[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.
[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.
So what? It is toxic, impairs driving, causes some people to become violent… oh this list could get pretty fucking long.
[/quote]
Maybe you should push for alcohol prohibitionism if you feel that strongly about it.
[quote]
Why is it allowed to be legal and Marijuana is not?[/quote]
Because that’s what people want. It’s a representative republic.[/quote]
So it’s right to be prohibited purely on the grounds that the majority want it to be such a way. No logic using comparative reasoning, or sense of justice outside of (it’s this way and it’s right because the majority want it this way).
You seem to be a Utilitarian. Majority of people in certain places like to stone women for getting raped, it doesn’t matter why because the majority like it that way? I don’t mean to pick on you, but that is how you come across… That is the logic I see you practicing.
So it’s right to be prohibited purely on the grounds that the majority want it to be such a way. No logic using comparative reasoning, or sense of justice outside of (it’s this way and it’s right because the majority want it this way).
[/quote]
Maybe the people have good reason for not wanting it legalised.
If the majority of people in a representative republic(or anywhere else) sanctioned the stoning of women for getting raped then I would oppose that.
[quote]
I don’t mean to pick on you, but that is how you come across… That is the logic I see you practicing. [/quote]
You’re not picking on me. You just didn’t make a very good comparison or point there.
So it’s right to be prohibited purely on the grounds that the majority want it to be such a way. No logic using comparative reasoning, or sense of justice outside of (it’s this way and it’s right because the majority want it this way).
[/quote]
Maybe the people have good reason for not wanting it legalised.
If the majority of people in a representative republic(or anywhere else) sanctioned the stoning of women for getting raped then I would oppose that.
[quote]
I don’t mean to pick on you, but that is how you come across… That is the logic I see you practicing. [/quote]
You’re not picking on me. You just didn’t make a very good comparison or point there.[/quote]
So then, you admit that there should be some sort of reason for things like prohibitions to exist, and not simply that the majority thinks something should be so.
What are the reasons you believe pot should be illegal? Clearly you don’t think it should be illegal based simply on the fact that some majority wants it as such, because then you would be okay with women being stoned to death for getting raped.
You have cited some information, that isn’t an actual study but an estimation that something like 5 joints a day for 10 years straight MAY cause some brain problems. Is that your reason? There are similar studies that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that excessive alcohol or tobacco consumption leads to things like cancer and death. Alcohol isn’t exactly good for the brain either. If you like I can find some published studies that show this as well.
No matter how you cut it, marijuana is less toxic to the user than tobacco or alcohol. Personally I don’t feel comfortable with people driving around while stoned, but at the same time it is less impairing to say a driver than alcohol is. As stated, it doesn’t make people violent either.
Hopefully you see now, that by your own logic, marijuana should be legalized.
Hopefully you see now, that by your own logic, marijuana should be legalized. [/quote]
I commend your mental gymnastics.[/quote]
Hey, just trying to help you out. Sometimes we are so set in our beliefs that even if compelling evidence is placed before us, we cling onto what it is we are comfortable with.
[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.
More than 5 joints daily, for more than 10 years huh?
Do the same with alcohol and see what is left to be tested.[/quote]
If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should support alcohol prohibitionism.[/quote]
You will be surprised to hear that I am for it.
That and I want fast food banned, along with semi nudity and swearing.
Of course the first thing I would do is open a speakeasy where you can order burger and fries with a beer, served by scantily clad women with a mouth like a sailor on them.
Could it be possible that your Insurance guy is part of the industry that makes money on illegal marijuana[/quote]
Insurance companies don’t make money off of “illegal marijuana” - they would happily take a drug user’s premiums and invest the proceeds, if it wasn’t a bad bet. Problem is, they’ve determined it’s a bad bet.
The illegality of marijuana is irrelevant to a health/life insurer’s ability to make money.
Could it be possible that your Insurance guy is part of the industry that makes money on illegal marijuana[/quote]
Insurance companies don’t make money off of “illegal marijuana” - they would happily take a drug user’s premiums and invest the proceeds, if it wasn’t a bad bet. Problem is, they’ve determined it’s a bad bet.
The illegality of marijuana is irrelevant to a health/life insurer’s ability to make money.
[/quote]
Not really, if he has to shell out for synthetic THC at 5-10 times of the street value of that stuff.
And pay heavily for anti nausea medication on top of the very expensive treatment of cancer, MS and whatnot.
They should beg to pay for weed for medicinal purposes, cheaper, safer and more effective than a lot of what is out there.
Not really, if he has to shell out for synthetic THC at 5-10 times of the street value of that stuff.
And pay heavily for anti nausea medication on top of the very expensive treatment of cancer, MS and whatnot. [/quote]
Yes, really, at that point they are paying for treatment of cancer (something they priced into the premium and bet against the odds of occurring), not for the ill effects of drug use.
That doesn’t impact an insurer’s assessment that a drug user is a bad financial bet, which they are, given the risks that drug use entails. So, insurers won’t write policies for them.
Different issue - that would figure into the costs of treatment of a condition they had bet against, and would figure into their desire to reduce costs of said treatment. That doesn’t have anything to do with making a bet on someone’s future health as a result of use/abuse of drugs when they are otherwise healthy, and whether it is worth the money to write a policy on someone who engages in that behavior.
Insurers are cold-blooded calculators for purposes of determing policy and premiums - they can actuarially price nearly anything. And they have done so, and determined that economically, drug users are a bad bet to insure. Andd of course they are, they are basically a patient with a pre-existing condition.
When someone wants something so very badly they will say and do most things to get it. Even play the part of hypocrite (let’s train hard guys and get in great shape). And in the process actually believe that they are doing the right thing (because they want it).
Those who are sucking this smoke into their lungs on a regular basis do themselves no good (um, it’s smoke and it’s in the lungs). And even to pretend with various rationalizations “it’s not as dangerous as alcohol” is (again) entertaining to read. Not “as bad” as alcohol? NOT AS BAD?
Could it be possible that your Insurance guy is part of the industry that makes money on illegal marijuana[/quote]
Insurance companies don’t make money off of “illegal marijuana” - they would happily take a drug user’s premiums and invest the proceeds, if it wasn’t a bad bet. Problem is, they’ve determined it’s a bad bet.
The illegality of marijuana is irrelevant to a health/life insurer’s ability to make money.
[/quote]
No but Insurance companies do make money on public policy and like every other powerfull segment of society they push their bounds
No but Insurance companies do make money on public policy and like every other powerfull segment of society they push their bounds [/quote]
Uh no, not on this public policy. They make money on things like restricting competition. Insurance companies do not gain financially from the illegality of marijuana. Whether it is illegal or not makes no difference as to the health effects of ingesting it, which is all an insurer cares about.
No but Insurance companies do make money on public policy and like every other powerfull segment of society they push their bounds [/quote]
Uh no, not on this public policy. They make money on things like restricting competition. Insurance companies do not gain financially from the illegality of marijuana. Whether it is illegal or not makes no difference as to the health effects of ingesting it, which is all an insurer cares about.[/quote]
You will have to explain your restriction of competition ?
If they make money by coercing people into making more healthfull choices then there must be a preponderance of information supporting that claim. I for one would love to see one Pubmed article on the evils of Marijuana
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.
You will have to explain your restriction of competition ?[/quote]
The don’t want a national market for insurance, but it’s irrelevant to the issue.
They don’t make money by coercing people into making more healthful choices - it’s a contractual relationship, they can’t coerce you into anything. They can decline to cover you, or charge you more for your choices. Healthy customers make insurance companies money, and they make the premiums for the other customers lower.
But, I am glad you concede that insurance companies do, in fact, have an interest in their customers making “healthful choices” and one such choice is, quite obviously, not doing drugs. That should be common sense, but apparently it isn’t.
You will have to explain your restriction of competition ?[/quote]
The don’t want a national market for insurance, but it’s irrelevant to the issue.
They don’t make money by coercing people into making more healthful choices - it’s a contractual relationship, they can’t coerce you into anything. They can decline to cover you, or charge you more for your choices. Healthy customers make insurance companies money, and they make the premiums for the other customers lower.
But, I am glad you concede that insurance companies do, in fact, have an interest in their customers making “healthful choices” and one such choice is, quite obviously, not doing drugs. That should be common sense, but apparently it isn’t.[/quote]
The only reason Insurance companies would want more healthful choices to be made woud be profit.
Insurance companies can do what ever they like . I know you and I would be on two different pages You that Ins. COs do what ever they like because they are for profit, I on the other hand think they should be nonprofit . You think they should exist for their profit and I think they should exist for OUR benifit . You think they should be Banks-Investment Companies-Insurance Companies . I on the other hand think they should be one or the other not all three. This would make for a more transparent company and for our discussion it more easy to verify motive
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
[/quote]
Actually Im in the uber-responsible crowd, I have an HSA and I am saying I am not using hospitals except in case of accident which I am saving my money and compounding it so I pay for the ambulance, etc. I think the healthcare system is broken and I have no need for it except for diagnostics and emergency, that being said I dont pay for anyone else–except the wifey