Most of what you just said to me Nekrotic is summed up by a single difference in orientation and basic philosophy. I believe that in industrial, rich nations such as ours that health care should be thought of as a free basic right for all citizens, just as we currently look at education.

If you really didn't want a welfare state, you wouldn't want to spend money on other people's education, either, but I digress. 100 - 150 years ago the same kinds of arguments were being made about the idea of public education, and yet here you are completely comfortable with the idea of public funding of education. I'm only working to continue that cultural change into the area of health care.

Much of your other comments that seem to imply positions you think I hold on welfare or Social Security I'll ignore, as you are making massive assumptions about what you think I advocate based on little or no evidence. When you wish to discuss them responsibly, let me know.

As for you Tuluvian, I simply think you are wrong, and I guess we're going to have to leave it at that. You seem to think that there will be a black market for a legally purchased good (once it's made legal) and I simply see no evidence to support that opinion. If marijuana was made legal in the US, much of the existing drug cartels would either become legal businessmen continuing their business, or dissolve into irrelevance.

Or you can just not drink your tea if the taxes are too high. I mean, what good can come from civil revolt against your lawful king?

That's fine Fribur, however I think the people who already grow it illegally here will just continue what they've been doing for years and continue to sell at lower prices then what the government offers for a product of similar quality. There's no evidence either way since we are talking about marijuana and not alcohol...

People still work under the table to avoid taxes, dealers would become no different if we're just talking about once it's legalized. Simple growers wouldn't even have to worry about the tax evasion thing since it's that impossible to detect...

Haha damn I think I hit a chord on poor Nekrotic. After reading his post and seeing him call me a narcissist I have to say that's pure entertainment right there. Stick to giving your "professional medical opinion" in the general section, it's what you're good for.



No way man, it DID happen, and I laughed EXTREMELY hard at crybabies like you as I watched you get mowed down. Let's just be clear about that.

As far as things benefitting me though to be clear, I have never done drugs(hell I hesitate taking an Advil when I have a headache) and I think it's an absolutely horrible habit to be in, but I support people's right to do it.



You need to read more carefully my little medical professional. I declared that purely and factually, it is impossible to declare with absolute certainty that something is morally right or wrong. There's no point in me "properly outlining" who gets to decide such when I declare no one can decide it(factually, or absolutely). All we have are beliefs on what is and isn't when it comes to morality IMO.

Also regarding your delicate reading comprehension, rules are far from stupid - they are absolutely critical and as I said, laws do an effective job at keeping society in line. But indeed, they should not be followed if you view them as morally deficient to the point of having adverse moral effects(such as the baby in the road).

0 for 2 on reading what I said, it's rather sad that you write at lengths approaching Tarot's posts(ok, 1/4th of a Tarot-length post but still) but fail to read what you're writing about. Good job, champ.

Surcam already summed up the last portion of your pointless post. "OMG LAWL POLITICAL POSTS ON A MSG BOARD WUT DOO U HOPE TO ACOMPLISH?!?!!". The originality is always appreciated

Why searches and seizures? You'd have about the situation you have now, but with licenses. Say you pull someone over for a traffic stop or other violation and an officer finds pot in the car. They then simply ask for the certificate to prove they have a right to use it. Also when people get caught making the purchase. High profile people are much more susceptible to that, and thus would probably be tempted to buy from the government. My understanding about Health Canada's situation is that they are giving it only to people who are "officially permitted" to use it. Other people, I assume, are simply not allowed to buy it or have it. I could be wrong about that, but if it's the case, then you're still giving people one additional option.

Then Venen, it boils down to; Doing what you've been doing for years all the while not hoping to get caught (no difference then what the options are right now presently) saving you the taxed license+ taxed product to spending more on both a licence & product itself at increased prices.

I'll take my chances personally (and personally is all I can answer for, and no one can answer for the rest of the people, so that argument is not able to be made by either of us). We both have to stop the assumptions of what the general public will do... Personally it just seems dumb to buy when you can grow a far better product yourself, very simply. Also seems we'd be putting too much faith in our law enforcers actually hoping to catch people to rely on that tax revenue.

aha... I'm starting to see where you are coming from Tuluvian, between your post to Venen and your post to me.

First, I'm not talking about the government literally taking over the business of selling marijuana as you implied in your post to me. I'm only talking about taxing legal sales of marijuana.

Second, if growing and distributing marijuana is really as easy then you claim (and I don't doubt you), then let's talk economics here. Making it legal removes a large barrier to entry for many people in the US. If it is very easy to produce and sell, then with that removed barrier to entry many entrepreneurs will choose to sell marijuana. Increased supply drives prices down for everyone. In addition, with the legalization of marijuana comes reduced cost to ship it into the US. Dealers no longer have to smuggle. The risk of getting the illegal good into the US is now gone. No one is in jail for posession, or worrying about such things. ALL of these factors mean supply increases, and prices go down. However low you think the cost of marijuana is today, it will be even lower if it was made legal. Those that continue to sell it illegally (i.e. without a license or without taxes) on the streets still have the extra cost of evading the law factored into their prices, thus making it more difficult for them to compete with the legal marijuana in the store on the corner.

If I as a buyer have the choice of buying x amount of marijuana from the illegal dealer for $4.50, or the same amount from the store on the corner for $5, I'm going to go buy it from the corner store.

I'd be willing to bet that if marijuana was made legal in the US and then taxed reasonably, then 90+% of the black market for marijuana would disappear.

I think it's a safe assumption to say that if marijuana were legalized and only the government was authorized to sell it, most people would still go for the illegal. My point is just that for a select few people, however few they may be, there is that option rather than none. I think another example on top of the well-known/rich famous people would be people who need it(or when it helps) for their condition but are confined to the hospital. They could maybe get a friend to get some for them but it might still be difficult. Having that option in such a condition would probably be one less thing to worry about while they're sick, assuming they can afford it of course.

Fribur's suggestion is with taxation(which is a better idea), I'm just hypothesizing what would happen if we had a similar situation as in Canada. There would still be plenty of cheaper illegal drug sellers around, the market would remain in that respect. Only difference I can see economically is that the gov't is selling it at an insanely high price.

I'm relatively sure that in the unlikely event of marijuana legalization, then the government would pass regulations similar to those on homebrewing. That is, you may only produce enough for household consumption, and you would not be able to sell it without a license. Anyone caught producing massive amounts or selling without a license would be subject to fines.

If all you needed to do was pay, say $100, for a license to produce and sell marijuana, then you could charge whatever the market could bear.

The government could also subsidize and produce marijuana, regulating quality and having it sold in specially licensed retail stores, possibly with the same restrictions as alcohol. (21+, etc) This would drive the market for private sellers as well, since they would be motivated to beat the government's price significantly.

One thing that always worried me about buying pot from street dealers was that I didn't know if it was cut with anything. I was also wary of buying product from dealers who weren't willing to partake of their own product for that very reason.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Fribur, the way you put it I am completely for and encourage it. Like I mentioned in one of my previous posts, making a high quality product that's dirt cheap is something I would welcome very much. I remain skeptical that the costs would in fact be lowered however, but that remains to be seen and until it was actually legalized we're only speculating about it. I'd like to point out one thing mentioned however, most of the weed bought and sold in the U.S is grown in the U.S, very little is actually shipped/smuggled. That's marijuana alone, other drugs are a completely different subject that is not in my argument, if there's any misunderstanding.

Venen, I'm just not completely sure I understand where you are going to be perfectly honest. Selling a license to carry, like a gun? (just as an example). IF so, I don't know, I still wouldn't go for it when I have no need to put myself in a position to be caught. It's not something like cigarettes where I need to smoke after sex, meals, etc, it's just to relax which generally is at home or in the backyard. People driving around with it should never get a slap on the wrist for having it their possession, especially if it's out in the open like an open beer can. I may have misunderstood what you saying, so apologize if so. As for your last sentence in the last post, government selling at insanely high prices, I go back to my original argument(s).

This may come to a shock to many of you, but I am totally for the de-criminalization of drugs. Hell make them where you can purchase them very cheap at a drug store and I fully believe the drug problem will be cut dramatically.

Take the profit motive out of it and you remove the pushers. If there is no money to be made who will sell it?

If there is no one pushing the drugs then there won't be pushers out giving the drugs to our kids to get them hooked (future customers)

Take all the money we WASTE in prosecution and punishment and re-focus on education.

I am no longer a drug user (I was in school, but that was over 20 years ago) I know what can happen when you abuse drugs and the effect it has on you and those around you. I wouldn't want my kids doing drugs but I think the best way to prevent them from getting on drugs is to remove the pushers.

You can do whatever you want, but it's your ass when you get caught. I also tend to think it really isn't all that important to most people, because they tend to jump up and down about how stupid it is that it's illegal, but are quite fine not trying to do anything about it.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Uhh, I dunno what part of the country you are living in, but that certainly isn't true of the northeast. Good Canadian pot is rather abundant here, and the difference between crunchy mexican dirt weed (stems and seeds or not) and big hairy, fluffy buds is, well, blatantly obvious.

This seemed to be relevant, thought I'd post the link...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/13072007/3/c ... ional.html

These comments make it abundantly clear you are less than well informed on the subject.

Major pharmaceuticals have tried, and failed, repeatedly.

As for the "12" plants comment, you have no information whatsoever to base that comment on. Try over 900 sq.ft. devoted to a nursery, a rapid vegetative growth area, a bloom are and a curing area. At leas 3-5 mother plants for cloning, 20-30 clones rooting, 10-20 in RVG and typically a dozen - 18 in bloom. Then count a varying amount of new seedlings grown from seeds developed by hand pollinating selected combinations, a few self-pollinated seedlings and occasional seeds donated from friends.



Anyone with any in depth experience at indoor cultivation would readily agree with these comments.

If the drug companies could duplicate the demonstrated potential of cultivated cannabis, they would have. Marinol was a dismal failure. People with first hand knowledge can attest to the complexity of the resins produced, the volatility and fragility.

The opium comment seemed either totally facetious, banal or completely ignorant. Opium is highly addictive, as are the derivatives, and carry with them serious side effects even under controlled, medically supervised use.

IMO, the simple fact that I have access to legally prescribed narcotics for pain relief and choose not to avail myself of them is a significant statement. Since having to sell my house and no longer being in a position to grow my own supply, I choose to endure the constant, unrelenting pain rather than take pharmaceuticals.

The bottom line, IMO, is it's no ones business what I put in my body as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

Until being forced into disability retirement, I had been productively employed from age 12 to age 41. I earned my disability retirement benefits, provided medical documentation which was accepted by OPM and live entirely on that benefit. I do not qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid or any other "public assistance", nor would I accept them. I have supported myself since age 14, supported and raised a son and a step-son. I served as an elected union official while still actively employed, and made a significant difference in the workplace for the people I represented. I stood between management and craft employees and took an enormous amount of heat for it.

The people have spoken overwhelmingly on the subject of marijuana prohibition, and the federal government continues to ignore the will of the people and turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals for nothing more than simple possession of dried flowers.

Get a clue.

Back from my weekend sojourn, so let me reply to some statements:




Why, thanks Surcam for taking the opportunity to reach across from the Current Events & Politics threads to bitch-slap me! I assume the thread you are referring to was the old threads on racism, to wit I would point out that although I haven't participated in any of the threads you have started on the Politics section, I do notice the amount of enthusiasm, vitriol, and vigor with which you go about implicating various members of the current administration.....it's hard to believe a self-professed non-racist, half-black man could get so excited about political lynchings - the irony is thick in that one.



Fribur, you missed my point. I was only using education as an example, it has nothing to do with my personal position. My point, in that instance, was that if you are for personal freedoms such as allowing marijuana and prostitution, on the basis we are all responsible, consenting adults.....then why shouldn't we also extend that freedom to how we want to spend our tax dollars? Forget education......why can't I determine where my tax dollars goes towards health? What if I want my tax dollars to go to high-risk infant care and not Methadone for drug addicts? If you are about personal freedoms, why can't I make that choice?

I'm also not against socialized medicine, although that would not be my preference. I'm not even against welfare; I consider welfare to be providing for the basic needs of the citizenry, such as food, shelter, health care....i.e. some of the lowest tiers of Masow's pyramid (hierarchy) of needs. I just think it needs to be better managed and more efficient.

And as I've stated already, I am all about personal responsibilty. I really wish all those who advocate for universal health care really gets to spend serious time in a hospital and emergency room to see what goes on there. How much time have you yourself, or someone you know, spent time in the hospital or ER? Chances are you have rarely been hospitalized, if you are in the hospital even once a year that would be above average........and yet, our ER's are brimming over with patients, mostly for non-emergency reasons. It's a poor utilization of resources.

And here you are advocating for the legalization of marijuana, a substance with known harmful effects......again, I'm not against it, especially with alcohol and tobacco being legal as well. Still, look at alcohol, specifically fetal alcohol syndrome. Here you have women with obviously poor judgement giving birth to pre-mature infants with FAS, each of these babies costing millions of dollars to treat. Annually the cost of treating just this single problem, infants with FAS, runs over $1 billlion a year.

So the difference is, you're OK paying for them, and I'm not. What I wish is, we could direct our tax dollars, so if you are OK with it, then fine, you give your taxes to infants with FAS, while I give my taxes over to diabetes. Again, just an example.

This goes back to my position of personal freedom at the cost of personal responsibility. You want to share needles with a HIV-infected prostitute and then have unprotected sex with him/her - be my guest. You want to drink a bottle of whiskey a day and smoke a few joints - more power to you. But if you catch HIV, if you need treatment for cirhossis for your heavy drinking, if you need breathing treatments for your COPD/emphysema because of your smoking habits, then excuse me if I don't feel like I should have to pay for you. I would rather my health care dollars first go to those who are sick from a bad twist of fate, not through self-infliction. Children born with birth defects. People who develop cancer de novo. The elderly.

So if you want people to have the freedom to do what they want, then shouldn't part of that freedom be determining how they want to spend their money/taxes?



I'm just glad you can admit it now Venen, after all that obfuscation and subterfuge in the old threads where you practically denied it ever happened. Oh btw, in case my name wasn't a giveaway, you seem to have forgotten I played a necro, so I wasn't one of the ones who got "mowed down", I just FDd and watched your un-apologetic behavior. I'm glad you are getting as much enjoyment now out of it as you did all those years past.....it's really a shame the old guard like Sepnir isn't around to see how much you've matured emotionally.



Sijandi, you are right, I have no information to base it on, but that's hardly the point. Whether it's 12 plants or 12,000, it's still laughable that you are trying to come off as some sort of altruistic researcher whose sole purpose was to try and find a better strain of marijuana, one with the pain relief but without the side effects. By your own admission, you weren't successful, so I wonder what you did with the plants. Did you destroy these "failures" while creating new strains, or did you manage to smoke and/or sell it?



Are you saying marijuana is not addictive, and doesn't have side effects? It just seems to me that with such an altruistic streak running through you that you would bring your immense horticulural powers to bear on opium poppies as well as MJ. Why not cross-breed opium poppies to try and develop a strain that has the pain relief without the severe side effects? What's the matter? Opium plants too hard to grow compared to MJ? Not as easy to hide? Not as profitable? BTW, yes, I am being facetious.



I concur with you, 100%. Do what you want to do, just as long as it doesn't harm anybody else, directly or indirectly. Just understand that if someone (not you personally) chooses to smoke marijuana or do drugs, and then they are not financially able to care for their medical problems that arise from their drug use, then it does hurt someone else, namely the taxpayers. So while I applaud you for your financial independence as well as your reticance to accept public assistance, I think you can agree that not all marijuana smokers, or drug users for that matter, are in the same position as you financially, nor share the same views as you when it comes to accepting publid aid. For those individuals, the burden falls onto someone else.

No edit .......it should be "Maslow's", not "Masow's", normally not worth going back to correcting, but I'm sure someone, like Venen, is going to disregard the content of my post based on an error created during my train of thought......"DUDE EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS WRONG BECAUSE AMSTERDAM IS NOT A COUNTRY IDIOT !@!121@1"

--J.D.

I just figured your being such an incompetent player you just jumped up in the middle of them. Still, if I halted your activity just a bit by making you FD, the work was a success(and no doubt tear-worthy).



It's just one of those obvious facts that you learn at age 10, like knowing Berlin is the capital of Germany. Our education system has failed you, so it's not entirely your fault. It's not really a random factoid, unfortunately. When you learn basic world history, or even just learning about World War 2 and the invasion of the Netherlands(Anne Frank being someone practically everyone knows about), it pretty much becomes a given.

But that wasn't what raised my eyebrow:



Followed by this:



Basically, if you don't like it, follow it or get out. This is your real error in thinking, not your obvious lacking in a basic education. Someone please contact MLK and the civil rights movement, this guy needs a refresher on basic civil disobedience and missed the entire fucking point.

Let's look at this again, here are our options:



Heck, maybe you're right, they should have just moved to a different country. MLK did get to a point where he had powerful influence, however many of those who practiced civil disobedience did not move out, live with it, or rise to a position of power. Yet they affected a change by breaking the law.

Looks like some things don't change, you're still both incompetent and a dumbass.

More importantly though, you're just an ass:




Don't worry though Nekrotic, you aren't the only one cracking up.

I think everyone can agree that it is much easier to sympathise with someone who contracted a disease through no action of their own than a self inflicted disease. However, whether you got lung cancer from a two pack a day habit, or are part of the 20 percent of females who get lung cancer with no prior history of smoking, you still need treatment. I don't know if Doctors or Policy Makers should put themselves in the position of witch hunts to decide if you deserve treatment or not. Do you stand like Solomon over two car accident victims, and choose to only treat the person who was found not at fault in the accident?

That said, any government funded program should include management of risk factors to help prevent later chronic diseases. This would include smoking cessation programs and obesity programs. One thing I thought impressive from watching "Sicko" was that English doctors are paid bonuses if their patients improve in health. If there is a built in incentive to help people manage their health, perhaps with that management, you would have less people end up with those self inflicted diseases?

On the ER: I volunteered at an ER for 2 years. Totally agree with you on the waste of resources. Universal care should help with that, as a large number of those patients are there because they have no benefits to see a regular GP.

In the future make sure to not use the number 2, since Venen seems to be incapable of reading anything after it until the number 3 appears.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Physicians should not require "bonuses" to treat their patients.

--J.D.

I see what you did there. Lynchings, lol, what a riot, irony indeed!

But for real though, ever watch the Colbert report? I was wondering if you kind of laughed at yourself when Colbert says he can't see color.

p.s. The thread I've referenced.

Nekrotic, as Mono said, I don't want to be in the business of deciding who lived "good enough" to deserve our taxes in caring for them. Sure I don't have much sympathy for some people, but I still believe everyone should get treatment. If we allow that HIV person in your example to die because they don't have money and we don't treat it when we as a country *can* afford it, his or her blood is in our hands, whether we like them or not.

And speaking of drug habits, I was listening to Fresh Air a few days ago and a lifetime researcher on the effects of drugs on our brains was talking. One of the big points she made was that for those with a genetic predisposition toward addiction-- those people who become "hooked" after they try it, it is only a choice the first time, or maybe the first few times he or she tried it. After that, the downward spiral is directly due to a medical condition of addiction they do not choose. One of the problems in our culture is that we still look at junkies as someone who made a choice to be there and thus do not deserve our help, instead of the medical issue it really is. You wish to let them die because of a bad choice or two they made back when they were teenagers?

Monocot wrote:


I agree that we can't put ourselves in a position to pick who deserves treatment. No matter how someone gets to a certain point, it is always going to fall on society to deal with it. Any other option there would be inhumane.

That is also why the government has a direct interest in drugs, because eventually we will all be paying the treatment for those that use and abuse. Those that have posted that it is no one elses business but their own what they do to their own bodies are missing that key point. It is difficult to find the proper line of allowing personal freedom and social conscience, but it is an important line to draw.

I agree Fribur, and that's exactly why it's illegal. All of the legalize drug arguements usually boil down to "People are going to do it anyway, so save some $$ and make it legal". I personally believe our laws should be based on what is right, not what we can easily enforce.

holy crap good point. I'm going to have to think about my stance and get back to you on that :p You'll have to explain to me why alcohol and cigarettes are still legal with this kind of thinking, though-- or are you hoping to make them illegal too?

That's the grey area I was talking about. It's hard to know exactly where to draw the line...do we outlaw McDonalds because at some point the cost of clogged arteries gets too high? I am not proposing that I know the answer to exactly where it should be, but that is where public debate plays an important role. What personal freedoms are more valuable than the burden they place on society?

The important thing is that the government does have a vested interest in everyone's well being and state of health. Once that is agreed on, subjects like alcohol and tobacco can more easily be discussed. On a side note, my personal opinion is that cigatettes are "grandfathered" in due to how intertwined they are with society both socially and economically already. If they just came out now, along with all the health issues known, they would be illegal.

ahh, but to me your point doesn't apply to the McDonald's issue, because eating at McDonald's is not an addictive behavior. The reason I bring up alcohol, especially, is because it is addictive in nature, and is clearly destructive for those with that addictive predisposition I talked about earlier. In fact, in our society right now it seems to be far more destructive than many drugs which are currently illegal.

Is it your assertion that something should be legal because something even worse already is? That is a dangerous path.

no, my assertion is that for your argument to be logically consistent, you would need to argue for the illegalization of alchoholic beverages as well.

Short of banning said products (something I already suggested), the only logical argument is that they've been grandfathered in (as already stated).

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

For my arguement to be logically consistent I have to say it is not solely the choice of the individual on if, and how much they drink, because society is affected by both the health (kidney) and social (drunk driving) aspects of their decisions. Yes, the government should, and does, play a role in these decisions.

Reading comprehension has failed you, I already addressed this. I'll work on figuring out the number 2 as soon as you can explain to me how many of those people who used civil disobedience rose to a "position of power". They had some power to affect change, certainly, but that hardly constitutes rising to a position of power. Many of them were poor, working class people that fit the definition of power in no way shape or form. The ONLY thing they did to gain power here was disobey the law. From the start Nekrotic objected to(and insulted him, naturally) Sijandi's opinion by saying he didn't want to follow the rules. It's a safe assumption based on that that Nekrotic's use of rising to a "position of power" means holding some sort of office, or having a more direct sway over the laws themselves, else he wouldn't have had to suggest the "don't like it then get out" crap when talking about Sijandi's breaking the rules.

But on to more pressing matters. Nekrotic called and wants you to stop talking so your mouth can be used for other more useful purposes.

Not to use the "guns don't kill people" argument too much, but I think it applies to a degree here. If we had a wave of stupidity hit everyone and there was an upsurge in the number of people dropping cigarettes onto carpets, would it be the fault of cigarettes of stupid people. Drunk driving is the result of poor planning and idiocy, not drinking itself. People don't just pop into a car the second they decide to drink. Gambling is an excellent example of something that is absolutely harmless by itself. Yet many people get addicted to gambling and ruin both their lives and the lives of those close to them. These are choices by an individual and by themselves amount to nothing more than that. Let's say 5 percent of gamblers turn out to be these addiction-prone types and ruin their lives and the lives of those around them(society and family). Now the percentage of drunk drivers for every person that drinks may be considerably higher and more dangerous to society: the question is, at what point do we say that an action that is harmless under the condition that a human being is actually responsible should be outlawed because too many people are abusing the action or going about it incorrectly?

Well at least I'm consistent, because I don't buy that anti-gun control slogan either. People kill people, and they use guns, which is why there should be gun control. Plutonium is harmless if used responsibly, but I'm not excited about N Korea having a bunch of it.

I don't want to derail an interesting discussion though, let's stick to medical substances that negatively affect your long term health. It's the level of control society should be able to dictate since it pays for the consequences versus personal freedoms and your right to choose to live how you want. Fribur has some good points about how it seems arbitrary to stop one harmful substance and yet allow others. I don't think we see eye to eye on that one, but I'd like to see some more thoughts on it.

Oh yeah I agree you're consistent about that , I saw your posts in the other thread about gun control heh.



This is where I would put up a suggestion that many probably won't agree with, but I think it's a point worth considering nevertheless: Why is it that just because we pay for the consequences of other peoples' poor choices, we ought to have a say in whether they get to keep doing it or not? I don't think "it's my money" is an adequate enough justification, personally. We all pay for things we don't necessarily use or get direct benefit from, or things that help less fortunate people in society. Why not extend that sympathy to people who have serious addictions or people who simply make dumb choices? To be clear, what we are funding/supporting IMO is not a person's dumb decision, but rather their freedom to do so. We already help foot the bill for things like medical care on someone who made horrible decision about their eating habits throughout the years but now they have serious medical issues that need to be taken care of. But we object when it's someone with an alcoholic addiction or drugs? I think that's where the inconsistency lies.

You suggested earlier that the line is difficult to draw. Why would it be drawn with drugs when there are so many worse things? Now, I know you said just because there are worse things out there we shouldn't necessarily not have them outlawed. Granted, but if we are going to suggest that these other things should be there due to personal freedom, then we should also grant that drugs(which will have a net effect less than things like obesity) should also be covered under personal freedoms.



And? If we can get better healthcare from incentive, why shouldn't we?

Bonuses aren't requirements to do your job, they are rewards for doing your job well. Medicine has reward structures built into it the same as any other job. Do you turn down your bonus at work each year because you shouldn't need it? The utopian idea of the noble doctor toiling only for the sake of his patients is as incomplete as the picture of the money grubbing doctor. Some people are reward motivated. Tying those incentives into making their patients healthier is a win win situation.

Don't argue with Doctorx... he might post :/

Physicians should not require "bonuses" to treat their patients well.

--J.D.

You're right Doctor X, but I don't think anyone is saying a Doctor should "require" a bonus, they're saying it's a not a bad idea to give incentives. I'm not seeing your point here, is it your thinking that incentives would hurt the profession?

People tend to gravitate to whatever pays the best in their job. Doctors are people too...why not nudge them in the right direction with an incentive?

I'm somewhat perplexed. Are you against raises and bonuses, or against raises and bonuses being applied success at to job metrics, or against Doctors alone receiving raises and bonuses?

Physicians receiving bonuses for their best effort.

Implies that less-than-best is acceptable.

"Less-than-best" effort is acceptable for your waitress, lawyer, politician, lap dancer, nuclear safety inspector, but not your physician.

Now reality is, of course, another thing entirely. Though consider the justification for spending more time on a patient who will garner a bonus rather than one who cannot. May get those ICUs emptied faster . . . there is that. Will bonuses apply to illegal immigrants, or MFYs fans?

Incidentally, for the longest time, physicians were given a "bonus" or "donation" from a society in England if they convinced a family to have a loved-one cremated. 'twas known as "ash cash."

--J.D.

(bold added)
???????
Evidently this previous comment was misunderstood.
(bold added)
"to come up with" & "that provided" seem pretty straightforward to me.

You can stop wondering too.


Laugh loud and long, but you'll have to find another reason. I did not try to "come off" as anything other than what I am - a human being trying to live my life without hurting other people, and trying to deal with the problems I have the best I can with the resources I have.


It might have something to do with the basic differences between the active molecules in opium and cannabis, how they interact with the brain and my own personal experience. It has nothing to do with considering myself an authority on anything other than my own life.


That seems a pretty narrow perspective to me. If concern for taxpayers and efficient utilization of tax dollars is the primary concern, I think there are many more areas which could benefit from insightful, well-informed, intelligent discussion and attention.


Hasn't NYC already outlawed trans-fats?(in restaurants at least?) Obesity is considered the #1 health problem facing US citizens, shouldn't it deserve the most attention?
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/ ... ansfat.htm
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updat ... ants.shtml

I've never seen any credible reports or evidence of anyone OD'ing on marijuana. The same isn't true of alcohol or man-made drugs.

And marijuana has been illegal a much shorter period of time than it was totally unregulated. Alcohol prohibition failed, because people will drink. People will also smoke, eat mushrooms, peyote buds and use many other forms of intoxicating substances no matter what laws are passed or who disapproves. Compared to the crap sold across the counter legally in this country, marijuana is a minor problem - even while it remains on the Schedule 1 list of drugs.

_________________

Surcam, I love the Colbert report, but unfortunately never seem to catch it at the right times, so I've only seen a few episodes, and no, never seen the skit involving color-blindness. I do, however, own the Chapelle show DVDs and must say you make a great Clayton Bigsby.



Fribur (and Mono), I'm not arguing turning away patients because they have certain self-inflicted diseases. My main point is arguing that as supposed responsible adults, if we are to enjoy all our freedoms, then let's also enjoy the freedom of determining were our individual tax dollars go.

So I'm not saying that if some drunk pregnant woman showed up to the hospital with a fetus with FAS, turn her away. I am saying that if I don't approve of that behavior, whether on moral or philisophical grounds, then I shoudn't have to necessarily contribute to the funds that will provide for her treatment. You can even make it on religious grounds, say you really don't believe in abortion, then why should you pay taxes that allow for them?

Do I wish them to die, as you say, for making a bad choice during their teenage years? No. But if you want to use extreme examples, then I would say if it came to giving a liver transplant to someone who drank themselves to liver failure vs. someone who caught heptatis C from a blood transfusion during an accident......then I would give it to the accident victim 100% of the time.

It's not about wishing someone would die....it's making the tough triage decisions, when needed, about who lives at the expense of another in a world of limited resources. Tarot posted about a friend of hers a while back, a young man with cystic fibrosis I believe it was, who needed a double lung transplant to survive. He even had a website seeking donations because his insurance company had turned him down.......so should the insurance company be demonized for that? Should I for that matter, for pointing out the fact that his double-lung transplant would not be as good a utilization of resources as giving it to 2 people who needed single lung transplants? I *think* (it's been a while) that the situation was complicated by the fact that he had some rare pulmonary infection, and that was the main reason he was turned down. So in essence you would be giving 2 lungs to an individual who, even if the operation was successful, a BIG if in someone with ongoing pulmonary infection, would have a shorter life expectancy than other CF patients with no infection.

Sometimes it's not about who we want to die, but who we choose to save.



As I've previously stated, Menen is incapable of really seeing beyond what he wants to see, hopefully some of you can see how it's easy to come to that conclusion. I'm not going to beat it into the ground, but seriously just start reading his arguments more closely, in any thread. Not only does he bypass my #2 reason, but when it doesn't suit him, he'll again just frame the phrase into something that will fit into his line of reasoning.

Menen, to clarify, rising to a position of power doesn't always come on the end of a sword, nor the end of a gavel. Ghandi could have taught you that. The only thing about power is to have enough of it to affect change. Hence my point #2. Civil disobedience is a form of power obviously, it was powerful enough to grant India it's freedom, and it was powerful enough to grant civil rights for blacks and other minorities in the US. Their power wasn't "only" to disobey the law as you put it, their real power was their ability to change the laws. Again Menen, hard for someone to comprehend who has never been in a position to utilize power to affect change, am I correct?



Doctor X, it is unreasonable to believe that all physicians are capable of producing the same effort or effectiveness, anymoreso to believe that all baseball players are capable of hitting as many home runs as Alex Rodriguez.

The reality is that the best effort of mediocre doctors (and there are unfortunately quite a few out there) can never match the best efforts of top doctors. Doctors are human beings too, and like all humans, we all have different levels of abilities.

So is less-than-best acceptable? It already is. Again, as in any other profession, there is a gradient from excellent to poor, and while you may not be able to get an "A+" doctor, it's hard to argue that an "A" or even a "B" grade doctor won't do.

As in any other profession, the best will naturally have the best odds of success.....not so much these days where you often don't get to choose your doctor, but certainly if given the choice patients will determine the success of their doctors. Good doctors will receive good word-of-mouth and be busy. Bad doctors will not be able to do the same, so will need patients handed to them somehow. So the trick isn't really to incentivize the "A+" doctors, because they really are self-motivating anyways and don't need incentives.....it's to incentivize the "B" doctors to strive to become better.....and while we're at it, kick out the "D" and "F" doctors who fail to live up to even an average standard of providing care. One of the biggest problems in the medical profession isn't that we don't have enough good doctors, it's that we keep around too many of the bad ones, and aren't willing to punish them. The reality is, they hurt not only our image and our profession, but more importantly they often hurt the patients they treat.



Save the "other areas" Sijandi for another discussion. In *this* discussion, which results in the narrow perspective, can't you see how people who are not responsible for their actions can indirectly harm others? Or do you just refuse to accept this conclusion? Do you not believe there are drug users out there who cannot care for themselves financially or otherwise, have no resources, and therefore become a burden onto others in society? Let me remind you of what you said, and with which I wholeheartedly agree:

"The bottom line, IMO, is it's no ones business what I put in my body as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

So I have to ask the corrollary.... how do you feel about it then if what someone puts into his/her body *does* hurt someone else, either directly or indirectly?

Pressed submit before I remembered about this....



Just so you know Fribur, there are many doctors who believe, and a lot of research going towards proving, that eating can be an addictive behavior, thereby leading to obesity.

Never implied they could, but one should not reward laziness through tolerance of rewarding best efforts. Even the mediocre must do their best.

For the rest, I agree. I am making a particular point that physicians should not require bonuses to do their best.

And, yes, that sketch from Dave Chappelle where they get the guy from Frontline is one of the funniest damn things I have ever seen. In fact, for the sake of comic relief:



Regarding the addictive quality of fast food, would have to strongly recommend the book Fast Food Nation by the author cited above regarding Reefer Madness, and the film Supersize Me.

--J.D.

It's not a skit homie, but rather an ongoing shtick. As far as Clayton Bigsby, that is indeed hilarious, although I don't see the connection to me. That's ok though, good effort.

Of course, I'm crazy - not stupid. Irresponsible people indirectly & directly cause harm to others and should be held accountable. That doesn't mean responsible people should be treated the same way.
I seldom arbitrarily refuse to accept the conclusions of others, but that doesn't necessarily mean I believe they are correct either.
Yes, I believe there are - but the drugs aren't necessarily the root cause of the problem. There are people who meet that description who never use drugs, alcohol or engage is high-risk behaviors - they're simple stupid or just plain don't care how their behavior affects others.

I think (not feel) they should be held accountable. Just as I expect to be held accountable for how my behavior or actions affect others. Unfortunately, accountability seems to be very selectively applied in our society - both currently and historically - from the highest elected position in the country to rich, powerful corporate executive to "celeb's", while people who are not harming others are demonized, criminalized and incarcerated.

Because if we allow everyone to determine where their individual tax dollars go it would be wildly inefficient and unpredictable.

You have said earlier that you would be willing to put more money toward education. Do you know that there are thousands of people out there that don't have kids in school, who moan about having to pay taxes towards education that they supposedly receive no benefit from? The education program is already underfunded, and if you had what you wanted, even more funding would be lost. These people, of course, are ignoring the larger value of having an educated society.

You can restate it anyway you wish, but you are still talking about picking and choosing who gets care based on their choices. If we allowed everyone in the country to make those kinds of decisions about their tax dollars, you think Medicare would still be a functioning entity? "Hold on sir, I don't know if we can treat your or not-- let's see if we have any funding given to us by people who are ok with funding your care."

Do you think our road system would be what it is today? "Hi sir, we was wondering if we could use your tax dollars to help fund an Interstate highway in Montana." "What? Fuck no! I'll never drive on a road in Montana; you can't have my money!" Of course, this person is ignoring the trucking industry that brings him food on those roads every day, etc.

Do you think our National Parks would remain? Preserves?

Do you think police departments in rural areas would be able to remain funded? Fire? Is anarchy in the countryside what you would like?

Do you think college financial aid would continue to be given? "I don't want to pay for some other kid's education! My own kid should get that money!" or "I don't even have kids!" This is similar to the education problems at lower levels if you get what you want.


My point? One of the vital things that a government provides is the resources to devote toward the collective good of society. While obviously there are exceptions, individual needs and desires often contradict the group's needs and desires. Governments stand as a way in which we overcome that tendency for our own greater good.

Positively hilarious to see Nekrotic arguing stupid points against so many people here. I wonder how many it will take for him to figure out how stupid he is.



Even better though is your consistent backpedaling after you realize you were wrong(oops, Nekrotic isn't a narcissist).

A position of power, eh? Let's go by your own definition!



And of course as I said, it leaves little room for error when you say things like:





It's plainly obvious to anyone with a brain cell what you meant by position of power, you even defined it yourself. It's especially obvious when you say "PUT" into a position of power. Clearly those in the civil rights movement were placed in such a position of power by someone else. Great thinking.

I don't understand what the big deal is. People who don't smoke (me) are happy because it's currently illegal. People who do smoke can get it cheaply, and as long as their not retarded can easily get away with smoking it.

_________________
-Rileigh (aka Golliwog)

If it were legal could you still get tested and fired for it at your job? Seems like you could but idk.

I would think that would entirelly up to the discretion of the employer, unless it fell under a job regulated by a safety agency, etc. - unless, in the states where applicable, it fell under statutory medical marijuana provisions.

I can't see why it wouldn't be treated - in some degree anyway - exactly like alcohol consumption. Most jobs don't really care if you tied one on last night, but airline pilots face special oversight. Testing would have to be improved to differentiate between recent use and habitual use. Current methods aren't adequate.

"Mad Men", starting on AMC, touches on the subject somewhat by showing the then acceptable practice of "two-martini" lunches.

How many people would lose their jobs if alcohol testing were added to mandatory drug tests? It is a central nervous system depressant, afterall.

Some jobs will fire you if you test positive for nicotine. There was a big brouhaha
in the papers/news a few years back.

I would really rather not have weed smokers working for me.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Why not, as long as they don't show up to work under the influence, I can't see where there would be a problem.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]