Legalizing Weed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Really? No effect whatsoever? Hmmm…I can find some insurance carriers that will cover the marijuana in states where it is accessible legally but darned if I can’t find any companies covering cocaine use. Insurance companies will however cover heroin and other opiates once they have been standardized and made into a pharma script. Yeah you’re right it must solely be because they can control the dose and nothing to do with lobbying and special interests. That argument doesn’t really hold water anyway seeing as how you can control the dose in ingest-able forms of delivery.

This is the real crux of the issue with insurance:

"The reason that medical marijuana is not covered, both Pisano [of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group that represents nearly 1,300 companies],and Mirken [of the Marijuana Policy Project] said, is that it is not approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The main issue here is the question of FDA approval that all drugs need to go through,” said Pisano. Lack of FDA approval means no coverage either by private insurers or through any public plan to be drafted in Congress.

So what, then, are the prospects that medical marijuana will get FDA approval? In the short term, at least, they’re pretty slim. The fact that marijuana remains a controlled substance presents one hurdle to approval; another, perhaps more significant one is that it isn’t a synthesized drug â?? that is, its component parts are not crafted by drug companies. "

422

thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Agreed sugar and pot are not alike, refined sugar is infinitely worse and has the track record of damage on this country to prove it.
I’m fine with an idea like yours especially in the beginning of a legalization to bridge the gap and get real data. I would love to see a similar idea but with natural medicine and supplements to allow that group to prove the efficacy of true preventative care.

You don’t really believe that one simple blood test is going to show that you’ve been using MJ do you? It is exceptionally easy to clean from the system and if people know they have to get a workup whether for employment or insurance they simply clean up for a period of time and voila! they appear as though they haven’t. Same premise goes for most drug. Yeah if you’re dumb enough to smoke a joint or do a line of coke a day before your insurance physical, then so be it but to think that THOUSANDS of people that semi-regularly ingest marijuana aren’t being covered right now is well, just a bit naive.

[quote]
I am from, and live, in the South.[/quote]

Well then you know already. Dumping sugar into water and dissolving it with food coloring doesn’t take it out of the “eating bags of sugar” category

423

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Really? No effect whatsoever? Hmmm…I can find some insurance carriers that will cover the marijuana in states where it is accessible legally but darned if I can’t find any companies covering cocaine use. Insurance companies will however cover heroin and other opiates once they have been standardized and made into a pharma script. Yeah you’re right it must solely be because they can control the dose and nothing to do with lobbying and special interests. That argument doesn’t really hold water anyway seeing as how you can control the dose in ingest-able forms of delivery.

This is the real crux of the issue with insurance:

"The reason that medical marijuana is not covered, both Pisano [of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group that represents nearly 1,300 companies],and Mirken [of the Marijuana Policy Project] said, is that it is not approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The main issue here is the question of FDA approval that all drugs need to go through,” said Pisano. Lack of FDA approval means no coverage either by private insurers or through any public plan to be drafted in Congress.

So what, then, are the prospects that medical marijuana will get FDA approval? In the short term, at least, they’re pretty slim. The fact that marijuana remains a controlled substance presents one hurdle to approval; another, perhaps more significant one is that it isn’t a synthesized drug â?? that is, its component parts are not crafted by drug companies. "
[/quote]

But see, you’ve confused yourself - are you talking about legalization for medicine? Or legalization for recreational, non-medicinal reasons?

Because what you are citing to (even though you don’t link to it) is insurers paying for drugs for medicinal purposes, not insuring drug users. Of course they are going to require FDA approval before they pick up some or all of the tab of the cost of medicine.

I am not talking about that, I am not talking about a drug subsidy from the insurer, and haven’t been. I am talking about insurance refusing to insure people who use pot (and other drugs, if you want to open that door).

Insurers won’t insure the health risks of people who use drugs recreationally because of the high-risk. Period.

424

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Agreed sugar and pot are not alike, refined sugar is infinitely worse and has the track record of damage on this country to prove it.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t, because in and of itself, sugar isn’t determinative of bad health outcomes, which is why insurers will take people who eat sugar. Sugar with lack of exercise, other bad foods, artificial fats, etc. - then sugar can be bad. But you won’t find an otherwise healthy person who is in bad health because of “sugar”.

Good, then you and your fellow pot-heads can have a blast - and pay for each other’s health issues, if any arise. Best of luck in keeping those premiums down, but in any event, I can live with this arrangement.

Oh, they’re covered - they’re just not supposed to be, because they are lying to their insurance company. And if and when the insurance company finds out tehy are lying, what do you think happens next?

425

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Really? No effect whatsoever? Hmmm…I can find some insurance carriers that will cover the marijuana in states where it is accessible legally but darned if I can’t find any companies covering cocaine use. Insurance companies will however cover heroin and other opiates once they have been standardized and made into a pharma script. Yeah you’re right it must solely be because they can control the dose and nothing to do with lobbying and special interests. That argument doesn’t really hold water anyway seeing as how you can control the dose in ingest-able forms of delivery.

This is the real crux of the issue with insurance:

"The reason that medical marijuana is not covered, both Pisano [of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group that represents nearly 1,300 companies],and Mirken [of the Marijuana Policy Project] said, is that it is not approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The main issue here is the question of FDA approval that all drugs need to go through,” said Pisano. Lack of FDA approval means no coverage either by private insurers or through any public plan to be drafted in Congress.

So what, then, are the prospects that medical marijuana will get FDA approval? In the short term, at least, they’re pretty slim. The fact that marijuana remains a controlled substance presents one hurdle to approval; another, perhaps more significant one is that it isn’t a synthesized drug Ã?¢?? that is, its component parts are not crafted by drug companies. "
[/quote]

But see, you’ve confused yourself - are you talking about legalization for medicine? Or legalization for recreational, non-medicinal reasons?

Because what you are citing to (even though you don’t link to it) is insurers paying for drugs for medicinal purposes, not insuring drug users. Of course they are going to require FDA approval before they pick up some or all of the tab of the cost of medicine.

I am not talking about that, I am not talking about a drug subsidy from the insurer, and haven’t been. I am talking about insurance refusing to insure people who use pot (and other drugs, if you want to open that door).

Insurers won’t insure the health risks of people who use drugs recreationally because of the high-risk. Period. [/quote]

Of course they will, see alcohol and tobacco and of course as alluded to earlier in the thread, much of the processed food people eat should be looked at like drugs in their chemically addictive qualities. They pay higher premiums (well not necessarily for alcohol) but yes insurance companies will gladly cover people that use drugs recreationally provided those drugs are legal. And before anyone gets into a debate about whether alcohol or tobacco is a drug Study: Alcohol 'most harmful drug,' followed by crack and heroin - CNN.com

426

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Of course they will, see alcohol and tobacco and of course as alluded to earlier in the thread, much of the processed food people eat should be looked at like drugs in their chemically addictive qualities. They pay higher premiums (well not necessarily for alcohol) but yes insurance companies will gladly cover people that use drugs recreationally provided those drugs are legal. And before anyone gets into a debate about whether alcohol or tobacco is a drug Study: Alcohol 'most harmful drug,' followed by crack and heroin - CNN.com
[/quote]

The issue is not whether it is a “drug” or not for purposes of insurability - the issue is whether the substance can be found to be determinative of bad health outcomes.

Alcohol is actually good for you - the laundry list of health benefits grows every day. Tobacco is not good for you, and people pay higher premiums for using it, but standing alone, it isn’t determinative of bad health outcomes all by itself to the point tobacco-users are uninsurable because the actuarial math won’t work out.

Legality is irrelevant. Again, you want it to be relevant, because you need to believe that the only thing keeping pot-users from being insured is “the conspiracy”, but it just ain’t so. Pot use entails health risks, and pot-users are a bad bet in the health insurance world.

427

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Agreed sugar and pot are not alike, refined sugar is infinitely worse and has the track record of damage on this country to prove it.

No, it doesn’t, because in and of itself, sugar isn’t determinative of bad health outcomes, which is why insurers will take people who eat sugar. Sugar with lack of exercise, other bad foods, artificial fats, etc. - then sugar can be bad. But you won’t find an otherwise healthy person who is in bad health because of “sugar”.
[/quote]

You wont see it with a pretty little red bow on it because when that little old lady comes in with senility and bone disease, no one is able to pin it solely and directly on refined sugar even though its the biggest accomplice in most cases.

The over consumption of refined sugar is an epidemic in this country but it’s a white-collar crime because it takes years to degenerate the organism. Just like smoking tobacco it takes time to reap the consequences. It has zero beneficial place in our diet and strips the body of minerals and vitamins making it worse than not eating. Insurers will take people that have chronically elevated insulin levels from eating refined sugar because no one knows how to enforce it properly. Literally everything that the avergae American eats (T-Nationers excluded hopefully) is a refined sugar bomb. Sugar is a powerful lobby that gets billions in subsidies and other government assistance. Trust me no insurance company is going to make that move to demonize it and the reasons (as with most things) run deeper than the surface issue.

[quote]
Good, then you and your fellow pot-heads can have a blast - and pay for each other’s health issues, if any arise. Best of luck in keeping those premiums down, but in any event, I can live with this arrangement.[/quote]

Sweet! Now convince the rest of your fellow boneheads and we’re getting somewhere.

[quote]
Oh, they’re covered - they’re just not supposed to be, because they are lying to their insurance company. And if and when the insurance company finds out they are lying, what do you think happens next?[/quote]

In my experience thus far, mostly nothing as the companies never find out because occasional or light recreational use isn’t a big deal AT ALL and doesn’t affect the health any more negatively than having a couple drinks to wind down (assuming you arent just smoking joints) and so they appear as your average normal person when getting checkups.

I take tonic herbs as well (ginseng, reishi, chaga, etc.) of the highest quality. The impact on my own health is profound. Whenever I get workups, the doctors are impressed “remarkable bloodwork” was the quote of the last physician. Physician would never in a million years think I occasionally imbibe based off their current diagnostic methods. Point of that is insurance should be based on preventative care at the expense of the policy holder. What we have is not healthcare, we have disease management (sorry I know this is a whole other topic). What the insurance companies don’t have is conclusive data to properly assess the inherent risks of covering MJ users because of limited data. This is why I’m amenable to something like you discussed to let the truth be sorted out. Bottom line is saying MJ users are riskier is based off conjecture at this point.

428

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Of course they will, see alcohol and tobacco and of course as alluded to earlier in the thread, much of the processed food people eat should be looked at like drugs in their chemically addictive qualities. They pay higher premiums (well not necessarily for alcohol) but yes insurance companies will gladly cover people that use drugs recreationally provided those drugs are legal. And before anyone gets into a debate about whether alcohol or tobacco is a drug Study: Alcohol 'most harmful drug,' followed by crack and heroin - CNN.com
[/quote]

The issue is not whether it is a “drug” or not for purposes of insurability - the issue is whether the substance can be found to be determinative of bad health outcomes.

Alcohol is actually good for you - the laundry list of health benefits grows every day. Tobacco is not good for you, and people pay higher premiums for using it, but standing alone, it isn’t determinative of bad health outcomes all by itself to the point tobacco-users are uninsurable because the actuarial math won’t work out.

Legality is irrelevant. Again, you want it to be relevant, because you need to believe that the only thing keeping pot-users from being insured is “the conspiracy”, but it just ain’t so. Pot use entails health risks, and pot-users are a bad bet in the health insurance world.[/quote]

You are truly dense if you think pot is worse in the terms you described than either alcohol or tobacco and really the facts are not on your side. MODERATE use of alcohol is what the health benefits are being shown for, there are no studies discussing moderate use of marijuana and long term health detriments, certainly not with people that aren’t smoking it but ingesting via a different form. Most of the studies we have seen furnished are the glaringly obvious that using it chronically (no pun intended) can be bad and kids using it is bad for their development. In other words they are in the “no shit” category.

Legality is absolutely relevant and you are crazy if you think that insurers that are willing to insure cigarette smokers (now a chemical/carcinogen concoction) wouldn’t also insure pot smokers (or users through other means than smoking especially) if the substance was legal. That’s not a conspiracy it’s just common sense.

429

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Alcohol is actually good for you - the laundry list of health benefits grows every day.[/quote]

And the shopping list of negative health effects grows faster.

But you know that, don’t you?

430

*** Update on attempt to regulate pot dispensaries in LA…

Despite a recent ban by the City Council to limit the number of pot shops in the city, marijuana advocates have now gathered enough signatures to rescind the ban, now making for a potentially unlimited number of pot shops in the city.

The Council cited that it is too expensive to litigate in court, so for now, they are backing down on imposing the ban.

The pot heads have now won a victory, now making for regulation impossible.

Well done Pitt, we now have no way (other than the Feds) to stop weed from uncontrollable sales and usage.

431
432

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
^Good post. I also mentioned the other commonly used over the counter drugs that affect perception and not one of these guys seems to be “angry” about that at all. Benadryl should be getting commercials about driving after taking it if people are this “health conscious”.[/quote]

I already corrected you on this point at least twice. You cannot make an argument that pot should be legalized because there are other dangerous drugs that are legal as well.

And…you should be smarter than to rely on this argument to begin with.
[/quote]

That is right ZEB sets all the rules around here

433

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Now tell us all how that helps our youth, the general public or society as a whole?

[/quote]

Read the article from Colorado Paper I posted

434

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
*** Update on attempt to regulate pot dispensaries in LA…

Despite a recent ban by the City Council to limit the number of pot shops in the city, marijuana advocates have now gathered enough signatures to rescind the ban, now making for a potentially unlimited number of pot shops in the city.

The Council cited that it is too expensive to litigate in court, so for now, they are backing down on imposing the ban.

The pot heads have now won a victory, now making for regulation impossible.

Well done Pitt, we now have no way (other than the Feds) to stop weed from uncontrollable sales and usage.[/quote]

Personally I would take it further allowing any one to grow their own pot with out permits , if they did that I would never need another drug dealer

435

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Alcohol is actually good for you - the laundry list of health benefits grows every day.[/quote]

And the shopping list of negative health effects grows faster.

But you know that, don’t you?[/quote]

LOL

[quote]Negative Alcohol Effects

Temporary Anterograde Amnesia (Blacking Out)
Disturbed Sleep (although it is easier to fall asleep, the stages of sleep are altered throughout the rest of the night)
Snoring which can exacerbate sleep apnea (Alcohol relaxes muscles in the pharynx)
Impaired judgement and coordination
Increased risk of accidents and injury
Headache, thirst, nausea, fatigue the following day (hangover)
Inflammation of the esophagus and stomach which can lead to epigastric distress and gastrointestinal bleeding
Decreased glucose production (hunger)
Increase in lactate production and decreased oxidation of fatty acids which can lead to fat accumulation in liver cells which can lead to: alcohol-induced hepatitis, sclerosis, and cirrhosis
Decreased contraction of the heart muscles and dilation of your blood vessels can cause a decrease in blood pressure. Your body compensates by increasing the amount of blood it pumps out (cardiac output). This can be problematic in men and women with existing cardiac disease.
Increased sexual drive, decreased erectile capacity
[/quote]

That last one means “limp dick”.

It is cute to see people root for their “drug” of choice while making sure to degrade others for theirs.

Most of this country is medicated on “mind altering” substances and the rest can’t even answer the phone without drinking coffee all day. The self righteousness isn’t going to leave too many people in heaven.

436

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Alcohol is actually good for you - the laundry list of health benefits grows every day.[/quote]

And the shopping list of negative health effects grows faster.

But you know that, don’t you?[/quote]

LOL

[quote]Negative Alcohol Effects

Temporary Anterograde Amnesia (Blacking Out)
Disturbed Sleep (although it is easier to fall asleep, the stages of sleep are altered throughout the rest of the night)
Snoring which can exacerbate sleep apnea (Alcohol relaxes muscles in the pharynx)
Impaired judgement and coordination
Increased risk of accidents and injury
Headache, thirst, nausea, fatigue the following day (hangover)
Inflammation of the esophagus and stomach which can lead to epigastric distress and gastrointestinal bleeding
Decreased glucose production (hunger)
Increase in lactate production and decreased oxidation of fatty acids which can lead to fat accumulation in liver cells which can lead to: alcohol-induced hepatitis, sclerosis, and cirrhosis
Decreased contraction of the heart muscles and dilation of your blood vessels can cause a decrease in blood pressure. Your body compensates by increasing the amount of blood it pumps out (cardiac output). This can be problematic in men and women with existing cardiac disease.
Increased sexual drive, decreased erectile capacity
[/quote]

That last one means “limp dick”.

It is cute to see people root for their “drug” of choice while making sure to degrade others for theirs.

Most of this country is medicated on “mind altering” substances and the rest can’t even answer the phone without drinking coffee all day. The self righteousness isn’t going to leave too many people in heaven.[/quote]

I have always thought 4 hour erections were normal ?

437

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Still going to vote no on this amendment. The “polls” say it has a chance of passing but in the end it probably will not.

438

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Alcohol is actually good for you - the laundry list of health benefits grows every day.[/quote]

And the shopping list of negative health effects grows faster.

But you know that, don’t you?[/quote]

LOL

[quote]Negative Alcohol Effects

Temporary Anterograde Amnesia (Blacking Out)
Disturbed Sleep (although it is easier to fall asleep, the stages of sleep are altered throughout the rest of the night)
Snoring which can exacerbate sleep apnea (Alcohol relaxes muscles in the pharynx)
Impaired judgement and coordination
Increased risk of accidents and injury
Headache, thirst, nausea, fatigue the following day (hangover)
Inflammation of the esophagus and stomach which can lead to epigastric distress and gastrointestinal bleeding
Decreased glucose production (hunger)
Increase in lactate production and decreased oxidation of fatty acids which can lead to fat accumulation in liver cells which can lead to: alcohol-induced hepatitis, sclerosis, and cirrhosis
Decreased contraction of the heart muscles and dilation of your blood vessels can cause a decrease in blood pressure. Your body compensates by increasing the amount of blood it pumps out (cardiac output). This can be problematic in men and women with existing cardiac disease.
Increased sexual drive, decreased erectile capacity
[/quote]

That last one means “limp dick”.

It is cute to see people root for their “drug” of choice while making sure to degrade others for theirs.

Most of this country is medicated on “mind altering” substances and the rest can’t even answer the phone without drinking coffee all day. The self righteousness isn’t going to leave too many people in heaven.[/quote]

I have always thought 4 hour erections were normal ?
[/quote]

Actually,I think that is the textbook definition of priapism…

Well, do you have hooves?

If so, this is perfectly normal, good look hunting these aquarian minxes…

439

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Sugar is a powerful lobby that gets billions in subsidies and other government assistance. Trust me no insurance company is going to make that move to demonize it and the reasons (as with most things) run deeper than the surface issue.[/quote]

It’s getting harder to take you seriously - you mean you think the insurers aren’t recognizing the “real risks” of sugar because of the sugar lobby? Really? No…really? Insurance companies?

Wow - pot does really make you paranoid, aye?

No, your conspiracy theory is rubbish. Insurers kow how to price in the bad health effects of sugar and have for a long time. They have the economics of sugar consumers figured out, and they can make money on them for the simple fact that the risks are not extreme.

Well, but that is irrelevant to the larger point, which is that insurers would nit insure those people if they were being honest about their use. But in any event, yes, the occasional recerational use of pot is worse than alcohol for the simple fact that moderate alcohol consumption actually is good for you.

This notion that pot and alcohol are the same is idiocy. I mean, I understand why the comparison is made, but it’s wrong.

Completely and utterly false, and you keep undermining your argument by just making nonsense up to suit your argument. Insurers have conclusive data on this stuff. That isn’t subject to debate.

No, it isn’t. See above, re: making stuff up. Yet another recent study connects pot use and testicular cancer - just because you choose not read this stuff doesn’t mean that others don’t, especially those who are paid enormous sums of money to know this stuff and see if there is an opportunity to make money from it.

440

[quote]Makavali wrote:

And the shopping list of negative health effects grows faster.

But you know that, don’t you?[/quote]

Grows faster? No, it doesn’t. Studies continue to confirm that people who consume moderate amounts of alcohol live longer than people who don’t, and moderate consumption appears to reduce the risk of certain diseases.

And since I know from experience that you’re not much for research and learning about topics before opining on them, enjoy the link for some happy reading on general information, and you’re welcome:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html

But just for the fun of it, let’s assume you are right - why aren’t insurance premiums for consumers of alcohol going up, or alcohol drinkers otherwise getting denied coverage?