Marijuana Legalization

[Nomrombom]

That's kind of harsh, saying that people should die just because they made a stupid choice.

[magekillr]

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.

[obfuscator]

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 agree that the logic must be extended - which is why I included extreme sports.

 

Politicians are in a different scenario (as are any paid government employees) because they're being paid to do a job - and that money is their salary and thus none of taxpayers' concern. But can you honestly not see the unfairness in someone doing their utmost to be healthy while contributing thousands of dollars to fixing people who have not made the same effort?

 

Once again - I don't think that's a moral choice. But I understand the mentality and sympathize.

[magekillr]

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

 

Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.

 

On March 15, Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee testified in front of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee on House File 171. Buechner told committee members, “We would like to address the provision that makes it illegal for MFIP [one of Minnesota’s welfare programs] families to withdraw cash from the cash portion of the MFIP grant – and in fact, appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets. How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?”

 

House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP – and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid – could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.

 

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).

[Ginger_Warrior]

I asked Sam specifically, though he appears to have ignored it.

 

Well, because they're doing it to themselves.

 

Same thing applies to people who try to commit suicide, or do something foolhardy that ends up with them getting injured.

 

I don't agree, but I get it. I understand why people don't want to see their money wasted on people who make no effort to keep themselves healthy.

You do? Because I don't understand it at all; a ban on treatment for cannabis users would literally make medicine almost completely redundant.

 

If someone picks up skin cancer from over-exposure to the Sun, they should be denied treatment because "they did it to themselves"? If someone working with powertools accidently trips and slices their hand into pieces, they should be denied treatment because "they did it to themselves"? If someone eats a fry-up every Friday for twenty years and suddenly keels over with a heart attack or a stroke, they should be denied treatment because "they did it to themselves"?

 

You go through pretty much every medical diagnosis and you'll find some degree of personal liability for it. But the various codes of practice for nurses and doctors in near enough every country all sing from the same hymn sheet: They are nurses and doctors, not judge and jury, and their job is to diagnose, provide treatment and care for patients, not second-guess whether the taxpayer would happen to like the circumstances that lead them there. If you say cannabis users should not receive medical treatment, then you have to extend that logic to everything that also holds some element of personal responsibility (this is the only fair way of doing it) and if you did that, there wouldn't be much of the medical world left.

 

Even if you somehow manage to argue your way out of that hole--and in doing so, rewrite basic values which have underpinned two thousand years of good medical practice--how do you explain the nonsense of treating people when a substance is illegal, and not treating them when it is legal?

[obfuscator]

I'm not disputing those points, as I said I agree with you completely.

 

But I understand the mentality that it doesn't seem fair to keep fixing what is deliberately being broken. I'm not saying is a correct attitude - I'm saying it's an understandable one.

[sees_all1]

I'm not disputing those points, as I said I agree with you completely.

 

But I understand the mentality that it doesn't seem fair to keep fixing what is deliberately being broken. I'm not saying is a correct attitude - I'm saying it's an understandable one.

I think it's unfair if insurance companies aren't allowed to assess risk. Given the nature of insurance, it only makes sense that they do.

[Sam]

Why?

 

The risks of tobacco and alcohol are well documented (cannabis not so much, but there are known and proven risks) and the evidence of this is also prevalent in modern society - people still continue to use these substances even though they know the risks. Why should I pay for the treatment of someone who full well knew what they were subjecting their body to, yet continued doing it?

 

What I'm saying is, people shouldn't be treated for misuse/negative effects of drugs. That's the responsibility of the patient, not the healthcare provider. Sure, it can be legal, but don't ask the 'system' to help you out when it screws your life up - normally, it's of your own doing, not anyone else.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Nurses and doctors have a duty of care to their patients, end of discussion. Can you not see this obvious flaw? If they didn't treat their patients because they happened to disagree with their lifestyle they'd be (rightly) open to legal action, not to mention they'd lose the moral authority to treat any other patient. What you're doing is asking fully trained healthcare professionals to not do their job when patients are at their most vulnerable, and ignoring the benefits of intervention.

 

You either support cannabis being legalised, or you don't. The healthcare system has to provide for them either way, so don't bring it up as a condition. You can't make it one.

[sees_all1]

Nurses and doctors have a duty of care to their patients, end of discussion. Can you not see this obvious flaw? If they didn't treat their patients because they happened to disagree with their lifestyle they'd be (rightly) open to legal action, not to mention they'd lose the moral authority to treat any other patient. What you're doing is asking fully trained healthcare professionals to not do their job when patients are at their moment of most need and vulnerability, and ignoring the benefits of intervention.

 

You either support cannabis being legalised, or you don't. The healthcare system has to provide for them either way, so don't bring it up as a condition. You can't make it one.

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.

[Furah]

I'm not disputing those points, as I said I agree with you completely.

 

But I understand the mentality that it doesn't seem fair to keep fixing what is deliberately being broken. I'm not saying is a correct attitude - I'm saying it's an understandable one.

I think it's unfair if insurance companies aren't allowed to assess risk. Given the nature of insurance, it only makes sense that they do.

Private insurance is different, they can put cannabis use as an optional extra to cover, whereas with public healthcare it should be all or nothing. Nothing should never be an option, even if the person is a mass murderer or a known traitor.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The point made was specifically about public healthcare. Of course insurance-based systems should be allowed to measure risk.

[magekillr]

Nurses and doctors have a duty of care to their patients, end of discussion. Can you not see this obvious flaw? If they didn't treat their patients because they happened to disagree with their lifestyle they'd be (rightly) open to legal action, not to mention they'd lose the moral authority to treat any other patient. What you're doing is asking fully trained healthcare professionals to not do their job when patients are at their moment of most need and vulnerability, and ignoring the benefits of intervention.

 

You either support cannabis being legalised, or you don't. The healthcare system has to provide for them either way, so don't bring it up as a condition. You can't make it one.

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).

[Zierro]

But can you honestly not see the unfairness in someone doing their utmost to be healthy while contributing thousands of dollars to fixing people who have not made the same effort?

 

It's because taxing itself is "unfair". A road crew worker has to pay taxes for the road he himself is constructing. Elderly people with no children have to pay taxes for bettering the educational system even though it's surely not going to have much of an effect on their lives. Firefighters have to pay taxes that go to others' health problems even though their duty is to prevent health problems from arising. The thing is, there are taxes that benefit you and there are taxes that don't. It might be "unfair", but only on a miniscule magnitude in comparison to the alternative of "every man for himself".

 

If any taxing needs to be reduced in the US, I'd say non-defensive military expenditure. I don't see how anyone is benefiting from all that money being spent. [EDIT: But that's for another thread.]

[sees_all1]

The point made was specifically about public healthcare. Of course insurance-based systems should be allowed to measure risk.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have people pay the difference (call it a fine or a tax) in their risk categories. Or just have the tax built into the product that puts them at a higher risk...

[aeternitatis]

I've never thought about health insurance charging more for smoking and other things. It seems reasonable as long as the additional pricing isn't ridiculous, like car insurance (in Canada, not sure about anywhere else.)

[Nomrombom]

I've never thought about health insurance charging more for smoking and other things. It seems reasonable as long as the additional pricing isn't ridiculous, like car insurance (in Canada, not sure about anywhere else.)

 

This.

[magekillr]

The point made was specifically about public healthcare. Of course insurance-based systems should be allowed to measure risk.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have people pay the difference (call it a fine or a tax) in their risk categories. Or just have the tax built into the product that puts them at a higher risk...

 

We have that. It's called a cigarette tax. Taxes on addictive things are pretty inelastic -- as in, they're not very effective at deterring people from using those products. They also adversely affect the poor. I'm not saying we should remove those taxes entirely, but they're not effective at deterring use, and increasing them will hurt the poor. If you want to reduce use, you increase education. That's had a far better effect than taxing.

 

This isn't to say that taxing something doesn't always work. There's evidence that taxing fatty foods removes incentives from purchasing those foods, and that taxing things like carbon for its negative externalities puts alternative energy on an equal playing field. But for drugs? It's just not the case due to an inelastic marketplace.

 

As stated, when you have a clear record of recklessness -- such as for car insurance -- you should pay more. But health insurance is a different ballgame. It's not fair, and it harms everyone else with high health care costs (France has a higher percentage of smoking than the US, and pays a lot less for health care, btw).

 

Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

[Furah]

We got a tax for alcopops a while ago. All that happened was people went from Cruisers and UDL to just buying straight alcohol and mixing it with non-alcoholic drinks themselves. This tends to lead to heavier drinks, and the idiots don't realise and drink even more.

[h3art]

[We have that. It's called a cigarette tax. Taxes on addictive things are pretty inelastic -- as in, they're not very effective at deterring people from using those products. They also adversely affect the poor. I'm not saying we should remove those taxes entirely, but they're not effective at deterring use, and increasing them will hurt the poor. If you want to reduce use, you increase education. That's had a far better effect than taxing.

 

This isn't to say that taxing something doesn't always work. There's evidence that taxing fatty foods removes incentives from purchasing those foods, and that taxing things like carbon for its negative externalities puts alternative energy on an equal playing field. But for drugs? It's just not the case due to an inelastic marketplace.

 

As stated, when you have a clear record of recklessness -- such as for car insurance -- you should pay more. But health insurance is a different ballgame. It's not fair, and it harms everyone else with high health care costs (France has a higher percentage of smoking than the US, and pays a lot less for health care, btw).

 

Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

 

The elasticity of various addictive substance vary tremendously - for instance, meth is more elastic than heroin. With regards to tobacco usage, there's ample evidence that tax revenue more than covers costs in terms of healthcare and lost productivity - at least in New Zealand (where we have a very high tax on tobacco products - something like 80%). There's also the issue that under a private healthcare system, healthy individuals absorb costs of moral hazard regardless and private health insurers do no necessarily increase public health, as they must subscribe under contract to a medical model of such: that is, efficient preventative measures are not taken other than the incentive of lower premiums.

[Crocefisso]

You Americans and your overcomplicated healthcare system. :lol:

 

Good 'ol National Health Service - spending silly amounts on secretaries since Tony Blair.

[Furah]

Good ol' Australia, where you can get private healthcare if you wish, if not, there's public healthcare.

[Noxx]

I haven't read the entire thread and, frankly, don't think i will right now. So this isn't a reply to anyone but rather just my thoughts.

I actually wish more countries would make marijuana legal. It's such a petty crime to be sentenced for. It has, pretty much, the same effect as drinking as should be treated as such. Most countries have much have a lot bigger problems to worry about than some guy somewhere in a room in his house getting high. Stop worrying about that guy. Worry about the guy who's about to hi-jack that car, rape that girl, rob that store, etc. My marijuana habits isn't going to harm someone any more than my drinking would. It also isn't going to harm someone the way my raping would.

[Nomrombom]

It also isn't going to harm someone the way my raping would.

 

 

Oh god I lol'd.

[Noxx]

It also isn't going to harm someone the way my raping would.

 

 

Oh god I lol'd.

Yeah i made myself sound like a rapist -.-