Marijuana and Massachusetts

[quote]Sloth wrote:

The article is. However, there is some discussion concerning drug prohibition in general.[/quote]

A good point for discussion - I would add that in addition to forfeiting any taxpayer dollars to help with any negative consequences, those who buy private insurance should have the right to exclude them out of their collective pool of insurance.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

The article is. However, there is some discussion concerning drug prohibition in general.

A good point for discussion - I would add that in addition to forfeiting any taxpayer dollars to help with any negative consequences, those who buy private insurance should have the right to exclude them out of their collective pool of insurance.

[/quote]

It’s a hard nut to sell. There are so many more sheep than wolves. More and more seek the shelter of social systems. Slowly becoming totally dependent upon these systems. A governments dream is a country full of sheep.

The fact that freedom comes with a price, eludes the average person. You can see it all the time. They’re the ones using their freedom to condone those that fight for it.

I feel myself drifting farther and farther away from the mindless drones. To many are willing to believe everything the authority tells them. Boat rocking has always been discouraged by those steering the boat.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

The article is. However, there is some discussion concerning drug prohibition in general.

A good point for discussion - I would add that in addition to forfeiting any taxpayer dollars to help with any negative consequences, those who buy private insurance should have the right to exclude them out of their collective pool of insurance.

[/quote]

Of course it’s nobodies business what individuals do in the privacy of their home rendering the point moot.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Go Mass. Does anyone see any difference in availability and price?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/05/voters_approve_marijuana_law_change/[/quote]

I’m not expecting much of a change in price when you figure that the new law only decriminalizes up to an ounce. I’m guessing that law enforcement wasn’t focusing too hard on people with less than an ounce before the law change, so I don’t think this is really going to have any impact on their efforts.

Dealers can still get busted because they’re going to have more than an ounce on them.

Honestly, this law doesn’t change much. Depending on where you are in MA you can get away with smoking in public anyway. Living in Boston I would say I smell someone smoking on the street at least once every few weeks.

[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Go Mass. Does anyone see any difference in availability and price?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/05/voters_approve_marijuana_law_change/

I’m not expecting much of a change in price when you figure that the new law only decriminalizes up to an ounce. I’m guessing that law enforcement wasn’t focusing too hard on people with less than an ounce before the law change, so I don’t think this is really going to have any impact on their efforts.

Dealers can still get busted because they’re going to have more than an ounce on them.

Honestly, this law doesn’t change much. Depending on where you are in MA you can get away with smoking in public anyway. Living in Boston I would say I smell someone smoking on the street at least once every few weeks.[/quote]

I heard hash was considered pot under the law

[quote]beebuddy wrote:

Of course it’s nobodies business what individuals do in the privacy of their home rendering the point moot. [/quote]

It becomes my business if I have to share in their risky behavior and, in some cases, help underwrite it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:

Of course it’s nobodies business what individuals do in the privacy of their home rendering the point moot.

It becomes my business if I have to share in their risky behavior and, in some cases, help underwrite it.

[/quote]

Are you in the Ins. buss.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Are you in the Ins. buss.[/quote]

I buy insurance and participate in it - which means I help absorb other people’s risks in my collective pool.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
beebuddy wrote:

Of course it’s nobodies business what individuals do in the privacy of their home rendering the point moot.

It becomes my business if I have to share in their risky behavior and, in some cases, help underwrite it.

[/quote]

That still does not make their private affairs your business, you can choose an insurance that does not take them or rewards you for not smoking.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Are you in the Ins. buss.

I buy insurance and participate in it - which means I help absorb other people’s risks in my collective pool.[/quote]

How other than a chronic smoker, would marijuana usage increase the risk for anything? Just curious

[quote]orion wrote:

That still does not make their private affairs your business, you can choose an insurance that does not take them or rewards you for not smoking.[/quote]

Which is precisely what I said:

(1) Drug users forfeit public health benefits

(2) Private insurance pools can deny them coverage so non-drug-users can keep them out of their insurance pool

When drug users’ assumption of very high personal risks foist higher costs on me, their business becomes my business.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

How other than a chronic smoker, would marijuana usage increase the risk for anything? Just curious[/quote]

The original point, raised by Sloth, covered drugs of all kinds, not just marijuana.

As for marijuana, legalize it, tax it at a very high level, take the tax money and put it aside in a trust fund to cover public health care costs associated with health problems associated with it, and let private insurance pools deny users coverage completely.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

How other than a chronic smoker, would marijuana usage increase the risk for anything? Just curious

The original point, raised by Sloth, covered drugs of all kinds, not just marijuana.

As for marijuana, legalize it, tax it at a very high level, take the tax money and put it aside in a trust fund to cover public health care costs associated with health problems associated with it, and let private insurance pools deny users coverage completely.

[/quote]

If Marijuana has no so few down sides, why would private Ins.companies want to disallow coverage?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If Marijuana has no so few down sides, why would private Ins.companies want to disallow coverage?[/quote]

It has plenty of downside, and private companies would want to disallow coverage because their customers have no interest in having higher premiums because drug users choose to be unhealthy.

If I am running an insurance pool and I am looking at a frequent drug-user, I am looking at a bad financial bet compared to a non-drug-user. Think of an insurance company that drops a driver that has too many wrecks - they are a bad bet. Same principle.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

That still does not make their private affairs your business, you can choose an insurance that does not take them or rewards you for not smoking.

Which is precisely what I said:

(1) Drug users forfeit public health benefits

(2) Private insurance pools can deny them coverage so non-drug-users can keep them out of their insurance pool

When drug users’ assumption of very high personal risks foist higher costs on me, their business becomes my business.
[/quote]

That is not what you said because drug users cannot make their business your business.

It is insurance companies that could make it your business and that means that you are free to avoid those whose risk assession you disagreed with.

[quote]orion wrote:

That is not what you said because drug users cannot make their business your business.[/quote]

This is incoherent - and I said exactly what I said: drug-users should forfeit public health benefits and insurance pools should be able to reject drug users. If I have to pony up extra dollars to pay for the costs associated with their radically poor choices, their business has become my business.

This isn’t complicated, and there is no subtext to try and figure out later.

Exactly what I said, moron - insurance companies should be able to create insurance pools that completely leave out drug users, i.e., treat them the same as being “uninsurable”, like a pre-existing condition, etc.

It isn’t complex - it is merely assuring that drug-users don’t foist the costs associated with their behavior on others who live healthy lives.

Well, too complex for you, apparently.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

That is not what you said because drug users cannot make their business your business.

This is incoherent - and I said exactly what I said: drug-users should forfeit public health benefits and insurance pools should be able to reject drug users. If I have to pony up extra dollars to pay for the costs associated with their radically poor choices, their business has become my business.

This isn’t complicated, and there is no subtext to try and figure out later.

It is insurance companies that could make it your business and that means that you are free to avoid those whose risk assession you disagreed with.

Exactly what I said, moron - insurance companies should be able to create insurance pools that completely leave out drug users, i.e., treat them the same as being “uninsurable”, like a pre-existing condition, etc.

It isn’t complex - it is merely assuring that drug-users don’t foist the costs associated with their behavior on others who live healthy lives.

Well, too complex for you, apparently.[/quote]

U R A Poophead Moran!

Drugs don’t make seeds

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

That still does not make their private affairs your business, you can choose an insurance that does not take them or rewards you for not smoking.

Which is precisely what I said:

(1) Drug users forfeit public health benefits

(2) Private insurance pools can deny them coverage so non-drug-users can keep them out of their insurance pool

When drug users’ assumption of very high personal risks foist higher costs on me, their business becomes my business.
[/quote]

The point is, of course, that insurance companies can’t deny coverage to cannabis users because they can’t/don’t know who they are because they have no right to know who they are.

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

That still does not make their private affairs your business, you can choose an insurance that does not take them or rewards you for not smoking.

Which is precisely what I said:

(1) Drug users forfeit public health benefits

(2) Private insurance pools can deny them coverage so non-drug-users can keep them out of their insurance pool

When drug users’ assumption of very high personal risks foist higher costs on me, their business becomes my business.

The point is, of course, that insurance companies can’t deny coverage to cannabis users because they can’t/don’t know who they are because they have no right to know who they are.[/quote]

Then legalize it and that problem magically disappears.