Podcast 25: Very Important Shit.

[tertius]

Well, when the primary argument that the left (and left leaning "libertarians") has chosen for the legalization of marijuana is, "ZOMG! Think of all the tax revenue that will be generated!?" What do you expect. The principled argument would be for greater freedom of the people by elimination of costly and ineffective restrictions without new taxes, but hey, I'm an outlier, I suppose. If we can only gain freedoms by allowing them to be taxes at exorbitant rates, have we really gained anything?

Er, yes. Fewer people going to prison for dumb shit is absolutely a gain. That you would even posit the question is a bit odd, given that I would assume you oppose wreaking people's lives and denying them their rights for the harmless smoking of plants. The empowerment of law enforcement to be ever more intrusive, belligerent, and violent has been in large part due to drug laws. I'll reduce that shit in exchange for some vice taxes any day.

[Pluripotent]

Er, yes. Fewer people going to prison for dumb shit is absolutely a gain. That you would even posit the question is a bit odd, given that I would assume you oppose wreaking people's lives and denying them their rights for the harmless smoking of plants. The empowerment of law enforcement to be ever more intrusive, belligerent, and violent has been in large part due to drug laws. I'll reduce that shit in exchange for some vice taxes any day.

I will admit that a relaxing of the criminal consequences is a good thing. I would quibble about your claim of "harmless smoking of plants," but whatever, that's not what we're talking about, and as vises go, it's not the worst. I'd advocate for the legalization of heroin, and the health consequences of that are both more immediate and more serious. But I still don't like the precedent it sets. We shouldn't have to buy our freedoms with taxes, and there's a good argument to be made that if you're renting your freedom from the government, you're not really free. And the government absolutely should not be in the pot business, which they now are everywhere it's legal because of this arrangement. That will not end well -- too many conflicts of interest.

[GOMAD]

The govt. is made up of individuals who like any, with varying degrees of success, seek to maximize their own lot. They are able to do so partly through shennanigans but mostly through apathic and gullible voters. In addition, there is little mainstream appetite for laissez-faire governance because our society has systemically self-emasculated and disenfranchised in favour of "security", ergo Patriot Act and Participation Trophies.

Govt power is like energy. It can never be destroyed, just redirected towards our into something else. The beast needs to eat.

[franklie]

How do you explain the enthusiasm the broadcast-cabal has for the NFL?

I could watch the hammer, javlin & shot for hours (preferably while smoking pot,

Because of people like this?

[MWittmer]

It's not an assumption, there are direct costs associated with smoking on the healthcare system:


Smoking costs the United States billions of dollars each year.

Total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year, including

- Nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults
- More than $156 billion in lost productivity due to premature death and exposure to secondhand smoke

(taken from CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use)

What I'm saying is that smokers don't fully pay for these costs, they are necessarily puting a burden upon the rest. And even if they were, those resources could be used towards things that are not as easily preventable as smoking.

I have a difficult time trusting the government. For the the most part, the way I see this is the tobacco industry has money, a lot of it, and the government wants it. My problem with these statistics is that we are all dying some day and, in the end, it won't be cheap. It's been reported that nearly 70% of the money spent on health care is in the last six months of your life. I'm not sure if that is accurate, of course, but it makes some sense as most of us will live our lives with a few medical issues here and there until the end, when we have a terminal illness or simply wear out from the infirmities of age. It won't be cheap, with expensive, high tech tests and procedures, treatments, and in a few months to a year, we die anyway. Sure, some seize up and drop, dead before hitting the ground. But for most, regardless of the cause of death, it will happen, and it will be expensive.

If we make it to 65, we die on Medicare's dime. The sooner we die, the less social security benefits we receive. I wonder if, in some strange way, the smokers aren't doing the rest of us a favor. We probably all know many people who died from smoking related issues, maybe some very young. I know one who died at age 58, inoperable lung cancer. He smoked five packs a day. I know, do the math, that seems impossible. He dies after paying all those tobacco taxes, on his own dime (his company's health insurance) and before drawing any social security benefits after paying into it for almost 40 years. At least with this one guy, the government and society came out ahead.

I wonder if anyone considered how much money the smokers, by dying younger, save the government in reduced SS payments. Considering the status of that program, fewer beneficiaries is probably a good thing.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I've seen this point made before, and under the current system, you're right. My biggest problem with smoking after the smell is that it takes far too long to kill you. The best thing about it is that at least you get to decide what kills you.

[Pluripotent]

Once pot becomes legal everywhere, we will start to see what the long term effects are. People say that pot smokers don't smoke as much as cigarette smokers, but that's changing, too. I've seen people who smoke pot quite a lot of pot every day (obviously without a job and buying it with their disability money). I wouldn't be surprised if the it shares many of the long term effects with cigarettes, such as oral/pharengeal and lung cancers (I know --"but there's less tar!") and some new ones that we are starting to see, like not being able to complete whole sentences in your old age, increased mental disorders, increased schizophrenia in younger chronic heavy users, dangerous levels of affection for the redistributive welfare state, etc.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Quite likely true. And just as Okay With Me.

[tfranc]

I've seen this point made before, and under the current system, you're right. My biggest problem with smoking after the smell is that it takes far too long to kill you. The best thing about it is that at least you get to decide what kills you.

The smell really is just awful, and it's not even just the smell of the actual smoke. It's the way it makes furniture, carpet, clothes, the whole room smell. Smokers don't even realize it. I can't believe the world used to smell like that everywhere you went.

I obviously can't say this for all smokers, but at least for the ones I've known, I can always tell when they really need a cigarette. Everything will be fine, we'll be hanging out, maybe we'll be somewhere they can't just light up at, and then their mood changes. They get crabby, short with stuff. Quite frankly it's annoying. Then they get a chance to light up and it's like ok everything's cool again. It's just kinda sad. Why do you want to be tied to something like that? When you think about it, smokers are basically high all the time, just like someone with any other addictive substance. When the drug runs its course, the body begs for more, time to light up.

[Pluripotent]

I obviously can't say this for all smokers, but at least for the ones I've known, I can always tell when they really need a cigarette. Everything will be fine, we'll be hanging out, maybe we'll be somewhere they can't just light up at, and then their mood changes. They get crabby, short with stuff. Quite frankly it's annoying. Then they get a chance to light up and it's like ok everything's cool again. It's just kinda sad. Why do you want to be tied to something like that? When you think about it, smokers are basically high all the time, just like someone with any other addictive substance. When the drug runs its course, the body begs for more, time to light up.

Well, many women do this just from being hungry. They've even got a name for it..."hangry." Men might get this way too, but taking their emotional frustrations out on anybody who may be unlucky enough to just be standing there is not as socially acceptable in a man, for whatever reason...