Legalize Pot

[Walsingham]

Maybe it's just me and my "socialist" Canadian ways, but I think when we start determining who does and does not live based on their health insurance is pretty weak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The typical decision is something like

 

"We have 100,000 left in our budget. We can screen 50,000 men for testicular cancer, with a projected result of saving 500 lives. Or we can send one little girl with a rare brain disorder to California for a treatment which has a 10% chance of letting her live 20 years."

 

Government is full of decisions like this. There is no room for philosophical nicety or time for endless debate. The spotlight goes on you and you have to choose.

[Blarghagh]

Legalized where I live. Never cared.

[Darque]

I've never done marijuana (or any other illegal drug) but I would agree to legalize it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd rather legalize it for industrial use, rather than recreational use.

 

There are a vast number of uses for the plant.

[Walsingham]

I'd also quite like it legalised just annoy some of the people who are against it, and to shut up some who are for it.

[alanschu]

Maybe it's just me and my "socialist" Canadian ways, but I think when we start determining who does and does not live based on their health insurance is pretty weak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The typical decision is something like

 

"We have 100,000 left in our budget. We can screen 50,000 men for testicular cancer, with a projected result of saving 500 lives. Or we can send one little girl with a rare brain disorder to California for a treatment which has a 10% chance of letting her live 20 years."

 

Government is full of decisions like this. There is no room for philosophical nicety or time for endless debate. The spotlight goes on you and you have to choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here, at least with respect to my post you quoted.

[213374U]

Does prohibition (in this case) work for anything other than diverting law enforcement resources from other, more important tasks?

 

Right.

 

Legalize. It's not worse than booze or cigarettes anyway.

[alanschu]

But think of the millions of dollars that go to DEA officials that try to combat the evils of marijuana!?!?

[Petay]

Legalize. It's not worse than booze or cigarettes anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Definatly agree here, I have heard some people say it is a killer drug, not only to the people who smoke it, and that really annoys me, since basically, the people who smoke it are hippies when high, they only want to chill out and want peace to relax in. Alcohol, now thats a drug that puts other people at real risk. I know a few people around my area that just drink and go looking for fights, but only because they are drunk, which is plain stupid IMO

[Calax]

It also makes for easy catches

 

Ok bad taste. but the one problem I forsee with legalized marijuana is that we would have even more unprotected conjugal visits... mainly because it impares judgement and kids love it.

 

But then I've seen two girls at my school drinking more beer than most grown men drink and not start accidently loosing thier clothing.... so who knows...

[Reveilled]

It also makes for easy catches

 

Ok bad taste. but the one problem I forsee with legalized marijuana is that we would have even more unprotected conjugal visits... mainly because it impares judgement and kids love it.

 

But then I've seen two girls at my school drinking more beer than most grown men drink and not start accidently loosing thier clothing.... so who knows...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, well, the answer there is obvious. Just put on a condom before you light up. "

[Archmonarch]

Maybe it's just me and my "socialist" Canadian ways, but I think when we start determining who does and does not live based on their health insurance is pretty weak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The typical decision is something like

"We have 100,000 left in our budget. We can screen 50,000 men for testicular cancer, with a projected result of saving 500 lives. Or we can send one little girl with a rare brain disorder to California for a treatment which has a 10% chance of letting her live 20 years."

 

Government is full of decisions like this. There is no room for philosophical nicety or time for endless debate. The spotlight goes on you and you have to choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here, at least with respect to my post you quoted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Id say hes trying to draw a parallel in regards to how is the money best spent, but I agree it has little to do with your post. Alanschu is saying: dont choose who to save based on how much theyll pay you. You, Walsingham, are saying: We have a certain amount of money. What would be the best cost/benefit ratio?

 

There is a connection, but it is tenuous.

[alanschu]

Isn't it against the law in the U.S. (I pick the U.S. because they always have the hoopla about their healthcare system and whatnot) to deny medical service to a patient that needs it for money (i.e. insurance) reasons?

[Commissar]

Isn't it against the law in the U.S. (I pick the U.S. because they always have the hoopla about their healthcare system and whatnot) to deny medical service to a patient that needs it for money (i.e. insurance) reasons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Emergency medical treatment isn't denied, but if you can't pay for non-emergency medical treatment, then yeah, you're kinda SOL.

[alanschu]

Emergency medical treatment is what I was talking about.

 

 

I bring it up since people were discussing checking someone's insurance after a bad car crash and "leaving them on the side of the road" if they didn't have insurance.

[Commissar]

Emergency medical treatment is what I was talking about.

 

 

I bring it up since people were discussing checking someone's insurance after a bad car crash and "leaving them on the side of the road" if they didn't have insurance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never heard of that happening. Pretty sure it's illegal to do.

[alanschu]

I never said this happens. It was stated in this thread, as part of a discussion that you were taking part of.

 

Not as something that happens, but as an idea.

 

In fact, it was you that mentioned the idea.

 

I'm sure it was an exaggeration, but I was putting in my two cents.

[Craigboy2]

Commisar said a few weeks ago we don't have enoug heated debate.

 

The Gaza Strip thread was largely succesful, but ended getting closed regardless.  Here is a topic that should fire up some heated debate, but perhaps not as heated as the Gaza Strip.

 

Should a bloke get to toke up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

[Commissar]

I never said this happens.  It was stated in this thread, as part of a discussion that you were taking part of.

 

Not as something that happens, but as an idea.

 

In fact, it was you that mentioned the idea.

 

I'm sure it was an exaggeration, but I was putting in my two cents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright, now I'm just confused.

[Cantousent]

I don't see why, Commissar, he cited your quote where you bring up the guy not receiving medical treatment. For my part, I think it should definitely be mandatory for children to be seatbelted.

[Commissar]

I don't see why, Commissar, he cited your quote where you bring up the guy not receiving medical treatment.  For my part, I think it should definitely be mandatory for children to be seatbelted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That guy's hypothetical, though. He asked if that kind of thing happened, and said he thought it was illegal. I confirmed that it was indeed illegal and didn't happen.

[Cantousent]

Just stop, now I'm confused. At any rate, does anyone want to live in a country where they look through your clothes for your insurance card before they actually try to save your life?

[alanschu]

I did ask if it was legal, given all the discussion about whether or not someone could be "left on the road" if he didn't have insurance.

 

I knew that the guy was hypothetical, I was just confirming whether or not it was in fact illegal to do so.

[Commissar]

Just stop, now I'm confused.  At any rate, does anyone want to live in a country where they look through your clothes for your insurance card before they actually try to save your life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, you're confused.

 

Just to recap, someone (I believe it was Meta) said that seatbelt laws ought to be mandatory because if someone crashes and doesn't have insurance, the taxpayers are paying for his healthcare. I said that if you wanted to hold people accountable for their personal decisions, that's fine - ie, not give the guy without insurance health care - but that we shouldn't be regulating personal choice.

 

That's where all this came from. Once more, for the record, EMTs don't check to see if the guy who went through his windshield has insurance before they treat him.

[Cantousent]

hahaha. Too bad marijuana is illagal. Commissar could use some now that we've driven up his blood pressure. :D

[alanschu]

That's where all this came from. Once more, for the record, EMTs don't check to see if the guy who went through his windshield has insurance before they treat him.

 

Which was just a clarification from my "I don't think anyone should be denied care" post. I never thought it wasn't clear to begin with, but whatever.

 

I do think it's unfortunate that you think it's fine to deny the fellow service however.