[quote]storey420 wrote:
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]
Right, that still stands - some do, most don’t. So it’s clear they can if they want to, but choose not to - and my question has always been, why do they choose not to, even though they can?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
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]
Right, that still stands - some do, most don’t. So it’s clear they can if they want to, but choose not to - and my question has always been, why do they choose not to, even though they can?[/quote]
Lack of complete understanding? public perception? documented risks (of course only taken from studies where it was smoked and done so chronically)? Illegality?
I’d still say multiple reasons but I still say they unwittingly insure tens of thousands of folks, many in your little pool. Why? Because occasional usage of cannabis (for sure if not smoked, possibly not if done through something like a vaporizer) elicits no different health risk than an occasional glass of wine does, so there isn’t going to be some “smoking gun” (no pun intended) that shows them “Golly it looks like a lot of these fine folks we’ve been covering have been toking the herbage”
storey420,
The older I get the more I realize that everyone, you me and every other living human being arrive at most of our conclusions through emotion, not logic. We then try to build a supporting case around that emotion in what we feel is a logical fashion. And it’s comical to watch sometimes.
For example, I make a decent living and want to keep more of my money. Therefore, anyone who wants to take more of my money through higher taxes (liberal democrats) are wrong. And the case that I build has many “logical” avenues at least in my own mind. Yet, my primary reason for not voting for a liberal democrat is that I want to keep more of my hard earned money. That’s the real reason! If I have more money I can do more things, buy more things go more places, save more for my future.
From that emotional base I then build arguments to rationalize my belief.
I see the same thing with the marijuana argument. As I’ve been saying, most of you like smoking dope. You use it to unwind after a hard days work. Maybe you feel more creative after smoking a joint, or have better sex or any number of other things that you perceive that this particular drug gives you. And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
I think we all need to come to grips with the fact that it is really difficult to build a logical argument around legalizing pot on the basis that it is good for you. And why should you? Did prohibition end because studies of the time showed that alcohol was good for the heart? Of course not. Prohibition failed because the people wanted to consume alcoholic beverages because they found it enjoyable. Simple!
So let’s drop the medicinal argument and call a spade a spade. I think you will be further ahead publicly acknowledging the truth. You like smoking pot for whatever reason and you are in favor of it being legalized. Any other argument pales in the face of this one absolute fact!
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Lack of complete understanding? public perception? documented risks (of course only taken from studies where it was smoked and done so chronically)? Illegality?
I’d still say multiple reasons but I still say they unwittingly insure tens of thousands of folks, many in your little pool. Why? Because occasional usage of cannabis (for sure if not smoked, possibly not if done through something like a vaporizer) elicits no different health risk than an occasional glass of wine does, so there isn’t going to be some “smoking gun” (no pun intended) that shows them “Golly it looks like a lot of these fine folks we’ve been covering have been toking the herbage”
[/quote]
C’mon, dude. Insurers and actuaries are in the business and science of analyzing risks and pricing them for purposes of insurance. They spend billions doing this. They know and understand precisely what they are doing in pricing the risk of drug use and refusing coverage.
Whether coverage is “unwitting” or not is irrelevant. If they know you use, they don’t cover you, and the reason behind that is obvious.
You’ll try and convince yourself of anything in order to avoid what is plainly obvious - insurers think users of marijuana users are bad financial bets. Period. It ain’t worth the risk, and the smart money is against doing it.
That’s it. Get serious.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
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]
Right, that still stands - some do, most don’t. So it’s clear they can if they want to, but choose not to - and my question has always been, why do they choose not to, even though they can?[/quote]
I think the real question is why do they say they will not when there is no medical evidence that marijuana is bad ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the real question is why do they say they will not when there is no medical evidence that marijuana is bad ?[/quote]
There is medical evidence that it is bad - go read the article Storey himself posted.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
[/quote]
NO.
I want it to be legal because the cost to enforce, prosecute and incarcerate people for breaking it is UNSUSTAINABLE.
It’s like the Obamacare of drug enforcement.
You of all people should see that.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
storey420,
The older I get the more I realize that everyone, you me and every other living human being arrive at most of our conclusions through emotion, not logic. We then try to build a supporting case around that emotion in what we feel is a logical fashion. And it’s comical to watch sometimes.
For example, I make a decent living and want to keep more of my money. Therefore, anyone who wants to take more of my money through higher taxes (liberal democrats) are wrong. And the case that I build has many “logical” avenues at least in my own mind. Yet, my primary reason for not voting for a liberal democrat is that I want to keep more of my hard earned money. That’s the real reason! If I have more money I can do more things, buy more things go more places, save more for my future.
From that emotional base I then build arguments to rationalize my belief.
I see the same thing with the marijuana argument. As I’ve been saying, most of you like smoking dope. You use it to unwind after a hard days work. Maybe you feel more creative after smoking a joint, or have better sex or any number of other things that you perceive that this particular drug gives you. And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
I think we all need to come to grips with the fact that it is really difficult to build a logical argument around legalizing pot on the basis that it is good for you. And why should you? Did prohibition end because studies of the time showed that alcohol was good for the heart? Of course not. Prohibition failed because the people wanted to consume alcoholic beverages because they found it enjoyable. Simple!
So let’s drop the medicinal argument and call a spade a spade. I think you will be further ahead publicly acknowledging the truth. You like smoking pot for whatever reason and you are in favor of it being legalized. Any other argument pales in the face of this one absolute fact!
[/quote]
I’m actually not in the “for its medicinal purposes” camp. I thought my posts intimated that. I’m in the category you just stated. I hope that prohibition of marijuana will end for the same reason alcohol did. To further that point (and add to your reason to keep your money) I think that LIKE alcohol, if we pulled our heads out of our asses and stopped criminalizing it, we would a) save a ton of expenditure in a pointless, endless “war”, b) fill the coffers with tax revenue galore to counter the reckless spending policies of our current and former administrations.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Lack of complete understanding? public perception? documented risks (of course only taken from studies where it was smoked and done so chronically)? Illegality?
I’d still say multiple reasons but I still say they unwittingly insure tens of thousands of folks, many in your little pool. Why? Because occasional usage of cannabis (for sure if not smoked, possibly not if done through something like a vaporizer) elicits no different health risk than an occasional glass of wine does, so there isn’t going to be some “smoking gun” (no pun intended) that shows them “Golly it looks like a lot of these fine folks we’ve been covering have been toking the herbage”
[/quote]
C’mon, dude. Insurers and actuaries are in the business and science of analyzing risks and pricing them for purposes of insurance. They spend billions doing this. They know and understand precisely what they are doing in pricing the risk of drug use and refusing coverage.
Whether coverage is “unwitting” or not is irrelevant. If they know you use, they don’t cover you, and the reason behind that is obvious.
You’ll try and convince yourself of anything in order to avoid what is plainly obvious - insurers think users of marijuana users are bad financial bets. Period. It ain’t worth the risk, and the smart money is against doing it.
That’s it. Get serious.[/quote]
No argument there. Only argument is if their current system of risk management is based on true or false premises.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
[/quote]
NO.
I want it to be legal because the cost to enforce, prosecute and incarcerate people for breaking it is UNSUSTAINABLE.
It’s like the Obamacare of drug enforcement.
You of all people should see that.[/quote]
All of that is debatable but that’s why you want it to be legalized.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
[/quote]
NO.
I want it to be legal because the cost to enforce, prosecute and incarcerate people for breaking it is UNSUSTAINABLE.
It’s like the Obamacare of drug enforcement.
You of all people should see that.[/quote]
All of that is debatable but that’s why you want it to be legalized. [/quote]
Dude that’s the point…it the most socially conservative person in America (Mr. Robertson) can see that this is a financial nightmare…maybe a lot of the pro-legalization people are in that camp.
Thunderbolt are you speaking of this post ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
[/quote]
NO.
I want it to be legal because the cost to enforce, prosecute and incarcerate people for breaking it is UNSUSTAINABLE.
It’s like the Obamacare of drug enforcement.
You of all people should see that.[/quote]
This seems to be the only valid argument. Are there any examples of this being done already, if so what were the downsides? I think the main difference is legalized more people might try or do it regularly. Illegal I could see myself never doing it for the rest of my life, legal I could see myself picking it up at the store sometime just because I feel like it, assuming its just as accessible as alcohol.
according to Mayo sperm count is tempoary
Prenatal development is a valid arguement
Marijuana and the heart sounds like there is not enough evidence to make claim
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Thunderbolt are you speaking of this post ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done [/quote]
From the piece you posted:
On March 24, 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services submitted to Congress a report reviewing the consequences of marijuana use. Marijuana and Health, 1982, ninth in a series, is primarily based on two recently conducted, comprehensive, scientific reviews by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Addiction Research Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Both independent reviews corroborate the Public Health Service’s findings of health hazards associated with marijuana use: Acute intoxication with marijuana interferes with many aspects of mental functioning and has serious, acute effects on perception and skilled performance, such as driving and other complex tasks involving judgement or fine motor skills.
There is your cited authority, Einstein. You don’t have any basis to “contend” that the studies weren’t done - especially when they tell you in the release the studies used (and presented to Congress) that formed the basis of the alert.
Good Lord.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Thunderbolt are you speaking of this post ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
The interesting thing there are no foot notes , who, when , where and why ? did they do these studies . I contend they were not done [/quote]
From the piece you posted:
On March 24, 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services submitted to Congress a report reviewing the consequences of marijuana use. Marijuana and Health, 1982, ninth in a series, is primarily based on two recently conducted, comprehensive, scientific reviews by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Addiction Research Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Both independent reviews corroborate the Public Health Service’s findings of health hazards associated with marijuana use: Acute intoxication with marijuana interferes with many aspects of mental functioning and has serious, acute effects on perception and skilled performance, such as driving and other complex tasks involving judgement or fine motor skills.
There is your cited authority, Einstein. You don’t have any basis to “contend” that the studies weren’t done - especially when they tell you in the release the studies used (and presented to Congress) that formed the basis of the alert.
Good Lord.[/quote]
I was asking if this was the link you were referring to ?
First of all
Definition for intoxication:
Web definitions:
poisoning: the physiological state produced by a poison or other toxic substance.
Marijuana is not like alcohol you do not become intoxicated , you get high
That is why I asked if this was the link you were referring to
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And therefore you want it to be legal because you like it.
[/quote]
NO.
I want it to be legal because the cost to enforce, prosecute and incarcerate people for breaking it is UNSUSTAINABLE.
It’s like the Obamacare of drug enforcement.
You of all people should see that.[/quote]
All of that is debatable but that’s why you want it to be legalized. [/quote]
Dude that’s the point…it the most socially conservative person in America (Mr. Robertson) can see that this is a financial nightmare…maybe a lot of the pro-legalization people are in that camp.
[/quote]
Yes, that’s YOUR point, or YOUR perception. But that’s not necessarily the reality of the situation. But that is why YOU want pot legalized, I understand.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Definition for intoxication:
Web definitions:
poisoning: the physiological state produced by a poison or other toxic substance.
Marijuana is not like alcohol you do not become intoxicated , you get high
That is why I asked if this was the link you were referring to
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I was asking if this was the link you were referring to ?
First of all
Definition for intoxication:
Web definitions:
poisoning: the physiological state produced by a poison or other toxic substance.
Marijuana is not like alcohol you do not become intoxicated , you get high
That is why I asked if this was the link you were referring to
[/quote]
Don’t try and change the subject to distract from your painfully obvious mistake (“I contend no studies were done!”).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I was asking if this was the link you were referring to ?
First of all
Definition for intoxication:
Web definitions:
poisoning: the physiological state produced by a poison or other toxic substance.
Marijuana is not like alcohol you do not become intoxicated , you get high
That is why I asked if this was the link you were referring to
[/quote]
Don’t try and change the subject to distract from your painfully obvious mistake (“I contend no studies were done!”).[/quote]
Yeah, he did sort of lay that one out there and then run as fast as he could to get away from it.
Not lookin too good pitski.