If there were no harmful effects of use of marijuana, there would be no need for insurance per the article. Everyone knows the best ‘insurance’ against perils is risk avoidance. In this case, overturning any state laws allowing recre-pot, and enforcing federal laws against recre-pot use, are the two greatest means to the desired end.
The Puritans have landed again! Again, the anti-cannabis crowd sweeps past all sorts of ills and dangers in society to pin cannabis to a tree and starts flogging. You are so bent on saving everyone from the “harmful effects” ….and exactly who are you? Are you so awesomely puritanical that you have claimed the moral high ground and are now the arbiter of what we can and can’t do? Do you live such a perfect life or are you yet another rock throwing glass house dweller? Do you also tell many a suffering individual to buck up and go back to the chemicals big pharma cooked up in some lab? The ones they spend 75% of the commercial talking about side effects? Please — get off your high horse, and find something to keep you busy.
Agreed. Time for the government to stop legislating morality and trying to protect us from ourselves. Where in the Constitution does it state the government’s job is to protect the people from themselves?
The Fed Gummint already legislated that recre-pot shall be a controlled substance. No need for new legislation for morality sake, but there is a need to enforce the existing FEDERAL laws equally in ALL states.
The Fed Gummint isn’t ‘protecting us from ourselves’ by Fed legislation; it’s merely protecting us from the stoners who might harm the law-abiding citizens in numerous ways.
@Ron; the US isn’t exempt from following the logic of NOT trying something that failed, and/ or was harmful, in other countries.
December 3, 2018 at 2:10 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
12
Finally, Ron; laws are not intended [only] to “protect people from themselves”, but, mainly, to protect people from actions of others who may harm them due to negligence, greed, carelessness, indifference, etc.
December 3, 2018 at 2:21 pm
helpingout says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
0
Why do you not agree that cannabis should be regulated similar if not exactly the same as Alcohol? Please also use a real reason and not just say the comparison is illogical, because you would be wrong. This comparison is deserved since both are intoxicants and both have been illegal before, and both allow US citizens to put others in danger at times of over indulgence.
Fallacy; equating regulation of alcohol with recre-pot. The latter is proven to destroy cognitive abilities when used for long periods of time. Thus, very different regulation is in order.
December 3, 2018 at 4:50 pm
rob says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
1
Yogi–
I just did a quick google search on “harmful effects of alcohol” and came up with 145 million results.
@rob; GFY. Similar bias. Give up; you’ll never admit that pot destroys cognitive ability, per a recent, valid, credible study in the UK.
December 4, 2018 at 8:05 am
rob says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
1
Polar–
Please see your earlier post:
“PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 3Thumb down 4
Do you have NOTHING but personal attacks to add to these comments? IF so, refrain from posting here so we can discuss matters not persons.”
and now you tell me to GFY for simply disagreeing with you? Your hypocrisy and lack of professionalism is truly stunning.
December 4, 2018 at 8:47 am
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
0
PolarBeaRepeal,
1. Making something legal is getting the government out of the way. Isn’t that what you Conservatives advocate for?
2. No one is saying people who harm others under the influence of any mind or body altering substance should not be held legally and civilly accountable. Punishing those people is where the government should start and stop.
3. Still waiting for someone to cite where in the Constitution it states that it’s the government’s job to protect its citizens from themselves.
December 4, 2018 at 9:54 am
helpingout says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
2
Polar,
Did you review the Harvard report about fake news? If not do not talk about false things when you are clearly biased. The real fake news is fox news and other conservative media outlets due to the lack of oversight and unwillingness to retract stories that were made up or extreme exaggerations of the situation.
Not only that, but alcohol can have an equal if not worse long-term (and short-term) affects due to repeated and constant abuse on the brain. People can also overdose and die from drinking which is a much worse consequence. Again, both are intoxicants, both can cause others to harm people when they overindulge. What actual proof do you have that they should not be equated your points are failing.
December 4, 2018 at 1:54 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
9
@rob; GFY = Good For You. Please explain your issue with that. Jeeves, etc. are trash, and the list of studies you claim override the UK findings actually do not do so. But, I’m glad you can find biased stuff, despite it being invalid to the discussion.
December 4, 2018 at 2:07 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Polar–
“GFY” generally does not mean “good for you”, rather “go f— yourself”, so you can understand my initial offense.
All i said was I found literally millions of articles discussing the harmful effects of alcohol (absolutely relevant to the discussion, as another poster brought up that alcohol is extremely harmful yet legal and regulated), not contradicting the UK study discussing the harmful effects of marijuana. Reading comprehension, dude…You’re obviously a very smart bear; read more carefully next time before spouting your political conspiracies against any search engine that doesn’t immediately redirect a user to Fox News or InfoWars.
For the record, I DO believe marijuana is harmful and have begun educating my daughters on its harm in the event that recre-pot is made legal in our state or any of the surrounding areas.
your apology is accepted.
December 4, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
Prey tell PBR – what search engine do YOU use that doesn’t have biased results in lieu of google, dogpile, askjeeves, and yahoo?
December 3, 2018 at 1:55 pm
UboreMe says:
Like or Dislike:
11
8
Right on cue — enter one Craig Cornell, resident troll. Tell me, is trolling IJ and spewing idiocy your full time job?
I do care to protect innocent people from the harms of marijuana on their long term cognitive health as well as other members of the public from harm due to stoner-caused accidents and mayhem. THAT’S plenty of good public service work on my part. Explain why you think I’d discuss why I don’t do EVERYTHING to prevent EVERY harmful material or process. But, first, tell everyone here that YOU DO SUCH public service regarding EVERYTHING that has harmful effects.
December 5, 2018 at 9:11 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
I don’t pick and choose what potentially harmful substance people should not consume. I prefer people do research and make their own decisions, not the government. Get it?
December 3, 2018 at 12:01 pm
Vox sanitus says:
Like or Dislike:
8
6
Smoking dope should not be unlawful, but it also should not be socially acceptable. It is a vice. To the extent that other vices are insured, why not this one?
in 2016 alone 1,139 people died in falls involving ice-skates, skis, roller-skates or skateboards. Where are Craig and Polar on this?? We need action!! They need to protect us from ourselves and the rest of society from us!!
How stupid do people have to be not to realize that you can die while snow skiing? Seriously? How about you. Do YOU know that is possible? (My guess: no.)
I have been skiing for decades and know that, unless you are irresponsible and reckless, there is no risk of death from that activity. People that die ignore warnings or attempt to ski in conditions beyond their ability, or possibly from a health condition.
This is an assumption because I do not have the data, but I would wager that more people die driving to and from skiing, than the actual activity. Should we ban driving too?
December 5, 2018 at 2:34 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
We can be pretty sure that the ones that died skateboarding were smoking dope and probably roller skating too. I’d say that 1/2 to 1/3 of the skiers were high and ice skaters……..I dunno……..a few ??
Maybe, just maybe, since cannabis is considered a drug and because they intend to regulate it, maybe that’s the reason for all the hysteria ?
So I think the article was about trying to get carriers to take on the risk of the cannabis industry, so let’s talk about that. I build and manage small business insurance products. This article only confirmed our decision to not get involved in the cannabis industry. That decision has nothing to do with whether I think cannabis should be legal or not. We’re a fairly small company (less than $500 million annual DWP) and there is so much uncertainty over regulations and so many plaintiff attorneys ready to sue, we just don’t see much profit potential for us. It is difficult to price a risk when we don’t know what the risk is. So we’ll leave it to someone else for the time being.
Wrong on so many counts!
The issue is uncertainty with the Federal government/administration and the legal status of the product, the inability for the cannabis industry to use the banking system, ( how do you collect premium pay a claim?) and state to state laws/regulatory framework vs a national standard. As with alcohol, use/misuse is probably open and obvious. The old canard of “plaintiff lawyers ready to sue” is traditional insurance carrier BS.
Uh, are you saying I was wrong? I said “uncertainty over regulations” which includes everything you listed. Just didn’t want to make my comment longer by providing those known details. The plaintiff attorney issue is only one of multiple issues why there is questionable profitability in this risk segment.
Don’t know for sure, but I’d say Anne T was having a bad day. LOL. I thought your comments were spot on as did others who visit here.
And, yes, the trial lawyers have probably been convening for months now drafting their scripts for why they are suing.
Anne T – if it weren’t for the “plaintiff lawyers ready to sue” we could price this product using a dart board.
And the cash nature of the risk. The Armed robbery potential is there more then most as they would have a large sum of cash on hand.
Too many unanswered questions. Too many unknowns. .
“It is difficult to price a risk when we don’t know what the risk is.” Agreed (obviously :). Do you think we’ll ever be able to identify the risk in this industry so long as it stays illegal at the Federal Level? I don’t see how the risk could be priced properly in a recreational state knowing it’s still illegal federally.
Perhaps over time there will be enough loss data to develop reliable prices even with the state v federal regulation challenge, but it sure would be easier if the states and feds were on the same page. Anne T highlights the issue above with banking regulations that would be helpful if resolved.
With any new and emerging industry, there are plenty of unknown risks. That is why it is important to formulate coverage forms properly and utilize exclusions in a way that provide coverage for known risks and allows proper pricing.
Over time coverage forms and exclusions can be modified as risks become better known and can be priced accordingly.
Agree. But a small company like mine must be very careful about being first out of the gate on an emerging industry. An example of another emerging industry that has caught some carriers by surprise is the vaping industry. I don’t believe the risk of exploding batteries and the subsequent disfiguring injuries was anticipated properly.
That is an interesting point, but we’re in a weird place where there are lots of people with years and years of experience in the Cannabis industry who were technically operating illegally until recently. The vaping industry really had no grandfathering in of the old guard, as it were. It’s still a tricky new industry and I don’t think anyone can blame you for passing, but it’s an opportunity and as always there will be some who jump at that. Not every agency was in a hurry to start selling EPL insurance, whereas now that’s pretty ubiquitous. Cyber insurance is still rarer than it should be, but you see it more and more every day. Cannabis isn’t going anywhere, as an industry we’re going to have to figure out how to insure it at some point.
So you are actually taking on some of the risk ? Have you considered being a front for someone else ? There are bound to be large insurance companies that do see profit potential that want in but that don’t have what you have – expertise in developing a new insurance niche in a newly developing market and distributing that product.
I see your concern regarding pricing a product with little to no loss experience to guide you. Went through the same thing with EPLI when it first came out and more recently cyber coverage. Both of those products have morphed quite a bit since they were first introduced.
@Rob: – I just Googled ‘Harmful effects of coffee’ and got 60,300,000 hits. ‘Harmful effects of THC’ garnered 60,600,000 hits. This was so much fun that I tried a couple more: Sugar: 41,700,000; Cough Syrup: 69,100,000, and finally, ‘the harmful effects of dark Chocolate’: 7,250,000 hits.
I have no idea where this is going……
The Govt will do what it does. We cant control them folks.
Its like booze, if you dont want to do it, then dont go into the store that sells it.
Medi Pot should absolutely be legal. Recreational pot… to each his own on that.
Recreational Pot – to each his own? Recreational pot turns peoples brain to mush. Employers have a lot of trouble finding people to work because their cognitive function is so bad. Heavy users are victims of scromiting.
I love how you bring up scromiting again agent. This is actually a very rare condition, not like people who throw up from drinking to much almost every day across the US. It does not turn people’s brains into mush either. That is not cemented in any statistically significant data at all. That is just your biased opinion. While it does have more short term loss of memory, the long term affects can affect the brain and cause some minor damages. Alcohol can do the same and can have even worse consequences, but people drink recreationally every day. Not only that but way more individuals drink then smoke. Please have a real response in lieu of an attack. I would love to talk about this reasonably if you can do that.
Combination of events have swallowed up my time. Getting the house back together after the tornado damage with a new producer that came in flying right put of the gates, putting the marketing campaigns in place for next year with the soft market. and my desire to take advantage of it has got me working more and yutzing around less. …
Not to mention a lack of articles I could care less about. With Mi legalizing it and my close proximity to the UP have this subject hitting close to home, so….
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The Puritans have landed again! Again, the anti-cannabis crowd sweeps past all sorts of ills and dangers in society to pin cannabis to a tree and starts flogging. You are so bent on saving everyone from the “harmful effects” ….and exactly who are you? Are you so awesomely puritanical that you have claimed the moral high ground and are now the arbiter of what we can and can’t do? Do you live such a perfect life or are you yet another rock throwing glass house dweller? Do you also tell many a suffering individual to buck up and go back to the chemicals big pharma cooked up in some lab? The ones they spend 75% of the commercial talking about side effects? Please — get off your high horse, and find something to keep you busy.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Craig,
Agreed. Time for the government to stop legislating morality and trying to protect us from ourselves. Where in the Constitution does it state the government’s job is to protect the people from themselves?
It begs the question: “why haven’t other countries tried to legalize all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc.”
Oh, yeah. They did try. Didn’t work.
This is the United States of America, period. I really could not care less what any other country has tried.
Are you agreeing with me that the Constitution does not mandate the government to protect its citizens from themselves?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Finally, Ron; laws are not intended [only] to “protect people from themselves”, but, mainly, to protect people from actions of others who may harm them due to negligence, greed, carelessness, indifference, etc.
Why do you not agree that cannabis should be regulated similar if not exactly the same as Alcohol? Please also use a real reason and not just say the comparison is illogical, because you would be wrong. This comparison is deserved since both are intoxicants and both have been illegal before, and both allow US citizens to put others in danger at times of over indulgence.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yogi–
I just did a quick google search on “harmful effects of alcohol” and came up with 145 million results.
Try again.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
just tried dogpile, askjeeves, and yahoo. similar results.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar–
Please see your earlier post:
“PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 3Thumb down 4
Do you have NOTHING but personal attacks to add to these comments? IF so, refrain from posting here so we can discuss matters not persons.”
and now you tell me to GFY for simply disagreeing with you? Your hypocrisy and lack of professionalism is truly stunning.
PolarBeaRepeal,
1. Making something legal is getting the government out of the way. Isn’t that what you Conservatives advocate for?
2. No one is saying people who harm others under the influence of any mind or body altering substance should not be held legally and civilly accountable. Punishing those people is where the government should start and stop.
3. Still waiting for someone to cite where in the Constitution it states that it’s the government’s job to protect its citizens from themselves.
Polar,
Did you review the Harvard report about fake news? If not do not talk about false things when you are clearly biased. The real fake news is fox news and other conservative media outlets due to the lack of oversight and unwillingness to retract stories that were made up or extreme exaggerations of the situation.
Not only that, but alcohol can have an equal if not worse long-term (and short-term) affects due to repeated and constant abuse on the brain. People can also overdose and die from drinking which is a much worse consequence. Again, both are intoxicants, both can cause others to harm people when they overindulge. What actual proof do you have that they should not be equated your points are failing.
@rob; GFY = Good For You. Please explain your issue with that. Jeeves, etc. are trash, and the list of studies you claim override the UK findings actually do not do so. But, I’m glad you can find biased stuff, despite it being invalid to the discussion.
Polar–
“GFY” generally does not mean “good for you”, rather “go f— yourself”, so you can understand my initial offense.
All i said was I found literally millions of articles discussing the harmful effects of alcohol (absolutely relevant to the discussion, as another poster brought up that alcohol is extremely harmful yet legal and regulated), not contradicting the UK study discussing the harmful effects of marijuana. Reading comprehension, dude…You’re obviously a very smart bear; read more carefully next time before spouting your political conspiracies against any search engine that doesn’t immediately redirect a user to Fox News or InfoWars.
For the record, I DO believe marijuana is harmful and have begun educating my daughters on its harm in the event that recre-pot is made legal in our state or any of the surrounding areas.
your apology is accepted.
Prey tell PBR – what search engine do YOU use that doesn’t have biased results in lieu of google, dogpile, askjeeves, and yahoo?
Right on cue — enter one Craig Cornell, resident troll. Tell me, is trolling IJ and spewing idiocy your full time job?
Do you have NOTHING but personal attacks to add to these comments? IF so, refrain from posting here so we can discuss matters not persons.
PolarBeaRepeal,
If you are so concerned about people, why are you not willing to lead the charge against everything that has harmful effects?
Because I’m busy fishing for my meals.
Proof that you don’t actually care.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I don’t pick and choose what potentially harmful substance people should not consume. I prefer people do research and make their own decisions, not the government. Get it?
Smoking dope should not be unlawful, but it also should not be socially acceptable. It is a vice. To the extent that other vices are insured, why not this one?
in 2016 alone 1,139 people died in falls involving ice-skates, skis, roller-skates or skateboards. Where are Craig and Polar on this?? We need action!! They need to protect us from ourselves and the rest of society from us!!
Darwin provided a perfectly good treatise on those matters.
Are you embarrassed to make such dumb comments? When someone can see the hazard they assume the risk.
Pray tell: what do you see as the hazard from consumption of pot? And how do you know everyone else sees the hazard when polls say the opposite?
Should we distribute pharmaceutical drugs without warnings like we do for pot?
People do not engage in those activities thinking they may die. Injuries, maybe. But not death.
That is the point. Just because somebody does not know all of the potential hazards, doesn’t mean the government should step in.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I have been skiing for decades and know that, unless you are irresponsible and reckless, there is no risk of death from that activity. People that die ignore warnings or attempt to ski in conditions beyond their ability, or possibly from a health condition.
This is an assumption because I do not have the data, but I would wager that more people die driving to and from skiing, than the actual activity. Should we ban driving too?
We can be pretty sure that the ones that died skateboarding were smoking dope and probably roller skating too. I’d say that 1/2 to 1/3 of the skiers were high and ice skaters……..I dunno……..a few ??
Maybe, just maybe, since cannabis is considered a drug and because they intend to regulate it, maybe that’s the reason for all the hysteria ?
Tom: It’s a “Jump to Conclusions Mat”. You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Michael Bolton: That is the worst idea I’ve ever heard.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
So I think the article was about trying to get carriers to take on the risk of the cannabis industry, so let’s talk about that. I build and manage small business insurance products. This article only confirmed our decision to not get involved in the cannabis industry. That decision has nothing to do with whether I think cannabis should be legal or not. We’re a fairly small company (less than $500 million annual DWP) and there is so much uncertainty over regulations and so many plaintiff attorneys ready to sue, we just don’t see much profit potential for us. It is difficult to price a risk when we don’t know what the risk is. So we’ll leave it to someone else for the time being.
Wrong on so many counts!
The issue is uncertainty with the Federal government/administration and the legal status of the product, the inability for the cannabis industry to use the banking system, ( how do you collect premium pay a claim?) and state to state laws/regulatory framework vs a national standard. As with alcohol, use/misuse is probably open and obvious. The old canard of “plaintiff lawyers ready to sue” is traditional insurance carrier BS.
Uh, are you saying I was wrong? I said “uncertainty over regulations” which includes everything you listed. Just didn’t want to make my comment longer by providing those known details. The plaintiff attorney issue is only one of multiple issues why there is questionable profitability in this risk segment.
Don’t know for sure, but I’d say Anne T was having a bad day. LOL. I thought your comments were spot on as did others who visit here.
And, yes, the trial lawyers have probably been convening for months now drafting their scripts for why they are suing.
Anne T – if it weren’t for the “plaintiff lawyers ready to sue” we could price this product using a dart board.
And the cash nature of the risk. The Armed robbery potential is there more then most as they would have a large sum of cash on hand.
Too many unanswered questions. Too many unknowns. .
Thank you for bringing this back to the topic.
“It is difficult to price a risk when we don’t know what the risk is.” Agreed (obviously :). Do you think we’ll ever be able to identify the risk in this industry so long as it stays illegal at the Federal Level? I don’t see how the risk could be priced properly in a recreational state knowing it’s still illegal federally.
Perhaps over time there will be enough loss data to develop reliable prices even with the state v federal regulation challenge, but it sure would be easier if the states and feds were on the same page. Anne T highlights the issue above with banking regulations that would be helpful if resolved.
With any new and emerging industry, there are plenty of unknown risks. That is why it is important to formulate coverage forms properly and utilize exclusions in a way that provide coverage for known risks and allows proper pricing.
Over time coverage forms and exclusions can be modified as risks become better known and can be priced accordingly.
Agree. But a small company like mine must be very careful about being first out of the gate on an emerging industry. An example of another emerging industry that has caught some carriers by surprise is the vaping industry. I don’t believe the risk of exploding batteries and the subsequent disfiguring injuries was anticipated properly.
That is an interesting point, but we’re in a weird place where there are lots of people with years and years of experience in the Cannabis industry who were technically operating illegally until recently. The vaping industry really had no grandfathering in of the old guard, as it were. It’s still a tricky new industry and I don’t think anyone can blame you for passing, but it’s an opportunity and as always there will be some who jump at that. Not every agency was in a hurry to start selling EPL insurance, whereas now that’s pretty ubiquitous. Cyber insurance is still rarer than it should be, but you see it more and more every day. Cannabis isn’t going anywhere, as an industry we’re going to have to figure out how to insure it at some point.
RE: ” I don’t believe the risk of exploding batteries and the subsequent disfiguring injuries was anticipated properly.”
If a thorough hazard analysis was done by a competent person or persons, that hazard and resultant potential BI should have been identified.
So you are actually taking on some of the risk ? Have you considered being a front for someone else ? There are bound to be large insurance companies that do see profit potential that want in but that don’t have what you have – expertise in developing a new insurance niche in a newly developing market and distributing that product.
I see your concern regarding pricing a product with little to no loss experience to guide you. Went through the same thing with EPLI when it first came out and more recently cyber coverage. Both of those products have morphed quite a bit since they were first introduced.
@Rob: – I just Googled ‘Harmful effects of coffee’ and got 60,300,000 hits. ‘Harmful effects of THC’ garnered 60,600,000 hits. This was so much fun that I tried a couple more: Sugar: 41,700,000; Cough Syrup: 69,100,000, and finally, ‘the harmful effects of dark Chocolate’: 7,250,000 hits.
I have no idea where this is going……
The Govt will do what it does. We cant control them folks.
Its like booze, if you dont want to do it, then dont go into the store that sells it.
Medi Pot should absolutely be legal. Recreational pot… to each his own on that.
Recreational Pot – to each his own? Recreational pot turns peoples brain to mush. Employers have a lot of trouble finding people to work because their cognitive function is so bad. Heavy users are victims of scromiting.
I love how you bring up scromiting again agent. This is actually a very rare condition, not like people who throw up from drinking to much almost every day across the US. It does not turn people’s brains into mush either. That is not cemented in any statistically significant data at all. That is just your biased opinion. While it does have more short term loss of memory, the long term affects can affect the brain and cause some minor damages. Alcohol can do the same and can have even worse consequences, but people drink recreationally every day. Not only that but way more individuals drink then smoke. Please have a real response in lieu of an attack. I would love to talk about this reasonably if you can do that.
Or, you know, just claim anything that disagrees with your personal values is biased and fake. Plenty of that going on around here.
I guess that is why I don’t watch much news anymore. I don’t know what to believe any more.
hope all is well with you, FFA. good to see you posting on here again
Combination of events have swallowed up my time. Getting the house back together after the tornado damage with a new producer that came in flying right put of the gates, putting the marketing campaigns in place for next year with the soft market. and my desire to take advantage of it has got me working more and yutzing around less. …
Not to mention a lack of articles I could care less about. With Mi legalizing it and my close proximity to the UP have this subject hitting close to home, so….
Merry Christmas to you and yours FFA. Hope your wife is doing better these days and your agency continues to do well.
FFA, the good news is your Bears are doing great this year. The bad news is the Packers are not and just fired their coach.