aussiephil Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) It's surely not as bad FOR YOU as cigarettes are Debatable, have you ever seen a person who has smoked on a daily basis for 10+ years? Drug induced psycosis is directly attributed to heavy short to medium term use. (remember the World Health Organisation figures predict mental illness will be the secondmost leading cause of death behind trauma come 2020) Having said that I am all for the medical use of it. I have been with cancer patients who (although not legal here) prefered to use it as they were more lucid than using morphine & were able to 'enjoy' they last days on this lonely planet. Lets face it, what harm will they do to themselves? Legalisation is a good option, it does a couple of things. Firstly it takes the mystery out of it. How many kids go & buy some weed for a smoke 'cause it is illegal'? Secondly, through legalisation you will reduce the need for drug operations & the funds that were spent on it can be redirected to healthcare. Thirdly, as it is legal, crime related to the importation & back street dealings will subsidise. While there would be an initial increase, it has been shown that through legalisation useage rates actually decrease over time, along with the associated medical costs. The problem is, where do you stop, do we legalise heroin? cocain? ice? ecsatsy? the list goes on & when one is legalised, another will flood the marker to take its place. It will be an eternal problem with no end. Edited October 28, 2009 by aussiephil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubanurse Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Actually there is a move to add fast food to the so called sin tax. I'm all for it. Many that drive fast/get tickets do pay higher insurance rates. If mary jane is legalized at least taxes can be collected which will benefit everyone. Right now only the drug lords benefit from the finances, plus even those that get it for medical use can not be sure of the quality. If legalized and regulated to certain standards could be safer for all that choose it. I'm all for the sin tax, but again where do you draw the line. Should women of child bearing age pay a higher premium than a man of equivalent age because prenatal care and child birth are costly? What about me, I have a pre-existing condition, which is quite expensive to manage, should I have to pay for something that was completely out of my control? When you start increasing the costs for one subset it becomes easier for the companies to just increase them arbitrarily across the board. People who choose to speed in their cars are more likely to get into a car accident and that costs money to take care of the injuries long term. People who chose to sky dive or scuba dive are at a higher risk of injury or illness than the couch potato who doesn't leave his/her house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I am a non-smoker, of either legal or "wacky tobacky" cigaretts, just so you know where I come from. How many years have we heard "legalize and then tax" for drugs, or other things currently illegal? Unfortunately, that won't work, either, IMHO. My friends who smoke complain on how much, with the New York State cigarette tax, their box of smokes cost. Yes, it is expensive. However, I know that some of them get around the taxes, legally, by buying in bulk from companies set up in Native American or First Nation "Indian" regions of, respectively, the US and Canada. They are apparently regarded as nations within nations, in matters like this. Some of these agencies even advertize in national magazines, so it is not like they are trying to hide. Therefore, until further notice, if someone has the will to get around some tax law, legally, someone else will find a way for them to do so. Oh, by the way, for any who would think I'm an "Indian Hater", considering what I have in this posting, I'll admit I do not fully understand the situation. Also, I used to date a Deneh Navajo girl (Yvette), years before my "Lady J" (Johanna), and was to the point of asking her to marry me, but got the dreaded "Let's just be friends" speech when I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 No, I do not believe that people with preexisting conditions (not their fault) should pay more. But people who CHOOSE to engage in dangerous activities should. Want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, want to parachute out of planes, want to smoke tobacco or drugs, want to drink your liver to death, want to shoot up heroin, want to weigh 300+lbs ? Fine, just dont ask the taxpayers to subsidize your poor decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiephil Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I am a non-smoker, of either legal or "wacky tobacky" cigaretts, just so you know where I come from. How many years have we heard "legalize and then tax" for drugs, or other things currently illegal? Unfortunately, that won't work, either, IMHO. My friends who smoke complain on how much, with the New York State cigarette tax, their box of smokes cost. Yes, it is expensive. However, I know that some of them get around the taxes, legally, by buying in bulk from companies set up in Native American or First Nation "Indian" regions of, respectively, the US and Canada. They are apparently regarded as nations within nations, in matters like this. Some of these agencies even advertize in national magazines, so it is not like they are trying to hide. Therefore, until further notice, if someone has the will to get around some tax law, legally, someone else will find a way for them to do so. Oh, by the way, for any who would think I'm an "Indian Hater", considering what I have in this posting, I'll admit I do not fully understand the situation. Also, I used to date a Deneh Navajo girl (Yvette), years before my "Lady J" (Johanna), and was to the point of asking her to marry me, but got the dreaded "Let's just be friends" speech when I did. Just a question Richard. How much does the US spend on attempting to stop the importation of drugs into the US every year? If that was then redirected into healthcare, would it begin to alleviate the overall healthcare problems that are faced not only by the US, but also by countries like the UK & Australia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Actually there is a move to add fast food to the so called sin tax. I'm all for it. Many that drive fast/get tickets do pay higher insurance rates. Actually, most insurance quotes are regulated by your credit score, as opposed to your actual driving record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Just a question Richard. How much does the US spend on attempting to stop the importation of drugs into the US every year? Actually, I have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiephil Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Actually, I have no clue. May be worth looking into so you can see what impact that money may have on the overall healthcare (or as it is for profit Wealthcare) system in the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vs-eh? Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) It's high time (good one I know), for marijuana to be legalized/decriminalized on a global scale, akin to alcohol. It's such an antiquated practice, I assume based on various historical circumstances that I'm not familiar with. From an EMS standpoint, alcohol related calls (either acute or chronic issues) FAR exceed by magnitudes the calls for ANY other substance abuse issue. This is true from small town to big city. I would estimate that 10-20% of the calls that I do on a daily basis directly involve alcohol as the primary or secondary reason why 911 was called. That is ten's of thousands of calls a year for the service I work in. In contrast, with regard to marijuana, I can probably count on one hand the number of marijuana related calls I get a year. These are always "acute", and almost always involving younger people experiencing anxiety attacks from use. You don't see a lot of marijuana fueled homicides, shootings, DUI, trauma, chronic health issues, "take me to rehab" calls. I also don't buy any type of argument that because marijuana is illegal/criminal, it might be inherently substantially less prevalent. Let's face it, cops generally don't care (unless you are being a dick) about your personal stash or the fact you have ingested it. Add to that that marijuana is extremely easy to acquire and cheap. Speaking from personal experience I'll say this. I'm a much nicer/better person smoking weed than I am drinking alcohol. Yes, I know, in an ideal world no one would have a vice/need an "escape" that involves ingesting chemicals, but for most that doesn't happen. Obviously I am 100% against the ingestion of any type of chemical that might impair judgement while working (this also can include prescribed narcotics/benzo's that are given for legit reasons on an individual basis). I feel sorry for those that get tested for THC and might be dismissed for intake and therefore fear its use. It boggles my mind that it is "ok" in the grand scheme to theoretically get hammered every night and/or week-end, yet you smoke a joint and you could be screwed? Get your head out of your ass people. EDIT - Does everyone have a "warn status" bar under their profile on the left? Lulz, I don't think I've posted in like 8 months, wondering if that is new or just for me. Edited October 28, 2009 by vs-eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VentMedic Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 California held its 1st Hearing On Pot Legalization today October 28, 2009. http://cbs5.com/local/california.marijuana.legalization.2.1277118.html SACRAMENTO (CBS 5 / AP) ― No tie-dye was on display at a standing-room only hearing held by a California lawmaker on Wednesday in a bid to get his marijuana legalization bill taken seriously. Instead, suits and sober discussion were the rule at the state Capitol as Assemblyman Tom Ammiano presided over what his office said was the first legislative consideration of the issue since California banned the drug in 1913. Though both sides of the debate were heard at the hearing, Ammiano has long had his mind made up. At a news conference before the hearing, the San Francisco Democrat and former comedian called the criminalization of marijuana a failed policy that denies the state significant revenue. And despite opposition from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ammiano said he believed the bill put the state in a position to set the national agenda. "I think we have a real shot at it, particularly in the context of it being in some ways bigger than California," Ammiano said. His bill would tax and regulate marijuana in the state much like alcohol. Adults 21 and older could legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales. While at least one poll showed a slight majority of Californians would support a tax-and-regulate scheme for pot, the bill's chances remain hazy. Skeptics have questioned whether the state could truly enforce a tax on marijuana, especially since the paper trail could lead federal prosecutors straight to sellers' doors. Speakers at the hearing touched on most issues common to the marijuana debate, including whether legalization would increase or decrease crime, raise or cost the state money and help or hurt children. No vote was taken at the hearing, described as "informational." The proposal has been referred to the public safety and health committees, which will consider in January whether to send the bill to the full Assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts