Pat Robertson: Legalize Pot

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Definitely a weak argument, just like the prohibition argument. There is NO good reason that alcohol is legally sold and weed isn’t. Certainly nothing has raised its head in this thread. I live in TX, we have dry counties where you can’t purchase any alcohol. I think it is completely retarded, people are going to just drive to the next county and buy it. Guess who lost the tax revenue on the alcohol? Yep, dumb ass dry county. Same with the US, war on drugs is a foolish waste of money but especially the war on weed. Guess who’s missing out on all that tax revenue? Yep, our (increasingly) in debt government. Give it up already.

I’m not in the “weed is healthy for you” camp, believe me. I’m in the “It’s no worse for you than painkillers and vodka, so let me get out of your way and let YOU decide what to put in YOUR body” camp.

Your point is valid and well taken and the same argument if we outlawed soda tomorrow basically. But as far as good coming from it, well since you’ve never seen Bill Hicks my friend, pretty much sums it up in - YouTube

162

[quote]pat wrote:

As long as they did it for alcohol users too…Fair is fair.[/quote]

Well, they could if they wanted to, but I wouldn’t be bothered with alcohol users in my insurance pool. Big difference. Reports come out daily at the advantages of (moderate) alcohol consumption.

163

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Not all refuse to, there are some that don’t ask. And yes, it is the illegality to at least a good portion of the reason me thinks you are being obtuse on that point. This article pretty much sums it up Life Insurance for Marijuana Users - Essential Facts

For the non link clickers or those that just wont read it “People are denied insurance due to the fact that insurance companies view marijuana as an illegal and dangerous drug, which accelerates an individual’s heart rate, causes respiratory and circulatory problems and can lead to short-term memory loss.”

also in there: "Marijuana use is often linked to tobacco use for insurance purposes. This is seen as unfair by many due to the fact that marijuana has never been proven to have the same devastating effects on the human body as tobacco and alcohol.

Marijuana has never been recognized as a carcinogenic, does not negatively affect internal organs and has actually been proven to relieve the nausea and discomfort associated with cancer and AIDS."

BUT to fully answer your question TB so there is no more confusion or saying I am dodging the question:

"It is now possible to obtain term life insurance coverage for marijuana users. Enrollees who are in good health, but enjoy having that occasional joint may purchase life insurance from companies such as ING for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. "

164

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Not all refuse to, there are some that don’t ask. And yes, it is the illegality to at least a good portion of the reason me thinks you are being obtuse on that point. This article pretty much sums it up Life Insurance for Marijuana Users - Essential Facts

For the non link clickers or those that just wont read it “People are denied insurance due to the fact that insurance companies view marijuana as an illegal and dangerous drug, which accelerates an individual’s heart rate, causes respiratory and circulatory problems and can lead to short-term memory loss.”

also in there: "Marijuana use is often linked to tobacco use for insurance purposes. This is seen as unfair by many due to the fact that marijuana has never been proven to have the same devastating effects on the human body as tobacco and alcohol.

Marijuana has never been recognized as a carcinogenic, does not negatively affect internal organs and has actually been proven to relieve the nausea and discomfort associated with cancer and AIDS."

BUT to fully answer your question TB so there is no more confusion or saying I am dodging the question:

"It is now possible to obtain term life insurance coverage for marijuana users. Enrollees who are in good health, but enjoy having that occasional joint may purchase life insurance from companies such as ING for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. "[/quote]

How clever - from your own article, you edit out this statement: On continued usage, marijana smokers can easily become mentally addicted to marijuana and its active ingredient, THC, with some extreme cases suffering psychosis. Though marijuana is used successfully in the treatment of certain illnesses, it can cause anxiety, fear, distrust or panic in individuals. This is another reason insurance companies prefer not to offer life insurance policies to people who have a history of marijuana use.

Also, Marijuana users’ details will be reported to the Medical Information Bureau (MIB). Once your name is on the register your insurance premiums will skyrocket and stay there for the duration that you remain there.

Curious. Forget to read these parts, did you?

That’s the point. Some insurers will take the risk, most will not. They do so because…wait for it…the risks associated with its use are considered to be a bad bet…simply too risky.

But it isn’t the illegality - if it was, you’d see universal refusal.

165

So many smart posters on here…drug users all of them.

Fentanyl, ibuprofin, acetaminophen, dextromethorphan, pseudoephedrine, naproxen, hydrocodone, oxycodone, meperidine, pethidine, bupropion, prozac, sarafem, sertraline entora, matrifen, haldid, onsolis.

All druuuuugs…90% are seriously addictive…all legal.

I don’t want these druggies on my insurance plan…they are seriously sick.

166

So just for the record…everybody is fine with people using all these fun things ^^^^^^ on their insurance…but not THC.

OK.

167

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
So just for the record…everybody is fine with people using all these fun things ^^^^^^ on their insurance…but not THC.

OK.[/quote]

Let’s see - are the drugs you mentioned used in connection with treating other bona fide conditions?

168

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Your point is valid and well taken[/quote]

Thank you.

Not at all the same thing. See TB’s insurance argument for starters that should help you put the marijuana vs. Soda debate in the proper perspective, that is there is no comparison!

169

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
So just for the record…everybody is fine with people using all these fun things ^^^^^^ on their insurance…but not THC.

OK.[/quote]

Let’s see - are the drugs you mentioned used in connection with treating other bona fide conditions?[/quote]

Studies have shown that THC is a powerful appetite stimulator for folks on chemotherapy.

So it would fit right in.

The opiates listed above are highly addictive painkillers…

THC helps with pain and (according to some studies, not all) is slightly addictive in massive doses…whats the difference?

I contend none…other than a fear campaign.

170

Yet no matter how addictive a drug… Oxycontin is on of the most addictive substances on earth…if a doctor prescribes it, its OKEE DOKEE.

171

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Studies have shown that THC is a powerful appetite stimulator for folks on chemotherapy.

So it would fit right in.

The opiates listed above are highly addictive painkillers…

THC helps with pain and (according to some studies, not all) is slightly addictive in massive doses…whats the difference?

I contend none…other than a fear campaign.
[/quote]

So, is that a yes or a no?

Because if a person has another condition, from an insurance perspective, use of marijuana is very different (as I explained to our “Austrian economist”). Then, marijuana is used in connection with treatment of a condition that the insurer already has to pay for.

Recreational use of the drug not in connection with treating an already existing health condition that the insurer has to pay for is different. Only one question matters - is there a high risk that the recreational drug user will develop a condition that he currently does not have? The answer is yes, which is why companies won’t insure it.

From an insurance perspective, the issue of marijuana for treatment/pain management of other conditions is completely independent of the issue of insuring people who use marijuana recreationally.

172

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Studies have shown that THC is a powerful appetite stimulator for folks on chemotherapy.

So it would fit right in.

The opiates listed above are highly addictive painkillers…

THC helps with pain and (according to some studies, not all) is slightly addictive in massive doses…whats the difference?

I contend none…other than a fear campaign.
[/quote]

So, is that a yes or a no?

Because if a person has another condition, from an insurance perspective, use of marijuana is very different (as I explained to our “Austrian economist”). Then, marijuana is used in connection with treatment of a condition that the insurer already has to pay for.

Recreational use of the drug not in connection with treating an already existing health condition that the insurer has to pay for is different. Only one question matters - is there a high risk that the recreational drug user will develop a condition that he currently does not have? The answer is yes, which is why companies won’t insure it.

From an insurance perspective, the issue of marijuana for treatment/pain management of other conditions is completely independent of the issue of insuring people who use marijuana recreationally.
[/quote]

So you are saying that insurance companies would treat marijuana EXACTLY the same…were it legal?

173

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

So you are saying that insurance companies would treat marijuana EXACTLY the same…were it legal?[/quote]

Uh, what? Your question doesn’t make sense. If marijuana were legalized for medicinal purposes, sure, it would be treated like these other drugs, because the medicinal marijuana would mitigate some other far worse condition, just like these other drugs do, and would be in connection with (and therefore supervised by) medical professionals.

Irrelevant to the idea of insurers refusing to insure recreational drug users.

174

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

So you are saying that insurance companies would treat marijuana EXACTLY the same…were it legal?[/quote]

Uh, what? Your question doesn’t make sense. If marijuana were legalized for medicinal purposes, sure, it would be treated like these other drugs, because the medicinal marijuana would mitigate some other far worse condition, just like these other drugs do, and would be in connection with (and therefore supervised by) medical professionals.

Irrelevant to the idea of insurers refusing to insure recreational drug users.[/quote]

I’m asking if THC were legal, would the insurance companies treat a non-prescription user like a cigarette smoker?

175

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

I’m asking if THC were legal, would the insurance companies treat a non-prescription user like a cigarette smoker?[/quote]

Yes, and they would also treat them as a consumer of drugs - so two things: they would be “scored” in accordance with smoke-impact on the lungs, etc. just like a tobacco user, and they would also be “scored” for the impact of drug use on the brain, etc.

176

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

I’m asking if THC were legal, would the insurance companies treat a non-prescription user like a cigarette smoker?[/quote]

Yes, and they would also treat them as a consumer of drugs - so two things: they would be “scored” in accordance with smoke-impact on the lungs, etc. just like a tobacco user, and they would also be “scored” for the impact of drug use on the brain, etc.

[/quote]

OK, now here is the other question…as an HR Manager I know that people I work with lie on their medical insurance application forms…happens all the time, especially with regards to tobacco.

What if the recreational THC user simply decides to not put it on the form?

For life insurance…simply stop using the THC for 2-3 weeks before the application test…just like smokers do.

This is VERY common now…there are many non-reported tobacco users in your very same insurance pool.

And the world continues to turn somehow.

Fair or not.

177

This is kind of a sidebar with me…I mostly argue for legalization because of the overwhelming (bankrupting the prison system) cost and unenforceability of the marijuana laws on the books.

178

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

OK, now here is the other question…as an HR Manager I know that people I work with lie on their medical insurance application forms…happens all the time, especially with regards to tobacco.

What if the recreational THC user simply decides to not put it on the form?[/quote]

Then under the contract, they forfeit coverage if they get found out - have you read an insurance contract?

Interesting - so if insurers knew about it, they wouldn’t insure them, but people are lying and cheating to try and get coverage they wouldn’t get if they told the truth.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

179

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

OK, now here is the other question…as an HR Manager I know that people I work with lie on their medical insurance application forms…happens all the time, especially with regards to tobacco.

What if the recreational THC user simply decides to not put it on the form?[/quote]

Then under the contract, they forfeit coverage if they get found out - have you read an insurance contract?

Interesting - so if insurers knew about it, they wouldn’t insure them, but people are lying and cheating to try and get coverage they wouldn’t get if they told the truth.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

Under the terms of the contract of your drivers licence…you forfeit your licence for speeding, ever speed?

180

Mandated contraception coverage. Pot legalized. Smutty popular culture and entertainment. Sounds like turning on and tuning out to me. Like keeping the rabble distracted in pleasure and indulgence while the nation goes old and bankrupt. Would the last person hit the lights on their way out?