quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I sort of agree that if you inflict the damage to yourself, you should not get public healthcare. in theory, that would be a perfect system, everyone would be accountable for their own actions. but in reality that line grows very blurry. Take marijuana for example, it's not an acute and directly treatable thing. Pot smokers suffer many health problems that are hard to nail down, such as anemia, and weak immune systems that lead to other problems. as well, they are more likely to pick up specific diseases such as lung and throat cancer. And of course, there are also other problems, such as lowered sperm count, loss of memory, etc, but those are mostly temporary. not for women though, damage to the reproductive organs is largely irreversible. so the fact is, someone just can't show up at a hospital and say, i'm sick, and someone decides it's because of pot, and get turned away.

Yeah, I do agree that it's a very complex issue. The issue of what precisely public health care should cover is a very delicate one, because it's difficult to define any standard of evaluation that doesn't rely on individual interpretations.

However, I would say I don't think that the issue of public health standards is directly related to the issue of the legalization of drugs. Admissibly, legalizing drugs could cause an increase in the demand for certain types of medical treatment which could burden the health care system. But there would also likely be a decline in violence related to crimes caused by the black market for drugs, and fewer injuries resulting from such conflicts, especially in large cities, would probably lead to a reduction in the demand for other types of medical treatment. The exact extent to which these effects would offset each other is difficult to project.

Whatever the case may be, I don't think one could reasonably suggest that the effect of legalizing drugs on health care would be so catastrophic as to warrant continuing to ban the substances outright, because the same argument could be made to suggest that cars be outlawed - since their exhaust, especially in places like Los Angeles, over time has caused a plethora of health issues. In fact, one could argue that cars are even worse, since their adverse health effects can just as easily effect someone who has never even owned a car as a person who has contributed to the pollution.

Thanks for your constructive response,

Arbiter

in regards to the health care issue, it just seems to me in the US that if drugs were legalized the taxes from sales alone would be enough not only to fund further research, but provide MUCH better subsidies and whatnot towards a more centralized system. and the drugs would still prolly be cheaper than their black market equivalents|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Hrmm, good answers to this topic, thats always nice to see. Arbitrer i think started out with the best post, and i agree with practicaly everything he said, except that i think he is a little to liberatarian in his thinking, but thats perfectly fine...we can all think what we want, but over all, i find myself agreeing with most of what he said. So yes, doobie snacks for you and all these very logical comments you made but i think the main issue is classifying the drugs into different groups, i think there should be more than just two classifications (i.e. hard/soft) and age should really have something to do with it also i think, but thats about it. Holland isnt to chaotic, even though i still think amsterdam is kind of nuts

I'm bringing back this topic, because i just read a good article on it:

http://cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2002/12/12/potlaws021212

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

there are a fair number of related articles to the one you posted above JS...

the US one makes me want to punch an old white guy - and im not a violent person|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'