“You mean we legalized it and have no reliable way to tell if drivers are stoned while driving, exposing all other drivers to death and permanent bodily injury from legal users?
What didn’t someone tell us Dems. this could happen? And we just learned about schizophrenia’s connection to THC on Monday!”
Captain Clown: Name a red state that legalized pot for fun. Now name the blue states that did so. You are so boring. Can’t you even see that?
And your insistence on holding the same position for legalization in the face of new evidence such as schizophrenia, damage to children in the womb, stunted emotional development for young men, the growing Black Market, etc. shows you are a simpleton.
This is what I believe! No matter what the facts say! Just pretend you don’t see new facts! Everybody, close your eyes, now!
FEBRUARY 6, 2019 AT 11:22 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
If you were a fair minded and honest person, here is what you would acknowledge: I don’t insult people until AFTER they insult me first. Go back and look at those comments and what preceeded them.
When someone disagrees with me respectfully, I follow suit.
You see? Civility requires two dance partners. Try it for once.
Craig, what you are suggesting are new facts are in fact, old hat. It’s an intoxicant so OF COURSE there will be those ramifications. Those are not recent discoveries, doctors have known about them for decades if not centuries. Duh! Just like any intoxicant, the person taking it is taking health risk. Who is the simpleton?
When was it concluded that THC was a likely cause of schizophrenia?
Who reported this information first?
When were the studies concluded showing mounting evidence of damage to the unborn?
When was it discovered that legalizing pot for fun would NOT reduce the Black Market, but that in fact the opposite would happen?
When did we discover that THC consumption had gone up over the past 10 years nationally for people under age 21, the people for whom THC is the most dangerous in terms of mental and emotional health?
Answer for the Clown: all of it in the last 4 years, meaning ALL of it since legalization was approved in Colorado. And honest people (don’t worry, I don’t mean you) admit this is all new information about the dangers of THC.
But keep on pushing pot. It is what you are good at. The black community thanks you.
April 3, 2019 at 3:50 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Really, then why does the first page of a search show me a report from 2008 about schizo and MJ? Was 2008 4 years ago? Oh look, another one from 2011. Also 4 years ago. You aren’t worth debating this because you are the one who is dishonest, at best. I’m not even going to address the remainder of your list because it really doesn’t matter what you and I think. What we both know is, this emerging risk is a reality and one we should all focus on in the insurance industry mitigating, controlling, and covering. Take your crusade elsewhere and it may matter to someone.
Medical journals, propaganda films, etc. were reporting the same things back in the 30’s, Craig. Get over yourself. I am sincerely sorry you had a horrific experience with it. Nothing will ever change that. As a father of 3 myself, I have empathy for you.
April 2, 2019 at 3:43 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
6
4
Mr. Cornell, do you have any idea how many thousands, if not millions, of miles have been driven in the USA over the last 50 years by people who were “stoned,” to use your term? It is ridiculous to assume that this is a new phenomenon because of recent legalization/decriminalization efforts.
Learn something about science, OK? Police can measure blood alcohol content and it correlates to the ability to drive a vehicle safely. There is no similar test that measures the amount of the active ingredient(s) in marijuana that relates to the ability to drive safely. THC is stored in the body and can remain in fatty tissue for up to 30 days, whereas the liver and kidneys remove alcohol from the blood stream in a matter of hours. Scientists know this. Legislators know this. You did not apparently know this.
Geez, if only I was as smart as Dave thinks he is . . . then I wouldn’t have to think about anything at all.
Listen, what you are saying is so self-evident as to be ridiculous.
Legalization is leading to higher usage in states that legalized. Every state reports the same, more use and more driving stoned. That means MORE people will be driving stoned, causing accidents and killing people.
If you are in favor of legalization, you have to be responsible for both the positive and negative consequences. Unless you are an immoral and unthinking. Then you can pretend nothing bad happens ever and take another bong hit.
MARCH 19, 2019 AT 7:57 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
This feels familiar: another long diatribe . . . and around and around we go. (Tell me again. It is pointless and funny.)
So how will this rise in impaired driving due to the legalization of MJ, impact the insurance industry? Will auto policies have to be rewritten? Insureds who have their state’s minimum requirements, will they still be fully covered?
I am not sure I understand the reasons to argue the same exact points on every article relating to MJ, so maybe it’s time to focus on how we, as an industry, can continue to keep insureds fully covered and prepared for the unexpected.
To be clear, I do not want to your political views or opinion on MJ, I am genuinely only interested in the insurance aspect. Thanks.
Liability issues ARE the insurance aspect. Like measuring THC levels in drivers. Like car crashes from people high on THC. What am I missing? If car crashes go up along with greater public usage of THC products, something established by every state that legalized pot for fun, how is any of that NOT relevant to insurance?
That’s fair. I understand you have extensive knowledge on the subject along with insurance, that is my reasoning to asking these tedious questions, since I am new to the industry (my second year).
“If car crashes go up along with greater public usage of THC products”, what impact will this have on the insureds involved in these accidents as well as the insurers? Will people see premiums and the cost of their auto insurance rise? I guess, what will be the outcome as far as insurance goes, is my main question.
Sorry, HQ. This used to be a good site to get answers to insurance questions, and to an extent it still is, however there are a handful of commenters who insist on turning absolutely everything into a political discussion and take genuine pleasure in personally attacking and insulting others with different points of view (and then will completely deny doing so, thus ignoring their own hypocrisy). It’s a real shame, because in many cases they actually have the experience to be a good mentor to you.
I do wish you the absolute best of luck in your career.
Haha no worries. And thank you. I appreciate what you’re saying, but it is the internet after all, so what can you expect.
I know Craig has the knowledge, he just can be a little defensive with his replies. Personally, he has respected me and my comments in the past, so I will do the same.
April 4, 2019 at 1:50 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Honest,
Great question and of course an individual’s rates reflect the decisions they make behind the wheel. Should a carrier see a significant rise in their loss experience, because insurance is social in the fact we all share, then yes, the carrier will most likely pass that loss experience onto their book of insureds via rate increases. This is how DUIs are processed now, along with driver exclusions or probation, depending on the carrier’s appetite. People who responsibly use, as the do with alcohol, will choose not to get behind the wheel. And, if they do and get caught, they will suffer the legal ramifications along with the insurablity ones. I expect SR-22 carriers will see and are seeing a rise in their PIF (policies in force) count, as well as quote activity.
The inevitability MJ will become legal federally in a decade or less (my prediction) places additional focus on autonomous vehicles and what that technology may do to reduce accidents related to driving under the influence. I’m very curious as to how self-driving cars may impact auto rates both for liability and phys dam. You’ll see this is another topic that is widespread here on the IJ forums. Welcome to the industry and I hope you are just as excited to see it evolve as I am. Cheers!
Thank you for the response, Captain. Makes sense that they will be processed similarly to DUI’s involving alcohol since, from an insurance aspect, it is just another form of risk. Unfortunately, even if you do make responsible choices, you are still at risk of others not being so smart.
I am curious about autonomous vehicles as well. Wonder how many people will use their autonomous vehicles as the designated driver and how the laws of driving under the influence will adapt to that kind of change. I guess we may find out here in the near future.
Thank you again!
April 4, 2019 at 2:38 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Yeah, it’s how they have been processed (any intoxicant or RX that warns about driving under the influence, for that matter). DUIs are not just alcohol related. In fact, you can even get them if you don’t regulate your diabetes adequately. But, obviously with MJ becoming legal, some will push the boundaries and we will see an uptick in DUIs as a result. The problem with MJ is many users can mask they fact they are high, which is why I believe we need to have a testing device and legal THC limit much like we do for drinks. Many people who toke up aren’t going to have much problem passing a field sobriety test. We have people high on MJ around us everyday and we don’t even know it. Its effects aren’t near as observable as those as being drunk or ripped on harder drugs.
April 3, 2019 at 3:28 pm
Stush says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
The time for arguing whether recreational pot is good or bad for America is over. The fact is that it is lawful in several states. What the industry needs to concentrate on, and what Honest was pointing out, is how to respond to the market where risk of MJ is transferred from policyholders to their insurer. How to underwrite the risks associated with MJ that result in unintended consequences (accidents). I think insurers are working on it now, regardless of what others think “should” be lawful or not.
Another dumb comment. Very few states have legalized recre-pot, and hard blue New Jersey just rejected it.
The argument is only beginning. Whether it is good or bad is the ONLY issue regarding legalization. And how bad THC is has direct relevance to insurance; in fact, it is the only issue, how it hurts people. Man, you guys must have hit the bong one too many times to make these comments.
Fine. Let’s get technical. But they didn’t approve it, did they?
Out here in Cali., lots of left-leaning people are wising up about pot and the damage it can do. Many are asking if legalization was a wise move, since the damage is largely done to the poor and minorities.
Only simple-minded people or people with a weak ego stick to the same position in the face of new information.
Another State playing “Ready, Fire, Aim”.
“You mean we legalized it and have no reliable way to tell if drivers are stoned while driving, exposing all other drivers to death and permanent bodily injury from legal users?
What didn’t someone tell us Dems. this could happen? And we just learned about schizophrenia’s connection to THC on Monday!”
No, that isn’t what the article stated:
“The panel instead recommended that the state continue to use roadside sobriety tests to determine if a driver is impaired.”
Why did you make this partisan? People on both sides, or Independent like me, would like to see MJ legalized. You are misinforming again, Craig.
Captain Clown: Name a red state that legalized pot for fun. Now name the blue states that did so. You are so boring. Can’t you even see that?
And your insistence on holding the same position for legalization in the face of new evidence such as schizophrenia, damage to children in the womb, stunted emotional development for young men, the growing Black Market, etc. shows you are a simpleton.
This is what I believe! No matter what the facts say! Just pretend you don’t see new facts! Everybody, close your eyes, now!
FEBRUARY 6, 2019 AT 11:22 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
If you were a fair minded and honest person, here is what you would acknowledge: I don’t insult people until AFTER they insult me first. Go back and look at those comments and what preceeded them.
When someone disagrees with me respectfully, I follow suit.
You see? Civility requires two dance partners. Try it for once.
Craig, what you are suggesting are new facts are in fact, old hat. It’s an intoxicant so OF COURSE there will be those ramifications. Those are not recent discoveries, doctors have known about them for decades if not centuries. Duh! Just like any intoxicant, the person taking it is taking health risk. Who is the simpleton?
When was it concluded that THC was a likely cause of schizophrenia?
Who reported this information first?
When were the studies concluded showing mounting evidence of damage to the unborn?
When was it discovered that legalizing pot for fun would NOT reduce the Black Market, but that in fact the opposite would happen?
When did we discover that THC consumption had gone up over the past 10 years nationally for people under age 21, the people for whom THC is the most dangerous in terms of mental and emotional health?
Answer for the Clown: all of it in the last 4 years, meaning ALL of it since legalization was approved in Colorado. And honest people (don’t worry, I don’t mean you) admit this is all new information about the dangers of THC.
But keep on pushing pot. It is what you are good at. The black community thanks you.
Really, then why does the first page of a search show me a report from 2008 about schizo and MJ? Was 2008 4 years ago? Oh look, another one from 2011. Also 4 years ago. You aren’t worth debating this because you are the one who is dishonest, at best. I’m not even going to address the remainder of your list because it really doesn’t matter what you and I think. What we both know is, this emerging risk is a reality and one we should all focus on in the insurance industry mitigating, controlling, and covering. Take your crusade elsewhere and it may matter to someone.
Medical journals, propaganda films, etc. were reporting the same things back in the 30’s, Craig. Get over yourself. I am sincerely sorry you had a horrific experience with it. Nothing will ever change that. As a father of 3 myself, I have empathy for you.
Mr. Cornell, do you have any idea how many thousands, if not millions, of miles have been driven in the USA over the last 50 years by people who were “stoned,” to use your term? It is ridiculous to assume that this is a new phenomenon because of recent legalization/decriminalization efforts.
Learn something about science, OK? Police can measure blood alcohol content and it correlates to the ability to drive a vehicle safely. There is no similar test that measures the amount of the active ingredient(s) in marijuana that relates to the ability to drive safely. THC is stored in the body and can remain in fatty tissue for up to 30 days, whereas the liver and kidneys remove alcohol from the blood stream in a matter of hours. Scientists know this. Legislators know this. You did not apparently know this.
Geez, if only I was as smart as Dave thinks he is . . . then I wouldn’t have to think about anything at all.
Listen, what you are saying is so self-evident as to be ridiculous.
Legalization is leading to higher usage in states that legalized. Every state reports the same, more use and more driving stoned. That means MORE people will be driving stoned, causing accidents and killing people.
If you are in favor of legalization, you have to be responsible for both the positive and negative consequences. Unless you are an immoral and unthinking. Then you can pretend nothing bad happens ever and take another bong hit.
MARCH 19, 2019 AT 7:57 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
This feels familiar: another long diatribe . . . and around and around we go. (Tell me again. It is pointless and funny.)
So how will this rise in impaired driving due to the legalization of MJ, impact the insurance industry? Will auto policies have to be rewritten? Insureds who have their state’s minimum requirements, will they still be fully covered?
I am not sure I understand the reasons to argue the same exact points on every article relating to MJ, so maybe it’s time to focus on how we, as an industry, can continue to keep insureds fully covered and prepared for the unexpected.
To be clear, I do not want to your political views or opinion on MJ, I am genuinely only interested in the insurance aspect. Thanks.
Liability issues ARE the insurance aspect. Like measuring THC levels in drivers. Like car crashes from people high on THC. What am I missing? If car crashes go up along with greater public usage of THC products, something established by every state that legalized pot for fun, how is any of that NOT relevant to insurance?
That’s fair. I understand you have extensive knowledge on the subject along with insurance, that is my reasoning to asking these tedious questions, since I am new to the industry (my second year).
“If car crashes go up along with greater public usage of THC products”, what impact will this have on the insureds involved in these accidents as well as the insurers? Will people see premiums and the cost of their auto insurance rise? I guess, what will be the outcome as far as insurance goes, is my main question.
Sorry, HQ. This used to be a good site to get answers to insurance questions, and to an extent it still is, however there are a handful of commenters who insist on turning absolutely everything into a political discussion and take genuine pleasure in personally attacking and insulting others with different points of view (and then will completely deny doing so, thus ignoring their own hypocrisy). It’s a real shame, because in many cases they actually have the experience to be a good mentor to you.
I do wish you the absolute best of luck in your career.
Haha no worries. And thank you. I appreciate what you’re saying, but it is the internet after all, so what can you expect.
I know Craig has the knowledge, he just can be a little defensive with his replies. Personally, he has respected me and my comments in the past, so I will do the same.
Honest,
Great question and of course an individual’s rates reflect the decisions they make behind the wheel. Should a carrier see a significant rise in their loss experience, because insurance is social in the fact we all share, then yes, the carrier will most likely pass that loss experience onto their book of insureds via rate increases. This is how DUIs are processed now, along with driver exclusions or probation, depending on the carrier’s appetite. People who responsibly use, as the do with alcohol, will choose not to get behind the wheel. And, if they do and get caught, they will suffer the legal ramifications along with the insurablity ones. I expect SR-22 carriers will see and are seeing a rise in their PIF (policies in force) count, as well as quote activity.
The inevitability MJ will become legal federally in a decade or less (my prediction) places additional focus on autonomous vehicles and what that technology may do to reduce accidents related to driving under the influence. I’m very curious as to how self-driving cars may impact auto rates both for liability and phys dam. You’ll see this is another topic that is widespread here on the IJ forums. Welcome to the industry and I hope you are just as excited to see it evolve as I am. Cheers!
Thank you for the response, Captain. Makes sense that they will be processed similarly to DUI’s involving alcohol since, from an insurance aspect, it is just another form of risk. Unfortunately, even if you do make responsible choices, you are still at risk of others not being so smart.
I am curious about autonomous vehicles as well. Wonder how many people will use their autonomous vehicles as the designated driver and how the laws of driving under the influence will adapt to that kind of change. I guess we may find out here in the near future.
Thank you again!
Yeah, it’s how they have been processed (any intoxicant or RX that warns about driving under the influence, for that matter). DUIs are not just alcohol related. In fact, you can even get them if you don’t regulate your diabetes adequately. But, obviously with MJ becoming legal, some will push the boundaries and we will see an uptick in DUIs as a result. The problem with MJ is many users can mask they fact they are high, which is why I believe we need to have a testing device and legal THC limit much like we do for drinks. Many people who toke up aren’t going to have much problem passing a field sobriety test. We have people high on MJ around us everyday and we don’t even know it. Its effects aren’t near as observable as those as being drunk or ripped on harder drugs.
The time for arguing whether recreational pot is good or bad for America is over. The fact is that it is lawful in several states. What the industry needs to concentrate on, and what Honest was pointing out, is how to respond to the market where risk of MJ is transferred from policyholders to their insurer. How to underwrite the risks associated with MJ that result in unintended consequences (accidents). I think insurers are working on it now, regardless of what others think “should” be lawful or not.
Another dumb comment. Very few states have legalized recre-pot, and hard blue New Jersey just rejected it.
The argument is only beginning. Whether it is good or bad is the ONLY issue regarding legalization. And how bad THC is has direct relevance to insurance; in fact, it is the only issue, how it hurts people. Man, you guys must have hit the bong one too many times to make these comments.
NJ didn’t technically reject it, they postponed the vote.
Oh, c’mon – since when do truth and facts matter?
Fine. Let’s get technical. But they didn’t approve it, did they?
Out here in Cali., lots of left-leaning people are wising up about pot and the damage it can do. Many are asking if legalization was a wise move, since the damage is largely done to the poor and minorities.
Only simple-minded people or people with a weak ego stick to the same position in the face of new information.
JUNE 21, 2018 AT 3:13 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Right. Now that’s a leap of logic only a pothead could make . . .