Effectiveness of medi-pot has been exposed as the fraud we (clear-minded persons) suspected. 600/150,000 = 0.4%. Repeal all medi-pot laws, and only use effective pain relief.
Let’s say they suddenly DID repeal all medi-pot laws, and recreational pot laws as well. What do you do with the people who are caught using marijuana? Do we lock ’em up, or fine them heavily? What about the person dying of cancer using marijuana to help them with the nausea from the chemo? Lock ’em up and throw away the key, right?
Let’s hear your, Agent’s and Craig’s solutions. We’re all genuinely interested since you have all the answers..
Another ridiculous comment. Medical marijuana is completely different from recreational marijuana. For the very few legitimate medical uses of marijuana, THC can usually be removed. And here is the reality: pot is so readily available anywhere in the US that whining about access for someone “dying of cancer” is nonsense. People aren’t being arrested for small amounts of pot, even where it isn’t legal medically.
The article said only 600 of the 175,000. patients had a prescription. Seems the issue is with the doctors, not access. And who are you to prescribe for patients you have never met when you don’t even have a medical license?
Just another pot-pushing article from the I.J., an article with zero relevance to insurance.
another dodge by Craig. Attack someone’s comment by calling it ridiculous and then offer absolutely NOTHING as a solution..You continually rail against the bias and the “pot-pushing” of the IJ, yet you also continue to comment on every article about marijuana that they publish.
You have claimed repeatedly to be an “expert on marijuana” and have continuously railed against its legalization for recreational purposes (and medical use, since you’ve stated it does nothing), so i’ll ask you again: WHAT’S YOUR SOLUTION?
I have stated my “solution” many times: informing the public about marijuana, the good and the bad. And only THEN legalizing recreational pot. Not before. (See Rosenblatt for a dishonest representation that voters know the truth.)
And so I will ask you: what are the well-established downsides of marijuana?
And what are the medically-accepted uses of marijuana that includes THC?
Are you a person of integrity and honesty? Let’s see.
December 10, 2018 at 2:54 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
there are plenty of downsides of marijuana, including limiting cognitive function, potential harm to a fetus during pregnancy, and impairing one’s ability to drive. These are virtually the same downsides of other substances which are lega, taxed and regulated. There’s not a poster on the IJ who would argue that it is SAFE or HEALTHY.
as you’ve said, the jury is out on the accepted medical uses of THC, however some studies have shown that it’s effective for nausea in chemotherapy patients as well as relieving eye pressure caused by glaucoma. For some, it helps to treat anxiety.
Your argument is that you’re ok if it’s legal once people are made aware of its downsides. What determines this awareness, though? At what point do you say that an adult has enough information to make a decision for themself?
December 10, 2018 at 3:08 pm
??? says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Rob,
Come on you know the answer to that. The only thing that will determine that the public is aware is Craig. His personal opinion will reign supreme. Only after each individual has been in full discussion and debate with him personally, will the issue of legalizing marijuana be acceptable.
December 11, 2018 at 8:03 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Although you made an ad-hominem attack towards me in a conversation I hadn’t even posted in once yet, I stopped reading your other post at your absurd “People aren’t being arrested for small amounts of pot” comment. Your ignorance is showing.
edit: Although you made an ad-hominem attack towards me **regarding an argument I made in another thread…**. I realize I did post in this thread, albeit nearly a week ago.
December 10, 2018 at 4:21 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Okay. Here is what you left out:
1. The chances for regular users to become seriously mentally ill from using marijuana is between 2 and 5 times greater than for non-users. And I mean seriously mentally ill, bi-polar or schizophrenia.
2. Decreased motivation: it is a well-accepted fact for workers in mental health that regular users of marijuana see decreased motivation for work or school.
3. “Limiting cognitive function” is well-established, a reduced IQ that is measurable for regular users and the younger the user starts, the bigger the impact.
4. Addiction rates: people who start in high school have a 1 in 9 chance of becoming addicted. 1 in 6 for older users.
What do these 3 things have in common? They are not true for regular users of alcohol. Users of alcohol have to exhibit abject abuse of alcohol to realize serious problems, but daily users of moderate amounts of alcohol live normal lives. That is not true for marijuana users; there is no readily-accepted daily use that doesn’t carry the risks listed above.
And by the way: you forgot to list the very few medically-accepted uses of THC-infused marijuana. I’ll give you a second chance.
Decreased motivation – depends on what type is being consumed. Indica – sure, I’ll give you that some people lose motivation from consuming that particular strand. Sativa – no way. And, greatly motivated people use this on a regular basis, Craig. Though, whenever I present the list of some of the more widely-known leaders who have/do, Craig is quick to dismiss it because they do not fit his narrative. In fact, he quit dismissing it and ignores it all together, choosing to deflect instead because he can’t argue it.
So, safe to say many NBA athletes use this regularly, correct? It’s been noted that upwards of 80& of players are regular users. Where are all the stories about mental disorders being an epidemic for these athletes?
You’ll never convince me MJ is physically addictive, only psychologically. If someone wants to quit using MJ, they will not have seen withdrawal symptoms like users of physically addictive drugs will. Hell, people get the DTs from quitting alcohol and caffeine. Nothing like that for the MJ users.
Craig is out here spilling his misinformation yet again. Is MJ safe and healthy? No, it is not. Is it the devil Craig makes it out to be? No, it is not. The reason why there is no readily-accepted daily use is because there are different strands, potencies, tolerances among users, it has a different solubility than does alcohol, and levels of intoxication are not readily available for testing. Craig is no expert. He’s far from it. He’s just on his own personal crusade. And, not matter what, you won’t convince him of anything he doesn’t already believe because that mind is as closed as Tramp’s Taj Mahal Casino.
Captain Empty Hat is at it again. Not one thing I have said is untrue. Whether MJ is addictive physically or psychologically matters not at all to the addicted; only a fool would try to make that distinction. Talk to people who run rehabilitation clinics and tell them about your distinction; then watch as they express contempt for your lack of understanding and compassion.
Anyone dragging Trump into this discussion is a clown. That would be you Captain Kangaroo.
40% of pregnant African American women smoke pot, exposing their children to emotional and intellectual damage. Congratulations on pushing ignorance.
It is literally impossible for you to come up with the 40% of pregnant African American women smoke pot. That is a completely erroneous figure that you spew out on whatever occasion you get. Its your version of “Drain the swamp”.
First, even if that number were accurate, we are all aware that you do not have that demographic’s best interest at heart. You couldn’t possibly care less. So please stop with idiotic talking points.
And just so you can have some correct information for your future posts – According to US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health – Marijuana ranks 3rd on substance abuse for pregnant mothers at 5.2%; while Alcohol (8.5%) and cigarettes (15.9%) rank highest.
It’s just so much harder to be on the left, at the very least we have to look things up.. The right just spews out whatever nonsense comes to mind.
Can you even think about the definition of “substance abuse” and compare it to “use”? TOTALLY different things.
And yet any consumption of THC exposes the unborn to emotional and mental injury; there is no safe amount at all.
20% of pregnant American women; 40% for African American women.
Whose side are you on? (Not the unborn, that’s for sure.)
December 11, 2018 at 3:35 pm
??? says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
@ Craig,
So, instead of actual reported figures on abuse – you are so omnipresent that you know when every person possibly uses.. or not really, you’re not THAT omnipresent; just enough to know the exact figures on pregnant women…
As far as sides, you must be one of those conservatives that will do anything to protect a fetus, but are looking to cut funding to any program that serves to help the child, mother, and family… Whose side are you on? (Not the living, that’s for sure.)
December 11, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
DECEMBER 10, 2018 AT 1:29 PM
craig cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 0Thumb down 2
Ad hominem attacks that reveal his complete ignorance of the topic.
Provide ANY evidence to back up these statements. Even from the type of biased fox-news organizations I know you enjoy. You can’t. You are not citing ANY sources and claiming they’re facts. This nonsense is fooling no one, Craig.
Your links usually don’t support the arguments you make. The title of the URL may be similar to your arguments, but the data is not. Don’t believe me? I dare you to post the studies that you think shows:
1. The chances for regular users to become bi-polar or schizophrenic is between 2 and 5 times greater than for non-users.
2. There is **a measurable** reduction in IQ for regular users
3. People who start smoking marijuana in high school have a 1 in 9 chance of becoming addicted.
If I recall correctly, your citation for #1 has no statistical relevance, your citation for #2 doesn’t give a number for the **measurable reduction** in IQ, and your citation for #3 said that alcohol was more of a factor than marijuana for people becoming addicted to pain pills.
Maybe I’m wrong, but we won’t know unless you post the links to the studies that you think support your arguments for analysis.
PS – I agree marijuana is mentally addictive, reduces cognitive ability, is unsafe for pregnant women and children, and shouldn’t be used at work or while operating heavy machinery (e.g. cars – don’t drive while high!!!)
Just because those things are true does not mean the specific statements you made are supported by any reasonable evidence.
Show your links that prove marijuana is addictive, reduces cognitive ability, is unsafe for pregnant women. I don’t believe you.
December 11, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You want to argue even when we agree? That response is quite telling (and I don’t mean it in a positive way).
December 11, 2018 at 2:44 pm
Jerry says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
It really is shocking that in a niche as specific as an insurance industry magazine we don’t have any kind of moderation to deal with what is clearly a common internet troll. Craig’s not interested in discourse, he’s just trying to get attention and I really wish these forums paid better attention to negating this kind of behavior. It’s one thing to discuss your opinions, it’s another to bully people. Craig clearly crosses this line every day and continues to spread nothing but misinformation and hate. #stopcraigcornell
Andrew has mentioned several times that he doesn’t have the time or the desire to moderate this board 24-7. I suspect he’s just as tired of Craig, Agent, and Polar as the rest of us, if not moreso.
I honestly think the best way to deal with Craig is just don’t engage him. No matter what you say, you are wrong and he is right. He obviously an extremely miserable person with way too much time on his hands. My guess is that this isn’t the only website where he tries to “own the libs” or spout his nonsense. Ignore him and eventually he’ll go away.
I’m going to try this, Rob. I really enjoy the articles and discussions this place can prompt, but I’m so tired of seeing his nonsense. Hopefully the industry will continue to trend away from this sort of person. A quick google search shows he’s clearly one of a large number that’s going to be aging out of this industry very soon, so hopefully he won’t be around for long at least either way.
Craig,
Why do you attempt to attack others intelligence, when you cannot figure out the difference between statistically significant data and biased reports. Not only that you have still failed to review the report about fake news in our society put out by scholars.
Why do you feel the need to attack constantly in lieu of attempting to understand more. whenever someone presses you for answers you stop responding (you do it to me frequently). You did it to bob above us as well. You also do post many things that are off topic and you post inaccurate figures frequently. To replace a person with your mindset is something I am proud of as an agent.
December 11, 2018 at 6:29 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Jerry’s comment: “Hopefully the industry will continue to trend away from this sort of person.”
“. . . so hopefully he won’t be around for long at least either way.”
Is that an attack, helpingout? Or a reasoned discussion of issues? Who attacked the other person first? Why Jerry did. He is a master at ad hominem attacks. If you are a fair-minded person, you will notice that I attack people personally ONLY after they attack me first.
Are you fair-minded? Me thinks not. ” . . . when you cannot figure out the difference . . .” And there you go! An ad hominem attack of your own!
You ha e constantly attacked people on here. You call captain planet, captain planet hat, and you also refer to anyone who disagrees with your outlook as being under the influence right now when it is normal business hours for me. I will admit that he did attack you first, but you attacked first on here towards other people. That is not something we like to see in the industry, especially from someone who should be a leader and adapt to the changing environment. It is possible to give your opinion in a way that you try to get the other’s side as well, but I do not see you doing that frequently.
I also make the point because you have constantly failed to exhibit signs that you understand statistically significant data rather you rely on biased summary judgments from data that should be taken lightly right now. It is not an attack towards you, rather it is me pointing out your shortcomings on the subject. Not only that, but it is an important distinction because your inability to comprehend the science of something, because you have a high bias with your feelings and experience with your son, is a very important point. There are dangers, but not nearly as high as opioids and alcohol. The benefits, especially from cannabidiol in lieu of THC, is very promising especially due to the fact CBD (cannabidiol) is non-psychoactive and does not deteriorate the brain. This is talking about medical cannabis and I believe medical should be mainly CBD due to it having lower risks than THC.
Hello all, please bear with me as I am very new to the insurance world. I understand marijuana is legal in a few states, yet still federally illegal. But will medicinal and recreationally used marijuana be insured under separate policies or will all cannabis, regardless of use, be insured the same?
This is a question that’s too difficult to answer right now, IMO. Since it’s still illegal on a Federal Level, there aren’t many folks who are willing to wade into that industry with so much uncertainty around it. After all, just because you follow the State’s rules to the “T”, there’s no guarantee the Fed will ‘turn a blind eye’ and let people run with it. Until the Fed rules match the State, I don’t think you’re going to see a lot of carriers try to get into the market for various reasons, not just the one stated above. Sorry I can’t be more definitive, but the discrepancies between State & Federal law are such a huge roadblock to providing coverage (after all – a contract isn’t valid if it’s covering an illegal purpose)
From My agency’s experience they are insured under the same policy right now. There are a lot of loss mitigation steps and requirements for the insurance, but it comes at a high premium.
Use other drugs. Canibus is not the answer to it.
Cannabis may not be, but cannabidiol may be.
Devastating rebuttal (end sarcasm)
“Other drugs” will kill you.
Effectiveness of medi-pot has been exposed as the fraud we (clear-minded persons) suspected. 600/150,000 = 0.4%. Repeal all medi-pot laws, and only use effective pain relief.
You really didn’t read the article did you?… Shocker.
Yogi–
Let’s say they suddenly DID repeal all medi-pot laws, and recreational pot laws as well. What do you do with the people who are caught using marijuana? Do we lock ’em up, or fine them heavily? What about the person dying of cancer using marijuana to help them with the nausea from the chemo? Lock ’em up and throw away the key, right?
Let’s hear your, Agent’s and Craig’s solutions. We’re all genuinely interested since you have all the answers..
Another ridiculous comment. Medical marijuana is completely different from recreational marijuana. For the very few legitimate medical uses of marijuana, THC can usually be removed. And here is the reality: pot is so readily available anywhere in the US that whining about access for someone “dying of cancer” is nonsense. People aren’t being arrested for small amounts of pot, even where it isn’t legal medically.
The article said only 600 of the 175,000. patients had a prescription. Seems the issue is with the doctors, not access. And who are you to prescribe for patients you have never met when you don’t even have a medical license?
Just another pot-pushing article from the I.J., an article with zero relevance to insurance.
another dodge by Craig. Attack someone’s comment by calling it ridiculous and then offer absolutely NOTHING as a solution..You continually rail against the bias and the “pot-pushing” of the IJ, yet you also continue to comment on every article about marijuana that they publish.
You have claimed repeatedly to be an “expert on marijuana” and have continuously railed against its legalization for recreational purposes (and medical use, since you’ve stated it does nothing), so i’ll ask you again: WHAT’S YOUR SOLUTION?
I have stated my “solution” many times: informing the public about marijuana, the good and the bad. And only THEN legalizing recreational pot. Not before. (See Rosenblatt for a dishonest representation that voters know the truth.)
And so I will ask you: what are the well-established downsides of marijuana?
And what are the medically-accepted uses of marijuana that includes THC?
Are you a person of integrity and honesty? Let’s see.
there are plenty of downsides of marijuana, including limiting cognitive function, potential harm to a fetus during pregnancy, and impairing one’s ability to drive. These are virtually the same downsides of other substances which are lega, taxed and regulated. There’s not a poster on the IJ who would argue that it is SAFE or HEALTHY.
as you’ve said, the jury is out on the accepted medical uses of THC, however some studies have shown that it’s effective for nausea in chemotherapy patients as well as relieving eye pressure caused by glaucoma. For some, it helps to treat anxiety.
Your argument is that you’re ok if it’s legal once people are made aware of its downsides. What determines this awareness, though? At what point do you say that an adult has enough information to make a decision for themself?
Rob,
Come on you know the answer to that. The only thing that will determine that the public is aware is Craig. His personal opinion will reign supreme. Only after each individual has been in full discussion and debate with him personally, will the issue of legalizing marijuana be acceptable.
Although you made an ad-hominem attack towards me in a conversation I hadn’t even posted in once yet, I stopped reading your other post at your absurd “People aren’t being arrested for small amounts of pot” comment. Your ignorance is showing.
edit: Although you made an ad-hominem attack towards me **regarding an argument I made in another thread…**. I realize I did post in this thread, albeit nearly a week ago.
Okay. Here is what you left out:
1. The chances for regular users to become seriously mentally ill from using marijuana is between 2 and 5 times greater than for non-users. And I mean seriously mentally ill, bi-polar or schizophrenia.
2. Decreased motivation: it is a well-accepted fact for workers in mental health that regular users of marijuana see decreased motivation for work or school.
3. “Limiting cognitive function” is well-established, a reduced IQ that is measurable for regular users and the younger the user starts, the bigger the impact.
4. Addiction rates: people who start in high school have a 1 in 9 chance of becoming addicted. 1 in 6 for older users.
What do these 3 things have in common? They are not true for regular users of alcohol. Users of alcohol have to exhibit abject abuse of alcohol to realize serious problems, but daily users of moderate amounts of alcohol live normal lives. That is not true for marijuana users; there is no readily-accepted daily use that doesn’t carry the risks listed above.
And by the way: you forgot to list the very few medically-accepted uses of THC-infused marijuana. I’ll give you a second chance.
Decreased motivation – depends on what type is being consumed. Indica – sure, I’ll give you that some people lose motivation from consuming that particular strand. Sativa – no way. And, greatly motivated people use this on a regular basis, Craig. Though, whenever I present the list of some of the more widely-known leaders who have/do, Craig is quick to dismiss it because they do not fit his narrative. In fact, he quit dismissing it and ignores it all together, choosing to deflect instead because he can’t argue it.
So, safe to say many NBA athletes use this regularly, correct? It’s been noted that upwards of 80& of players are regular users. Where are all the stories about mental disorders being an epidemic for these athletes?
You’ll never convince me MJ is physically addictive, only psychologically. If someone wants to quit using MJ, they will not have seen withdrawal symptoms like users of physically addictive drugs will. Hell, people get the DTs from quitting alcohol and caffeine. Nothing like that for the MJ users.
Craig is out here spilling his misinformation yet again. Is MJ safe and healthy? No, it is not. Is it the devil Craig makes it out to be? No, it is not. The reason why there is no readily-accepted daily use is because there are different strands, potencies, tolerances among users, it has a different solubility than does alcohol, and levels of intoxication are not readily available for testing. Craig is no expert. He’s far from it. He’s just on his own personal crusade. And, not matter what, you won’t convince him of anything he doesn’t already believe because that mind is as closed as Tramp’s Taj Mahal Casino.
Captain Empty Hat is at it again. Not one thing I have said is untrue. Whether MJ is addictive physically or psychologically matters not at all to the addicted; only a fool would try to make that distinction. Talk to people who run rehabilitation clinics and tell them about your distinction; then watch as they express contempt for your lack of understanding and compassion.
Anyone dragging Trump into this discussion is a clown. That would be you Captain Kangaroo.
40% of pregnant African American women smoke pot, exposing their children to emotional and intellectual damage. Congratulations on pushing ignorance.
It is literally impossible for you to come up with the 40% of pregnant African American women smoke pot. That is a completely erroneous figure that you spew out on whatever occasion you get. Its your version of “Drain the swamp”.
First, even if that number were accurate, we are all aware that you do not have that demographic’s best interest at heart. You couldn’t possibly care less. So please stop with idiotic talking points.
And just so you can have some correct information for your future posts – According to US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health – Marijuana ranks 3rd on substance abuse for pregnant mothers at 5.2%; while Alcohol (8.5%) and cigarettes (15.9%) rank highest.
It’s just so much harder to be on the left, at the very least we have to look things up.. The right just spews out whatever nonsense comes to mind.
Can you even think about the definition of “substance abuse” and compare it to “use”? TOTALLY different things.
And yet any consumption of THC exposes the unborn to emotional and mental injury; there is no safe amount at all.
20% of pregnant American women; 40% for African American women.
Whose side are you on? (Not the unborn, that’s for sure.)
@ Craig,
So, instead of actual reported figures on abuse – you are so omnipresent that you know when every person possibly uses.. or not really, you’re not THAT omnipresent; just enough to know the exact figures on pregnant women…
As far as sides, you must be one of those conservatives that will do anything to protect a fetus, but are looking to cut funding to any program that serves to help the child, mother, and family… Whose side are you on? (Not the living, that’s for sure.)
DECEMBER 10, 2018 AT 1:29 PM
craig cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 0Thumb down 2
Ad hominem attacks that reveal his complete ignorance of the topic.
Provide ANY evidence to back up these statements. Even from the type of biased fox-news organizations I know you enjoy. You can’t. You are not citing ANY sources and claiming they’re facts. This nonsense is fooling no one, Craig.
I have linked to and cited multiple reputable studies in the past. You are boring. Do your own research.
Your links usually don’t support the arguments you make. The title of the URL may be similar to your arguments, but the data is not. Don’t believe me? I dare you to post the studies that you think shows:
1. The chances for regular users to become bi-polar or schizophrenic is between 2 and 5 times greater than for non-users.
2. There is **a measurable** reduction in IQ for regular users
3. People who start smoking marijuana in high school have a 1 in 9 chance of becoming addicted.
If I recall correctly, your citation for #1 has no statistical relevance, your citation for #2 doesn’t give a number for the **measurable reduction** in IQ, and your citation for #3 said that alcohol was more of a factor than marijuana for people becoming addicted to pain pills.
Maybe I’m wrong, but we won’t know unless you post the links to the studies that you think support your arguments for analysis.
PS – I agree marijuana is mentally addictive, reduces cognitive ability, is unsafe for pregnant women and children, and shouldn’t be used at work or while operating heavy machinery (e.g. cars – don’t drive while high!!!)
Just because those things are true does not mean the specific statements you made are supported by any reasonable evidence.
Show your links that prove marijuana is addictive, reduces cognitive ability, is unsafe for pregnant women. I don’t believe you.
You want to argue even when we agree? That response is quite telling (and I don’t mean it in a positive way).
It really is shocking that in a niche as specific as an insurance industry magazine we don’t have any kind of moderation to deal with what is clearly a common internet troll. Craig’s not interested in discourse, he’s just trying to get attention and I really wish these forums paid better attention to negating this kind of behavior. It’s one thing to discuss your opinions, it’s another to bully people. Craig clearly crosses this line every day and continues to spread nothing but misinformation and hate. #stopcraigcornell
Andrew has mentioned several times that he doesn’t have the time or the desire to moderate this board 24-7. I suspect he’s just as tired of Craig, Agent, and Polar as the rest of us, if not moreso.
I honestly think the best way to deal with Craig is just don’t engage him. No matter what you say, you are wrong and he is right. He obviously an extremely miserable person with way too much time on his hands. My guess is that this isn’t the only website where he tries to “own the libs” or spout his nonsense. Ignore him and eventually he’ll go away.
Isn’t it telling that you only cite 3 obvious conservatives as “violators”. And yet there are all kind of hate-spewing lefties on the IJ cite.
You poor, poor sensitive thing. Find your Safe Space, and fast.
Isn’t it telling that the violators are the 3 obvious conservatives..
#stopcraigcornell
I’m going to try this, Rob. I really enjoy the articles and discussions this place can prompt, but I’m so tired of seeing his nonsense. Hopefully the industry will continue to trend away from this sort of person. A quick google search shows he’s clearly one of a large number that’s going to be aging out of this industry very soon, so hopefully he won’t be around for long at least either way.
To be replaced by Deep Thinkers like Jerry (I am sure the Chinese are terrified).
Craig,
Why do you attempt to attack others intelligence, when you cannot figure out the difference between statistically significant data and biased reports. Not only that you have still failed to review the report about fake news in our society put out by scholars.
Why do you feel the need to attack constantly in lieu of attempting to understand more. whenever someone presses you for answers you stop responding (you do it to me frequently). You did it to bob above us as well. You also do post many things that are off topic and you post inaccurate figures frequently. To replace a person with your mindset is something I am proud of as an agent.
Jerry’s comment: “Hopefully the industry will continue to trend away from this sort of person.”
“. . . so hopefully he won’t be around for long at least either way.”
Is that an attack, helpingout? Or a reasoned discussion of issues? Who attacked the other person first? Why Jerry did. He is a master at ad hominem attacks. If you are a fair-minded person, you will notice that I attack people personally ONLY after they attack me first.
Are you fair-minded? Me thinks not. ” . . . when you cannot figure out the difference . . .” And there you go! An ad hominem attack of your own!
You ha e constantly attacked people on here. You call captain planet, captain planet hat, and you also refer to anyone who disagrees with your outlook as being under the influence right now when it is normal business hours for me. I will admit that he did attack you first, but you attacked first on here towards other people. That is not something we like to see in the industry, especially from someone who should be a leader and adapt to the changing environment. It is possible to give your opinion in a way that you try to get the other’s side as well, but I do not see you doing that frequently.
I also make the point because you have constantly failed to exhibit signs that you understand statistically significant data rather you rely on biased summary judgments from data that should be taken lightly right now. It is not an attack towards you, rather it is me pointing out your shortcomings on the subject. Not only that, but it is an important distinction because your inability to comprehend the science of something, because you have a high bias with your feelings and experience with your son, is a very important point. There are dangers, but not nearly as high as opioids and alcohol. The benefits, especially from cannabidiol in lieu of THC, is very promising especially due to the fact CBD (cannabidiol) is non-psychoactive and does not deteriorate the brain. This is talking about medical cannabis and I believe medical should be mainly CBD due to it having lower risks than THC.
Captain empty hat* my apologies for mistyping the attack towards planet you use frequently.
Hello all, please bear with me as I am very new to the insurance world. I understand marijuana is legal in a few states, yet still federally illegal. But will medicinal and recreationally used marijuana be insured under separate policies or will all cannabis, regardless of use, be insured the same?
This is a question that’s too difficult to answer right now, IMO. Since it’s still illegal on a Federal Level, there aren’t many folks who are willing to wade into that industry with so much uncertainty around it. After all, just because you follow the State’s rules to the “T”, there’s no guarantee the Fed will ‘turn a blind eye’ and let people run with it. Until the Fed rules match the State, I don’t think you’re going to see a lot of carriers try to get into the market for various reasons, not just the one stated above. Sorry I can’t be more definitive, but the discrepancies between State & Federal law are such a huge roadblock to providing coverage (after all – a contract isn’t valid if it’s covering an illegal purpose)
From My agency’s experience they are insured under the same policy right now. There are a lot of loss mitigation steps and requirements for the insurance, but it comes at a high premium.
Interesting. Good to know. Thanks helpingout