Not one single mention of any of the liability hazards of insuring pot growers and sellers. Not one. Instead, it’s the Federal Government’s fault and those evil greedy reinsurers. Oh yeah, THAT’s the problem.
Maybe insurance companies are rational business people who see the growing risks of litigation surrounding pot, the risks hidden and lied about by the Pot Fans. You know, risk of IQ loss from casual use (CNN article, 2014), the growing connection to violence in Washington and Colorado (NY Times, 2018), car accidents from people high on THC, the pathetic, brief “warnings” issued by sellers in states that legalized pot for fun.
Maybe insurance companies don’t want to be on the other side of lawsuits that pit mothers and their brain damaged children against pot sellers for failing to warn of the actual dangers to the unborn child. Maybe insurers want to avoid the coming lawsuits from people who became mentally ill from using pot.
Nah. It’s the Federal government’s fault . . .
More great journalism from the Insurance Journal. Fascinating, in depth reporting, as always.
Loud annoying gong Craig still waging jihad against the legal weed biz…. yawn. To answer your equally annoying question, the article is about the insurance MARKET. It’s about a report done by AmBest – a company known for many things but final arbiter of the pros and cons of cannabis is not one of them. You are wrapped a bit too tight for 2019, Craig. Take 10mg of THC and call UberEats in the morning.
More fascinating perspective from Baron and the Pro Pot crowd.
Hey B., lets hear your reasons an insurance company should ignore the issues I raise. Instead of exposing yourself as just another internet numbskull with insults instead of insights, surprise us and say something intelligent that is on point.
Because if you think liability exposures aren’t germane to writing liability insurance, I don’t think you are in the right business. (P.S. Every issue I mentioned is true. Try that as a starting point. Truth.)
You’re upset. I understand. And there I am triggering you. My apologies, sir. Ya, I saw this marijuana piece on IJ today and I thought “oh boy – Craig’s gonna be mad. Hope he took his Lisinopril today”.
But why not bug AMBest about their failure to address YOUR concerns and appease YOU in their report about insurance markets in a specific insurance segment? Here, lemme help:
AM Best
Ambest Road
Oldwick, NJ 08858
908-439-2200
Wrong again. I’m not upset at all when people make fools of themselves, reveal their ignorance of a topic, resort strictly to insults because their head is empty.
It makes me feel sad for them. What small people, with tiny brains. As Trumpsky would say, “sad”.
(providing a mirror for craig to look into when he re-reads his post)
March 15, 2019 at 11:41 am
Baron Harkonnen says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
And here I thought Craig had thoroughly tsk-tsk’ed character assassination. Nope – here comes Agent to Craig’s defense, honking wildly and with flailing arms as only Beto could do it. Agent, I hope you are the puritan you think you are and have never used alcohol, tobacco and certain prescription drugs. Or ARE you a hypocrite?
March 15, 2019 at 11:44 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
Hey Agent,
OCTOBER 18, 2018 AT 7:51 PM
Andrew G. Simpson says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
I repeat….
The editors of Insurance Journal appreciate your interest in our website and that you have chosen to participate in our comment section.
We are trying to clean up the forum and would welcome your cooperation along with that of all other regular posters. Please help us by setting an example.
We respectfully request that all commenters refrain from insults towards one another, avoid profanities and show respect for others at all times. If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it. Those who engage in such behaviors ruin the forum experience for the majority who follow the rules of civil discourse. Comments that disrespect others will be deleted.
Andrew Simpson
Chief Content Officer
Wells Media Group
March 15, 2019 at 10:23 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
If we can underwrite alcohol, we can underwrite MJ. I am in the food and ag sector. The reason why there aren’t markets for this exposure is solely because it is still federally illegal. Otherwise, we’d be taking on the risk. The Man is the only reason why we aren’t comfortable getting our toes wet. My prediction is within the next decade, this will be federally legal and we will have a new industry to insure.
Sounds great. Since you are so confident in having assessed the future litigation possibilities of pot (the same as alcohol, man, which has been around for thousands of years), how about this:
Please start an insurance company of your own, to show all those other insurance companies how stupid they are not to underwrite pot. Let me know when your insurance company is up and running. I plan to buy lots of the stock.
Funny you say start your own insurance company. That’s exactly what we did, from scratch no premium and no contracts, 10+ years ago. we average an annual ROE north of 12%. We are in The Fortune 500.
MARCH 14, 2019 AT 2:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
POORLY-RATED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wrong again. I’m not upset at all when people make fools of themselves, reveal their ignorance of a topic, resort strictly to insults because their head is empty.
It makes me feel sad for them. What small people, with tiny brains. As Trumpsky would say, “sad”.
March 15, 2019 at 1:42 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Here’s your hat back, Craig.
March 15, 2019 at 3:47 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Craig,
Do you understand how long cannabis has been used in history? Here goes some of the first known uses of cannabis in the world’s history!
“8,000+ BCE Use of hemp cord in pottery identified at ancient village site dating back over 10,000 years, located in the area of modern day Taiwan. Finding hemp use and cultivation in this date range puts it as one of the first and oldest known human agriculture crops. As explained by Richard Hamilton in the 2009 Scientific American article on sustainable agriculture “Modern humans emerged some 250,000 years ago, yet agriculture is a fairly recent invention, only about 10,000 years old … Agriculture is not natural; it is a human invention. It is also the basis of modern civilization.” This point was also touched on by Carl Sagan in 1977 when he proposed the possibility that marijuana may have actually been world’s first agricultural crop, leading to the development of civilization itself
6,000 BCE Cannabis seeds and oil used for food in China.
4,000 BCE Textiles made of hemp are used in China and Turkestan. ”
I just hope you seriously do not believe cannabis is a new thing that popped up during the most recent millennium.
Just to give you something else, the first recorded use of cannabis was below.
“Fermented beverages existed in early Egyptian civilization, and there is evidence of an early alcoholic drink in China around 7000 B.C. In India, an alcoholic beverage called sura, distilled from rice, was in use between 3000 and 2000 B.C”
March 14, 2019 at 2:08 pm
Jack King says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
1
I think the Insurers will lighten up after they smoke a few joints or ingest some edibles.
Interesting. Would an insurer want to take on the tobacco industry today? For the right price perhaps, but the potential legal issues involved with the pot industry parallel that experienced by tobacco, even if it is long term (possible lung issues, etc) we will be looking at. I can see some big money on the table here for a company(s) that can both market and underwrite this industry, get educated brokers!!
Would writing an insurance policy cause any coverage/claims issues given the fact the federal government still lists this as an illegal narcotic. Wouldn’t coverage typically be denied for knowingly violating the law? Granted insurance departments are run by the state and apply to state law, but typically state law does follow federal law.
Unlike alcohol or smoking where you can smell a person’s use, it takes a blood test to determine if one has consumed marijuana. Also, the effects of marijuana can linger for days affecting a person’s judgment, response time, and personality. Once it becomes legal there will be an increase in auto accidents and greater use of guns in the commission of crime … and more people will die. Once legalized employer control will be limited, law enforcement will be limited, and everyone will need to be more aware of the negative effects in their day-to-day dealings with people.
A Wells Media Group approved/peanut free response: Bob, how did you arrive at this one: …greater use of guns in the commission of crime…. Sounds alot like spitballing if not fear mongering. Would also like to ask your opinion: When adult use is legalized in any given locale, how many people, in your estimation, will decide to begin using cannabis products containing THC? Given that users who have imbibed since before legality will surely continue to do so after prohibition is lifted, how many new users do you think will take it up? Thanks.
Baron,
What is your stance on the legalization of MJ? Are you viewing it from an insurance or a personal standpoint?
Excuse my bombardment of questions, but If it becomes legal at a federal level, do you think the market, both black and white will see significant changes?
I am just curious as to your perspective on the matter, not trying to provoke or argue. Thanks
I am for legalization. I am also for strong state regulation, which this industry is amenable to. I view the issue from both an insurance standpoint and to a lesser extent personal. I have not had much interest in it over the years as a user but have occasionally. The rest is a nagging libertarian element, a belief in personal responsibility and a nostalgic ideal of freedom. Please clarify this for me: ..do you think the market, both black and white will see significant changes..
To clarify my last question; If and when MJ becomes federally legal, do you think the black market will be as prominent of an issue in some states as it currently is? Or will the legal market eventually weed out (no pun intended) the people still operating illegally?
March 15, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Baron Harkonnen says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Honest: IMHO, the black market will not be as prominent and may eventually go away completely. 1. The black market has a hard time matching the quality, consistency and potency of the legal market 2. Users who can easily walk in and buy legal weed will not have enough price/quality/consistency incentive to break the law and buy illegally 3. Black market operators will lose profit margin quickly due to 1 and 2 effectively ending the black market.
March 15, 2019 at 1:25 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
6
Are your seriously interested in the connection between legalized recreational pot and increasing violence? So was the NY Times reporter:
at this point, the only bet I’d take is that the comment section for this article will be disabled by the end of the day. Let’s all try and act like adults, mmm’kay?
Truly a dumb response. Whether or not it is federally legal has nothing to do with insuring it in states where it IS legal. Absolutely pointless excuse-making by Captain Pointless. Again.
Well, that is our stance and we don’t care if you like it or not. We aren’t a market for something that is federally illegal. What does it matter to you, anyhow?
helpingout: Actually, I know far more about cannabis than you do, and yes, I DO know it has been used for a long time, if only by a very small percentage of people (unlike today, where a mass experiment is going on with millions using it for years, something brand new in history, and so we don’t know what the outcomes will be).
For example, there are multiple reports from 100 years ago that cannabis made people psychotic. From India in particular. The original laws in England and the United States to ban cannabis originated from the fact that there were many reported cases of people becoming dangerously psychotic when using cannabis in England and the United States.
Did YOU know that? My guess. Nope. (And you certainly would never admit it if you did.)
I like how your response to you saying alcohol has been around for thousands of years, implying that cannabis has not is to say you automatically know more than others on this site with your vast anecdotal evidence that is easily dismissed because it is not significant. Especially being most of it is personal or you talking to people who profit off others addictions (even if they are trying to help people similar to alcohol).
You truly know about as much as a normal person. Scratch that. You know less than a the normal person and all you show is how your opinion is screwed due to being in the area of the war on drugs. nice try old man Craig. Can’t wait for others to pass you up, similar to how they show you up on this site almost every day.
You say you don’t attack others without being attacked first, which everyone knows is bull. You did it to Baron here on this thread. Truth is not a Craig value.
Let’s have a test. You make a statement on Pot that you think is true. Then I will debunk it with a link to respected research. Game? Or just another liar on the internet.
1) There is no valid test akin to a breathalizer to prove if someone was driving high
2) Marijuana used to be legal in the USA
3) Currently, legal marijuana is safer than black market marijuana because there’s testing for harmful substances, such as pesticides
4) There has been no evidence that any type of legal marijuana has contained any type of pesticide in it
3) The majority of people who use marijuana and “graduate” to harder drugs started drinking alcohol before they smoked pot
4) The majority of illegal marijuana from Mexico comes through legal points of entries
5) Marijuana (CBD, not THC) provides positive health benefits to people who suffer from seizures, especially kids
6) Marijuana (CBD, not THC) has been proven to increase appetite, which helps people who suffer from the negative impacts of chemotherapy
Now please pick one and debunk it ****with a link to respected research****
Number (4) Absolutely ludicrous. Impossible to prove. It’s like saying the number of illegals caught at the border can accurately project the number that get through without being caught. No research needed at all to prove this statement is just stupid on the face.
The rest of your comments avoid any serious issues. CBD is NOT the issue and you know it. Congratulations, you brave liberal.
What about addiction, psychosis, mental illness, loss of IQ, damage to the unborn, loss of motivation, connection to violence in Washington and Colorado, impact on minority kids, impaired emotional development especially in young men, the expanding black market in states that legalized, more dead in car accidents due to THC intoxication . . .?
March 20, 2019 at 1:21 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Is #4 really impossible to prove?
What about the DEA’s 2018 Drug Threat Assessment which found the majority of drugs come in illegally over the southern border are coming in through ports of entry? Unlike you, I have a link:
http s://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18%202018%20NDTA%20final%20low%20resolution.pdf
Should we ignore what Trump’s DEA has to say about this topic?
What about testimony from Tirso Martinez Sanchez? What about the testimony from Vicente Zambada? “Mexican families were hired to drive cars with secret compartments across the border at Juarez, sometimes three or four times a day,”
You posted “You make a statement on Pot that you think is true. Then I will debunk it with a link to respected research” I gave you 6 statements, none of which you debunked with any research.
How about you focus on just one: “The majority of people who use marijuana and “graduate” to harder drugs started drinking alcohol before they smoked pot.”
Give us a link to respected research proving that statement is false.
March 20, 2019 at 2:29 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
That’s like telling me about the dangers of non-alcoholic beer when the issue at hand is the dangers of alcohol. You know, avoid the issue by talking about things that don’t matter. You are being silly again.
March 20, 2019 at 2:37 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
You are so dishonest, Rosenblatt. here is a direct quote from the link. See if you understand that the phrase “between ports of entry” means NOT through ports of entry:
“Unlike other illicit drugs, the majority of marijuana smuggled
into the United States occurs between the ports of entry on both the northern and southern borders.”
March 20, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I 100% agree the paragraph you cited was in the link I provided. However, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING that paragraph there are three sub-bullets which provide examples relating to the paragraph you cited. They are:
*In May 2018, CPB in Texas seized almost 80 kilograms of marijuana that was concealed within various pieces of wooden furniture, 27 kilo- grams of marijuana from a modified propane tank mounted in the bed of a pick-up truck, and approximately 350 kilograms of marijuana con- cealed within cement blocks that
were wrapped and sealed in pallets. (See Figure 106)
*In May 2018, DEA San Diego seized approximately 23,000 pounds of marijuana from a tractor-trailer located in Calexico, CA.
*In June 2018, CBP seized almost 15,000 pounds of marijuana from a tractor-trailer attempting to enter the United States from Mexco at the Otay Mesa, CA POE.
Are you really saying those three bullet points which ELABORATE on the paragraph you cited are talking about marijuana which did NOT come through the normal points of entry?
If you are, I’m baffled at your lack of knowledge about how paragraphs and their immediate sub-bullets work in relation to each other. If you can’t understand how bullets relate to the text which comes before it, I have no idea how you’re able to properly read an insurance policy.
March 20, 2019 at 3:19 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Have some pride, man.
You said “the majority of illegal marijuana from Mexico comes through legal ports of entries.” YOUR WORDS.
The article said the EXACT OPPOSITE, “the majority is smuggled BETWEEN the ports of entry.” THEIR WORDS.
Man Up and admit you lied. Stop spinning; I am too intelligent and honest to fall for it.
March 20, 2019 at 4:13 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I’ll jump in here now. Craig you said, “Then I will debunk it with a link to respected research. Game? Or just another liar on the internet.” so where are YOUR links to debunk #4.
your failure to also read the subsequent bullet points giving a more in depth look into what they were referencing in the paragraph above (giving a detailed account of what between truly meant). This is only highlighting your inability to comprehend reports that are put out
March 20, 2019 at 4:24 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
helpingout, I don’t know why I even reply to you. Your powers of logic need a lot of work. You never even replied to my question to you about the reasons marijuana was originally banned. Embarrassed to admit you didn’t know it because of psychosis or embarrassed to admit that you did know that?
Everyone knows the issues with marijuana are with THC. No one with a brain is concerned about CBDs.
Rosenblatt made inane comments, and he was flat wrong about the one about illegal imports of pot. Read the report yourself. But can he admit he was wrong? No. He’s a liberal.
Let me do my Rosenblatt imitation about marijuana:
1. Marijuana is a plant.
2. Marijuana grows in the ground.
3. Marijuana has leaves and stems.
Rosenblatt: “Okay, Craig. Show me links to dispute THAT!”
March 20, 2019 at 4:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig – I am not wrong about what the DEA report is saying.
If the bullet points talked about how marijuana came into the country through methods that did not involve legally crossing the border, say through tunnels or catapult, I would admit I’m wrong.
It’s painfully clear to anyone who has even the most basic of reading comprehension skills that the bullet points I just posted, which immediately followed and expanded upon the paragraph you cited, were obviously talking about how illegal marijuana came into this country via legal points of entry.
March 20, 2019 at 5:35 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Craig,
I love how whenever anyone says hey Craig you did not do what you said your response is well I like how you did not respond to my previous truly unrelated claim about a lie that was told to push something through!
While yes of course people made up reasons why it was first banned, in reality (it was admitted in a report by the person who spearheaded the Nixon War on Drugs) that it was really to stop immigrants and the lower class from using cannabis. Below I quoted an answer from drugpolicy.org
“Mexican immigrants referred to this plant as “marihuana”. While Americans were very familiar with “cannabis” because it was present in almost all tinctures and medicines available at the time, the word “marihuana” was a foreign term. So, when the media began to play on the fears that the public had about these new citizens by falsely spreading claims about the “disruptive Mexicans” with their dangerous native behaviors including marihuana use, the rest of the nation did not know that this “marihuana” was a plant they already had in their medicine cabinets.
The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco’s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants.”
But yes it was only because of medical reasons right?? On top of this your last 3 points are not equivalent to what Rosen did, but I think Rosen brought up a wonderful point with #4. You disagreed with that point, but you did not provide a link like you said you were going to. I called you up now grow up and admit it (even to yourself if your ego can’t handle it) that you were wrong.
March 22, 2019 at 9:40 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig’s silence is golden. I’ll re-purpose a couple of the things he said to me just in this thread alone:
You are so dishonest, Craig. Man Up and admit you were wrong. Stop spinning; We are too intelligent and honest to fall for it.
March 21, 2019 at 5:37 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
What was the first city in the county to outlaw marijuana. It was El Paso, Texas. And it was strictly racial. Supposedly only the Mexicans smoked it. Google it.
Craig, the pot that is being smoked today is many more times stronger than the pot smoked 20 years ago. It leads to scromiting and to much stronger drugs which eventually kills them.
Federal law has everything to do why traditional markets won’t write this stuff. Anyone questioning such should reach out to the legal departments at AIG, Chubb or any number of the A++ rated markets.
That makes no sense at all. So let’s say the Feds. apply the law and start shutting down Pot Shops in states that legalized recreational pot (which is never, ever going to happen, but let’s pretend for fun).
What would the exposure be to the insurance companies that wrote insurance for those Pot Shops? Nothing. The shops go out of business, premiums stop getting paid, and the policies are cancelled.
This is the same exposure insurance companies have in a recession with thousands of businesses and yet all those businesses can get multiple quotes. Get real.
Craig,
Not the same exposure at all. There is one glaring difference – those thousands of businesses aren’t peddling a product that is federally illegal. Jeffrey is right and you are wrong, plain and simple. Traditional markets including ours and all of our agribusiness carrying competitors (Chubb Agri to name one) are sitting this one out until it becomes federally legal. We are also an A++ Superior rated market.
None of what you said addresses the issue: what difference does Federal legality make? Seriously. The Feds aren’t coming after ANY growers or distributors now under a Republican Administration. What makes you think they will? And even if they did, so what?
A++ Superior? Whatever. Has nothing to do with the issue at all.
What’s the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? MONEY. Most carriers and reinsurers are sitting out because the money (Craig, that means premiums) that will eventually flow to them originated in the trade of an illicit (federally speaking) drug. The size of the opportunity is still not quite big enough to overcome the fear – no matter how unlikely – of a very public raid on their company. To those companies I say be afraid – be very afraid and let the intrepid carriers and MGAs establish a beachhead, promote a brand, innovate on the product side and capture market share. And then try not to be Netscaped….
I have no idea what that means. “public raid on their company”????
By who? The public?
Man, you lefties can sure spin some tales. The legitimate liability exposures are damage to the people using the product. Ignoring that is like ignoring car accidents when you decide to underwriter car insurance.
March 19, 2019 at 2:11 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
First of all, registered Independent here and my golf clubs are right handed, so not sure what “lefty” means if you’re referring to me.
And until those liability exposures are federally legal, we don’t care to underwrite them. But, once they are, those exposures will certainly fit the appetite we have for severity. We have told our partners as such and they know we will be open for business in that market once that day comes. Severity is the world we live in every day, the world we insure everyday, the world we build a profitable book of business with everyday. We are writing classes of business that have much more potential for severity loss. We are talking death as a direct result of being in that class of operation. We do what we can to help our insureds reduce the likelihood of severity losses, as well as frequency, which is one reason why we operate at the level we do. We’d be looking to insure the growers and manufacturers, that is the space that attracts our expertise.
March 19, 2019 at 7:57 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
This feels familiar: another long diatribe from Captain Kangaroo with ZERO explanation about why the Federal law has ANY impact on the liability insurance exposure . . . and around and around we go. (Tell me again you are A-rated. It is pointless and funny.)
Why can’t liberals answer a simple question, especially the kind that fashion themselves as “independent”?
Craig, the answer is si,ple. Criminal acts by the insured are excluded from coverage. However, carriers are not keen to litigate the point and therefore are sitting out of the market at this time.
Federal law has everything to do why traditional markets won’t write this stuff. Anyone questioning such should reach out to the legal departments at AIG.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Loud annoying gong Craig still waging jihad against the legal weed biz…. yawn. To answer your equally annoying question, the article is about the insurance MARKET. It’s about a report done by AmBest – a company known for many things but final arbiter of the pros and cons of cannabis is not one of them. You are wrapped a bit too tight for 2019, Craig. Take 10mg of THC and call UberEats in the morning.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You’re upset. I understand. And there I am triggering you. My apologies, sir. Ya, I saw this marijuana piece on IJ today and I thought “oh boy – Craig’s gonna be mad. Hope he took his Lisinopril today”.
But why not bug AMBest about their failure to address YOUR concerns and appease YOU in their report about insurance markets in a specific insurance segment? Here, lemme help:
AM Best
Ambest Road
Oldwick, NJ 08858
908-439-2200
Tootles,
B
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
(providing a mirror for craig to look into when he re-reads his post)
And here I thought Craig had thoroughly tsk-tsk’ed character assassination. Nope – here comes Agent to Craig’s defense, honking wildly and with flailing arms as only Beto could do it. Agent, I hope you are the puritan you think you are and have never used alcohol, tobacco and certain prescription drugs. Or ARE you a hypocrite?
Hey Agent,
OCTOBER 18, 2018 AT 7:51 PM
Andrew G. Simpson says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
I repeat….
The editors of Insurance Journal appreciate your interest in our website and that you have chosen to participate in our comment section.
We are trying to clean up the forum and would welcome your cooperation along with that of all other regular posters. Please help us by setting an example.
We respectfully request that all commenters refrain from insults towards one another, avoid profanities and show respect for others at all times. If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it. Those who engage in such behaviors ruin the forum experience for the majority who follow the rules of civil discourse. Comments that disrespect others will be deleted.
Andrew Simpson
Chief Content Officer
Wells Media Group
If we can underwrite alcohol, we can underwrite MJ. I am in the food and ag sector. The reason why there aren’t markets for this exposure is solely because it is still federally illegal. Otherwise, we’d be taking on the risk. The Man is the only reason why we aren’t comfortable getting our toes wet. My prediction is within the next decade, this will be federally legal and we will have a new industry to insure.
The over/under is 2.5 years to federal legality
Sounds great. Since you are so confident in having assessed the future litigation possibilities of pot (the same as alcohol, man, which has been around for thousands of years), how about this:
Please start an insurance company of your own, to show all those other insurance companies how stupid they are not to underwrite pot. Let me know when your insurance company is up and running. I plan to buy lots of the stock.
And then short all of it.
Funny you say start your own insurance company. That’s exactly what we did, from scratch no premium and no contracts, 10+ years ago. we average an annual ROE north of 12%. We are in The Fortune 500.
MARCH 14, 2019 AT 2:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
POORLY-RATED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wrong again. I’m not upset at all when people make fools of themselves, reveal their ignorance of a topic, resort strictly to insults because their head is empty.
It makes me feel sad for them. What small people, with tiny brains. As Trumpsky would say, “sad”.
Here’s your hat back, Craig.
Craig,
Do you understand how long cannabis has been used in history? Here goes some of the first known uses of cannabis in the world’s history!
“8,000+ BCE Use of hemp cord in pottery identified at ancient village site dating back over 10,000 years, located in the area of modern day Taiwan. Finding hemp use and cultivation in this date range puts it as one of the first and oldest known human agriculture crops. As explained by Richard Hamilton in the 2009 Scientific American article on sustainable agriculture “Modern humans emerged some 250,000 years ago, yet agriculture is a fairly recent invention, only about 10,000 years old … Agriculture is not natural; it is a human invention. It is also the basis of modern civilization.” This point was also touched on by Carl Sagan in 1977 when he proposed the possibility that marijuana may have actually been world’s first agricultural crop, leading to the development of civilization itself
6,000 BCE Cannabis seeds and oil used for food in China.
4,000 BCE Textiles made of hemp are used in China and Turkestan. ”
I just hope you seriously do not believe cannabis is a new thing that popped up during the most recent millennium.
Just to give you something else, the first recorded use of cannabis was below.
“Fermented beverages existed in early Egyptian civilization, and there is evidence of an early alcoholic drink in China around 7000 B.C. In India, an alcoholic beverage called sura, distilled from rice, was in use between 3000 and 2000 B.C”
I think the Insurers will lighten up after they smoke a few joints or ingest some edibles.
Interesting. Would an insurer want to take on the tobacco industry today? For the right price perhaps, but the potential legal issues involved with the pot industry parallel that experienced by tobacco, even if it is long term (possible lung issues, etc) we will be looking at. I can see some big money on the table here for a company(s) that can both market and underwrite this industry, get educated brokers!!
Would writing an insurance policy cause any coverage/claims issues given the fact the federal government still lists this as an illegal narcotic. Wouldn’t coverage typically be denied for knowingly violating the law? Granted insurance departments are run by the state and apply to state law, but typically state law does follow federal law.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
A Wells Media Group approved/peanut free response: Bob, how did you arrive at this one: …greater use of guns in the commission of crime…. Sounds alot like spitballing if not fear mongering. Would also like to ask your opinion: When adult use is legalized in any given locale, how many people, in your estimation, will decide to begin using cannabis products containing THC? Given that users who have imbibed since before legality will surely continue to do so after prohibition is lifted, how many new users do you think will take it up? Thanks.
Baron,
What is your stance on the legalization of MJ? Are you viewing it from an insurance or a personal standpoint?
Excuse my bombardment of questions, but If it becomes legal at a federal level, do you think the market, both black and white will see significant changes?
I am just curious as to your perspective on the matter, not trying to provoke or argue. Thanks
I am for legalization. I am also for strong state regulation, which this industry is amenable to. I view the issue from both an insurance standpoint and to a lesser extent personal. I have not had much interest in it over the years as a user but have occasionally. The rest is a nagging libertarian element, a belief in personal responsibility and a nostalgic ideal of freedom. Please clarify this for me: ..do you think the market, both black and white will see significant changes..
Well put, thank you.
To clarify my last question; If and when MJ becomes federally legal, do you think the black market will be as prominent of an issue in some states as it currently is? Or will the legal market eventually weed out (no pun intended) the people still operating illegally?
Honest: IMHO, the black market will not be as prominent and may eventually go away completely. 1. The black market has a hard time matching the quality, consistency and potency of the legal market 2. Users who can easily walk in and buy legal weed will not have enough price/quality/consistency incentive to break the law and buy illegally 3. Black market operators will lose profit margin quickly due to 1 and 2 effectively ending the black market.
Are your seriously interested in the connection between legalized recreational pot and increasing violence? So was the NY Times reporter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html
Love the Down votes! NO. Not the Truth from the NY Times! We hate that; we are liberals!
at this point, the only bet I’d take is that the comment section for this article will be disabled by the end of the day. Let’s all try and act like adults, mmm’kay?
Let me know when you walk the walk and start writing pot shops and growers.
I won’t wait up. (Here’s your hat back? I guess that expression means something to someone.)
My company actually does insure a person who grows.
Once it becomes federally legal. Otherwise, we won’t touch it. So, check back in in ten years or less…if you’re still up.
Truly a dumb response. Whether or not it is federally legal has nothing to do with insuring it in states where it IS legal. Absolutely pointless excuse-making by Captain Pointless. Again.
Well, that is our stance and we don’t care if you like it or not. We aren’t a market for something that is federally illegal. What does it matter to you, anyhow?
helpingout: Actually, I know far more about cannabis than you do, and yes, I DO know it has been used for a long time, if only by a very small percentage of people (unlike today, where a mass experiment is going on with millions using it for years, something brand new in history, and so we don’t know what the outcomes will be).
For example, there are multiple reports from 100 years ago that cannabis made people psychotic. From India in particular. The original laws in England and the United States to ban cannabis originated from the fact that there were many reported cases of people becoming dangerously psychotic when using cannabis in England and the United States.
Did YOU know that? My guess. Nope. (And you certainly would never admit it if you did.)
I like how your response to you saying alcohol has been around for thousands of years, implying that cannabis has not is to say you automatically know more than others on this site with your vast anecdotal evidence that is easily dismissed because it is not significant. Especially being most of it is personal or you talking to people who profit off others addictions (even if they are trying to help people similar to alcohol).
You truly know about as much as a normal person. Scratch that. You know less than a the normal person and all you show is how your opinion is screwed due to being in the area of the war on drugs. nice try old man Craig. Can’t wait for others to pass you up, similar to how they show you up on this site almost every day.
You say you don’t attack others without being attacked first, which everyone knows is bull. You did it to Baron here on this thread. Truth is not a Craig value.
Let’s have a test. You make a statement on Pot that you think is true. Then I will debunk it with a link to respected research. Game? Or just another liar on the internet.
I’ll bite:
1) There is no valid test akin to a breathalizer to prove if someone was driving high
2) Marijuana used to be legal in the USA
3) Currently, legal marijuana is safer than black market marijuana because there’s testing for harmful substances, such as pesticides
4) There has been no evidence that any type of legal marijuana has contained any type of pesticide in it
3) The majority of people who use marijuana and “graduate” to harder drugs started drinking alcohol before they smoked pot
4) The majority of illegal marijuana from Mexico comes through legal points of entries
5) Marijuana (CBD, not THC) provides positive health benefits to people who suffer from seizures, especially kids
6) Marijuana (CBD, not THC) has been proven to increase appetite, which helps people who suffer from the negative impacts of chemotherapy
Now please pick one and debunk it ****with a link to respected research****
Number (4) Absolutely ludicrous. Impossible to prove. It’s like saying the number of illegals caught at the border can accurately project the number that get through without being caught. No research needed at all to prove this statement is just stupid on the face.
The rest of your comments avoid any serious issues. CBD is NOT the issue and you know it. Congratulations, you brave liberal.
What about addiction, psychosis, mental illness, loss of IQ, damage to the unborn, loss of motivation, connection to violence in Washington and Colorado, impact on minority kids, impaired emotional development especially in young men, the expanding black market in states that legalized, more dead in car accidents due to THC intoxication . . .?
Is #4 really impossible to prove?
What about the DEA’s 2018 Drug Threat Assessment which found the majority of drugs come in illegally over the southern border are coming in through ports of entry? Unlike you, I have a link:
http s://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18%202018%20NDTA%20final%20low%20resolution.pdf
Should we ignore what Trump’s DEA has to say about this topic?
What about testimony from Tirso Martinez Sanchez? What about the testimony from Vicente Zambada? “Mexican families were hired to drive cars with secret compartments across the border at Juarez, sometimes three or four times a day,”
You posted “You make a statement on Pot that you think is true. Then I will debunk it with a link to respected research” I gave you 6 statements, none of which you debunked with any research.
How about you focus on just one: “The majority of people who use marijuana and “graduate” to harder drugs started drinking alcohol before they smoked pot.”
Give us a link to respected research proving that statement is false.
That’s like telling me about the dangers of non-alcoholic beer when the issue at hand is the dangers of alcohol. You know, avoid the issue by talking about things that don’t matter. You are being silly again.
You are so dishonest, Rosenblatt. here is a direct quote from the link. See if you understand that the phrase “between ports of entry” means NOT through ports of entry:
“Unlike other illicit drugs, the majority of marijuana smuggled
into the United States occurs between the ports of entry on both the northern and southern borders.”
I 100% agree the paragraph you cited was in the link I provided. However, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING that paragraph there are three sub-bullets which provide examples relating to the paragraph you cited. They are:
*In May 2018, CPB in Texas seized almost 80 kilograms of marijuana that was concealed within various pieces of wooden furniture, 27 kilo- grams of marijuana from a modified propane tank mounted in the bed of a pick-up truck, and approximately 350 kilograms of marijuana con- cealed within cement blocks that
were wrapped and sealed in pallets. (See Figure 106)
*In May 2018, DEA San Diego seized approximately 23,000 pounds of marijuana from a tractor-trailer located in Calexico, CA.
*In June 2018, CBP seized almost 15,000 pounds of marijuana from a tractor-trailer attempting to enter the United States from Mexco at the Otay Mesa, CA POE.
Are you really saying those three bullet points which ELABORATE on the paragraph you cited are talking about marijuana which did NOT come through the normal points of entry?
If you are, I’m baffled at your lack of knowledge about how paragraphs and their immediate sub-bullets work in relation to each other. If you can’t understand how bullets relate to the text which comes before it, I have no idea how you’re able to properly read an insurance policy.
Have some pride, man.
You said “the majority of illegal marijuana from Mexico comes through legal ports of entries.” YOUR WORDS.
The article said the EXACT OPPOSITE, “the majority is smuggled BETWEEN the ports of entry.” THEIR WORDS.
Man Up and admit you lied. Stop spinning; I am too intelligent and honest to fall for it.
I’ll jump in here now. Craig you said, “Then I will debunk it with a link to respected research. Game? Or just another liar on the internet.” so where are YOUR links to debunk #4.
your failure to also read the subsequent bullet points giving a more in depth look into what they were referencing in the paragraph above (giving a detailed account of what between truly meant). This is only highlighting your inability to comprehend reports that are put out
helpingout, I don’t know why I even reply to you. Your powers of logic need a lot of work. You never even replied to my question to you about the reasons marijuana was originally banned. Embarrassed to admit you didn’t know it because of psychosis or embarrassed to admit that you did know that?
Everyone knows the issues with marijuana are with THC. No one with a brain is concerned about CBDs.
Rosenblatt made inane comments, and he was flat wrong about the one about illegal imports of pot. Read the report yourself. But can he admit he was wrong? No. He’s a liberal.
Let me do my Rosenblatt imitation about marijuana:
1. Marijuana is a plant.
2. Marijuana grows in the ground.
3. Marijuana has leaves and stems.
Rosenblatt: “Okay, Craig. Show me links to dispute THAT!”
Craig – I am not wrong about what the DEA report is saying.
If the bullet points talked about how marijuana came into the country through methods that did not involve legally crossing the border, say through tunnels or catapult, I would admit I’m wrong.
It’s painfully clear to anyone who has even the most basic of reading comprehension skills that the bullet points I just posted, which immediately followed and expanded upon the paragraph you cited, were obviously talking about how illegal marijuana came into this country via legal points of entry.
Craig,
I love how whenever anyone says hey Craig you did not do what you said your response is well I like how you did not respond to my previous truly unrelated claim about a lie that was told to push something through!
While yes of course people made up reasons why it was first banned, in reality (it was admitted in a report by the person who spearheaded the Nixon War on Drugs) that it was really to stop immigrants and the lower class from using cannabis. Below I quoted an answer from drugpolicy.org
“Mexican immigrants referred to this plant as “marihuana”. While Americans were very familiar with “cannabis” because it was present in almost all tinctures and medicines available at the time, the word “marihuana” was a foreign term. So, when the media began to play on the fears that the public had about these new citizens by falsely spreading claims about the “disruptive Mexicans” with their dangerous native behaviors including marihuana use, the rest of the nation did not know that this “marihuana” was a plant they already had in their medicine cabinets.
The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco’s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants.”
But yes it was only because of medical reasons right?? On top of this your last 3 points are not equivalent to what Rosen did, but I think Rosen brought up a wonderful point with #4. You disagreed with that point, but you did not provide a link like you said you were going to. I called you up now grow up and admit it (even to yourself if your ego can’t handle it) that you were wrong.
Craig’s silence is golden. I’ll re-purpose a couple of the things he said to me just in this thread alone:
You are so dishonest, Craig. Man Up and admit you were wrong. Stop spinning; We are too intelligent and honest to fall for it.
What was the first city in the county to outlaw marijuana. It was El Paso, Texas. And it was strictly racial. Supposedly only the Mexicans smoked it. Google it.
Craig, the pot that is being smoked today is many more times stronger than the pot smoked 20 years ago. It leads to scromiting and to much stronger drugs which eventually kills them.
What you just stated is established fact. Look at the Down votes from dishonest people. Let me guess. Are they liberals?
You should host a fox news show.
Yes Craig I’ve seen Reefer Madness too. 100 years ago they knew a lot less about both cannabis AND psychotic behavior.
Federal law has everything to do why traditional markets won’t write this stuff. Anyone questioning such should reach out to the legal departments at AIG, Chubb or any number of the A++ rated markets.
That makes no sense at all. So let’s say the Feds. apply the law and start shutting down Pot Shops in states that legalized recreational pot (which is never, ever going to happen, but let’s pretend for fun).
What would the exposure be to the insurance companies that wrote insurance for those Pot Shops? Nothing. The shops go out of business, premiums stop getting paid, and the policies are cancelled.
This is the same exposure insurance companies have in a recession with thousands of businesses and yet all those businesses can get multiple quotes. Get real.
Craig,
Not the same exposure at all. There is one glaring difference – those thousands of businesses aren’t peddling a product that is federally illegal. Jeffrey is right and you are wrong, plain and simple. Traditional markets including ours and all of our agribusiness carrying competitors (Chubb Agri to name one) are sitting this one out until it becomes federally legal. We are also an A++ Superior rated market.
None of what you said addresses the issue: what difference does Federal legality make? Seriously. The Feds aren’t coming after ANY growers or distributors now under a Republican Administration. What makes you think they will? And even if they did, so what?
A++ Superior? Whatever. Has nothing to do with the issue at all.
What’s the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? MONEY. Most carriers and reinsurers are sitting out because the money (Craig, that means premiums) that will eventually flow to them originated in the trade of an illicit (federally speaking) drug. The size of the opportunity is still not quite big enough to overcome the fear – no matter how unlikely – of a very public raid on their company. To those companies I say be afraid – be very afraid and let the intrepid carriers and MGAs establish a beachhead, promote a brand, innovate on the product side and capture market share. And then try not to be Netscaped….
I have no idea what that means. “public raid on their company”????
By who? The public?
Man, you lefties can sure spin some tales. The legitimate liability exposures are damage to the people using the product. Ignoring that is like ignoring car accidents when you decide to underwriter car insurance.
First of all, registered Independent here and my golf clubs are right handed, so not sure what “lefty” means if you’re referring to me.
And until those liability exposures are federally legal, we don’t care to underwrite them. But, once they are, those exposures will certainly fit the appetite we have for severity. We have told our partners as such and they know we will be open for business in that market once that day comes. Severity is the world we live in every day, the world we insure everyday, the world we build a profitable book of business with everyday. We are writing classes of business that have much more potential for severity loss. We are talking death as a direct result of being in that class of operation. We do what we can to help our insureds reduce the likelihood of severity losses, as well as frequency, which is one reason why we operate at the level we do. We’d be looking to insure the growers and manufacturers, that is the space that attracts our expertise.
This feels familiar: another long diatribe from Captain Kangaroo with ZERO explanation about why the Federal law has ANY impact on the liability insurance exposure . . . and around and around we go. (Tell me again you are A-rated. It is pointless and funny.)
Why can’t liberals answer a simple question, especially the kind that fashion themselves as “independent”?
May 25, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 1
Man, your hate makes you out to be a fool on a regular basis.
Reply
Craig, the answer is si,ple. Criminal acts by the insured are excluded from coverage. However, carriers are not keen to litigate the point and therefore are sitting out of the market at this time.
I, too, was a registered “independent for over 30 years, but realize now that I truly am liberal in my social views. Thus the name, Libby.
What would be the difference between medi pot and any other rx drug?
Federal law has everything to do why traditional markets won’t write this stuff. Anyone questioning such should reach out to the legal departments at AIG.