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.
AMI.MAISHLISH
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