[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mandated contraception coverage. Pot legalized. Smutty popular culture and entertainment. Sounds like turning on and tuning out to me. Like keeping the rabble distracted in pleasure and indulgence while the nation goes old and bankrupt. Would the last person hit the lights on their way out?[/quote]
Again man, normally like your stuff here.
But wow…seriously with the hyperbole?
Legalizing THC HELPS with the bankruptcy part.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Under the terms of the contract of your drivers licence…you forfeit your licence for speeding, ever speed? [/quote]
You don’t have a license subject to a contract, you have it subject to a law.
The law that governs said license does not require that you surrender your license because of speeding infractions (you typically pay fines) until you have done it many times.
Ironically, you accidentally make my point for me - as for automobile insurance policies, which are contracts, people can and do get dropped from insurance coverage for too many speeding infraction.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Under the terms of the contract of your drivers licence…you forfeit your licence for speeding, ever speed? [/quote]
You don’t have a license subject to a contract, you have it subject to a law.
The law that governs said license does not require that you surrender your license because of speeding infractions (you typically pay fines) until you have done it many times.
Ironically, you accidentally make my point for me - as for automobile insurance policies, which are contracts, people can and do get dropped from insurance coverage for too many speeding infraction.[/quote]
You are right…you win man.
I hope that you can avoid all of those THC users in the future.
Best of luck.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Not all refuse to, there are some that don’t ask. And yes, it is the illegality to at least a good portion of the reason me thinks you are being obtuse on that point. This article pretty much sums it up Life Insurance for Marijuana Users - Essential Facts
For the non link clickers or those that just wont read it “People are denied insurance due to the fact that insurance companies view marijuana as an illegal and dangerous drug, which accelerates an individual’s heart rate, causes respiratory and circulatory problems and can lead to short-term memory loss.”
also in there: "Marijuana use is often linked to tobacco use for insurance purposes. This is seen as unfair by many due to the fact that marijuana has never been proven to have the same devastating effects on the human body as tobacco and alcohol.
Marijuana has never been recognized as a carcinogenic, does not negatively affect internal organs and has actually been proven to relieve the nausea and discomfort associated with cancer and AIDS."
BUT to fully answer your question TB so there is no more confusion or saying I am dodging the question:
"It is now possible to obtain term life insurance coverage for marijuana users. Enrollees who are in good health, but enjoy having that occasional joint may purchase life insurance from companies such as ING for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. "[/quote]
How clever - from your own article, you edit out this statement: On continued usage, marijana smokers can easily become mentally addicted to marijuana and its active ingredient, THC, with some extreme cases suffering psychosis. Though marijuana is used successfully in the treatment of certain illnesses, it can cause anxiety, fear, distrust or panic in individuals. This is another reason insurance companies prefer not to offer life insurance policies to people who have a history of marijuana use.
Also, Marijuana users’ details will be reported to the Medical Information Bureau (MIB). Once your name is on the register your insurance premiums will skyrocket and stay there for the duration that you remain there.
Curious. Forget to read these parts, did you?
That’s the point. Some insurers will take the risk, most will not. They do so because…wait for it…the risks associated with its use are considered to be a bad bet…simply too risky.
But it isn’t the illegality - if it was, you’d see universal refusal.[/quote]
Ummm…no I read it, posted the link to allow others to read it too. If I was trying to dodge elements of the article I wouldn’t have done so and actually I did post the entire paragraph past the word illegal. Again, if I was trying to be disingenuous about it I would have stopped the quote at illegal. I just picked a couple parts rather than cut and pasting the whole damn article and taking up more thread space.
Maybe you can be forthcoming and admit that your statement wasn’t whether some did or don’t, it was ALL insurers, I simply pointed out there were exceptions.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mandated contraception coverage. Pot legalized. Smutty popular culture and entertainment. Sounds like turning on and tuning out to me. Like keeping the rabble distracted in pleasure and indulgence while the nation goes old and bankrupt. Would the last person hit the lights on their way out?[/quote]
Again man, normally like your stuff here.
But wow…seriously with the hyperbole?
Legalizing THC HELPS with the bankruptcy part.
[/quote]
I’m sure the stoners and their contraception will turn around the underlying demographic crunch. In intact homes they’ll produce positively adjusted children (future tax payers instead of consumers) over the replacement rate, in order to save us from bankruptcy.
Sorry, I can’t keep that up. Face it, we’ve decided to give up and party before the shoe finally drops for good.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Your point is valid and well taken[/quote]
Thank you.
Not at all the same thing. See TB’s insurance argument for starters that should help you put the marijuana vs. Soda debate in the proper perspective, that is there is no comparison!
[/quote]
My point to the soda thing is more in response to your statement “Just say that it is not good for your health but you want it anyway. Don’t rationalize it’s use. You like it and you want it. Does good from from it? Sure if you’re a user you think plenty of good comes from it. But that doesn’t make it so.” Were soda illegal tomorrow you could say the exact same thing to those “sodaheads”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Marinol (dronabinol) is legal by prescription and is covered under insurance for sure in AIDS cases and I believe cancer/chemo cases (I know they prescribed it for my Grandad when he was dying of cancer), cannabis is still illegal, so patented pharmaceutical = cool, plant from the ground = evil. Your argument about underwriting is only valid if the cannabis is smoked, no studies with pot brownies, how about with the new devices (vaporizers)?
Inadvertently yes, but it should be a lifestyle premium recognized as deleterious as smoking in my opinion. Same with intake of sodas above a certain level a day. But it relates to your argument, if someone is an occasional cannabis smoker/ingest-er and all tests show good then why not underwrite (again I’m as positive as I can be that plenty of folks are smoking weed casually and still doing great with their health and their premiums aren’t going up all unbeknownst to their insurance company)[/quote]
Still no answer. Just answer the question - why do insurance companies refuse to provide insurance to users of marijuana? Why won’t they write the policy? We know it’s not the illegality - so what is it?[/quote]
I do not know for sure but if the Insurance company has a vested interest in Pharma companies that could be motivation
I have heard that Marijuana is good for treating from menstral cramps , nausea ,pain , mental diorders , and there is no way to collest on a medicine you can grow . I will take that back maybe ADM could 
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.[/quote]
In that point alone would be reason enough to legalize it
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Your point is valid and well taken[/quote]
Thank you.
Not at all the same thing. See TB’s insurance argument for starters that should help you put the marijuana vs. Soda debate in the proper perspective, that is there is no comparison!
[/quote]
My point to the soda thing is more in response to your statement “Just say that it is not good for your health but you want it anyway. Don’t rationalize it’s use. You like it and you want it. Does good from from it? Sure if you’re a user you think plenty of good comes from it. But that doesn’t make it so.” Were soda illegal tomorrow you could say the exact same thing to those “sodaheads”[/quote]
Ah, I see, sorry about the misinterpretation. I like the term “sodaheads.” By the way I don’t drink soda either, or coffee.
But I am a “trainaaholic.”
Fortunately my insurance company doesn’t mind I’m still covered.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.[/quote]
In that point alone would be reason enough to legalize it[/quote]
No, no, no you don’t need a reason to legalize it. YOU like it therefore, it’s a good thing! See…no reason just being an avid drug user is all you need.
Logic be dammed.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.[/quote]
In that point alone would be reason enough to legalize it[/quote]
No, no, no you don’t need a reason to legalize it. YOU like it therefore, it’s a good thing! See…no reason just being an avid drug user is all you need.
Logic be dammed.[/quote]
If you would, like, had made one logical argument or even one that made sense other than “its illegal mmmkay” that would, probably carry some weight.
Not much, but some.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.[/quote]
In that point alone would be reason enough to legalize it[/quote]
No, no, no you don’t need a reason to legalize it. YOU like it therefore, it’s a good thing! See…no reason just being an avid drug user is all you need.
OK ?
Logic be dammed.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.[/quote]
In that point alone would be reason enough to legalize it[/quote]
No, no, no you don’t need a reason to legalize it. YOU like it therefore, it’s a good thing! See…no reason just being an avid drug user is all you need.
Logic be dammed.[/quote]
OK Zeb here’s a another side for you. There have been studies done on how it helps chronic pain patients, cancer patients (late stage) and some others.
My wife is a chronic pain patient ( two level spinal fusion with permanent nerve damage at L5). This is something we have wresteled with (MMJ is allowed in Colo). But she was brought by a grandfather who was an officer in the Air Force and a father who was also and officer in the Air Force and later a sargent in law enforcment.
So as you and sloth are pointing that “stoners” are all that want this ignore those around you with legit issues that this could help (and allow them to get away from big pharma)
BTW she is not currently using MMJ.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Basically, its a study, documentation and comparative research between pot smokers, tobacco smokers, pot/tobacco smokers and non smokers. If you are really interested in a legit lung and cancer study, here it is.
[/quote]
Look Severiano I get it you like smoking pot. Why can’t you just admit that it’s not all that healthy for you, but it’s one of those things that you’re going to do because you like it?
You can post all the youtube video’s of crazy doctors all you want. That proves nothing. If you want to get into a quoting war it’s one that you will not win. Smoke in the lungs is just not good for you. Try as hard as you can to NOT be one of those people who try mightily to justify bad behavior because you simply like this particular bad behvior.
Now if you want to continue this charade here’s one back at you from our own CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
[quote]Among the known or suspected chronic effects of marijuana are:
short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning.
impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use.
decreased sperm count and sperm motility.
interference with ovulation and pre-natal development.
impaired immune response.
possible adverse effects on heart function.
by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possiblilties for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off. Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects in[/quote]
again, you don’t have to claim that something is good for you in order to rationalize it’s use. Some eat ice cream on weekends and know that it’s not the best thing they could put in their body and they shouldn’t claim otherwise. Yeah, it has some protein, calcium etc. but we both know that there are better sources.
BUT they LIKE ICE CREAM AND they ARE GOING TO HAVE IT ON WEEKENDS! END OF CONVERSATION.
Now go ahead and say something like that and while I can disagree with your using it I cannot disagree with the reason.
[/quote]
That guy you call a funny doctor is a researcher from the Geffen School at UCLA. If you know anything about medicine you would take what he says seriously. I don’t know if you are some kind of red neck who thinks everything out of California is gay, or liberal, or whatever. This is the internet so it isn’t always easy to understand sarcasm.
The research was conducted over quite a long period of time, to my knowledge it is the most in depth comparative study that has ever been conducted. If you think I’m the sort of poster who is going to put up garbage research, then I wont bother. I’m not here to mislead, I actually hope to help.
As far as smoking marijuana, I am reasonably reserved about it. I would like marijuana to be controlled in a similar way to alcohol. I would prefer for there to be some sort of test for safety, something like a breathalyzer for pot. I’ll say that at the same time I’d feel 100x more comfortable driving on a road full of pot smokers than drunks.
I also don’t like the idea of marijuana around children. I don’t think it should be used out in public, children shouldn’t be subject to seeing people smoking pot out in the streets any more than they should be seeing adults walking about drinking alcohol, so laws and fines similar to open container. Do I think Marijuana is, “good” for you? No. The act of smoking on it’s own is on it’s own unhealthy, but there are edibles and vaporizers that cancer patients take advantage of to circumvent the smoking process.
Really, I don’t want to bother taking part in this anymore unless I’m taken seriously and not dismissed as some, “pot head.” I’m a Vet, I’m educated, and have a reputation for being a careful thinker. I’m always open to having my mind changed, can you say the same for yourself?
If you want to stop your circle jerk with your anti-marijuana buddies, go right ahead. If you want to be informed, take an hour out of your day and check the information out.
From what I gather you are fearful. Why not learn more about the thing that you hate so much?
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.[/quote]
In that point alone would be reason enough to legalize it[/quote]
No, no, no you don’t need a reason to legalize it. YOU like it therefore, it’s a good thing! See…no reason just being an avid drug user is all you need.
Logic be dammed.[/quote]
OK Zeb here’s a another side for you. There have been studies done on how it helps chronic pain patients, cancer patients (late stage) and some others.
My wife is a chronic pain patient ( two level spinal fusion with permanent nerve damage at L5). This is something we have wresteled with (MMJ is allowed in Colo). But she was brought by a grandfather who was an officer in the Air Force and a father who was also and officer in the Air Force and later a sargent in law enforcment.
So as you and sloth are pointing that “stoners” are all that want this ignore those around you with legit issues that this could help (and allow them to get away from big pharma)
BTW she is not currently using MMJ.[/quote]
Sorry about your wife’s situation lanchefan1 I know that can’t be easy on her or you. As I’ve said before I am not against your wife seeking any sort of legal treatment for her pain, whether it be pot, or something even more effective.
The best to your wife I hope she see’s many happy pain free days ahead.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Maybe you can be forthcoming and admit that your statement wasn’t whether some did or don’t, it was ALL insurers, I simply pointed out there were exceptions.[/quote]
So you missed my post from page 6, did you? I’ll repost.
And just to be clear - I’d be surprised if there weren’t insurance companies that would write insurance for marijuana users. That’s fine with me. My only point is that I want them excluded from my insurance, and happily for me, my insurance won’t write policies on them (which is fantastic).
[quote]Severiano wrote:
That guy you call a funny doctor is a researcher from the Geffen School at UCLA. If you know anything about medicine you would take what he says seriously. I don’t know if you are some kind of red neck who thinks everything out of California is gay, or liberal, or whatever. This is the internet so it isn’t always easy to understand sarcasm.
The research was conducted over quite a long period of time, to my knowledge it is the most in depth comparative study that has ever been conducted. If you think I’m the sort of poster who is going to put up garbage research, then I wont bother. I’m not here to mislead, I actually hope to help.
As far as smoking marijuana, I am reasonably reserved about it. I would like marijuana to be controlled in a similar way to alcohol. I would prefer for there to be some sort of test for safety, something like a breathalyzer for pot. I’ll say that at the same time I’d feel 100x more comfortable driving on a road full of pot smokers than drunks.
I also don’t like the idea of marijuana around children. I don’t think it should be used out in public, children shouldn’t be subject to seeing people smoking pot out in the streets any more than they should be seeing adults walking about drinking alcohol, so laws and fines similar to open container. Do I think Marijuana is, “good” for you? No. The act of smoking on it’s own is on it’s own unhealthy, but there are edibles and vaporizers that cancer patients take advantage of to circumvent the smoking process.
Really, I don’t want to bother taking part in this anymore unless I’m taken seriously and not dismissed as some, “pot head.” I’m a Vet, I’m educated, and have a reputation for being a careful thinker. I’m always open to having my mind changed, can you say the same for yourself?
If you want to stop your circle jerk with your anti-marijuana buddies, go right ahead. If you want to be informed, take an hour out of your day and check the information out.
From what I gather you are fearful. Why not learn more about the thing that you hate so much?
[/quote]
Because being “informed” is agreeing with your point? Hmm…somehow that isn’t quite my definition.
Sorry if you felt I was flippant about the research that you posted. But, I’ve also done quite a lot of reading on the topic and the very best research still claims that marijuana is not good for the body (or mind). And in fact the data runs about 10 to 1. For every story you can produce which claims these positives I can produce 10 that claim there are far more negatives. My point, pot may very well have certain medicinal properties, after all it is an herb. But any medicinal properties that it brings into play can be found elsewhere without the many negative events that occur when you suck smoke into your lungs and open your body and mind up to the many negatives. But getting high makes you feel good and you like that…I get it.
As for changing my mind on a topic, I believe almost nothing that I did say 25 years ago. On the other hand I won’t change my mind for the sake of looking “open minded.” When that happens I think a person is more “empty headed” than open minded. Furthermore, are you open minded to the potential damage you’re doing to your body by being a user? The facts are in and marijuana has far more negative effects than positive. But it makes you feel good and you like it and support that. And you want the right to feel that way legally. I understand. Honesty is the best policy. You don’t need any studies to state your case in that manner now do you?
All the best to you,
Zeb
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Maybe you can be forthcoming and admit that your statement wasn’t whether some did or don’t, it was ALL insurers, I simply pointed out there were exceptions.[/quote]
So you missed my post from page 6, did you? I’ll repost.
And just to be clear - I’d be surprised if there weren’t insurance companies that would write insurance for marijuana users. That’s fine with me. My only point is that I want them excluded from my insurance, and happily for me, my insurance won’t write policies on them (which is fantastic).
[/quote]
Hmmm…I guess I did, mea culpa. I guess I was referring to this statement “insurance companies won’t write insurance for marijuana users. Why not?”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for changing my mind on a topic, I believe almost nothing that I did say 25 years ago. On the other hand I won’t change my mind for the sake of looking “open minded.” When that happens I think a person is more “empty headed” than open minded. Furthermore, are you open minded to the potential damage you’re doing to your body by being a user? The facts are in and marijuana has far more negative effects than positive. But it makes you feel good and you like it and support that. And you want the right to feel that way legally. I understand. Honesty is the best policy. You don’t need any studies to state your case in that manner now do you?
All the best to you,
Zeb[/quote]
This is about as fair a post as you could ask for. It does show the false dichotomy though as you could sub the word marijuana with alcohol without skipping a beat. :]
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Maybe you can be forthcoming and admit that your statement wasn’t whether some did or don’t, it was ALL insurers, I simply pointed out there were exceptions.[/quote]
So you missed my post from page 6, did you? I’ll repost.
And just to be clear - I’d be surprised if there weren’t insurance companies that would write insurance for marijuana users. That’s fine with me. My only point is that I want them excluded from my insurance, and happily for me, my insurance won’t write policies on them (which is fantastic).
[/quote]
Hmmm…I guess I did, mea culpa. I guess I was referring to this statement “insurance companies won’t write insurance for marijuana users. Why not?”[/quote]
I also highly doubt that they would unceremonously kick you out if you smoked some weed.
Realistically, when would they find out?
If you need medical attention.
However, if the weed in and of itself has nothing to do whatsoever with the problem you have, I think they would have a hard time denying any kind of coverage.