GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/07/colorado-leads-the-way-on-individual-liberty/trackback/

  1. I’m very glad to see this victory in Colorado and possibly Washington on this, as well as what looks like a 4-state win for SSM. Both are very welcome moves towards liberty against government intrusion. Hopefully NOM will now start to fade away and I really hope that the GOP will begin moderating it’s stance on social issues.

    The rest of the results from last night though are not so great. This country is going to have some VERY rough economic times ahead and for the present the takers seem to outnumber the makers which is not good.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 6:34 am - November 7, 2012

  2. Here’s another bit of good news: Prop 2 in Michigan which would have made collective bargaining a right enshrined in the state constitution was defeated.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 7:15 am - November 7, 2012

  3. Oh yeah, so was Prop 3 in Michigan on green energy! Unfortunately though, Prop 5 in Michigan to limit enactment of new taxes was also defeated.

    Another bit of good news from my home state of Virginia is that Amendment 1 passed! This limits the impact of the Kelo decision in the Commonwealth.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 7:21 am - November 7, 2012

  4. Sarcasm? You are not serious, are you?

    Our healthcare has been taken from us, our jobs have been taken from us, our economy has been taken from us, our future has been taken from us; but we can smoke dope now!

    Wow! Thank you Americans, give up all your liberties, turn them over to the government; but let us light up a reefer! Yea! I feel so much better; until that stoned driver hits me and I need Obamacare.

    Comment by Charles — November 7, 2012 @ 8:11 am - November 7, 2012

  5. No way you can spin the argument that the use (and most probably the abuse) of dope results in a more healthy individual (or society). Plus all the ‘problems’ associated with drug use will weight on obama care.

    This is like the orchestra playing on the titanic. Pointless to say that they were playing so well. The boat was sinking anyway.

    BTW see ya in the court room when you find out that the schoolbus driver that carries your son to school is a heavy dope user.

    Comment by susan — November 7, 2012 @ 8:17 am - November 7, 2012

  6. I would probably be more excited of the people of Colorado hadn’t elected Obama in the process, but I can hardly blame Colorado alone for that one.

    I think what used to be a very purplish to red NH has officially jumped off the cliff to become a permanently blue state. No more island of red in the great state of New England.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 8:17 am - November 7, 2012

  7. @susan,

    The Libertarian theory (as I remember reading it) is that if the dope smoking (or alcohol drinking) person wrecks the bus, crashes the car, runs over the kid, etc. you prosecute for that. His using pot in and of itself doesn’t violate anyone’s liberty, it’s only when he actually deprives others of something that he should be prosecuted.

    If I’m wrong, I’m sure Lori will correct me. :-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 8:37 am - November 7, 2012

  8. How does getting legally stoned protect your liberty?

    Comment by Annie — November 7, 2012 @ 8:40 am - November 7, 2012

  9. Annie,

    The same way getting legally fat (or thin) or drunk (or sober) does. Freedom is that ability to engage in reckless/stupid/risky behaviour, as long as it doesn’t hurt another.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 8:46 am - November 7, 2012

  10. Well, I work with a lot of stoners and while they don’t physically ‘hurt’ me, they do make my job harder by my having to pick up their slack. They are worthless and are costing the business money.
    There was a study recently done how one’s IQ is reduced 8 points with weed use and by what I witness with said stoners, I will have to agree.

    Comment by Annie — November 7, 2012 @ 8:57 am - November 7, 2012

  11. In my country there has been one bus driver (usual pot smoker and bragging about it) that crashed the bus and killed a child in the process. The parents did not take it well. The voters took notice.

    Comment by susan — November 7, 2012 @ 8:59 am - November 7, 2012

  12. Individual Liberty and the Welfare State are mutually incompatible.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 9:00 am - November 7, 2012

  13. A definite step towards liberty would have been government staying out of healthcare.

    Comment by Annie — November 7, 2012 @ 9:01 am - November 7, 2012

  14. Stoners = more government dependence.

    Stoner = Bill Mahrer = complete jackass = poster child for that commercial ‘this is your brain on drugs’.

    Comment by Annie — November 7, 2012 @ 9:07 am - November 7, 2012

  15. I would have loved that, Annie, but unfortunately enough of the electorate appears to disagree. How we can change that mindset I truly have no idea.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 9:09 am - November 7, 2012

  16. As if the Feds are going to respect Colorado’s legalization. Just like they respect the medical marijuana law in California.

    We are so F4(k3d.

    Comment by Rocket Girl — November 7, 2012 @ 9:13 am - November 7, 2012

  17. Give it time, RocketGirl. Obama will “evolve” on this issue too, which frankly I hope he does. It’s all the other stuff from him that worries me.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 9:19 am - November 7, 2012

  18. The Libertarian theory (as I remember reading it) is that if the dope smoking (or alcohol drinking) person wrecks the bus, crashes the car, runs over the kid, etc. you prosecute for that.

    Doesn’t make the kid on the bus any less dead or injured.

    Also, my concern with legalization is if the government legalizes it, then that essentially makes it legal for use and employers can’t use drug use as a reason to fire or choose to not hire somebody. I can see the lawsuit on this one already.

    And honestly-I am not particulalry opposed to legalization of pot (I do however object to blanket legalizations of all controlled substances-I don’t particularly relish the idea of legalizing meth).

    I just think legalization is essentially equals government approval, which means users get to sue employers who don’t like their drug use for discrimination-yay more lawsuits!

    I totally agree that Obama is going to evolve on this issue-my guess is he will decide to stop prosecutions in states that have legalized pot, although he doesn’t necessarily have to evolve-he has been reelected and doesn’t have to worry about the electorate anymore.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 10:04 am - November 7, 2012

  19. People already have access to marijuana on demand. Criminalizing it does nothing but enable criminal enterprise. All you people that are worried about ‘stoned drivers’ need to realize that there are already millions of stoned drivers on the road. Stoned drivers do a better job than drunk drivers anyway. This is not something to worry about.

    Plus we’ll save lots of money on enforcement and incarceration and prosecutions, hell, there will be fewer people and families on welfare and those other social programs you guys hate so much. This is a win-win-win-win-win.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 10:40 am - November 7, 2012

  20. This is not something to worry about.

    Except that now that it is safe to smoke your joint anywhere, anytime, there may be more stoned drivers.

    And honestly I really don’t want my kid’s bus company hiring people who smoke pot. I don’t care if the cashier at the grocery store tokes up every night, but I want employers who hire people for jobs to be able to tell stoners to apply elsewhere if those people are working in a job where my or my children’s safety could be compromised.

    Legalizing it though, means it is government approved (which is why I am more of a dicriminalization oriented person than legalization) and means the stoner gets to sue the school board if they want to fire the teacher for toking up during lunch break.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 10:46 am - November 7, 2012

  21. I question Levi’s take on the number of stoned drivers we currently have, but it doesn’t matter. The point should be that just like driving drunk is illegal so is driving while stoned. We don’t ban alcohol because of the bad behavior of some and I see no reason to do differently when it comes to pot. Legalize it, regulate it and tax it. Seems to me that this is far more in line with the GOP claim of being for smaller government and less government intrusion into personal lives than sticking with this pro-Drug War mentality – which itself is eroding our liberties. Ditto for SSM. It’s far past time for the GOP to actually live up to what it preaches, instead of embracing hypocrisy because some of their base is morally opposed to something and want to be just as Nanny State as the Left (just for their pet issues of course).

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 10:47 am - November 7, 2012

  22. Ignore Levi folks; based upon his incoherent ramblings here he IS a stoner.

    Take another toke, Levi, there might still be a few brains cells that you haven’t killed yet.

    Comment by Charles — November 7, 2012 @ 11:04 am - November 7, 2012

  23. Oh, and BTW, I’ve been polite on most blogs for the last few years – but since so many folks have voted for Obama not just once, but TWICE, my gloves are off and the dumbass fuckers better get out of my way!

    Put down that joint Levi and listen up, man, cause I mean YOU!

    (Bruce, Dan, and Nick – you might as well just ban me now before I get really ugly with the Dem trash)

    Comment by Charles — November 7, 2012 @ 11:08 am - November 7, 2012

  24. Except that now that it is safe to smoke your joint anywhere, anytime, there may be more stoned drivers.

    And honestly I really don’t want my kid’s bus company hiring people who smoke pot. I don’t care if the cashier at the grocery store tokes up every night, but I want employers who hire people for jobs to be able to tell stoners to apply elsewhere if those people are working in a job where my or my children’s safety could be compromised.

    Legalizing it though, means it is government approved (which is why I am more of a dicriminalization oriented person than legalization) and means the stoner gets to sue the school board if they want to fire the teacher for toking up during lunch break.

    You won’t be able to just smoke anywhere at any time. A teacher chugging martinis during recess can be fired on the spot, and so could a teacher taking bong rips in their van during recess.

    I’m not exactly thrilled about facing off with stoned drivers either, but like I said, marijuana is already super-obtainable and it’s something you’re already dealing with. However, marijuana does not have the same effect on peoples’ judgment that alcohol does. People get drunk and stumble into their cars because they get the adrenaline pumping and they feel invincible and over confident. None of these are the effects of marijuana use, you’re more likely to sit at home watching TV eating Oreos. In fact, with marijuana as an alternative to alcohol, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a decrease in alcohol-related crimes and accidents. Potheads don’t get into bar fights. Potheads don’t decide to go drag-racing. Win-win-win-win-win. (Just so long as Obama doesn’t bring down the hammer.)

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 11:10 am - November 7, 2012

  25. it is always amusing watching Levi only supporting individual freedoms that benefit him.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 11:18 am - November 7, 2012

  26. when supposed conservatives are happy about pot being legal now in some states its beyond me what reality these people live in.

    the country just got flushed for 4 more years of socialism and someone is happy about legal pot. this is what is sowrong with so many in this country:

    what they think is a “civil right” is actually selfishness.

    i always thought to get busted smoking or carrying minimal amounts of pot should just be a misdemeanor. as long as you are not a dealer even, i saw consider it a misdemeanor.

    but no, even that strategy is supposed a cost/price that is too much to bear.

    so lets see, we legalize all the illegal drugs for use, slash the military, raise taxes on everyone and do you all really think we will stop the blood letting of fiscal irresponsibility?

    again, look to greece & europe.

    europe has done all that the left and those on the right, are saying to do and no one wants to take personal responsibility. personal freedom does not mean I have to pay for your “right” to live dangerously.

    there simply isnt enough money in the world to feed those people who are addicted to government funding of their f*ked up lifestyles.

    just so everyone knows, no amount of legalization and funding of illegal drugs, and contraception for that matter, will prevent the drug addictions and STDs that are the outcome of all of this irresponsible DEBT INCREASING behavior. But supposed conservatives are saying i am limiting “personal freedom”, but what if the healthcare panels or government panels do the same thing? so it is ok for govt to outlaw transfats and 24 oz drinks and certain life saving medical procedures but not pot? do people realize how ridiculous this all sounds/is?

    lets get real folks, a few big reasons that health care costs have ballooned is because people have become sick due to their own careless and dangerous behavior with drugs, illegal or legal, and the way MANY live promiscuous lives.

    I and you pay for these people and that intrudes on my individual to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    sadly, last night & this thread on this site proves the USA electorate at this time doesnt really care.

    selfishness.

    Comment by dark rabbitt — November 7, 2012 @ 11:28 am - November 7, 2012

  27. However, marijuana does not have the same effect on peoples’ judgment that alcohol does.

    So because it isn’t quite as impairing, the impairment shouldn’t be viewed as all that significant.

    Honestly, if my kids teacher is toking up anywhere, I don’t want them to be my kid’s teacher.

    I don’t want the union to hire a lawyer and make all sorts of arguments about how they are being discriminated against.

    If you want to smoke dope, fine, but don’t expect the world to accommodate, affirm or financially support your decision.

    But supposed conservatives are saying i am limiting “personal freedom”, but what if the healthcare panels or government panels do the same thing? so it is ok for govt to outlaw transfats and 24 oz drinks and certain life saving medical procedures but not pot? do people realize how ridiculous this all sounds/is?

    i am willing to bet there are ton of people who are all for the nanny state when it comes to death panels and soda bans and legal dope.

    BTW I think there is a case to be made for ending the drug war (which is pretty much a failure) and decriminalization of pot.

    I just want employers to be able to say “if you use drugs in or outside of employment hours, we do not want you as our employee” without fearing the person hiring an army of lawyers to come sue them. I want the choice to get high to come with consequences.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 12:16 pm - November 7, 2012

  28. Yeah, same-sex pseudo marriage and potheads are the two most delicious fruits of liberty.

    Stop thinking with your genitals.

    Comment by Gerry — November 7, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - November 7, 2012

  29. You won’t be able to just smoke anywhere at any time. A teacher chugging martinis during recess can be fired on the spot, and so could a teacher taking bong rips in their van during recess.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 11:10 am – November 7, 2012

    Lie.

    It’s a theme that the U.F.T. has embraced. The union’s Web site has a section that features stories highlighting the injustice of the Rubber Rooms. One, which begins “Bravo!,” is about a woman I’ll call Patricia Adams, whose return to her classroom, at a high school in Manhattan, last year is reported as a vindication. The account quotes a speech that Adams made to union delegates; according to the Web site, she received a standing ovation as she declared, “My case should never have been brought to a hearing.” The Web site account continues, “Though she believes she was the victim of an effort to move senior teachers out of the system, the due process tenure system worked in her case.”

    And for what was she “vindicated”?

    On November 23, 2005, according to a report prepared by the Education Department’s Special Commissioner of Investigation, Adams was found “in an unconscious state” in her classroom. “There were 34 students present in [Adams’s] classroom,” the report said. When the principal “attempted to awaken [Adams], he was unable to.” When a teacher “stood next to [Adams], he detected a smell of alcohol emanating from her.”

    Screaming Levi now is out to protect the dopers just like he protects the drunks.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - November 7, 2012

  30. So because it isn’t quite as impairing, the impairment shouldn’t be viewed as all that significant.

    Well, yes. There’s Tylenol and then there’s morphine. Different drugs have different effects. Obviously, impairment is an issue, but what I’m trying to explain to you is that impairment from marijuana is more likely to keep you at home and off the road to begin with. And believe me, you’re far better off driving down the pothead’s street than you are the alcoholic’s.

    Honestly, if my kids teacher is toking up anywhere, I don’t want them to be my kid’s teacher.

    And if your kids’ teacher enjoys drinking, would you apply the same standard? By literally any metric, alcohol is a much worse drug than marijuana. I’ve said it before – I’d so much rather find a joint in my kid’s sock drawer than find out they were getting hammered every weekend. Not only is marijuana safer, it’s healthier, you’re more in control of your body, and you don’t black out.

    It sounds to me like you don’t have a whole lot of experience with marijuana, but let me just reassure you that if you’re comfortable enough living in a society that allows the consumption of alcohol, you have absolutely nothing to worry about from people that want to smoke marijuana.

    I don’t want the union to hire a lawyer and make all sorts of arguments about how they are being discriminated against.

    If you want to smoke dope, fine, but don’t expect the world to accommodate, affirm or financially support your decision.

    And that’s really the point. ‘If you want to smoke dope, fine.’ Nobody is asking for accommodation or affirmation or financial support, they’re asking to be allowed to exercise a fundamental personal right that doesn’t have anything to do with anybody

    And you can’t claim discrimination for drinking alcohol, why should we worry about people claiming discrimination because they like weed? Nothing is different in this regard. If you show up to work drunk and your boss figures it out, he has grounds to fire you. Same thing if you show up to work high.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - November 7, 2012

  31. And you can’t claim discrimination for drinking alcohol, why should we worry about people claiming discrimination because they like weed? Nothing is different in this regard. If you show up to work drunk and your boss figures it out, he has grounds to fire you. Same thing if you show up to work high.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 1:06 pm – November 7, 2012

    Because, Levi, as I pointed out above, liberals and the Barack Obama Party scream that you shouldn’t fire drunk teachers and try to punish people for doing so.

    You’re denying reality. You endorse and support protecting the drunk, just like you endorse and support protecting the tokers who drive high and show up to work high.

    You want a consequence-free world. That’s typical. It is the childish view of the Obama Party, the view in which everything is always someone else’s fault and someone else owes you paying your bills.

    Like I said, the game is over. Republicans will hike taxes on everyone now. We tried giving Obama shills like yourself a break under the theory that you would take advantage of it and better yourself; instead, all you did was scream for more food stamps, more Obamaphones, and fewer work requirements.

    In that case, the game is now simple. You will pay taxes or you will have no income. In fact, I am now going to advocate that Republicans impose taxes on welfare benefits. Since you want to pay the government, we will give you exactly what you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  32. I’d so much rather find a joint in my kid’s sock drawer than find out they were getting hammered every weekend. Not only is marijuana safer, it’s healthier, you’re more in control of your body, and you don’t black out.

    So, then, it’s pretty much like smokeable broccoli, no? This despite the increasing body of knowledge that the use of mind-altering substances on underdeveloped brains has long-lasting and potentially lifelong effects. I do hope you won’t be one of those parents portrayed in a story on local drug use by my daily paper a few years ago who bought her son a bong for his sixteenth birthday so they could use it and toke together. (Giving another meaning to “family bonding”, I guess.)

    Aside from that, y’know what I see more and more of in the local stories about drunk driving? That it’s not just alcohol the offenders are using. I’d say about 4 out of 5 those arrested–particularly those under 40–are also found with marijuana and/or crystal methamphetamine in their possession. Now are we to assume that somehow they are only using alcohol before or during their time behind the wheel? Sorry, but I don’t want to be in close enough proximity of them to find out. Further, if alcohol is so antithetical to pot users’ kind and gentle nature, why is so much of it sold in bars where alcohol is sold? It seems to me there is indeed a connection between marijuana and alcohol and other drugs and that connection isn’t just a few bad seeds who don’t really understand that they shouldn’t mix something (which they think should be sold in a health food store) with other nasty substances.

    Comment by RSG — November 7, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - November 7, 2012

  33. RSG you make a good point. I know few potheads who abstain from alcohol. Also, a group of high school students were in an accident here a few weeks ago and all of them were arrested for possession of pot and had been smoking in the car as they left the school (the accident was less than half a mile from the high school). While adults might choose to smoke and veg out at home, teens who smoke are usually doing so in places away from parents-so they are unlikely to be all safe and snug in their homes.

    And if your kids’ teacher enjoys drinking, would you apply the same standard?

    Alcohol leaves the system relatively quickly and if my kid’s teacher was an alcoholic I would object. I am not a huge fan of the abuse of alcohol either.

    Most of the teenage pot heads around here don’t have much gumption either. They mostly end up heading down a dead end road and usually in some way or the other receiving state aid of one kind or another (welfare, food stamps, SSI, etc).

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - November 7, 2012

  34. Most of the teenage pot heads around here don’t have much gumption either. They mostly end up heading down a dead end road and usually in some way or the other receiving state aid of one kind or another (welfare, food stamps, SSI, etc).

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 3:36 pm – November 7, 2012

    Which is, oddly enough, borne out by scientific evidence.

    The results of the present study suggest that increasing cannabis use in late adolescence and early adulthood is associated with a range of adverse outcomes in later life. High levels of cannabis use are related to poorer educational outcomes, lower income, greater welfare dependence and unemployment and lower relationship and life satisfaction.

    The funny part is that we criminalize alcohol and tobacco use for people under the age of 21. Yet Levi and the Barack Obama Party scream and piss themselves that children and teenagers should be ENCOURAGED to smoke pot, even though there is evidence that it is bad for them.

    Once again, though, why would Levi and the Barack Obama Party actively seek to keep people OFF the welfare rolls? They want people dependent on the government and too stoned to do anything but comply.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 4:46 pm - November 7, 2012

  35. Levi, the poster child for ‘this is your brain on drugs’. IQ goes straight down the toilet. Delusions that it’s healthier than alcohol, which drunk in moderation can have a healthful benefit, whereas weed has how many carcinogens rotting your lungs and putting some individuals at risk for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

    The perfect stooge/tool of the democrat communists.

    Comment by Annie — November 7, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - November 7, 2012

  36. Of course the funny thing is that Levi is for letting people smoke pot…
    … as long as someone else pays for his.

    And yes, debt, people trying to kill us, and people trying to drag us kicking and screaming into the future are all more important than the freedom to engage in risky behaviour…

    But, it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because some states voted to allow pot doesn’t mean that they sacrificed other legislation to do so.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - November 7, 2012

  37. Liberty for who? I’ve been to the Netherlands, and drug use increases government dependence which is why Euro-socialists over there love it. In any case, why not legalise heroin for kids and LSD for teens? The socialists will love you a little more.

    Comment by Ben — November 7, 2012 @ 9:33 pm - November 7, 2012

  38. I wouldn’t legalize anything that is unhealthy as long as I have to pay for the consequences, which you Americans now do via Obamacare. The liberty of marijuana smokers may have increased, but I can’t say the same for the liberty of those who are more responsible and don’t use drugs.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 7, 2012 @ 10:50 pm - November 7, 2012

  39. I wouldn’t legalize anything that is unhealthy as long as I have to pay for the consequences, which you Americans now do via Obamacare. The liberty of marijuana smokers may have increased, but I can’t say the same for the liberty of those who are more responsible and don’t use drugs.

    Americans now do? Americans have seen more and more of the GDP get sucked up by a bloated healthcare system that has huge overhead costs, embarrassingly poor results compared to the rest of the developed world (where healthcare is a public service), and that’s left millions of people completely uncovered. If you want to make healthcare costs an issue about liberty, than you can’t say the problem starts with Obamacare, because its been gestating for decades. We’ve been paying more and more, with worse and worse results, and we’re steadily getting sicker and fatter. Public healthcare systems are far better at reigning in costs and delivering better service, as is evidenced by the the rest of the developed world and the public healthcare options (that are enormously popular I might add) that exist in this country.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 3:31 pm - November 8, 2012

  40. We’ve been paying more and more, with worse and worse results, and we’re steadily getting sicker and fatter.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 3:31 pm – November 8, 2012

    I love the sight of Levi, who openly advocates for drug use, promiscuous and irresponsible sex, and restrictions being removed on the use of EBT cards wondering why society is getting “sicker and fatter”.

    The clue meter nearly explodes.

    Public healthcare systems are far better at reigning in costs and delivering better service, as is evidenced by the the rest of the developed world and the public healthcare options (that are enormously popular I might add) that exist in this country.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 3:31 pm – November 8, 2012

    Actually, people on public healthcare in the United States are as a rule sicker and fatter than those on private insurance.

    The percentage of annual medical expenditures in each state attributable to obesity ranges from 4 percent (Arizona) to 6.7 percent (Alaska). For Medicare expenditures, the percentage ranges from 3.9 percent (Arizona) to 9.8 percent (Delaware). For Medicaid recipients, the percentages are much higher, ranging from 7.7 percent (Rhode Island) to 15.7 percent (Indiana). The higher percentage of Medicaid expenditures attributed to obesity results from the higher prevalence of obesity among Medicaid recipients.

    So if you wanted people to get healthier, you would get them OFF government health care and put them on to private care, where there are penalties for smoking, being obese, and so forth.

    But the problem is, Levi, that you don’t really care about peoples’ health; you care about getting free health care and sending the bill to someone else, because you’re a lazy moocher and taker who thinks his money is better spent on buying weed.

    Just like Sandra Fluke.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - November 8, 2012

  41. Link for the Medicaid obesity reference: http://www.rti.org/newsroom/news.cfm?obj=4cdb8dc2-6720-4fbf-806a064bb32dd00b

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - November 8, 2012

  42. I just saw this comment, which is why I am replying so late.

    Americans now do? Americans have seen more and more of the GDP get sucked up by a bloated healthcare system that has huge overhead costs

    That is a good point. Let me rephrase my comment; I wouldn’t legalize anything unhealthy as long as I have to pay for the consequences in any way, whether it is through an actual universal healthcare system or not. The only way I would support legalizing those things would be through a purely free market health system.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 13, 2012 @ 3:18 am - November 13, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.253 Powered by Wordpress