Pat Robertson: Legalize Pot

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Fantastic question…also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?[/quote]

Well, no. It’s not even close.

[quote]Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it’s worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.[/quote]

Something just doesn’t add up. Proponents keep saying over and over that there’s no difference between marijuana and alcoholic beverages, but one very intensely interested group of people who price out such things say these people are wrong.

I’ve yet to see a credible explanation for this divergence of “opinion”.

342

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Fantastic question…also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?[/quote]

Well, no. It’s not even close.

[quote]Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it’s worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.[/quote]

Something just doesn’t add up. Proponents keep saying over and over that there’s no difference between marijuana and alcoholic beverages, but one very intensely interested group of people who price out such things say these people are wrong.

I’ve yet to see a credible explanation for this divergence of “opinion”.[/quote]

I haven’t read the whole thread ,so may just be repeating what has been said before, but would the explanation for that be that one substance is primarily illegal, but the other isn’t, hence insurers would certainly weigh it differently when ascertaining the risk profile of users of the illegal substance?

343

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow “worse” than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I’ve seen and experienced. [/quote]

Then why won’t insurers write you a life insurance policy if you indulge in this other, not-“worse” substance, but they will if you indulge in whiskey or beer?[/quote]

Fantastic question…also, why do Supreme Court justices disagree with each other?

They are using the same info to make decisions, yet they disagree often.

Some people say that THC is less harming to your body than alcohol, yet some people think it’s worse.

I would say that insurance companies are similar animals.[/quote]

I think the point should be fact not opinion . Facts clearly state there is a small risk involved in marijuana legalization . The smoke would be the biggest risk IMO

344

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

I haven’t read the whole thread ,so may just be repeating what has been said before, but would the explanation for that be that one substance is primarily illegal, but the other isn’t, hence insurers would certainly weigh it differently when ascertaining the risk profile of users of the illegal substance?[/quote]

No. That was addressed in the thread several pages back.

345

[quote]ZEB wrote:
In a way you almost remind me of the typical liberal who assumes that everyone in the world agrees with their inane premise for example that George Bush was stupid. Well, I disagree with that one too.
[/quote]

346

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The idea that MJ is somehow “worse” than beer or whiskey is silly to me because of what I’ve seen and experienced. [/quote]

Then why won’t insurers write you a life insurance policy if you indulge in this other, not-“worse” substance, but they will if you indulge in whiskey or beer?[/quote]

I honestly haven’t looked into it. I don’t know. I would speculate that it is “because they can” though. Where I grew up most insurance companies did everything they could to not pay out. As my old man is wont to point out, the first question they will ask when contacted is “do you have any other insurance.” If there is any way to get them “off the hook” for a payout, they generally will take it.

Asking, “have you ever used this substance --that many use that and many will lie about–that will allow us to then take your money and potentially not pay out in the end?” Doesn’t seem that special to me. It seems like normal “broken-wrist as pre-existing condition” type of thinking.

I skimmed over what you wrote earlier. You seem to have arguments for why it is not actuarial-izable. If, by chance, some company WAS able to factor it in, I assume you would then give up this argument?

Do you work in the field? If you have a source for this information, I wouldn’t mind reading over it.

As I wrote above, it is simply my experience that I am sharing. I cannot answer the motives of another. Have a nice day.

347

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I honestly haven’t looked into it. I don’t know. I would speculate that it is “because they can” though. Where I grew up most insurance companies did everything they could to not pay out. As my old man is wont to point out, the first question they will ask when contacted is “do you have any other insurance.” If there is any way to get them “off the hook” for a payout, they generally will take it. [/quote]

This misses the point completely - if an insurer is refusing to pay out, it means that they have first written a policy and have been accepting (and investing) your premiums.

Insurers won’t even write life insurance policies on users - in other words, they will not even happily take a user’s money and then fight about a claim later.

You have it backwards - they have “actuarial-ized” it, they have figured it in, and they simply won’t do it. That’s the entire point - everyone says “it’s the same as drinking beer, dude”, but clearly a group of people who would put money on that statement (and be happy to, because it means more profits for them) won’t put money on that statement.

There’s a reason. They aren’t the same.

348

boomdat,

I had the opportunity to speak directly to President Bush (43) and I assure you he was one of the brightest men I’ve ever spoken with. His problem was not intelligence, it was twofold, first he was a poor communicator and secondly the mainstream liberal media dogged him for every little error. Of course they won’t do that with Obama.

In addition to this Bush had a higher SAT score than John Kerry. And I don’t believe that they’ve even allowed the public to see the chosen one’s IQ score. But that’s okay there will be no outcry from the liberal media. Nor will you see Obama’s mistakes paraded around on the evening news. He just never makes a mistake isn’t that something? Of course living with your teleprompter helps.

Also, save your Bush clips for another thread you are very far off topic.

349

ZEB wrote:

True i’m sorry for the video, its a bad example and off topic. I know Bush is an intelligent person. He made so many mistakes in speech that one gets the overwhelming impression otherwise.
On the other hand, blaming Bush’s stigma on the mainstream “liberal media” is… misguided at best. But that is off topic as well. Whoops.

350

[quote]boomdat wrote:

On the other hand, blaming Bush’s stigma on the mainstream “liberal media” is… misguided at best.
[/quote]

Yes, it wasn’t just the media. There were also 520 something “non-profit” organisations overseen by some creepy megalomaniac who took down half a dozen governments around the world, collapsed half a dozen economies in predatory short selling of their currencies, bragged about it, said he is determined to take down America next, writes books about “world government” leadership that read more like a resume - Soros said bringing down Bush was “life or death” for him. Seven days after 9/11 Soros was urging European countries not to join with the U.S. in invading Afghanistan. Soros, his 520 something organisations run by handpicked sixties radicals, together with Hillaryland and much of the Democratic Party tried to bring down a wartime president.

Then there were the Islamic fundamentalists and their fifth columnists - CAIR and so on. And of course, more than half of all illegal immigrants in the U.S. arrived after 9/11. Truthers and all sorts of whackjobs creeping out from under their rocks. That was what Bush was up against.

351

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Storey,

If you could stick to the truth you could appreciate what the man has done with his life.

[quote]By implementing programs that provide hunger relief, medical aid, disaster relief, clean water, microenterprise and sommunity development, OBI has helped more than 202.7 million people in more than 105 countries and all 50 states as well as distributed goods valued at more than $1.4 billion.

…delivered and given away more than 164 million pounds of food
provided more than 109 million meals to the needy
driven more than 4.4 million miles
provided 9.7 million pounds of relief and disaster relief supplies assistance.[/quote]

http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don’t you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?[/quote]

Dunno, the flimsiest of research shows that you are wrong.

But then, maybe believing in things without evidence is like a muscle, if you do it long enough you can believe in anything.

Jesus, this Robertson guy is a special kind of asswipe, then again, there is a certain charm in a priest/conmen.

Over here we have so few of those…[/quote]

Charity navigator is a completely non-partisan organisation that assesses all different kinds of charities.

OBI gets the highest rating - ticks ALL the boxes. On what do you base your allegations?

352

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I honestly haven’t looked into it. I don’t know. I would speculate that it is “because they can” though. Where I grew up most insurance companies did everything they could to not pay out. As my old man is wont to point out, the first question they will ask when contacted is “do you have any other insurance.” If there is any way to get them “off the hook” for a payout, they generally will take it. [/quote]

This misses the point completely - if an insurer is refusing to pay out, it means that they have first written a policy and have been accepting (and investing) your premiums.

Insurers won’t even write life insurance policies on users - in other words, they will not even happily take a user’s money and then fight about a claim later.

You have it backwards - they have “actuarial-ized” it, they have figured it in, and they simply won’t do it. That’s the entire point - everyone says “it’s the same as drinking beer, dude”, but clearly a group of people who would put money on that statement (and be happy to, because it means more profits for them) won’t put money on that statement.

There’s a reason. They aren’t the same.[/quote]

Do you work in the field? Do you have a source? I’m not saying your making it up; I’m not saying you are just wrong. I just want to learn more about it.

353

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Storey,

If you could stick to the truth you could appreciate what the man has done with his life.

[quote]By implementing programs that provide hunger relief, medical aid, disaster relief, clean water, microenterprise and sommunity development, OBI has helped more than 202.7 million people in more than 105 countries and all 50 states as well as distributed goods valued at more than $1.4 billion.

…delivered and given away more than 164 million pounds of food
provided more than 109 million meals to the needy
driven more than 4.4 million miles
provided 9.7 million pounds of relief and disaster relief supplies assistance.[/quote]

http://www.ministrywatch.com/...ernational.aspx

Why don’t you just chalk this up to experience and walk away a better man?[/quote]

Dunno, the flimsiest of research shows that you are wrong.

But then, maybe believing in things without evidence is like a muscle, if you do it long enough you can believe in anything.

Jesus, this Robertson guy is a special kind of asswipe, then again, there is a certain charm in a priest/conmen.

Over here we have so few of those…[/quote]

Charity navigator is a completely non-partisan organisation that assesses all different kinds of charities.

OBI gets the highest rating - ticks ALL the boxes. On what do you base your allegations?[/quote]

Cavorting not one but two African dictators to help his mining business?

Using planes bought with donations for said mining business?

Faith healing of Aids victims?

O_O

I am sorry, but there is a point when I just know a conman.

354

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/amend-controlled-substances-act-and-exclude-marijuana-and-tetrahydrocannabinols/0Zkxnb6B

In case you want to sign a petition to legalize Mary Jane

355

[quote]therajraj wrote:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/amend-controlled-substances-act-and-exclude-marijuana-and-tetrahydrocannabinols/0Zkxnb6B

In case you want to sign a petition to legalize Mary Jane[/quote]

Where can I sign a petition that a 1000$ a piece plasmalamp does not break down once every other week?

POS devices.