Michigan's McGary fails drug test, enters NBA Draft

[ChicosBailBonds]

Then you're in a extreme minority then.  I'm on my wife's plan and the 2013-2014 plans through 2015-2016 will be the same cost as 2012-2013.  That's 4 years in a row at the same cost.  My company, whose insurance I decline had no raise in cost for 2014.  Our HR person told me it's the first time in her 17 years that it did not go up. 
And other then you, every other person has repeated the same as my experience - smallest ever increase or none.

Who is in the minority?  I think you are using your experience to paint everyone elses...I'll rely on the actual data.

Morgan Stanley research study just released in the last week.  The study has been done for the last 6 years.   In the last year, largest increase in the 6 years of the study and speculated largest in decades.

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/nhpr/files/201404/Morgan_Stanley_Survey.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-ask-laz-obamacare-
20140403,0,3487248.story#axzz301O2fyq9

But that's not the real issue.  The increased in taxes to cover it.  There are several healthcare tax calculators out there that estimate over a 10 year period how it will cost in incremental taxes.  Say your adjusted gross income is $100K, you will contribute $17,081.24 in incremental taxes to cover those costs. 

NOTHING is free.  If you make over $250K, then it gets really awesome.  You pay $169,299.12 in incremental taxes over 10 years. 

[forgetful]

This is research that came out in the last 15 days.  I'm not vastly misreporting anything.  Last I checked, science is about discovering, testing, searching, etc for answers and new answers come about all the time.  This is new data.

As I said in the other thread (2 days ago) when you posted this new data…you are vastly misreporting the new data (new studies). 

Science is about discovering, testing, searching and then reporting what the data means.  People like you (and some of the reporters) then mistranslate this to fit their own personal agendas.  That is not part of the science.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As I said in the other thread (2 days ago) when you posted this new data…you are vastly misreporting the new data (new studies).  

Science is about discovering, testing, searching and then reporting what the data means.  People like you (and some of the reporters) then mistranslate this to fit their own personal agendas.  That is not part of the science.

How am I mistranslating this?  Better yet, how is the American Heart Association and these doctors mistranslating this?  Part of their personal agendas?  I look forward to your answer.

From 2 days ago, quotes from various doctors in study, etc.

" cardiologists writing in the Journal of the American Heart Assn. warned that "clinical evidence ... suggests the potential for serious cardiovascular risks associated with marijuana use."

"There is now compelling evidence on the growing risk of marijuana-associated adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in young people,"

"We think the time has come to stop and think about what is the best way to protect our communities from the potential danger of widespread marijuana use in the absence of safety studies," added Rezkalla, a cardiologist at the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin, and Kloner, a cardiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine. "It is the responsibility of the medical community to determine the safety of the drug before it is widely legalized for recreational use."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-marijuana-20140423,0,3208786.story

[forgetful]

How am I mistranslating this?  Better yet, how is the American Heart Association and these doctors mistranslating this?  Part of their personal agendas?  I look forward to your answer.

From 2 days ago, quotes from various doctors in study, etc.

" cardiologists writing in the Journal of the American Heart Assn. warned that "clinical evidence ... suggests the potential for serious cardiovascular risks associated with marijuana use."

"There is now compelling evidence on the growing risk of marijuana-associated adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in young people,"

"We think the time has come to stop and think about what is the best way to protect our communities from the potential danger of widespread marijuana use in the absence of safety studies," added Rezkalla, a cardiologist at the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin, and Kloner, a cardiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine. "It is the responsibility of the medical community to determine the safety of the drug before it is widely legalized for recreational use."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-marijuana-20140423,0,3208786.story

The actual study and the authors of the study also explicitly state that the "acute" increased risk of a heart attack are consistent with those of having sex, getting exercise…etc.

Thus it is not a risk strictly associated with smoking marijuana, rather people with risk factors participating in any function that can stress your system and increase heart rate…thereby increasing heart attack risk.

[keefe]

the "acute" increased risk of a heart attack are consistent with those of having sex

A man needs to live dangerously, I say!

[ChicosBailBonds]

The actual study and the authors of the study also explicitly state that the "acute" increased risk of a heart attack are consistent with those of having sex, getting exercise…etc.

Thus it is not a risk strictly associated with smoking marijuana, rather people with risk factors participating in any function that can stress your system and increase heart rate…thereby increasing heart attack risk.

Yes, that can be said about a lot of things.  Back to the point, how is it that those folks have an agenda, as you implied that I and they do?   

Could it possibly be that in the great haste to push through marijuana that we don't know what we should know?  To the point when these things come up, you have people screaming them down and saying how wrong the studies are.  Imagine if the tobacco companies did that.   Makes you wonder who really has the agendas

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The actual study and the authors of the study also explicitly state that the "acute" increased risk of a heart attack are consistent with those of having sex, getting exercise…etc.

Thus it is not a risk strictly associated with smoking marijuana, rather people with risk factors participating in any function that can stress your system and increase heart rate…thereby increasing heart attack risk.

  Are they not concerned more about the "chronic " risk  of prolonged use of MJ? They seem to state they would like to "protect" people from the potential adverse effects.  I don't see how tobacco smoke is so dangerous even  from  3rd hand smoke but burning a different weed is benign. Just asking as I don't care what people do to themselves if the rest of us aren't on the hook to pay for their choices.

[ChicosBailBonds]

  Are they not concerned more about the "chronic " risk  of prolonged use of MJ? They seem to state they would like to "protect" people from the potential adverse effects.  I don't see how tobacco smoke is so dangerous even  from  3rd hand smoke but burning a different weed is benign. Just asking as I don't care what people do to themselves if the rest of us aren't on the hook to pay for their choices.

That's what they are saying.

It's funny, on one hand you have folks saying stuff like "science denier" about certain topics and so many of these same folks want to challenge science on other stuff.  All depends who's ox is being gored.

[forgetful]

Yes, that can be said about a lot of things.  Back to the point, how is it that those folks have an agenda, as you implied that I and they do?   

Could it possibly be that in the great haste to push through marijuana that we don't know what we should know?  To the point when these things come up, you have people screaming them down and saying how wrong the studies are.  Imagine if the tobacco companies did that.   Makes you wonder who really has the agendas

The studies aren't wrong.  The interpretations by non-scientists are.  Also, the statistical approach to measure significance in the increased brain matter study may not be valid, but scientists have yet to implement more stringent measures as more data is needed. 

Now as far as real agendas.  All I know is that I have none.  I think all drugs should be legal and taxed, but that they should be done in the privacy of ones home not in public.  I also know for a fact that everything we put into our bodies as an adverse affect (and I truly mean everything).

As for chronic risks of marijuana. The best studies on those indicate that chronic marijuana usage while the brain is developing (teens younger than 16) have adverse affects.  Similar studies of adults have not been conclusive. 

That's not a surprise.  We shouldn't be introducing developing kids to drugs of any kind, interestingly enough that includes things like caffeine and others that are readily present in items directly marketed to youth.

My contention is that you either go one way or the other.  Complete avoidance/illegalization of all drug like molecules including caffeine, alcohol, nicotine etc (like the mormons) or complete legalization of all drugs.  I believe the latter is more appropriate and grants individuals the freedom of choice.

[avid1010]

I'm paying a heck of a lot more for it now. 

damn obamacare...killing me again.  i always preferred either 1.) refusing service (that's my catholic belief) 2.) cheap emergency room care.

worst part of obamacare...all these damn people retiring and creating jobs.  not good...shrinking our labor pool...raising wages. 

once again, less for me...more for everyone else...can't have it. 

[avid1010]

As long as big bad gov't is making my pay for everyone else's healthcare insurance, I want to know what crap they are allowing people to consume that down the road I have to help pay for their medical bills.  
alcohol?  soda and other sugar filled drinks?  fast food?
Or, more importantly, how it might impact my life or my family's life....as I've said on this board a few times, drugs led to the murder of my sister's boyfriend a number of years ago.  All started with MJ, then they graduated on up.  Good times.  So I'm worried about the innocent that get caught into this stuff, are killed by the non responsive high driver, so on and so forth.
i get this, but how is it different than alcohol?  had a childhood friend (DEA) killed in a MJ drug bust...he hated the drug war over MJ.  it's far from a simple argument in my opinion, and certainly no choice is without consequences.  there's certainly compelling evidence to show it could save lives.

On women's reproductive issues, again...I'm worried about the 40 million children that never got a shot because someone wants to use that as a birth control.
can you write a law than bans abortion without putting a woman at risk?  i'm worried about the 16.4 million kids currently living in poverty.  play out those numbers...it's about a 15% chance of success in our country right now...14 million kids that the numbers tell us will never make it out of poverty. 

Shame on me for looking out for the lives of people....I can live with myself. so why criticize those who feel the same way about obamacare?

[NersEllenson]

Think all you guys debating MJ, need to get together and roll a joint and chill out!  Chicos, perhaps you prefer a water bong? 

Personal choice the way I see it...alcohol, cigarettes all cause damage...so now some states want to add MJ to the list of legal approved substances that harm overall health/well being.  Personally, I don't think it is a good idea for it to be legalized for recreational use (yet still feel it is a choice that can be left to the individual)....as for many....smoking up frequently leads to depression/lethargy and erodes work ethic.

Hitting a joint a few times a year for special events, concerts, etc...no harm done.