magekillr

I don't view it as whether they get treated or not, it's who pays for it afterwards. The concept of classifying individuals based on risk might seem foreign to people with government provided healthcare, but if you're a smoker in America you'll pay significantly more for health insurance than if you're a non-smoker. Which is why private insurance in America has been an abysmal failure, and they don't allow for price discrimination in countries that use private insurers (like the Netherlands).

Nope, I can't sympathize with it. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Minnesota Republicans To Outlaw Poor People Having Money Wonkette is a left-wing source, but the facts of the matter don't differ from the framing or the headline: Minnesota Republicans were trying to control what poor people spend their assistance on by adding more restrictions. These are the results of people who sympathize with those angry at those getting public assistance despite making poor health choices. Everyone receives help from the government, and I'm sick and tired of people acting like they haven't. People surveyed in the US believe they've not received help from the government for claiming children on their tax filings for god sake. The poor are no more, and in fact far less, likely to "waste" money. they're not aliens, freaks, losers, or some other abnormal kind of human who needs to be monitored 24/7. The reason people stay poor is because of rules like this: they make it much more difficult and stressful to be poor, and much more difficult to save and maintain money and maintain "wealth", and the result of that is that people stay poor longer. It's singling out one public expenditure over others. (btw, I'm not necessarily condemning you as I know you've said you don't agree with it necessarily).

But it's simply not logical if we extend that logic to all other decisions -- there is never any attempt to extend. It's taking away people's freedom just because the government is paying for it; it's ridiculous and ill-conceived. You wouldn't stop people who get health care from participating in motocross, or mountain climbing. For example, would you agree that the government should have the ability to tell poor people who receive assistance what kind of food they're allowed to buy? I know many people who do, and for the same reasons ("THEY'RE GETTING MY MONEY...THEY SHOULD HAVE TO BUY HEALTHY FOOD!"). But last I heard, politicians buy booze, tobacco and boats with their paychecks. Why aren't they counted under the same restrictions? This is nothing but hating and discrimination against the poor, and treating them as lepers because of their economic conditions.

I don't understand how people can say we shouldn't allow the health care system to pay for people who use it if it were legalized. That's not logical. Should tax payers be funding rehabilitation while it's illegal? If so, why the discrepancy? It's the same [cabbage] with abortion. "Oh I think it should be legal, but the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it." Why? It's health care, and it's not some cosmetic change like breast implants or Botox.

Well it's not lol. What's going to happen is an effective South African situation, and a solution will be forced upon it. It's just a matter of when, and how much longer the entire world (read, the United States) will stand by allowing Israel to defacto annex more land. I'm interested in what will happen in September (although I believe it to be a wrong-headed way of doing it). In the absence of a strategy based on hard and soft law, the PAs statehood resolution bid could be an exercise in futility.

Well, I think I would still prefer a two-state solution over the status quo -- it'd make the states easier to assimilate and eventually merge in the future (not immediately, but eventually). With political reality, I do not think Israel will be going anywhere, so I think we have to operate under the assumption that "Israel" is here to stay. I do not accept its "Jewish nature" anymore than I accept Britain calling for a specific "British culture." Zionism is akin to European nationalism, and as longtime readers should know of me, they know I hate nationalism with a passion. So as for a solution? I think Israel should stay, give full citizenship and equal rights to Arabs in the occupied territories and Israel proper, and give full right of return to all displaced Palestinians. I don't think right of return all at once is logically acceptable because of the sheer amount of people, so it would have to be regulated so the state could handle the influx of people. This wouldn't be my ideal outcome -- my ideal outcome is that of Crocefisso's view. But we don't live in a world of ideals, and I'm tired of war. Moreover, I feel that this is the inevitable and probable outcome. A two-state solution simply isn't going to happen, no matter how much Israeli Prime Minister Olmert urges for it to be so [1]. And that's entirely Israel's own fault.

Not always. I think you just have to be open to reason. I mean, sure, people see what is defined as "reason" in different ways...but if you're generally open to new evidence views change all of the time. For example, I'm a staunch supporter of free trade, but it was only after I was convinced with overwhelming evidence. I also used to support liberal foreign intervention -- so back maybe three years ago I'd have supported the war in Libya (I never supported the Iraq War, though). After much debate, I changed course; when the debate about Libya came up, I was staunchly against it (and if the current evidence shows, in my view, that opposition was the correct view). I've changed on other issues as well, but those are just some examples This issue might be a little different than a regular socio-economic political view, but I don't think so. I was a two-stater because it made the most logical sense for peace. Now I don't believe a two-state solution is either viable logically because of the settlements, nor is it morally acceptable.

No I quoted you because you made a good point -- cannabis has in fact been in our culture for a long time (just not contemporary culture).

Cannabis and Opiates have both been used for tens of thousands of years. Cannabis has even been used for medical purposes for thousands of years. And the Netherlands hasn't legalized it. It's a pseudo-legalization limbo. Portugal has decriminalized and refocused resources on education and rehab, and it has done that country many favors.

Yes, I am saying it. Also, I'm not sure it's fair to criticize people who were born there , so long as they're against the experiment themselves. I mean, if I had the choice, I'd be out of America in a second and be in Scandinavia; moving is expensive and difficult, and there are too many barriers in place. In the long run, I'd rather there be no nation states...but that's more my "ideology" than my politics.

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition. Have you even heard of Al Capone? Also, you're not a libertarian. There is also a large black market in tobacco and Alcohol currently, even though it is legal. You cannot tell me they are there because of phoibi... never mind. Really? Maybe in Appalachia and Tennessee for grain alcohol and moonshine (things that are illegal in many surrounding areas). But people aren't killing each other over it because there is little demand for it. Seriously, where is this black market for alcohol and tobacco. If you don't know about a subject, don't try to argue about it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138617 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8285307.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14375153 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13875455 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-13792224 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12456360 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-12051029 That was simply from a single search of the BBc news website under 'fake alcohol', taking the top results. The black market for tobacco and Alcohol is huge, leading to many deaths and injuries. Can you give proof that would not happen if marijuana was to be legal? It's not a problem in America, or any other country as far as I can tell. In fact, I've never even heard of "fake alcohol." What I do know is that there isn't a rampant problem of organized criminal outlets making "fake alcohol" or tobacco like there is for illegal drugs. Perhaps it's something your government is doing wrong, I don't know.

But employers are allowed to stop you saying anything bad about them on social networks and ban topics of conversation in the workplace and check social network profiles before hiring you. The first two of which most definitely infringe upon free speech, which is actually the freedom to say as you wish without being punished/criminalised for it by any superior body be it government or just your boss at work. Checking social network profiles before hiring you is just a future we'll have to deal with in the era of technological advancement. If they see pictures of you online binge drinking, it's not something they want associated with their company. It's not criminalizing what you're saying. You'll just be fired (or not hired). There's a huge difference. Freedom of speech has consequences, but one of those consequences does not include being tried before a court over what you said. Danqazmlp, as I said, I know this isn't America...I'm just saying, I would not want a law like that in my country. I like how I listed 3 points and said the first 2 infringe free speech so you're big come back commented only on the third... BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INFRINGEMENTS OF YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK! If you want to badmouth those companies, you're free to do so...and they can't take you to court for doing it (unless you're guilty of libel, something of which is extremely hard to prove). If you want to talk about politics in an environment where a private employer -- their property rights -- rule, you're free to do so without being taken to court over it. All they can do is fire you. And that is not infringing on your freedom of speech. It's your choice to use your better judgment. If you want to go around yelling [racial slur, racial slur, racial slur], a lot of people aren't going to like you, but the government can do [bleep] all about it.

But employers are allowed to stop you saying anything bad about them on social networks and ban topics of conversation in the workplace and check social network profiles before hiring you. The first two of which most definitely infringe upon free speech, which is actually the freedom to say as you wish without being punished/criminalised for it by any superior body be it government or just your boss at work. Checking social network profiles before hiring you is just a future we'll have to deal with in the era of technological advancement. If they see pictures of you online binge drinking, it's not something they want associated with their company. It's not criminalizing what you're saying. You'll just be fired (or not hired). There's a huge difference. Freedom of speech has consequences, but one of those consequences does not include being tried before a court over what you said. Danqazmlp, as I said, I know this isn't America...I'm just saying, I would not want a law like that in my country.

Well you kind of have it backwards in a weird sort of way. Want to Defuse the Mexican Border Problem? Legalize Marijuana In a way it is, but legalizing prostitution has not been successful at stopping the rights of those who are involved in the trade, and is rampant with human trafficking. The best model we have for this is Sweden's: http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition. Have you even heard of Al Capone? Also, you're not a libertarian. There is also a large black market in tobacco and Alcohol currently, even though it is legal. You cannot tell me they are there because of phoibi... never mind. Really? Maybe in Appalachia and Tennessee for grain alcohol and moonshine (things that are illegal in many surrounding areas). But people aren't killing each other over it because there is little demand for it. Seriously, where is this black market for alcohol and tobacco.

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

The First Amendment not only protects the mere "attending" of a speech "promoting the violent overthrow of our government," but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech.

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition. Have you even heard of Al Capone? Also, you're not a libertarian.

It's not quite like that. The only way you'll get schizophrenia from it is if you already had the genetics for it. If you never had a predisposition for it, you can't get it. Marijuana justs brings it on a little earlier. Plus: ABSTRACT: How ideology shapes the evidence and the policy: what do we know about cannabis use and what should we do? Which is another point: even if it's not a particularly good thing (something I'm not necessarily willing to acknowledge), prohibition most definitely isn't, and it's not helping.

I like Cracked, and the arguments he's posing do have some merit. The problem is that not everyone is saying this -- and yeah, he even says "I'm not talking about your average 'I wish pot were legal' kind of guy." But I still couldn't help feeling like he was talking to me, considering I am a very vocal advocate of marijuana legalization. I also don't make all of those arguments in the way he presented them, but I do make them in some fashion. For example, taxing it will bring in money and save the debt problem. Well, no, it will not save the debt problem -- but it's a god damned campaign slogan, dude. Of course it's not going to make sense in a four to six word phrase. But legalizing and taxing it will do the following: 1.) Remove enormous burdens on the prison system, saving money (the US War on Drugs is the reason we have such a high prison population). No, not everyone in there who's been arrested and put in jail just smoked one joint and got caught. But it's still why we have such a large population -- mixed with the privatization of prisons, of course. 2.) Allows police to focus on actual crime, and removes police officers from the public dole. This removes pension burdens and salaries that needed to be paid. 3.) Court costs; speaks for itself. 4.) improved revenue. There are more, but that's enough for now. However, of course, you're going to have to increase costs elsewhere...but those costs should already freaking be there to begin with (such as increased funding for rehabilitation centers). The fact that they're not shows how wrong we are when it comes to dealing with this problem. Use might go up, but I haven't seen evidence that this will happen. Use has gone down in general among every demographic in Portugal after they decriminalized it (except for one...which I think was the 18-25, but it only increased modestly). Overall use went down. In general on costs, it's probably a wash, but we will treat our citizens with more freedom and dignity to do what they want, and not create criminals by throwing people in jail for it. That's worth the cost even if it ends up being more of a burden to the government. Hell, the war is destroying the communities of impoverished Latinos and African Americans. Cancer patients I'll admit that most people advocating for marijuana don't have granny in mind when doing so, but it's a fact that it's a pain reliever for beyond cancer victims. It's the only thing that's helped with my back pain due to scoliosis, for example. Anyway, I'll give him this -- but barely. It's Good for you Not many people say "it's a cancer cure," but many people DO say that due to the fact that it's illegal and very hard to medically experiment with that not much research has been done. At the very least there should be laxer laws in order to fund more research for it, because it's shown very promising results with regard to tumors. It might amount to nothing, but it sure as hell is better than "homeopathic remedies" that we throw money at which have yielded ZERO (NONE!) NADA in the 40 years we've tried. Alcohol and Tobacco This is a call to freedom, so his argument is kinda specious. In a free society it's completely hypocritical to allow smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol to be perfectly legal while simultaneously denying the right to smoke marijuana. We should be expanding freedom, not denying it. Now you might have an argument for heroin on these grounds -- of course I also think that should be legal in the long run -- but not for marijuana. And actually, it's a very convincing argument to many people (first hand experience). It's not addictive Yes, it is addictive, and this annoys me too. The problem is that the addiction is similar to a caffeine addiction. Actually, it's mild compared to that for many people, especially when you begin to withdraw. Anyway, I know it's Cracked (thus a lot of it is meant to poke fun and be hyperbolic in some instances), but yeah. --DISCLAIMER: No, I don't smoke marijuana anymore.

And of citizens' rights to live in security without fear of a riot coming to burn their house down for no apparent reason other than the heck of it... surely you don't think an amendment to free speech that isn't even present in our constitution should supercede police attempts to stop criminality when it's clearly being organised through BBM? Organising criminal activity is not tantamount to free speech. Not when you shutdown others' means of communication, no. If you can find a way to target them without violating others' rights, then sure, you are free to do so. Of course, England doesn't have the right to free speech like America does, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it does strike me as very authoritarian that so many are supportive of shuttering others' rights in the name of security. Hate speech laws aren't the only product of that attitude, it seems. Shutting down parts of the internet in order to get in the way of trouble makers is what authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Syria do, not free democracies. They never said anything about a universal shut down. They specifically said about blocking the accounts of specific users who were performing the planning or w/e else illegal. But in order to put those measures in place, you would require stifling of free speech. This is pure ridiculousness. How often do riots occur to where this is such an impeding problem between giving up free speech rights permanently, and seeing a riot every 30 years (1981 Brixton). Of course, this isn't my country, nor my culture, and everyone is free to support/dissent such laws as they please and it won't affect me. But I wouldn't like my government with that kind of power. It would be subject to far too much abuse. For example, The Patriot Act in America has rarely been used for terrorism, and a lot of it has been used to curb the drug trade -- clearly outside of its mandate, but because those powers were given, they're using them for other purposes (and there's no checks on that abuse).

And of citizens' rights to live in security without fear of a riot coming to burn their house down for no apparent reason other than the heck of it... surely you don't think an amendment to free speech that isn't even present in our constitution should supercede police attempts to stop criminality when it's clearly being organised through BBM? Organising criminal activity is not tantamount to free speech. Not when you shutdown others' means of communication, no. If you can find a way to target them without violating others' rights, then sure, you are free to do so. Of course, England doesn't have the right to free speech like America does, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it does strike me as very authoritarian that so many are supportive of shuttering others' rights in the name of security. Hate speech laws aren't the only product of that attitude, it seems. Shutting down parts of the internet in order to get in the way of trouble makers is what authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Syria do, not free democracies.

As much as I criticize the United States for its faults -- and there are many -- the one thing that I value in this country more than any other is the First Amendment right to free speech; it's not something other countries with hate speech laws and apparent support for internet meddling seem to respect.

The as long as the underlined and bolded part was right I would have no problem with it happening. So you support cutting off internet resources if people are plotting with them? How can you live in a free society with that kind of authoritarian power?

Cute: Anonymous Hackers Take Notice of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's Social Network Plans Interesting quote, too: Which relates back to what I said on the end of Page 6.