a poster that I actually respect. And you’re still playing the “Zeb doesn’t want to debate card?”

My original assertion was correct you don’t want to read this thread.

You have nothing to say on this topic and I’m tired of your childishness. Honestly, you are no better than a 12 year old who has control of Mommy and Daddy’s computer.

And yes mister ad hominem, I will now join the many others who have placed you on ignore.

C L I C K

You can now sit back and read how mature adults debate an important issue. Maybe that will help you grow the fuck up…but I doubt it.

403

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Thanks for the detailed reply Zeb. I think honestly if you met more users of this particular drug that are smart, responsible, successful, conservative Americans it may change your opinion. Maybe not, maybe you already have.[/quote]

I actually do have friends who smoke pot on a regular basis. I would say that it has had a negative effect on some of them and others not so much.

Part of the problem is that many who are stopped for DWI have also been smoking pot as well. They get the alcohol test and that is enough to do them in. I think it’s more of a testing problem than being able to prove that you do not drive as well when high.

Is there anyone dumb enough (not talking about you my friend) to make a claim that most people can actually drive better while high? Do you want a street full of drivers who are high passing you in the opposite direction at 65 MPH? I know that I don’t want that.

US Department of Transportation

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000233

I agree that sugar can have devastating effects on the human body. I am very anti sugar, my cehat meals are few and far between. But once again there are not many people who get a “sugar high” and then get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone. The pot issue is always going tobe two-fold.

  1. How much damage does it do the the body and brain of the regular user. To those who claim that it is their body and their right to destroy it I disagree. This is a national heath care COST problem. So as long as there is a cost to the general public it goes far beyond their right to harm themselves as it is not a free ride.

As for alcohol it it will always show up in stats as being devastating. Do you know why? More people drink than smoke pot. Hence, there is more carnage to look at. My example of 100,000 people dying per year from alcohol related problems speaks directly to that. However, there would be no compelling reason why pot usage would not sky rocket should it become legal.
And as I’ve already pointed out, more usages leads to more physical, psychological, societal and general social problems.

Are we a better nation because more of us get high more frequently? Or, are we a better nation when there is less of it?

Easy answer…

It’s more than just he government. Why won’t insurance companies carry you if they know that you smoke pot?

Something that has been used for centuries makes it good? Once again there are a long list of examples of things that have been used for centuries that are not actually good for you.

I think it’s pretty clear that marijuana is not all that good for you. Just as it is claimed two drinks of alcohol per day is good for the heart, they don’t talk about how that same number of drinks is bad for the liver.

In the same way I’m sure that pot is might be good for certain things. But there is no denying from the many links that I have posted that it is absolutely bad for you in many other ways.

If you are claiming that you want another drug freely available that has the opportunity to rip through society as alcohol has I just can’t see the point in it. 1000,000 deaths per years is enough-

I don’t personally hate the argument it’s just that it makes no sense. If drug “A” has been shown to lower depression in clinical studies and it actually helps people I see no problem with it. I’ve seen the studies that those pushing pot have made and I’m so far…not impressed. Anything that pot can do for someone pain wise there is already a better drug available. Let’s face it that’s not why you or anyone else on this thread wants pot to be legal. The reason is you enjoy getting high and you don’t want to have to worry about incarceration. That is THE reason why there is a push to legalize pot.

Simple. We all understand what’s going on.

[quote]
As far as your “contribution to society” argument by letting this one go, like I said for me it comes down more to hypocrisy but the late great Bill Hicks (I know you’ve already said you weren’t familiar with his comedy)really said it best: "?See I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do, and if you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor: go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your cds and burn 'em. 'cause you know the musicians who made all that great music that’s enhanced your lives throughout the years… rrrrrrrrreal f**kin high on drugs.?[/quote]

That is perhaps the weakest argument for legalizing a drug that could possibly have as harmful an effect on society as alcohol.

Would these very talented people who have studied music for years be able to produce without the use of pot?

I think history is a better judge than you or I. Many of the great musicians of the past never touched a drug and put out some of the great classics.

So much for a comedians take on drug use.

But your posts remain the most reasoned and I respect that.

404

This is the dumbest, longest and most useless debate on this. Zeb is arguing because he’s Zeb and is so old none of his views will ever change. My posts weren’t for people like him anyway. I already know we will have to wait for people like that to die off before we stop basing society on half truths and government propaganda.

LOL. It is illegal because old white people in the early 1900’s were afraid of jazz and black people and mexicans. The fact that this is actually true is going to make this generation of humans look like clowns to society 200 years from now…if we exist that long.

“can you believe they used to make the use of this illegal? They didn’t find out it cured cancer until 150 years later because Zeb wouldn’t die.”

405

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL. It is illegal because old white people in the early 1900’s were afraid of jazz and black people and mexicans. The fact that this is actually true is going to make this generation of humans look like clowns to society 200 years from now…if we exist that long.

“can you believe they used to make the use of this illegal? They didn’t find out it cured cancer until 150 years later because Zeb wouldn’t die.”[/quote]

Funny…'cause it’s true. LOL

406

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigflamer,

LOL you stupid bastard! I just posted a long and detailed response on this topic to a poster that I actually respect. And you’re still playing the “Zeb doesn’t want to debate card?”

My original assertion was correct you don’t want to read this thread.

You have nothing to say on this topic and I’m tired of your childishness. Honestly, you are no better than a 12 year old who has control of Mommy and Daddy’s computer.

And yes mister ad hominem, I will now join the many others who have placed you on ignore.

C L I C K

You can now sit back and read how mature adults debate an important issue. Maybe that will help you grow the fuck up…but I doubt it.

[/quote]

Good for you, finally scratched that itch you’ve had on your vagina and pulled the trigger.

Funny and sad that it was easier for you to put me on ignore than it was to just respond. LOL

407

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigflamer,

LOL you stupid bastard! I just posted a long and detailed response on this topic to a poster that I actually respect. And you’re still playing the “Zeb doesn’t want to debate card?”

My original assertion was correct you don’t want to read this thread.

You have nothing to say on this topic and I’m tired of your childishness. Honestly, you are no better than a 12 year old who has control of Mommy and Daddy’s computer.

And yes mister ad hominem, I will now join the many others who have placed you on ignore.

C L I C K

You can now sit back and read how mature adults debate an important issue. Maybe that will help you grow the fuck up…but I doubt it.

[/quote]

Good for you, finally scratched that itch you’ve had on your vagina and pulled the trigger.

Funny and sad that it was easier for you to put me on ignore than it was to just respond. LOL

[/quote]

Zeb can not respond because he is defending a loosing position

408

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigflamer,

LOL you stupid bastard! I just posted a long and detailed response on this topic to a poster that I actually respect. And you’re still playing the “Zeb doesn’t want to debate card?”

My original assertion was correct you don’t want to read this thread.

You have nothing to say on this topic and I’m tired of your childishness. Honestly, you are no better than a 12 year old who has control of Mommy and Daddy’s computer.

And yes mister ad hominem, I will now join the many others who have placed you on ignore.

C L I C K

You can now sit back and read how mature adults debate an important issue. Maybe that will help you grow the fuck up…but I doubt it.

[/quote]

Good for you, finally scratched that itch you’ve had on your vagina and pulled the trigger.

Funny and sad that it was easier for you to put me on ignore than it was to just respond. LOL

[/quote]

Zeb can not respond because he is defending a loosing position
[/quote]

All he had to do was respond. LOL…what a douche.

409

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Zeb can not respond because he is defending a loosing position
[/quote]

One more of your drive by postings? And what does your post prove?

We all know you love to smoke pot on your back porch but don’t allow your love for the drug to cause you to stoop to this nonsense.

Over the past 14 pages or so I’ve debated at least a half dozen different people. Most recently I’ve given my most lengthy response to every possible question that could be asked. And some posters (just recently) have put forth some reasonable arguments. You may not agree with my position but it is not because you or anyone else has been able to successfully refute all of the points. It’s because you and most of the others who have been involved in this serious discussion like to smoke pot. I get it…you like it and you want it to be legal. But so far I remain unconvinced based solely on the arguments presented on this thread.

But…since it’s you Pitt, and I like you, and you are the one who began this thread I will be glad to give you yet one more chance to refute my many points in this debate.

I challenge you to leave the ad hominem attacks behind and put forth a logical position that would warrant a serious response on my part.

If you’re not interested no problem and no hard feelings on my part.

410

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Zeb can not respond because he is defending a loosing position
[/quote]

One more of your drive by postings? And what does your post prove?

We all know you love to smoke pot on your back porch but don’t allow your love for the drug to cause you to stoop to this nonsense.

Over the past 14 pages or so I’ve debated at least a half dozen different people. Most recently I’ve given my most lengthy response to every possible question that could be asked. And some posters (just recently) have put forth some reasonable arguments. You may not agree with my position but it is not because you or anyone else has been able to successfully refute all of the points. It’s because you and most of the others who have been involved in this serious discussion like to smoke pot. I get it…you like it and you want it to be legal. But so far I remain unconvinced based solely on the arguments presented on this thread.

But…since it’s you Pitt, and I like you, and you are the one who began this thread I will be glad to give you yet one more chance to refute my many points in this debate.

I challenge you to leave the ad hominem attacks behind and put forth a logical position that would warrant a serious response on my part.

If you’re not interested no problem and no hard feelings on my part.[/quote]

See Zeb you almost got it , I started the thread . It is my points you must refute . Where are all these Zombies ?

411

ZEB wrote:

[quote]
Part of the problem is that many who are stopped for DWI have also been smoking pot as well. They get the alcohol test and that is enough to do them in. I think it’s more of a testing problem than being able to prove that you do not drive as well when high.

Is there anyone dumb enough (not talking about you my friend) to make a claim that most people can actually drive better while high? Do you want a street full of drivers who are high passing you in the opposite direction at 65 MPH? I know that I don’t want that.[/quote]

I am with you on not believing folks that think they drive better while they are high (trust me I’ve heard that one) but in your scenario they would be passing you going like 20mph thinking they were going 65 :slight_smile:
On a serious note the arguments against legalization in conjunction with traffic citations make little sense as I’m all for enforcement of regulations against driving while intoxicated. Sure it may be a little tougher to ferret out what counts as “intoxicated” with marijuana but it’s possible. My point to the prescription drugs is that I can guarantee we have incomplete traffic stop records indicating the use of prescription drugs because that is often not asked or overlooked. Bottom line is marijuana could be legal and still have penalties for driving under the influence.

Absolutely not but my point is that the plant has been used responsibly (and yes of course irresponsibly too) for thousand of years. Its like the use of medicinal herbs in Europe. The “food safety” authorities are trying like hell to ban access to most herbs that have been in use for thousands of years like they know better. It’s idiotic and the only reason they are doing it is to protect pharma profits under the guise of “keeping the public safe”. Same goes here. Main difference here is that if the government wised up and legalized it they could actually put some of those profits back into their own coffers.

Marijuana is already heavily in use by our populace. We are just talking about ending the incarceration of our citizens for growing this plant and distributing it. Unless you are just clueless (i mean in the general sense not just you Zeb) marijuana is freely available in every city in our nation. If we are talking about cost/benefit ration and ridding our society of ills, sugar would be the first to go, alcohol second. We tried the second and failed miserably. The only ones benefiting from MJ being illegal are cartels and other growing ops. Guess who’s not only not making money of the sale of MJ but actually paying for it? Yep, the US Govt. Doesn’t make sense to me.

[quote]
I don’t personally hate the argument it’s just that it makes no sense. If drug “A” has been shown to lower depression in clinical studies and it actually helps people I see no problem with it. I’ve seen the studies that those pushing pot have made and I’m so far…not impressed. Anything that pot can do for someone pain wise there is already a better drug available. Let’s face it that’s not why you or anyone else on this thread wants pot to be legal. The reason is you enjoy getting high and you don’t want to have to worry about incarceration. That is THE reason why there is a push to legalize pot.

Simple. We all understand what’s going on.[/quote]

I think I’ve addressed the avoiding incarceration comment enough but Marinol (the active component of MJ) has been clinically studied and is FDA approved. Now why would that be and not the whole plant, hmmmm??? There are certainly stronger pain killers but just not ones you could grow in the privacy of your own home at every little cost to you and free from the purview of insurance.

[quote]
That is perhaps the weakest argument for legalizing a drug that could possibly have as harmful an effect on society as alcohol.

Would these very talented people who have studied music for years be able to produce without the use of pot?

I think history is a better judge than you or I. Many of the great musicians of the past never touched a drug and put out some of the great classics.

So much for a comedians take on drug use.

But your posts remain the most reasoned and I respect that.[/quote]

Wasn’t really an argument for it more a lighthearted truth of the matter really. TONS of artists of all medias throughout the ages have used this herb to get into a mental state conducive to their art. Again as long as and up until you do something irresponsible like drive off and injure someone, why can’t you safely and responsibly use this herb without fear of incarceration?

412

I’ve said it before, but I’d be willing to entertain (limited) legalization, provided that (1) I can join private insurance pools that refuse to admit pot-users as part of the pool, and (2) pot-users have a 50-75% co-pay on any medical expenses associated with their use that otherwise get deferred to public health coverage.

No problem. You want personal freedom? Enjoy personal responsibility. You may “enjoy” pot-use for your entire life without many health problems. But if you do, it’s no one else’s problem to fix.

413

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Well we just don’t know yet do we as right now the answer is that it is illegal. [/quote]

Completely false. Some insurers do cover, but the vast majority won’t. And it isn’t because of the illegality - health care insurers only care if they think you are a losing (actuarial) bet on payouts because of your health situation…and health insurers have (rationally) determined that users are a bad bet, i.e., the amount of premiums they pay in won’t justify the money paid out for their health problems.

Because it is a prescription drug that is medically prescribed to be taken at certain intervals in certain doses, i.e., misuse of it can be regulated (to an extent).

414

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I’d be willing to entertain (limited) legalization, provided that (1) I can join private insurance pools that refuse to admit pot-users as part of the pool, and (2) pot-users have a 50-75% co-pay on any medical expenses associated with their use that otherwise get deferred to public health coverage.

No problem. You want personal freedom? Enjoy personal responsibility. You may “enjoy” pot-use for your entire life without many health problems. But if you do, it’s no one else’s problem to fix.[/quote]

This is a reasonable approach.

415

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I’d be willing to entertain (limited) legalization, provided that (1) I can join private insurance pools that refuse to admit pot-users as part of the pool, and (2) pot-users have a 50-75% co-pay on any medical expenses associated with their use that otherwise get deferred to public health coverage.

No problem. You want personal freedom? Enjoy personal responsibility. You may “enjoy” pot-use for your entire life without many health problems. But if you do, it’s no one else’s problem to fix.[/quote]

I’d like the same scenario for people that eat refined sugar daily. I don’t want to pay more to entertain your destructive eating habits

416

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Well we just don’t know yet do we as right now the answer is that it is illegal. [/quote]

Completely false. Some insurers do cover, but the vast majority won’t. And it isn’t because of the illegality - health care insurers only care if they think you are a losing (actuarial) bet on payouts because of your health situation…and health insurers have (rationally) determined that users are a bad bet, i.e., the amount of premiums they pay in won’t justify the money paid out for their health problems.

Because it is a prescription drug that is medically prescribed to be taken at certain intervals in certain doses, i.e., misuse of it can be regulated (to an extent).[/quote]

I know some do already and have been on the threads with you where this has been discussed ad nauseum. My point was that we don’t reliably know as in the majority of the country this substance is illegal and so we don’t have good across the board data of what insurers would do if it wasn’t and you can’t tell me that (like alcohol) if it was made legal across the nation that most insurers wouldn’t have some kind of plan of action to carry those users. Doesn’t make economic sense that they wouldn’t. Pay a higher premium if you smoke MJ? Sure, that stands to reason. Not carry someone whatsoever if they ingest MJ through a means other than smoking? Yeah I find that hard to believe if the stigma of it being illegal was completely removed at a federal level.

That is ostensibly why Marinol is available but we all know it’s BS. They can “regulate” all they want and it’s not controlling misuse anymore than the outright ban like on MJ.

"data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show that nearly one-third of people aged 12 and over who used drugs for the first time in 2009 began by using a prescription drug non-medically.

In 2004, 14 million patients misused their prescription drugs and more than 20,000 of those resulted in unintended death, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention."

417

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I’d like the same scenario for people that eat refined sugar daily. I don’t want to pay more to entertain your destructive eating habits[/quote]

People who have bad health effects from sugar pay more in health insurance premiums because of their condition, so the cost is borne primarily by them (their premium is more expensive).

But sugar is in other things that are otherwise good for you - who eats a bag of sugar all by itself?

Try again.

418

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I know some do already and have been on the threads with you where this has been discussed ad nauseum. My point was that we don’t reliably know as in the majority of the country this substance is illegal and so we don’t have good across the board data of what insurers would do if it wasn’t and you can’t tell me that (like alcohol) if it was made legal across the nation that most insurers wouldn’t have some kind of plan of action to carry those users.[/quote]

Why would illegality matter to an insurance company that wants to make money off of you? The illegality of the drug doesn’t affect that, not one bit. So, there is no reason to think illegality affects their coverage in any meaningful way.

You may want to believe that, but that doesn’t mean it;s actually true.

Um, you have that backwards. If an insurance company thought a pot-user was a winning bet, they’d sign them up. They don’t. You figure out the economics.

Insurance perceive you as an actuarial number. Stigma doesn’t affect that. You say this because you want it to be true, but it isn’t.

Sure they are. The medicine controls the amount ingested and the prescription controls access to it. It isn’t perfect - people abuse prescription drugs - but prescription regulates misuse far better than simply letting people do whatever they want, whenever they want…which is no regulation of misuse at all.

419

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I’d like the same scenario for people that eat refined sugar daily. I don’t want to pay more to entertain your destructive eating habits[/quote]

People who have bad health effects from sugar pay more in health insurance premiums because of their condition, so the cost is borne primarily by them (their premium is more expensive).

But sugar is in other things that are otherwise good for you - who eats a bag of sugar all by itself?

Try again. [/quote]

So why wouldn’t that be the same for MJ users? The ones that contract a condition derived from the use of it would pay higher premiums through that condition. Because let’s be honest here, right now insurance companies are unwittingly covers tens of thousands of MJ users. Other than someone that contracted lung cancer or other lung condition from excessively smoking the plant, they would never know what the “negative health effects of MJ” were as they are covering tons of people that do use it at this very moment.

*** Side note, not sure if you’ve never been to the south but trust me people eat bags of sugar straight up and then also in a liquid concoction they call swayt tay that has no positive benefits.

420

[quote]storey420 wrote:

So why wouldn’t that be the same for MJ users? [/quote]

Because the risk of use of sugar is not the same risk as users of pot. You can’t say unlike things are alike.

And I am not saying an insurer couldn’t do this - a small fraction do. But most don’t, and that’s because pot-users are a losing bet. Period. That’s economics.

As such, should we legalize it, I don’t want to be forced to pick up the tab on these losers in my insurance pool with my inusrance premiums or my taxes.

Legalize it, and let the pot-users form their own insurance pool that caters specifically to them. If pot is as harmless as all of its advocates say it is, why would that be a problem? It’d be just like any other insurance group, right?

Everybody wins. So you’re on board with this idea, right?

Well, this is flatly untrue - insurers get “the file” on your visit to the hospital and if they find something in the data (like a blood test showing your injury/condition of drug use) that contradicts your contractual agreement not covering for such things, you are in for a rude awakening.

I am from, and live, in the South.