Is lung cancer never covered?

I'm not interested in participating in an echo chamber, where everyone just shouts out what they beleive to hear themselves say it. If you would like to discuss things rationally, we need facts and logical premises to base our conclusions on.

I brought up decriminalization in Portugal, and got back "So facebook kills as many people as heroin, huh?" strawman as if the crux of my whole argument was that Facebook is just as deadly as hard drugs.

The crux of my argument, for those of you willing to have a rational debate, is:

There is not a drug out there that has EVER been shown to be universally habit forming. Most drugs only addict 5-10% of the people they are tested on. Therefore, the drugs are not the problem, it is the PEOPLE that get addicted to them. The addicts, themselves. It isnt a war on drugs, it os a war on the people that take those drugs.. Why are they addicts? Well, science has a lot to say about that.

That video I posted talks about the research being done about it. Portugal shows a working evidence of the principles being applied from the video in the real world. Portugal is not perfect, but it is revolutionary, and in my opinion, much much better than the system we have now.

I haven't heard one rebuttal to the facts stated in the video, or against the decriminalization in Portgal, and their approach. It really is a good talk about drugs and the problem therein. You should watch it, and I'd be interested in hearing what you all think after listening to it. If you do watch the video, it is starting at 3:00 mins in for some reason, just rewind to the beginning for full context...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

That doesn't make legalizing heroine/meth/bath salts a logical, sane decision, because it simply isn't. [/color]

If a person drives at a speed that exceeds the speed limit, but there is no law enforcement officer to catch the alleged speeder, does he really speed or break the law? Kind of sounds like the tree falling and making noise philosophy debate to me.....

Why can't and why should not society respond to that waste of dollars by restricting and/or regulating these substances?

for me the question should be, why does society need to foot the bill for individual addictions. why should you or I pay for treatment and hospitalization for consequences related to drug use etc... why should you or I pay for food stamps for known drug users? why should I pay for the consequences of obesity when an individual has chosen a sedentary lifestyle?

This seems logically fair in theory, but how do you avoid paying social costs for others' bad choices in a society? If a bankrupt drunk driver creates an accident that involves a public vehicle, like a fire truck, who will pay to replace it? Or are you ok with merely having one less fire truck available when your house is burning? If an obese neighbor needs medical attention that would require hospitalization, can't afford it and is left without help, how do you avoid the trauma to yourself or your children of that neighbor dying next door? And what about the impact on your property values if the deceased has no family or friends to take care of funeral arrangements or to take care of the body and the property in his absence? Who will pay for the coroner to remove the body and for the property to be returned to productive use? We live in a society, we are not individual islands who operate without any impact on those around us.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

If a person drives at a speed that exceeds the speed limit, but there is no law enforcement officer to catch the alleged speeder, does he really speed or break the law? Kind of sounds like the tree falling and making noise philosophy debate to me.....