[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the posts of Bolt, ZEB, and Sex machine in this forum.
But you cannot seriously think that marijuana is in the same category as Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Prescription Drugs or even Alcohol and Nicotine in terms of harming the body.
We enable Mexican cartels with a willing market that we could tax ourselves and bring much needed revenue into bankrupt states and at the same time take money from gangsters in Mexico.
We cannot afford to keep up the “war on weed” …that was started after somebody made Reefer Madness, and turned the whole country into some sort of illogical,paranoid science experiment.
We…Just…Can’t…Afford…It.[/quote]
Basically for me it breaks down to my original statement, the government does not have a right to tell you what you can and cannot consume, or take. It’s really a ludicrous prospect in my eyes. As long as you can deal with the consequences, go nuts.
There’s tons of destructive behavior that is perfectly legal, the whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. On top of the fact that prohibition of any kind is a failure.
In all its illegality there I don’t know of or ever heard of a person who wanted to do a drug who didn’t because it was illegal.
If we are making destructive behavior the boogieman lets make them all illegal. What you’ll find is you aren’t allowed to do shit then.
Would you ask the same of those in your insurance pool that utilize nicotine and imbibe alcohol?[/quote]
Not necessarily - those risks can be priced into the risk pool more effectively. Drug use, not as much.
Depends on volume of the usage, of course, and that is the primarily problem, and whether the drug user retricts his drug use to marijuana, which I don’t have much confidence will happen.
In any event, that’s my point - there is a bunch of risk, i.e., too many unknowns, and as such, I shouldn’t be forced to underwrite those risks. [/quote]
Life is full of risks. People know how to beat the system. Their is no evidence that the casual user is at any greater health risk than their non-partaking counter part.
We let people get horrendously fat.
We let people bungee jump.
We let people ice skate.
We let people cross busy roads.
We let people ride bikes.
We let people ride motor cycles.
We let people, buy sell and shoot guns.
We let people have large knives.
We let people ride shopping carts down hills.
Etc, etc.
I can think of thousands of perfectly legal high-risk activities.
Would you ask the same of those in your insurance pool that utilize nicotine and imbibe alcohol?[/quote]
Not necessarily - those risks can be priced into the risk pool more effectively. Drug use, not as much.
Depends on volume of the usage, of course, and that is the primarily problem, and whether the drug user retricts his drug use to marijuana, which I don’t have much confidence will happen.
In any event, that’s my point - there is a bunch of risk, i.e., too many unknowns, and as such, I shouldn’t be forced to underwrite those risks. [/quote]
Life is full of risks. People know how to beat the system. Their is no evidence that the casual user is at any greater health risk than their non-partaking counter part.
We let people get horrendously fat.
We let people bungee jump.
We let people ice skate.
We let people cross busy roads.
We let people ride bikes.
We let people ride motor cycles.
We let people, buy sell and shoot guns.
We let people have large knives.
We let people ride shopping carts down hills.
Etc, etc.
I can think of thousands of perfectly legal high-risk activities.[/quote]
Their is no evidence that the casual user is at any greater health risk than their non-partaking counter part. [/quote]
You actually expect me to believe that? Don’t be silly.
In any event, I’m saying go for it - just don’t make me pay for your choices. Surely that is a fair trade, right? I mean, for those people who don’t “control” their drug use and wreck their lives, it shouldn’t be my job to bail these people out of those choices, right?
And, no, drug use isn’t like other “high risk” behavior, but in any event, you can’t get insurance if you engage in certain high risk activities (or it is more expensive), so you don’t have much of an argument here.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the posts of Bolt, ZEB, and Sex machine in this forum.
But you cannot seriously think that marijuana is in the same category as Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Prescription Drugs or even Alcohol and Nicotine in terms of harming the body.
We enable Mexican cartels with a willing market that we could tax ourselves and bring much needed revenue into bankrupt states and at the same time take money from gangsters in Mexico.
We cannot afford to keep up the “war on weed” …that was started after somebody made Reefer Madness, and turned the whole country into some sort of illogical,paranoid science experiment.
We…Just…Can’t…Afford…It.[/quote]
Basically for me it breaks down to my original statement, the government does not have a right to tell you what you can and cannot consume, or take. It’s really a ludicrous prospect in my eyes. As long as you can deal with the consequences, go nuts.
There’s tons of destructive behavior that is perfectly legal, the whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. On top of the fact that prohibition of any kind is a failure.
In all its illegality there I don’t know of or ever heard of a person who wanted to do a drug who didn’t because it was illegal.
If we are making destructive behavior the boogieman lets make them all illegal. What you’ll find is you aren’t allowed to do shit then. [/quote]
Their is no evidence that the casual user is at any greater health risk than their non-partaking counter part. [/quote]
You actually expect me to believe that? Don’t be silly.
In any event, I’m saying go for it - just don’t make me pay for your choices. Surely that is a fair trade, right? I mean, for those people who don’t “control” their drug use and wreck their lives, it shouldn’t be my job to bail these people out of those choices, right?
And, no, drug use isn’t like other “high risk” behavior, but in any event, you can’t get insurance if you engage in certain high risk activities (or it is more expensive), so you don’t have much of an argument here.[/quote]
Totally agree with the not paying for your shitty choices but doesnt that bounce back to the previous poster talking about all the other things that are legal that you do pay for? Thats why I am totally against socialized healthcare for everyone. I dont want to pay your inevitable hospital bills because you think its fine to drink a liter of soda a day.
Their is no evidence that the casual user is at any greater health risk than their non-partaking counter part. [/quote]
You actually expect me to believe that? Don’t be silly.
In any event, I’m saying go for it - just don’t make me pay for your choices. Surely that is a fair trade, right? I mean, for those people who don’t “control” their drug use and wreck their lives, it shouldn’t be my job to bail these people out of those choices, right?
And, no, drug use isn’t like other “high risk” behavior, but in any event, you can’t get insurance if you engage in certain high risk activities (or it is more expensive), so you don’t have much of an argument here.[/quote]
You have to prove that smoking marijuana is high risk , it may be less risky than consuming sugar
Their is no evidence that the casual user is at any greater health risk than their non-partaking counter part. [/quote]
You actually expect me to believe that? Don’t be silly.
In any event, I’m saying go for it - just don’t make me pay for your choices. Surely that is a fair trade, right? I mean, for those people who don’t “control” their drug use and wreck their lives, it shouldn’t be my job to bail these people out of those choices, right?
And, no, drug use isn’t like other “high risk” behavior, but in any event, you can’t get insurance if you engage in certain high risk activities (or it is more expensive), so you don’t have much of an argument here.[/quote]
Totally agree with the not paying for your shitty choices but doesnt that bounce back to the previous poster talking about all the other things that are legal that you do pay for? Thats why I am totally against socialized healthcare for everyone. I dont want to pay your inevitable hospital bills because you think its fine to drink a liter of soda a day.[/quote]
the problem with your argument is that if you are responsible and pay your medical bills you are in effect paying for the people that do not pay their bills shitty choices and all
Totally agree with the not paying for your shitty choices but doesnt that bounce back to the previous poster talking about all the other things that are legal that you do pay for?[/quote]
Sure - those other risks don’t have the same downside, and in any event, those risks get actuarially priced into the insurance pool. None of those risks make you uninsurable, because of their probabilities of materializing in a way that requires a huge payout from the insurance pool. That is fine.
Not so much with drug use. A drug user practically operates like a person with a pre-existing condition for purposes of insurance, and the problem is exacerbated because this risk is a matter of choice, not happenstance.
Drug users are, simply stated, a bad bet whose future can’t be trusted. So, keep away from my money. I shouldn’t have to subsidize drug user’s exceptionally poor life choices.
You have to prove that smoking marijuana is high risk , it may be less risky than consuming sugar[/quote]
I don’t have to, I already know it is for purposes of insurance, which is why my insurance guy asks me if I use it and has informed me that he can’t insure me if I do, to which I say, excellent.
You have to prove that smoking marijuana is high risk , it may be less risky than consuming sugar[/quote]
I don’t have to, I already know it is for purposes of insurance, which is why my insurance guy asks me if I use it and has informed me that he can’t insure me if I do, to which I say, excellent.[/quote]
Most who use rationalize their habit, this is nothing new. Entertaining, but not new. “What? There’s nothing wrong with it (cough) no lung damage, no chance of making poor decisions while under the influence…and certainly no chance of arrest. It’s the same as um…using sugar.” LMAO–This nonsense is hilarious.
The WHO has declared marijuana less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. If you want to be consistent with your stance of keeping pot illegal, you should also believe that alcohol and nicotine should be illegal. Dextromethorphan (found in most cough medicines) taken at recreational doses can be more addictive than alcohol and does more damage to the body so that should probably be banned too.
Same goes for the insurance deal. Pot shouldn’t be looked down on anymore than alcohol or nicotine.
You have to prove that smoking marijuana is high risk , it may be less risky than consuming sugar[/quote]
I don’t have to, I already know it is for purposes of insurance, which is why my insurance guy asks me if I use it and has informed me that he can’t insure me if I do, to which I say, excellent.[/quote]
Most who use rationalize their habit, this is nothing new. Entertaining, but not new. “What? There’s nothing wrong with it (cough) no lung damage, no chance of making poor decisions while under the influence…and certainly no chance of arrest. It’s the same as um…using sugar.” LMAO–This nonsense is hilarious.[/quote]
You have to prove that smoking marijuana is high risk , it may be less risky than consuming sugar[/quote]
I don’t have to, I already know it is for purposes of insurance, which is why my insurance guy asks me if I use it and has informed me that he can’t insure me if I do, to which I say, excellent.[/quote]
Could it be possible that your Insurance guy is part of the industry that makes money on illegal marijuana
You have to prove that smoking marijuana is high risk , it may be less risky than consuming sugar[/quote]
I don’t have to, I already know it is for purposes of insurance, which is why my insurance guy asks me if I use it and has informed me that he can’t insure me if I do, to which I say, excellent.[/quote]
Most who use rationalize their habit, this is nothing new. Entertaining, but not new. “What? There’s nothing wrong with it (cough) no lung damage, no chance of making poor decisions while under the influence…and certainly no chance of arrest. It’s the same as um…using sugar.” LMAO–This nonsense is hilarious.[/quote]
Your sheer idiocy and lack of any real knowledge of Marijuana is laughable at best.
If you’re going to refer to it as a habit, we’d better do the same for coffee, which is more addictive than pot.
Riddle me this anti-pot weirdos, why is alcohol legal?
If you’re going to refer to it as a habit, we’d better do the same for coffee, which is more addictive than pot.
[/quote]
Or chewing gum. Chewing gum is more addictive than crack cocaine and heroin combined. I have a friend who’s been strung out on cola flavoured Hubba Bubba for ten years now. It’s no joke.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Marijuana is nontoxic unlike Alcohol[/quote]
'The more cannabis used, the more these individuals were likely to show reduced brain volume, particularly of the hippocampus, as well as sub-threshold psychotic symptoms and significant memory loss…
“Although modest use may not lead to significant neurotoxic effects, these results suggest that heavy daily use might indeed be toxic to human brain tissue,” Dr Yucel said.
