Pat Robertson: Legalize Pot

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

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 .[/quote]

You provide a false choice - they can exist for our benefit and exist for their profit simultanously. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.

But the profit idea doesn’t drive the problem of the high risk of drug use. The concept of insurance is insuring against risk - and companies that insure risk, whether for profit or not, are in the business of trying to predict outcomes and price those outcomes.

Drug users are a bad bet, regardless of the insurer’s motive. They are almost always going to be a loss.

And trust me, my insurance company exists for my benefit, else I wouldn’t contract with them.

No, the real issue is - you don’t want insurance, you just want someone to pay your bills. You want to be able to do whatever you want, pay a fee (or not), and have someone else pay for things you’d rather not pay for. That isn’t insurance. You basically just want a free ride with your bad choices underwritten by someone else’s money.

What you want is the equivalent of signing for a fire insurance policy on Tuesday after your house has burned down on Monday and wanting the policy to pay for the fire.

142

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

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.[/quote]

Understand the logic but cant say I buy into that lumping casual cannabis smokers in with the risks of “drug users” regardless of the spin thats been put on it. Heavy daily users, sure, people that use it the same way people have a glass of wine with dinner or drinks on the weekend, nope. Besides cant fund a study but if I was a betting man I’d say at least 40% of all current insurance pools are covering people that smoke weed, many of them daily.

143

[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.

144

Fair enough point ZEB but I think the underlying argument is cool, let it be LEGAL to have your pot and ice cream on the weekends as there are far worse things that are legal.

145

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter if you believe it or not. There’s no evidence. Perhaps it is detrimental we don’t know. It’s still not the governments place to tell us to, or not to. It’s none of their business.

Correct. Personal responsibility. You want to be a crack head, fine. Do it on your own dime,time and property, and don’t bother anybody when you make yourself ill.

I didn’t say it’s like other high risk behavior I said it’s one among many.

146

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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).
[/quote]

Like, telling other people how to live their lives while pretending to be for small government?

Well, that is a curious sight to see, I agree.

147

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

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[/quote]

No, there must be a preponderance of lobbyists willing to buy themselves some votes.

148

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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[/quote]

If some one does not pay their bill they just add it to your bill

149

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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[/quote]

If some one does not pay their bill they just add it to your bill [/quote]

How do you figure? Besides hospitals inflating treatment costs to cover that but again its far and few between (barring an accident) Im seeing the inside of a hospital

150

[quote]storey420 wrote:

cant fund a study but if I was a betting man I’d say at least 40% of all current insurance pools are covering people that smoke weed, many of them daily.[/quote]

Well, set that aside for a moment, and I’d doubt that number anyway - insurance companies won’t write insurance for marijuana users. Why not? Should be easy to answer.

151

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).

152

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

cant fund a study but if I was a betting man I’d say at least 40% of all current insurance pools are covering people that smoke weed, many of them daily.[/quote]

Well, set that aside for a moment, and I’d doubt that number anyway - insurance companies won’t write insurance for marijuana users. Why not? Should be easy to answer.[/quote]

I agree with your general logic and understand the reasoning. I think it should be legal, then have an adjusted premium for smoking it (like we do for cigarette smokers–higher premiums)We should have one for fast food eaters–higher premiums. But they wont write insurance for it because its illegal right now, period.

I’d doubt that number as well. I think its higher to be honest. I just know way too many people that puff occasionally (mind you Im not just talking about burnt out stoners but fully functional members of society) that have health insurance. Beat their whiz quiz then go right back to doing what the hell they want to.

153

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I agree with your general logic and understand the reasoning. I think it should be legal, then have an adjusted premium for smoking it (like we do for cigarette smokers–higher premiums)We should have one for fast food eaters–higher premiums. But they wont write insurance for it because its illegal right now, period.[/quote]

You still haven’t answered the question. The illegality of the drug doesn’t prohibit insurance - some companies allow for it, I believe. So why not write it?

And people do get charged more for being fast food eaters, to the extent that the consumption of fast food affects their health (i.e., people get charged more for having high cholesterol, not simply being a fast food eater).

154

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Fair enough point ZEB but I think the underlying argument is cool, let it be LEGAL to have your pot and ice cream on the weekends as there are far worse things that are legal.[/quote]

And that my friend is a very weak argument. One can legalize most anything with such an argument. Make it legal because there are worse things legal? Murder is worse than assault, should we legalize assualt?

Come on Storey you are smarter than that. This is just one more rationalization on the part of a drug user.

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.

Simple right?

155

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I agree with your general logic and understand the reasoning. I think it should be legal, then have an adjusted premium for smoking it (like we do for cigarette smokers–higher premiums)We should have one for fast food eaters–higher premiums. But they wont write insurance for it because its illegal right now, period.[/quote]

You still haven’t answered the question. The illegality of the drug doesn’t prohibit insurance - some companies allow for it, I believe. So why not write it?

And people do get charged more for being fast food eaters, to the extent that the consumption of fast food affects their health (i.e., people get charged more for having high cholesterol, not simply being a fast food eater).[/quote]

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)

156

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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]

As long as they did it for alcohol users too…Fair is fair.

157

[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?

158

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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[/quote]

If some one does not pay their bill they just add it to your bill [/quote]

How do you figure? Besides hospitals inflating treatment costs to cover that but again its far and few between (barring an accident) Im seeing the inside of a hospital[/quote]

159

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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[/quote]

If some one does not pay their bill they just add it to your bill [/quote]

How do you figure? Besides hospitals inflating treatment costs to cover that but again its far and few between (barring an accident) Im seeing the inside of a hospital[/quote]

If hospitals did not recover unpaid bills they would go bankrupt, I agree that the average person does not see a hopital often . But go to one there is no shortage

160

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

cant fund a study but if I was a betting man I’d say at least 40% of all current insurance pools are covering people that smoke weed, many of them daily.[/quote]

Well, set that aside for a moment, and I’d doubt that number anyway - insurance companies won’t write insurance for marijuana users. Why not? Should be easy to answer.[/quote]

I would bump that to a 100%