[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hilarious, by the way - the Lions roaring for the legalization of drug use in the name of the Individual suddenly turn into Lambs bleating about the injustice of not being coddled and nursed to health by their Brethren when their Individual choices have unwanted consequences.[/quote]
No, don’t raise insurance premiums, just make sure insurance companies can deny payouts to drug related health issues.
Problem solved.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, don’t raise insurance premiums, just make sure insurance companies can deny payouts to drug related health issues.
Problem solved.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily hate that idea, but insurance companies measure your premium by your risk profile, and the line-drawing would be difficult on what constituted drug-related health problems, i.e., we woudl see a tsunami of steady lawsuits. Lawsuits drive up insurance costs.
Put them in a pool all their own, figure up the actuarials, and set aside the line drawing problem. Then, we don’t have to worry about whether a health problem was caused directly or indirectly by the drug use - all of that is already figured into the premium and the bets the insurance company placed.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think Cockney blue said it well; every body?s problems come down to life style. Why do you designate illegal drug users as some one that should be out of the realm of charity?
What would you say to making all drugs prescript able from a Doctor. Then could you live with drug users being part of society?
Because “charity” need not be wasted on someone undertaking that extreme of a risk compared to other ones. “Charity”, however you define it, is a limited amount of resources - and every dollar you give to someone who tried a hard drug is a dollar taken away from someone who didn’t take such an extreme risk or is suffering “bad luck”.
Drug users are not victims - they are seeking a hedonistic pleasure, and doing so with knowledge of potential addiction, health risks, etc. They are making an individual choice because it is worth it to them - but if it goes sour, it isn’t because they were “unlucky” or a “victim of circumstances.”
They are not the kind of folks charity operates to help.
Hilarious, by the way - the Lions roaring for the legalization of drug use in the name of the Individual suddenly turn into Lambs bleating about the injustice of not being coddled and nursed to health by their Brethren when their Individual choices have unwanted consequences.
[/quote]
My reasoning for advocating the legalization of drugs is both liberal in the fact that we do not put alcohol, cigarette, Mac Donald, Dunkin Donut, consumers in prison. Why should we put drug users in prison? And conservative in the sense that not doing so would save an enormous amount of money. All the states and the Federal Gov. are clamoring at ways to trim the budget. This is a way, it would be a boon in the sense that a new source of tax revenue and a huge saving in law enforcement and penitentiary expenditures. We already are paying the medical bills for most drug users, so where is the down side?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think Cockney blue said it well; every body?s problems come down to life style. Why do you designate illegal drug users as some one that should be out of the realm of charity?
What would you say to making all drugs prescript able from a Doctor. Then could you live with drug users being part of society?
Because “charity” need not be wasted on someone undertaking that extreme of a risk compared to other ones. “Charity”, however you define it, is a limited amount of resources - and every dollar you give to someone who tried a hard drug is a dollar taken away from someone who didn’t take such an extreme risk or is suffering “bad luck”.
Drug users are not victims - they are seeking a hedonistic pleasure, and doing so with knowledge of potential addiction, health risks, etc. They are making an individual choice because it is worth it to them - but if it goes sour, it isn’t because they were “unlucky” or a “victim of circumstances.”
They are not the kind of folks charity operates to help.
Hilarious, by the way - the Lions roaring for the legalization of drug use in the name of the Individual suddenly turn into Lambs bleating about the injustice of not being coddled and nursed to health by their Brethren when their Individual choices have unwanted consequences.
[/quote]
How about letting charity be decided on a voluntary basis? Are that big of an idiot?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think Cockney blue said it well; every body?s problems come down to life style. Why do you designate illegal drug users as some one that should be out of the realm of charity?
What would you say to making all drugs prescript able from a Doctor. Then could you live with drug users being part of society?
Because “charity” need not be wasted on someone undertaking that extreme of a risk compared to other ones. “Charity”, however you define it, is a limited amount of resources - and every dollar you give to someone who tried a hard drug is a dollar taken away from someone who didn’t take such an extreme risk or is suffering “bad luck”.
Drug users are not victims - they are seeking a hedonistic pleasure, and doing so with knowledge of potential addiction, health risks, etc. They are making an individual choice because it is worth it to them - but if it goes sour, it isn’t because they were “unlucky” or a “victim of circumstances.”
They are not the kind of folks charity operates to help.
Hilarious, by the way - the Lions roaring for the legalization of drug use in the name of the Individual suddenly turn into Lambs bleating about the injustice of not being coddled and nursed to health by their Brethren when their Individual choices have unwanted consequences.
How about letting charity be decided on a voluntary basis? Are that big of an idiot?
[/quote]
Although we are getting off track a little, charity is a great thing. But if we left charity to do the work of a Government that is not third world. We would have poor that resemble India. Although I loath the lazy, I would as soon take care of them rather then endure their misery. Peace
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How about letting charity be decided on a voluntary basis? Are that big of an idiot?[/quote]
Charities can do whatever they want - I explained why I think charity is wasted on drug users and I wouldn’t be a part of it.
If someone is dumb enough to “charitably” subsidize drug-users’ awful personal choices with money handouts, that is their bailiwick.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
No, don’t raise insurance premiums, just make sure insurance companies can deny payouts to drug related health issues.
Problem solved.
I don’t necessarily hate that idea, but insurance companies measure your premium by your risk profile, and the line-drawing would be difficult on what constituted drug-related health problems, i.e., we woudl see a tsunami of steady lawsuits. Lawsuits drive up insurance costs.
Put them in a pool all their own, figure up the actuarials, and set aside the line drawing problem. Then, we don’t have to worry about whether a health problem was caused directly or indirectly by the drug use - all of that is already figured into the premium and the bets the insurance company placed.[/quote]
My problem is that a lot of people, especially corporations, are woefully lacking in knowledge of certain drugs. Marijuana should be treated like alcohol - leave outside of situations where alcohol would be inappropriate (and perhaps don’t smoke in front on non-smokers) and then all of the problems with that drug are gone. I’m all for banning drugs that might cause someone to hurt another person, but the blanket ban has been nothing short of an epic failure.
Outright banning a lot of these drugs as done little more than creating a large black market. Legalize and make one of the conditions of sale something like the dealer having a government license to grow and/or sell.
The risks of some drugs are wildly overstated.
TB brings a message of freedom, and the debate sort of changes.
Let’s hear it for freedom! Freedom for the user, freedom for employers, freedom for insurance companies, and freedom for the tax payer. We can shoot up what we want, deny coverage and employment for who we want, and not be forced to pay for other people’s bad choices.
I’ll take my virtually non-drinking, non-smoking, non drug using, exercising, and diet watching chances.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
TB brings a message of freedom, and the debate sort of changes.
Let’s hear it for freedom! Freedom for the user, freedom for employers, freedom for insurance companies, and freedom for the tax payer. We can shoot up what we want, deny coverage and employment for who we want, and not be forced to pay for other people’s bad choices.
I’ll take my virtually non-drinking, non-smoking, non drug using, exercising, and diet watching chances.[/quote]
I do not know enough about the Ins. Business to have much of a say. I do know I would use caution in giving the Ins. Industry any exemption in denying claims. What I do know of some Ins. Companies is that they collect premiums and any claim they can deny is called profit. So being the cynic that I am, I say over sight or regulation would have to come from another source other than the Ins. Industry
[quote]Makavali wrote:
My problem is that a lot of people, especially corporations, are woefully lacking in knowledge of certain drugs. [/quote]
What the hell do “corporations” have to do with anything? What role do “corporations” have in any of this?
If by “corporations”, you mean insurance companies - they know a hell of a lot more about the risks than the “liburrturrians” - after all, it’s their business and their bottom line to know. If they don’t know, they lose profits - so I’ll take the word of insurance companies over some guy blogging from his mom’s basement about freeing up drug use (not implying you here).
[quote]Marijuana should be treated like alcohol - leave outside of situations where alcohol would be inappropriate (and perhaps don’t smoke in front on non-smokers) and then all of the problems with that drug are gone. I’m all for banning drugs that might cause someone to hurt another person, but the blanket ban has been nothing short of an epic failure.
Outright banning a lot of these drugs as done little more than creating a large black market. Legalize and make one of the conditions of sale something like the dealer having a government license to grow and/or sell.
The risks of some drugs are wildly overstated.[/quote]
If so, then good - drug-users would have no objection to being quarantined into spreading health risks among themselves and themselves only.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…[/quote]
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If so, then good - drug-users would have no objection to being quarantined into spreading health risks among themselves and themselves only. [/quote]
Hey, if the risks are properly researched then I wouldn’t mind! I’ll gladly take the risk of no life insurance payout in the event I OD on THC.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.[/quote]
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs.[/quote]
No skin off my nose.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs.
No skin off my nose.[/quote]
Employers can’t deny a job because someone smokes or indulges in the occasional drink.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Yep. Because, I know exactly what would happen. A country of do whatever you want, have someone else pay for the consequences. If the users are jonesing bad enough, let’s talk about individual freedom AND individual responsibilty.
Precisely. Drug use is unlike any of the other behaviors in that it is purely hedonistic and has known, obvious risks up front to a degree other activities don’t.
…
Right?[/quote]
With respect, there is a thread running through both sides of this argument: that reason, and responsible choice are preserved in every individual.
First, there is something different about addiction, the disease (in contradistinction to addiction the sociologic phenomenon). What friend Varqanir alludes to is habituation and tolerance, not addiction whereby behavior is changed, judgment is suspended, reasoned choices are obliterated. It may be the case that among the susceptible, drugs alter the brain’s wiring. Among a population of drug-using folks, a fraction will become addicts, and do not make reasoned choices about their own safety, leave alone the safety and well-being of others.
(An anecdote: at San Quentin, doctors would use cocaine-soaked pledgets to anesthetize the noses of inmates getting surgery. Inmates were then retrieving from the contaminated trash the used pledgets-soaked with blood, pus, HIV–and extracted them to shoot up. This is not, dear friends, something malignant in The System, or a universal mind set of the incarcerated. It is the nature of addiction. Even when on maintenance, an addict will want more, and will find the means, reasoned or violent or larcenous, to achieve more.)
Second, if addicts are not responsible in making their choices, are drug abusers responsible alone for their bodies and health, absolving the public of the consequences?
I invite any reader to observe a suburban ER over a weekend to know the consequences of drugs/alcohol and “poor choices.” (Oh, how I hate that term.) An ER will devote time, labor,resources, money–that would otherwise be better spent–for these social atoms, and the health system has no choice. It must serve those who wear no motorcycle helmets, as well as their unwitting victims. It must serve as well Lifty, if he chooses to shoot up and arrives in the ER brain dead. (Insofar as that is not a contradiction in terms.)
So, on the one hand, the addict–distinct from the drug user–by definition cannot make responsible choices, and on the other hand, the drug user cannot be abandoned by Society as “having made his own choice”–someone pays.
Ain’t no absolute winners in this discussion.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
[/quote]
Including people who are addicted to prescription drugs?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
Including people who are addicted to prescription drugs?
[/quote]
Sure.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs.
No skin off my nose.
Employers can’t deny a job because someone smokes or indulges in the occasional drink.[/quote]
I do believe they can deny you a job for smoking or being over weight
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…freedom for employers…
Glad you raised this, I did not - all employers should retain the right to refuse to hire anyone who does drugs, and the right to can any drug-users.
Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs.
No skin off my nose.
Employers can’t deny a job because someone smokes or indulges in the occasional drink.
I do believe they can deny you a job for smoking or being over weight
[/quote]
At any rate, alcohol is far worse than something like marijuana.