 |
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Portugal decriminalized hard drugs, and they didn't experience any significant increases in drug use, so your claim is unfounded. |
IIRC, the Netherlands have a similarly enlightened policy, and similarly have found that legalization creates far fewer problems than illegalization does.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
From the article:
quote:
The number of children and teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence and abuse has jumped 142 percent since 1992, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reported in April. |
And from chegitz:
quote:
The article seems to have a flaw. It makes the assumption that teens sent to drug programs for pot use were addicted or were in some kind of trouble, as opposed to simply having been caught. |
Bingo! This is an example of how the government and it's cronies mis-inform people. More and more people are given the "option" of "treatment" to avoid the courts and jail (or juvy), then the people who've coerced people into treatment cite the inflated numbers they've created with their coercion as proof of a more sever problem.
quote:
If you legalize it, users should be disqualified from medicare. |
Yup, lot's of people over 65 smoking pot...the horror...the horror... 
quote:
It's not a "perceived" "bad" habit, it's a habit that has a known, quantifiable, and detrimental effect on your health, one that would increase the amount of money you would have to claim from medicare. Sorry, no, if you get lung cancer from smoking it's your own fault. |
Ingest too much sugar and you can get diabetes. Eat too much and you get fat. Drink too much booze and you get all sorts of related diseases. Now, show that people who are old enough to be on medicare and smoke pot are costing more than everyone else (proportionally of course since there aren't many old people smoking pot).
You sound like these people who "justify" higher taxes on tobacco by claiming smokers cost Medicare more. Where's the proof? If smokers tend to die younger, they have fewer years to make use of Medicare. And since we all die, everyone on Medicare will cost the taxpayers. So, who will cost Medicare more? The smoker who kicks the bucket at the age of 67 or the old woman who lives to 95? C'mon!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
No, because the medicare money is supposed to go to people who deserve it (on the theory that those who cannot help their ailments have a right to demand treatment from society - something I'm not necessarily supporting, but since it's here we might as well deal with it), so not deserving the money doesn't remove your obligation as a member of society to provide that right. |
God, where do I begin? Most everyone (aside from actually dying from old age) with an ailment could have helped it before they got the ailment, diet, exercise, lifestyle choices, etc... People who pay into the Medicare program "deserve" it by virtue of the fact they payed into the program, that was the "promise" made by the politicians who created the program. So how you got the notion that Medicare was "supposed" to go to people you think deserve it requires a question - did you create Medicare? If not, then you have no right to re-define the program to exclude people who were promised some return on their compelled participation.
As for this "obligation", do you have an actual contract upon which the rest of us agreed to pay for other people's health care? No, so don't stick people with "obligations" you've dreamt up, it's bad enough people are forced to pay taxes so politicians can buy votes; don't add insult to injury by claiming we have an "obligation" to let people steal from us.
Second, your understanding of what "rights" are is flawed, no one has a right to force you to pay for my health care any more than I have a right to force you to practice my religion. Rights belong to individuals and they cannot oblige others to act on our behalf. When "civil rights" are created that violate this standard, immorality has been legislated.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's not a "perceived" "bad" habit, it's a habit that has a known, quantifiable, and detrimental effect on your health, one that would increase the amount of money you would have to claim from medicare. Sorry, no, if you get lung cancer from smoking it's your own fault. |
While I was refering to smoking, there are many other bad habits that lead to other medical problems, mostly when it comes to ones diet. If you are going to pick on one group, you would then have to pick on all other "perceived" bad habits... including eating too much fat, drinking, and other such things.
While smoking does increase the probability of getting cancer, not all people who smoke get cancer, and people who don't smoke still get lung cancer... So your comment that it will increase the amount of money you claim isn't necessarily true... My comment was, if you are going to disqualify me from ever being able to claim funds just because I smoke, you have no right to make me pay to support others.
While Kuciwalker raises an interesting point
quote:
No, because the medicare money is supposed to go to people who deserve it (on the theory that those who cannot help their ailments have a right to demand treatment from society - something I'm not necessarily supporting, but since it's here we might as well deal with it), so not deserving the money doesn't remove your obligation as a member of society to provide that right.
|
I would disagree... I have no problem paying into programs that help people... AND that would help me if I were in a situation to need the help. I would have a problem paying into a system (let's say welfare) where I was told up front, even if you lose your job and are desperate for help, you won't get a dime, even though you have to pay into the system. That would be a BIG a problem... and that is what Kuciwalker is advocating
And before people jump in with the obligation to society crap... I give money to charity voluntarily... That is a choice I make. But it when it comes to my taxes going to social programs, whether it's welfare, medicaid or other such programs... I do demand the right to the same bennifits if I should ever be in a situation to need them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Two clarifications. First, a limited number of hard drugs will cause psychotic behavior with normal use. The two I know of off hand are Angel Dust (PCP) and meth. In fact, methamphetamine pyschosis is a well documented result of routine use of that substance, though I would have to get my wife's DSM IV out to get the technical term and she just left so our little girl could get her vaccines. I would ban those, and only those drugs. If you want a benchmark, use alchohol as we have already determined that it represents an acceptable level of societal risk. As an aside, I've never heard of someone coming home and beating their spouse/children after toking pot. It's a stupid habit (pot) but part of being a true libetarian is supporting those things you DON'T approve of.
Secondly, as the admittedly tobacco industry funded study in the Czech Republic showed, and what anybody with any kind of a basic grasp of statistics comprehends, we are all going to die. Most expenses, if my memory serves me correctly, occur in the last two years of life, especially in the last six months. Whether you are fat, smoke, or a healthy triathelete, you will have a "last six months." The best video I ever saw on that was when I took my fiancee's (now wife) dog to the vet, and as they worked me in I watched a video on "How to prevent the premature death of your pet." We need to take that attitude towards death in general.
Now your family and spouse may prefer that death comes for you later rather than sooner, in fact, that's my preference for me. That's why I don't smoke, don't use drugs, try to watch my weight and exercise, while taking my drugs because I chose the wrong grandparents. I strongly suspect if I would blow an aneurism now, it would cost alot less than if I live until 80 with let's say two bypasses, several angioplasties, and rehab for a stroke in my 70's. On the insurance bit, let's look at reasonable versus unreasonable expense and find some middle ground that balances personal responsibility with the reality health care is ALWAYS rationed, if not de facto then economically. Look at Mickey Mantle and his liver transplant. 'nuff said.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2004 06:24
WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO
|