Is no lifetime caps feasible?

I hate to tell you the news but as soon as medicine started being able to do incredible things that are very expensive, we started rationing. The reason 100 years ago everyone could afford their healthcare is because healthcare was a doctor giving you some elixir and telling you you'll be fine. And if it was a cold you would be fine. And if it turns out it was consumption; it was tuberculosis; it was lung cancer—you could still sit there. He'd give you some sympathy, and you'd die. Either way, it's pretty cheap.

We now live in a world where technology has triumphed, in many ways, over death. The problem with that is that it's enormously expensive.

>> ^Lolthien:
(seriously, almost no evidence second hand smoke is more dangerous than any other normal thing a person would do like drive or walk or ride a bike) geez, give the folks a break.


Frankly, that's bullshit. There are numerous studies that illustrate the negative effects of second-hand smoke. Here's a start:

http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

Google "second hand smoke studies" and you will find plenty of evidence, and since when did biking or walking increase my risk for lung cancer?

If people want to pollute their bodies with cigarette smoke it's really up to them. I don't see why their right to smoke should override my right to breathe clean air. Or have to see tossed cigarettes all over the fucking place. Is it really that hard to dispose of them properly?

I was ecstatic when my city (and now province) banned smoking in restaurants, bars and other public buildings. Claiming that smoking is perfectly legal depends on where you live.

It's not tobacco. It's chemical death. Tobacco is fine.

They are selling death... fuck em until I can buy a pack of joints to ease the pain of my lung cancer.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^Bidouleroux:
This is pretty much exactly like religion vs. atheism, with religion being of course smoking.

Anti-smoking is by far the more religious. Smoking is blamed for a host of sundry afflictions with scientific support that no one has the courage to challenge. People want it to be evil and that's what they get. No serious scientist would do any unbiased research, because if he found anything remotely pro-smoking the political fallout would ruin his career overnight.
Our surgeon general states that 70% of lung cancer victims got it from smoking, but lung cancer continues to rise with nary a blip - even though smokers per capita have fallen under 25% and have been there for a decade. If you want me to support this claim with data, sorry I can't. Neither the CDC or the ALA, or any other site I could find, will release any data cross referencing lung cancer victims and smokers. You can easily find how much carcinogens a black single mother of 2 will inhale in a 12x12 room with one smoker, but a table lookup of smokers v lung cancer victims will get you a 404 error. Try it.
That's religion. People needing an evil, ignoring the facts, suppressing the research of facts, all holding hands and attacking with fervor.
P.S.
My lungs get a clean bill of health every year, even though I've been smoking for over 20 years, simply because I've never tell the doctors I smoke. Ask your smoking friends to try that, it'll give them a chuckle.


You obviously didn't look very hard for data then. With almost zero effort I just came accross this in a high-profile peer-reviewed medical journal. There are hundreds of studies comparing mortality rates between smokers and non-smokers with data going back 100 years. I just want to point out the data in that study was from 1951-2001. In "survival rates from age 35" the difference in survival rates between smokers and non-smokers increases to about 20% difference by age 70. That is, you are looking at about 20% of all non-smokers being dead and 40% of all smokers dead. You can always look at the graphs for much more information than I can type here, but it's all very damning.

"But cancer continues to rise!" I hear in a myriad of different "X does or doesn't cause cancer" topics. What you mean to say is cancer diagnoses have continued to rise. 50 years ago we knew a fraction of what we know now about cancer. This is just one example of why statistics is a profession. There's so much to it I can't begin to describe it here.

Man dies of Lung Cancer by age 25, doctors baffled at how this could happen!

Where's Waity Walrus?--the socialized medicine mascot that let's you know there'll be a 90-day wait to get an x-ray for your possibly aggressive lung cancer.

Post-office quality health care "for everyone!"

Your life may not be included this year's budget.

>> ^piscatorius:
I love weed but this is a tad biased. Smoking anything can cause lung cancer because setting fire to stuff, any stuff creates lots of carcinogens. And my memory is terrible, i'm only in my 30's but i have the memory of someone in their 70's. Weed is lovely but lets be honest it isn't good for you.


Let's be honest, it isn't all that bad for you, either.

My life would be a lot better if I could just go down to the store and buy some herb--no worry about the cops, no worry about criminals--then come home and smoke it in peace.

You probably don't believe that. I don't care. You don't know my life.

And yes, weed can impair your short-term memory if you smoke a lot of it all of the time, but back when I was smoking weed, it had little or no effect on my studies.

Your memory problem might be related to something else: are you reading every day? Are you doing something besides watching television and surfing the net all night?

No offense, but I am sick of this bullshit. The illegalization of cannabis is doing us all much more harm than good.

I love weed but this is a tad biased. Smoking anything can cause lung cancer because setting fire to stuff, any stuff creates lots of carcinogens. And my memory is terrible, i'm only in my 30's but i have the memory of someone in their 70's. Weed is lovely but lets be honest it isn't good for you.

>> ^blankfist:
^I understand that you and Mondo believe this is illustrating a realistic issue of motorist safety. It's still using fear to push an agenda, whether you think that agenda is a force for positive change or not.
By the way, I've been driving for twenty years, and not once has someone in the backseat slammed into me and cracked my skull open. Not once.


Yeah I understand that it is using fear, but as I said we still clearly need fear to truly motivate people, and I think/hope people have enough gall to realise when the fear they feel is needed like in this case, or uneeded, say over the consumption of a sandwich, people really need to get out of the mentality that it won't happen to them.

I've said it once, and I'l say it again, every day I pass my local hospital and I see nurses smoking away, who must be well aware of the effects of cigarettes on the body, yet they still do it, despite the shear pain and agony that someone with lung cancer goes through.

A side note on the Golden Rule you mentioned: It has its origins in Matthew 7:12 which refers back to the 6th through the 10th commandments given by Moses in the Pentateuch. The Golden Rule is merely a summary of the way we ought to interact with fellow man. (It does not address how we ought to act within our own minds or with our Creator.) Rather than 'some' morals deriving from the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule is derived from 'some' morals.

You're correct that Marijuana use doesn't directly injure anyone else (though everything indirectly affects others around us). Just like smoking cigarettes or over-eating. Yet, Marijuana use harms the user far less than either of those two. But one truly has to understand what the very purpose of his existence is in order to understand that Marijuana use is contrary to those purposes.

The big problem I have with this whole "this should be illegal, this shouldn't be illegal" stuff is that I do not see a disparity between the moral code and legal/lawful code. If something can be demonstrated to be immoral using Foundational Law, it is irrelevant if the current governmental powers recognize it as such, in determining it's immorality. The question then is, in structuring our governments to abide by and recognize Foundational Law, should those governments have corporeal punishments for violations of that Law. Each law is different, and carries different punishments. For the case of Marijuana use, I would argue that there is no punishment at all that can be carried out by what most people call the US GOVERNMENT that would be fitting to the 'crime' so committed. That is to say, in common parlance, MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. And I think that NO ONE should smoke it! If (and when) they do, they have their own reward and punishment in the same instant and they will be ostracized by their own families to the extent of their misbehavior.

I think cigarettes are just fine. Crudely speaking, they kill those stupid enough to use them. The crime isn't in the cigarette. The crime is in the heart and mind of the user. Just as are ALL crimes. Controlling materials is not going to change the heart and minds of men. That requires spiritual powers. To answer you succinctly: CIGARETTES SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.

Once again, drugs ARE morally wrong, but that does not mean the US GOVERNMENT should carry out the punishments for the violations. The US GOVERNMENT and it's subsidiary STATES are HORRIBLE at correcting the mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral errors in the hearts and minds of men. Last time I checked, the US GOVERNMENT doesn't even try.

In reply to this comment by brain:
The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

No brain damage, no amotivational syndrome, no lung cancer, no emphysema, no brown lung syndrome and not toxic enough for an overdose. Why is weed still illegal!

Thanks! I thought this was a fascinating glimpse of the ur-DNA of our culture, but probably should have taken a more neutral stance in my titling and tags

In reply to this comment by laura:
This is awesome. *promote!

Deedub,

Nearly all the studies you mentioned have subsequently failed to show either causality or direct correlation between the harmful effects and the smoking of cannabis. The Lancet still ranks cannabis lower then tobacco and alcohol.

Cannabis has not been linked to a single case of mental disease nor lung cancer. Compare that to the harmful effects and deaths per year documented clearly by both tobacco and alcohol and directly correlated to both.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
This is pretty much exactly like religion vs. atheism, with religion being of course smoking.


Anti-smoking is by far the more religious. Smoking is blamed for a host of sundry afflictions with scientific support that no one has the courage to challenge. People want it to be evil and that's what they get. No serious scientist would do any unbiased research, because if he found anything remotely pro-smoking the political fallout would ruin his career overnight.

Our surgeon general states that 70% of lung cancer victims got it from smoking, but lung cancer continues to rise with nary a blip - even though smokers per capita have fallen under 25% and have been there for a decade. If you want me to support this claim with data, sorry I can't. Neither the CDC or the ALA, or any other site I could find, will release any data cross referencing lung cancer victims and smokers. You can easily find how much carcinogens a black single mother of 2 will inhale in a 12x12 room with one smoker, but a table lookup of smokers v lung cancer victims will get you a 404 error. Try it.

That's religion. People needing an evil, ignoring the facts, suppressing the research of facts, all holding hands and attacking with fervor.

P.S.
My lungs get a clean bill of health every year, even though I've been smoking for over 20 years, simply because I've never tell the doctors I smoke. Ask your smoking friends to try that, it'll give them a chuckle.