Stronger Pot Causes Governmental Policy Shift

[Berzerker]

You posted stuff with no one else responding to you.

I made one post I didn't address to anyone and no one responded to it (other than your "inquiry" as to whom I was "debating" when it was clear I wasn't debating anyone), go figure... Shall I go through the thread and identify the posts from people that weren't addressed to anyone specifically to show why your question was inane and hypocritical?

They don't have to. It's ridiculous, however, to assert that I must pay to treat lung cancer that's his fault.

Wait a minute, you claimed pot smokers cost Medicare more and now you're changing your argument. How do you know when someone with lung cancer "caused" it?

Why the hell am I arguing against medicare to a libertarian? Why the hell are you defending it?

I'm opposed to your desire to deny the people who paid into it their benefits based on your argument. That's not an endorsement of Medicare, it's a rejection of your idea...

Not all gone. They just won't have things that are their fault, payed for.

Damn near everything is our fault. How will you know if the diabetes I got from sugar was actually caused by pot?

It's not fair to assume they caused it when there's no scientific evidence for that.

You didn't answer my question. And having scientific evidence that smoking can cause lung cancer doesn't mean that was the cause of someone's lung cancer, so you're making an assumption yourself...

There's massive scientific evidence for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

Not between pot smoking and lung cancer.

I agree, basically, but since getting rid of medicare isn't exactly an option, we have to work on the assumption that society is responsible for at least softening the damage of various natural "disasters".

Hell, your idea ain't gonna happen either because most people know the mess it will create with politicians and bureaucrats empowered to take our money for a health care program they can dump us from based on "fault". Why is "society" responsible for what happens to you unless society caused your trouble? Your argument seems to be that you aren't responsible for what people do to themselves (I agree), but you still want to make me responsible for what happens to others based on the notion that if they get hurt through "no fault" of there own, I'm responsible. How did I become responsible?

Btw, you didn't respond to this argument:

I'd love to see the bureaucratic mess you'd need to find out if potential recipients "caused" their illness. Rest assured, your idea will cost us alot more than Medicare as it exists now.

Spend more time addressing my arguments and less time worrying about posts that go unaddressed and we'll get somewhere.

[Kuciwalker]

I made one post I didn't address to anyone and no one responded to it (other than your "inquiry" as to whom I was "debating" when it was clear I wasn't debating anyone), go figure... Shall I go through the thread and identify the posts from people that weren't addressed to anyone specifically to show why your question was inane and hypocritical?

What's your problem? My original question was originally about this post:

Oh yeah, forgot about this little tidbit. Anyone notice how prohibition is driving up the potency just like it did with booze and cocaine? Well, this jump in potency comes from the same people who are claiming the increase in treatment is proof that we need them more than ever, so I'll take it with a grain of salt... But since my pot smoking days are long gone and I'm not into the culture, I have no idea if the potency is greater now or not... But I do know some of the stuff I did smoke ~20 years ago was really potent... Opiumated Thai stick (yum), N Californian skunk weed (sweet), etc...

Which seemed completely random. Why are you getting so distraught about it?

[Kuciwalker]

I'd love to see the bureaucratic mess you'd need to find out if potential recipients "caused" their illness. Rest assured, your idea will cost us alot more than Medicare as it exists now.

I didn't respond to it because the answer is frickin' obvious: it's my original proposal? If you smoke, you don't get money for lung cancer, if you drink a ton you don't get money for a new liver, etc. Simple rules.

Hell, your idea ain't gonna happen either because most people know the mess it will create with politicians and bureaucrats empowered to take our money for a health care program they can dump us from based on "fault". Why is "society" responsible for what happens to you unless society caused your trouble? Your argument seems to be that you aren't responsible for what people do to themselves (I agree), but you still want to make me responsible for what happens to others based on the notion that if they get hurt through "no fault" of there own, I'm responsible. How did I become responsible?

The politicians voted for Medicare

Wait a minute, you claimed pot smokers cost Medicare more and now you're changing your argument. How do you know when someone with lung cancer "caused" it?

If they smoked. For details, see the earlier post in this thread.

I'm opposed to your desire to deny the people who paid into it their benefits based on your argument. That's not an endorsement of Medicare, it's a rejection of your idea...

People who don't get sick are denied medicare too, and they paid into it... so what?

How will you know if the diabetes I got from sugar was actually caused by pot?

a) I don't have an MD, k?

b) there's also the simple rule "if you used pot, no diabetes coverage" (pot causes diabetes?)

Not between pot smoking and lung cancer.

I've been talking about tobacco.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You posted stuff with no one else responding to you.

there's no time limit to respond to people's posts . sometimes I go days before responding.

[Berzerker]

What's your problem? My original question was originally about this post:

My problem? You're the one who has this gripe about my post. God only knows why, I sure don't see you "asking" everyone else who they are "debating".

Which seemed completely random.

It's directly related to a claim made in the article, hardly "random".

Why are you getting so distraught about it?

Sheesh! You're the one obsessed with my post. You don't see me following other people's posts "asking" them why they didn't address it to others in the thread.

I didn't respond to it because the answer is frickin' obvious: it's my original proposal? If you smoke, you don't get money for lung cancer, if you drink a ton you don't get money for a new liver, etc. Simple rules.

It's neither simple or obvious. You said no one should get Medicare to pay for their illness if they caused the illness. That will require a massive, intrusive bureaucracy to determine who "caused" their illness and who did not. If you think that's simple, you haven't given much thought to your idea.

The politicians voted for Medicare

Politicians voted for slavery too but that didn't oblige Africans to become slaves.

If they smoked. For details, see the earlier post in this thread.

Why don't you actually quote the stats to prove your point instead of telling me the proof can be found in the thread, I sure haven't seen it. On the contrary, several people have pointed out the obvious based on common sense - that smokers don't cost Medicare an inordinate amount of money given they typically die sooner. Will you agree that given we all die and will probably use medicare, those that live longer will use Medicare more?

People who don't get sick are denied medicare too, and they paid into it... so what?

They aren't denied Medicare, they don't need it. If they need it, they get it - that's why it's a quasi-insurance program. How many people in the Medicare system never use it? If you have auto insurance and don't have an accident, is someone denying you auto insurance?

a) I don't have an MD, k?

So you won't know! Bingo... Now, how are you planning on finding out? A massive bureaucracy to investigate the health records and personal habits of 10's of millions of people? Real simple, there Kuci...

b) there's also the simple rule "if you used pot, no diabetes coverage" (pot causes diabetes?)

But sugar can cause it, and sugar is in virtually everything. So no coverage for anyone with diabetes? And how are you going to find out if someone smoked pot, ate fatty foods, drank booze, smoked tobacco, ingested too much sugar, or didn't get enough exercise?
Still think your idea is simple?

I've been talking about tobacco.

And you complain about "random" posts? This thread is about pot and you proposed denying former pot smokers Medicare for diseases you claim pot causes. So what are these diseases?

[Last Conformist]

If you smoke, you don't get money for lung cancer, if you drink a ton you don't get money for a new liver, etc. Simple rules.

I'd love to see a gov'tal agency keeping track of how much alcohol people drink.

[Berzerker]

I'd love to see a gov'tal agency keeping track of how much alcohol people drink.

To quote Kuci:

the answer is frickin' obvious: it's my original proposal? If you smoke, you don't get money for lung cancer, if you drink a ton you don't get money for a new liver, etc. Simple rules.

See, real simple.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ramo

*sigh*

do you want me to admit it?

Americans aren't as smart as Portuguese. Americans are stupid enough to think just because something is legal, it must be okay.

According to the CDC, the proportion of society who use tobacco in the US and Portugal are roughly comparable, using their latest ('90-'92) data. We were about 25% higher, but their numbers were going up and ours down, so the numbers are probably even closer nowadays.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/portugal.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/usa.htm

So, the Portuguese (their people, their gov't is obviously much more responsible) are no more responsible with drugs than we are.

hmm, CDC seems like a reputable source. Maybe

Does portugal have hard drugs legalized? Why not? Surely there's a reason. Besides political pressure from the U.S. of course.

Perhaps it's a little bit of fear on my part. That is one reason most drug legalization plans do not work. We came close to legalizing pot in my state a couple of years ago. But after an accident that killed 6 teenagers by a girl who tested positive for marijuana, it just wasn't going to happen. Yes we all know the carnage alcohol causes. But as I said, it's fear that prevents these things from being legalized. The streets are already dangerous enough as it is. It has nothing to do with home use. I think a person should be able to take anything they want inside their own home.

And yes the obvious comparison to alcohol comes up. We allow that, despite the carnage on the streets. I wish there was a workaround for that. DUI campaigns have been moderately succesful, but there is still a significant ignorant portion of the population that totally ignores these laws.

[Al B. Sure!]

For $10 per gram (Canadian), I can get premium quality weed and have it delivered to my door within 20 minutes of calling a dealer.

it is important that Jimmycrackcorn mentioned this. i thought nothing of it til i looked up a metric to english conversion table and found that ounces are 28 times larger than grams.

now i know Canadian dollars are stupid but you pay a dime for that tiny bit of weed?! if thats considered low (you seem to be making the point that the govt couldnt match such a price), then this debate is moot. there is no way in hell that the govt could match the street price in somewhere like philly.

by the way, i'll let you in on a secret... drug dealers tend to charge white customers more...

of course, if jimmy was talking about dro or haze or something, then he got a hell of a deal but im assuming not. also of note is the quality and the number of seeds in that ****. i'm assuming a dime of moderately seeded weed... then that **** should be more than a gram even if it actually was dimed up without no bull****.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


it is important that Jimmycrackcorn mentioned this. i thought nothing of it til i looked up a metric to english conversion table and found that ounces are 28 times larger than grams.

now i know Canadian dollars are stupid but you pay a dime for that tiny bit of weed?! if thats considered low (you seem to be making the point that the govt couldnt match such a price), then this debate is moot. there is no way in hell that the govt could match the street price in somewhere like philly.

by the way, i'll let you in on a secret... drug dealers tend to charge white customers more...

of course, if jimmy was talking about dro or haze or something, then he got a hell of a deal but im assuming not. also of note is the quality and the number of seeds in that ****. i'm assuming a dime of moderately seeded weed... then that **** should be more than a gram even if it actually was dimed up without no bull****.

how can they not match the street price?

Have you sen the price of pot lately? It has risen dramtically. I think I remember when I was a kid you could get an eighth for $20. I'm sure that's not the case anymore.


It's a friggin' plant!! No plant costs that much. The reason it is so expensive is because of the drug war.

The goverment can easily manufacture pot much, much cheaper than $20 for an eigth. While street prices will continue to be high because selling pot illegally on the street would still be illegal, and they would have to go through extraordinary measures to get it there.

As I've said before, you've seen the high taxes on alcohol and cigarrettes. Yes most people continue to by these things from their local convenience store or supermarker/drug store. Very few people go to indian reservations. And only a few hicks in the deep south make illegal alcohol such as moonshine.

But it does illustrate that you can't "tax the hell out of it" as Ming says. You do have to have reasonable taxes. We are almost reaching a point in which it would be unwise to raise cigarrette taxes too much more. So a comparable tax rate between marijuana and cigarrettes could work.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think I remember when I was a kid you could get an eighth for $20. I'm sure that's not the case anymore.

nah... thats closer to it...

Yes most people continue to by these things from their local convenience store or supermarker/drug store. Very few people go to indian reservations.

and yet people buy looseys all the time which i assume are not meant for individual retail sale.

[MRT144]

albert how much is a canadian dollar? like .5 cents?

[MRT144]

p.s. albert, just cause philly is a cheap ass ghetto doesnt mean it represents the nation. I learned this living in the bay area.

[Al B. Sure!]

my point is that drug prices are lower here so drug dealers would charge less on the street than any taxed legal drugs. what does that have to do with a small sample size as philly?

[MRT144]

the looseys thing