Legalizing Weed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Because moderate alcohol use has been shown to provide positive health benefits over non-consumption. What positive health benefits does pot provide over non-use of pot?

Can’t wait for your answer.[/quote]

Since you’re asserting that it provides none I’m just going to have a brief list but to prevent your immediate dismissal and changing of the subject I am providing links to actual studies along with it. Something you have been unable to do thus far when I have asserted there are no studies on the ill effects of moderate use especially none with other means of ingesting, which is a hinge point to your baseless claims and conjecture about how bad it is.

pain relief-- Russo, E. B., Mathre, M. L., Byrne, A., Velin, R., Bach, P. J., Sanchez-Ramos, J., et al. (2002). Chronic cannabis use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An examination of benefits and adverse effects of legal clinical cannabis. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, 2(1), 3-57.

anti-spasmodatic

migraine relief

nausea relief (from chronic illness and/or pharmaceutical drugs)

prevention of Alzheimers (prevents formation of amyloid plaque) — http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2006/080906.html
therapeutic implications for inflammatory conditions, such as IBD Karen Coopman, Laura D. Smith, Karen L. Wright and Stephen G. Ward. (2007) Temporal variation in CB2R levels following T lymphocyte activation: Evidence that cannabinoids modulate CXCL12-induced chemotaxis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 7(3):360-371.

[quote]I’m asserting that as far as the studies show, overall there appear to be LESS negative effects from MJ than abusing alcohol.

False, completely and utterly false. Why? We know that moderate alcohol consumption actually provides health benefits. That is a net “LESS negative” effect than pot use.[/quote]

Convenient how you skipped over the word abusing to try and make your point. I still contend (and the studies back me up) that when abused alcohol is worse than marijuana. Not conclusive enough data to prove at moderate use.

[quote]I did choose to read that study and have weighed in on it. Stop communicating like you are an all knowing smug little prick and just have a discourse for christ’s sake.

No, you didn’t - you just keep thrashing around when you don’t even have a basic understanding of insurance 101. And we can’t have a “discourse” until you wrap your head around some basic math and economics and stop trying to answer every challenge to your precious herb with “it’s a conspiracy, man!”.

Look, pot use is not a money-maker for insurance companies. The risks are high, the anticipated chance of a payout is high, and other people in the insurance pool would be very angry that their premiums keep getting raised because of inclusion of pot-users in the insurance pool in order to accommodate the health insurance of recreational drug users. Period.

No amount of fanciful theorizing changes that basic idea. The same result occurs in life (and therefore disability) insurance, as well, for the same kinds of reasons.[/quote]

So then it’s a “no I can’t have a civil discourse and need to do some more dick waving.”
Your response is academically lazy and just untrue. I have posted plenty of solid corroboration for my position besides “its a conspiracy man” and with all of your name calling you have been unable to cede basic arguments I’ve made that you have no refutation for.
I’ll give you some of what you think is a conspiracy but that sure as shit haven’t been all of my posts.
Btw PACs and lobbyists swaying policy decision which in turn affects commercial business isn’t conspiracy it’s fact. YOU called it conspiracy not me. Pot isn’t a money maker for insurance companies en masse because…wait for it…it hasn’t had the chance to be legal and for them to draft policies for users. We have established that there are specialty carriers that do provide coverage already but as a whole, no. They haven’t had the need up until very recent history. Just like the pool of users would be angry about users that imbibe tobacco? Oh no wait they charge [i] those users [i] more to accommodate that poor lifestyle choice. I see your point how that would be impossible to do the same with MJ.

462

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Since you’re asserting that it provides none I’m just going to have a brief list but to prevent your immediate dismissal and changing of the subject I am providing links to actual studies along with it. Something you have been unable to do thus far when I have asserted there are no studies on the ill effects of moderate use especially none with other means of ingesting, which is a hinge point to your baseless claims and conjecture about how bad it is.

pain relief-- Russo, E. B., Mathre, M. L., Byrne, A., Velin, R., Bach, P. J., Sanchez-Ramos, J., et al. (2002). Chronic cannabis use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An examination of benefits and adverse effects of legal clinical cannabis. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, 2(1), 3-57.

anti-spasmodatic

migraine relief

nausea relief (from chronic illness and/or pharmaceutical drugs)[/quote]

This is pain relief. Not that pain relief isn’t good, but these aren’t examples of positive health benefits, like improved cardiovascular function, living longer, etc. Hell, heroin provides pain relief - that doesn’t mean that relief is a health benefit.

[quote]prevention of Alzheimers (prevents formation of amyloid plaque) — News and Events | Scripps Research
therapeutic implications for inflammatory conditions, such as IBD Karen Coopman, Laura D. Smith, Karen L. Wright and Stephen G. Ward. (2007) Temporal variation in CB2R levels following T lymphocyte activation: Evidence that cannabinoids modulate CXCL12-induced chemotaxis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 7(3):360-371.[/quote]

Ok, good. Got any more?

But I didn’t skip over abuse. Abuse doesn’t constitute the general use of the substance. Abuse isn’t the issue because most people fdon’t abuse it. The question is: is general consumption healthy? Or not?

At no point has my level of discourse become uncivil. Go back and read. Now, I may tell what I think, but it hasn’t been uncivil.

[quote]Your response is academically lazy and just untrue. I have posted plenty of solid corroboration for my position besides “its a conspiracy man” and with all of your name calling you have been unable to cede basic arguments I’ve made that you have no refutation for.
I’ll give you some of what you think is a conspiracy but that sure as shit haven’t been all of my posts. [/quote]

No, you haven’t. You haven’t provided a single reason as for why insurers don’t cover recreational use of pot other than “it’s stigmatized because it’s illegal, man”.

I’ve provided the arguments over and over: pot use has high risks, and unknown risks, and more and more connection to other health problems. Pot is different from sugar, and it’s different from alcohol. The risks aren’t worth it (from an insurance perspective), and so reacreational users can’t get coverage (and, from what I’ve read, even some medicinal users can’t get coverage, even in states that legalized it).

You don’t like my arguments - that doesn’t make them “refuted”. I am not even sure you understand how insurance works.

I called it your conspiracy because it is unsubstantiated and premised on the idea that large, scary interests are the only rational reason holding pot back.

That’s dumb, and conspiratorial, if you take even a basic look at the issues.

See what I mean? This is just an uninformed statement. The illegality of pot does have anything to do with whether an insurer could have analyzed and “drafted policies” for users. Insurers don’t have to wait till the stuff becomes legal to then evaluate it. They evaluate risks of stuff all the time, including the impact of drugs that have not been authorized to be legally sold.

And see again? This is false. Why wouldn’t they have needed to do this until only recently? How long have health and life insurance companies been around at the same time pot users have?

I am fairly close to done with this argument. Pot advocates are all of the same stripe, and their - and your - willigness to simply make things up as they/you go, because there can’t possibly be any challenge to their precious drug.

Again, convince pot-users to form their own insurance collective and leave me out of their poor decisions, and I am on-board for (limited) legalization. Until that day, not a dime of my money needs to be spent on underwriting these bad choices, via private or public money.

463

One other point worth noting - your examples of health benefits (which feature pain management) are a function of pain relief for people with chronic or terminal illnesses. You keep moving the goal posts of the conversation to medicinal marijuana, which is not the issue. What’s at issue are the purported health benefits of pot use generally, that is recreationally, for otherwise healthy people (in the same sense as alcohol consumption would be).

464

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One other point worth noting - your examples of health benefits (which feature pain management) are a function of pain relief for people with chronic or terminal illnesses. You keep moving the goal posts of the conversation to medicinal marijuana, which is not the issue. What’s at issue are the purported health benefits of pot use generally, that is recreationally, for otherwise healthy people (in the same sense as alcohol consumption would be).[/quote]

Actually you keep moving the goal posts. Since when does an herb have to have proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to viable for consumption? Here you go, a health benefit, mood enhancement which is why everyone drinks alcohol. No one is having those two glasses of wine just to reap the antioxidant benefits, as pointed out earlier there are far stronger and cheaper options than alcohol with zero of the ill effects that alcohol carries. cardiovascular benefits of alcohol? Take resveratrol as a supplement or use fish oil and voila you have the health benefits of alcohol. You said pot has zero health benefits, I showed that it does. You say “nuh-uh” that’s not a health benefit because I have defined it differently. Pain relief, immune modulation and anti-inflammatory activity are all crystal clear examples of health benefits to anyone not trying to stand by a predetermined point they’ve made. All of those would absolutely be accepted as health benefits if we were having a discussion about turmeric.

None of the above is really where the discussion started but it’s what you’ve arbitrarily made it out to be Mr moving goal posts. The point from the beginning was that the continued prohibition of marijuana is ludicrous and a complete waste of money and resources to curtail its use and (in spite of Zeb’s protests) it is easily as safe a substance to use if not more so than alcohol and especially tobacco in the current societal use of cigarettes. It is a blatant hypocrisy to allow people to literally poison themselves to death with cigarettes and refined sugar but we hold this heavy hand for users of a plant that can be cultivated and used in the privacy of one’s home.

The back and forth on insurance is just a side rant.

465

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ok, good. Got any more?[/quote]

Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nature Reviews Cancer 3, 745-755 (October 2003) | doi:10.1038/nrc1188
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/abs/nrc1188.html

A 1997 review of 6059 marijuana-related articles in the medical literature revealed 194 titles on antiemetic properties, 56 on glaucoma, 10 on multiple sclerosis, 23 on appetite, and 11 on palliative or terminal care but really most are focused on the analgesic properties and if you talk with researchers, getting grant funding for further studies isn’t the easiest thing with MJ.

[quote]Convenient how you skipped over the word abusing to try and make your point. I still contend (and the studies back me up) that when abused alcohol is worse than marijuana. Not conclusive enough data to prove at moderate use.

But I didn’t skip over abuse. Abuse doesn’t constitute the general use of the substance. Abuse isn’t the issue because most people fdon’t abuse it. The question is: is general consumption healthy? Or not?[/quote]

I think occasional use can be a reasonably healthy thing if you aren’t smoking it. You don’t. There isn’t enough conclusive literature to fully shut the door on either argument. Tons of anecdotal evidence. Bottom line if we allow people to kill themselves with cigarettes it is exceptionally hypocritical that we demonize this particular herb.

[quote]
At no point has my level of discourse become uncivil. Go back and read. Now, I may tell what I think, but it hasn’t been uncivil.[/quote]

I find “generally condescending” to be uncivil but I will take this any day over some of the other posters garbage.

[quote]
No, you haven’t. You haven’t provided a single reason as for why insurers don’t cover recreational use of pot other than “it’s stigmatized because it’s illegal, man”.

I’ve provided the arguments over and over: pot use has high risks, and unknown risks, and more and more connection to other health problems. Pot is different from sugar, and it’s different from alcohol. The risks aren’t worth it (from an insurance perspective), and so reacreational users can’t get coverage (and, from what I’ve read, even some medicinal users can’t get coverage, even in states that legalized it).

You don’t like my arguments - that doesn’t make them “refuted”. I am not even sure you understand how insurance works.[/quote]

It’s not that hard really. I don’t need any other reason than that. What don’t you get? I personally believe (its not fact) that a major reason that plays into why insurance carriers en masse aren’t covering MJ is because it is still illegal at a federal level and that carries difficulties in crafting policies that cover multi-state areas among other things.
You don’t, fine but don’t condescend me like you run an insurance company. If you’re not on the board of a major carrier and part of the policy drafting team then your opinion is as good as mine to be honest. You say it’s all algorithms worked out and pot users are a bad bet. Science is really on my side that tobacco use is way worse than pot but you still contend that somehow those geniuses who do all the calculating for insurance firms just can’t come up with a similar play on pot users…sorry but your stance makes me roll my eyes and mine does to you but the difference in civility is that I can offer that counterpoint without resorting to trying to typecast you you (i.e. I’m not some burnout in a vw playing peace songs making shit up about the system) its a tired stereotype and like an ad hominem lite.

[quote]
I called it your conspiracy because it is unsubstantiated and premised on the idea that large, scary interests are the only rational reason holding pot back.

That’s dumb, and conspiratorial, if you take even a basic look at the issues.[/quote]

I never said it was. A contributing factor to the overall issue. Absolutely. Why else would positive medical news stories like the ones I posted be virtually ignored and yet we can find your testicular cancer one so easily? Why would the government so very recently come out and say pot has no medical benefits and should be kept as a class/schedule I drug when there is a mounting body of research to suggest otherwise? Hmm, nah you’re right to suggest lobbyists and other forces are throwing money towards their position is total tin foil hat talk and has never happened (except of course all throughout modern history)

[quote]
See what I mean? This is just an uninformed statement. The illegality of pot does have anything to do with whether an insurer could have analyzed and “drafted policies” for users. Insurers don’t have to wait till the stuff becomes legal to then evaluate it. They evaluate risks of stuff all the time, including the impact of drugs that have not been authorized to be legally sold. [/quote]

[quote]They haven’t had the need up until very recent history.
And see again? This is false. Why wouldn’t they have needed to do this until only recently? How long have health and life insurance companies been around at the same time pot users have?

I am fairly close to done with this argument. Pot advocates are all of the same stripe, and their - and your - willigness to simply make things up as they/you go, because there can’t possibly be any challenge to their precious drug.

Again, convince pot-users to form their own insurance collective and leave me out of their poor decisions, and I am on-board for (limited) legalization. Until that day, not a dime of my money needs to be spent on underwriting these bad choices, via private or public money.[/quote]

Again I agree with your stance on not wanting to underwrite what you think is a bad lifestyle choice. I feel the same way about processed, sugar laden foods that are destroying the health of our citizens and bankrupting the healthcare system. Keep your right to that choice for sure.

Insurance companies have invariably based those decisions in the past off of misguided, poorly interpreted and flat out false propaganda furnished by the government promoting its agenda to keep it illegal. We know that and only have to look at history to prove that.
So then we should be in agreement that those same companies will need to re-evaluate their models to keep in alignment with newer research and public policy change.

466

I cant’t believe that this thread is still going on. I suppose ths debate will never end.

467

^

Surprisingly, the substance of the argument has increased rather than decreased since the inception of this thread.

468

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Wrong again, genius. Insurance companies know how much backlash there would be if they increased premiums for drinkers. If you think that public opinion and social acceptance doesn’t affect what they raise their premiums for, then yours should be raised for all that crack you’ve been smoking.[/quote]

Heh, okay. Let me make sure I understand you.

You’re saying that alcohol has a “growing list” of bad health effects - even though I showed you that isn’t true, but in any event - and that an alcohol drinker’s inusrance premiums would be higher to account for these bad health effects but for insurance companies’ “fear of backlash” of raising premiums due to “social acceptance”?

Did I correctly state your position?[/quote]

No, you stated how businesses work.

469

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Actually you keep moving the goal posts. Since when does an herb have to have proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to viable for consumption? Here you go, a health benefit, mood enhancement which is why everyone drinks alcohol. [/quote]

And here is why I am done with this thread.

-You said that alcohol has worse health effects than pot and so there is no rational reason why drinkers can get insurance but not pot-users.

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.

-Having no ability to defend against that truth, now you swicth and start arguing that “Since when does an herb have to have proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to viable for consumption?”

That has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. Herbs don’t have to have “proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to [be] viable for consumption”, and that is irrelevant to the point we’ve been going back and forth on. An herb may very well need to have proven benefits (to offset negative side effects) in order to be considered insurable or otherwise reasonably safe. But, you’re trying to change the topic.

You raised the “negative and positive effects” argument to try and say pot was basically no different from alcohol. That’s false, and I’ve shown you why that’s false.

I don’t have time for you to move the goal posts yet again. At various points, you’ve wandered into “proof” relating to medicinal pot (not at issue), and now you try to whistle past and ignore your original (and exploded) argument that pot really ain’t any different from alcohol.

In light of that, I don’t have much else to add.

470

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, you stated how businesses work.[/quote]

Then what is your position/argument then?

471

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Actually you keep moving the goal posts. Since when does an herb have to have proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to viable for consumption? Here you go, a health benefit, mood enhancement which is why everyone drinks alcohol. [/quote]

And here is why I am done with this thread.

-You said that alcohol has worse health effects than pot and so there is no rational reason why drinkers can get insurance but not pot-users.

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.

-Having no ability to defend against that truth, now you swicth and start arguing that “Since when does an herb have to have proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to viable for consumption?”

That has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing. Herbs don’t have to have “proven benefits beyond mood enhancement to [be] viable for consumption”, and that is irrelevant to the point we’ve been going back and forth on. An herb may very well need to have proven benefits (to offset negative side effects) in order to be considered insurable or otherwise reasonably safe. But, you’re trying to change the topic.

You raised the “negative and positive effects” argument to try and say pot was basically no different from alcohol. That’s false, and I’ve shown you why that’s false.

I don’t have time for you to move the goal posts yet again. At various points, you’ve wandered into “proof” relating to medicinal pot (not at issue), and now you try to whistle past and ignore your original (and exploded) argument that pot really ain’t any different from alcohol.

In light of that, I don’t have much else to add.[/quote]

OK I’ll make it easy for you. I concede your point on alcohol. Now please by all means show me your similar argument for tobacco (which of course has zero health benefit, even less than pot)

472

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, you stated how businesses work.[/quote]

Then what is your position/argument then?[/quote]

My position is making the crap legal, what I was stating was that an insurance company is still a business that tries to bring in customers.

473

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The news article says that Young men who use marijuana have a higher risk of testicular cancer, a new study found, and no one is offering the study - which was conducted not by a “news writer” (usually called “journalists”) but by a professor of preventive medicine at USC - proof of causation of testicular cancer.
[/quote]

Uh, yeah…that would work if you weren’t speaking to someone who went to school for this. Testicular cancer has a less than 1% risk in normal healthy males and a SURVEY now counts of proof of support of this? really?

I asked why there was no world wide news for the cancer decreasing effects actually seen in living animals.

A survey does NOT count as proof of a biological connection with disease in a disease that rare to begin with.

[quote]
In any event, it’s a “real study” and isn’t being used for a “political agenda,” but most importantly, the topic we are discussing is why insurers won’t provide insurance coverage to pot-users, not whether pot-use causes a condition.

But thanks anyway. We’ll take it from here with relevant discussion.[/quote]

Wow…it is being used for a political agenda…unless you REALLY think medical studies done on living organisms get trumped by a questionnaire.

474

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.
[/quote]

Mood elevation, being a natural anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, and appetite stimulation don’t count as positive benefits?

475

Just to show how ridiculous thunderbolt is being, why would MEDICAL SCIENCE make a drug designed to mimic all of the effects of weed but without the high (marinol) if it provided no benefit at all?

Bottom line, don’t listen to people who have a political agenda who didn’t get an education in the field they are ranting about. Bias, superiority complexes and old men afraid of change are why this plant is illegal.

476

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

-I showed you that, no, that isn’t true, because consumption of alcohol actually provides quite a lot of health benefits, and pot does not provide anywhere near the health benefits of alcohol (if any, especially when you “net” the negative effects against the positive ones). Thus, that is a reason why drinekrs can get insurance and pot-users can’t.
[/quote]

Mood elevation, being a natural anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, and appetite stimulation don’t count as positive benefits?[/quote]

I do not smoke nor care whether it is legal or not but, the benefits that moderate alcohol consumption may give are different from marijuana.

Where as alcohol may be beneficial as a preventative measure and for overall health: A few being.

-reducing stroke/heart risks
-type 2 diabetes, bone protection
-cognitive decline
-raising HDL cholesterol levels.

The benefits you listed for marijuana seem to help a small/specific portion of people, those with diseases. Why would the average person for health or prevention need an anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, or appetite stimulant?

477

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Uh, yeah…that would work if you weren’t speaking to someone who went to school for this. [/quote]

Heh. Do you know someone who went to school for this that I could talk to, then? I don’t see anyone around here with those credentials. Thanks in advance.

I didn’t say it was proof of a biological connection, nor did the doctor who conducted the study.

But as an aside, what is hilarious is that on one hand we have a doctor of preventive medicine from USC conducting a study in accordance with medical protocols to gather information investigating a possible link (and to see if this study is consistent with the other two studies showing the same)…

…and we have an internet clown masquerading as someone trained in oncological studies doing nothing but denouncing the study, and misrepresenting what it found.

Comedy gold. Whose word should I take? Doctor of preventive medicine at USC? Or internet clown whose closest relationship to research is looking up cheat codes to video games marketed to teenagers?

478

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Mood elevation, being a natural anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, and appetite stimulation don’t count as positive benefits?[/quote]

Read above, I can’t do your homework for you. These benefits apply to a small segment of the population, not broadly.

In any event, Storey attempted to say that alcohol had far worse effects than pot. That is false - alcohol has far greater positive health benefits than pot, and as such, his claim is wrong.

But third, I didn’t say pot had no benefits - I said alcohol had far more, thus trumping pot for the “which has the worst effects?” category.

479

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Just to show how ridiculous thunderbolt is being, why would MEDICAL SCIENCE make a drug designed to mimic all of the effects of weed but without the high (marinol) if it provided no benefit at all?[/quote]

Who said it had no benefit at all?

This is what trained scientists - and people of moderate intelligence - would call a straw man - assigning a position that no one actually has and then attacking it.

480

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

I do not smoke nor care whether it is legal or not but, the benefits that moderate alcohol consumption may give are different from marijuana.

Where as alcohol may be beneficial as a preventative measure and for overall health: A few being.

-reducing stroke/heart risks
-type 2 diabetes, bone protection
-cognitive decline
-raising HDL cholesterol levels.

The benefits you listed for marijuana seem to help a small/specific portion of people, those with diseases. Why would the average person for health or prevention need an anti-emetic, bronchiodilation, or appetite stimulant?[/quote]

Yep. Nicely said.