Back to Article:

Where do insurers stand on pot use?

Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments are moderated and may be edited or removed by
site admin as per our Comment Policy. Thanks!



In reference to the table titled “Where do insurers stand on pot use?”, I am hesitant to accept the accuracy of definitive absolute statements such as “Marijuana users who do not use any nicotine products or e-cigarettes will be classified as non-smokers.” with emphasis on the words “*will be* classified as non-smokers”, and similar definitive absolutes in the table relating to Sun Life, Great West Life, London Life, and Canada Life.

Consider this: Will any of these companies insure and classify a “pot head” who consumes 50 “joints” per week but absolutely no tobacco or nicotine substance as a “non-smoker”? More likely that would be a decline rather than a policy issued at “non-smoker” Regular, Preferred or Elite rates. Will any of these companies insure and classify a prospective life insured who consumes 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 joints per week as “non-smoker”. Bluntly, I’d be surprised if any did so without applying the “smoker” or greater surcharge (“rating”).

Granted, there is a body of evidence to suggest that marijuana may be less harmful to health than tobacco and is – in applicable circumstances – useful for medical purposes; however, there are risks (such as driving or operating machinery, or even walking across the street, etc. while under the influence).

Then, of course there is the question of “What is a “joint”?” Is it 500mg?, a gram?, 10 grams, 50 grams? 100 grams? …and then there is the added matter of potency per gram…

As it appears, the matter of “non-smoker” rates for marijuana smokers remains fluid and variable rather than, as some of the entries on the table suggest, a definitive absolute.

Thursday, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:45 pm Reply